COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

THURSDAY, 5 MARCH 1998

THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—SIXTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA CONTENTS

THURSDAY, 5 MARCH

Petitions— Housing ...... 441 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ...... 441 Notices of Motion— Women ...... 441 Cobar Copper Mine ...... 442 Order of Business— Government Business ...... 442 General Business ...... 442 Certain Government Accountability Matters Committee ...... 442 Travel Allowances ...... 442 Multilateral Agreement on Investment ...... 443 Romania: Mariana Cetiner ...... 443 Media Control and Ownership ...... 443 Logging and Woodchipping ...... 443 Police Behaviour at Demonstrations ...... 443 Multilateral Agreement on Investment ...... 443 Treaties Committee ...... 443 Tobacco Advertising ...... 443 Committees— Genetic Manipulation Committee—Establishment ...... 443 Logging and Woodchipping ...... 444 Managed Investments Bill 1997, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997, Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2], Company Law Review Bill 1997, Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997— First Reading ...... 445 Second Reading ...... 445 Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997— In Committee ...... 454 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998]— Second Reading ...... 483 Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill 1997— Second Reading ...... 485 Flags Amendment Bill 1996— Second Reading ...... 485 Questions Without Notice— Natural Heritage Trust ...... 489 Trade Unions: Funds ...... 490 Natural Heritage Trust ...... 491 Mr Christopher Skase ...... 493 Natural Heritage Trust ...... 494 Native Title ...... 495 Waterfront Reform ...... 496 Youth Allowance ...... 497 Compact Disc Imports ...... 497 Government Schools Funding ...... 498 Compact Disc Imports ...... 499 Economy: Asian Crisis ...... 500 Suspension of Standing Orders ...... 501 Procedural Motion ...... 508 Committees— Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Joint—Chair ...... 534 Ministerial Statements— Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement ...... 534 Committees— CONTENTS—continued

Treaties Committee—Membership ...... 538 Documents— Department of Industry, Science and Tourism ...... 538 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner . . . 539 Superannuation Complaints Tribunal ...... 539 Department of Industry, Science and Tourism ...... 541 Nuclear Safety Bureau ...... 542 Australian Law Reform Commission ...... 542 National Museum of Australia ...... 543 Department of Communications and the Arts ...... 544 Consideration ...... 545 Committees— Community Affairs References Committee—Report ...... 545 Publications Committee —Report ...... 549 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Joint—Report: Government Response ...... 551 Consideration ...... 552 Adjournment— Airline Passenger Security ...... 553 Golden West Network Television ...... 554 Waterfront Reform ...... 555 Compact Disc Imports ...... 557 Mr Roger Francis Shipton ...... 559 Mr Roger Francis Shipton ...... 559 Documents— Tabling ...... 560 Questions On Notice— Department of Primary Industries and Energy: Public Relations Services—(Question No. 817) ...... 561 Commonwealth Indigenous Policy and Advisory Structures— (Question No. 1048) ...... 564 Literacy Standards: Learning Disabilities ...... 565 Taxation: Families ...... 565 Common Youth Allowance ...... 566 SENATE 441

Thursday, 5 March 1998 (3) Reminds Parliament that the policy includes the following unqualified promises: The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Commonwealth funding to the ABC and retain The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. triennial funding. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., The Coalition will maintain the current prohi- and read prayers. bition on advertising and sponsorship on ABC PETITIONS television and radio. The Coalition will ‘Cease the politicisation of The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for the ABC Board’ and ‘will ensure that future presentation as follows: appointees to the ABC Board not only possess the broadcasting, management, and financial Housing skills needed to guide Australia’s pre-eminent To the Honourable President and Members of the broadcaster into the next century but also reflect Senate in Parliament assembled: a broad cross section of the Australian communi- ty.’ We the undersigned respectfully submit that Social Housing is a major social safety net, crucial for all The Coalition will insist upon strict managerial Australians. and financial separation of the ABC’s Charter broadcasting activities from its commercial Your petitioners therefore call upon the Senate to ventures. . . maintain a commitment to the buying and building of new housing properties. The new Common- The Coalition ‘will encourage and support the wealth State Housing Agreement must provide the ongoing expansion of ABC radio, including the States with monies to buy and build more Public extension of the highly successful Triple J and Community Housing. Dismantling the safety network into regional Australia’ net of Social Housing will mean homelessness, The Coalition will ‘Maintain current levels of overcrowding and the scrapping of public housing financial support for the orchestras’. redevelopment plans, all of which will impact on (4) Reminds Parliament that the Prime Minister the most disadvantaged groups in the Australian made an unqualified commitment to keep his society. promises Your petitioners support an increase in assistance (5) Calls upon the Senate: to low income earners in the private rental market, but not at the expense of Public and Community (i) To oppose any weakening of the comprehen- Housing. sive Charter of the ABC, and Your petitioners thus urge the Senate to reject (ii) To honour these unqualified commitments current plans in the area of public and community which we, the undersigned, regard as core promises housing. to the Australian people. by Senator O’Chee (from 14 citizens). by Senator O’Chee (from 14 citizens). Petitions received. Australian Broadcasting Corporation To the Honourable President and Members of the NOTICES OF MOTION Senate in the Parliament assembled: Women This petition of the undersigned residents on the electoral roll in Australia Senator PATTERSON (Victoria)—I give (1) Deplores the proposed funding cuts to the notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall ABC, and the consequent major cuts to staffing and move: programs. That the Senate— (2) Commends to the Parliament the Coalition’s (a) notes that 8 March 1998 is International national and community broadcasting policy, which Women’s Day; states: ‘The ABC must be an independent, truly national, publicly funded broadcaster devoted to (b) recognises the many and varied contribu- excellence and objectivity and offering a clear tions women make to Australian public life, alternative to the commercial broadcasting sector. particularly the achievements of women in The ABC should reflect the broad spectrum of inte- Australia’s foreign service both at home and rests, values and views in the Australian overseas; community’. (c) notes, with approval: 442 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

(i) the recent appointment of Victoria Owen and farmers, affected by the closure of as Australia’s ambassador to Egypt, and the Cobar mine and the Grafton meat- (ii) that this brings to 11 the number of works; female heads of mission or heads of post (b) condemns the Ashanti company and J J at Australian missions, a record number Gilbertson for their financial mismanage- of female appointments; and ment and their callous action in depriving (d) commends the Minister for Foreign Affairs these workers of their lawful entitlements; (Mr Downer) for his appointment of eight and women as heads of mission or heads of post (c) calls on the Federal Government to provide since coming into office in March 1996, immediate assistance to these workers and reflecting the Government’s absolute com- their families and to also support legislative mitment to recognising professionalism and changes to ensure that workers are not achievement, regardless of gender, in all deprived of their wages and other lawful aspects of public service. entitlements due to company closures. Cobar Copper Mine ORDER OF BUSINESS Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales)— Government Business I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed I shall move: to: That the Senate— That the following government business orders (a) notes that: of the day be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not (i) the closure of the Cobar copper mine has later than 2.00 p.m. this day: left 260 workers and their families facing No. 3— Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 extreme financial hardship due to the [1998] failure of the mine owner, Ashanti, to pay No. 4— Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment accrued entitlements amounting to $9.5 Bill 1997 million, No. 5— Flags Amendment Bill 1996 (ii) many businesses in Cobar are also owed monies by Ashanti, thus affecting their General Business viability, Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed (iii) similarly, 300 workers and their families to: in Grafton are also facing extreme finan- cial hardship due to the closure of the That the order of general business for consider- Grafton meatworks and the failure by the ation today be as follows: owner, J J Gilbertson, to pay its employ- (1) General business notice of motion No. 937 ees their accrued entitlements, standing in the name of Senator Carr relating (iv) the Federal Government has so far failed to agreements with the states. to provide any support or assistance to the (2) Consideration of government documents. workers at Cobar or Grafton to enable them to obtain wages and other entitle- Certain Government Accountability ments legally owing to them, Matters Committee (v) the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to: Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) and the That general business notice of motion No. 931 Minister for Primary Industries and Ener- standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, gy (Mr Anderson) have shown a hypocri- relating to the establishment of a select committee tical indifference to the rights and the on certain government accountability matters, be plight of the workers at Cobar and Graf- postponed till the next day of sitting. ton, whilst at the same time giving sup- Travel Allowances port to the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) in its political campaign on the Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: waterfront, and That general business notice of motion No. 795 (vi) the NFF, which claims to represent the standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, interests of people in rural Australia, has proposing orders for the production of documents done nothing to assist the workers and by the Leader of the Government in the Senate other people, including rural businesses (Senator Hill), be postponed till 23 March 1998. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 443

Multilateral Agreement on Investment zines and newspaper articles well outside the designated 14-day period, Romania: Mariana Cetiner (iv) the Quit Campaign announced by the Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: Government in July 1997 will have little effect if tobacco advertising continues to That general business notices of motion No. 927 be allowed at major sporting events such (relating to the Multilateral Agreement on Invest- as the Grand Prix, the Motorcycle Grand ment) and No. 938 (the imprisonment of Mariana Prix and the Australian Women’s Golf Cetiner) standing in the name of Senator Margetts Championships, and for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting. (v) the decline in tobacco use has reached a Media Control and Ownership standstill in Australia as a result of a drop in spending on anti-smoking campaigns Logging and Woodchipping from 70 cents per capita in the 1989-90 financial year to 25 cents per capita in the Police Behaviour at Demonstrations 1995-96 financial year; and Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to: (b) calls on the Government to refuse all future That general business notices of motion No. 939 applications for exemptions from the tobacco (relating to media ownership), No. 941 (logging in advertising ban. East Gippsland) and No. 943 (police procedures at loggidng demonstrations in Tasmania) standing in COMMITTEES the name of Senator Brown for today, be postponed till the next day of sitting. Genetic Manipulation Committee Multilateral Agreement on Investment Establishment Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) not That general business notices of motion No. 928 agreed to: (proposing an order for the production of docu- (1) That a select committee, to be known as the ments by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp)) Select Committee on Genetic Manipulation, be and No. 933 (relating to the Multilateral Agreement established to inquire into and report on: on Investment) standing in the name of Senator (a) the ethical issues arising from genetic ma- Bourne for today, be postponed till the next day of nipulation and the application of this technology, sitting. also known as genetic engineering, in Australia, Treaties Committee with special reference to humans; Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request (b) the likely economic and social impact on of Senator Lees) agreed to: Australia of patents the subject matter of, or the claims of the patents, being directed to: That general business notice of motion No. 925 standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, (i) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonu- relating to the reference of a matter to the Joint cleic acid (RNA) derived from animals, Standing Committee on Treaties, be postponed till plants, bacteria, viruses or other things, the next day of sitting. (ii) DNA and RNA derived from human genes including their use for the purpose TOBACCO ADVERTISING of cloning human tissue(s), detecting and Motion (by Senator Allison) not agreed to: treating human illnesses and diseases and the treating of humans howsoever de- That the Senate— scribed, (a) notes that: (iii) DNA and RNA derived from non-human (i) the Australian Formula One Grand Prix genes including their use for the purpose commences on 5 March 1998 in Mel- of cloning tissue(s), detecting and treating bourne, illnesses and diseases and the treating of (ii) the Minister for Health and Family Ser- animals, plants, bacteria, viruses or other vices (Dr Wooldridge) has granted an things howsoever described, and exemption from the ban on tobacco (iv) proteins derived from DNA and RNA for advertising for the race, use in the detection or treatment of illness (iii) tobacco advertising, in the form of photo- or disease and the treating of animals, graphs bearing the brand name and logos plants, bacteria, viruses or other things have been widely reproduced in maga- howsoever described; 444 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

(c) the public interest requirements of existing empowered to appoint persons with specialist regulations in the granting of patents for inventions knowledge for the purposes of the committee with involving genetic manipulation; the approval of the President. (d) international developments in the regulation (12) That the committee be empowered to print of genetic manipulation and genetically-manipulat- from day to day such documents and evidence as ed products; may be ordered by it and that a daily Hansard be (e) the regulation and use of genetically-modified published of such proceedings as take place in food and food components in Australian agriculture, public. manufacture, sale and consumption; and LOGGING AND WOODCHIPPING (f) the regulation of arrangements for the re- search, testing and release of genetically-modified Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed: materials in Australia. That the Senate calls for an immediate halt to (2) That the committee present its final report on logging at Mother Cummings Peak in the National or before 30 June 1998. Estate-listed Great Western Tiers of Tasmania. (3) That the committee consist of 9 senators, 3 The Senate divided. [9.43 a.m.] nominated by the Leader of the Government in the (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposi- Reid) tion in the Senate, and 3 nominated by minor groups or independents. Ayes ...... 9 (4) That the committee may proceed to the Noes ...... 54 dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all —— members have been duly nominated and appointed Majority ...... 45 and notwithstanding any vacancy. —— AYES (5) That the committee elect as chair one of the Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. members nominated by the Leader of the Govern- Bourne, V. * Brown, B. ment in the Senate. Lees, M. H. Margetts, D. (6) That the chair of the committee may, from Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N. time to time, appoint another member of the Woodley, J. committee to be the deputy chair of the committee, NOES and that the member so appointed act as chair of Abetz, E. Bishop, M. the committee at any time when there is no chair Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. or the chair is not present, at a meeting of the Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, G. committee. Campbell, I. G. Carr, K. (7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A. the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H. have a casting vote. Cooney, B. Crane, W. Crowley, R. A. Eggleston, A. (8) That a quorum of the committee be 4 mem- Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P. bers. Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J. (9) That the committee and any subcommittee Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. have power to send for and examine persons and Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B. Herron, J. Hill, R. M. documents, to move from place to place, to sit in Hogg, J. Kemp, R. public or in private, notwithstanding any proroga- Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R. tion of the Parliament or dissolution of the House Lundy, K. Macdonald, S. of Representatives, and have leave to report from MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. and such interim recommendations as it may deem Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M. fit. O’Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R. (10) That the committee have power to appoint Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. subcommittees consisting of 4 or more of its Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. members and to refer to any such subcommittee Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M. any of the matters which the committee is empow- Sherry, N. Synon, K. M. ered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcom- Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. mittee be a majority of the senators appointed to Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. the subcommittee. Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M. * denotes teller (11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be Question so resolved in the negative. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 445

MANAGED INVESTMENTS BILL 1997 Managed investment schemes constitute a large, and rapidly growing, area of investment activity in SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’ Australia. In 1980, when the first retail cash AFFAIRS LEGISLATION management trust was launched in Australia, there was $2 billion under management. Today, approxi- AMENDMENT (BUDGET AND OTHER mately $85 billion is invested in managed invest- MEASURES) BILL 1997 ment schemes, and the amount invested continues to grow by around $20 billion a year. These figures WORKPLACE RELATIONS demonstrate the significance of managed invest- AMENDMENT BILL 1997 [No. 2] ments for savings and investment capital formation in Australia. COMPANY LAW REVIEW BILL 1997 One factor which has made these schemes popular with investors is that they allow them to diversify INSURANCE LAWS AMENDMENT their investments into areas which, traditionally, BILL 1997 have required large sums to participate. Another is that they also allow investors, who might otherwise First Reading lack the skill or confidence to participate in direct investment opportunities, to rely on the expertise of Bills received from the House of Represen- professional investment managers. tatives. This bill is not concerned with the superannuation Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western segment of the managed funds industry, which Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the includes products provided by superannuation funds Treasurer)—I indicate to the Senate that those and approved deposit funds. Those funds are regulated by the Insurance and Superannuation bills which have just been announced are Commission under the Superannuation Industry being introduced together. After debate on the (Supervision) Act 1993. The segment of the motion for the second reading has been managed funds industry with which the bill is adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have concerned is non-superannuation managed invest- the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. ments, which are at present regulated as prescribed I move: interests under the Corporations Law. Currently, the law requires each non-superannuation That these bills may proceed without formalities, managed investment scheme to have a two party may be taken together and be now read a first time. structure comprising a management company, Question resolved in the affirmative. which is responsible for the day-to-day operations and investment strategy of the scheme, and a Bills read a first time. trustee, which distributes scheme income and ensures investments conform with the trust deed. A Second Reading trustee owes fiduciary obligations to scheme Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western members to supervise the management company on their behalf and in their best interests. Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (9.49 a.m.)—I move: It has become apparent that the law’s requirements for these schemes need to be updated. A combina- That these bills be now read a second time. tion of the commercial property crash at the end of the 1980s, the reductions in asset values of a I seek leave to have the second reading number of unlisted property trusts, the consequent speeches incorporated in Hansard. loss of confidence by investors, and the need for Leave granted. legislation in 1991 imposing a standard 12 month notice period for redemptions from such trusts, The speeches read as follows— focussed attention on the regulatory framework for managed investments. On 24 May 1991, the Law MANAGED INVESTMENTS BILL 1997 Reform Commission and the Companies and Managed investment schemes are any type of Securities Advisory Committee (‘the Review’) were scheme where an investor purchases an interest asked to examine and report on the most efficient from a professional manager who manages the and effective legal framework for regulating funds received to produce a return. Schemes managed investment schemes. encompass a wide range of investment products and To assist its consideration of the role of superan- services including property, equities and cash nuation in its retirement incomes policy, the management trusts as well as smaller schemes such Government of the day asked the Review to report as ostrich farms and pine plantations. separately on the regulation of superannuation. The 446 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Review published its report on this aspect, entitled As many investors would be aware, there have Collective Investments: Superannuation (ALRC recently been cases before the courts which illus- Report No. 59, 1992), in April 1992. trate the confusion about the role and duties of those involved with the operation of schemes. The The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, divided responsibility inherent in the current which was enacted to strengthen prudential supervi- structure reduces the accountability of both trustee sion of the superannuation segment of the managed and management company, to investors, and allows investments industry, requires that there be a single a shuffling of blame in cases where something goes responsible entity (known as the trustee) in relation wrong. to each superannuation fund. The responsible entity concept will, by removing The report on the non-superannuation segment of the current third party between investors and fund the managed investments industry, entitled Collec- managers, improve investment decision-making, tive Investments: Other People’s Money (ALRC while at the same time making the corporate 65), was tabled on 30 September 1993. Briefly, the structure for managed investments consistent with Review was critical of the current two party other corporate structures. It will also make clear, structure for schemes and recommended regulatory not only to investors, but also to the responsible reform. The Review’s fundamental recommendation entity itself, the nature of the responsibilities owed was that, for each scheme, there be a single respon- to investors by those managing investment funds on sible entity in which the current responsibilities of their behalf. This will impose additional discipline both the trustee and management company are on fund managers. The single responsible entity combined and vested. concept will clarify and simplify the legal duties The need for regulatory reform has, more recently, and responsibilities of a manager by imposing clear been supported by the final report of the Financial statutory duties in relation to investors and the System Inquiry (the FSI), released on 9 April 1997. scheme it operates, and providing a right of civil Recommendation 89 of the FSI recommends that action against the responsible entity by any member the regulatory structure for managed investments be of the scheme who suffers loss or damage because brought into line with that for superannuation of conduct contravening those duties and responsi- funds, by introducing a requirement for a single bilities. From the point of view of investor protec- responsible entity. The FSI noted that the introduc- tion, it will ensure that the liability for any loss of tion of the responsible entity concept would result investors’ funds, through negligent or illegal in clear accountability to members, provide cost activity, rests entirely with the responsible entity. savings and be consistent with arrangements for Custody of scheme assets superannuation funds. In developing the bill, the Government has been The Government has given very careful consider- conscious of the need to afford a high level of ation to the recommendations of the FSI and the protection to scheme assets, and the bill achieves Review. As part of that consideration, it has this through several measures. First, the bill impos- engaged in extensive consultations with key es certain statutory duties on the responsible entity participants in the managed investments industry. with respect to the property of any scheme it The result of that work is the bill before the House manages. These duties are to ensure— today, the key features of which I now want to * that scheme property is clearly identified as describe. such; and Single responsible entity * that the scheme property is held separately from the property of the responsible entity or As I have mentioned, the current foundation of of another scheme. schemes is the two party structure of management company and trustee. The Review found that this These duties are designed to ensure that scheme structure was unsatisfactory and may substantially assets are not applied, either unintentionally or prejudice the interests of investors, giving rise to fraudulently, to the responsible entity’s own confusion—for the management company, the purposes rather than those of the scheme. In the trustee and investors in a scheme—about who is event of the failure of the responsible entity, the ultimately responsible for the scheme’s operation. fact that scheme assets are identifiable as such and The Review concluded that no re-working of the kept separate from the responsible entity’s own current two party structure could overcome its assets will help to ensure that those assets are not inherent problems of divided powers and responsi- applied to meet outstanding debts of the responsible bilities, and the attendant legal complexity and entity, but are returned to the investors in the uncertainty. This conclusion was the basis for the scheme. Review’s recommendation that the Law be changed Secondly, a scheme’s compliance plan must set out to require a single responsible entity for each arrangements for ensuring that scheme property is scheme. identifiable and kept separate from other property. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 447

The scheme’s compliance plan is one of the The Government takes the view that, having regard documents that must accompany an application, to the custodial arrangements that I have already submitted to the Australian Securities Commission detailed, a requirement for a separate custodian is (ASC), to register a scheme. The ASC will hence not justified for regulatory purposes. The Govern- have an opportunity to consider the custodial ment is also concerned that the inclusion of a arrangements a responsible entity proposes to put statutory obligation for a custodian may lead to in place for a scheme. If the ASC believes that the renewed confusion as to responsibility for a compliance plan does not make adequate provision, scheme’s operation and assets. Certainly, the among other things, for ensuring the responsible responsible entity concept means that any custodian entity complies with the Law, including its duties of scheme assets would be a bare custodian, with respect to scheme assets, it may refuse to obliged to deal with scheme property in accordance register the scheme. with the responsible entity’s instructions, and the It is important to recall that the ASC from time to Government does not believe that such a custodian time issues practice notes and other guidance which should be the sole, or even primary, element of the puts members of the public on notice as to the way bill’s protection of scheme assets. in which it intends to administer its functions under The Government considers that an across-the-board the Law. While it would be a matter for the ASC, requirement for a custodian for all schemes would the Government envisages that there will be be inappropriate for many schemes and would guidance to the industry about the criteria by which impose costs that may well outweigh the benefits the ASC will assess the adequacy of compliance in terms of improved compliance. plans, including the adequacy of custodial arrange- ments for the holding of scheme property proposed Finally, I note that the bill’s provisions on custody for schemes. Such guidance could require a scheme of assets are entirely consistent with the recommen- to have specified custodial arrangements that vary dations of the Review I referred to earlier. Indeed, with the nature of the scheme, of the scheme the report of the Review states that imposing a property, or the size or characteristics of the requirement for all schemes to have a separate responsible entity. These arrangements could custodian was neither necessary nor appropriate, contemplate a separate custodian where appropriate. but would be unnecessarily rigid. Thirdly, the bill requires that the responsible entity holds the scheme property on trust for scheme Compliance members. By this provision, the bill imposes trust- The bill contains a number of elements to ensure law obligations on the responsible entity in relation a high level of compliance. A pre-condition to to its oversight of the scheme property. I want to operating a scheme will be that the responsible stress that this provision will not prevent a respon- entity hold a special licence issued by the ASC. sible entity from appointing an agent to hold the Each scheme with more than 20 investors operated scheme property separately from other property. by a responsible entity will also be required to be Indeed, the Government believes that, in many registered by the ASC. As part of registration, cases, a responsible entity will find that the easiest applicants will need to lodge the scheme’s compli- way to discharge its duty to keep scheme assets ance plan with the ASC. separate from its own assets will be to engage another party to take custody of the assets. In addition, the bill will require that a responsible Moreover, it may be appropriate in certain cases for entity have in place a compliance mechanism that a responsible entity to be required to engage a takes one of the following forms: a board of separate custodian of scheme assets. In this regard, directors with at least half of the directors being the bill’s provisions on the ASC’s exemption and independent; or a compliance committee with at modification powers, set out in Part 5C.11, author- least half its membership being independent. A ise the ASC, for all cases or on a case-by-case scheme will thus have some flexibility in meeting basis, to declare the bill’s provisions to be modified the obligation placed on it to ensure that it monitors or varied as specified in the declaration. By such its compliance with the compliance plan and the a declaration, the ASC will be able to declare that legal obligations on it. custodial arrangements in relation to property of a The ASC will also play a role in ensuring a high particular scheme or class of scheme is to take a level of compliance through its licensing, registra- particular form, for example engaging a separate tion and surveillance activities in relation to custodian of the scheme property. schemes. Moreover, to provide the ASC with added The Government recognises that there has been enforcement flexibility, the bill will allow the ASC concern in that the bill does not include a require- to enter into legally binding undertakings with the ment that there be a custodian for all schemes. It responsible entity of a scheme. The ASC may has, however, decided not to impose such a require- apply to a Court for appropriate orders if the ment directly in the Law for a number of reasons. undertaking is breached. 448 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Transition to new regime financial industry and other interested parties for There will be a 2 year transitional period for comment. Responses to the exposure draft have existing schemes to comply with the new require- generally been quite favourable. ments. The transitional arrangements will be even- This bill also includes measures that will help handed in allowing either the existing management carers build on the extra assistance offered in last company or trustee to become the scheme respon- year’s Budget, demonstrating the Government’s sible entity. determination to offer a better deal to those often The bill is not expected to have any significant unsung Australians looking after friends and financial impact on the Commonwealth. relatives. In accordance with the Corporations Agreement The Government recognises the stresses that a between the Commonwealth, the States and the caring role can place on carers. In recognition of Northern Territory on corporate regulation, the these stresses, this bill provides for an increase in Ministerial Council for Corporations has been the number of days a year that a carer can have a consulted on the introduction of the bill into break from caring and still remain eligible for carer Parliament. payment. While a carer may currently have a break for 52 calendar days per year, this measure will I commend the bill to the Senate. provide that the carer may take a break for 63 days. In addition, qualification for carer payment will be extended to those looking after a profoundly SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’ disabled child, who is aged under 16. AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT The Government has always made it clear it (BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL believes the vast majority of social security recipi- ents are genuinely in need of assistance. This is 1997 why it is determined to protect the integrity of the This bill gives effect to a number of measures social security system so that the limited welfare announced in the Government’s 1997-98 Budget, dollar goes only to those who need it most. To this and to a number of non-Budget measures. end, reforms in this bill will ensure a better target- ing of the welfare dollar by preventing high income One of the measures announced in the 1997-98 seasonal, intermittent or contract workers and their Budget provided for the reform of the means test partners from being able to go straight on to a treatment of income streams under the Social social security benefit during the off season or Security Act 1991. between contracts. It will also exclude higher paid The reforms will give greater incentives and casual or contract workers and their partners, who provide greater choices for retired people investing have their leave entitlements cashed out in their in longer term income streams. These amendments salary payments, from receiving social security complement other Government policy initiatives benefit over short lay-offs like Christmas shut- aimed at encouraging the use of superannuation and downs. There will be an exemption in cases of other investments to provide income in retirement. severe financial hardship. The reforms will provide a more generous means This bill also includes measures that aim to make test of long term pensions and annuities meeting the social security system easier for people to specified criteria. In addition, they will ensure that access and understand. Simplification has been a very wealthy people will no longer be able to use key priority of this Government and we are com- loopholes to access social security payments mitted to further reducing complexity in the future. through the use of short fixed term financial In line with such an approach, this bill introduces investments. a fairer and more consistent income and assets test There will be no general savings provision, as this treatment of lump sum amounts for pensions and would generally benefit those utilising loopholes. allowances. This is done by aligning the allowance However, people who have products purchased means test arrangements for lump sums with the before the commencement of the reforms can pensions means test. request a Ministerial exemption from the new Finally, this bill includes a number of amendments regime where significant financial disadvantage that are consequential on various other measures. may result. These include amendments to the Social Security This Government has always ensured that the Act 1991 to take account of the change of name of community is widely consulted when measures are family payment to family allowance. In addition, being developed. Consistent with this approach, and the bill includes minor amendments to the debt following on from the extensive consultation with recovery provisions of the Social Security Act 1991 industry and community groups in the policy to take account of the introduction in the Farm development process, an exposure draft of the Household Support Act 1992 of the new "excep- income streams measure was circulated to the tional circumstances relief payment" and the Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 449

"restart income support". Lastly, the bill makes a this year, in which 56 per cent of businesses number of minor amendments consequential on the surveyed said that the prospect of unfair dismissal establishment of the Commonwealth Services claims had discouraged them from recruiting Delivery Agency. additional staff to their businesses. I commend the bill to the Senate. And to make it all completely clear for the Labor Party and the Democrats in the Senate, the Commonwealth Government commissioned further WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT research, as part of the labour market research program being conducted under the auspices of the BILL 1997 [No. 2] Labour Ministers’ Council. Specific questions on This bill is intended to ensure that small businesses unfair dismissal were included in the Yellow Pages are exempted from the federal unfair dismissal Small Business Index Survey, which was conducted provisions, in respect of new employees. This from 30 October 1997 to 12 November 1997. This exemption is necessary and appropriate, given the is the largest economic survey of small businesses special features of small business—and it is in Australia; it focuses specifically on small necessary, to maximise growth in employment in businesses with 19 or fewer employees. Approxi- small business. mately 1,200 randomly selected proprietors of small businesses were covered in the survey. This bill is the same as the bill that was introduced into the House of Representatives on 26 June 1997 In this survey, 79 per cent of proprietors thought and passed by the House of Representatives on 27 small businesses would be better off if they were August 1997, but rejected by the Senate on 21 exempted from unfair dismissal laws. 33 per cent October 1997, in the face of the majority report of of small businesses reported that they would have the Senate Committee to which it was referred. The been more likely to recruit new employees if they Government has reintroduced this bill, not because had been exempted from unfair dismissal laws in we want an election over it, but because we want 1996 and 1997. And 38 per cent of small busines- to see this problem fixed. ses reported that they would be more likely to Senators who spoke against the previous bill said recruit new employees if they were exempted from there was insufficient evidence of the need for the the current unfair dismissal laws. bill, and its benefits. There was plenty of evidence, Madam President, helping small business to grow, but they were not convinced. They were not employ, export and invest in Australia’s future has convinced by Morgan and Banks’ 1996 survey, been a top priority for the Government since its which indicated that 16 per cent of businesses with first day in office. The Government’s economic and less than 30 employees had been adversely affected industrial relations policies are central to its agenda in their hiring intentions by the previous Federal for the growth and development of the small unfair dismissal laws. They were not convinced by business sector—and the Government is also the Recruitment Solutions survey, released in April committed to tackling the impediments to small 1997, which indicated that 32 per cent of busines- business imposed by unnecessary government ses in metropolitan Sydney, Melbourne and Bris- regulation and paperwork, as set out in the bane had been the subject of some sort of unfair Government’s small business statement, More Time dismissal claim in the 12 months covered by the for Business. survey. They were not convinced by the Bell The Government has made substantial progress in Committee, which reported on the widespread labour market reform, which is and will be of feeling that the previous Government’s unfair particular benefit to small business. The Workplace dismissal laws were ‘the final nail in the coffin’ for Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act small business. 1996 changed both the federal industrial relations When the Senate rejected the bill, small business system, and the relationship between federal and made its view even clearer. Mr Rob Bastian of the state industrial relations systems. These changes Council of Small Business Organisations of Aus- provide small business with greater opportunities tralia said that small business would create 50,000 to develop industrial relations arrangements best jobs if this bill could go through the Senate. And suited to their individual circumstances. In particu- the Chief Executive of the New South Wales lar, small business employers have new opportuni- Chamber of Commerce, Ms Katie Lahey, said that ties to make direct agreements with their employ- ‘For the Opposition to claim that there has been no ees. Small businesses that choose to remain in the independent research proving business concern on award system are benefitting from a simplified and this issue is nonsense—it shows how little attention more flexible system; small businesses now have they have paid to the needs and concerns of the greater certainty with respect to industrial action small business community’. She drew attention to within their business; and, the Employment Advo- the New South Wales Chamber’s own survey, cate has been given a specific charter to assist conducted jointly with the St George Bank in May small business. 450 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Unfair dismissal was one of the most important Sections 170MU and 170WE prohibit dismissal of industrial relations issues for small business, prior an employee because the employee engages in to the last election. Our commitment, in Better Pay protected industrial action, in seeking a certified for Better Work, was to introduce a new unfair agreement, or in AWA industrial action. Section dismissal scheme, which would recognise the 298K, in the freedom of association part of the act, circumstances facing small business: and we have prohibits dismissal on grounds contrary to the done this. The new system is more balanced and principle of freedom of association. And section fair to both employers and employees. It is less 170CM prohibits dismissal without 1-5 weeks legalistic and costly, with an emphasis on concili- notice (depending on the employee’s length of ation. Employers are protected from frivolous and service and age), or pay in lieu, except in cases of malicious claims by the requirement for a filing fee serious misconduct. and access to costs where a claim is vexatious. In considering unfair dismissal claims, the Australian The exemption also does not affect the rights of Industrial Relations Commission has to consider a apprentices in small businesses. Apprentices have range of factors, including the possible effect of a particular need for protection, given the additional any order on the viability of the employer’s busi- impact that any break in the continuity of their ness. employment may have, in terms of attainment of qualifications. This bill will not affect existing Madam President, these changes are important—but rights in this regard. they have not gone far enough, for small business. It is an unavoidable fact that the defence of an The exemption applies only to businesses employ- unfair dismissal claim, however groundless, is ing 15 or fewer employees. This size of small especially burdensome for small businesses. In business was chosen because of the precedent many larger businesses, expertise and resources can provided by the Employment Protection Act 1982 be put into recruitment and termination procedures. (NSW), introduced by the Wran Government, and Small businesses have no such resources. Even followed by the then Australian Conciliation and attendance of witnesses at a hearing can bring a Arbitration Commission in the 1984 Termination, small business to a standstill. Change and Redundancy Test Case. An exemption for businesses of this size will benefit a substantial The Government has been listening to the concerns proportion of all businesses in the federal jurisdic- of small businesses, their experiences of the impact tion, but will not cover too many businesses of of unfair dismissal claims (particularly under the such a size and complexity that they are likely to previous Government’s provisions), and their fears have a separate management structure (which that the simple fact of employing someone makes would facilitate defence of unfair dismissal claims). them vulnerable to unfair dismissal claims. The Yellow Pages survey confirms the difficulties that The bill provides that, in counting the number of even the Government’s new provisions cause for employees in a business, casual employees are only those small businesses who experience an unfair to be counted if they have been engaged on a dismissal claim: not just the cost of settlement, regular and systematic basis for at least 12 months. where that occurs, but the time and location of The intention of this exclusion is to reflect the fact hearings, stress, costs to business in lost time, that a business which occasionally engages addi- disruption to working relationships and the costs of tional casual employees is not necessarily a large defending the application. And the Yellow Pages business. confirms the terrible pall that the fear of those This bill will have no significant impact on difficulties casts over small business employing Commonwealth expenditure. intentions, even amongst businesses which may not have themselves experienced a claim. These are the I commend the bill to the Senate. reasons that this bill should be brought into law, as soon as possible. I turn now to the terms of the bill itself. COMPANY LAW REVIEW BILL 1997 The exemption is to commence on Royal Assent. However, it will not affect existing employees. As Overview of the Bill it is intended to encourage new employment, the In March 1997 the Government commenced the exclusion will only apply to employees who are Corporate Law Economic Reform Program as a first engaged by the relevant employer after the comprehensive initiative to improve Australia’s commencement of the amendment. corporate law as part of the Coalition Government’s The exemption is from the federal unfair dismissal drive to promote business and economic develop- provisions, only. Employees will still be protected ment. Proposals for reform of a number of key by other provisions of the Workplace Relations areas of the Corporations Law have been released Act. Section 170CK protects employees against for public comment with a view to the introduction dismissal because of any discriminatory reason. of legislation early next year. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 451

The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program have been strengthened. This should reduce the cost also includes a commitment to rewriting the of doing business with small companies. Com- Corporations Law in order to simplify it. This bill panies that are listed on an overseas stock exchange will begin that work. will be able to buy back their shares on the over- The Company Law Review Bill 1997 will also seas stock exchange, if the ASC has approved the improve the efficiency of corporate regulation, and exchange. reduce the regulatory burdens on business and other Benefits the bill will deliver to business and users of the Corporations Law. It will bring sub- investors stantial benefits for both small and large business, Simplified procedures for setting up and running and has received strong support from the business a company community. The bill will streamline the existing complicated The bill rewrites and improves the core company procedure for setting up a company. Under the bill, law rules concerning registering companies, meet- the only formality will be lodgment of a completed ings, share capital, financial reporting, annual application form. It will therefore be possible to returns, deregistration of defunct companies and register a company suitable for operating a typical company names, with a view to facilitating busi- small business by lodging a single form with the ness and investment. It will also introduce for Australian Securities Commission (ASC), instead managed investment schemes rules similar to those of the several that are currently required. This which will apply to companies in relation to reform will reduce the cost of registering the meetings, financial reporting and annual returns. approximately 80,000 new companies that are History of the bill registered each year. The bill was exposed for public comment in June The basic rules that are available for the internal 1995. In June 1996 the Government referred the management of companies in Table A of the Law draft bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on will be updated and moved into the main body of Corporations and Securities. This provided an the Law as replaceable rules. As with Table A, additional opportunity for input by users of the companies will be able to adopt a constitution Law. The Committee’s report was tabled in the displacing some or all of these rules. Senate on 18 November 1996. In its report the Proprietary companies will not have to keep their Committee expressed its approval for the general registered office open to the public. This measure content of the draft bill. The Committee also made will complete the Law’s recognition of the 1 person 11 specific recommendations which the Govern- company. ment has addressed in a separate response to the Facilitation of electronic meetings and shareholder Committee’s report. communications A number of significant changes have been made The rules on meetings in the bill recognise the to the bill since it was considered by the Parlia- use of communications technology in calling and mentary Joint Committee. The bill will no longer holding meetings. For example, companies will be require the annual directors’ report to shareholders able to serve a notice of a meeting to an electronic to include a management discussion and analysis address or fax number nominated by a shareholder. component. While accurate and informative report- Shareholders will be able to send their proxy to the ing to shareholders is essential to maintaining company by facsimile, or by email with the agree- investor confidence, the detail of reporting require- ment of the company. This will reduce the adminis- ments should usually be left to best practice in trative costs associated with company meetings. corporate governance, rather than through detailed black letter law. The Government considers that The bill also facilitates the electronic lodgment companies should be free to decide for themselves of annual returns and other documents with the whether they should be preparing management ASC. discussion and analysis for shareholders, instead of Proprietary companies will be able to pass being compelled to do so by law. resolutions, except resolutions for the removal of The bill has also been amended to retain the an auditor, by arranging for every member to sign capacity to register new no liability companies. The a statement setting out the terms of the resolution. retention of these companies recognises their Proprietary companies will therefore be able to continuing importance to the mining industry. conduct their business without having to regularly incur the cost of holding formal meetings. The bill will also allow greater use of communi- cations technology in calling and holding meetings, Share capital transactions as recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Com- The bill will abolish the concept of par value for mittee on Corporations and Securities in its report shares, and court confirmation for capital reduc- on the bill. The assumptions that third parties may tions. These are long overdue reforms which have make about the internal management of a company been a part of company law in the USA for some 452 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 time, Canada since the 1970s, and New Zealand company to exercise actual control over its own since 1993. shares without there being a formal holding com- The abolition of court confirmation for capital pany and subsidiary relationship. reductions proposed by the bill will remove a Reduced costs in relation to annual reports. significant constraint on companies seeking to The bill will give members of companies and adjust their debt and equity requirements to accom- managed investment schemes the option of receiv- modate changes in the general economic environ- ing a concise annual report, saving the company or ment. scheme printing and distribution costs. The abolition of par value for shares will allow Longer notice periods for shareholder meetings companies whose shares are valued at a price less than their par value to raise fresh capital without The Corporations Law currently obliges com- incurring the cost of convening a members’ meet- panies to give 14 days notice for ordinary resolu- ing, and without the delay and expense involved in tions, and 21 days for special resolutions. The bill seeking court approval for this. It will also remove will oblige companies to give at least 21 days an unnecessary complication to the financial affairs notice of a shareholders meeting. The change to 21 of most economically significant companies. days for all resolutions is designed to give inves- tors, particularly institutional investors, more time However, these measures will also make it easier to consider proposed resolutions. for companies to stream capital to shareholders in circumstances where this would minimise tax. It is Statutory recognition of members rights to ask therefore proposed to amend the Income Tax questions at an annual general meeting. Assessment Act 1936 to reduce these opportunities The bill will recognise that the annual general for tax minimisation. A separate announcement has meeting is an opportunity for shareholders to ask been made outlining the proposed taxation meas- questions about the management of the company. ures. In general terms, it is proposed to introduce It will oblige the chairman to give the shareholders a new anti-avoidance rule for certain tax preferred as a whole a reasonable opportunity to ask ques- capital returns. These measures will be included in tions. The new rules will not oblige the chairman a bill to be introduced next year. to give every shareholder who wishes to speak the The amendments made by the bill abolishing opportunity to do so, because the chairman’s court confirmation and par value will commence at obligation is to give the shareholders as a whole the the same time as the associated taxation amend- opportunity to ask questions, and not every share- ments. The share capital amendments have been holder. moved into their own schedule in the bill for Smaller annual returns. separate, and, if necessary, later commencement. Over half of the items currently required to be As a contingency against the possibility that the included in annual returns will be removed. This separate schedule will commence after the main will result in annual returns being shorter and less body of the bill, the main body of the bill will expensive to prepare. This measure will reduce rewrite the existing par value and court confir- paperwork in this area by over 50 per cent for mation rules in plain English. The separate sched- Australia’s one million companies and will be of ule will replace those rewritten provisions when it particular significance to small business. commences. Ministerial Council for Corporations The existing rules in the Corporations Law concerning the acquisition by a company of an In accordance with the Corporations Agreement interest in its own shares frequently require com- between the Commonwealth, the States and the panies to seek shareholder approval in a range of Northern Territory on Corporate Regulation, the situations which do not threaten the interests of the Ministerial Council for Corporations has been company, its shareholders or its creditors. This consulted and has approved the introduction of the imposes unnecessary costs on these transactions. bill into Parliament. The bill will address this by removing the need for I commend the bill to the Senate. shareholder approval for financial assistance transactions that do not materially prejudice the interests of the company, its shareholders or its INSURANCE LAWS AMENDMENT BILL creditors. 1997 The existing legal and technical rules against a company controlling its own shares will be amend- The Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997 is an ed so that they are based on the concept of control omnibus bill that amends three separate acts in the accounting standards, rather than the formal relating to the supervision of insurance activities. legal holding company and subsidiary relationship. The most significant feature of this bill is that it This change recognizes that it is possible for a will enhance the security arrangements applicable Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 453 to the authorisation of Lloyd’s of London under- writers would likely retain substantial outstanding writers in Australia and, as a consequence, signifi- claims liabilities in Australia for many subsequent cantly improve the regulatory protection for Lloyd’s years, and these claims would, under the present Australian policyholders. The Insurance Laws arrangement, be left with little or no asset security Amendment Bill 1997 also makes a number of support. other technical amendments to insurance legislation, The Insurance Laws Amendment Bill is designed some of which I will outline below. to remedy these shortcomings in the current Lloyd’s of London security arrangements for Lloyd’s. The bill will Lloyd’s is a major international insurance market replace the bank covenant with new security based and operated in London where individuals, arrangements involving the creation of trust funds. known as ‘names’, and corporate members form The trust funds will hold secure, tangible assets in syndicates to accept insurance risks. Lloyd’s is a Australia to a value determined primarily by significant participant in the global reinsurance reference to outstanding claims liabilities of market and an important participant in the Austral- Lloyd’s underwriters. The use of security trust ian insurance industry. funds in this way will ensure that at all times Lloyd’s Australian liabilities have adequate finan- Like all insurance underwriters in Australia, cial support in Australia, thereby significantly Lloyd’s underwriters are subject to the Insurance improving the protection afforded to Lloyd’s Act 1973. However, in recognition of the unique Australian policyholders. structure of Lloyd’s, provisions governing the authorisation and conduct of business of Lloyd’s The bill will also introduce new regulatory powers underwriters are specifically set down in Part VII for Lloyd’s similar to those already available in of the act. respect of body corporate insurers, such as the power to obtain additional information, to carry out In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Lloyd’s under- an investigation, to give directions and to require writers incurred large property and liability losses actuarial assessments. These powers will both which threatened the future viability of the Lloyd’s improve the ability to protect the interests of market. During the last four years, Lloyd’s has Lloyd’s Australian policyholders and enhance responded to this problem by developing and competitive neutrality by bringing the supervision implementing a major ‘reconstruction and renewal’ of Lloyd’s more closely into line with that which plan which will enable Lloyd’s to rebuild into a applies to insurance companies in Australia. strong and viable market. The amendments set out in this bill will change the regulatory requirements Technical amendments to insurance legislation for Lloyd’s underwriters in Australia so as to The Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997 also accommodate the initiatives in Lloyd’s ‘reconstruc- makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to tion and renewal’ plan while at the same time insurance legislation. substantially enhancing the regulatory protection for Lloyd’s underwriters’ Australian policyholders. The bill amends the Insurance Act 1973 to stream- line the processes for form setting and lodgement Currently, the key protection for Lloyd’s under- of accounts and statements with the Insurance and writers’ Australian policyholders is the requirement Superannuation Commissioner by authorised that Lloyd’s lodge with the Treasurer a covenant insurers in Australia. These reforms will produce given by a bank. The value of the covenant during considerable administrative and cost benefits for any financial year is the amount of premium insurers, without compromising prudential require- income sourced from Australia by Lloyd’s under- ments. writers. Some major shortcomings have been identi- fied with this security. In the first place, Lloyd’s Various amendments are made to the Insurance underwriters are reliant on a third party, namely a (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984 to improve the bank, to continue to conduct business in Australia. operation of that act. The amendments will remove In addition, while the covenant is intended to sup- certain technical difficulties, clarify interpretation port outstanding claims liabilities in Australia, its of the act by inserting additional definitions and value, based as it is on premiums, has no direct increase consumer protection by strengthening relationship to those liabilities. Given the strong broker disclosure notification requirements. potential for losses to far exceed the value of The bill also amends the Insurance Contracts Act premiums written, there is a distinct possibility that 1984 to, among other things, increase the scope of at any point in time the amount available under the that act to include non-commercial marine pleasure covenant may be insufficient to fully support the craft. Presently, marine pleasure craft are subject to outstanding claims liabilities. Furthermore, in the the Marine Insurance Act 1909. The Marine event Lloyd’s underwriters ceased business in Insurance Act 1909, however, is primarily designed Australia, Lloyd’s would no longer receive pre- for insurance relating to the international carriage miums and, consequently, the value of the covenant of goods and does not contain many of the con- would rapidly diminish. However, Lloyd’s under- sumer protection provisions which are available 454 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984. This not believe it is acceptable to expect an adult amendment will enable owners of non-commercial to be supported by their parents when they are pleasure craft to receive the level of protection in seeking work and I believe that just because insurance dealings which is available under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984. Other amendments you are 19 years of age, a young person, you to the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 set out in this are no less entitled to financial support than bill will improve information flows between an older adult. This is very much what this contracting parties and refine the insured’s duty of bill is saying in relation to the age of inde- disclosure. pendence, that is, that you are a less valuable Debate (on motion by Senator Chris adult when aged between 18 and 21 than an Evans) adjourned. older adult. Ordered that these bills be listed on the I found Senator Harradine’s contribution to Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. the debate and his questioning of the minister very helpful. The view that was put by the SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION minister that only affluent families would be AMENDMENT (YOUTH losers in this change, I find completely un- ALLOWANCE) BILL 1997 true. In Committee Senator Newman—Denied payments. Consideration resumed from 4 March. Senator NEAL—I have heard the minister The CHAIRMAN—The question is that just say that only more affluent families the bill, as amended, be agreed to, subject to would be denied payments, but I confess I requests. think she is playing with words because, after some questioning yesterday evening, she had Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.51 to truthfully advise the Senate that a family a.m.)—I move: on an income of $23,400 would start to lose Schedule 1, item 6, page 27 (line 20) to page 28 benefits, if they had one child, as soon as (line 2), omit "21 years old" (wherever occur- they earned $4 over that sum. By definition, ring), substitute "18 years old". a family involves an income that supports Essentially, this is the crux of our difficulty more than one person. So we are talking with this whole bill. Even though we had not about two people at a minimum sharing got to that stage of the debate, there was $23,400 and, because they have an adult who some discussion already in this chamber was born to them and is over the age of 18 yesterday evening about the age of independ- years, that adult starts to lose their benefit. In ence for non-students. It has generally been my mind, that is absolutely and completely accepted both in law and in practice by most unacceptable and unfair. That is why the of the community that at the age of 18 years opposition is moving request No. 5, which a person is independent and is an adult. This reinstates the law as it presently stands, that bill attempts, almost through backdoor provi- is, that a person is an adult at 18 when they sions, to try to change that age from 18 years have left education. to 21 years, at least for the provisions of I talked before about the consequences of social security. turning 18. I thought we had this debate some I was quite interested to see the sheet that years ago, probably when I was in primary was delivered yesterday evening by the school, that, if you are 18, you are an adult, minister which set out a table whereby a you are entitled to vote, you can enter into family with a child—as described—at 19 legal contracts which you are bound by and years was affected. It struck me immediately in criminal offences you are treated as an that we are getting a re-run of a brave new adult. It seems to me, if this government is world. Suddenly by calling someone who is going to say that you are not an adult at 18 19 a child, it is quite reasonable to expect and that you are only an adult when you their families to support them long past the reach the age of 21, then they should be age where we have, in Australia, accepted recommending to the states that, if you enter them as being adults, that is, at age 18. I do a contract when you are 19 or 20, you can Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 455 turn around and say, ‘Sorry, I’m not bound by their children once they have become adults. that contract. I’m not an adult.’ If you are To prevent someone who is an adult accessing going to be fair about these provisions, that a benefit, on the basis that they may or may would be the natural conclusion to be drawn not be given support by their parents, is from this change. extraordinarily dangerous. I do not believe I was quite interested to hear the minister that this government should deny people who denying that these are savings. I asked for are adults—despite the fact that they are some figures to be provided. I still have not young adults—a benefit that every other received them, despite being told that I would member of the community is entitled to, if receive them. Maybe the minister, when she they comply with the eligibility requirements has the opportunity to get on her feet, can let except for their age. It seems to me quite us know why they have not arrived and when discriminatory. I might allow other members they will arrive. We are told that over two of the Senate to make their comments on this years there will be an increase in expenditure matter, and I would appreciate it if some of $125 million. It is a very common trick of indication could be given in relation to re- the government to make these sorts of state- quest No. 6. ments and claim that that means that every- Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- body wins and that there are no losers. They tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian engaged in what I believe is a dishonest ploy Democrats) (10.01 a.m.)—I can certainly give in relation to child care in this way as well. you an indication in relation to request No. 6, Because the population is growing, there is a Senator Neal. I do not think it is the indica- general upward trend in the social security tion you are after. The Democrats will not be area and in all other payments of benefits. So supporting it, because we find opposition even if the guidelines as to the benefit and the request No. 5, in relation to the age of inde- eligibility remain identical, expenditure in pendence, much more palatable, and you will social security benefits climbs each year. be receiving support from the Democrats in relation to the maximum age being 18. I have asked the minister to provide the figures as to who would access these benefits In fact I am quite surprised. I thought you each year in an attempt to see whether this put forward quite a compelling argument for was another one of their ploys, where they the legal status of adulthood being recognised were using the general increasing trend of a at 18, and for independence being granted and population which increased the total expendi- established at 18. I thought you might even ture to hide the fact that there were losers, withdraw request No. 6 in relation to the age that there were people who lost benefits and of independence for a student, because in fact that there were people under the existing all the arguments and all the logic that you legislation who would have been able to have just applied are equally relevant to access the benefit but will not be able to students. I am at a loss to explain the under these new changes. Minister, I think opposition’s position on this. Thank goodness this is one of those cases. Obviously, if we I do not have to explain it, because I think it leave the legislation as it is, there will be is particularly indefensible as well as illogical. people who, when they reach the age of 18 Senator Neal—I don’t think you know years, would be able to access benefits. But what our position is. I think you should wait if we pass this bill in its present state, there until we have stated it until you make wild will be 18- and 19-year-olds who are unem- statements. ployed, who have no access to benefits or Senator STOTT DESPOJA—I will take whose access to benefits will be reduced that interjection, and I will happily wait and because of the income of their parents. be corrected if the ALP will change the One thing I am a little concerned about is maximum age to 18 in both cases. I look that even though most parents do support forward to it if that is the argument that their children—or attempt to—there is no comes through. But the rationale for the obligation whatsoever on parents to support Democrats opposition to request No. 6 is 456 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 because we believe it should be somewhat take this into account; and I have provided reduced. We do support in principle the others on record in relation to other govern- changes to ensure that the maximum age of ment legislation. the youth allowance is 18 for the unemployed. I cannot leave this debate without noting As I say, we are opposing any move by the that the former government is in many re- government, or the opposition for that matter, spects just as responsible for setting such to enshrine what we consider to be a ridicu- differentiated and illogical standards on the lously out of touch student age of independ- age of independence. Senator Neal said that ence at 25 years. This is going to be covered this debate may have happened when she was in a number of amendments which follow—in in kindergarten, but I am afraid I remember relation to minimum and maximum ages et the debate that took place in the late 1980s cetera. The Australian Greens have a similar and early 1990s, under the Labor government, amendment to the one before us: request No. in relation to the age of independence and in 5, which is in two parts and follows this. We particular the age of independence for a are more inclined to support the Australian student. Many of us were involved in that Greens amendment, rather than No. 6 as debate to ensure that 25 was reduced, ideally, provided by the opposition. to 18—the Democrats have always believed I have stated many times in this chamber— that 18 should be at least the recognised age and I do so for the record again now—our of independence, regardless of the occupation, moral and philosophical as well as our legal career or institution the person is involved in. and economic objection to the rates and the Certainly, we were involved in that debate to ages of independence that are set down in this reduce it to 21. legislation—not only in this legislation and other legislation which has come from the I acknowledge that the former education current government; I put on the record the minister, Mr Baldwin, did eventually reduce Democrats’ opposition to the former the age of independence—incrementally, year government’s concocted and ridiculous ages by year. I note that Senator Neal interjected of independence. I still do not understand— earlier about it being rubbish that this debate and I take on board Senator Harradine’s had happened, but I remember the year-by- comments from yesterday—why there is such year reduction—25 down to 22. But didn’t it a gap, a difference, in legal nominations as to take a long time for that to happen. As soon what the relevant age of independence is— as we finally got to the point where we had whether it is for a young unemployed person perhaps a more relevant definition of an or whether it is for a student. I have put on independent age—I am not suggesting it was record before the arrangements which exist the fairest or most appropriate—but an age at for legislation such as child support, mainte- which people could attain the independent nance and the family tax initiative as opposed rate of student assistance in the form of to when social security and other benefits Austudy, up it shot again under this govern- have kicked in previously and when they will ment. kick in under this legislation. I have seen little progress on this issue over The Democrats find it appalling that a the years and that is why I still believe that, young unemployed person—or someone who ideally, 18 should be the recognised age for is seeking work—is considered independent independence, whether you are a student or at age 21. We find it perhaps even more whether you are young unemployed. That is offensive that 25 is the nominated age for why we will not support request No. 6, and those engaged in full-time study or training. that is why we will continue to push—along We believe this is contrary to community with other people in this place who have norms. We believe it is contrary to even the moved amendments to this effect—for 18 and, government’s own practice. Senator Harradine failing that, 21, to be the recognised age of certainly gave us some examples yesterday in independence for students. Certainly we will relation to the inability of taxation laws to be supporting the amendments before us in Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 457 relation to the maximum age of 18 for young are talking about the question of financial unemployed people. independence. I record my objections to the legislation as Surely today, when young people—as we it stands in relation to this issue. I also very said earlier in this debate—move in and out strongly put on record the frustration and the of education, sickness and unemployment, the anger that a lot of people—be they students, need for a flexible system is demonstrated. young people, political parties or community, But it also demonstrates that, for quite a youth and advocacy groups—have towards prolonged period these days, young people are the previous government, because they could not financially independent. They are not have resolved this issue. This issue could financially independent whether they are have been resolved. I am not suggesting it students or whether they are looking for work. would have been changed or that regressive It is not a question of whether they can sign amendments or legislation would not have contracts or what the criminal law says about been passed by this government. The point is them; it is a straight factual question about that they could have done it. I appreciate their financial independence. We are not Senator Neal making a statement now, but I suggesting that they are less valuable. Senator wish this had been done a lot earlier in law Neal said that we would claim that they are because we still have ridiculous standards and less valuable than older adults. No, on the differentiation among legislation as it relates contrary, they are more in need of help. We to the age of independence in this country. believe that this more flexible way of support- ing young people through the different phases The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- of their move to financial independence is a tor McKiernan)—Before calling Senator recognition of the reality of young people’s Brown, I clarify that the committee is dealing lives. only with request No. 5 at this stage. When my father and his generation left Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.09 school—usually this was at the age of 14— a.m.)—I want to endorse what Senator Stott they went straight into the work force. For Despoja said and point out Australian Greens most Australians over the previous decades, request No. 2, which would bring the maxi- it has been a relatively painless progression mum age for youth allowance back to 18. The from dependency, to leaving school at quite reason for doing this is so that people who are an early age, to financial independence. We 18—whatever they are doing—are regarded all know that that has changed—that there is as adults and have access to the alternative a greater demand for skills, a greater demand benefits that are available. There will be some for people to have more education. In the difference with the Labor Party, apparently, sixties, when I was leaving university and in so far as the maximum age for unemployed looking for work, there was a natural progres- people is concerned, but that will come up sion into jobs. Now that too has changed. later. Senator Stott-Despoja is quite right in Families and the community are faced with what she said, and that is why we will move the issue of protecting and helping young a similar request to this one. adults who have not yet achieved financial Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister independence. for Social Security) (10.10 a.m.)—I found it The youth allowance is very much a natural fascinating—obviously so did Senator Stott progression from the Labor government’s Despoja—listening to Senator Neal criticise move to have young people supported by the government for taking action which is Austudy, with a parental means test up to the very similar to the action taken by her age of 22. Therefore, the arguments that government such a short time ago. Her Senator Neal has been using do not, as far as government was able to justify moving the I am concerned, wash. She said something age for students to 22 on the basis that they like, ‘Families on $23,400 would start to lose were not financially independent. We are not after they have income over that sum.’ talking about the question of adulthood; we Doesn’t she understand that is exactly what 458 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 happens with Austudy now? We are not natory memorandum and that the figures I treating young unemployed people differently gave you yesterday are drawn from that. from the way her government—and now our Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (10.16 government—treated students of the same age a.m.)—Are you saying that they are different? in the same circumstances. Senator Newman—The ones I gave you I want to make clear to Senator Neal that yesterday are the up-to-date figures; the ones we are endeavouring to get the figures that that Senator Carr has in front of him are the she asked for yesterday. They were sought previous explanatory memorandum figures. overnight, but they are not yet ready, Senator Neal. They are not yet available and for that Senator NEAL—Could you explain, I am sorry, but I hope to receive them during Minister, what assumptions have been the course of the morning. As I said yester- changed to make those figures different? day, we need information from other depart- Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister ments—namely, Treasury and DoFA. I ex- for Social Security) (10.17 a.m.)—I will read plained that to you yesterday. We are endeav- to you the explanation for the change which ouring to get the figures for you. I am also is in the corrigendum, rather than try to tell advised—in case this is really the crux of you from my own notes. It says: what you want from those figures, because it The amounts set out in the Financial Impact sounded like it from what you said this Statement when the Bill was introduced were morning—that the increase in numbers, the expressed in 1997 dollar values, based on demographics, in other words, would have a AUSTUDY and Department of Social Security minimal impact on expenditure. So if you customer numbers for 1996. However, since that time, the youth allowance initiative has been were using that as an argument as to why recosted using out-turned dollar values and recent there would be an increase in expenditure in projections of potential youth allowance customer each of the next four years then, as I told you numbers. In addition, extra expenditure will be yesterday, I am afraid that argument does not incurred in 1997-98 converting payments to stu- hold up. dents to a fully retrospective basis ($14 million) and in making a one-off payment in 1998-99 of I have also been advised that the cost of family allowance in respect of young people reducing the age of independence for students attracting more than minimum rate family allow- to 21 years would be $178 million per year, ance as at 18 June 1998 ($0.05 million). and the cost of reducing the age of independ- If you have a copy of the corrigendum you ence for unemployed people to 18 years will see where I have read that from. would be $135 million per year. That is a total of $313 million per annum. Senator CARR (Victoria) (10.18 a.m.)— Minister, you are referring to the figures of Senator CARR (Victoria) (10.15 a.m.)—In financial impact statements for the whole relation to the financial impact of these initiative. How do these compare with the measures, I understand that the minister is particular bill we have before us? How do actually claiming that this is a cost-neutral they compare in that regard? proposal. Is that the case? Senator Newman—Mr Chairman, for the Senator Newman—No. It is an expense. committee’s sake, we will get that ready for Senator CARR—In the explanatory memo- Senator Carr and I will get back to him in a randum, on the effect of the bill, the financial minute with that information. impact is listed on page 1. Could you explain Senator CARR—I appreciate the difficulty, the figures listed on page 1 of the explanatory Minister. I have been watching this issue memorandum in regard to the program sav- carefully and I am concerned about the way ings? in which these questions are being developed Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister without an examination of the financial for Social Security) (10.16 a.m.)—Senator impact of this particular bill and its measures. Carr, I presume that you are not aware of the Senator Newman—They have been avail- fact that there is a corrigendum to the expla- able. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 459

Senator CARR—I accept that they have Senator Carr—It is not included? been available to me, and I note the particular Senator Newman—No. document that you have drawn my attention to. I am concerned that we get these figures Senator CARR (Victoria) (10.23 a.m.)— clear. While those figures are being calculat- When we talk about the changes as a result of ed, I ask: how do these compare with the the government’s introduction of the youth consideration of other budget measures that allowance, we should consider— have already been introduced in regard to Senator Newman—This bill. changes to Austudy and Abstudy over the last Senator CARR—this bill. But we should two years? Do these costings include changes also consider, because they are not included to student assistance that the government has in this bill, measures that the government has already announced? already introduced which will see a reduction Senator Newman—I am advised that they of some half a billion dollars in student would all be included. support measures through income support Senator CARR—If that is the case, then I measures. am troubled by the proposition that the Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister government is suggesting that there are no for Social Security) (10.23 a.m.)—I am afraid savings involved in this particular bill. Per- that you are trying to draw a long bow here haps you could explain that to me again. to get another piece of legislation drawn into Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister a committee stage debate on the youth allow- for Social Security) (10.21 a.m.)—You were ance. It is not relevant; it is not an issue not here yesterday, Senator, when I was before us today; and it does not affect the explaining that, as a budget measure, this is figures that are here, which are genuine and a spend. I listed the next four years of addi- clearly stated. tional expenditure. That does not mean that Senator CARR (Victoria) (10.24 a.m.)— there are no savings in part of it and extra The question arises when we talk about the expenditure in other parts of it. It is a balance impact of these particular measures. I under- of bringing together two programs, giving stand the government has calculated that some people new entitlements who did not have 50,000 people will be worse off financially as them and means testing people who had not a result of the measures undertaken by this been means tested before. government in regard to the common youth Senator CARR (Victoria) (10.22 a.m.)—I allowance. Does that figure of 50,000 people appreciate the point you make but is it the include the 125,000 people who will be case that the savings of $514 million over the affected by the changes to student support outyears have been included in your calcula- measures announced by this government in tions? Five hundred and fourteen million regard to Austudy and Abstudy? dollars is the figure that I get by examining Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister the changes to student assistance already for Social Security) (10.25 a.m.)—I am afraid introduced. Half a billion dollars is a substan- that I am not the minister responsible for tial sum of money, which reduces the support Austudy. I am having a bit of trouble trying for students by a considerable degree. I would to get advice on what it is exactly that you ask a simple proposition: are these savings— are talking about. When you say ‘student assuming assistance of half a billion dollars— financial assistance’, specifically what are you included in the government’s calculations of talking about? the costs of this bill? Senator CARR (Victoria) (10.25 a.m.)— Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister This is the problem that needs to be attended for Social Security) (10.23 a.m.)—If I gave to. What you have here are measures which any cause for you to be misled, I am sorry, will allegedly go towards simplifying pay- but this is expenditure on top of what has ments to young people who otherwise would gone on before. It is taken into account but it have received Austudy or other payments. is not included in these costings. Under this proposal—the so-called amalgama- 460 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 tion of five payments into one—what I am that we are providing for our young people in arguing is that there will be significant im- Australia. How it interrelates with other pacts which are not being considered in the changes that you have made in the legislation explanatory memoranda that are put to the that affect benefits to both students and non- parliament. students is very important. What I am concerned about is that other If you look at it as a total package of government measures in regard to student benefits payable to young people who are support have already had an impact with either in education or unemployed, even 25,000 persons being adversely affected, though you are saying in this particular bit, which is a much more substantial measure this particular bill, expenditure is increasing, than the government has led us to believe to it appears that, if you put all the benefits this point. When you talk about the costs of payable by the government to young people this measure, I think you have to conclude together, this government seems to be making that there are measures already introduced by substantial savings by taking money out of the government which affect the payments the pockets of those young people—who in made to students and as a consequence— most circumstances are living essentially in Senator Newman—Which ones? poverty. Senator CARR—Changes that the govern- To say that it is not relevant is avoiding the ment has made in the cessation of schooling essential point. We are here today to talk incidentals allowance for secondary students; about what is fair support for young people— changes in the reduction to the maximum rent for students and for the unemployed—and it assistance payable to singles in shared accom- is very important that we look at it as a total. modation; changes in the introduction of the When you speak to young people on the two-year waiting period for Austudy for streets, they are not going to say, ‘I am only newly arrived migrants; tightening the actual going to look at the benefits that comes from means test; and raising the age of dependants. the youth allowance bill. Any benefits that How much have government measures already arise from any other piece of legislation, I am introduced, which have raised the age of not interested in.’ They are going to say, independence for Austudy to 25, saved the ‘What I am interested in are what benefits I government? get as a whole.’ It is quite proper and reason- Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister able that you should be able to answer ques- for Social Security) (10.27 a.m.)—No wonder tions in relation to that. you are not prepared to be specific, because Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister they are not relevant to this legislation. They for Social Security) (10.29 a.m.)—If the are matters on which you have had an oppor- opposition think that this is an appropriate tunity to debate before in this parliament. You place to be widening the debate when we are have the information you need. We are now looking at their amendment on this specific debating not whether students should be part of the bill, I presume they would have no means tested to the age of 25, not whether problem with me also widening it to include, there should be a sharers rate for rent assist- for example, the reduction in the unemploy- ance, et cetera—we are debating whether ment rate, the increased participation in the students should be entitled to rent assistance work force and the increased hope that young like young people who are unemployed, people in Australia have now because of the people of the same age and in the same actions of this government. Perhaps they circumstances. That is not relevant to the would also like to take into account the motion before the chair, and you should be reduction in interest rates that has come about pulled into line. because of our better management of the Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (10.27 national economy and the national budget to a.m.)—Minister, I suppose we have to say the extent that the family that is supporting a that it is very relevant. Obviously this youth young person, because of the reduction in the allowance goes to the sort of financial support interest rates on their home loan mortgage, is Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 461 now in a position where they have had an Senator Newman—I have already given effective pay rise of between $90 and $100 a Senator Neal that answer. I do not think she week. I presume you are happy to have that could have listened. included in the record as well. Senator NEAL—I have asked the minister Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (10.30 if she can provide me with those figures and, a.m.)—Minister, if you think mortgage pay- if not, when they are going to be provided ments are relevant to most young people because it is very difficult for us to proceed under the age of 21, you are not in touch with with this debate without them. the real world. Very few young people pay Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister mortgages. for Social Security) (10.33 a.m.)—I am not sure whether Senator McKiernan was in the Senator Newman—Their parents. You are chair at the time, but I answered that in some talking about them. detail about 15 or 20 minutes ago, Senator. Senator NEAL—That is exactly what we Senator Neal—Where are they? are talking about. You seem to misunderstand Senator NEWMAN—I explained why they that we are talking about adults. We are not are not here yet. talking about their parents. Most young Senator Neal—When are they going to be people do not have a mortgage. The govern- here? ment were very quick to claim credit for interest rates, even though they had just been Senator NEWMAN—If I have to go elected, but I would like to see whether they through it all again, I said that the figures are are so quick to grab responsibility for interest being worked on, that they will be brought rates when they start to see them go up again. here as soon as possible. I apologise that they I guess that is a debate we will have then, but are not here yet. We will be trying to get I suspect that their enthusiasm for taking them here during the morning. As I said to responsibility will not be as strong. you yesterday, there are other departments involved and it is taking a little while. I then To go back to the issue at hand, we are went on to explain some other things in really interested in what sorts of benefits are relation to it. payable to young people. I think it is quite Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.34 reasonable to debate that issue here in the a.m.)—I hope the minister will bear with me context of the youth allowance bill. Minister, in going back over some figures she has given I asked you yesterday for a breakdown of the to the committee this morning. Did I hear figures that you provided on this bill. I asked correctly, Minister, when you said that a how many young unemployed people and reduction of the maximum age to 18 for how many people in education you assume unemployed people would cost $178 million would be taking advantage of the youth and for students it would cost $135 million? allowance up to the year 2002 and what assumptions you base that costings on. I have Senator Newman—No, back-to-front. not received that information yet. I would like Senator BROWN—So for unemployed to know if you have it available and, if not, people it would cost $135 million and for when it will be available, because it is very students it would cost $178 million. You did difficult for us to proceed with this debate give the total then of $213 million. I think without those figures available. you meant $313 million in total. Senator Newman—Yes, you are right. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- tor McKiernan)—The question is that the Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.35 request be agreed to. a.m.)—Minister, has consideration been given to the potential for conflict within a family Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (10.33 when this legislation comes through, because a.m.)—I asked a question, Minister. I really the application of the means test on the would like the— parental income results in a drop in the youth 462 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 allowance payable to the young adult, the 19- government and set up pilot programs with St or 20-year-old? Has the government given Vincent De Paul, the Salvation Army and consideration to the possibility of conflict others to work with those who are claiming arising in the event that the young adult may a homelessness payment. That is not yet be blaming his parents for his losing some completed. It will be evaluated when it is money and maybe not making it up? Maybe finished. We are concerned that young people they cannot make it up. Under the proposal are being given money and not the other help here, under the means test, it may well be that that might be needed if they are genuinely they cannot make it up, depending of course homeless. There are now much more vigorous on their commitments—mortgages and this verification procedures than there were when that and the other. I acknowledge what you we came into government to make sure that say about the mortgage because that is a very people who are getting assistance from the important thing. It is understood, I think, to taxpayer on the grounds of homelessness are be brought in and implemented. in fact homeless. Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister I have just been handed more information. for Social Security) (10.36 a.m.)—Yes, we I knew there was something that we were have considered it. The information that I using as a bit of a guide. We have to be wanted for Senator Harradine is not what I assessing what the implications will be, we have got in front of me now, although I can cannot be certain. Parentally means testing give him some statistics that may be a bit of 18- to 20-year-old unemployed young people help. Two-thirds of the unemployed 18- to is not expected to lead to an increase in 20-year-olds will not be affected by the youth homelessness. About two-thirds of the group allowance parental means test either because will not have payments affected at all, as I they are independent or because they come said. The average duration of payment is only from low income, pensioner or beneficiary five months, as I said yesterday. families. The other point I would like to make is that Although young unemployed people in the increase in the age of independence from those circumstances may have their payments 20 to 25 for Austudy last year does not reduced because of the application of the appear to have led to a significant increase in parental means test, the overall financial the overall homeless student population. You position of the family may, in fact, improve. would expect there to be a parallel with what For example, a family that has a student and you might be looking at here with increasing an unemployed child, which is not unusual, the age for the unemployed. In fact, in 1997 both aged over 18 will be better off if the only 485 students aged 22 to 25 received the family income is below $30,700 because the student homeless rate, representing 2.8 per increase in benefit paid to the student is cent of that population for that year. That is greater than the decrease to the benefit paid the best answer I can give you at this time, to the unemployed person. If there were a Senator. second student in the family—two young Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.42 people studying—and one unemployed, that a.m.)—As I understand it, Minister Newman would be even more so. indicated to the committee that $135 million We will be monitoring trends in the home- was the amount of savings. lessness figures, as we do all the time any- way. The eligibility criteria for homelessness, Senator Margetts—She said costs. if that were to occur through family conflict, Senator HARRADINE—I may have which is what you are worried about, will be misunderstood. Could the minister again the same under youth allowance as they mention to the committee what the $135 currently are for Austudy and youth training million was? allowance. There are tight eligibility criteria. Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister You know that we have looked at home- for Social Security) (10.42 a.m.)—The cost of lessness very carefully since we have been in reducing the age of independence of the Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 463 unemployed to 18. If it this amendment out what I was saying last night. What I said passed, it would be $135 million. last night was that the government was in fact Senator Harradine—And with the stu- proposing to transfer the cost of its social dents? security responsibility for young adults from its own budget to parents in these particular Senator NEWMAN—Students to 21 years circumstances, and that goes to the extent of would be $178 million. $135 million. I do believe that it is incumbent Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.43 upon the government in fairness to the fami- a.m.)—Has the government calculated the lies affected if it is going to insist, and as I savings in that particular area? Minister understand it it is going to insist, on this Newman mentioned that there were some particular measure—whatever we do here it savings to the government, but overall it was is going to bat it back to the House of Repre- a net expenditure, an outlay, as a result of this sentatives and bat it back here—to have legislation. Could the minister indicate to the regard to the principle that I was suggesting committee, if she has the figures, the estimat- last night—that is, if it is going to recognise ed savings to the government budget because the transfer of incomes within a family for the of the implementation of the parental means purposes of applying social security legisla- test on youth allowance? tion, then it ought also do so in its taxation Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister legislation by way of rebate. for Social Security) (10.44 a.m.)—Those two I indicated yesterday that there were certain figures taken together are the savings—the measures that should be adopted, and in my cost—the one-off. Yes, the $135 million is the view that ought to be done in the lead-up to figure for you. the budget. That issue should be addressed Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.44 very thoroughly by those people within the a.m.)—I thought the $135 million would have government who are considering the imposi- been the cost to the budget. So $135 million tion of a consumption tax. That is a matter is the savings to the budget; is it? that really greatly concerns me, because a Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister consumption tax treats spending on children for Social Security) (10.44 a.m.)—It is the and these young adults—our future taxpay- cost if this amendment were to go through, ers—as simply consumption expenditure. Yet but it is also the savings. that spending on children is really an invest- ment in human capital and a consumption tax Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.44 would in fact hit families very hard. a.m.)—I am sorry, Senator Harradine, if I am cutting across your line of inquiry, but does I know that that is not, as the minister said the minister also have a figure for the ‘cost’ yesterday, part and parcel of this particular of reducing the student age to 18 rather than legislation, but it is a relevant consideration. 21? It is a matter to which the government should give thorough consideration in the first in- Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister stance in the lead-up to the budget and in the for Social Security) (10.45 a.m.)—No, we second instance in its considerations of have not, Senator. I would have thought that general taxation policy. Bear in mind, the cost of $178 million in reducing it to 21 Minister—and I do ask you to bear this in was shock enough. mind—that it is not only the rich parents that Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.45 you are talking about but also parents on a.m.)—Yes, I am shocked by it. I wonder if $23,400. So, really, that is $450 a week. the minister could get that figure for reducing it to 18 for me, please. You could have a situation, for example, where that is the income of a one income Senator Newman—We will do our best, family where the spouse decides—because of yes. circumstances within the family or because of Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.45 extraordinary circumstances that may occur a.m.)—Here we have a situation which bears from time to time—to go out to work. Say, 464 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 for example, that spouse earns $100 a week families as soon as we came into government part time. The effect of that $100 a week and of honouring that commitment. earning on the youth allowance of $87 a week The Prime Minister (Mr Howard), you will is going to be $10. So the youth allowance recall, in announcing Senator Gibson to chair will be reduced by $10. I could use the a special government members task force on fortnightly figures, but I work better with taxation, listed the principles under which our weekly figures. tax reform process was going to be based. He Because of the operation of the $1 drop for said that those making public submissions every $4, if I am correct a person who, say, should bear in mind the government’s view earns $80—actually, it is $10 in $40. It is that, firstly, there should be no increase in the more, isn’t it? If you lose $1 for every $4, it overall tax burden; secondly, any new tax- is $10 in $40; for $80 it is $20. So it is not ation system should involve major reductions insignificant that, if the spouse goes into part- in personal income tax with special regard for time work for $80 a week, it is $20 a week the taxation treatment of families; thirdly, that the youth allowance comes down. That consideration should be given to a broad is not insignificant. What I am saying to the based indirect tax to replace some or all of government is that it really does have to have the existing indirect taxes; fourthly, there a thorough look at this in order to compensate should be appropriate compensation for those the families concerned and to acknowledge deserving of special consideration; and, the proper principles of taxation. fifthly, the reform of the Commonwealth-state financial relations must be addressed. You Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister would know that Senator Gibson has been for Social Security) (10.52 a.m.)—I first of all very busy over recent months chairing that thank Senator Harradine for his recognition of task force. Increasingly, organisations in the the importance and the impact of those community are adding their voices to, firstly, interest rate reductions on families’ mort- the need for taxation reform so that we have gages, because when we are focusing here on a tax system that is appropriate for modern families’ disposable income and their ability Australia and, secondly, what form that to support, educate and feed their children, an should take, and people do have different effective pay rise of $90 to $100 a week is views. certainly nothing to be sneezed at and is important to factor into our consideration. I You should be reassured that the Common- thank him for acknowledging that. I share his wealth is committed to any new taxation concern about the problems of families who system involving major reductions in personal are trying to raise families today, especially income tax with special regard to the tax when the expectation is that they will need treatment of families. I cannot say more than more education than their parents or their that at this stage because decisions have not grandparents did. In other words, they will been made on the fine print of the tax reform, remain financially dependent for longer than as you would realise. It is certainly something previous generations, so it is much more of an I would direct your attention to when we are issue for the parents of today than it was for considering this responsibility which the the parents in the past. youth allowance will place on families. It I said yesterday that we recognised as soon already places it on those very same families as we came into government the costs of if they have students in the family. rearing children, and we did that by imple- Senator Harradine, when you were speaking menting our election commitment of the just now, you were looking at the extra family tax initiative, which was a billion impact on families if they have a young dollars worth of extra money going into the unemployed between 18 and 20, but I do urge pockets of Australian families with children. you to think about the fact that the typical That is not where we intend to end. We do family is likely to have students as well as have more work to do in tax reform, but that unemployed in the family. Therefore, within was a recognition of the urgency of helping that family, there is a transfer of payments so, Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 465 even though they might lose some through the families will not be worse off and some means testing for the young unemployed of them will be better off. That implies, does person, the swings and roundabouts mean that it not, that a third of those families with the benefits that accrue to the student make young unemployed adults will not be better the family at least as well-off if not better off off. Presumably, they will be the same or than they were to begin with. worse off. One thing that has not been mentioned in The point that I am making is that it really this debate is the increase in benefits for those is incumbent upon the government to consider under 18. Students under 18 will have an this not only at the stage of their consider- increase in the rate if they are away from ation of the future tax regime but also in the home. It is the away from home rate for under context of the forthcoming budget. I know 18s. For many country people or people in that you are the Minister for Social Security, regional Australia, at the age of 16 to 18, they Senator Newman, and not the Treasurer, but may have to be sent away so there may be an I would be obliged if you would refer my increase in the assistance to those families. concerns to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) And those families will be a mix. They might in that regard. have their under 18s going on to a matricula- tion college, while one young person is Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister looking for work and another young person is for Social Security) (11.00 a.m.)—I would be at TAFE or university. happy to do that. So it is very hard to just sit here and say Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (11.00 that all parents will be disadvantaged because a.m.)—The debate that we have had and the they are now going to be parentally means information provided by the minister, if tested if they have an 18 to 20 year old anything, have confirmed in my mind the unemployed. They are already parentally concerns that the opposition had. That is, means tested for those under 18s and some there was a transfer from the governments and would find they have more income coming in those people who were previously treated as as a result of that. They are already parentally adults and entitled to some sort of support if means tested for students up to the age of 25, they are unemployed are no longer able to so the change in terms of the parental means access it. test is for the 18 to 20 year old unemployed The minister gave it away when she said where there may be a mixture of children in that the change proposed by me as a re- the family in different circumstances. It is a quest—that is, the reduction of the age of little complex to make claims about what will independence of the unemployed to 18— happen to any group of families. It is easier would cost $135 million. It has been con- when you get a particular family and you can firmed that the reverse is also true. If this talk about the specifics. You can be assured measure is not amended, $135 million will be that we are intending to address the issue of taken out of the pockets of unemployed family taxation very carefully. Beyond that, people between the ages of 18 and 21. They I cannot say more today. are both reflections of the same picture, but Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.58 they mean very different things to the govern- a.m.)—One of the reasons I asked the ques- ment than they do to the particular individual tion was as a result of the information given who is affected. by the minister to the committee that there will be a saving to the government budget of In relation to this request, I would continue $135 million as a result of the means test— to press it. I feel that all the information the minister provided indicates that, if this is not Senator Newman—And a redistribution. moved, those young people who are unem- Senator HARRADINE—and the increase ployed will certainly be the losers, and many of the age to 21 years. Obviously, that tab is families starting at an income figure of going to be picked up by some of the fami- $23,400 will also be the losers. I do not think lies. I think you mentioned that two-thirds of by any stretch of the imagination that those 466 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 people are well off, and I certainly would not Senator NEAL (New South Wales)(11.12 like to see that occur. a.m.)—The opposition is withdrawing request No. 6. I want to say a few words about this Question put: because, from some comments made from the That the request (Senator Neal’s) be agreed to. crossbenches, there seems to be some misunderstanding. The intention of request 6 The committee divided. [11.07 a.m.] was only ever to rectify a technical error that we saw in the bill which related to making (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) sure that there was a maximum age for every Ayes ...... 34 possible type of person. Noes ...... 34 —— We have brought that to the attention of the Majority ...... government and they now seem to have —— recognised the problem and fixed it. They had AYES a maximum age for everyone except people Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. who are undertaking full-time study in a Bishop, M. Bolkus, N. course of less than 12 months and who are Bourne, V. Brown, B. not receiving newstart allowance. That was Campbell, G. Collins, J. M. A. the intention of that request. It certainly was Conroy, S. * Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A. not to determine the age of independence. The Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P. age of independence is obviously determined Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. at section 1067A of the bill and not in this Hogg, J. Lees, M. H. section that we are presently dealing with. I Lundy, K. Mackay, S. wanted to put that on the record because there Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. seemed to be some misunderstanding that Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K. arose from the format of that request. We will Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. not be proceeding with it. Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.14 Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N. a.m.)—I am having discussions with Senator West, S. M. Woodley, J. Margetts from the Greens (WA) and Senator NOES Stott Despoja. I think it might be a better way Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D. for the committee to proceed—if the commit- Brownhill, D. G. C. Campbell, I. G. tee agrees—if my amendment were held over Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A. Coonan, H. Crane, W. until we deal with the schedule 2, item 8 Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. amendments. Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B. tor Calvert)—You can bring it on later. Herron, J. Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R. Senator CARR (Victoria) (11.15 a.m.)— Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. There appears to be some confusion about the McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. effect of these changes. I understand that Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. * Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. there is an attempt being made to secure Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. further liaison about the implications of these Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J. particular measures. I ask the government Tierney, J. Troeth, J. whether it would be prepared to review this Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. whole issue of the age of independence. It is PAIRS quite clear from what we have heard today Bolkus, N. Calvert, P. H. and yesterday that this question of increasing Carr, K. Heffernan, W. the age of independence for students will Collins, R. L. Macdonald, I. have a very harsh effect on individual stu- Denman, K. J. Alston, R. K. R. dents. It will have a very serious impact upon * denotes teller families, who will be required to provide fin- Question so resolved in the negative. ancial support for those who have been regar- Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 467 ded in the very recent past as adult children. Senator Carr—Mr Temporary Chairman, Minister, I ask you directly: will the govern- on a point of order: that is an extraordinary ment withdraw these matters to allow some proposition by the minister. I am very inter- time to consider the implications of these ested. I am disturbed by the callous disregard particular measures? this minister has for working people in this Senator Newman—The answer to that is country. It is an appalling measure. She no. cannot dismiss it in this cavalier way. To suggest that we are not interested in this Senator CARR—I am very disappointed, proposition is a gross distortion of the facts. Minister. It strikes me that there is a need for the chamber to review this issue of the impli- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There cations of forcing families to carry the addi- is no point of order. tional financial burden of supporting adult Senator NEWMAN—I know he is having children while they are undertaking study. a lot of fun, Mr Temporary Chairman, but we The government, until recently, has provided have had a committee stage in which this support to families to undertake that matter. issue has been thoroughly canvassed. Before It has withdrawn that support in the education that, there was committee consideration last area in terms of changes to Austudy and year. We have had the bill for five months. various other student support measures, to the We have had consultations with the com- effect that 125,000 students are actually worse munity. It came about as a result of requests off. from community organisations to your There has been a withdrawal of half a government which you ignored; you would billion dollars of support for students as a not take any action. When there was a new result of actions taken by this government. In government, they came to us, saying, ‘Please this particular measure, we see that program do it. We’ve got to do better.’ I have told this now extended so that some 50,000 additional to the chamber, Senator Carr, when, obvious- people will be worse off. This is particularly ly, you have not been here, because I am sure serious for families with adult children who you would have listened. are undertaking study. As already indicated, As you are not aware of it, there has been I have urged the government to review this an enormous amount of consultation—an measure—to withdraw it and to give the enormous amount of time for the impacts to matter further consideration. be studied. I think that it is a bit late in the Mr Temporary Chairman, these issues day for you to try to produce delaying tactics should be considered in regard to section when the matter has been very thoroughly 1067A(4) where there is a reference to the canvassed. age of independence. I move: Many parents around Australia believe this Schedule 2, Item 8, page 125 (line 26), at the is a very important measure. If you live in end of subsection (4), add "This age will be regional Australia or have any aspirations to progressively reduced over time.". live in regional Australia, you will have a Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister better understanding of why it is badly need- for Social Security) (11.19 a.m.)—Senator ed. We are not taking money off young Carr has not been here for the full debate; unemployed people; we are benefiting fami- Senator Neal has carriage of this matter for lies who have a mixture of unemployed the opposition. I have already put on the people and students—and that is the typical public record in this place that there has been Australian family. an enormous amount of time for the consider- ation of this legislation and for the principles The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— behind it, in that the broad principles were Senator Carr, do you wish to press ahead with announced in the 1996 budget. Senator Carr that amendment which I understand is mean- does not appear to be very interested in my ingless, but nevertheless— answer. I would be very happy if you would Senator CARR (Victoria) (11.21 a.m.)— listen, Senator. That is a gratuitous remark, Mr Temporary 468 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Chairman. I wish to press ahead with the phone calls and letters, and we were receiving amendment. You might be of the view that it those sorts of representations for a number of is meaningless—I am not of that view. I think months. it is quite apparent that there is a need to Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) reduce the age of independence for adults (11.24 a.m.)—If I am reading the minister undertaking study. I will press ahead with it correctly, what the minister is saying is that and I reject your view that it is a meaningless no studies have been done by her department concept. which she can actually table, which are Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- repeatable or have any statistical basis, on the tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian impact of these changes on families with Democrats) (11.22 a.m.)—Mr Temporary young unemployed people. Chairman, I am probably going to ask the Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister same thing that Senator Margetts wishes to for Social Security) (11.25 a.m.)—The work ask: will you clarify which amendment we are that has been done by my department has not being asked to consider at the moment? Is it gone to customer surveys, but it has gone to an amendment moved by Senator Carr? ABS data and to our own customer data. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) tor Calvert)—For your information, it is an (11.25 a.m.)—I thank the minister. Perhaps amendment that is not on the sheet. It has just she might give us the ABS data which has been moved by Senator Carr and we are in been used in their predictions on the impact the process of getting a copy for everybody. of these changes on families. Of course, Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) existing ABS data puts people in specific (11.22 a.m.)—If I may be helpful in the categories. So that does not tell us what the meantime, Senator Newman has just indicated impact will be on families—not just the dollar that there has been lots of time, lots of very impact, but the likely impact on the extra careful consideration and lots and lots of stresses on families of young unemployed community consultation. So I wonder whether people. Quite frankly, what has been coming Senator Newman can table the outcome of out from both what Senator Harradine has any studies her department may have done on been asking and from questions from the rest the impact of these changes on families with of the Senate is that you are clearly admitting young unemployed people. that there are at least one-third of families Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister with young unemployed people who, at the for Social Security) (11.23 a.m.)—I cannot very least, will not only be worse off but may produce such a piece of research for you also be worse off in real terms. today, Senator, but I can say that I and my The statistic that was admitted last night is officials have spent a very great deal of time that those, for instance, on a total family going around Australia—not just sitting in income of $26,000 may be about $120 a Canberra—talking to organisations like the fortnight worse off. If people are trying to Smith Family and talking to parents who have cover mortgages and do the other things that concerns that their children were taking families do, then I would expect that most unemployment payments in an attempt to be families do not have—even on an income of ‘independent’ in lieu of continuing of studies $36,000—a slush fund where they could find because of the level of income that they could $121 a fortnight because they are usually get from Austudy. That is my research, and budgeting close to the limits of their income. I spent all the first year that we were in Have there been no social impact assess- government doing that in small towns, in big ments, no statistical studies of that one-third towns and in cities around Australia. of families who are likely to be worse off My officials have met with people too. because of unemployment of young people? When we opened the consultation process In effect, Minister, are you blaming not only after it was announced in the budget in young unemployed people but blaming the August 1996, Senator Vanstone and I had families of young unemployed people for Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 469 their young people being unemployed? It is a either 18 or 21 years. Our amendments deal whole new way of looking at scapegoatism with those particular alternatives. I would for young unemployed people. much prefer to deal with this under schedule Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister 2 where most of the other amendments to this for Social Security) (11.27 a.m.)—We are not age of independence are being dealt with. blaming anybody for anything, and that is a Now that the amendment has thankfully been cheap shot too. The statistics that have been circulated, perhaps we can progress to the used by my department in analysing the next amendment before us which I believe is impact on the customer population have been from the opposition. largely drawing on the household income and The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- the household composition of families. That tor Calvert)—We have to dispose of this is why I keep emphasising to you, Senator, amendment moved by the Labor Party so, if that families in Australia are rarely have one that was your wish Senator Stott-Despoja, we unemployed young person. They are a would have to have a motion postponing this mixture of young people at various ages and particular amendment to wherever you sug- stages of life and stages of financial inde- gest. I do not know whether the Labor Party pendence or dependence. Consequently, what are happy with that or not. might be a reduction to the family income for Senator Carr—We are happy to postpone one of their children could well mean an it. increase in payment to that same family for the other one or two of their children, or more Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: of course. That consideration of the amendment be postponed. As I said the other day, for country families Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (11.31 who have more than one child to educate, it a.m.)—by leave—I move: is a terrible dilemma as to how they share the (3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 29 (line 25), omit dollars available from that family income to "notice of", substitute "a notice in writing of". allow all their children to have the benefits that they want for them. This will make an (4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 29 (line 28), at the important difference. So while you may focus end of subsection (4), add: on some bit of the package that you do not ; and (c) the effect of failure by the person to like, I say to you that parents see it as being comply with the requirement set out beneficial across-the-board to them as a in the notice. family unit because the level of support for (5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 97 (line 20), at the students has not been adequate. end of subsection (3), add: Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- ; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the person to comply with the require- tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian ment set out in the notice. Democrats) (11.29 a.m.)—I am now in a position to view the Labor amendment moved (6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 99 (line 21), at the by Senator Carr. I want to suggest to the end of subsection (2), add: Senate that this amendment would be more ; and (f) must state the effect of failure by the appropriately dealt with in schedule 2 where person to comply with the require- it would, I believe, be more appropriately ment set out in the notice. debated in conjunction with the Greens (WA) These are the other half of the amendments and Democrat amendments that also make which relate to proper notification provi- changes to this particular section 1067A. sions—the requirement that the notification be As I understand, the effect of this amend- given in writing and that the consequence of ment is to reduce 25 as the age of independ- non-compliance be advised. We have had this ence progressively over time. I believe that debate at length, and I think they are accept- the Democrat and similar Greens amendments able to the government and supported by all suggest that, instead of having a cop-out of the other parties. progressively over time, you put in the age of Amendments agreed to. 470 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- We have to be reasonably careful to make tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian sure—when we are talking about such critical Democrats) (11.32 a.m.)—I move: issues as how people survive and eat—that (14) Schedule 1, item 6, page 29 (line 27), after they are able to actually meet their technical "times", insert ", being places and times commitments and that we do not have the which are reasonable in all the circum- minister coming in and boasting how many stances,". people she has thrown off youth allowance The amendment moved in my name on behalf this month based on the fact that there may be of the Democrats relates to the youth allow- people setting unreasonable times for inter- ance activity agreements. The amendment is views et cetera, and it is not technically designed so that there is an inclusion about possible to meet them. So I think it is very reasonableness when the secretary is giving reasonable to suggest that there should be notice to a person about places and times at some humanity built into the system, which which the youth allowance activity agreement allows people to abide by the conditions set is to be negotiated. We have moved this for them. amendment in response to those cases where Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister a person is required, say, to attend two inter- for Social Security) (11.35 a.m.)—This is views at the same time in different places or similar to an amendment which was proposed at a place which a person has no ability to get earlier. Senator Stott Despoja does assume to. I raised examples of this previously in the that people can be made to take unreasonable debate. steps to comply with requests. I did point out earlier to you that administrative law princi- Examples have been given to us from ples insist that requests and decisions be various centres—such as Welfare Rights—of defensible. The department and Centrelink when young people have been able to attend would not be in a position to deny that at all. interviews at the Centrelink to which they So I think this amendment adds an unneces- have access only by public transport but have sary and ineffective addition to a provision then been required, for whatever reason, to that is clearly meant to be beneficially inter- attend one which may be even geographically preted. The requirement in this case is for the closer but is not necessarily easily accessible secretary to let the person know when and to them. I can think of a range of physical or where they are to attend to enter an agree- other possibilities that may make travel ment. I do not think it needs any further difficult. We believe this amendment quite expansion. simply puts in a test of reasonableness and alleviates that problem. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) (11.36 a.m.)—I think we must be totally Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) imagining the increasing number of people (11.33 a.m.)—The amendment that Senator who are ending up in the Social Security Stott-Despoja has moved is certainly reason- Appeals Tribunal these days. It must be able. The irony is that we talking about how totally our imagination that an increasing we can cut students down to the bone. We number of people are ending up with the will be dealing with an amendment later Ombudsman— about how the government is trying to reduce liquid assets in conjunction with the youth Senator Newman—It is. allowance to $2,500. So basically the ability Senator MARGETTS—Oh yes, we are to do things like fixing up a car and so on, if imagining it, sorry. you had a car, might be very limited. It is not reasonable to suggest that there might be a Senator Stott Despoja—Table the figures. technical requirement to attend an interview Senator MARGETTS—Yes, please table at a time which you could attend only by the figures. Basically, whether something is automobile if there is no indication that any defensible or reasonable might end up having of these allowances would provide for people to be argued later on in some kind of appeals to run their own car. tribunal—for those people who know how to Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 471 go about appealing a decision which might be always. This is an attempt to try to ensure unreasonable. I do not think ‘Leave it with us. that it will be most usually done in a reason- Trust us. We are the government’ is a good able way. I point out very clearly that, in the way to think about it on this occasion. At the legislation, in the black-letter law, that is outset, we have to decide whether we are required. going to be fair in the way things are being Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- addressed. Remember that yesterday the tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian minister said this is not a punitive legislation. Democrats) (11.39 a.m.)—I will respond It is punitive if the non-attendance at some briefly to the minister’s comments. I do not required interview ends up with a person think that it detracts in any way or makes any losing their benefit. It is punitive if you have unfair implications or inferences to simply nothing to live on. add what I think are quite tame and reason- Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister able words. If we look at the secretary’s for Social Security) (11.37 a.m.)—I would obligations in relation to ‘notice of require- like to answer that. I would not want you to ment’, we see that he or she has to state the misunderstand what I said to you across the places and times at which the agreement is to chamber, Senator. I was not commenting on be negotiated. I think to add to that or to add Ombudsman’s figures, because I cannot specifically after ‘time’ the words ‘being remember them. But I do know that over the places and times which are reasonable in all last many months the number of appeals to circumstances’, only value adds to this par- the Social Security Appeals Tribunal has ticular section of the bill. I did not put it in diminished quite significantly. I put that down there because I want to be sneaky or to to a focus on much better decision making suggest that the government has nasty inten- within Centrelink and a better review process tions. I do think it is quite a fair addition. I within Centrelink. That is, after all, more think it is probably in line with a number of humane and more beneficial to our customers other amendments that we have looked at in than having to wait to get to a tribunal to get the chamber—be they in relation to notifica- redress. If you are claiming that there are tion in writing, having to outline the effects increased numbers of people going to the of non-compliance or be they even the 14-day Ombudsman or to the tribunal, first of all, you period that we nominated. I think it is just are wrong about the tribunal. But, if that were one of those value additions that also adds to the case, that would suggest that there is not the reasonableness and the fairness of the bill. a problem with people having an opportunity That is what we are all hoping to achieve. to get redress if something is wrongly done. Amendment agreed to. You cannot have it both ways. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (11.38 (11.41 a.m.)—I move: a.m.)—The opposition will be supporting this That the House of Representatives be requested amendment. I understand that we all hope that to make the following amendment: decisions are made beneficially, but unfortu- (9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 47 (after line 8), after nately there often are disputes about the way subsection (2), insert: provisions are applied. When there is a Exception—full-time students dispute, the employees of Social Security (2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person often will fall back to the absolute, strict, who is, or who is about to become, a full- black-letter provisions in front of them. I time student. suppose that is reasonable for someone in that This amendment exempts full-time students position if there is uncertainty. In that situa- from the onerous liquid asset test requirement, tion, I think it is quite fair and reasonable to and it also exempts students from the liquid state very clearly that requirements must be assets test waiting period. Students often save applied in a reasonable way and to re-emphas- considerable sums of money in order to pay ise that point—a point that we would hope is for rent, books, computers, fees, transport, and already occurring, but unfortunately does not to top up the miserable amount of money a 472 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 person receives on Austudy or youth allow- would be handy for senators to have some ance. It would be unfair for a student to be pieces of information. By way of introduction, penalised for up to 13 weeks for being re- the liquid assets test waiting period applies to sponsible enough to save money for their other DSS allowances and ensures that people education. There are already income tests. use their own resources before turning to There is already a number of other means by income support. However, it should be under- which a person’s income is taken into con- stood that it only applies at the time of a sideration in relation to Austudy and youth claim and, therefore, if a person comes on to allowance. I believe that it is not reasonable youth allowance and then, in the main study to impose this on a full-time student. We are break for example, acquires some more liquid looking at something as mean and miserable assets, they do not face a subsequent liquid as setting the liquid assets test for a full-time assets test waiting period. That is the first student at $2,500, and for every $500 over thing that I want to make sure people under- that there will be another week’s waiting stand. period, up to a total of 13 weeks. The application of the test to all youth The reality is that the average cost of, for allowees provides fair and consistent treat- instance, a motor going in an automobile—if ment of all young people. We have tried to do it is necessary for a student to try to run a that as much as we possibly can with this, car—can be close to amount. Any other major although the income bank for students is a problems with health, transport or even special entitlement for students. Senator accommodation may cost close to that. The Margetts, I particularly want to emphasise that legislation is trying to make people of all the consequential bill contains changes to the categories, including full-time students, as liquid assets definitions which recognise the vulnerable as possible. Basically, it means considerable costs of education. that, at the secretary’s whim, at the wave of Concessions are made so that students can a wand, a person’s means of living can be deduct amounts for immediate educational given, taken away or reduced at any particular expenses or one-off payments—for example, time. The minister has strenuously resisted HECS debts—from the assessable amount of clarifying the guidelines. liquid assets. Examples of that could be— We have a situation where the liquid assets although this is not a complete list—fees, test for full-time students is set at $2,500. For HECS, union fees, textbooks, which you some courses, this amount could be spent on mentioned, tools and equipment where that is books. For other courses, it could be spent on relevant for study or training, and field trips. other means of getting around. What do you I am trying to give you the flavour of the get for $2,500 if you are looking for a reliable sorts of payments that could be deducted from means of transport? I really think this is not your liquid assets before the liquid assets test, a fair amount to set it at. Perhaps if the as it applies to everybody else, would affect government had set it at something like you as a student. $50,000 or less it might actually have been Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) realistic. I am suggesting that to set a liquid (11.47 a.m.)—We are going on a bill that assets test and to say that a person will lose obviously has not arrived— their means of support if they have anything Senator Newman—That’s the definition. more in the bank than $2,500—so that they have to run it down until they have no more Senator MARGETTS—Yes. We are than $2,500—is unrealistic for the needs of dealing with a bill which we were asking to full-time students. We are asking for full-time have dealt with together with this one. Cer- students to be exempted. tainly, the Greens (WA) were asking that we did not deal with this bill without dealing Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister with the other bill at the same time, but we for Social Security) (11.45 a.m.)—It might be are now being asked to deal with this bill as helpful if I answered Senator Margetts’s it is so far. You are also asking us to deal question at this stage, because obviously it with a bill that has probably got a lot of Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 473 nasties in it and which may not get immediate what we will end up with in this country: the support. It may have a lot of other things worthy and the unworthy poor, soup kitchens, which may be very contentions and which and people who have to run their assets down may hang around in the ether for a consider- to almost zero, and then, at the whim of the able amount of time. secretary, some bureaucrat or the minister, What the minister says is correct: it might find out whether or not they can continue to be possible for someone to try to raise some live. I do not think that is a good way to look money subsequently in the holidays and so at things. on. However, the present situation is that it is If the starting figure were more reasonable, going to be extremely difficult for someone I am sure the Greens (WA) would look at it, at the outset to survive if they are required to but $2,500 as a total amount of assets in the reduce their liquid assets to such a small bank is not a sovereign’s ransom. I do not figure. For many people, $2,500 does not believe it is a reasonable amount to reduce to seem to be a small figure, but it is when you cut back the waiting period for assistance for look at the cost of education. full-time students. The consequential bill does not exist yet Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.50 and it is likely to be very contentious, so we a.m.)—The subdivision relating to the liquid do not know what the outcome will be. There assets test waiting period is obviously putting might be some nicer bits in this bill—and we in a waiting period for the youth allowance. understand that there can be—but there are Minister, could you clarify what the current also some bits which I think many people are situation is with liquid assets tests for other going to find very contentious. To suggest social security payments in terms of consis- that it will be okay because something that tency across the act, particularly whether there comes in a bill subsequently might make this is any difference between what is being a little bit better is, I think, playing games proposed here and what currently exists for with the lives of students. other social security recipients? I urge the Senate to support this amend- ment. If the minister comes up with a better Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister definition of liquid assets at a later time then for Social Security) (11.51 a.m.)—The clear- we could reconsider inserting this, but at this est thing is to reiterate that the liquid assets stage I do not think that is good enough. Over waiting period which applies to Department time, this government is saying to people on of Social Security allowances means that various kinds of social security that they have people claiming income support may have to to run down either their savings or their wait before they can be paid if they have superannuation to a very low amount, despite access to readily available liquid assets. The what they have done and what they have put liquid assets test for the youth allowance is aside over the years. I do not think that is a the same as is available to all other allowan- good principle. ces under the Social Security Act. We want to maintain that consistency. It is certainly not a principle that the Greens (WA) have supported over time. The fact that However, as I said in my answer to Senator your government is doing this in a number of Margetts, we do recognise that the special other areas does no make it right—61 wrongs needs of students in terms of such things as do not make a right, or whatever the number HECS payments, union fees or textbooks are of occasions may be on which you are doing essentially what they have accumulated liquid this to people and making them as dependent assets to meet, and they will be allowed for as possible. To me, it sounds very similar to in the consequential amendments bill which the way people thought about themselves in all parties received last week. This legislation the Great Depression when, basically, people will not be implemented until the consequen- had to prove that they were totally miserable tial bill is also passed. So the chamber will and totally bereft of any support before they have not only my word for it but also the could go to the soup kitchens. Maybe that is legislation in front of them to see the fine 474 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 print of the definition which I was just de- (WA) did not agree with those kinds of scribing. proposals being put into social security in that Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (11.52 way because I believe it is once again blam- a.m.)—The opposition will not be supporting ing unemployed people for being unemployed this amendment. As you are aware, we have or for being pensioners. But the amount of raised some grave concerns in many debates penalty is in no way whatsoever commensu- on the liquid assets test and various amend- rate with any income that can be gained with ments have been moved in the past. But it is an extra $500 available as interest. It really very difficult for us to justify the non- says that you have to spend this money and application of this particular test to students then, later on, it will kick in once you have when it is being applied to everybody else. spent that amount of money. It is like a fine. You will get a fine of the weekly youth Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- allowance until you have spent the money. tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian When, in fact, the income from that amount Democrats) (11.53 a.m.)—The Democrats will in the bank does not in any way whatsoever be supporting the Greens (WA) amendment. equate to the amount of fine that is being We are very concerned about the possibility imposed. of students running down their own savings before they commence study. I acknowledge Request not agreed to. the minister’s comments on the consequential Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- bill but, in the meantime, I believe that this is tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian a much more appropriate exemption in rela- Democrats) (11.56 a.m.)—Madam Temporary tion to full-time students. Chairman, if I may make a suggestion: given We are very concerned that the only liquid the nature of my amendments in relation to assets that many students have include that the newly arrived resident’s waiting period, money and those assets that they have saved they may be better dealt with after the Greens for the very purposes of their education— (WA) amendment. I understand the Greens whether it is up-front or full-cost fees at (WA) amendment seeks to delete entirely the TAFE or uni, HECS payments or incidentals common youth allowance being subject to such as equipment, books and other study that waiting period, whereas mine are a series materials. We are hoping that if people are of ambit and fall-back claims. Is that accept- truly and honestly wealthy, then they will be able to the chamber? subject to other appropriate means and in- Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) come tax arrangements. But we are not (11.57 a.m.)—I would be happy to move my particularly happy with the bill as it stands in amendment No. 10 first if the rest of the this regard and, for that reason, we will be chamber concurs. That, obviously, is our supporting the Greens’ amendment. preferred position. The indications from the Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Australian Democrats are that removing that (11.54 a.m.)—I was just looking at the figures provision is their preferred position. If the for every $500 over $2,500. For instance, if chamber concurs, I would be happy to put a person has liquid assets of $3,000 and let us Greens (WA) amendment before the just say, generously, that the interest rates on Democrats’ amendment. $3,000 were five per cent, that works out to Senator Neal—Just to clarify: are you be about $150 a year, and $150 a year divid- moving No. 10 by itself or Nos 8 and 10? ed by 52 weeks does not work out a lot on a weekly basis. The amount of money that is Senator MARGETTS—Sorry. Yes, I going to be deducted from a full-time student would be seeking leave to move Greens (WA) is not commensurate with anything like any amendments Nos 8 and 10 together. income that would be earned from that extra Leave granted. $500. Senator MARGETTS—I move: I understand what is being said about the That the house of Representatives be requested social security payments. As I say, the Greens to make the following amendments: Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 475

(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 46 (lines 7 and 8), mon youth allowance. We still find this omit paragraph 549(b). particular measure a distasteful one. (10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 49 (line 10) to We know now of many examples of not page 50 (line 18), omit sections 549D to only young people but newly arrived migrants 549F. who have become homeless, who have had I thank Senator Stott Despoja for that sugges- difficulties in sheltering themselves and their tion. There will be another amendment com- families, who have had difficulties feeding ing up later, which will be Greens (WA) themselves, who have been unable to attend amendment No. 32. the AMEP language classes they have paid As indicated, these amendments simply for because they might not be able to afford delete that area, thereby removing the newly travel, or who have accepted exploitative arrived resident’s waiting period for benefits. work out of desperation. These examples go There are many other checks and balances on and on. They have been made available to within this legislation, so I think it is already a number of senators and members in this built in. It does not mean that people will be place from various community and welfare getting unfair amounts of money; it means and advocacy groups. So the government’s that it is not fair to make things more difficult impact, although it has not been examined for the families who have young people that either before this legislation was introduced are in education. when the coalition came into office, or since, has been extraordinarily negative from the We are saying that, although people can reports from people on the ground, the people pay tax when they arrive in Australia and who actually know and the people who care. although people can have all the responsibili- The Democrats do support the Greens (WA) ties as soon as they arrive in Australia, any- position. That is our preferred position, and body young who happens to be in a migrant has been for almost two years now. We do family and who arrives will be penalised. I do have other amendments that we will seek to think that is unfortunate, considering that we move in relation to not only the inclusion of have no problem about taking tax from newly the common youth allowance in relation to arrived residents. This has been a consistent this waiting period, but also the retrospec- approach from both the Greens and the tivity. I recall, when we had this debate back Democrats, and I would seek support from the in 1996, that one of the biggest issues with chamber. the introduction of the waiting period was, in Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- fact, its retrospective elements. tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian So we will seek to get rid of, or at least Democrats) (11.59 a.m.)—The Democrat alleviate as much as possible, the retrospec- position on the original bill back in 1996 was tive nature of this waiting period, in particular quite clear. We found the introduction of the in this legislation. I would have thought it two-year waiting period for newly arrived was something that a coalition government residents quite abhorrent. At that time we would find equally abhorrent because I moved a series of amendments which, origi- remember when they were in opposition that nally, were successful with the support of they were quite keen to delete any references Senator Harradine and the Independents. to, or instances of, retrospectivity in law. Of We sought to delete a number of benefits course, it is a different matter when they get and payments from being subject to that into office. waiting period because we found it quite a So we support as a preferred position the regressive and a punitive measure. It hit Greens (WA) requests Nos 8 and 10. If that hardest at some of the most traditionally is not successful—and the measure of support disadvantaged, some of the most powerless in that the introduction of the two-year waiting our community. We include in that those period initially got from both the old parties young people who may be newly arrived suggests that this one may not be successful— migrants who may be applying for the com- we will continue to oppose the retrospectivity. 476 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (12.03 would like some examples of a situation p.m.)—I must say this unprovoked attack— where someone would be faced with the two the remark on the ‘old parties’—coming from waiting periods concurrently. the Democrat down the other end is quite Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister disturbing. If I was not looking forward to for Social Security) (12.06 p.m.)—The advice reaching a little bit more maturity, I might I have received is that normally the two-year take offence at that. I think the Democrats waiting period would overtake any other have gone through a few experiences over the waiting period. That would be the usual last 12 months that will mature them. circumstance. It is not, in fact, likely to be a Senator Stott Despoja—They are going to double-whammy. mature you too; trust us! Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- Senator NEAL—So you, too, can be an tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian experienced and mature party in the not too Democrats) (12.06 p.m.)—Minister, why is distant future. this retrospective? Why is the element of On these particular requests, Nos 8 and 10, retrospectivity contained in this bill? obviously the waiting period for newly ar- Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister rived residents has been an issue that has been for Social Security) (12.06 p.m.)—I think that debated at some length. I have to say it was is a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding, not an easy decision for the opposition. That Senator. The consequential bill is amending having been made, except for the family the date to make it absolutely clear that the payment, we would support the government two-year migrant waiting period applies only in relation to this issue. We do not intend to to newly arrived residents arriving after 4 change our minds for one group of the com- March 1997. That was always the case, but munity, and that is students. So the opposition the original provision, apparently, was confus- will not be supporting the Greens’ requests. ing in that it referred to the whole period for Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) which migrant waiting periods have applied. (12.04 p.m.)—Minister, how many people are As you know, the six-month waiting period likely to be affected by the non-availability was brought in in 1993. due to the two-year waiting period for the An extra provision is also being added to youth allowance? ensure that young people who would have Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister qualified for payments before 1 July 1998 can for Social Security) (12.05 p.m.)—I will still qualify for youth allowance after that simply give you the advice I have just been date. That is also necessary because there are given: it was not costed because there will be some variations in waiting periods for the no change from the current arrangements in payments being incorporated and it is not the that somebody who is on a youth training government’s intention that young people be allowance or newstart or Austudy would have disadvantaged just because they are not been caught up in this requirement already. receiving income support as at 1 July. So it has not been costed at any change. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (12.05 (12.08 p.m.)—I want to follow up the ques- p.m.)—Could I ask a question about section tion that was asked by Senator Bartlett be- 549F, which is one of the parts that would be cause I am intrigued. A person cannot apply struck out by this amendment, which is the for youth allowance if they are under the two- double-whammy provision of being subject to year waiting period; is that correct? If they two waiting periods. I would like examples had, for instance, $10,000 in their bank when from the minister of what sort of situation they applied, they were of that age and they might apply when people actually end up were otherwise eligible, would their bank having to serve two waiting periods, whether account be taken from the time they applied there would be a liquid assets test and the for youth allowance? two-year waiting period on top of that. I Senator Newman—The answer is yes. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 477

Senator MARGETTS—Therefore, it would in the existing legislation that attempt to deal seem that the answer you gave to Senator with change of circumstances, I am certainly Bartlett may not be correct in that there is a far from convinced that they are flexible double-whammy for newly arrived residents— enough to be able to catch everybody who they would have the two-year waiting period does find themselves in hardship. plus an extra waiting period after that if they A lot of this bill relates to encouraging had, for instance, $10,000 in the bank. young people to have the wherewithal to Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister adequately participate in education. So we for Social Security) (12.09 p.m.)—If I misled would think it more crucial for newly arrived you, Senator Bartlett, I am sorry. I am ad- migrants than for anybody else to be able to vised that you serve one and then, if you do quickly get into the education system and to have the liquid assets, you wait until they are develop their skills and their ability to be complying with the existing legislation. I am productive members of Australian society. We sorry if I did mislead you. are really putting an extra barrier in their way Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (12.09 in this measure by subjecting young people to p.m.)—That is fine. Thank you for that the newly arrived resident’s waiting period. If clarification, Minister. Speaking further to the we are serious about encouraging young amendments, as senators would probably be people into education and young migrants in aware, there is a further amendment right at developing their skills and being productive the very end of proceedings—if we ever get in Australia, then it seems totally counterpro- there; another five or six pages of amend- ductive to put the artificial barrier in their ments away—relating to the waiting period way. and seeking to exempt special benefit from it. I hasten to add that the government’s I will try not to double up on the arguments waiting period policy, which the Democrats in relation to that. are highly non-supportive of, is yet one As Senator Stott Despoja has outlined, the example of many examples of a bad govern- Democrats have a very strong opposition to ment policy being built on a bad initiative the whole concept of the waiting period and initially brought in by the previous Labor we have made that clear. Despite that, we also government, which showed the way by have a fairly reasonably strong liking for the introducing the initial six-month waiting idea of consistency across legislation, which period. To that extent I suppose it is not I think is important to recognise. These surprising that the coalition jumped on the amendments would mean that different groups opening that the previous Labor government of people are subject to different aspects. But provided in that regard. there are special reasons why it is appropriate, But that not does excuse the inappropriate- even given that caveat, that young people ness of the policy and it does not negate the should be exempt from the waiting period— importance of the basic argument which the assuming that we are going to have it. government itself often puts of the need to Other senators no doubt have received some encourage young people and to encourage correspondence from agencies and youth newly arrived migrants into our education agencies out in the field that deal with system. For that reason, the Democrats are migrants who have asked the Senate to ex- very strongly opposed to the waiting period, empt the youth allowance from the newly but believe that there are special reasons why, arrived resident’s waiting periods because of even if we do have to live with this waiting the specific circumstances of young people. period on other social security payments, It is less likely that younger people will have younger people through the youth allowance the financial resources to be able to support should be exempt from it. themselves during their first two years in Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.14 Australia. Obviously, many of them would p.m.)—Minister, when this matter was last come out here with a family, but circum- being discussed—I am not sure whether it stances can change. Whilst there are elements was outside the chamber or within the cham- 478 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 ber, but it was in general conversation—I is domestic violence. There is a long list—I understood that the application of special cannot remember how many items—giving benefits would be appropriate to deal with the sorts of examples and the guidelines situations which were distressing and where where clearly somebody’s circumstances have considerable difficulties were being experi- changed since they arrived in the country. enced. Clearly, that is not the case. That has Approximately 350 people—that is my mem- not occurred. ory—are on that special benefit now. So I do Senator Stott Despoja—It hasn’t been to not think we can say that it is not working. the extent that it should be. That is exactly as it was debated in the Senate when we had that debate a year or so ago. Senator HARRADINE—As Senator Stott We are really not in a different position from Despoja says, it has not been. The latest, of what the Senate understood then. course, was the court case. I was told that the Requests not agreed to. situation would be covered and that there would not be families in distress. There is a Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- very strong argument that has been put by tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian Senator Bartlett. All right, there are migrant Democrats) (12.18 p.m.)—by leave—I move: families here who want to improve their lot That the House of Representatives be requested and thus improve Australia. Some of them are to make the following amendments: very brilliant people who may not be able to (1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 49 (line 14), omit "1 January 1993", substitute "the com- afford to get into studies when in fact their mencement of this section". doing so would not only benefit them but also (2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 50 (line 10) omit benefit the whole of Australia. There is "1 January 1993", substitute "the com- example after example of this. I understand mencement of this section". the attitude of the opposition that it cannot We are now dealing with my amendments in deal with this piecemeal, but I feel that the relation to what we consider the retrospective government does owe the chamber a thorough nature of the application of the two-year explanation of what has occurred in this waiting period for newly arrived residents. particular area over the last few months. Given the minister’s earlier comments, I Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister should perhaps seek clarification from the for Social Security) (12.16 p.m.)—I point out minister. Minister, you mentioned the conse- that we are not actually debating the special quential bill changes which change the date benefit amendment, which is Senator to 4 March 1997, which of course is the Bartlett’s at this stage. To answer Senator intent of my second set of amendments which Harradine now, I want to say to you, Senator I acknowledge we are not debating now. May Harradine, that the system is working as was I check with the minister. Presumably you intended. From memory, there are something will accept our amendments based on your like 350 people on special benefits in these earlier comments? That of course does not circumstances now. I think you adverted to a stop me trying to press ahead with the amend- couple of court cases recently. I cannot ments before us—Democrats amendments 1 comment on those in detail because I am still and 2 on sheet 857—which seek to ensure getting advice about them but, as I understand that this measure takes effect from the com- it, the decisions in each case went to whether mencement of this act. We consider it abol- their circumstances had changed substantially ishes all degree of retrospectivity for the since they came to Australia. That is when the reasons we have outlined, but we are still special benefit for the two-year migrant period going to go for the commencement of this act. cuts in. I hope we will get support for that attempt. Examples are if their sponsor has died, if Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) their sponsor has become bankrupt, if they (12.20 p.m.)—I am indicating that the Greens have come to a job where the business goes (WA) will support Democrats amendments bung and there is not a job when they get Nos 1 and 2. here or if they end up in a family where there Requests not agreed to. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 479

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- industry beating down the doors of govern- tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian ment, as you would expect. In this particular Democrats) (12.21 p.m.)—Briefly, I am sorry case, sometimes the activity tests themselves that the chamber could not see its way to may be onerous or there may be some techni- approve the amendments which removed cal difficulty in compliance. There may be retrospectivity. They still applied the two-year some faults on either side, but I do believe waiting period for newly arrived residents. It that two weeks is sufficient penalty in what did not get rid of that particular regressive is considered to be a non-punitive act. policy; it just made sure that it did not apply Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (12.24 to the common youth allowance until the p.m.)—I just want to get a bit of clarification commencement of this act. I did not think that from the minister and maybe a bit of informa- that was a particularly scary thought. I am tion about breaches of the activity test. I sorry that it was only supported by the Greens suppose I would like to get a feel for what and the Democrats, but I do thank the sort of breaches there normally are. Do you minister for indicating the government’s have any of those figures? What category are support for the amendments before us, Demo- they? Are they normally failures to provide crats amendments 3 and 4. I seek leave to information or not taking up jobs? I just want have them taken together. to get a feel for the seriousness of the types Leave granted. of breaches that are most usual. Senator STOTT DESPOJA—I hope that Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister the chamber will support them. I move: for Social Security) (12.25 p.m.)—My offi- That the House of Representatives be requested cials will quickly get that together on a piece to make the following amendments: of paper as best they can for you. We are (3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 49 (line 14) omit "1 talking here, as I understand it, about people January 1993", substitute "4 March 1997". who have already had two breaches, that was (4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 50 (line 10), omit "1 a rate reduction. You will recall that we January 1993", substitute "4 March 1997". debated these measures in the Senate a year Requests agreed to. or so ago and I did not proceed with the breach arrangements immediately. I do not Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) think Senator Neal was the spokesman at that (12.22 p.m.)—I move: stage, so she may not be aware of what That the House of Representatives be requested happened. to make the following amendment: I withdrew the proposals we had originally (11) Schedule 1, item 6, page 52 (lines 4), omit for breaching penalties. I think it was Senator "8 weeks", substitute "2 weeks". Harradine who asked whether the parties What we are seeking to do in this amendment could go away, have a look at it and see if we is reduce the penalties for non-compliance of could come up with an agreed position, so activity tests in schedule 1, item 6. We are that is what happened. We put proposals to seeking to reduce that penalty, as I will keep each other and we came up with arrangements reminding the minister. She said this is a non- for penalty breaches. Essentially, they were punitive act, but there are penalties galore that, for activity test breaches—and these are within this non-punitive act. not administrative breaches, which are the The penalty was eight weeks, and that is a lesser offences, if you like—you would be huge amount of money for people who have breached by a percentage. I think it was 18 no other means of gaining income. The penal- per cent in the first instance for 26 weeks, ty was eight weeks and we are asking for it and then on the second occasion you would to be reduced to two weeks. I do not think be breached for something like 24 per cent for that is out of the ordinary. If you were to 26 weeks. Then and only then were people to have some sort of commensurate penalty for come off payment altogether. anything to do with industry which was realis- That compares with the arrangement before, tic, you would have the entire Australian which was that people could come off ben- 480 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 efits altogether first go. To be more humane, I was informed by the opposition whip that to see that the law was enforced as it was there was a proposal from the government to meant to be and to encourage people to do recommit this particular division, and that was the right thing voluntarily without the harsh- one that I readily agreed to. I think you would ness of losing all payment immediately, that know, Madam Chair, that the opposition has was the agreed position and we brought it consistently taken the view that we need to back and it was endorsed by your party. I have the will of the Senate accurately reflect- cannot remember whether everybody did or ed in votes of the Senate. I believe, and the not, but certainly it was done by agreement. opposition believes, that that is a very import- I think by reducing the non-payment period ant principle. It did not take place, in my to two weeks, which is part of that arrange- view, in relation to this division. ment—it is currently eight weeks—the deter- I accept, as I am sure all senators would, rent effect is weakened. After all, we are that there were mistakes made in that divi- talking about the deterrent effect on some- sion. There were mistakes made, and we body who has had two warnings already and understand that these things happen from time the penalty does then become almost mean- to time. We also accept, by the way, that ingless. I think the current arrangements are mistakes are made on both sides, which was fair. They have obviously been seen to be fair the case in that particular division. by other parties in the Senate, and it is within When you have a situation like that, the the power of young people to avoid penalties best thing to occur is for the whips to try to altogether by meeting the conditions of the sort it out while the division is actually being activity test. This is the basis on which the counted. That did not happen in that particular taxpayer agrees to fund them and I do not division. That is the weakness. In fact, the think that is unfair, because you have to acting government whip received instructions balance fairness in both directions. from Senator Campbell in relation to what Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (12.28 ought to occur because, as I understand it, we p.m.)—by leave—For the last division that had a situation where Senator Colston’s vote was taken at 11.07, Senator Hill had requested was counted, and that was germane to the a pair of my office at 11 o’clock. That par- division result. ticular matter was not related to the chamber, The government’s original proposal for a so therefore during the last division Senator recommittal of the vote is far more sensible Hill was not paired. The overall outcome of and more proper in terms of the processes and the vote was not affected, but I want to put procedures in this place than to suggest at the on the record the fact that my office failed to end of the day that a couple of foul-ups communicate to the chamber the fact that occurred that might not have made any Senator Hill was paired. As I said, it did not difference to the vote. That is a much less make any difference in the overall vote, but preferred course of action. The voting in the I do apologise for that mistake. division would have been different. In other Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— words, it would not have had equal voting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) between the ayes and the noes. At the end of (12.29 p.m.)—by leave—As I understand the the day, I do not believe there would have result of the division that Senator Calvert been any difference in relation to the opposi- refers to, it was ayes 34 and noes 34. tion amendment that was negatived. The question before the chair would still have Senator Calvert—It should have been ayes been negatived. However, the votes would 33. have been different. Senator FAULKNER—I am sorry, but you This is an important principle. I am disap- just said there was no difference to the result pointed to hear the contribution of the govern- of the division. I beg to differ. I think you ment whip on this because, as far as the have made an inaccurate statement to the opposition is concerned, we believe that the Senate. will of the Senate ought to be reflected in Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 481 votes on the floor, and I think recommittal Colston or, as has been done in the past, will would have been a much more sensible course they send somebody out from the chamber to of action in a circumstance where Senator Hill balance out that vote? This is what I am missed a division and these other knock-on trying to find out: has that principle changed, effects took place. or is the government suggesting it was a one- I am sorry the government has changed its off occasion? mind in that regard. I do not consider that Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (12.36 good practice. I do not think that is a good p.m.)—by leave—There will be no change to precedent, and it certainly will not be treated the way in which we have been acting. We as a precedent by the opposition. If mistakes will be continuing to act in the same way as occur, if they occur on both sides or on either we have before regarding Senator Colston. side—in this case I think there were mistakes There will be no change. on both sides—we should do it again so the Senator Chris Evans—You have accepted whips get an opportunity to sort it out. That his vote on two occasions this week. Check way we do not have a situation where there the Hansard. is an attempt on the floor to sort these issues out between the government whip and the Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— Manager of Government Business. That is not Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) the way we ought to behave in this chamber. (12.36 p.m.)—by leave—In relation to the issue that we are speaking of—that is, the I would ask the government to reflect division on the request for amendment 5 on seriously on what I have had to say about the sheet 864—I believe Senator Calvert, the good sense in this circumstance of a recom- government whip, has indicated the vote was mittal. It is not good enough for the govern- taken at 11.07 a.m. I ask that the division be ment to say that the result would have been taken again in respect of that opposition the same, even though voting might have request. That is a far more preferable course been different. We want to accurately reflect of action in this circumstance. It is consistent the will of the Senate so that there is absolute with past practice and consistent with proper integrity in the Senate’s decision making practice in this place. processes. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) tor Chapman)—Is leave granted? (12.34 p.m.)—by leave—On the vote that is being discussed, I just want to query whether Senator Harradine—No. the government can indicate whether Senator Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.37 Colston’s vote was counted and whether that p.m.)—by leave—Senator Faulkner is abso- means from now on Senator Colston’s vote lutely right. If the government is going to will be counted with the government. show propriety in this matter, the vote should Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (12.35 be recommitted. The government needs to p.m.)—by leave—The position is that, if think this over. If it does not, it will be Senator Colston is sitting on our side, he is clearly seen to be breaching a public commit- counted. That has to be done. We have to ment about the vote of Senator Colston, and count him. That is in the standing orders. it will be clearly seen to have breached that Normally, if we do not wish to accept his because it was a politically important mat- vote, one of our people leaves the chamber— ter—that is, the government’s commitment and in that particular case it did happen. not to count the vote of Senator Colston can Unfortunately, Senator Hill had applied for a be breached when the matter is important pair and it was not communicated to the enough and when it is convenient enough for chamber. the government. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Senator Faulkner is really offering the (12.35 p.m.)—by leave—The next question of government the opportunity to hold good to course is: in subsequent votes, will the its word. The opposition is saying to the government accept the vote of Senator government, ‘Here’s an opportunity to keep 482 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 faith with your public commitment not to occurred. I understand that the vote would count the vote of Senator Colston.’ That is have been one-up for the government had what it boils down to. We can debate it all Senator Bolkus’s vote not been taken when in day, but that is how it will be seen. fact he was paired. I think it is a generosity from the opposition Senator Faulkner—But Senator Hill too, that the offer has been made, and I think all Senator Harradine. components of the Senate should ensure, as Senator Faulkner has put it, that the vote be Senator HARRADINE—Yes, I understand recorded as we—and that includes the govern- that Senator Hill was in that same situation. ment—all want it. Senator Faulkner—That is the whole point Senator Faulkner says the outcome in terms I am making. It was not an accurate reflection of the legislative impact of that vote will not of the will of the Senate. differ. That is all the more reason why the Senator HARRADINE—That is right, but opposition should be congratulated for giving the Senate now knows, and it is there in- the government and the Senate the opportuni- grained in the records of the Senate, what the ty to recommit this vote and make sure it is situation was. I see no purpose under those properly counted, and that the actual wish of circumstances in having a recommittal. all sides in terms of how that vote is regis- tered in the Hansard for good is how it is Senator Faulkner—We have always done registered. I think the government is spiting it when a vote has been fouled up through itself if it does not accept this offer to recom- inadvertence. mit the vote. That is up to it. Let that be, if that is what the government wants. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- tor Chapman)—The advice I have from the Senator Harradine—They are accepting it. clerks is that on previous occasions there has I am not. The government wants to have it only been a revote when it actually changes recommitted. the result of the vote rather than the person- Senator BROWN—Then let me say the nel. That is the advice I have been given. same applies to you, Senator Harradine. You Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.43 are a stickler for form in the Senate. You p.m.)—by leave—That may be the advice you have always shown generosity in correcting are given, but we will never know what the votes when they are wrong. One only has to result of a revote will be until it is carried say, ‘Well, why not, Senator Harradine?’ If out. It may be contended that it could change you make this exception, where does it end? a vote if a new vote is taken, but you do not There is discontent in the Senate with the know until a new vote is taken. You cannot vote as it is recorded because a mistake has gainsay what a vote in this place will be, and been made on both sides. You would be true that is one of the important reasons why this to form, Senator Harradine, if you allowed the vote should be taken again and recorded matter to be cleared up. It would go counter properly. to your form—and indeed your asseverations Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— and strictures to me on many occasions in this Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) place to show goodwill—if you yourself were (12.44 p.m.)—by leave—The opposition not to show that goodwill and allow this vote consistently has argued in the case of divi- to be recommitted, and allow yourself to be sions that, if there have been circumstances free of any contention that you, for whatever that have led to votes being recorded which reason, may see political advantage in not do not accurately reflect the will of the allowing the majority in this place to express Senate, then we ought to ensure that we go their wish that there be a recommittal of that through the processes again so that no indi- vote. vidual senator—nor, for that matter, no Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.41 political party, government or opposition—is p.m.)—by leave—I understand what has disadvantaged. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 483

That is a longstanding principle. I think it I accept that this is changing the require- is important. I have suggested a course of ment to prove beyond reasonable doubt that action. It has not been accepted. So be it. the accused intended the act and that it was Progress reported. voluntary. However, I think all of us here today have had to weigh up this aspect of the CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT bill against the effects of violent crimes in our BILL 1997 [1998] society related to self-induced intoxication. Second Reading The meeting ground is Majewski, which preserves the requirement for the prosecution Debate resumed from 3 December 1997, on to prove intention in serious crimes where motion by Senator Ian Campbell: civil liberties are significantly at risk. That this bill be now read a second time. I find this distinction a difficult one, prob- Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- ably a bit tenuous at times; however, I am tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian reassured that this is an exceptional defence Democrats) (12.45 p.m.)—The Democrats will plea. It cannot apply in negligence cases, and be supporting the Criminal Code Amendment it is not part of the offence in strict liability Bill 1997 [1998]. I note that on 2 February cases. Further, the accused could be subjected 1995, in considering the Crimes Amendment to civil actions where it is not necessary to Bill 1994, the Australian Democrats’ former prove criminal intent. Senator Sid Spindler set out the issue. He stated: I am advised that the recent decision in the One particular provision I would like to address is Australian Capital Territory—we all know the so-called Majewski issue...that evidence of now about a case involving a footballer who self-induced intoxication cannot be considered in was intoxicated and assaulted three women, determining whether the conduct was voluntary. including his wife—would have been different The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General decided to follow the UK decision in Majewski under the law in this bill because the football- (1977) AC 480 that evidence of intoxication can be er would have been unable to use the particu- used to deny intention or recklessness in offences lar evidence of intoxication as was used. The of specific intent, such as murder, but cannot be Democrats think that it is appropriate that that used as an excuse in relation to simple offences of cannot be used. basic intent, such as assault. This section, which is now being passed in the I welcome a law which seeks to address this bills before the Senate, would place the Common- situation and I dearly hope that the remaining wealth in line with the law in England, Canada, the states and territories will enact similar laws United States, Queensland, WA, Tasmania, and the very soon. However, I am also concerned that Northern Territory. However, it alters the common excessive self-intoxication is a social problem. law in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT, where gross intoxication may be We need to recognise that we have a respon- taken into account in relation to all offences as a sibility to address social problems through result of the High Court’s decision in O’Connor in appropriate community actions, which are not 1980. This is one of the provisions of the bills always or necessarily addressed by criminal- which was very carefully examined by the Senate ising that problem. This provision, and similar Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional provisions, must not become the remedy that Affairs. While we express some concern about the we apply to drug and alcohol abuses which change in law, the Australian Democrats have decided to support it. are linked with violence. The Australian Democrats still support this I should note that domestic violence is a legislation. We also support the introduction significant problem in our communities, and of these provisions around Australia. I under- it is one we must address. We have a culture stand that the effect of these provisions, or of physical conflict solving and it is usually, these kinds of provisions, may mean that the or very often, women who become the vic- prosecution does not need to prove intention tims. Intoxication is a component of much of where it is alleged that the accused was intox- this violence even though it may not end up icated. in the courts. I believe that this culture re- 484 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 quires attention, and the need for these sorts that that defence was to be removed in a of laws is a flagging for attention. uniform approach across the country as part The Democrats support this bill and I ask of the model Criminal Code. This matter has the government to consider further the social brought it on at a faster rate. needs that make this law necessary. I should The opposition sees this legislation as add that domestic violence and violence bringing forward by two years an act which against women are only partly addressed by would have taken effect in March 2000. As I today’s law. said at the time in response to the Nadruku Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (12.51 case, there is no reason at this particular stage p.m.)—The opposition also supports this of the development of the model Criminal legislation. The legislation has become neces- Code for this defence to be allowed to con- sary through the defence at common law tinue any longer. In that context, the opposi- established by the High Court in O’Connor’s tion supports this legislation and recommends case. The defence ensures that those who may that the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 be criminally liable have an excuse for the [1998] be supported. offence if the offence was committed whilst Senator COONEY (Victoria) (12.58 the person was in such a state of intoxication p.m.)—The Criminal Code Amendment Bill that they were incapable of forming the 1997 [1998] is supported around the Senate intention to commit the offence. and is a bill where the sense of outrage This issue has raised a number of different overcomes the logic behind the criminal law. aspects of a range of issues. The starting point It is a central concept in criminal law that with respect to criminality requires, in most people should only be punished for what they circumstances, if not the overwhelming intend. The logic behind O’Connor’s case and number, a specific intention. To that extent behind the defence of drunkenness is that a the High Court established the O’Connor person who is so drunk that he or she cannot defence. form an intention should not be punished for The trouble is that the High Court’s judg- what he or she does. This bill makes an ment was one of concern that was addressed exception to that very fundamental idea that by the previous government. It was addressed underpins the criminal law. in a manner that really appreciated particular- It is interesting to note that the defence of ly domestic violence situations and appreciat- drunkenness is very rarely successful and ed that the defence at common law was too today we are impinging on the criminal law wide in terms of protecting many innocent to cure a matter that is not all that frequently people. successful. The thing that worries me is that During the term of the previous govern- if this were the beginning of a trend to punish ment, the Commonwealth Criminal Code was people irrespective of what they intended to developed and that code developed a situation do so that the nature of the act becomes the which ensured that the defence of intoxication thing that draws the punishment, then we are would be removed. However, in the interests changing the criminal law in a very dangerous of uniformity, the Criminal Code Act 1995 way. I sound that note of warning on this provided that all these provisions would not occasion. In the light of a particular case—it commence until March 2000. This has been might have been more than one case—or in brought on by the Noa Nadruku case in the the light of very few cases, we have become most recent instance where Noa was availed so outraged that we are changing the basis of of the defence of intoxication with respect to the criminal law in a particular respect and it the charges in the Supreme Court of the ACT. would be a very dangerous trend if that were At that time, the Minister for the Status of to go any further. In fact, it is a very danger- Women and the Attorney-General both criti- ous trend as it is and is one that ought to be cised the ACT and any other jurisdictions kept in check. which were yet to remove the defence of In my view, if we go down the path of a intoxication. They should have appreciated law and order campaign and, as a result of Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 485 that, do injustice to people, then our moral Bill read a second time, and passed through sense as people in a society which respects its remaining stages without amendment or the moral basis for wrongful acts is usurped. debate. Let us hope in the hereafter that we do not go to places of punishment for things we do not FLAGS AMENDMENT BILL 1996 intend. Let us hope while we are still on this Second Reading earth that we do not go too often to gaol for things that we do not intend. Debate resumed from 13 December 1996, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell: Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister for Social Security) (12.58 p.m.)—I thank That this bill be now read a second time. honourable senators for their contribution. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— From memory, I think Senator Cooney and I Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (1.02 shared the same law school. I well heed the p.m.)—I want to make a very brief contribu- warning in his contribution. Of course, I also tion to the debate on the Flags Amendment identify very closely with the comment that Bill 1996. I think the Senate will be relieved was made by Senator Stott Despoja that that the government has finally got its act women around Australia have been very together and brought the legislation before the concerned at the implications for them from Senate. It was introduced in June 1996 and people who have taken action as a result of passed through the House of Representatives drunkenness which has led to a lot of pain, later that year. It is a piece of legislation that anguish and worry for women. has been in the ether for 12 months or more. There are a lot of straws in the wind in any I think it is proper to say that this legisla- good legislating and a lot of issues to be tion is the culmination of work undertaken by canvassed. The relevance of the Criminal the then opposition who, over a period of in Code Amendment Bill 1997 [1998] is really excess of a decade, brought forward quite a that it has support across parties. It is some- number of private members’ bills with similar thing that the country recognises is needed objectives to the legislation we have before and I thank you for your support. us. Given that circumstance and if it is of such importance and priority to the govern- Bill read a second time, and passed through ment, I am surprised that it has taken so long its remaining stages without amendment or to come before us. Nevertheless, we do have debate. a capacity to deal with it now. I think sena- CIVIL AVIATION LEGISLATION tors will agree that it is an important piece of AMENDMENT BILL 1997 legislation. This legislation amendments the Australian Second Reading Flag Act 1953 to require a vote by the Aus- Debate resumed from 27 November 1997, tralian electorate for the Australian national on motion by Senator Ellison: flag to be altered and to ensure that the That this bill be now read a second time. existing flag is one of the options that must be put to the Australian people. I am not Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) entirely convinced that this legislation is (1.00 p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Schacht, necessary. Like the national song referendum the shadow minister, I indicate that the oppo- in 1977, any sensible government would put sition supports the passage of the Civil Avia- such an issue to the Australian people and tion Legislation Amendment Bill 1997. give them a voice. That is important in Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western relation to the choice of the national flag. Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the It has consistently been the position of the Treasurer) (1.00 p.m.)—I thank Senator Labor Party that, whatever occurs, it is essen- Forshaw for his contribution. I also thank the tial that we have a thorough debate about the opposition for its support of this measure. alternatives and that public awareness and Question resolved in the affirmative. involvement be encouraged to the maximum 486 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 extent. That will be very important in deter- consultation and a vote of the Australian mining any possible alternative to the current people. flag. It is worth saying that the recent contri- It is interesting to note that the rules that bution by Ausflag has been useful in this governed the competition for the design of the debate about the flag. Frankly, I think it is current flag in 1901 stated: very unlikely that any government would The Flag should be based on the British ensign, as propose to change the Australian flag without the flags of the countries added to its fold, signal- the participation of the Australian people. ling to the beholder that it is an imperial ensign of That is unlike the approach our forefathers the British Empire. took when the issue of the current flag was When the final design was chosen, interest- being dealt with. As many would acknow- ingly enough, it had to be to submitted to the ledge, for some in the community the issue in British government and—I remind the Sen- the debate over the flag has been the promi- ate—the British admiralty for approval. nence of the Union Jack as the feature of our I am certain that all senators in this cham- flag. This has been significantly debated in ber would believe that our flag is a very the context of an increasing number of Aus- important, very significant—if not the most tralians who are embracing an aspiration for significant—symbol of our nation and our an Australian republic. Naturally, people in history as a nation. The arguments are pre- the community do look at the issue of the sented to us that the Union Jack symbolises appropriateness of the current design or a new the history of the union of Scotland, England design of flag. Some believe that a new flag and Ireland. I would also point out that at no could symbolise the Commonwealth of time has the design of the great flag of Great Australia becoming a republic. Britain been taken to its people. Its new I consider the move to a republic as the design and ours were adopted without a priority issue. I, along with many in the Labor referendum or plebiscite. Party, have argued pretty consistently that the I believe the principle of the Australian issue of the Australian people determining people determining these issues is one of whether or not we become a republic certainly fundamental importance. I have indicated that ought to be dealt with before the issue of the the opposition does question the necessity for flag. If it is the community’s view that that the legislation. In these circumstances and should also be debated then that should be because I have great faith in the good sense done after referendums are held in relation to of the Australian people on these issues—in an Australian republic. fact, I have enough faith in Australian govern- I recall that on Anzac Day 1996 the Prime ments and politicians to believe that no-one Minister (Mr Howard) made a commitment to would propose a course of action without that this particular legislation. He said at the time: level of consultation and participation and that The new Federal Government is to take action, as decision being firmly in the hands of the promised, to protect our great national symbol, the Australian people— Australian Flag. Senator Boswell—I don’t think the Left Legislation will be introduced early in the life of had their heart in this one. the new Parliament . . . to ensure that the Austral- ian Flag cannot be changed without the approval of Senator FAULKNER—You would not all of the Australian people voting at a referendum know. I am in a much better position than or plebiscite. you to judge that, Senator Boswell, let’s face This will mean that no politician, no political party it. That is why you will just have to take my and no special interest group will be able to tamper word for it, if that is okay. I have adequate with the design of our flag. faith in politicians and government to believe I have indicated that it would be a very that this course of action would be an abso- courageous government and a very coura- lute requirement in any case. With those few geous political party that would suggest that words—assuring the Senate that I do have my the Australian flag be changed in any way heart in this contribution—I indicate that the without full public debate, participation, opposition will be supporting the legislation. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 487

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.14 p.m.)— design which is going to give Australians the I support the Flags Amendment Bill 1996, but feeling of distinction which the Canadians get I do so as a means of clearing the decks for out of their new flag. It has been many action. I, like everybody else here, move decades since Canada dropped the Union Jack around the country a lot and the feedback I and the confusing symbolism of its old flag. get is that there is enormous interest in the It is time we did the same. prospect of changing our flag to bring us into the 21st century and to give us a flag which I am an enthusiast for this. Not all those more appropriately reflects Australia at the people around me agree. Many people feel end of 20th century rather than at the start of that flags are of no significance. I note that it the 20th century. The opinion polls are chan- was stated in the second reading speech that ging. It is not going to be long before they the Australian national flag is our oldest and will be reflecting majority support for that most important national symbol. It is not. The course of action. I am sure they would have country itself, the nature of its land forms, its already had there been a clear consensus on wildlife, its flora and its indigenous people what the alternative should be. are much older and more enduring symbols than the flag that has been with us for 100 The next thing for the government to do is years. That is a point to dwell on. There is commit itself to giving Australians an oppor- much more symbolism about a country than tunity to take part in the design of a new flag the pennant which is taken up a flag pole on which Australians can be proud of as we enter ceremonial and other occasions. It is neverthe- the next millennium. I think many Australians less part of how a country identifies itself. It would feel that, for example, the Olympics is time for change in Australia. I am an would be a great time to have a new flag enthusiast for that change. I would inveigle symbolising this country and for people to the government to next think about how it is feel that Australia is no longer part of the going to put this across to the people. British empire and secondary to anybody else but a clear, proud, independent part of the Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leader community of nations. of the National Party of Australia in the The question is: where to next? There ought Senate) (1.18 p.m.)—As the National Party to be government moves to give the designing leader in the Senate, I wish to express the of the flag to the people. The popularity of wholehearted support of National Party the Constitutional Convention shows that the members everywhere for the Flags Amend- Australian people want to be involved. We ment Bill 1996. Under this legislation, the should now devise the means of allowing only way our national flag can change is by them to be involved. Those people who do the express and direct vote of the Australian not feel that a change in the flag is warranted electors. No government, no matter what their or wanted at this time have nothing to fear. numbers or their political colour, will be able to change the flag for whatever reason with- My reading of it is that there is enormous out referring it to the Australian people. interest in a new flag. You only have to see the reaction there is to newspaper and other This bill will be greatly welcomed by those media competitions or polls to allow people sceptical of the recent claims by republicans to vote on new flag designs to see how keen that they are not interested in changing the that interest is. Let us get on with devising a flag. It will be greatly welcomed by those new flag—whether it is taking the current flag sceptical of the Labor Party’s intention re- and simply removing the Union Jack and garding the flag. Our national flag is an raising the Federation Star to complement and important symbol of our country. It should balance the Southern Cross to a new design. not be vulnerable to the whims of political Let Australians take part in that process. Let factions. This bill removes the Australian flag the parliament take Australians into its confi- from being the victim of factional trade-offs. dence and start the process of allowing people It removes the flag from the clutches of the to be involved in a move towards a new wealthy elite who would turn our system of 488 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 government upside down and change the flag prestigious international sporting events to at the first opportunity. humble scout halls—it can now be raised with It was one of my proudest achievements in a greater sense of ownership than before. this place when I moved a motion in this There have been attempts to diminish, place to have two flags placed in the Senate belittle and undermine important parts of our chamber either side of the President’s chair. heritage and even to rewrite history. This There was a Labor government in power and leaves people feeling great unease as their there was a marvellous new building for past is taken away from them. Certainty and politicians, yet there was no flag in the Senate identity are lost in an already changeable chamber to remind us of who we are here to world. But with this bill, Australians can at represent. It was left to the National Party to least say, with assurance of compliance, move that motion. Those flags have been with ‘Hands off our flag.’ us ever since. The National Party will always Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western stand firm to protect that flag. Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the The bill is a safeguard mechanism for a Treasurer) (1.23 p.m.)—On behalf of the national icon. It restores ownership to the government, I thank all senators for their people represented by the flag. The Australian contributions to this important debate on the flag is the highest part of Parliament House. Flags Amendment Bill 1996. It has taken a lot As we owe our position to the people of longer than the government would have Australia so too should the flag. This bill preferred for this bill to rise to the top of the sends a message that the heritage and symbols Notice Paper. We are very pleased that it has of our nation are not up for political sale. It come on today. To have a bill debated on guards against the faddishness and trendiness Thursday lunch time—and I know Senator by trusting in the stability and commonsense Conroy wants to go and have some lunch— of the Australian people. Senator West—I do. From now on the flag will not be able to be Senator IAN CAMPBELL—and so too toyed with by the likes of the Malcolm does the Deputy President—requires all Turnbulls and the Janet Holmes a Courts of senators to agree that it be treated non-contro- this world. Make no mistake, the Australian versially. I think that sends a special flag is under a lot of pressure. There is great message—particularly to those most vocal wealth and power lined up against it. Mr supporters of this bill—that senators from all Turnbull’s company sponsored an exhibition corners of the Senate have agreed that it be of alternative flags. Mrs Holmes a Court has dealt with on an entirely non-controversial opened exhibitions of alternative flags put on basis, meaning there will be no divisions by Ausflag—the group that wants to change called. I think that sends a strong message. It the flag. Sponsors of the exhibition include shows that the government has carried multinational corporations and overseas through its important commitment to ensure companies spending money to change the that any potential change to a flag in the Australian flag. future will be dealt with democratically by all What should we expect next—a flag section Australians. in the multilateral agreement on investment? I am particularly proud to have been given These are people and organisations of power carriage of this bill through the Senate, having and influence nationally and internationally. represented Australia in international competi- What hope is there for an old digger who tions under this flag and my grandfather wants to keep the flag he fought for if he is having fought in wars under this flag and up against the elite? This bill is the hope. indeed having the Australian flag draped over This bill is the digger’s flag insurance against his coffin when he was buried. I know many the chardonnay set. This bill is the equaliser. Australians feel very strongly about the It sends a signal that the ultimate power Australian flag. I know this legislation will within our system of government rests with make those people very happy. Equally, as the people. Wherever the flag is raised—from Senator Brown has said, it gets the support of Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 489 those who genuinely seek change to the flag. ment panel ranked higher in quality than the It ensures that those people seeking that Manly proposal did not get funding? As an change will have that change facilitated when example, why was a project for the Banks- they can agree on some alternative proposal town City vegetation management strategy, to the most beautiful flag that is our national which was ranked in quality more than 100 flag at the moment. places above the Manly project, not funded? Senator Brown did make the point in Was the fact that this project is located in the summing up that the government should electorate of Blaxland coincidental? Does this facilitate some sort of competition for the not confirm that political bias must have been design of a potential alternative flag. I do not involved in these Natural Heritage Trust grant think that is necessary. There has been over allocations? the years, through Ausflag and other organisa- Senator HILL—I can understand why tions, a range of competitions. I presume Senator Cook asked the question and not thousands of designs have been worked out Senator Faulkner, because he would have to by artists and other enthusiasts over the years. start by apologising to the Baillieu family. I do not think any government involvement Opposition senators interjecting— needs to take place. Senator HILL—You won’t apologise to I suspect that at some stage in the next 100, the Baillieu family. 200 or 300 years someone may come up with some alternative to our flag. It would have to Senator Faulkner—I won’t apologise for be very good to attract my vote and to see identifying your rorts. consensus formed for it. That is all part of a Senator HILL—Senator, dead men don’t vigorous democracy. National symbols are rort. very important to a nation, nation building and democracy. I thank all senators—not only Opposition senators interjecting— those who have contributed to the debate— Senator HILL—Senator Cook could who have agreed to make this a non-contro- equally have asked me why the Tuggerah versial and non-partisan issue in the Senate. Lakes bushland environment rehabilitation Question resolved in the affirmative. program in the seat of Dobell, which was under the nominal cut-off line, was funded by Bill read a second time, and passed through the government. He could have asked me why its remaining stages without amendment or the Redhead Beach dune revegetation and debate. construction boardwalk scheme, in the seat of Sitting suspended from 1.27 p.m. to Shortland—and under the nominal cut-off 2.00 p.m. line—was funded by the coalition govern- ment. He could have asked me why the trees QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE in Newcastle environment education work- Natural Heritage Trust shops—again, in a Labor seat and under the cut-off line—was funded by the coalition Senator COOK—My question is to Sena- government. tor Hill. In answer to a question in an esti- mates committee last Thursday, you stated You see, this is a priority order as deter- that funding was provided to the Manly mined by the New South Wales government; reservoir project in the Warringah electorate it is not necessarily the priority with which of New South Wales because of the lack of we agree. Of those that went through the quality and quantity of applications from SAP, we judge each program on the basis of metropolitan areas. Minister, can you confirm merit. On that basis of merit, the particular that this project, $14,876 for restoration work project in Manly was rated extremely highly. at the Manly reservoir, was ranked 195 out of This project, restoration and regeneration of 202 applications for the state assessment remnant bushland corridor—catchment Manly panel? Can you also confirm that at least 14 reservoir, was submitted to the 1997-98 trust metropolitan projects which the state assess- funding round by the Friends of Bantry 490 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Reserve Bush Regeneration Group, working representations but, if he did, so what? Many with the Manly-Warringah councils and the parliamentarians have made representations. Wakehurst Golf Club. The project aims to I mentioned Mr Beazley yesterday. I could rehabilitate an area of native bush which is a have mentioned Mr Evans in the other place. significant link in larger bushland areas. The He is doing his job as a local electorate area is rich in native plant species, and native member—he made representations. Who is wildlife recording has identified varieties of the member for Dobell? Is he Labor Party? birds, reptiles and frogs. The project is eli- Mr Lee? He made representations. Mr Kerr, gible under the trust criteria and was recom- the shadow minister for the environment—he mended for funding by the urban regional made representations. That is a local member assessment panel and then, as Senator Cook doing his job. There is nothing wrong with said, by the state assessment panel. According that. It may well be the case, in this instance, to the advice of my department, the project is that Mr Abbott should be criticised for not a very good one, helping voluntary communi- making representations. The point is: it would ty work which began in 1996 and which has not have made any difference, because the been financially supported by the councils. projects are judged on merit. There is no doubting the community sup- Trade Unions: Funds port for the project, nor the conservation importance of the area. In all, it is a great Senator MacGIBBON—My question example of the partnership between the without notice is directed to the Minister Commonwealth government, community representing the Minister for Workplace groups, local government and business. That Relations and Small Business. Is the minister is why this project was funded—because it aware that between 1983 and 1996—the years stood up in our assessment on merit. And you of the Labor government—the Labor Party will find, Senator Cook, that every project transferred to the trade union movement sums that we are funding under the natural heritage from $2.5 million a year up to $18.5 million? program is one that has been determined on Presumably they learned such cultural its environmental merit or its sustainable attainments as trashing the main entrance of agricultural merit. You see, we will be well Parliament House. What would be the effect judged on this program by the overall envi- on other cultural bodies in the community if ronmental outcomes, and we are determined a similar process were instituted? to choose the projects which will give the Senator ALSTON—It is a very important best environmental outcomes. Obviously this issue for the people of Australia because they project fits within that criterion. will have to consider not just what happened in the past, but what is likely to happen again Senator COOK—Madam President, I ask if this mob ever gets another chance. The fact a supplementary question. Minister, you still is that between 1983 and 1996, when they have not adequately explained to the Senate were thrown out, they gave nearly $92 million why this project, which rated seven places to the trade union movement—$92 million of from the bottom of a list of 202 projects, was taxpayers’ funds. In the lead up to the 1993 leapfrogged over many projects into the election, what did the trade union movement funding area. What you have said is not give to the Labor Party? Answer: $2.2 sufficient explanation. Will you table any million. The trade union movement gave $2.2 documents you have which justify that selec- million—streets ahead of any other donor, I tion? But more importantly, Minister, will you have no doubt at all. What did the govern- now give the Senate a categorical assurance ment give in return the following year? It that Mr Tony Abbott did not have discussions gave $14 million in government grants, with you or with your office about this project including $5.7 million to 13 out of the 18 or any other project in the electorate of trade unions which made donations. How is Warringah? that for a return on your investment? It is not Senator HILL—He certainly did not have bad. You could not beat that in the market discussions with me. I do not think he made place. That is a fantastic performance. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 491

It happens because of the massive conflict Senator ALSTON—It was $1.8 million. of interest that we have opposite. More than This is the old BLF dressed up in new half of this lot here are paid-up members of clothes. It will keep happening because these the trade union movement. When we go to outfits are wholly owned subsidiaries of the preselection, what do they ask us? They want ACTU. As Graham Richardson said the other to know where we stand on issues. They want day, the trade union movement still holds the to know a bit about our backgrounds. What majority of stock in the ALP. There it is. That do they ask them? Their first question is, is the stock. That is what they own. They are ‘Which union do you belong to?’ Their getting their return on the investment. They second question is, ‘How much did they give are certainly not getting it in terms of quality at the last election?’ Their third question is, performance, but they are getting it in terms ‘What will you do for us for evermore if we of compromising the national interest. I think put you in there?’ Of course, they say all the it ought to be abundantly clear to the taxpay- right things, so the last 10 of them elected or ers that, if they want real value for money, appointed to this place were all trade union they ought not have a bar of this mob. (Time members. It is a massive conflict of interest expired) when the interests of the trade union move- ment are put ahead of the national interest. Natural Heritage Trust The Evatt Foundation, for example, got Senator FAULKNER—My question is $250,000 at a time when it had in excess of directed to Senator Hill, the Minister for the $1 million cash in its bank account. It was Environment. Minister, during question time simply a pay-off. Senator Faulkner likes to yesterday you admitted that the Liberal talk about fixes, but the fact is that this is member for Leichhardt had lobbied you about political money laundering. This is your way specific projects in North Queensland. Are of doing business. You think that if you pay you aware that Mr Entsch today admitted to out money, you buy support. Your previous the Courier-Mail that he rang your office to leader Mr Keating did precisely this. He went attempt to influence your consideration of the around handing out hundreds of thousands of hill slopes grant in Cairns and that he found dollars to millionaires in the arts community your staff ‘very responsive’? Minister, I in the hope that they would stand up and say remind you that this is a project which was the right thing at election time. In other originally rejected and then reinstated after a words, it was another grubby and shabby request to the department from your office. attempt to buy political patronage. It is highly Do you still claim, as you did in question relevant because it happened last time; it will time on Tuesday, that this is just Mr Entsch happen again this time. falsely claiming credit for this grant or do you now agree that this is a further case of politi- Of course they do not want to know about cal interference in the grants process? it. They bury their heads in the sandpit as usual. We always have these ad hoc meetings Senator HILL—I think that it is yet an- of the sandpit committee because they cannot other misrepresentation within a question, but stand the heat. They know full well there is I do suggest to Senator Faulkner that he no defence for this behaviour. It will happen would have more credibility if he started off again if ever they get the opportunity. What by apologising to the Baillieu family. He is ought to be exposed now is the fact that you not prepared to go outside that door— are not able to vote sensibly and dispassion- Opposition senators interjecting— ately on issues; you will simply do what your masters tell you. That explains why there has Senator HILL—If you want to treat this been a deafening silence on the MUA. As seriously, do not sit there grinning. Firstly, Senator MacGibbon pointed out, the CFMEU, you should go outside this door— which was responsible for battering down The PRESIDENT—Order! There are too Parliament House, actually got $1.8 million. many interjections, and too much noise during Senator Ian Macdonald—What? question time. 492 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Senator HILL—Firstly, he should go fact, rung Mr Entsch before the SAP had outside the door and apologise and make the made its decision to tell him that it was claim again— unlikely to get up because it had been said to Senator Faulkner—You should apologise be too regionally restrictive. There is nothing for rorting! in the guidelines to that effect. I understand that Mr Entsch then contacted the Labor Senator HILL—or, alternatively, he ought Mayor, Tom Pyne, in Cairns. to be able to get up here and apologise to the Baillieu family. Senator Herron—A life member of the ALP. Senator FAULKNER—You apologise for rorting! Senator HILL—A life member! As a result of that, Mr Tom Pyne ultimately sent the Senator HILL—Slandering the dead! You application back to Mr Entsch. That was not have no credibility in this— necessary, of course, because we were looking Opposition senators interjecting— at all of those that had been rejected by the The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators will SAP in Queensland. As I said, the advice not shout at each other across the table. from my department was that this was a particularly good project, setting up a system Senator HILL—You have no credibility in of incentives for local government—just what this matter at all. Madam President, if he will we would like to encourage Australia-wide— not apologise to the Baillieu family, then he to encourage local governments to give should apologise for misleading the Senate. incentives to individuals to protect remnant Honourable senators will recall the taking vegetation and to revegetate. That is what the note the other day when Senator Faulkner bushcare scheme is all about. We talked about mentioned Richard Percy Clive Baillieu, the it during the last election. (Time expired) current secretary of EL&C Baillieu. He is the Richard Percy Clive Baillieu who died 57 Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, years ago! I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us who in his office he gave You slander the Baillieu family and responsibility to to contact his own depart- misrepresent the position of the Senate. You ment to provide the instruction that previously have no credibility in this matter at all. It is ruled rejected or ineligible grants should be only Senator Faulkner and the Labor Party reassessed in relation to both Queensland and that think that. Why? For the most base of Victoria? Which member of his staff gave that political motives. In relation to Leichhardt, instruction? When was the instruction given? certainly, Mr Entsch is an enthusiastic lobbier What representations had been received prior for his electorate. There is no doubt about to the instruction being given? that. I mentioned a number of ALP members who have lobbied for their electorates. There Senator HILL—When is Senator Faulkner is nothing wrong with that also. going to apologise to the Baillieu family and when is he going to apologise to the Senate What I said in relation to this particular for misleading it? When is he going to try to matter yesterday was that advice that I re- rebuild his credibility in this matter? He ceived from my department was not based on would then be in a far better position to ask the representations of any particular member. questions. The national vegetation initiative, I would have thought that that was clear-cut. which we now call bushcare, is new and I said that the department looked at applica- unique. tions that were rejected at the SAP in Queens- land for reasons that related to the fact that Senator Faulkner—Who gave the instruc- the SAP did not seem to understand totally tion? the biodiversity issues which they should have The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you been addressing. are persistently interjecting. In relation to this particular matter, I have Senator HILL—He will not listen. The been told that a member of the SAP had, in national vegetation initiative is the biodiver- Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 493 sity arm of the Natural Heritage Trust. It is gone to the proper owner of the document, the new part. It is the part that some RAPs Mr Donnelly. He should have said to Mr and some SAPs did not totally understand. If Donnelly, ‘Will the release of this information it was the view of my department that it was cause you any difficulty?’ not totally understood at the SAP level, I can Why didn’t Senator Bolkus do this? Be- think of no better reason for them to do a cause the document itself revealed to him that reassessment, and they determined that this the release of it would cause Mr Donnelly one should be funded because of its high some difficulty. So he did not want to go merit. (Time expired) there—oh, no. If you read the document that Mr Christopher Skase he released a portion of to the media—read to the media sotto voce off the record—it actual- Senator ABETZ—My question is to the ly says: Minister for Justice. This week it has been If this matter comes to the attention of the respond- revealed that Senator Bolkus leaked informa- ents and in particular Mr Skase before the orders tion from confidential Federal Court docu- can be obtained in all jurisdictions, I have serious ments which resulted in the sabotage of the concerns that steps will be taken to prejudice the government’s plans to seize the assets of substantive proceedings. Christopher Skase. Senator Bolkus has previ- Despite reading that in the document, Senator ously falsely claimed that you delayed signing Bolkus went ahead. That gives you the an- service documents when there were no docu- swer why he did not go to the owner, why he ments for you to sign. Yesterday, Senator did not go to Mr Donnelly, because he knew Bolkus falsely claimed that your office is that Mr Donnelly would have said, ‘Don’t do being investigated by the Australian Federal it.’ Police. Now Senator Bolkus has claimed that There is another alternative. We do have he got the Federal Court documents from the open courts in Australia, and Senator Bolkus media. Minister, will you advise the Senate might have stupidly thought that he could roll whether this was a legitimate source. up to the Federal Court, pay $20 or $30 and Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, Senator get a copy of the document, because you can Abetz, for your continued interest in this get copies of a wide range of documents from disgraceful exercise by Senator Bolkus. It is the courts—as it should be. But order 46, rule not a suitable excuse to simply say, ‘I got it 6, of the Federal Court Rules makes it per- from the media.’ If $1,000 was stolen from fectly clear that you cannot get an affidavit in someone in the gallery and they came down proceedings without leave of the court or of and gave it to someone here, would any of us a judge, and no such leave has been sought. say, ‘Oh, well, someone gave it to us. Some- So the owner of the document did not want one in the media stole it from the gallery and it released. Senator Bolkus could read that in just gave it to us.’ How convenient to blame the owner’s affidavit. The Federal Court did the media—how very convenient. not release it. Senator Bolkus had, and knew This is the alleged alternative first law he had, an illegally or improperly obtained officer of the Commonwealth, so when he had document. He knew after reading the contents a document that was a clearly a Federal Court of it the risk that was there if he revealed the document, some bells should have rung. He details. What did he do? He wants to blame presumably new that it was an ex parte the media. He says, ‘They gave it to me.’ application. He knew that the document was Nobody up there, no person in the media that not his. He did not sit there thinking, ‘This has ever alleged to me they have had this was destined for me.’ It was clearly a court document used it. And that is the difference: document, and he had a choice. Senator Bolkus had it and he used it. He put it in the public arena. He could have done the right thing with it and gone to the trustee in bankruptcy, Mr Senator Alston interjecting— Donnelly—he did not have to come to us in Senator VANSTONE—A suggestion is the political environment, he should have that he had it, gave it to the media and they 494 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 gave it back—I do not know if that is right, you should not put any funds into it. Where but the difference is he used it. What did he are we going to end up, for goodness sake? tip Skase off to? Skase always knows we are after him. But what Senator Bolkus said was Senator Faulkner—What about the grants? that hearings had already been held and that Senator PARER—Okay, let me give you they are doing it without him. He told them the process: following receipt of each state where the hearings had been held, which bid, projects are checked by DPIE officers to gives an indication of the assets and the see if prior advice on eligibility issues had people that are involved. He further told them been heeded. South Australia was the first they were around the corner with service. state ready for approval and its assessment (Time expired) process established a general pattern. It goes through projects for approval, projects for Natural Heritage Trust approval in principle, projects subject to Senator REYNOLDS—I address my ques- finalising and so on. Senator Hill has made it tion to the Minister representing the Minister very clear that it goes through the regional for Primary Industries and Energy. Can the assessment panel, the state assessment panel minister assure the Senate that every one of and then, of course, it goes to the people Minister Anderson’s decisions regarding the responsible. Natural Heritage Trust grants have been made Senator Faulkner—The fix is put in by the in accordance with the requirements of the minister’s staff. NHT and made without any taint of political influence? I draw the minister’s attention to Senator PARER—Senator, I think it is the following projects approved by Minister worth mentioning because Senator Reynolds Anderson: $63,350 for a marketing officer for is a Queenslander and she does have some the Queensland Grain Growers Association; interest in north and Far North Queensland $63,780 for a property management officer that I could not help but notice a question that for the United Graziers Association of was asked yesterday or the day before—this Queensland; and $49,911 for a project officer is one of the ones that relates specifically to for the Cattlemen’s Union. Can you tell the Minister Anderson—on a grant given for the Senate exactly how these projects—effectively control of tilapia in Far North Queensland and employment projects—meet the Natural the question has been raised by Mr Entsch as Heritage Trust’s objective of ‘a better envi- to whether there was some interference. ronment for Australia in the 21st century’? Let me explain to you that Mr Entsch wrote Senator PARER—I do not cease to be to me about this matter. Why would he have amazed by the total hypocrisy of these people written to me? Because he was the local opposite. Here we have put in place a trust member who had been approached by those fund to repair environmental damage that has people who had applied for the grant—and been done over many, many years. Where this this was for the fisheries action program. Mr ideological stuff comes in is that they do not Entsch wrote to me on 3 September 1997 recognise the fact that most of the repair of arguing that the project should be given a that environmental damage is to be directed high priority. The letter arrived after the state to rural and regional Australia, because that assessment panel had formulated its recom- is where the damage is. mendations on 23 and 24 June. I responded to Mr Entsch on 14 October with a letter that Let us take it a step further. You would like explained the assessment process. to exclude the Cattlemen’s Union, the United Graziers Association and all those people who Senator REYNOLDS—Madam President, have a direct interest in the repair of their I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can environmental damage. The other thing that you understand how Queenslanders could see comes through pretty hot and strong from these large grants of money for the employ- everyone is that if it is private or leasehold ment of staff by the United Graziers Associa- property—in other words, someone owns it— tion, the Grain Growers Association and the Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 495

Cattlemen’s Union as having a political basis, Senator MINCHIN—The government does if not a political bias? not seek a double dissolution at all. What we Senator PARER—Senator Reynolds is want is a normal election of half the Senate casting aspersions on organisations that have and the House. What we want is this Senate to pass our fair and balanced in their interests— Native Title Amendment Bill. Senator Faulkner—No, she is casting If there is a double dissolution on this issue, aspersions on your government. That is what it will be because of the minor parties, and she is doing. most particularly the Labor Party, obstructing Senator PARER—The environmental and what has been passed by the people’s house, resource management problems—I do not the House of Representatives, with an over- know how often we have to say this—being whelming majority. It is fair and balanced addressed by the Natural Heritage Trust are legislation which should be supported by this in rural and regional Australia. Who is Sena- Senate. There is nothing in this legislation tor Reynolds suggesting should be those which should be opposed by this Senate. people who have the keenest interest in repairing the damage? It would have to be What we have clearly revealed in the people such as those from the Cattlemen’s Sydney Morning Herald by Alan Ramsey is Union—who were the other ones?—the united a rort by the enlightened ones, including graziers and the grain growers. Senator Bolkus, who actually believe it is going to be in the Labor Party’s interest to Senator Faulkner—You’re not even have a double dissolution on native title. It is listening to the questions now. the enlightened ones— Senator PARER—Of course I am listening Senator Woodley—Madam President, I to the questions. I would have thought they raise a point of order. My point of order is a have gone through— question of relevance. Usually Senator Senator Faulkner—You’re making a goose Minchin does answer questions, but I would of yourself. be grateful if he would answer the question Senator PARER—Big mouth. Give us a about the bet and whether or not he will table chance. the advice. The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, I Senator MINCHIN—As I was saying, it is would ask you to cease interjecting. regrettable that it does appear to be Labor’s strategy to force a double dissolution, come Native Title what may, on this issue. Their insistence on subjecting the Native Title Act to the Racial Senator WOODLEY—My question is Discrimination Act, they know full well, is an addressed to the Special Minister of State. amendment that the government cannot Minister, given that you have dismissed accept. The Labor government could not outright the advice of the Clerk of the Senate accept it. Father Frank Brennan, hardly a on the handling of the Native Title Amend- great supporter of the government, has asked ment Bill last December in the House of the opposition to withdraw that ridiculous Representatives in favour of your own advice, amendment. They do seem hell-bent on and given that the cost of a double dissolution forcing a double dissolution, which we do not election to enable the Wik bill to be passed in want. a joint sitting would be more than $60 mill- ion, do you agree that the government has Senator Woodley, with great respect to the effectively placed a $60 million bet with Clerk of the Senate, we do not accept his taxpayers’ money that your legal advice, advice. We think his advice is wrong on this which has no precedent, is correct? Given the issue. We have very good advice that he is taxpayers’ investment in this advice, will you wrong. We are satisfied that the way in which table it today and also table previous advice this bill is being dealt with by the government to governments on this subject? will, if necessary, satisfy the requirements of 496 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 section 57 of the Constitution. We do not Senator ALSTON—I take it that that was propose to table that advice. asked tongue in cheek. I am not aware of Senator WOODLEY—Madam President, any— I ask a supplementary question. Minister, was Senator Carr—No, it is very serious. this legal advice provided to your government Senator ALSTON—Have you referred any on this matter before the House of Represen- matters to the police? Go for it. If any Labor tatives laid aside the legislation or was it member of parliament is concerned on this sought after the event to justify an on-the-run issue and they think that matters ought to be decision, which I must say looks like it was brought to the attention of the police, I am a result of pressure from government MPs so sure they will not hesitate to do it. they could go home or overseas for Christ- mas? Was your advice given before or after The fact is that, as I recall, we were claim- the House of Representatives laid aside the ing public interest immunity rather than legislation? simply cabinet documents and commercial-in- confidence. That was an assessment made on Senator MINCHIN—I can assure you, the merits of the documents. It has nothing to Senator Woodley, that the government made do with what might happen to those docu- absolutely certain that it was acting in full ments in certain circumstances. It does not compliance with the Constitution when it change the status of them. The status is dealt with the bill in the House of Representa- determined by the contents of the documents tives when, regrettably, the Senate passed and they retain that status. Accordingly, our amendments unacceptable to the government, position is still the same. therefore risking a double dissolution. We do not want a double dissolution. It is the re- Senator O’BRIEN—Madam President, I sponsibility of this Senate to pass the bill ask a supplementary question. Minister, why when it returns to the Senate. It is a fair and don’t you come clean and admit now that balanced bill which deserves the Senate’s your government refused the Senate access to support. If you do not want a double dissolu- these documents because of political rather tion election on this issue, Senator Woodley, than security considerations? vote for the bill when it returns to the Senate. Senator ALSTON—I am not sure that is Waterfront Reform a serious question either, Madam President. Senator O’BRIEN—My question is to the Opposition senators interjecting— Minister representing the Minister for Work- Senator ALSTON—I will give it a serious place Relations and Small Business. Minister, answer. I am sure the disgruntled unionist do you recall that in October of last year your faction would expect no less. The fact is that government refused to comply with a Senate judgments are always made about the status return to order requiring the production of of documents when requests are made either documents related to your government’s through the FOI procedures— waterfront strategy and justified your refusal Opposition senator interjecting— by claiming that the documents in question were covered by cabinet and commercial-in- Senator ALSTON—If you want to apolo- confidence? Minister, how do you explain gise, do it after question time. It is a lot more why, according to evidence given at estimates convenient. We will not have to interrupt you hearings last week, Mr Reith and Mr Sharp then. We will give you absolute silence. If shared this material with a large number of you have got something to say, which at least individuals, including representatives of the portrays even a suggestion of regret, then we National Farmers Federation, at a meeting in would be happy to hear you do it at the Melbourne on 18 September last year? appropriate time. Minister, has this apparent flagrant breach of In the meantime, let me simply say that, in cabinet and commercial confidentiality been relation to both requests by members of referred to the Australian Federal Police for parliament, questions on notice or without investigation? If not, why not? notice, and FOI requests, the documents are Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 497 judged on their merits against the various during the election and it very much demon- criteria that are important in assessing whether strates his attitude and that of his government they should be released to the public. In this towards this very important issue. instance the judgment was made. It had It is also why the Prime Minister when nothing to do with the sorts of motives that announcing that the government would under- you attribute, but simply on merit. take an overhaul of the Australian taxation Youth Allowance system specified that one of the criteria of tax reform would include further relief in relation Senator HARRADINE—My question is to the taxation of families. I take this oppor- directed to the Leader of the Government tunity to reiterate that here today. representing the Prime Minister. The govern- ment is insisting on the passage of its com- I can, therefore, assure Senator Harradine mon youth allowance bill, pointing to its that, in restructuring the Australian taxation overall beneficial effect. However, is it not a system to which this government is commit- fact that the legislation will transfer the costs ted, the government will give further recogni- of its social security responsibilities for some tion and help to Australian parents concerning young unemployed Australians from its own their responsibilities in—using Senator budget to that of their parents to the tune of Harradine’s words—raising sons and daugh- $135 million? If that legislation assumes those ters, Australia’s future taxpayers. siblings are sharing in their parents’ income, Compact Disc Imports should not the essential income transfers within a family be also recognised in the Senator LUNDY—My question is to the taxation system? Is it the intention of the Minister for Communications, the Information government to include in its restructuring of Economy and the Arts. When you were first the Australian taxation system measures to asked at estimates last Thursday about wheth- give further recognition to the function of er a strategy had been prepared for a parents in raising sons and daughters, $750,000 publicity campaign for your govern- Australia’s future taxpayers? ment’s policies on CD imports, why did you deny it? Why did you say, ‘No particular The PRESIDENT—Before calling Senator strategy is being proposed or put forward at Hill, I point out that a significant part of the this time,’ when you knew perfectly well that question related to a bill that is before the not only had a strategy been prepared but you committee of the whole at the present time. had already let a contract for $73,000? Is it We are usually fairly tolerant about that sort not also a fact that the publicity campaign is of thing, but this is before the committee. The in part directed at persuading your own back- latter part of the question certainly raised benchers that your CD policy is the right one? another issue. Senator ALSTON—Senator Lundy did her Senator HILL—If I respond to the sub- very best at estimates recently to try to beat stance: as I understand it, the issue of Senator up this issue and then, because it did not go Harradine’s question really is the commitment anywhere, she put out a press release that said of the government through the taxation ‘despite intense questioning by her good self’. system to give support to parents, recognising I think that tells you that she was running into the extra financial burden that children obvi- the sand by that stage. The fact is that Senator ously must be upon any family. There can be Lundy had a document, but by being cute and no doubt about that commitment. coy about it she asked a question in such a The best example I can give to demonstrate way that it was very difficult to comprehend that commitment is the family tax initiative, precisely what she was asking in the first which we introduced after this government place. came to power, which gives additional help The fact is that all the relevant matters were to low and middle income families with provided to Senator Lundy. She is very much dependent children. That was a commitment aware, as she was from the outset, of the that the now Prime Minister personally made decision taken. I think the way in which she 498 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 put it was: ‘Was a strategy prepared by the we would not expect you lot to, in any shape department and presented to you?’ Essentially, or form, try to undo those misunderstandings I think the answer was that the department put because you threw in the towel on this issue forward a possible strategy. long ago. You were prepared at one stage to I can understand Senator Lundy not under- take the right and proper course of action. Of standing the difference. She has not been in course you buckled at the knees on CDs. this place all that long, but there is, unfortu- Senator Schacht is on the public record as nately, quite a deal of difference between the saying we are doing the right thing. You department wanting something or even the know we are doing the right thing. You threw minister wanting something and it ultimately in the towel because you were too gutless and finding its way into government policy. I yet you are not prepared to debate the issue would have thought that that particular under- on its merits. As it therefore happens, it may standing would have dawned on Senator be necessary for an information campaign. Lundy by now. Senator LUNDY—Madam President, I ask I now go to the more important part of the a supplementary question. How do you justify question: why was it that backbenchers should spending $750,000 of taxpayers’ money be somehow involved in the campaign? The advertising what is merely government policy fact is that the record industry has spent given that legislation has yet to be passed by literally millions of dollars on mounting a parliament? How do you justify spending any significant disinformation campaign. There are taxpayers’ money at all to sell the message to very many people in the community who your own backbenchers? need to understand the true facts of the issue. Senator ALSTON—It is as though I had One of the best ways of doing that is, when said nothing for the last three minutes— people ring up with concerns to a backbenc- Opposition senators interjecting— her’s office, for that backbencher to be in a position to provide the facts to overturn the Senator ALSTON—You cannot have it misunderstandings and inconsistencies that both ways. Either you want me to answer the might otherwise influence their judgment. questions or, if you do not want to hear it, if you do not think the answers are worth This is the lot that spent millions of dollars having, you can save yourself the time and on information campaigns. Do you remember trouble and not ask the questions. But, unfor- those little trees that grew all about the tunately, Senator Lundy chooses to ask the superannuation guarantee charge? You know question. She therefore gets an answer. She who were the significant beneficiaries of that, gets an answer in spades about the necessity don’t you? The crowd that set up the industry to mount a campaign to refute the disinforma- funds—the superannuation funds run by the tion that is provided by the Record Industry trade union movement. This was an absolute Association. She ignores all of that and godsend to the trade union movement because pretends it has not happened and asks me every income earner in Australia was forced again why we are mounting an information to contribute and many of them had no choice campaign. Well, I do not want to say it but to put their money into industry funds. anymore. We are doing it to correct the So, once again, they were the classic benefi- record to make sure people are not ciaries of a system and yet you still had to get misunderstood. We have not yet decided to go out there and spend millions of dollars adver- down that path, but if we do it will be be- tising it. cause there is a necessity to correct the We make no apologies at all for, from time disinformation on the subject. (Time expired) to time, finding it necessary to ensure that the public are not misled and for ensuring that all Government Schools Funding those who might be in a position to clarify Senator ALLISON—My question is to the any misunderstanding on the part of the minister for schools. Minister, in estimates public are fully informed, and backbenchers last week we heard that the government will come into that category. Can I simply say that take $11.9 million from state budgets through Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 499 its enrolment benchmark adjustment even Allison, is that we believe in a strong govern- though enrolments in government schools ment sector and a strong non-government have increased by 8,500. Minister, what sector so that Australian parents can choose justification do you have for continuing to to which school they want to send their punish state schools when it is clear that all children. the students which your government predicted Senator ALLISON—Madam President, I would exit public schools have not done so? ask a supplementary question. Minister, you Minister, why did Dr Kemp this week public- say that this is a small percentage of the total ly deny that this money will be moved from schools budget, but I ask you again why is it government schools? necessary to impose this measure at all? What Senator ELLISON—I thank Senator is the purpose of the mechanism if it is not to Allison for this question. As Senator Allison bleed government schools of very scarce well knows, the situation here is that there is resources? My question to you was: why does no punishment at all. This government be- Dr Kemp continue to mislead the Australian lieves in a strong government school sector. public on this issue and these cuts? It also believes in a strong non-government Senator ELLISON—The legislation to school sector so that parents can choose to which the EBA is tied went through this very which school they will send their children. chamber—it went through the Senate. Can I That is a platform we went to the Australian also say that it was part of the 1996 budget people with at the last election and a platform announcement. So there has been nothing on which we were elected. clandestine, nothing covert. It is something Senator Allison, I am glad you mentioned which has been debated, passed and accepted. that figure of $11.9 million because in your We have also discussed this with the states. address to the Senate the other day you There is no intention to bleed the government mistakenly referred to it as $16.8 million. sector. We are spending more money on This figure represents under half a per cent of government schools. We believe in a strong the total expenditure of the Commonwealth government sector. on government schools. In fact, in this year Compact Disc Imports the Commonwealth will spend $127 million more on government schools than Labor did Senator MURPHY—My question is to the it its last year. Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. Do you recall that, Senator Allison also fails to remember the after cabinet decided your policy on CD fact that, in recurrent expenditure, we allowed imports last year, you stated publicly that you a supplementation of 7.4 per cent. This was would be strengthening the copyright laws by a windfall because it exceeded the CPI index increasing penalties and reversing the onus of by several per cent and in fact involved a proof? Do you recall, for example, stating on windfall of $228 million to schools. When radio 2BL on 10 October, ‘We’ll be tighten- you look at it in that context, there is an ing the rules, increasing the penalties, revers- increase in expenditure towards government ing the onus of proof’? Minister, when and schools. This EBA adjusts funding between how do you propose to reverse the onus of the Commonwealth and the states and ad- proof? dresses where you have a proportional shift between government and non-government Senator ALSTON—I am not quite sure enrolment. what that means—‘when and how do you propose to do it?’ You would make changes In some states and territories—Tasmania, to legislation which would put in place a the Northern Territory and the ACT—this was mechanism— not even triggered. There was a lower result than anticipated because the drift from Senator Schacht—You are supposed to be government to non-government was between a lawyer, Richard! 0.3 and 0.4 per cent. That was much lower Senator ALSTON—I am just explaining than anticipated. What we are saying, Senator what I think he means. It is not done person- 500 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 ally by a member of parliament or the consequence if these policies were not main- minister. You would move an amendment that tained into the future? would enable a court to make a judgment by Senator KEMP—Thank you, Senator reversing the onus of proof. In other words, Crane, for that important question. The Asian in a civil dispute, instead of having to estab- crisis will have a significant impact on the lish that something was imported from a Australian economy, and that has been stated jurisdiction where there were no copyright before this. The impact was incorporated into arrangements—and therefore was pirated—the the mid-year economic and fiscal outlook, onus would be on the importer to show that with growth slowing to 3¼ per cent in 1998- it was not illegally imported. That makes one 99 from 3¾ per cent in 1997-98. I stress that very big difference. Otherwise, you have to the fact that Australia is expected to continue go offshore, gather evidence and prove what to record high growth levels in 1998-99 the law might be in that particular jurisdic- despite the Asian turmoil is a result of strong tion. If you simply put the onus on either the domestic demand. As my colleague Senator retailer or the importer, then it is their respon- Parer pointed out, this is a high growth sibility to ensure that, before they put the CD economy compared with other countries. on sale, they have satisfied themselves that it is not a pirated import. Therefore, their Senator Mackay—No, it isn’t. records would be part of their satisfying the Senator KEMP—It is a high growth onus of proof and meeting that test. That is economy. Let there be no doubt that the what I had in mind and that is the way in government’s responsible budget policies which I believe we are still proceeding. provide investment confidence to maintain high growth, low inflation and low interest Senator MURPHY—Madam President, I rates. If it were not for these responsible ask a supplementary question, given what the policies, if we had maintained the budget minister has just said on what seems to be his deficit policies of the previous failed Labor view of onus of proof now. Minister, how do government, the economic situation in this you reconcile that with what the Attorney- country would be worse—far worse. What General’s Department stated to the communi- would happen if by some mischance Labor cations and arts committee the other night— were returned to office? We can judge some- that the government has never stated it will what from what is already on the public reverse the onus of proof either in parliament record. We know Labor would spend, spend, or to the public? How do you reconcile that spend. Labor would run up the deficit— position with your public statements? Honourable senators interjecting— Senator ALSTON—I presume you told them where they were wrong because you The PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too have just confirmed that I did say it on radio. much noise in the chamber. To the extent that they were saying I had Senator KEMP—There is no doubt, and never said it in public, I presume you pointed we have this on the record, that Labor would that out to them and drew it to their attention spend, spend, spend. In fact shadow minister and they apologised to you for any misunder- after shadow minister has gone around this standing. country saying that there will be further additional spending policies. We all know that Economy: Asian Crisis if spending rises taxes will rise and, ultimate- Senator CRANE—My question is to the ly, we know from the Labor experience that Assistant Treasurer. I refer the minister to the there will be substantial rises in deficits. They current problems in the Asian economies. are the record government for running up Will the minister outline how the govern- massive deficits while in office. ment’s prudent budgetary policies will enable Mr Martin Ferguson has said that the Australia to continue to record high levels of government ought to be digging into its growth notwithstanding the problems in Asia? surplus. That is what Martin Ferguson said. Will the minister also outline the adverse Michael Lee wants to spend more money in Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 501 the health area. And so it goes on. Simon some further spending programs, again Crean wants to spend more money in the uncosted. But, I must say, what a fantastic R&D area. We are quite entitled to ask where idea! The shadow minister for trade, in order this money is coming from. A blank look to deal with the Asian crisis, would go around collectively goes over the Labor frontbench. this country conducting a few seminars. It is Where is this money coming from which truly pathetic. (Time expired) Labor has started to promise? It is the same Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask that old story. What we are seeing again is a re- further questions be placed on the Notice run of the old Labor story—promising spend- Paper. ing and at the same time pretending they will not raise taxes. We all know from bitter SENATOR BOLKUS experience what the effect of a Labor govern- Suspension of Standing Orders ment is. Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— I also point out that the current Leader of Minister for Justice) (3.01 p.m.)—I wish to the Opposition, Mr Beazley, racked up mas- move a censure motion against Senator sive deficits when he was the Minister for Bolkus. I want to do it straight after question Finance. So for Mr Beazley to be going time, and I have the appropriate motions in around the country talking about surpluses is front of me. I do not want to do that if there a joke to any person in this country who has is another matter that you, Madam President, any memory whatsoever of the experience of need to deal with first, but I do want to deal the Labor government. Senators may be with it before taking note of answers. interested to know what Senator Cook said when asked what Labor would do in response The PRESIDENT—If you wish to move to the Asian crisis. (Time expired) a suspension of standing orders, you may do so. Senator CRANE—I would particularly like Senator Robert Ray—Why didn’t we get Senator Kemp, the minister, to outline further the call here then? Mr Beazley’s performance in terms of his years as Minister for Finance and the impact The PRESIDENT—I have not called on that had on the Australian economy in terms motions to take note of answers. The proced- of the deficits that were brought down. ure is that, at this point, I call ministers who stand up, who usually are giving additional The PRESIDENT—That supplementary answers and information to questions. I called question is very nearly out of order. You Senator Vanstone. She now says that she should not canvass matters which ought not wishes to move a censure motion. to be raised within it. Senator Cook—I rise on a point of order, Senator KEMP—To expand on the point, Madam President. Senator Vanstone is the when asked what Labor would do in response only minister on her feet. Surely, before you to the Asian crisis on Australian jobs, growth accept that Senator Vanstone can bypass any and inflation, Senator Cook’s first response minister who wishes to add to their answer, was this—and I had to read it twice to make you should first ascertain whether any sure I had read it correctly: minister wishes to do so. There is a clear case We have made quite clear over a long period of that one minister, Senator Kemp, at least time what Labor would do, we would have moved should do so after that despicable display a earlier to recognise the extent of the crisis. moment ago. Surely you should establish that and then we waited breathlessly to see what fact first. Labor would have done, and Senator Cook The PRESIDENT—Order! There is no went on: point of order. No other minister stood up We would have conducted seminars around Aus- other than Senator Vanstone. tralia... Senator Robert Ray—I will raise another That is what Senator Cook said. Like his point of order. You yourself have said you colleagues, Senator Cook then announced called Senator Vanstone because you thought 502 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 she was going to add to an answer. That is sion of standing orders, during which senators the reason for her getting the call. may each speak for a period of five minutes. The PRESIDENT—True. Correct. Senator VANSTONE—It appears that that Senator Robert Ray—Normally you would offer has been rejected, so I will speak to the take the noting of answers and then, if a motion. This is a very serious matter. Mr minister wished to move a suspension, you Skase left Australia under the Labor adminis- would recognise and call them then. tration owing millions of dollars to small investors all around Australia. Labor, I have The PRESIDENT—Correct. no doubt, did its best to get Mr Skase back, Senator Robert Ray—Senator Vanstone but it failed and failed spectacularly. Now we has the priority over Senator O’Brien, who are in government, and we have confirmed was on his feet to take note, on the basis that, that we are also pursuing Mr Skase’s assets. in your own mind, she was going to add to an We have a situation where a member of this answer. place, the would-be alternative first law Senator VANSTONE—On the point of officer of the Commonwealth, who had the order, Madam President: I sought the call and opportunity over the last few days to admit received it. I indicated at that point that I this, has quite clearly used improperly or would immediately move the motion. You illegally obtained court documents. That is the would have had no option but to accept that first charge against him. motion. I simply did you a courtesy in indi- Not only has he used them, he has not cating that, if you had something you wanted revealed inconsequential material from these to say in relation to question time or what- documents. He has revealed material which ever, you could go first. But the facts are that was relevant to the proceedings, and it is I was on my feet, I had the call and I wish to quite clear from the material that has been led proceed. through the chamber this week that he did so The PRESIDENT—If there is a contingent knowing the damage he might cause. The notice of motion that permits the minister to affidavit from Mr Donnelly that was in the do so, she may proceed at any time. Federal Court from which Senator Bolkus Senator VANSTONE—Pursuant to contin- read to the media quite clearly indicated that gent notice of motion No. 1 standing in the Mr Donnelly wanted these proceedings to go name of the Leader of the Government in the ahead without Mr Skase knowing, and the Senate, I move: Commonwealth was backing Mr Donnelly and making every attempt for these matters to be That so much of the standing orders be suspend- dealt with without Mr Skase knowing. ed as would prevent Senator Hill moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely Nobody can deny that there is always a a motion to give precedence to a motion of censure Skase story in the paper. Someone just has to of the shadow Attorney-General (Senator Bolkus) think of a few million dollars, attach it to for his unauthorised disclosure of a confidential Skase’s name and it will get in the paper. The court document relating to proceedings concerning Mr C. Skase. reason for that is the Australian community are sick to death of people like him doing that Opposition senators interjecting— sort of thing, and they are interested in it. Senator VANSTONE—I am happy for But I know of no journalist who ran a them to speak to it, but I am conscious that story—prior to Senator Bolkus releasing these people, on the other side especially, say that details from illegally or improperly obtained they would like to run this place efficiently. material—with any of the detail that Senator I am giving them the opportunity to agree to Bolkus released. What the journalists have suspend standing orders and move straight to done has been responsible. Some have indi- the substantive motion. If they do not want to cated—and Senator Bolkus has indicated— do that, I will debate it. that journalists have had this document, but The PRESIDENT—There are 30 minutes the difference between Senator Bolkus and the in which to debate the motion for the suspen- journalists is that he used the document, he Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 503 encouraged the details of it into the public that all Australians have an interest in, and arena, but the journalists did not. they do not think it is okay. They are looking In doing this, Madam President, he tipped to this chamber to make that abundantly clear off Skase’s advisers in Australia, and not only to Senator Bolkus as soon as is practicable, that we were after his assets. Mr Skase knows and that is today. we are always after his assets. He has a Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— trustee in bankruptcy. Mr Donnelly has been Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.10 quoted as saying something like he thinks he p.m.)—Thank you very much, Madam Presi- will be Mr Skase’s trustee in bankruptcy until dent. I oppose the urgency motion that has one or other of them dies. been moved by Senator Vanstone. The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Madam President, if we ever needed any Vanstone, this part of the debate should be evidence of the coalition’s inability and focused particularly on urgency. incapacity to adapt to the responsibilities of governing Australia, then I believe this stunt Senator VANSTONE—Madam President, is it. Most people are aware that, traditionally what I am trying to do—and I will come to in the parliament, censure motions have been the point—is indicate to you, with the back- weapons for opposition. They are not ground material, why it is urgent. We have weapons for government. You are making a over the last four days set out this case for all habit of it. to see. At no time has Senator Bolkus taken the opportunity to apologise to Mr Donnelly. What we are told time and time again is At no time has he apologised to the Senate. that this government has more important He has just proceeded as though he was on a things to deal with—perhaps like getting on decent footing. with governing the country. But that, of course, as we know, Madam President, is The urgency is, Madam President, that we beyond the capacity of those opposite. have a senator who has behaved outside of this place in a way that nobody in this place I have to say that probably the government would ever let him behave. And he purports has made a tactical decision—‘We need a bit to be the alternative first law officer. In a of a confidence builder for Senator Vanstone democratic system where you have two major because she was sacked from the Howard parties and sometimes other key players—in cabinet.’ I have to say, Madam President, the Senate there are always key players—the there are many decisions that Mr Howard has alternative first law officer holds a position of made that I do not agree with, but that is one some significance. By behaving in the way he he got right. Senator Vanstone was a failed has, he has brought this place, himself and his minister; she deserved to be sacked, and this party into disrepute. is just a confidence builder for her. It is appropriate for this chamber to indicate Senator Hill—Could I take a point of to the community at large that we do not order, Madam President? I respectfully urge accept this sort of behaviour. It is not the way you to remind Senator Faulkner that this is a that senators should behave. It is not the way debate where he should be arguing against that first law officers should behave. If we do urgency. not deal with this today, if we do not make it The PRESIDENT—We are dealing with abundantly clear, after all that we have heard the question of urgency at the present time, this week, which has not been refuted by Senator. Senator Bolkus, that these are not the stand- Senator FAULKNER—I am making the ards that this place will accept—not Liberal- point, Madam President, that one of the Labor but this place as a whole—then the reasons this is proposed by the government Australian community takes it that we nod to now is that it is a confidence builder for Senator Bolkus and say, ‘Oh, it’s okay.’ Senator Vanstone who has had such a Madam President, the pursuit of Skase is a miserable and pathetic ministerial career for matter that the government has an interest in, the past two years. 504 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

This is the same government that carries on, Federal Court documents for no apparent day in and day out, about alleged Senate reason other than what he perversely sees as obstructionism. This is the same government his own personal aggrandisement. that whinges about their incapacity and The allegations that have been made each inability to get their legislation program question time this week against Senator through the Senate. But what do they do? Bolkus have never been denied by Senator They bring yet another time-wasting stunt. Bolkus. He has now had all week to come They decide to run this particular censure clean or make a denial. Therefore, this Senate motion on a Thursday afternoon, deliberately is confronted, I would suggest, with a very to take away from the small amount of time strong prima facie case that Senator Bolkus in the Senate routine of business—that is, has behaved in a manner which is completely general business—for opposition and minor unacceptable to the standards of this Senate. parties, non-government senators, to build a Therefore, we should deal with this matter by case around important issues of public policy. way of a censure motion as soon as the case Perhaps it is because of the issue that was has been built up to the extent that it now has proposed for debate today. Perhaps that is been built. another reason why Senator Vanstone decided to put forward this very cheap stunt. One of the telling points of the half-baked contribution by the Leader of the Opposition I have to say to the Leader of the Govern- in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) was that he ment in the Senate and the Manager of failed to comment on the integrity of Senator Government Business in the Senate that, after Bolkus—not a single word of defence in this, there can be no more of their usual support of Senator Bolkus. I must commend carping and whingeing about the govern- him on this: this is a tactic learned from ment’s legislation program in the Senate. No Senator Ray. When he refuses to support a more can there be any suggestions at the end colleague, he will bag the government and of the sittings program that we should be hope that we forget about the colleague who putting our efforts into longer sitting days and is under fire. Let me say this to Senator more sitting weeks for the Senate. Faulkner: we saw through that little tactic If you are willing to put the Senate’s time because you do not quite do it as convin- into this sort of time-wasting stunt from a cingly as the should-be Leader of the Opposi- failed minister for employment, education and tion in the Senate, Senator Ray. training, then, on behalf of the opposition, I We on this side accuse Senator Bolkus of say to you, ‘Well, let the consequences be on acting somewhat deceptively in this matter. your head because this is a cheap, miserable, Senator Faulkner, in trying to make out his political stunt developed by a failed minister case, has also misled the Senate, because he to try to retrieve a bit of ground after an asserted that the tactic we are using today is abominable performance as an office holder, a tactic that should only be allowed to be as a cabinet minister, for which eventually employed by the opposition—rules that ought even the Prime Minister of Australia caught to be applicable only to the Labor Party and up with her.’ This is a pathetic, time-wasting not to the government. stunt. The opposition will not support this But how short his memory is. Do you recall suspension of standing orders. (Time expired) the censure motion against my colleague Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (3.15 p.m.)— former Senator Michael Baume? Senator We have just witnessed a half-baked excuse Faulkner, you voted for it. Was it that you by a half-baked Leader of the Opposition as just forgot—a convenient lapse of memory, to why this matter should not be brought on. like Dr Carmen Lawrence’s—or were you What is the urgency in this matter? Very deliberately misleading this Senate, which clearly, it is this: there is no more serious your colleague who sits behind you is so allegation that can be made against a senator, blatantly guilty of doing? let alone the would-be Attorney-General of In the past, the then Labor government in this country, than to accuse him of leaking the other place also censured the now Prime Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 505

Minister (Mr Howard) and the now Minister Senator Newman—This isn’t a joke, for Health and Family Services (Dr Wool- Senator. dridge). That was in 1995. So the only part of Senator ROBERT RAY—Of course it is Senator Faulkner’s contribution that had some not a serious matter by those opposite; other- ring of confidence about it was this allegation wise their behaviour today would not have that it should be used only by oppositions. been so puerile. It has been absolutely politi- That argument has fallen flat because of the cal and puerile behaviour from the govern- facts that I have just laid before this place. ment. But, if it were a matter of urgency, why wasn’t it raised when Senator Vanstone What are we confronted with? We are con- answered a question three days ago? I can tell fronted with a very weak argument by Senator you why: that was a government business Faulkner. The one area that had the potential day. When it was raised yesterday and we for substance has been utterly destroyed and, were given the same repetitive answer, why as a result, there is no support for the argu- wasn’t it urgent then? Of course, it wasn’t ments being put by the Labor Party that this urgent then. is not a matter of urgency. I will tell you why it is urgent today: because today is the day there is little govern- We will undoubtedly hear from Senator Ray ment business left. Today is the day we have in this debate. It really is sad that somebody general business which is the time allocated who had the esteem and the seniority is now to us, the Democrats, the Greens and others only ever making contributions in this place in which to put forward our views. So, cyni- when there is mud to be slung or when trying cally, this government has thought, ‘Not only to sledge a minister. will we jump into a puerile, opportunist censure motion, but we will also make it at As I said at the outset, there can be no the expense of the opposition, using their more serious matter than an allegation that a time.’ senator in this place, let alone the would-be Attorney-General, deliberately leaked informa- Senator Vanstone, I think in a previous tion from confidential Federal Court docu- answer, said this matter was in the hands of ments, against the rules of the Federal Court, the Federal Police. Senator, have you not said which had the capacity to sabotage and at some stage that the leaking of matters prejudice the taxpayer-funded pursuit of associated with Skase is in the hands of the Christopher Skase. Senator Faulkner and the Federal Police? If so, have they reported or Labor Party are only seeking to defend have you jumped the gun into an operational Skase’s mate. matter and want to prejudice their investigat- ions here in the Senate by making a cheap, Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (3.21 opportunist censure motion? Is that the case, p.m.)—Over the years, censure motions are that you as a government refer something to supposed to have been a very serious matter the Federal Police for investigation, that they in this chamber. But one would have to say have not in fact reported, but once again you that their effectiveness has been debased by jumped the gun with a censure motion associ- those on both sides of politics in the last 15 ated with this? I wonder. We might hear one years when they have been thrown around of your later speakers respond to whether this like confetti. I have always had a great regret is before the Federal Police and whether you in my political life: I have never been subject- are jumping the gun in the Senate, doing your ed to one. Every time I go to my preselection own lynch-mob mentality job, not leaving it panel, I have to say, ‘I appear as a failure to the professionals to investigate properly before you yet again. The Senate has failed to and establish the facts. censure me.’ If only you blokes opposite This government never hesitates to put would get your act together, clean me up, slap leaks in the hands of the Federal Police, be it me on the wrist and censure me, at least I a leak from PM&C, as occurred recently, or could walk tall before my own preselectors. a supposed one in DoFA. But when a key 506 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 report goes missing, such as the Kennedy arguments. I hope we get more arguments report, it is not put in the hands of the Federal than some of the politics back and forth that Police; it is referred to the internal fraud we have had so far. I hope it can be done in people to cover up. When two crucial docu- such a way that it does not impinge on any ments disappeared from the Prime Minister’s current police inquiries. I think that should be office on 11 April 1997, was there a police possible. I am prepared to listen to the argu- investigation? Was there any investigation? ments of this important censure—in my No, there was not. So we can have a Prime opinion it always has been important; the Minister get up in the House of Representa- Labor Party has not always considered that tives and talk about the perverters of the censures are important, but I believe they course of justice only on the basis that his are—to find out what the case is really about. own office has deleted two critical aide- Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (3.28 memoires that would clear the people he p.m.)—I am going to vote against the suspen- accused. They are the people who should be sion of standing orders. How I vote will not censored in this place. make any difference, of course, but I believe This exercise is about precisely what Sena- that there has not been a case made out for tor Faulkner said. We have a justice minister the suspension of standing orders today. If it here whose portfolio responsibilities, whose was to be made out today, why was it not staffing and whose image in politics have made out two, three, four or five days ago been massively reduced—not by us. We did when the details were known? not demote Senator Vanstone. We did not say Senator Abetz—We have had a Federal to Senator Vanstone that she was no good. Court letter today. Her Prime Minister did so. Her Prime Minister demoted her out of cabinet. Her Senator HARRADINE—Well without Prime Minister cut the then duties of the getting the Federal Court’s letter, you know Attorney-General in about half and gave half precisely what the rules are. Other honourable to Senator Vanstone. She is suffering from senators who are interested would as well. I deprivation of publicity and role in politics wanted to make that point. No doubt it is because she has gone from the second biggest necessary now for me to listen to the argu- spending department in the country to doing ments. I am reserving my view on the subject nothing. She is bored and she is demoted. So until I have heard the arguments. I am just she gets into what I assume is a South Aus- disappointed that the matter is coming on tralian thing, a little South Australian feud, so today. I had heard around the traps that there that she can get her kicks over this particular was something going on, but I have been issue. otherwise engaged in connection with legisla- tion and thus I will be voting against the If you want to waste the time of this parlia- suspension. ment, you will be repaid in kind. If you want Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- to take up our general business time, we will tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian start moving urgency motions and MPIs every Democrats) (3.29 p.m.)—The Australian day. We have been responsible in giving you Democrats will be supporting the suspension. time, but if you want to waste the time We do so because we believe this is a serious allocated to us, you will get it back in kind. matter and we are anxious to hear the argu- Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) ments which we believe should have a hear- (3.26 p.m.)—Madam President, the timing of ing. We are not really interested in the politi- this urgent censure motion is indeed cynical, cal debate but we are interested in the legal but I believe that it is an important issue. It debate. We are concerned though that, if the is about whether or not a senator of this government does have a number of censure chamber, in their conduct as a minister, motions in future, they might give consider- deserves the censure of the Senate. So whilst ation as to when these take place—especially the timing is cynical, I am prepared to support if it is a Thursday afternoon, which is of the suspension of standing orders to hear the course our only opportunity to have general Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 507 business. That is our main reluctance to against Senator Bolkus because Senator support the suspension. But we will do so, in Bolkus annoys her. That is part of politics, order to give what we consider a serious Senator Vanstone. If you can’t stand it, get matter a hearing, and we will be listening to out of the joint. That is what politics is about, the arguments and then deciding on the issue. in part. Senator COOK (Western Australia— And why is the government concerned Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the about Senator Bolkus? Last week a High Senate) (3.30 p.m.)—No case has been made Court judge stepped down from hearing a out this afternoon for an urgency motion on major case, because Senator Bolkus put in the this matter at all. The speeches that have been given by the government have been speeches public domain information that the govern- attacking Senator Bolkus. They have not been ment knew about and would not make avail- speeches about why this matter is allegedly able. As a consequence of that, a High Court urgent. Nothing that has been put forward judge stepped down. And who is the propo- says, for example, that the nation is in peril. nent in this case? Who is taking it? The We are not talking about the Gulf War or government. That is, of course, a major something of that level of magnitude. Nothing setback for the government in that case. That that has been put suggests urgency. Nothing is why Senator Bolkus must be stopped has been put to say that if we deal with it now—not because of any other matter of exactly now something that is about to hap- public urgency, but because he has acted in pen will change or be stopped. There is no the public interest to make information avail- urgency in terms of time. This is not a ques- able to the judiciary that the government tion that, if we do not act immediately, knew about and did not reveal. something will change. No case whatsoever has been adduced that that is true. Indeed, So let us cut out all this cant, humbug and what Senator Harradine said before ought to pretence of urgency or of a substantive issue weigh heavily with the minor parties and the here. There is no substantive issue here. The government. If it is urgent, why wasn’t it matter should be dealt with on the voices and done sooner? Why did you wait until now? dismissed, and this chamber should go about There is no case before this chamber that, if its business. What the Leader of the Opposi- we act now, we will stop something. We will tion said is true: the most frequent refrain not. from the government is obstruction. Who is Of course it is idle to pretend that there is obstructing now? The government. The something urgent. There is nothing that is business of the Senate should proceed normal- leading the news tonight, nothing on the front ly and not be obstructed. If we hear another page of any newspaper, nothing out there that peep out of you lot about obstruction, we will is publicly notorious, that indicates urgency quote back to you, chapter and verse, the or significant importance. It is a joke and a events of today, because that is exactly what political fix. That is what it is. We ought to you are doing. I know the vote is coming call it by its real name and not engage in shortly. I think we are just about out of time. humbug and pretence that there is something I ask those that have declared themselves to urgent. It fails on all of these dispassionate pause again and think: what is urgent; what tests. Is the nation imperilled? No. Is there cannot wait until next week; what cannot take something we can do to stop something? No. its place in the normal batting order? Nothing Is there something that is publicly notorious? here is in that category. Do not lend yourself No. Can we act to change events? No. None to a slimy, grubby manipulation of the pro- of these things suggests urgency. Everyone in gram. this chamber knows that. The PRESIDENT—Order! The time for What do we have? We have a series of this debate has terminated. dorothy dixers this week to Senator Vanstone, so that she can have an unguarded rave Question put: 508 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

That the motion (Senator Vanstone’s) be agreed Procedural Motion to. Motion (by Senator Vanstone) proposed: That a motion of censure of the shadow Attorney The Senate divided. [3.39 p.m.] General (Senator Bolkus) may be moved immedi- ately and have precedence over all other business (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret today, including general business and consideration Reid) of committee reports and government responses, Ayes ...... 45 until determined. Noes ...... 27 Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— —— Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.42 Majority ...... 18 —— p.m.)—I would like to address this motion, which the opposition will not be supporting. AYES Why should this Senate give precedence to Abetz, E. Allison, L. Senator Vanstone when the Prime Minister Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. Brown, B. has shown what precedence she deserves by Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. * sacking her from the cabinet? Why should we Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. give precedence to this absolutely incompe- Colston, M. A. Coonan, H. tent minister? I think I can make a very Crane, W. Eggleston, A. strong case to you, Madam Deputy President, Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. as to why precedence is not warranted on this Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W. Herron, J. issue. Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. Let us look at the record of this failed and Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H. miserable minister. Do you remember this? Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I. As soon as Senator Vanstone came into Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. Margetts, D. McGauran, J. J. J. office, she refused to set targets for unem- Murray, A. Newman, J. M. ployment. As background for anyone who O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R. might be silly enough to listen to this absurd Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. debate and as background for my colleagues, Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N. I have got to say that this was, of course, Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J. before she was sacked. So that we are clear, Tierney, J. Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. it was when she was the Minister for Employ- Woodley, J. ment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, before Mr Howard refused to give Senator NOES Vanstone precedence. Bishop, M. Bolkus, N. Campbell, G. Carr, K. She refused to set targets to deal with Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. unemployment. That is one of Senator Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. Vanstone’s great achievements. Who could Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V. * forget the political time bomb that she then Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G. handed her leader, Mr Howard, who subse- Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. Hogg, J. Lundy, K. quently sacked her? The political time bomb Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P. was this: Senator Vanstone puffed herself up Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J. on a television program on a Sunday morn- O’Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. ing; she went on television and said, ‘If a Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. government fails to get unemployment down, Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. then a government does not deserve to be re- West, S. M. elected.’ PAIRS That was the second major foul-up by Alston, R. K. R. Collins, R. L. Senator Vanstone, the minister who is moving Minchin, N. H. Denman, K. J. * denotes teller precedence on this motion to give her an opportunity to peddle lies about Senator Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bolkus. The minister who has asked for Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 509 precedence is the same one who, in question sure that Senator Faulkner is debating whether time in May 1996, said to the Senate: precedence should be given to this and not The reason you will not have some information is the censure motion. that we will not give it to you if we don’t want to. Senator FAULKNER—As I was saying, That is what she said in response to a ques- we will not be voting for any motion to give tion asked of her ministerial responsibilities precedence to Senator Vanstone when the in this chamber. That is what Senator Prime Minister demonstrated his approach in Vanstone thinks about responsibilities: we terms of the precedence he gave to Senator will not give you any information if we do Vanstone by sacking her. Do not forget the not want to. That was her view of what being coalition that developed in the higher educa- a minister of the Crown was about. tion sector. On that occasion, you had the It ill behoves Senator Vanstone, with an Prime Minister— attitude like that to ministerial responsibility, to be criticising anyone in the opposition in The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Point of relation to the conduct of their duties in order, Senator Knowles. public life. We should not forget that the Senator Knowles—I know you are sound- minister who wants precedence to deal with ing exasperated, Madam Deputy President, this politically motivated stunt is the same but I would prefer that you just listen to the minister who is single-handedly responsible point of order that I am about to take, without for building the most powerful coalition of the exasperation. That point of order is on opponents imaginable in higher education. standing order 194(1) again— This is the minister—the first in Australian political history—who managed to unite vice The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator chancellors, students, university staff and the Knowles, I caution you on some of your word public against her higher education policies. choice because I find that it is going very close to reflecting upon the chair, and I do Senator Knowles—Madam Deputy Presi- not appreciate it. Would you please continue dent, I take a point of order under standing with your point of order. order No. 194(1) which says: A Senator shall not digress from the subject matter Senator Knowles—Madam Deputy Presi- of any question under discussion, or anticipate the dent, I still say that I would prefer that you discussion of any subject which appears on the did not call me in such a way as to express Notice Paper. your exasperation. On a point of order: I am I refer to the first part of 194(1), in that raising standing order 194(1). I ask your Senator Faulkner has not yet talked about the guidance as to how the disparaging comments issue that is before the Senate, and that is the by Senator Faulkner about Senator Vanstone question of Senator Bolkus’s behaviour, not relate to the subject of precedence or anything Senator Vanstone’s. Senator Bolkus’s behav- else in the current debate before the Senate. iour is the question before the Senate, and I I sought your guidance. You have ruled ask you to rule accordingly. accordingly, so I now ask you to tell the Senator Robert Ray—On the point of Senate why you have ruled that his comments order: Senator Knowles, what is before the about Senator Vanstone are in order in this chamber at the moment is whether this matter debate. should have precedence—not Senator Bolkus Senator Cook—On the point of order: at all. On the question of precedence, we are Madam Deputy President, you are being entitled to argue, in terms of priorities, what asked to bring Senator Faulkner to order should have alternate precedence. because a senator opposite does not like the The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, way in which Senator Faulkner is addressing Senator Ray. There is no point of order the subject of precedence. On the question of Senator Knowles, because the question that precedence, it is entirely appropriate for this Senator Vanstone moved relates to whether or chamber to have canvassed before it the not this should have precedence, and I am competing issues of what could have been on 510 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 the agenda and what could have been dealt Senator Cook—How much! with. Senator FAULKNER—There were cuts of I submit that it is also entirely appropriate, $1.8 billion with the destruction of labour when looking at that question of precedence, market programs, the destruction of skillshare for it to be canvassed on the issue of motive: and other mechanisms that the Labor govern- what is the justification for displacing a ment put in place to ameliorate long-term particular item on the program with a new unemployment—and particularly youth unem- item? That goes to the motive of those people ployment—in this country. This was the who wish to place that matter on the program, minister that was responsible for that course and to some extent that is what is being dealt of action. with here. Senator Knowles—Madam Deputy Presi- Senator Ian Macdonald—What absolute dent, I raise a point of order: you ruled a rubbish! moment ago that under standing order 194 senators’ comments should be constrained Senator Cook—Senators opposite can within the area of debate on precedence. interject and disparage as much as they like, Senator Faulkner has deliberately defied that but nonetheless it does not go to the point, ruling and is now continuing to talk about and the point is that in a debate on prece- Senator Vanstone and education funding, and dence there is a wide-ranging opportunity for everything else that is irrelevant to this all elements attaching to the issue of prece- debate. I ask you again: I take the point of dence to be canvassed. That is what is being order on standing order 194(1) and ask you to done here. I think that the Leader of the make a ruling accordingly. Opposition is entirely in order. Senator Conroy—You are an idiot. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Knowles, in this particular debate, senators The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—My ruling are being asked to justify why they think is that Senator Faulkner is giving reasons why precedence should or should not be given. I he thinks it should not be given precedence ask all speakers who are speaking in this and is quoting other examples when he debate on the current motion to speak to that thought it could perhaps have been used. particular motion. Senator Robert Ray—Madam President, I raise a point of order: I distinctly heard Senator FAULKNER—As I was saying in Senator Conroy call Senator Vanstone an relation to the issue of precedence before the ‘idiot’ and I require him to withdraw it. chair, why does this particular matter deserve any more precedence? The opposition did not Senator Conroy interjecting— come forward and move a censure motion The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator when Senator Vanstone was responsible for Conroy, would you please withdraw. the hike in HECS and when science enrol- Senator Conroy—Was it the tone that I ments dropped across Australia. That was the called her an idiot or the actual fact that she time when Senator Vanstone and also the then is an idiot that you would like me to with- science minister, Mr McGauran—remember draw? him?—blamed the schools. Neither blamed themselves, but the opposition blamed Senator The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The fact Vanstone. We did not ask for precedence at that you have used unparliamentary language, that time to come in and talk about Senator Senator Conroy. Would you please withdraw Vanstone’s incompetence. it. Senator Conroy—I withdraw. Then we got to the budget in 1996, when Senator Vanstone went forth as a minister Senator FAULKNER—If we were not with an eye to the bottom line but not to any debating this motion, we would be dealing of the social and economic repercussions of with serious issues before the Senate— her policies. She savaged her department to Senator Robert Ray—Federal-state rela- the tune of $1.8 billion of cuts. tions. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 511

Senator FAULKNER—Yes. Senator Carr An issue that I wanted to raise in the debate has placed on notice this motion—I might say this afternoon, when I have an opportunity to that at lunchtime the Manager of Government speak on Senator Carr’s motion, is the fact Business in the Senate moved that we deal that Senator Vanstone misled the Senate over with this issue this afternoon—which reads: projections for unemployment reductions That the Senate notes the Government’s inability when she— to work cooperatively with the States, as evidenced Senator Robert Ray—Don’t forget the by its failure to negotiate agreements with the Wright family. States to the detriment of service delivery in a number of important policy areas, in particular, the Senator FAULKNER—Senator Ray, you failure to reach a satisfactory agreement on the were not listening. I have mentioned the Medicare agreement, the Commonwealth/State fictitious Wright family. Disability Agreement, Enrolment Benchmarking and Schools Policy— Senator Robert Ray—I wasn’t! I interpolate to say, the very issue I have just Opposition senators interjecting— been speaking of— Senator FAULKNER—Senator Ray will the Australian National Training Authority— be disciplined for not hearing that very important part of the contribution that I have another issue I have canvassed— made. Legal Aid and the Commonwealth/State Housing The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Agreement. Faulkner, would you like to address the chair These are important issues, and they deserve please. precedence over this mindless political stunt Senator FAULKNER—Madam Deputy that has been proposed by Senator Vanstone. President, in a general business debate before I recall, as some other senators might, the chamber this afternoon, we would have when Senator Vanstone slashed her own been able to mention the fact that Senator department’s budget by $1.8 billion—do you Vanstone misled the Senate over her projec- remember what she said about it? I do. I just tions for unemployment reductions when she remember that a ‘mere nick’ is what she said claimed that the Labor government did not about those cuts. have departmental advice that a five per cent unemployment rate could be achieved. Sena- But that all pales into insignificance com- tor Vanstone also misled the Senate, and I pared with her efforts on the Wright family. might say no censure motion was proposed or It is not as if we proposed to up-end Senate moved. business to deal with the issue of the Wright family. The creation of the fictitious Wright Senator Hogg—No. family was an infamous performance by this Senator FAULKNER—No censure motion minister. Senator Vanstone is criticising was proposed or moved. Senator Bolkus for alleged leaks to the media. Senator Hill—Madam President, I raise a This is the same minister that allowed a story point of order— to go on the front-page of the Daily Tele- graph in Sydney uncorrected and who had to Senator Conroy—You have remembered be exposed again by the opposition in esti- to come! You have turned up. Very good! mates committee hearings. I remember that Opposition senators interjecting— the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 October The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! that year said: Senator Hill—I would like to thank you for Mr Howard is wrong to be tolerant about (Senator that welcome. Madam Deputy President, I Vanstone’s) performance. Ministerial heads have raise a point of order on the irrelevance of the rolled for less than Senator Vanstone’s folly. contribution made by Senator Faulkner. What This is the same minister that has asked this is happening here is quite transparent: it is a Senate to give precedence to this political filibuster to avoid the debate of the substan- stunt and asks the opposition to support it. tive motion which is a censure. One can only 512 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 ask what Labor has to hide and what Senator ment as I continue to make what I believe is Bolkus has to hide. Why is it necessary to a strong case. filibuster rather than face the music? Why Senator Ian Macdonald—Madam Deputy can’t the Australian people hear Senator President, I rise on a point of order. The Bolkus’s explanation so that judgments can be Leader of the Opposition is quite clearly not made. addressing the motion before the chair. It is Opposition senators—What’s your point of obvious that he and the Labor Party are order? simply filibustering. One can only ask why that is. Why won’t Senator Bolkus answer the The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! charges that are against him? Why are they Senator Hill, would you care to address the trying to stop debate on this very important chair, please, instead of debating the issue. issue? If you were to rule that Senator Senator Hill—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Faulkner should get on with the substantive President. That should happen so that judg- part of this motion, then we could get on to ment can be made as to whether or not he the debate about Senator Bolkus and give should be censured. Isn’t that what the Senate Senator Bolkus the opportunity to answer should be debating this afternoon? these allegations. Why is it that the Labor Senator Murphy—What’s your point of Party do not want this done? Why don’t they order? want debate on this? That is the point to be considered in dealing with this point of order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Murphy. Senator Conroy—Madam Deputy Presi- dent, on the point of order: Senator Faulkner, Senator Hill—The point of order is that for those of you who are actually listening, Senator Faulkner is filibustering and not has already talked about taking note. He is arguing precedence at all. He is not arguing now talking about the general business items. it because the next item of business was If necessary, I am sure he will be talking taking note of answers from question time. He about the committee reports and government is not arguing that that should take prece- documents that are being taken away by the dence, but he is filibustering because the government’s stunt. Labor Party clearly has something to hide. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no Clearly Senator Bolkus has something to hide, point of order. We are debating the reasons otherwise Senator Bolkus would be in here why precedence should or should not be prepared to answer the case. Why won’t he given. People have the right to have 20 answer the case? One can only assume guilt. minutes to speak. We will continue this The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator debate until the time has expired. Hill, you are beginning to debate the issue. Senator FAULKNER—If we were not Senator FAULKNER—Madam Deputy dealing with this slimy and sleazy political President, on the point of order, I do think stunt that Senator Vanstone has proposed, we that I have been making a persuasive case, would be able to deal in general business with but that is in the eye of the beholder. If the the fact that Senator Vanstone misled the Senate were not debating this—what I con- Senate over the level of university fees sider to be a political stunt proposed by charged in overseas institutions. Again, that Senator Vanstone—we would soon be dealing is something that we did not move a censure with general business matters. Of course, if motion on, though I believe it would have precedence is given to the censure motion, been successful if we had. I am glad Senator then the Senate will not have an opportunity Stott Despoja is in the chamber at the mo- to deal with the sorts of issues I am speaking ment, because she would probably recall the about. I submit to you that my comments are misleading of the Senate by Senator Vanstone directly relevant to the motion before the over a Democrats Internet e-mail question. chair. I would appreciate the opportunity not That was during a half-smart dorothy dixer to be interrupted by members of the govern- from the government. So this is the record of Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 513

Senator Vanstone. These are substantive hopeless minister over there. I think 7,000 or issues that we would be dealing with if we 10,000 families and students were affected by did not have this slimy, sleazy stunt from this. Senator Vanstone about Senator Bolkus. I am reminded about the ship of fools. I had Frankly, I think that Senator Vanstone, intended to raise this also in the general instead of trying to argue for precedence for business debate because it is an important this motion, would be much better getting her point to make. Did the opposition come into office organised. She has the worst record of the Senate and move a censure motion on the any minister in relation to answers to ques- ship of fools, the botched South Pacific tions on notice. Cruise Lines issue? This minister deserved to Senator Hogg—Not even Dom Perignon be sacked for her incompetence in the admin- overcomes it. istration of her own department. Did the Senator FAULKNER—It might have been opposition move a censure motion against this Dom Perignon one Christmas, but the next incompetent minister? No, we did not. Christmas it was strychnine. We are offended. The minister responsible The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator for those foul-ups and botch-ups was sacked Faulkner, would you please address the chair by the Prime Minister, who will not give her and relate your comments to precedence. precedence. The Prime Minister does not Senator FAULKNER—Some of the given Senator Vanstone precedence, so why answers to questions on notice from this should we? That is the real point. This is the minister have taken nearly a year to answer. minister who after she was dumped and We could be dealing with those issues and handed back the bottle of Dom Perignon not providing precedence for this slimy stunt. became the Minister for Justice with no staff, Senator Vanstone ought to be concentrating hardly any responsibilities, nothing to do with on these other issues. That is what she should her time and plenty of time to do the odd be doing. She should be getting her office fuzzy media interview and the like. into order. It should not be hard. She has However, this is the same minister, as the hardly got any— Minister for Justice, who has been responsible Senator Conroy—She has a lot less staff. for presiding over the extraordinary cuts to Senator FAULKNER—She has hardly any the Australian Federal Police. I do not think staff left since she has been sacked. It is not any senator should forget that. as though she has much work to do any more. Senator Robert Ray—And the NCA—no, It should not be hard to get the old questions not that one. You can’t blame her for that on notice churned out, but she does not seem one. to be able to do it. Senator FAULKNER—But I do, Senator I wanted to have the opportunity—and I Ray. There was the $8.9 million cut when an hope I will get it this afternoon in the general AFP minute dated 28 January showed that the business debate—to raise the issue of Senator AFP has a funding shortfall of $18.1 million Vanstone’s blunder in relation to the Austudy this year alone. actual means test, which I am sure everyone remembers. That went on for a couple of We would have raised this under the gener- months. Senator Vanstone did not do a thing al business item on Commonwealth-state about it. Then, of course, she announced the relations, but this is also the same minister changes when university students had actually who accused Victoria of not honouring the decided to quit university because they could agreement on uniform national gun laws by not afford to go. Her policies and her admin- moving to remove the 28-day waiting period istration caused genuine hardship amongst for second and subsequent gun licences when young Australians and heartache amongst Western Australia has not put this measure in poorer families. They got caught out by the place since 1996 and when neither Senator botched means test administered by this Vanstone nor her predecessor, the then 514 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Minister for Justice, Mr Williams, did any- Senator ABETZ—Unfortunately, Senator thing about it. Evans, absolutely huge. You ought to be This is the same minister who comes into doing the right thing by Senator Bolkus and this chamber and seriously tries to move a cut him loose now because he is swinging in motion that we should give her precedence the breeze. when her own party, her own government and I remind this place of the importance of her own Prime Minister show what they think parliamentary standards. On one occasion a of her by properly dumping her to where you shadow minister in the Howard shadow deserve, dumping you right down the bottom ministry—one Mr McLachlan—was the of the list of the outer ministry because you recipient of some confidential documents that are incompetent, because you are an embar- were delivered to his office. He was not rassment to your government and your col- aware that they were of that nature, but as leagues— soon as it was pointed out to him that they The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! were of such a nature, what did he do? He Senator Faulkner, please address the chair. resigned. That is all that Mr Beazley needs to Senator Patterson—Point of order, Madam do in relation to Senator Bolkus. Deputy President. Did I just hear you asking Senator Bolkus has been peddling a leaked him to address his comments through the document. What is more, unlike Mr chair? If you did, that was the point of order McLachlan, he did so deliberately and know- I was going to bring up. ingly. How do I make that allegation? From The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes, I did. the words spoken out of Senator Bolkus’s own mouth, from the transcript that was taken Senator Patterson—Thank you. I ask that where he says, ‘I can’t give this document you insist that he does that. out, but maybe’— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, would you please address the chair. Senator Quirke—Point of order, Madam Deputy President. I draw your attention to Senator FAULKNER—The point I was standing order 194(1), which says: making through you, Madam Deputy Presi- dent, is that this minister is hopeless. She asks A senator shall not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion, or anticipate the for precedence when her own Prime Minister discussion of any subject which appears on the has shown what precedence she deserves— Notice Paper. Senator Carr—Shown her the door. Certainly the first part of that is very appro- Senator FAULKNER—He has shown her priate in this instance. The good senator has the door. He has dumped her. He has sacked not yet addressed the question of precedence. her and she deserved it. She is one of the most incompetent ministers in the history of Senator Robert Ray—On the point of Commonwealth administration. For all those order: Madam Deputy President, I urge you reasons we will not support the motion to to be consistent. I believe Senator Abetz— give this matter precedence. unfortunately, Senator Quirke—is well within his rights with what he is going to. You have Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (4.12 p.m.)— let a fairly wide debate as to the interpretation Precedence should clearly be given to this of precedence. I think Senator Abetz is motion. There is a huge number of reasons— absolutely in order and you should dismiss Opposition senators—Huge; huge reasons. the point of order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order on The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no my left! point of order. I am sure Senator Abetz will, Senator ABETZ—And the substance of the as Senator Faulkner did, get to relating it back motion has been set out. somehow. Senator Chris Evans—Really, really big Senator ABETZ—Except I will do it with ones? more style and more grace. Senator Bolkus is Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 515 on record as saying in relation to these ped- precedence, as a matter of importance to the dled documents that were confidential: wellbeing of the parliamentary democracy in I can’t give this document out, but maybe if I just this country. read it out off the record. Millions of dollars have escaped Australia. He knew what he was doing. He knew that he A lot of people are out of pocket as a result could not deal with these documents on the of Mr Skase’s antics. record. So, as I asserted before, he deliberate- Senator Carr interjecting— ly and knowingly peddled documents which he knew were confidential and should remain Senator ABETZ—I would have thought confidential. there would be a degree of maturity shown by Why should this matter be given prece- the opposition so that we could deal with the dence? There were four courts around the Skase matter in a bipartisan manner. There is world that held that the matter which was the no benefit in the parliamentary sense in subject of this affidavit was of such an im- anybody getting Skase; the benefit is for the portant nature that it should remain confiden- Australian people. You have to ask yourself: tial. Those courts were in the Cayman Islands, why did Senator Bolkus seek to divulge this in Spain, in London and our own Federal information to the media? Might I add, to Court. Four courts around the world said it their great credit they did not use it. Even the should remain confidential. Senator Bolkus journalists had a higher standard of propriety admits to as much in the transcript of the than the would-be Attorney-General of this interview when he tells the assembled media: country. That is saying something. In terms of secrecy, four courts across the world The journalists refused to peddle the infor- have deemed it appropriate for the proceedings to mation that Senator Bolkus was seeking to be in secret. peddle. If journalists will not write something Yet he deliberately went out to seek to di- for the purpose of a good story—and they vulge and peddle this information despite the usually do—if even they desist, doesn’t that ruling of four courts around the world—and reflect on the would-be Attorney-General’s that from the would-be first law officer of this behaviour and integrity? Indeed, it shows up country! If Kim Beazley were ever to become the sort of character that he is. It is a clear Prime Minister, the person who peddled these example of undermining the authority of the confidential Federal Court documents, who Federal Court. If we believe in the rule of law peddled this information to absolutely preju- in this country, if we seek to believe in the dice the case against Skase would become the proper administration of justice in this coun- Attorney-General of this country. I have to try, then we ought be very concerned about say to you that, when you look at the stand- the behaviour that has now been outlined ards of the opposition as we then were, with chapter and verse and not denied by Senator Mr McLachlan, compared to the opposition as Bolkus. they now are with Senator Bolkus, the stand- I turn to the assertion as to whether or not ards are in very stark contrast. this is a matter currently before the Federal Senator Murphy—What about Vanstone Police. We do not know whether it is or not and the Wright family? other than that the matter has been referred, Senator ABETZ—Senator Murphy says, and that is in relation to the leak. Especially ‘What about Senator Vanstone?’ I will tell for the Australian Democrats, the Greens and you. When Senator Vanstone received depart- Senator Stott Despoja, who I note is returning mental confidential documents, she did not to the chamber, if you read very carefully the seek to use them for her own benefit. What wording of the motion, it does not accuse did she do? She gave them back to the Senator Bolkus of leaking the information but government. You see, they are the standards simply of revealing certain contents of a that we on this side abide by. When people confidential Federal Court affidavit. breach those accepted standards, we should be What is Senator Bolkus’s defence? He said, debating it and dealing with it as a matter of ‘Well, I knew it was confidential. I knew I 516 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 shouldn’t do it but it was already in the confidential, Federal Court documents know- public domain, so it was okay.’ That is like ingly and deliberately— saying, ‘Well, somebody else has committed Senator Coonan—If he were a practising this crime so it’s okay for me to commit it as lawyer, he would be struck off. well.’ What a terrible set of standards for the would-be Attorney-General of this country. Senator ABETZ—Indeed, as Senator That is the only defence that Senator Bolkus Coonan has just interjected—and it ought go has proffered to this place or indeed to the on the record—if a practising solicitor were people of Australia. caught doing something like that, there is a very fair chance they would be struck off the Let us not be fooled by that assertion that register of legal practitioners, yet Mr Beazley we might be prejudicing a police investiga- is too weak to strike him off the front bench. tion. Indeed, if the Labor Party were genuine- That is the telling point in this debate. That ly concerned about prejudicing investigations is why this matter ought be taking prece- and legal processes, why on earth did they dence. Senator Coonan has made a very allow their shadow Attorney-General to telling point by that interjection. If the Law peddle confidential documents from the Society would strike off a lawyer for doing Federal Court? You cannot have it both ways. something like that, the question remains: You clearly are trying to, but you have been why doesn’t Mr Beazley strike off Senator exposed. Bolkus? I have to say that not a single member of Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (4.25 the Australian Labor Party today, in this p.m.)—I was very pleased to hear from chamber or the House of Representatives, has Senator Abetz, the Bristow of the Liberal sought to stand by Senator Bolkus and say Party, 23rd in line for Attorney-General on that what he did was right, that it was full of their side of the house. This was all an exer- integrity, that it was acceptable behaviour cise to prevent us from noting answers today. within the appropriate standards and within After a devastating question time when we the sort of conduct one would expect of a had them on the back foot, they invented this shadow Attorney-General. There has not been at the last moment because we had some a single word of defence; just a bucketing of serious matters to note. We were going to the previous conduct of people on this side. almost bring the government down, and what The only conduct on this side that goes happens? This brilliant, machiavellian Senator anywhere near what occurred is the example Vanstone, coming to the aid of the embattled I set out at the very beginning of my contri- Senator Hill, decided to move a censure bution. That is, when Mr McLachlan did so motion. inadvertently, he did the decent thing and She argued the urgency of this and why it resigned. Senator Bolkus did an indecent should have precedence. Even though she thing knowingly—he knowingly and deliber- raised it on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thurs- ately divulged the information—and he still day, it suddenly should have precedence on continues to refuse to resign. What is more, Thursday. Guess what, Senator Vanstone. his leader is too weak to force him to resign There have been two censure motions contem- or to sack him. plated and under way against Labor members, This matter ought be taking precedence both on a Thursday. You never do this on a over all other matters because we are talking Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday when you about some very fundamental principles here will impair government business. You do it of the behaviour of the shadow Attorney- on a Thursday. Let me say that we should General. If a terrible fate were to befall this have been able to note answers today. I think country and Kim Beazley were to become that should have higher precedence, and this Prime Minister, Senator Bolkus might in fact is the nub of my argument. This matter become the Attorney-General and the first law should not have precedence over noting of officer of this country—a very serious matter answers, nor do I think it should have prece- indeed. Somebody who would peddle in dence over general business. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 517

Let me digress for a moment. One of my Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator colleagues is terribly distraught over this. One Lightfoot is talking about stolen documents. of my colleagues had expectations, had his Senator Lightfoot, why don’t you go back and hopes up, that the Ballast Water Research and read the evidence of what happened to the Development Funding Levy Collection Bill two aide-memoires that disappeared out of the 1997 may have been considered this after- office of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to noon. He had put hard work into it. He had protect the Prime Minister when he accused put emotional time into it, and there sits a Mr Beazley and Senator Evans of being forlorn Senator Forshaw, unable to pursue perverters of the course of justice—when he, this. He alone requires precedence for that his staff or someone disappeared the very particular matter, let alone Senator Vanstone. documents that argued to the opposite? Why don’t you go and have a censure motion on But today, if we had been able to pursue that, Senator Lightfoot, if you are so keen? If Senator Hill, we would have wanted to know you are the Inspector Javert out of Les why he will not answer the question of who Miserables of the Liberal Party—and it is a in his office directed the re-evaluation of good role for you—why don’t you go and some rejected proposals under the Natural pursue that particular matter? Heritage Trust. That is what we would have wanted to ask. Who was it in his office? Senator Forshaw—Inspector Clouseau. Senator Ian Campbell—Who in your Senator ROBERT RAY—No, he is not office couldn’t even check up the directors of Inspector Clouseau. That is going just a little companies? beyond. I know your disappointment has got to you, Senator Forshaw, but I can assure you Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator Camp- that we will get to the Ballast Water Research bell, the ex-campaign director in Stirling, and Development Funding Levy Collection wants to interrupt and broaden the debate— Bill 1997, and you will be able to give that scintillating speech that is just waiting to Senator Ian Campbell—I’ve never been a break out. campaign director in Stirling. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It Senator ROBERT RAY—Never been a being 4.30 p.m., the Senate will now proceed campaign director in Stirling? Oh, obviously to the consideration of general business notice some other investigation was not accurately of motion No. 937. reported. We would have wanted to ask Senator Hill who suddenly from his office, FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS without his knowledge apparently, directed Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (4.30 that these grants in Victoria and Queens- p.m.)—I move: land—not, note, in Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania or New South Wales— That the Senate notes the Government’s inability to work cooperatively with the States, as evidenced should be reopened. Then we would have by its failure to negotiate agreements with the wanted to know what lobbying efforts went States to the detriment of service delivery in a in. It is not wrong, by the way, having re- number of important policy areas, in particular, the opened them for someone like Mr Entsch or failure to reach a satisfactory agreement on the anyone else to lobby to get these failed Medicare agreement, the Commonwealth/State projects—because they were not bad projects Disability Agreement, Enrolment Benchmarking and Schools Policy, the Australian National Train- in the main—back on the agenda. There is ing Authority, Legal Aid and the Common- nothing wrong with that. Where the crux of wealth/State Housing Agreement. this comes is where you have ministerial discretion. It is who has the ability to talk to The motion before the Senate draws attention the decision maker that becomes critical. If it to severe difficulties that seem to have devel- is only limited to certain cronies to do so, like oped between the Commonwealth and the Mr Entsch— states. I suppose you would have assumed that that could have been expected between Senator Lightfoot interjecting— the Commonwealth and states like New South 518 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Wales where there are Labor governments, with the rights and entitlements of disabled but I certainly do not understand why a people in the community. Commonwealth government, dealing with its political brethren in the other states, should The failure of this government to finalise a have so much of a struggle as it seems to lot of Commonwealth and state agreements have had. has meant that services that everyday, average Australians rely on are essentially falling The only conclusion that can be made about apart. When this coalition government was this particular government, this coalition elected, there was an existing Commonwealth- government, is that it does not cooperate very state housing agreement in the housing arena. well with other people, and it certainly does Essentially, a new agreement should have not cooperate well with the state governments. been negotiated almost immediately, but this That might be something that could be seen government was unable to achieve that. to be amusing. You could have report cards saying, ‘Does not play well in the play- It struggled on until November of last year ground.’ It could be funny, except it has where it essentially did not actually negotiate extraordinarily severe consequences for most a new agreement because that was beyond its of the Australian people because most of the capacity. But the government told the states arrangements that make the situation of the that it would provide funding for a further 12 Australian people unbearable arise because of months on similar lines but with some addi- the arrangements that are made between the tions and, of course, that level of funding was Commonwealth and the states. not at the same level that it has been to date. It is quite interesting to look at the coalition’s Some of the difficulties in areas are shown election policy, which states: here in this particular motion, but I have to say that it is evident in all sorts of arrange- The Commonwealth-state housing agreement has ments that normally would go on between the provided a framework for establishing public and Commonwealth and the states. In every area, community housing stock. It remains the most appropriate vehicle for achieving the Liberal and this government does not understand what National parties’ goals in the efficient provision of ‘negotiation’ really means. This government public and community housing. does not understand what ‘consultation’ really means. In every area where it actually has to I wonder how that sits comfortably with a consult and negotiate, this government be- coalition government which is uncommitted lieves that walking into the room and saying, to a Commonwealth-state housing agreement. ‘This is what we’re going to do. Take it or In fact, at the last estimates when I was leave it,’ is negotiation and consultation. questioning the department about the housing agreement, I was advised that, in fact, this The area that I am particularly concerned latest interim agreement, which I suppose is about today and would like to spend some what you might describe it as, which is for a time on is the Commonwealth-state housing period of one year, is likely to be the last agreement. This agreement is an agreement agreement ever to be signed. between the Commonwealth and the states and is a particularly longstanding arrange- So after 50-odd years of having a Common- ment. In fact, these agreements have been in wealth-state housing agreement, this govern- place since 1945. It is quite astonishing that ment is no longer able to achieve a uniform an agreement that has been negotiated by provision of housing services across Australia various governments—both coalition and because of its incompetence and incapacity in Labor governments—seems to be causing a consultation and negotiation. In fact, the great deal of trouble for this particular government has said that it will negotiate—I government. But, of course, this is not the think a word unknown to this government— only area of concern. Later we will be look- with each state individually and will work out ing at the areas of health and disabilities on an ad hoc basis what sort of funding will where this government has been quite uninter- be provided for housing and what the bench- ested and, I think, quite reckless in dealing marks and key indicators will be. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 519

This is an extraordinarily sad development. important for people within Australia—which It is sad for the Commonwealth and for the is one nation, not six—to feel that they can states, and it is also sad for the large numbers rely on one criterion, that they can rely on a of public housing tenants who rely on some particular standard of housing and that they sort of certainty in the arrangements to ensure can have security of housing. that they have security in their housing. In 1995, before the election, the Labor In fact, the previous government decided government had already done most of the that there should be a three-year agreement so legwork for another Commonwealth-state that there could be some certainty and so that housing agreement. It had already negotiated the states could develop a more long-term with the states pretty much what the new strategy to adequately fund public housing. agreement would look like. In fact, the states This, of course, has been an ongoing criticism were quite desperate to sign an agreement as in all areas. But particularly in housing, a soon as the election was over. It seems quite short-term funding arrangement—finding out extraordinary, in light of that situation, that in each year how much funding will be provided fact it took until November 1997 for this for housing—has meant there is a lack of coalition government to get around to signing long-term strategies and a deterioration in what was in reality, I suppose, a short exten- housing stock. sion rather than a completely new agreement. Senators on both sides will acknowledge But that is very much in accord with the that in many areas there has been a vast general view of this government. It is not deterioration in the quality of housing. I am about governing for the general good of the advised as I travel around that, particularly in community; it is about enhancing conflict, it the state of South Australia, there is a crisis is about playing off one party against an- occurring in the standard of housing that other—in this case, one state against another presently exists. I have to say in passing that, state. It is not at all concerned about ensuring I suppose because of a bit of a hangover from that there is high quality housing available for the days of Don Dunstan in South Australia, public housing tenants and that the states are in terms of the proportion of population that adequately funded to provide it. has access to public housing, South Australia has done particularly well. This also happened in relation to state- When I was advised by officers of the Commonwealth agreements on legal aid. department that in fact there might never be There was a debacle, a slanging match, another Commonwealth-state housing agree- between the Commonwealth and each state ment, I was very concerned because, in recent Attorney-General about exactly how much times, one of the ideas that have been em- would be provided. The Commonwealth was braced is that wherever you live in Australia, trying to pick off one state individually and whatever your circumstances are in terms of then pick off another. It asked the states to your geographic location, you should be able accept fairly large cuts and told them that, if to rely on the same quality of housing and they did not accept fairly quickly, the amount have the same access to housing, bearing in of funding provided would be even less than mind your age, your employment situation was initially offered. and, in general, your need. But that is no As I understand it, after just under 18 longer the case. months of slanging matches between the If a general agreement that covers the Commonwealth and the states, agreements in whole of Australia is no longer applied, if you relation to legal aid were signed with all are a young unemployed person of 18 years states except New South Wales. That is not and if you live in South Australia, then you terribly extraordinary bearing in mind that, on might access housing, if you live in New a proportionate basis, New South Wales was South Wales you might not, and if you live being told—I will not say ‘asked’ because in the ACT you might access it if you wait there is no negotiation in these sorts of for a couple of years. It is extraordinarily arrangements with this present government— 520 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 that they were to bear the largest proportion is interesting that such a claim should be of all cuts in legal aid. made and it was interesting to hear Senator Senators may remember the sort of distress Neal’s contribution a moment ago, as a expressed in the community regarding those senator for New South Wales. I was waiting cuts in legal aid. We had a situation where for her to refer to the predicament and cir- the Commonwealth said, ‘We will only fund cumstance surrounding her own Labor those sorts of legal matters that arise directly government in New South Wales and the from federal legislation.’ On the face of it, I health minister’s position in that state. suppose that could be seen as somewhat The New South Wales Labor Deputy attractive and perhaps even fair but, when you Premier and health minister, Dr Andrew look at the detail of it and examine what it Refshauge—he is also the Chairman of the really means, it is very far from adequate and Australian Health Ministers Conference—gave very far from fair. a very fascinating interview on the ABC back There are some very serious areas that come in February. It gave a very, very good insight strictly within state legislation that I believe into the confusion of the Labor Party at a the federal government should be funding. state level, and also probably the confusion One such area is domestic violence. How the that is so often demonstrated by the Leader of federal government can say, ‘Because domes- the Opposition (Mr Beazley) at a federal tic violence actions arise under state legisla- level, about the issue of funding. Dr tion, it is not the responsibility of the federal Refshauge said: government to support women who are trying Well, I think it has got to be really for John to protect themselves from violence in their Howard and Peter Costello and the others in the own homes’, I find quite extraordinary. That Cabinet to recognise they’re predicting a two and is only one of many examples of areas where a half billion dollar surplus this year, (so) what is the Commonwealth shrugged its shoulders their interests? Are their interests the preservation of Medicare and the treatment of patients in this and, despite the protests of the states—and I nation, or are they interested in having a two and mean all states—failed to provide adequate a half billion dollar deficit? We are saying— funding and negotiate a reasonable agreement under the Commonwealth-state legal aid ar- ‘we’ being the Labor Party— rangements. that some of that deficit should be spent on looking It goes on and on, because they failed under after patients in this nation. the Medicare agreements as well. Senator Isn’t that fascinating? Your own Labor Forshaw will be talking about that. They minister in New South Wales is advocating failed under the disability agreements; they spending money that is not there—spending failed in relation to enrolment benchmarking money on the deficit. He does not know the and the schools policy. In all those areas, this difference between a deficit and a surplus. His government has failed to reasonably negotiate maths are simply as bad as Mr Beazley’s. any Commonwealth-state agreement which has the wholehearted support of the states, Senator Ian Campbell—It is the only state because they do not believe that it is reason- in Australia with a deficit. able to have regard to the rights and needs of Senator KNOWLES—That is exactly every Australian. They think it is just about right, Senator Campbell. People will recall cutting back the dollars and making sure that that Mr Beazley, as Finance Minister and the states fund more than they do. Deputy Prime Minister in the Keating govern- Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia) ment, told Australians before the last election (4.46 p.m.)—Today we are debating a rather that we were operating in surplus. He said, remarkable motion moved by Senator Neal on ‘Our projections are for surpluses in the behalf of Senator Carr. It deals with what he future.’ They were the words of Mr Beazley claims is the government’s inability to work prior to the last election. He did not know and cooperatively with the states, as evidenced by understand the difference between deficit and its failure to negotiate certain agreements. It surplus either, because he told the Australian Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 521 people, prior to the last election, that we were this awful black hole in the Commonwealth operating in surplus. budget. Senator Forshaw—Madam Acting Deputy Dr Refshauge demonstrated that the same President, I raise a point of order. Is it in confusion about the difference between order for the senator to make such an outra- surpluses and deficits exists in the New South geous untruth in respect of a state minister? Wales government. If the Commonwealth She alleged that Dr Refshauge had called on budget were in deficit—which, thankfully, it the federal government to draw health funds will not be in the coming budget, but no from a $2½ billion budget deficit. I have here thanks to the Labor Party in the state or in front of me a press report of Dr Commonwealth arenas—you could justify Refshauge’s comments. His comments specifi- some of his comments as being a mistake. cally refer to a surplus, not to a deficit. But he knows that that is not true. You could understand how he could be so confused. Senator Ian Campbell—If you want to join the debate, put your name on the list. Why did not a senator from New South Don’t debate it. What is your point of order? Wales talk about the fact that New South Wales will not come to the party? The situa- Senator Forshaw—The point of order is tion in New South Wales is absolutely and that the honourable senator should at least utterly appalling in every area. have the decency to tell the truth. One of the other things that is listed here— Senator Ian Campbell—Sit down, you it is not just the Medicare agreement—is the stupid fool. Commonwealth-state disability agreement. While talking about New South Wales, I The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT would like to ask the honourable senators (Senator Crowley)—Senator Campbell, that from the Labor Party whether they can give is of no assistance to the deliberations in this the Senate some justification as to why the place either. Senator Forshaw, there is no New South Wales Labor government failed to point of order. keep pace with other state and Common- Senator KNOWLES—I remind the Senate wealth moneys in increasing funding for that the words I quoted were not mine. They disability services over the last six years? were Dr Refshauge’s. Why is its per head funding only half of that of Victoria? Why does New South Wales say Senator Forshaw—They are wrong. There that the Commonwealth should put in more it is. You are wrong. Someone has given you funds when Commonwealth increases in that the wrong quote, my dear. state over the last six years were much larger? Senator KNOWLES—They were from a They were 84 per cent against 50 per cent. transcript of an interview that Dr Refshauge The Australian Institute of Health and undertook. Therefore, I am simply quoting Dr Welfare says that an increase in funding of Refshauge’s words in the same way I am $294 million is needed in areas which are a quoting Mr Beazley’s words when he said, state government responsibility. What sort of ‘We are operating’—‘we’ being the Labor increase in funding does New South Wales government—‘in surplus and our projections plan over the next four years? None of this are for surpluses in the future.’ They were his was covered by a senator from New South words. The honourable senator can rabbit on Wales. It will be interesting to see whether all he likes about his version of events. I am another senator covers it. Will it at least simply repeating the words. guarantee to keep pace with population At the time when Mr Beazley was making growth? Will it at least guarantee not to those comments, he knew—as the rest of reduce its present levels of funding over the Australia now knows—that the budget was next four years? actually in a $10.3 billion deficit, not a It has to also be said that accommodation surplus. The coalition has had to work hard support for people with disabilities is, and and take a lot of difficult decisions to repair always has been, a responsibility of the state 522 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 governments. Funnily enough, when Senator Here we have the Labor government in Neal and Senator Forshaw et al were in New South Wales cutting their funding and government, they never actually made that we have the Labor opposition in this place point; but now that they are in opposition, saying that we should increase the funding. If they are quite clearly saying that it is the they think that is the correct course of action, Commonwealth’s responsibility. why did they not do that? They simply did The Commonwealth has a very small not, but now that they are in opposition they involvement, but it has provided substantial are so politically expedient that they could not increases in funding. The Commonwealth is care about the way in which this country is offering an increase in funding of 14.2 per run, and that is why we were confronted with cent between now and the year 2001-02. Yet a $10.3 billion deficit—not a surplus—when Senator Neal just continues to spread these we came to government. furphies around. This funding is on the table The need for flexibility and service delivery and guaranteed in each year. options is being considered in the context of The New South Wales Labor state govern- the next agreements. This is something that ment will not promise any increase. It will not the Labor government did not do. The promise that there will be no cuts. It will not Commonwealth intends to work cooperatively even declare what its funding will be over the with the states and territories to achieve next four years. Why does the New South reform within the context of our commitment Wales state government say that unmet need to retain Medicare in its entirety. is the Commonwealth’s fault? The Common- wealth is offering New South Wales $56 The issue of increased pressure on our million extra over current funding levels over public hospitals will be addressed construc- the five years. So why is New South Wales tively through the implementation of reforms refusing to take this money if unmet need is in the context of the agreements. On that so bad? point, it is worth noting that one other issue I wanted to put those particular issues on that the Labor Party refuses to acknowledge the record because the only Labor state is the fact that the coalition government will government in this country is cutting back provide up to $120 million for action on funding year by year and trying to shift that waiting lists, with $4 million released each funding back onto the Commonwealth, and week commencing on 16 March. What they the Labor opposition in this place is aiding are saying is that the funding is constantly and abetting it. The 1997-98 budget estimate being cut. This is a genuine offer to the states for Commonwealth payments to the states and territories to help them reduce waiting under the Medicare agreements is $4,900 lists and is additional assistance that they million, an increase of $175.5 million. That have been seeking for some time. is on the 1996-97 estimate. Now 99.9 per cent When talking about waiting lists, it is of this is for payments to the states with the always worth remembering why there is a remaining $7.2 million going to national waiting list problem in the first place. What projects. happened under 13 years of Labor was that Since the budget, hospital funding grant private health insurance membership went estimates have been updated, including for from between 60 and 70 per cent down to 30- revised data on the number of people living odd per cent. Therefore, the demand on public with AIDS, variations to the agreements hospitals increased enormously. What did the which have been accepted by the states Labor Party in government do about that relating to funding for adult heart and liver problem? Absolutely nothing. So now that a transplants, drug therapy for AIDS patients coalition government is in office, it has and 1996-97 actuals. The current approved decided to try to address some of the problem estimate for 1997-98 is $4,997 million dollars, that Labor created by giving the states $120 bringing real growth over the five years to million to help resolve the problem of waiting about 15 per cent. lists. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 523

In preliminary discussions with the state for the first couple of years of the agreements. and territory health ministers last year, the Did they do anything about making sure that government was able to agree on a vision for the states rectified that? No, they did not, the health system into the next century and because quite frankly they thought they were the principles that should underlie the agree- going to be out of government soon after the ments and support worthwhile reform of the agreements were signed anyway. The system. The Commonwealth’s offer is consis- Commonwealth is to make available that $120 tent with these principles and supports the million this year, as they sign the new agree- reform process with both structure and dol- ments, to help that immediate problem of the lars. It is important to know that in terms of waiting lists created by Labor. This govern- structure the offer would allow funding to ment will not repeat the mistakes of Labor, flow between sectors and support improved which increased funding by 10 per cent in the integration of care and better patient out- first year of the current agreements, and then comes. They should surely be priorities with stood by while the states reduced their fund- which Labor agrees. But no, their political ing by an equivalent amount. partisan nature will not allow them to say that On the question of the Commonwealth-state that is an acceptable, sensible and desirable disability agreement, that is even more breath- course of action. taking, as I say, because New South Wales in In terms of dollars, the offer includes half particular is the main state that has decreased a billion dollars to be spent on projects to its funding right across the board. Questions improve the system, including devising means really need to be answered as to why its per to improve integration of care—particularly head funding is half that of Victoria, and why for the aged—improving the use of informa- the Commonwealth should put in more funds tion technology so that patient data goes with when the state itself is cutting its funding. the patient instead of following them around, and implementing alternative treatment mo- The Commonwealth has offered more dalities that do not require expensive acute money to the states for disability services than hospitalisation. has ever been offered. So if anyone hears from this point on in this debate that we have It is clear that the current agreements, cut funding in terms of the CSDA, the negotiated by those opposite, did not deal Commonwealth-state disability agreement, it adequately with changing levels of private is wrong. More money has been offered than health insurance. They just ignored it. They ever before. The Commonwealth offer recog- just let it slip. What is now being proposed nises the needs of people with disabilities and will actually address this issue by making provides a substantial increase in the base automatic population-based adjustments to funding over the next five years. It includes funding as private health insurance participa- a commitment from the Commonwealth to tion rates fluctuate. strategically identify and target resources to The Commonwealth this year will provide areas of unmet need. 19 per cent more funding in real terms for This area of unmet need is something that public hospitals than it did in 1992-93 under the Labor Party totally ignored. They simply Labor. I would be very interested to hear put all the money into a pot and said to the what senators who are following in this states, ‘You just spend it however you want.’ debate will say about the increase in funding We are trying to identify different areas of for waiting lists, the increase in funding that unmet need from state to state, because the I have just referred to for public hospitals, Labor Party does not understand that the need and the other increases in funding. They are and unmet need differs from state to state. grizzling and grizzling, and yet they chose to Labor’s CSDA agreement never acknow- do nothing. ledged the extent of unmet need. They should The fact is that the agreements that were hang their heads in shame that, after 13 years negotiated by Labor also overlooked the fact in government, the Australian Institute of that states themselves reduced their funding Health and Welfare report should identify 524 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 such an unacceptable level of need—which Federal Health Minister Michael Wooldridge was 13,400 people that you left without yesterday snubbed a State ministers’ Medicare anything. crisis meeting as they rejected a $100 million federal lure and demanded a new deal from the We know that repairing this mess will take Commonwealth. time. The new agreements with the states will The States— allow unmet need to be specifically identified I emphasis the plural ‘states’—all states, not and, through a process of joint consultation just New South Wales— between all levels of government and the also warned the Howard Government it risked disability sector, resources will be strategical- fighting an election without a public hospital ly harnessed for the benefit of people with a agreement unless it came up with an offer better disability. All of this will occur while current than the current $1.7 billion. The States have services are maintained and enhanced. Once demanded an extra $5.5 billion. again, if there is any argument in this debate NSW and the federal Opposition called for John at any time that we are grinding down ser- Howard to personally intervene and ensure a vices, it is wrong on two counts: all current realistic public hospital funding proposal was put services are to be maintained and enhanced; to Cabinet as early as Monday to break the dead- and we have offered the states more money lock. than has ever been offered before. I wait to NSW Health Minister Andrew Refshauge, hear the apology from the Labor Party in their Victorian Minister Rob Knowles and Tasmanian Minister Peter McKay were forced to hold their contribution to this absolutely and utterly own meeting and press conference after Dr false debate. Wooldridge refused to meet them yesterday. Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) Why don’t you stay, Senator Knowles, and (5.06 p.m.)—I am delighted to rise now and hear the truth for once? The article went on speak after Senator Knowles, because it gives to say: me the opportunity to refute many of the The latest row erupted after the ACT broke ranks falsehoods that were contained in her remarks. to sign an in-principle, five-year Medicare agree- My experience on a couple of other occasions ment. The States— has been that I have not had that opportunity Plural—the states. All the states: the five because I have preceded her in debates on Liberal-National Party states and New South these issues. Firstly, I want to go to one of Wales— the glaring falsehoods contained in her re- rejected a $100 million waiting list bonus designed marks—her supposed quotes from Dr to reward those who signed by March. Refshauge, the New South Wales Minister for I would like to stress the following words Health. Senator Knowles quoted from some from this article, because they put the lie to transcript that, apparently, she has in front of the absolute falsehoods that were perpetrated her, and argued that Dr Refshauge had called by Senator Knowles a moment ago. The on the federal government to fund increased article states: expenditure to public hospitals in the states At the press conference in Melbourne, Dr out of a budget deficit. I do not know what Refshauge called on federal Cabinet to draw health document she is reading from, but she had funds from the $2.5 billion Budget surplus expected better go and check the source and the accura- for this financial year. cy of it, because it is totally inaccurate. The first point is that the public knows— The word ‘deficit’ is wrong. She can wave because the government keeps crowing about a piece of paper around—I do not know the fact—that, on the government’s estimate, whether she wrote it herself. She can do a they will achieve a surplus of $2.5 billion this Chamberlain act, but it will not get her off the year. We will wait and see, but that is their hook. Let me go to the report of the meeting claim, their expectation. The second point is that took place between the federal minister that, clearly, the reporters who were present and the state ministers for health not so long at the press conference when Dr Refshauge ago. I refer to an article in the Weekend made his remarks correctly heard what Dr Australian on 17 January this year. It states: Refshauge said. It is as plain as the glasses on Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 525 your face, Senator Heffernan, that Dr Let us look at what representatives from Refshauge called for the government to fund states other than New South Wales have said. increased health funding out of a budget Senator Knowles talked about New South surplus. For Senator Knowles to start her Wales and attacked the performance of Dr remarks by claiming that Dr Refshauge said Refshauge and the New South Wales govern- the word ‘deficit’ instead of ‘surplus’ shows, ment on health and public hospitals. She firstly, the depths to which they will descend spoke as though New South Wales was the to try to distort the truth and distort what state only state where there is a problem with ministers such as Dr Refshauge have said and, public hospital funding because this govern- secondly, shows the puerile nature and pau- ment has ripped over $800 million out of the city of their argument. public hospital system since it came into Having put that furphy to rest, let us get office, and it has also ripped out $400 million back to the crux of this issue, which is that in terms of public dental programs. there is no agreement between the states and Senator Heffernan interjecting— the federal government on health funding Senator FORSHAW—For your benefit, under the Medicare agreements. The Medicare Senator Heffernan, I will quote what has been agreements have been due to be re-negotiated said by other leaders about the federal for some time. Negotiations have been taking government’s offer in the latest round of place, but no agreement has been reached. Dr Medicare agreement negotiations. What did Herron, who is present here in the chamber, Mike Horan, the Minister for Health in knows what I am saying is exactly true. Senator Herron’s home state of Queensland, Senator Knowles talked as if there was an say about the government offer? He said that agreement, but there is no agreement. All the it was a ‘cynical bribe, little more than a states and the Northern Territory have rejected sweetener, and neither here nor there’. That the proposed offer from Dr Wooldridge and is what your Liberal Party colleague said this federal government because they say that about Dr Wooldridge’s offer. it is totally inadequate. Senator Herron—He’s a Nat—he’s not a Senator Herron—The ACT have accepted. Liberal Party colleague. Senator FORSHAW—Dr Herron interjects Senator FORSHAW—National Party and says the ACT government accepted the colleague—my apologies. Dr Napthine, the agreement. Let me remind you, Dr Herron, Victorian acting health minister, said—and that the reason the ACT government caved in Senator Conroy will be interested in this— and signed the agreement is well known—it that ‘the offer did not come close to the has been asserted by some of your own amount needed by the state to meet rising political colleagues in other states. The reason health care costs’. That is what the Liberal the ACT government signed the agreement Party acting health minister in Victoria said was, firstly, that they were offered an extra about Dr Wooldridge’s offer on Medicare. $2.5 million a year and, secondly, there was I will go back to what was said by Mr an election on. The Chief Minister, Kate Horan, because that seemed to raise some Carnell, and Dr Wooldridge did a sleazy little interest in Senator Herron. As I said, he deal and got the ACT to sign up. Indeed, the referred to it as ‘a cynical bribe’. On the ACT government has been criticised by all subsequent offer of an extra $100 million if the other states. The Queensland government, they all signed up by March, Mr Horan said: the National Party, the South Australian The first we heard of this is when The Courier- Liberal government, the Western Australian Mail put it to us. One would have thought that Liberal government, the Tasmanian Liberal Minister Wooldridge would have put this to government and the Northern Territory Lib- Minister Horan rather than announce it to a press eral-Country Party government have all conference. criticised the ACT for breaking ranks on the What a way to conduct negotiations over totally unanimous position that the states and health policy in this country. Dr Wooldridge territories have adopted so far. has a track record of not attending meetings 526 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 when he should, and then calling meetings health insurance companies, supposedly to try that no-one goes to. to improve the level of participation in private What did Denis Burke, the minister for health insurance to take the pressure off health in the Northern Territory, say? He said public hospitals. You are paying this huge that ‘millions of extra dollars were needed in subsidy to the private health funds, and yet the Northern Territory to continue the high the private health funds are still increasing level of health care and that the Territory is their premiums—and they have increased in very bad shape to maintain its services’. them by in excess of 30 per cent since you This is the minister in the Northern Terri- came to office. tory—not some Labor state like New South Senator Herron—It went up 200 per cent Wales; it is one of your lot. under Labor. Let us travel across to Senator Knowles’s Senator FORSHAW—If you do not home state of Western Australia. What did the believe me because I happen to be a member Western Australian health minister say about of the Labor Party—a Labor senator—and Dr Wooldridge’s offer on Medicare? Mr you do not like what I say, listen to what Kevin Prince said that the offer ‘was not Premier Richard Court says. worth while because the state would lose $30 Senator Conroy—Is a he a Liberal? million in the first year of the new Medicare contract’. That is what the Western Australian Senator FORSHAW—He is a Liberal. health minister said about Dr Wooldridge’s What does he say about this private health proposal. Is it any wonder that there is no insurance scheme? He says, ‘It is a dud deal.’ agreement and that there is unlikely to be any Senator Heffernan—A done deal! agreement? Senator FORSHAW—A dud deal. There All the states and the Northern Territory— is no misprint in this one. He said that it is a and originally the ACT, but it was bought off dud. The Australian Medical Association has because it had an election around the cor- also said that this is a dud scheme. It is not ner—are saying that this government’s record working and it has told you to go away and on health is atrocious. While we are talking completely re-look at it. Why is this happen- about Western Australia—and it is a pity that ing? It is happening because this government, Senator Knowles is not here, although Senator notwithstanding its solemn promise at the last Bishop has just come in, and he is from election that it would maintain Medicare, is Western Australia—what did Premier Court still bent on undermining Medicare. say about the performance of Dr Wooldridge When you went to the election in 1993, at in respect of the private health insurance least Dr Hewson told the truth. He went to incentive scheme—the $1.7 billion scheme the people with his GST and they threw that that this government introduced that is de- out. But you also went to the people at that signed to increase private health insurance time and said that you were going to under- coverage? mine, dismantle and destroy Medicare, be- When the scheme was introduced, at the cause you have never liked Medicare. The same time as they ripped pretty close to $1 people rejected you in 1993 because they billion out of public hospital funding, Dr were not prepared to risk a government that Wooldridge said in the budget papers that would destroy Medicare. levels of private health insurance would At the last election in 1996, John Howard increase to 34 per cent by the end of this put his hand on his heart and said to the financial year. As of December last year, they people, ‘Don’t worry, you can be relaxed and had dropped to their lowest level ever of 31.6 comfortable, I will maintain Medicare,’ per cent, and there are now only three months because he recognised that the people of to go. It is not going to improve, and Senator Australia wanted Medicare. But what has Herron knows it is not going to improve. happened since you have come to office? This is a great waste of taxpayers’ public You have ripped out over $1.2 billion from money. A subsidy is being paid to the private public health funding; you have abolished the Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 527 dental scheme; you have ripped $800 million tell a difference between a deficit and a credit out of public hospitals; you have given a budget, there is not much to be said for them. subsidy to the private health insurance indus- Because of Labor, the state public health try and that scheme has not worked; and you systems are stretched to the limit. In my own have allowed them to put up increases of in state of New South Wales, we have had to excess of 30 per cent in their private health put up with Bob Carr’s fraud on the waiting insurance premiums. lists. When Labor was in federal government, Then you come up to the states to negotiate they could not see the importance of putting a new Medicare agreement. You put $1.7 a handbrake on the decline in the membership billion on the table and the states say, ‘You’re of private health insurance. They could not a long, long, long way short.’ The states have see that, for every person who is capable of rejected it and they will continue to reject it. helping himself or herself, governments are You have a unanimous position across all of able to help more of those who cannot. the states, with one Labor state and five The former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, conservative states all telling this government was one of those people who might have been that its proposals on the Medicare funding a member of the private health system. Sena- agreement are totally unacceptable. tor Forshaw, you should have encouraged your Prime Minister Keating to join up in the The motion that has been moved today in private health system instead of using a general business is absolutely pertinent to the system that could have been better used by circumstances. It is clear that on the issue of those who could ill-afford it. health—and particularly in respect of renego- tiating the Medicare agreement—this govern- Labor let the private health system run ment and this minister, Dr Wooldridge, have down. When they came to government in totally failed. When they have to stoop to the 1983, nearly 65 per cent of Australians were extent of having Senator Knowles come in covered by private health insurance but, by here and try to defend a totally indefensible September 1995, this proportion had plum- position, then all I can say is that I rest my meted to 34.5 per cent. The proportion was case. This government has been exposed for falling by two per cent a year and they could the falsity of its health policy, and the people not give a damn about it. This placed intoler- will certainly give them the message at the able demands on the public health system and next election. on the waiting lists. In my own state of New South Wales, the Senator HEFFERNAN (New South Wales) waiting lists—as Senator Forshaw well (5.24 p.m.)—I would like to remind the knows—are bulging. One of the reasons they Senate of the motion that is before the cham- are bulging is that, when the Premier, Bob ber, given the 20 minutes of rubbish that we Carr, came to government, he said that he have just had to put up with which would would resign if he had not halved the waiting have misled our listeners out there. The lists after the first year in government. Well, motion reads: the waiting lists have doubled, and the fraud That the Senate notes the Government’s inability that he has perpetrated is that he is still in to work cooperatively with the States, as evidenced power. by its failure to negotiate agreements with the This is the government that will be known States... not as the weak Labor government but as the It is ironic that that great Kremlinist, Senator great U-turn government. Instead of a healthy Carr, should put this motion before the Sen- hospital system, the Carr government has ate, when the coalition government has spent given us 10 per cent of the world’s poker its first two years in government fixing the machines. These are the guys who did a U- result of Labor’s 13 years of mismanagement turn with the tax on clubs, so they decided to and neglect. Labor could not do the num- best way to square off would be to allow bers—the difference between zero and $10 more poker machines and put more misery billion is a great expanse. When they cannot into the lives of people out there in every- 528 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 man’s-land with more poker machines and Professor Bob Gregory on the urgent need for gambling. What a great statistic New South an upgrading of nursing homes. In fact, they Wales now has: 10 per cent of all the poker did not have the guts to do anything about it. machines in the world are in New South Their neglect particularly affected service Wales! What a disgrace! delivery in rural and regional Australia. Going back to health, Dr Wooldridge, on Thirteen years of Labor failed our youth. the other hand, is making available $120 Thirty per cent of school students have million this year to the states to help address inadequate literacy and numeracy skills. We the immediate issue of waiting lists—waiting have seen the great debate occurring now, lists that have doubled under Bob Carr. This with Dr Kemp trying to bring that to order. is a genuine offer to the states and territories There is the worry in some sectors of the to help them reduce waiting lists and is education system that they might fail the test additional assistance that will give them time. themselves. Apprenticeship opportunities Health ministers from the states and territories under Labor also declined. As at 30 June last will be meeting next week to discuss current year, the number of apprentices and trainees health funding issues. Dr Wooldridge has in training was 175,354, which represents an worked with his state and territory colleagues increase of 11 per cent over the previous to secure a national vision for our health year—the highest ever achieved. system into the next century. The Commonwealth’s offer before the states Through the Workplace Relations Act, the is consistent with this vision and supports the government has reformed apprenticeships and reform process with both structure and dol- traineeships that meet the needs of business. lars. In terms of structure, the offer would The government’s new apprenticeships initia- allow funding to flow between sectors and tive is reforming the delivery of workplace support improved integration of care and based training and making it a much more better patient outcomes—making more effi- attractive option for business. Labor—the cient use of the money in the system. In terms people who allegedly look after the workers— of dollars, the offer includes $½ billion to be just let the apprenticeships scheme fall apart. spent on projects to improve the system, such Regulation is being simplified and the training as devising means to improve integration of and qualifications will be much more relevant care, particularly for the aged; improving the to industry as well as being nationally recog- use of information technology so that patient nised. Labor made it hard for employers to data goes with the patient instead of following take on apprentices and trainees. Employees them around; and implementing alternate had to go to the states, the Commonwealth, treatment modalities that do not require training providers, and the list goes on. It was expensive, acute hospitalisation. an endless paper chase. There was no real Kate Carnell has recently had that magnifi- equivalent to the new apprenticeship centres cent victory. Despite the perceived hard times under the old CES system. in Canberra, Canberra decided not to bury Senator Carr, that great Kremlinist, the truth itself and re-elected Kate Carnell, the longest- is the contrary of your motion. This govern- serving health minister. She has taken the lead ment is moving ahead, working with the and indicated her government’s in principle states to find solutions for the best possible agreement to the Commonwealth’s proposal. delivery of service in areas of health, educa- Working together, we can turn back all those tion and housing. I am sure, in view of this years of Labor’s mismanagement and neglect. motion, that all the Liberal premiers around Thirteen years of Labor failed the nursing Australia will be pleased to know they have home sector and older Australians, who Senator Carr on side. Senator Carr has as- deserved better. In the last four years of the sumed a strong and healthy federalist position. Labor government, capital funding for nursing He has abandoned his long-held position on homes was reduced by 75 per cent. What a Kremlin-like centralisation of all government disgrace! They ignored their own report by services and now embraces the wisdom of Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 529 federation as identified in the Australian 1998 funding will be maintained in real terms constitution. up to the year 2000. There has been no such Unfortunately, Senator Carr’s analysis of increase in state and territory funding. In the current state of Commonwealth-state addition to making the system work more relationships is sadly distorted. Senator Carr efficiently, the federal government continues is confusing the right for two parties to to support the sector as a premium option for engage in a genuine negotiation process with young people leaving school and will provide failure. There is nothing wrong with a bit of a total of more than $1.3 billion for vocation- argy-bargy. Senator Carr is confusing the al education and training in 1997-98. This is Howard government with the Keating govern- an increase of $144 million, or 12 per cent, ment—you know, the former Prime Minister on funding provided in the last year of Labor. who attempted to intimidate, harass and bully The opposition neglected the potential of state governments on a regular basis, and the apprenticeships scheme and allowed it to who, when speaking against giving the states decline. They never addressed the needs of a fixed share of revenue, wooed the states business. They were too busy with artists-in- with statements like the one he gave on 9 residence and such glamorous outfits for the November 1995: various unions who then, of course, had the The Commonwealth is the shock absorber in the opportunity to donate that money back to the national economy. The Commonwealth budget is Labor Party for the election. a shock absorber, the state budgets are not. Real diplomacy! He had a wonderful negotiat- As I mentioned earlier, at 30 June 1997 the ing capacity. Of course, that was well recog- number of apprentices and trainees in training nised at the last election. was 175,354—11 per cent higher than the I simply advise Senator Carr that he should previous year. According to figures issued by take it easy—go and have a lie-down and a the National Centre for Vocational Education Bex or a valium. With respect to the Austral- Research, this is the highest ever achieved. ian National Training Authority agreement, Through the Workplace Relations Act, the Senator Carr raised the status of ANTA government has reformed apprenticeships and agreements in estimates only last week. He traineeships. The new apprenticeships scheme, was told by the minister that we now have a which addresses the real needs of industry and new ANTA agreement in principle. Queens- real jobs, is making a more attractive option land, Victoria and the ACT have signed up. for us all. Regulation is being simplified. Western Australia and South Australia have Some $265 million has been allocated by the indicated their agreement subject to some Commonwealth in 1997-98 for more than queries being satisfied. The opposition would 100,000 new apprenticeships. keep pouring hundreds of millions of dollars Labor made it so hard for employers to take into TAFE and make an even bigger budget on apprentices and trainees. There was no real black hole when the national statutory auth- equivalent to the new apprenticeship centres ority, ANTA, has reported on the scope for under the old CES scheme. From 1 May efficiencies in the system. Under Labor, the 1998, employees, apprentices and trainees will opportunity to take advantage of those effi- be able to obtain these services directly from ciencies was ignored. the new apprenticeship centres. These centres Under the current ANTA agreement, the will provide a streamlined service, cut through Commonwealth has provided additional the red tape, respond to the needs of industry, funding to the states and territories every year save time and effort for employees, appren- up to, and including, 1997. Since 1992, tices and trainees, provide ongoing assistance Commonwealth funding has increased by 37 for the same people, and create growth in per cent in real terms, with the Common- numbers and types of new apprenticeships. In wealth funding most of the total growth in conclusion, Kim Carr with his Kremlinist vocational education and training over this option today is nothing but a fraud and a period. Under the revised ANTA agreement, waste of time in this chamber. 530 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Senator GIBBS (Queensland) (5.37 p.m.)— The Minister for Family Services, Warwick The disability services industry in Australia is Smith, in his media release of 26 February in a state of confusion and chaos, and several 1997, fails to see any potential problems with non-government service providers are on the bilateral agreements. He said, ‘People with brink of collapse. After a series of paltry disabilities will benefit more from bilateral offers by the Commonwealth to the states, the agreements.’ Maybe the minister could ex- Commonwealth-state disability agreement has plain how a person who moves to another still not been signed and disability service state fails to have his or her previous provi- providers are now unable to plan for the sions transferred benefit. Perhaps an explan- future. ation is beyond this minister who has created chaos and confusion in the aged care and There is evidence of secret negotiations child-care communities and is clearly not up between the Commonwealth and individual to explaining the benefit of this situation. states. The presumption to be drawn from these hidden discussions is that the Common- Bearing in mind the appalling provision of wealth is plotting to disband the multilateral social services in Queensland under the nature of the Commonwealth-state disability present coalition government, it is safe to say agreement in favour of bilateral agreements that any person with a disability moving to with individual states. If this were to occur, Queensland would experience difficulty it would be hard to see how the lack of accessing services that may exist elsewhere in uniformity between the states is going to help Australia under a bilateral agreement struc- people with disabilities in Australia. In fact, ture. it will make the situation manifestly more The Howard government’s inaction over the untenable. Commonwealth-state disability agreement is a recipe for several tiers of care arrangements The Commonwealth would lose the capacity and a backward step for all stakeholders. It is to require each of the states to pass legislation clearly a sign of a government struggling to that is consistent with the Commonwealth’s. come to terms with its role as a government The national peak body for disabled people for all of Australia, not for the sectional and and their families, the National Council on sometimes selfish agendas of cash-strapped Intellectual Disability, is uncertain if this states. complementary legislation requirement exists The Howard government recently requested in the recent Commonwealth offer. One can the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare only speculate on the Commonwealth’s real to report on the level of unmet need in dis- agenda if this complementary clause is not ability services. The report estimated that the explicit. Perhaps the Howard government is Howard government needed to inject $294 contemplating changes to federal legislation million into disability services immediately in in the area of disabilities. order to address unmet need in this country. One of the worst features of a bilateral It found there were 13,500 people with agreement is that it throws the whole multi- disabilities not receiving their requirements in lateral framework out the window and in the relation to accommodation services. It found process puts in jeopardy over a decade of there were 70,000 people with severe disabili- uniformity practised by various levels of ties who require a meaningful day support government in this area. For example, under program. It also found that 7,700 people with this potential system it would be quite pos- severe and profound disabilities are cared for sible for a person with a disability who by parents who are aged over 65 years. receives funding support in the Australian The same government-commissioned report Capital Territory not to receive the same level found that there were 30,000 people with of support if he or she were to decide to disabilities who do not get the employment relocate to Queensland. Why should these assistance that they require. As the shadow people be denied the right to freely move minister Jenny Macklin has commented in the between the states as the rest of us do? other chamber, this figure is likely to get Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 531 worse as a result of the forthcoming changes record on funding disability services, will to employment service providers. It is highly revert to the bad days before the Common- unlikely that new large private providers will wealth started to assert some authority in this put the same commitment and tenacity into area. I fear for the consequences this will finding employment for people with disabili- have for people with disabilities, for their ties—a role that was previously performed families and for the many hundreds of non- with distinction by many not-for-profit com- government organisations that provide support munity organisations and smaller private to people with disabilities. operators—as they will for others. I recently visited a respite centre in Rock- Last week the National Council on Intellec- hampton. The organisation responsible for its tual Disability labelled the Commonwealth’s operation were despairing about the huge task latest offer to the states as part of the they had in catering for families from the Commonwealth-state disability agreement as Central Queensland coast stretching west to miserly and inadequate. This organisation said the Northern Territory border. These people it felt that the Prime Minister had let down all are permanently on call to provide respite people with disabilities and that his govern- support for this vast region where there is a ment had failed to live up to the promises that desperate need for another such facility. were made to this sector of the community. Despite the strain and the effort to continue The National Council on Intellectual Disabili- operating, they have a first-class facility ty should not be entirely surprised by the which is testimony to their unfailing enthusi- actions of this Prime Minister and his govern- asm and commitment. ment. This is the same government which has It is an unfortunate fact that in Queensland ripped $174 million from the disability ser- the number of days available to families vices budget over the past two years. It is also already accessing respite has been reduced by the same government which is planning to 70 per cent over the past few years. In 1996- pilfer a further $25.3 million out of the 97 in excess of $40 million worth of funding disability sector by excluding 8,000 recipients applications were received by the Queensland of the child disability allowance by changing Department of Families, Youth and Com- the definition of who is considered to have a munity Care from non-government service disability. This is the same mob who abol- providers on behalf of people with disabilities. ished the Disability Discrimination Commis- Amazingly, only $1.7 million was made sioner and have taken this sector back to the available to these organisations. This poor dark period prior to the early 1980s, before result is all the more staggering when you the groundbreaking legislative reforms of the consider that many of these providers had previous Labor government. their hopes raised by the coalition during the This is a government whose latest offer 1995 state election. starts at $8 million in the first year and rises Mr Borbidge and Mrs Sheldon promised to $60 million in the fifth year contrasting they would provide an additional $34 million with its own commissioned report by the per year over three years to assist Queens- AIHW which estimates that there is $294 landers with a disability. But the big promise million in unmet need in the first year alone. never eventuated and Mrs Sheldon’s second Clearly, this is a government which not only budget allocated only an additional $1.9 has no commitment to the disability services million over three years to address the exist- sector due to its ideological predilections ing unmet needs of the disability sector. This against funding the social services, but also is resulted in there being no funding round this without compassion and understanding for the year for the first time since the implementa- disadvantaged in our community. tion of the Commonwealth-state disability My fear is that, if this Commonwealth-state agreement and many priority applications disability agreement is not signed, my own have been put on 40-year waiting lists, which state of Queensland, which has an appalling is absolutely disgraceful. 532 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

At the same time the Queensland Treasurer, from the Labor Party to stand ahead of him Mrs Sheldon, could find the money to pay off in the queue. He has not even spoken on his a $200 million toll road which just happened motion today, which just goes to show how to pass through her electorate. This, of course, poor the information on it is. was an election promise. I might add there is What is he seeking to achieve? Can we a toll road in the electorate in which I live, imagine him updating his earlier paranoia on but our toll road was not paid for by the state some sort of a thesis that is based on bad government. We still have to pay the toll. blood that he thinks exists between the Maybe that is because it is a Labor electorate. Commonwealth and the states? His motion The government could also locate another refers to ‘the inability to work cooperatively $14.5 million to fund a politically motivated with the states’. I am going to comment very and biased inquiry which attempted to close particularly on that aspect of the motion that down the Criminal Justice Commission. Is it refers to the Commonwealth-state housing any wonder I have concerns about the priori- agreement. ties of the Queensland coalition government to do the right thing by the disability sector? I am interested to know what constituency Senator Carr sought to represent on this What needs to be realised is that it is the occasion. Is he going to photocopy his Hans- rural and regional areas of Queensland—the ard and distribute it around to the premiers same areas which coalition governments at the and the chief ministers with a covering note state and federal levels claim so ably to saying, ‘Look what a good job I did repre- represent—that are the communities hardest senting your interests in federal parliament’? hit by the lack of a multilateral disability I hardly think they will buy that, because the agreement. There is an endless list of unmet states and territories would soon write back— demand services in regional Queensland. The including the Labor Party Premier from New Endeavour Foundation in Toowoomba has 58 South Wales, Bob Carr—saying, ‘You don’t people on an accommodation waiting list over represent our interests.’ the next three years. The Queensland Deaf Society has 120 people on waiting lists. In my What about the claims about the Common- home town of Ipswich there are 28 adults and wealth-state housing agreement? This motion children in inadequate respite arrangements is very clearly out of step with the views of and a further 96 people have unmet therapy the states and Senator Carr’s own federal needs. party colleagues. The government successfully negotiated with the states and the territories In closing, I urge the Howard government a Commonwealth-state housing agreement to reconsider its offer to the states in relation which came into force on 1 July 1996 and has to the Commonwealth-state disability agree- a year and three months until it expires on 30 ment. It can only be through a multilateral June 1999. In addition, all state and territory framework that governments can be in a governments accepted the offer of the Prime position to provide to this sector of the Minister in May 1997 of funding certainty for community fair and equitable care, which it the final two years of the Commonwealth- rightly deserves. I support this motion. state housing agreement. Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- In relation to service delivery, the govern- tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister ment has successfully negotiated and agreed for Social Security) (5.50 p.m.)—Whatever strategic plans with the states and territories Senator Carr hopes to achieve with this for the provision of housing assistance which ridiculous motion is very similar to one he outline agreed targets and strategies. Negotia- put on the books last September which was tions are shortly to commence on the targets debated in this place at that time. Again on for 1998-99, the final year. During the life of the day of the debate Senator Carr’s motion the agreement, the government has worked was not supported by his own participation or collaboratively with the states to produce a rhetoric. On that occasion he spoke for about more efficient and effective public housing 15 seconds and today he has allowed others system. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 533

At the housing ministers’ meeting in June From 3.3: last year, a range of proposals in regard to The aim of the changes in the 1996 CSHA was to pricing, tenure arrangements, eligibility and allow the Commonwealth to monitor outcomes and wait list management were discussed. As a agree on strategic directions while giving the States result, significant reform is now under way in maximum freedom over provision of assistance. the states which will direct assistance to those From 3.4: in greatest need. Let me quote from the com- The 1996 CSHA also requires each State and the munique issued at the housing ministers’ Commonwealth to agree on a strategic plan for conference in Perth on 6 June 1997, which housing assistance. included the participation of Labor housing From 3.14: ministers. The final sentence of that com- There was support from a number of the submis- munique reads: sions for the broad framework of the 1996 All ministers agreed that the reform agenda is CSHA— progressing steadily and that this is the right From 3.16: approach to ensure that good outcomes are achieved. Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory all expressed, in their submissions the The government is keen to see the future view that Commonwealth involvement in the arrangements evolve in the current context of provision of housing should be to reduced to the cooperation, and housing officials are meet- minimum possible. ing—there is one meeting here in Canberra From 3.17: next Thursday—to provide the opportunity for They all argued that CSHA funding should move informal discussions about the Common- towards an outcome-based funding model— wealth’s objectives for housing funding after the expiry of the current agreement. These From 3.18, very importantly: matters will then be further discussed at the The New South Wales Department of Urban housing ministers’ meeting to take place on Affairs and Planning expressed general support for the changes introduced in the 1996 Agreement. 27 March, and I do not think they will be shrouded with the sort of pessimism that And what about the recommendation of this Senator Carr would have us believe. important issue relating to Commonwealth- What about the goodwill that exists between state housing? Recommendation 5 states: the Commonwealth and the states? Is Labor The Committee recommends that on its expiration on 30 June 1999, the 1996 Commonwealth State just trying to drive a bitter wedge between the Housing Agreement be replaced by a new Agree- two? There are good working relationships ment which retains the specification of performance between the states and we need to look at and the strategic planning processes which are in them very carefully. But it is also important the existing Agreement measures and addresses the that we look carefully at a Senate committee issue of State accountability. report on housing assistance which, I would A majority of Labor senators signed that point out, Labor Senators Bishop, Forshaw, report in just December of last year and are Neal and O’Brien signed off and approved now totally out of step with this motion that, recently. It was the report of the Senate for some perverse and political reason, Sena- Community Affairs References Committee of tor Carr has moved. December 1997, entitled Report on Housing There were over 400 submissions to that Assistance. As I said, a majority Labor inquiry from various advocacy groups, state membership—Senators Bishop, Forshaw, Neal and territory governments, the Commonwealth and O’Brien—signed it off, and what did they and the general public, and they developed sign to? Let me give some quotes. Chapter proposals that were educated and informed, 3.1 said: unlike the debate we have heard here today. The 1996 CSHA represents a considerable change So Senator Carr should take a leaf out of the on earlier agreements— book of his peers. He should acknowledge the From 3.2: good work of the Commonwealth-state hous- The 1996 Agreement removed many of the restric- ing agreement for what it is. There is really tions on the States— no merit in trying to do what he is doing 534 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 today with this motion. He is playing the MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS politics of the issue, rather than offering some sort of positive contribution like Senators Trade Outcomes and Objectives Bishop, Forshaw, Neal and O’Brien did back Statement in December. Debate resumed from 4 March, on motion We all know the environment in which the by Senator Newman: Commonwealth-state housing agreement is That the Senate take note of the statement. negotiated. It is always a difficult one. Each Senator COOK (Western Australia— party has its own individual, very different Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the expectations. The demands and the circum- Senate) (6.00 p.m.)—by leave—Yesterday the stances are certainly different in each state. Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister From this environment, the Commonwealth of Australia, Mr Fischer, tabled his second must steer a common course. outcomes and objectives statement for the If we look very carefully at the particular trade portfolio. I have described this statement motion that we are being asked to consider as a bland and visionless document. I will today, we have to ask the reasons for it. What demonstrate why that is so in a moment. is the motivation behind it? Why did Senator But, first of all, can I say in reply to Mr Carr put up such a motion in which he sought Fischer’s statement yesterday, the leader of to drive wedges between the Commonwealth the Labor Party in the House of Representa- and the states on issues where there is no tives, Kim Beazley, did say that he regarded major disparity? There are consistent and very Mr Fischer as being at least one of the people good motives. on the government’s side who was trying his In the community at the moment, the fact best to open markets for Australia and con- that there are so many Liberal, National and gratulated Mr Fischer for the work that he Country Liberal Party governments at the was doing. I would like to join with the federal and state level is very important and Leader of the Opposition on those personal it runs contrary to the motion that is currently remarks about Mr Fischer. before us and how it has been presented. This The problem for this statement, however, is motion should, of course, be totally rejected. that, for the first time, it is an admission by There is no way that we would want to see the government that the Asian currency crisis any success for this particular motion. It will affect the level of economic activity in certainly does not endorse the action of the Australia. Page 25 of the statement says: federal government. Lower export earnings will affect domestic activity Debate interrupted. through their impact on sectoral incomes (eg, lower corporate profitability and higher input costs). This COMMITTEES will flow on to domestic spending. The consequent slowing in output growth will affect employment, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade though not until later in 1998-99, given the lags Committee: Joint between output variations and employment. Any Chair reduction in employment growth will adversely affect household incomes. In addition, both the Senator HEFFERNAN (New South Wales) direct impact of developments in Asia and the (6.00 p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Hill, I wish associated impact on sectoral incomes could affect to inform the Senate that, following the business and consumer confidence, though these retirement of the Right Hon. Ian Sinclair as effects can be difficult to quantify. chairman, the members of the Joint Standing So there we have the first official statement Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and by the government about the types of effects Trade have met and elected Senator David the crisis will provoke in this economy. We MacGibbon as the new chairman. I am sure do not have any detail about the timing all honourable senators will join me in con- except that it will be 1998-99. We have no gratulating Senator MacGibbon and wishing detail about the depth of those effects on him well in this important position. corporate profitability, on economic growth in Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 535 the nation and on household incomes and the the government answers those questions and contraction that this report foreshadows will does so swiftly. occur there, making life more difficult for Let me turn to some of the things in this Australian families. We do not have any report that I have criticisms of. In the area of figures from the government about how many trade promotion, this report does not ad- jobless will be created and added to the long equately report to the people of Australia, as queue of unemployed in this nation because the minister promised it would when he said of its inability to deal with the impact of this that he would impartially and fairly present crisis. the facts. This report does not refer to the fact We have asked the government to make that the government has not done a number of that information available. They have not. It things, which has undermined trade promotion is important that they do move quickly in this in Australia. area. We know from figures tabled by the Last year we saw the Howard government Australian Bureau of Statistics just this week decide that it would not fund Australia’s that, over the last 12 months, the current presence at the year 2000 World Trade Expo account deficit in this nation blew out by 23 in Hanover, although that is the Olympic per cent—23 per cent in the current account Games of world trade promotion. In the end deficit in 12 months. We know from the same it gave in. Sir Llew Edwards, who is promot- figures that the foreign debt this nation holds ing the Gold Coast for the venue for the year now is a record. We hold $222 billion in 2002, managed at last to persuade the govern- foreign debt, the highest level of foreign debt ment that, if we are to encourage Australian this nation has ever had. exporters to get into the international market- We recall, though, that during the last place and display their wares, they should at election campaign the government ran the least be at the premier world event and that debt truck up hill and down dale and saw it Australia should be an active bidder to attract break down in promising to the Australian that event to Australia. community that they would rein in foreign We saw as well just last month that Austral- debt. It is now at a record level. It has never ia did not participate in Milia 1998, the been as high, and the forecasts are that it is multimedia expo held in France on 7 Februa- expected to balloon further. ry. Over 50 countries were represented at the We know as well from the national account expo. Over 10,000 potential buyers did attend, figures published yesterday that economic and Australia was not present in any official growth has undershot the forecasts that were way. We did not have a stand. This is in the anticipated. Already, before the Asian curren- area of IT—information technology. cy crisis hits this economy, the growth levels It is not as though we are running a surplus for Australia are much lower than anticipated, in information technology exports. The deficit and the levels of economic growth for the in IT&T for Australia currently stands at nation for the two years thus far of Liberal around $4 billion, and it is predicted to blow government are below the average for the out to a level of $20 billion by the year 2000. entire 13 years of Labor government. This is the biggest industry for the future. So we have a situation in which the prom- Australia chose, however, not to be in the ise of growth, employment, higher profitabili- biggest event in which we could display our ty and the reining-in of foreign debt is not wares to the world marketplace and pick up being kept by the government. That is why it important custom for our struggling IT&T is important that we get on the record what sector in Australia. That is not referred to in the impact of the Asian currency crisis will be the report either. so that Australia can form in its mind the One of the other things that is not referred right policies and apply an action, the appro- to in the report is the National Trade and priate measures, for dealing with the impact Investment Outlook Conference. This was a of that crisis. While this report admits it, it stunning success. In 1995, the National Trade does not give the detail. It is important that and Investment Outlook Conference succeed- 536 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 ed by independent audit in attracting $1.04 be there to find new prospects. It is vitally billion in new investment for Australia and important that they travel to places like South $2.02 billion in new export potential. In 1996, Africa, India, Russia, the Czech Republics, it succeeded by independent audit in attracting Latin America, Mexico and others where they $592 million in new investment and $3.4 need to find more markets. Is the money there billion in new export potential. Why would to support them? No, the scheme is capped so you not hold that event, given that we know that they cannot use that chance to win that we are losing markets in Asia because of access. the downturn in those economies? Why would you not strive to attract more industry to There is a range of other matters that could Australia and more investment and export be properly canvassed. The big gap is the opportunities for Australian companies? vision for the future. Where do we want to take this nation in trade? The routine things The National Trade and Investment Outlook are talked about. The big challenges are Conference was cut for budgetary reasons. ignored. There is a lot more that could be We spent $1.3 million on it to attract $3.4 done. It is a poor report in that respect. (Time billion in exports, but the government made expired) it as a budgetary cut and handed it over to the private sector. There will be an International Senator BROWNHILL (New South Herald Tribune event run next month. We Wales—Parliamentary Secretary to the know from internally leaked documents from Minister for Trade) (6.11 p.m.)—by leave—I the Department of Industry, Science and want to make a few comments regarding the Tourism that that event is proposing to charge statements made by Senator Cook in relation the Minister for Industry, Science and Tour- to the Trade Outcomes and Objectives State- ism $125,000 for a speaking spot at that ment tabled yesterday by the Deputy Prime conference and participants up to $900 to Minister and Minister for Trade, Tim Fischer. attend. So much for the promotion of Austral- We have already acknowledged, Senator ia. The report does not refer to that. These are Cook, that there will be an impact from the opportunities forgone and chances to build Asian currency correction. Offsetting that our national income and trade profile. currency correction is strong growth in our domestic economy, with private investment In the area of exporter support the govern- and consumption at healthy levels. ment in its slash and burn budget of 1996-97 cut the export market development grants The reason for that is that we have cor- back quite dramatically. It topped them up a rected the $10½ billion hole in the budget that little in its industry statement before Christ- you gave us when we came into government. mas, but still this nation will lose up to about Had we not corrected that we would have $30 billion because of the amount of support actually been more vulnerable than we are cut out of industry in promoting Australian now to the Asian currency crisis. If we had small business overseas. The export market not tackled that deficit our exporters would development grants are the premier way in not have the secure base now in which to which that is done. These grants have been operate. If we had not restored the economic independently refereed by respected econome- fundamentals, our exporters would not have tricians to see what the earning rate is. For been as competitive as they are—a fact that every public dollar put on the barrel head, exporters in Australia acknowledge. how many dollars do we win in the private It is not just on the domestic front that the sector in new markets? We know that this is government has been active and successful in the single most effective way of attracting improving Australia’s trade effort. Indeed, small business into the international market- 1996-97 was a record year for the export of place. Australian goods and services with exports It is vitally important they be there to totalling some $105 billion—an increase of defend the markets that are going down on 6.2 per cent on the previous year. It was not them in Asia. It is vitally important that they 2.5 per cent as stated by you, Senator Cook, Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 537 or the Leader of the Opposition in the last for further trade and investment liberalisation few days. to open up new markets for Australian export- The reason the government has been so ers. Through Austrade’s branch of trade successful in leading Australia to record exporting facilities, we have helped Australian export success is that it has actively pursued firms to hold their positions in the affected trade strategies at the bilateral, regional and markets and increase penetration of new multilateral levels. Unlike your government, markets outside the region. We have estab- Senator Cook, this government has aggres- lished an Austrade Asia help line for Austral- sively pursued bilateral trade strategies which ian exporters. Just for your benefit, and for have opened up new markets for Australian the benefit of any listeners, that phone num- exports of rice, sugar, citrus and financial ber is 1300 368 225. That was done quickly, services. It is a fact that we have done it. It and it helps. is on the record. The market development task We have increased trade with Iran by about force established by this government will con- 71 per cent; with Egypt by 51 per cent; with tinue to be a key element of our bilateral South Africa by 31 per cent; and with Mexico strategy in 1998. by 24 per cent. They are not bad figures when On a regional level, Australia will continue you think about it; not bad figures at all. You to advocate economic reform and open trade said also in one of your media releases—and policies which will be even more important in I think you might have said it in question light of the economic developments in Asia. time today—that we should be conducting The government will continue to play a seminars for Australian businesses to help leading role in APEC in pushing hard to them to understand the impact of the develop- accelerate the early liberalisation of the 15 ments in Asia. That is exactly what the priority sectors in which we have vital trade government is doing. We are holding interests. The government has also made Austrade seminars on the Asian situation in substantial progress on the multilateral front. all major capitals. We are having trade round Next month, Australia will be hosting a major tables for exporters from rural and regional meeting of the Cairns group in Sydney to areas all around Australia. They have been advance multilateral agricultural reforms and very fruitful and very fulfilling, having regard build momentum for a new comprehensive to the feedback we have had from exporters round of trade negotiations by the year 2000. on how they have seen the situation. Contrary to your comments, Senator Cook, Another mistake that you made in your and the statements that you have made, the assertions here today concerned the National government and its agents have acted quickly Trade and Investment Outlook Conference. and effectively to support Australian exports You said that it does not exist. It does still to the region. I will remind you of these exist. It has been renamed as an Australian measures, because you know we have done summit. So it does continue to exist. them; you know in your heart of hearts that we have done the right thing. We have had Senator Cook—It doesn’t. involvement in the IMF’s support packages Senator BROWNHILL—I am afraid it for Korea, Thailand and Indonesia. We did does, Senator. I take you up again on another that very quickly. We are providing up to area where I thought that you would have $300 million in short-term credit insurance for given a little more thought to things. You said exporters to Korea and similar assistance on on 3 March, in your criteria for the second a case by case basis for Indonesia. statement, that it must satisfy certain creden- We are tightening the anti-dumping laws— tials to be credible. I am pleased to say that something that you did not do anything about. the statement meets the criteria for your We are doing something about labelling standards of credibility. Look at your media products so that the Australian people can release of 3 March and see what this state- buy, and know that they are buying, Austral- ment says—it satisfies everything you asked ian made products. We are continuing to push for. 538 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

In a press release on 4 March, Senator DOCUMENTS Cook, you said that the government should The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— have reformed the EMDG scheme. You made There are 219 government documents listed mention of it again tonight. You said it should for consideration on today’s Notice Paper. benefit small and first-time exporters. You There is a time limit that takes us to 7 p.m. know—you took part in putting through the for their consideration. To expedite consider- legislation—that that is exactly what we have ation of the documents, I propose, with the succeeded in doing. We have brought down concurrence of honourable senators, to call the level of the criteria to get into the scheme the documents in groups of 10. Documents to $20,000 instead of the higher level which called in each group to which no senator rises you had implemented. That has been helpful. will be taken to be discharged from the Notice If you had read page 7 of the transcript of Mr Paper. Documents not called on today will Fischer’s statement which was tabled yester- remain on the Notice Paper. day, you would have realised that that was exactly what the government did when it Department of Industry, Science and amended the EMDG Act last year. Tourism Debate resumed from 21 October, on This government has been creating an motion by Senator Schacht: environment for Australian exporters to be winners, not trying to pick winners, as you That the Senate take note of the document. always tried to do. It is only through putting Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (6.21 in place a competitive domestic economic p.m.)—With regard to the annual report of the framework that Australian exporters will be Department of Industry, Science and Tourism, competitive and our exports will grow. We I note that, because of the way in which the have low interest rates, low inflation and an estimates were conducted last week and, economic climate which allows labour market indeed, this week, very little of that depart- reform and reform of the waterfront to occur. ment’s business was able to be dealt with. This means we can compete with others in the One of the matters which took up the time of world who are competing against us. the Senate Economics Legislation Committee during the estimates hearings was the evi- If you read the Trade Outcomes and Objec- dence of Mr Gillespie, who is an officer of tives Statement put out yesterday by the the Department of Workplace Relations and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Small Business. Trade, I think you will find that the right things are being done for the trading environ- As a result of that evidence, I have caused ment in Australia and for our exporters. a letter to be sent to the Clerk and he has responded. In that letter I drew the attention COMMITTEES of the Clerk to certain responses that were given to questions by Mr Gillespie and the Treaties Committee Clerk has recommended a certain course of action. I have forwarded the correspondence Membership to the secretary of the committee with a view to the committee reconvening, subject of The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT course to its own decision, to allow matters of (Senator Chapman)—The President has conflict between evidence previously given by received a letter from the Leader of the Mr Gillespie and evidence which was given Opposition in the Senate seeking a variation last week to be further tested. I understand I to the membership of a committee. have agreement and I now seek leave to table Motion (by Senator Brownhill)—by the correspondence which I sent to the Clerk leave—agreed to: on 4 March and his response on the same day. That Senator Neal be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and Senator Leave granted. Reynolds be appointed to the committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 539

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Social Justice Commissioner Debate resumed from 21 October 1997, on Reports motion by Senator Hogg: Debate resumed from 21 and 23 October That the Senate take note of the document. 1997, on motions by Senator Cooney: Senator HOGG (Queensland) (6.27 That the Senate take note of the documents. p.m.)—The 1996-97 report of the Superannua- tion Complaints Tribunal is certainly not a Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.24 p.m.)— bagatelle of complaints. If one looks at the The reports by the Aboriginal and Torres report, it really draws to one’s attention the Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, problems that we are going to be confronted namely Report for 1996-97 on the operation with now that there are jurisdictional prob- and effect of the Native Title Act and Report lems with the Superannuation Complaints for 1996-97, were both signed off by Michael Tribunal. In chapter 4, it highlights that there Dodson. It is a sad thing that he is no longer were 1,383 written complaints and 10,447 the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander telephone inquiries received by the tribunal. Social Justice Commissioner. Indeed, it is a That is a significant number. It goes on to sad thing that his brother Patrick Dodson has point out that there were 694 written com- also lost the position that he held at the time plaints, which represents 42.5 per cent more that these documents were prepared. The than the 487 complaints received in the Dodson brothers have great genes within their previous year. We have a serious issue now bodies. They are both outstanding Australians. because of the jurisdictional problems that we I want to talk about Michael Dodson and have with the Superannuation Complaints explain why it is sad for Australia that he is Tribunal. no longer in the position he held at the time of signing off these documents. One certainly should not whiffle at the seriousness of the issue that is before us. If I remember at the bar there was a great one looks at the nature of the complaints that advocate, Ted Laurie, who was a person with appear throughout this report, one sees the an incisive intellect and a great understanding necessity to protect the rights of people in of human nature. He knew the minds and respect of the superannuation that many of souls of people and knew them well. In them look forward to in either retirement or addition, as he told me one day, he had the as part of a total and permanent disablement ability to cry. What he meant by that was, not claim. There is also a need to protect rights in only did he have great learning, a great mind, respect of a death claim. It is interesting that a great intellect and insight but also he had at page 37 the report notes that, of the com- the ability to feel compassion and empathy plaints received by the tribunal, 24 per cent and had a deep sense of wanting to help were in respect of death claims and 27 per others. He had a real hunger for justice, if I cent were in respect of disability. That is by can use the language of the beatitudes. far and away the majority of claims that were Michael Dodson is a man like Ted Laurie received. More importantly, one needs to look was. He knew Ted Laurie. Michael was at the at the analysis on page 39 where it is drawn Victorian bar when I was there and when Ted to our attention that clearly employer spon- Laurie was there, and he would understand sored funds are far more likely to be com- the reference. Michael Dodson is a man who plained about to the tribunal than are any has connections with Victoria. He went to other types of funds. school there, played football there and was at If the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal the bar there. On this occasion, on the basis is now, in effect, hitting the wall, where are of the two reports which he signed off and the people going to register their complaints? have come before the Senate tonight, I want It is drawn to our attention in the report that to acknowledge him and his great contribution complaints are six times more likely against to Australia. employer sponsored funds than the next Question resolved in the affirmative. highest category of funds, which is industry 540 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 funds. Clearly, this is an opportunity for insurance cover in the event of death or people to have their superannuation rights disability. That is a very important aspect. protected by being able to lodge their com- With the advent of the superannuation guaran- plaints with the Superannuation Complaints tee, now six per cent of ordinary time earn- Tribunal. Some of the complaints that are ings and increasing to nine per cent by 2001- outlined—particularly with the likes of TPD 02, superannuation will form—within 20 or time limit complaints, time limits and valid 30 years, I suspect—a very significant finan- lodgment of claims complaints—provide cial asset, which will be greater than the excellent examples of real protection being family home in the case of many Australians. given to those people who are at odds with So it is therefore necessary to have a strong either the superannuation fund or the life effective complaints resolution mechanism. manager, who may well be in charge of the The tribunal which was established by the fund. Labor government and commenced on 1 July This should not be treated in a marsh- 1994 does that. It cannot deal with all dis- mallow fashion by the government; it should putes. As my colleague Senator Hogg has be addressed in a serious way. The complaints referred to them earlier, I will not go into the mechanism is very important indeed for the statistics. But I will draw the Senate’s atten- future protection of people and their life tion to the nature of complaints that can be savings in the superannuation area. I com- dealt with by the tribunal: disclosure, fees, mend the report to the Senate. death and disability, surplus distribution Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (6.31 payments and matters relating to administra- p.m.)—Like my colleague, Senator Hogg, I tion, statement area, trustee misrepresentation wish to make a few comments about the and malpractice. I think it is fair to say that Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. This is this is the major disputes tribunal dealing with an important document, because it deals with issues relating to superannuation. an area of financial supervision that affects One of the reasons that the then Labor almost every Australian. government set up the tribunal was to provide The report on page 7 firstly makes refer- a cost-free and user-friendly forum to persons ence to a report of this Senate in June 1992, who have complaints about decisions on the the first report of the Senate Select Committee conduct of trustees, insurers, RSA providers on Superannuation, Safeguarding super.It and superannuation providers. refers to the demographic, social and econom- As I said earlier, the amount of money in ic forces that have given superannuation superannuation accounts is not a mere baga- greater prominence over recent times. It then telle. The amount of money is increasing goes on to note the passing of the superan- slowly and steadily, due to the very strong, nuation guarantee legislation in July 1992. proactive and visionary outlook of the Labor I think most senators, most members of the government in the passing of SG legislation. other place and certainly most Australians are Senator Hogg has also referred to the recent aware that superannuation in this country is Federal Court decision with respect to the compulsory for all employees. When I last legal ability of the tribunal to deal with looked, two weeks ago at a meeting of the complaints. Regrettably, the teeth have been superannuation committee, there were some taken away from the tribunal. Some would 16.8 million superannuation accounts in this say, ‘It is now a mere lemon.’ Perhaps country. The amount of money in superannua- ‘marshmallow’ is a more apt description. We tion is gradually increasing. Last time I should not treat that Federal Court decision as looked, about this time last year, there was an a whiffle to glow lightly in the dark. It is a average amount of approximately $36,000 or very significant Federal Court decision, which $37,000 in a superannuation account. has regrettably left many Australians wonder- One important feature of modern superan- ing who is going to determine the very nuation, as established by the Labor govern- important issue of disputes with respect to ment, is that most funds now provide for superannuation. We can look forward to Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 541 more disputes. The government’s announced further. As the former Minister for Employ- so-called ‘choice’ I refer to as deregulation of ment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs the superannuation industry. (Time expired) said, ‘If we don’t get unemployment down, Question resolved in the affirmative. we deserve to lose.’ That will be the judg- ment of the Australian people. Department of Industry, Science and Tourism This document is an indictment on a com- placent government that is not interested in Senator CONROY (Victoria) (6.38 p.m.)— job growth and not interested in promoting by leave—I rise to speak on the report of the the tourism industry. You just have to talk to Department of Industry, Science and Tourism people in the tourism industry to know this— for 1996-97. they are screaming. There was a story recent- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ly from your area, Senator O’Chee. A whole —Senator Conroy, Senator O’Brien has refit of windows in one of the resorts was already spoken to this document and did not cancelled. The company that was scheduled seek leave to continue his remarks later. If to do the refit of the windows has laid off its you wish to speak on it, you will need leave glaziers as a direct result of the Asian crisis. to do so. Senator O’Chee—But the government is Leave granted. not responsible for that, Senator. Senator CONROY—This document shows Senator CONROY—No, but the govern- the abdication of the government from the ment is irresponsible if it does not do some- tourism and industry sectors. The figures on thing, Senator O’Chee. page 43 show the reduction in staffing and appropriations for tourism. It used to be a Senator O’Chee—What does it have to whole department. One of the first decisions do—employ the glaziers? this government took was to collapse the Senator CONROY—No, you are supposed department. The government has decided that to recognise the problem, have an industry the economy is fine. They flattened it when strategy, talk to the tourism industry and get they first came to power. They ripped billions together. out of it, claiming that there was a problem. Senator O’Chee interjecting— That saw growth drop from 3½ per cent to 2½ per cent and unemployment go up. They Senator CONROY—It is not enough—that were complacent this year, and this document is my point. shows it. We have got an economy that is Senator O’Chee—Where are you going to like a marshmallow. It is soft. The growth is get the money from? not there. The government is pretending, even yesterday, that everything is still on track. Senator CONROY—Taxing family trusts Their strategy has been to have the economy, would be a good way to start. on their claims, ‘steaming into 1998’. This Senator O’Chee—And death duties. Where economy is barely whiffling along. It has are you going to find the money to balance dropped from 1.7 per cent in June to 0.5 per the budget? cent in this quarter. That means that what they were hoping to do—get this economy Senator CONROY—If you are worried over the hump of the Asian crisis—will fail. about where the money is coming from, let us We have got growth, but barely a bagatelle. start with negative gearing. Let us start with We see a government that has lost the plot. taxing trusts if that is where you are saying we are going to get the money from. The tax This document shows that the Department office has said there is plenty of money out of Industry, Science and Tourism needs more there. funds and an industry strategy. If we do not take up the challenge in the coming budget Senator O’Chee—Trusts are taxed now. and restore the cuts which are shown in this Senator CONROY—I suppose you are document, unemployment numbers will go up going to say part 4A fixes the tax avoiders 542 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 too—chance would be a fine thing. (Time have a very balanced approach to nuclear expired) energy. I cop it every time somebody brings The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT up the question. I have very strong views (Senator Chapman)—We are dealing with about what happened in the former Soviet document nos 1 to 10. Senator Quirke, I will Union. It has to be said that this was not a be interested to hear whether you make bagatelle or a trifle. Some people said that ‘marshmallow’, ‘bagatelle’ and ‘whiffle’ what happened at Chernobyl was a bagatelle relevant to your remarks. or a trifle. That is not so. I am please to report that we have not had Nuclear Safety Bureau a marshmallow, bagatelle or a whiffle in this Debate resumed from 23 October, on report that could be said to concern us at all, motion by Senator Margetts: at least for the first three months of last year. That the Senate take note of the document. I am not sure that any nuclear propelled ships Senator QUIRKE (South Australia) (6.42 actually came to Australia during that pe- p.m.)—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Presi- riod—I cannot remember any. I quite often dent. I do not know why you raised the point get invited to go out on them, as I am that of whether I can make ‘marshmallow’, sort of person who is interested in that level ‘bagatelle’ or ‘whiffle’ relevant or not. In of technology. your first sentence you fixed one of the main I am very happy when the invitation is problems I have had since coming out of a extended to visit a ship, and I know that lots committee meeting some time ago—in fact, of other senators have been on nuclear pow- I was wondering how I was going to do this. ered ships. Even though they come in here So I want to thank you, Mr Acting Deputy and say something different, they obviously President. You have solved one of the funda- do not mind the possibility of glowing in the mental problems of the age. dark if things go wrong. At the end of the My remarks tonight are to do with the day, having a marshmallow, bagatelle or a National Nuclear Safety Bureau’s 38th quar- whiffle in respect of glowing in the dark is terly report for the period 1 January to 31 something that I would be very concerned March 1997. This well run organisation has about. I believe that this report is a very reported that all problems are under their worthwhile document. I commend it to sena- control, including the chances of a nuclear tors, and I thank you again, Mr Acting Presi- discharge either from ANSTO’s facility at dent, for giving me the opportunity to say Lucas Heights, other smaller stockpiles of ‘marshmallow’, ‘bagatelle’ and ‘whiffle’. nuclear material or a nuclear powered ship. If Question resolved in the affirmative. there was any discharge at all, it was from the ANSTO facility, but the bureau tells us that Australian Law Reform Commission the monitoring that they did during that Consideration resumed from 21 October period indicates it was well below those levels 1997. required under the various regulations under Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.46 p.m.)— which that organisation operates. I move: It is very important that these things be That the Senate take note of the document. monitored properly. It was only a whiffle in I was prompted to speak to the Australian Eastern Europe in 1986 when there was that Law Reform Commission report by the terrible problem because a Soviet reactor at address given earlier by Senator Hogg, who Chernobyl effectively melted down one of the spoke on the Superannuation Complaints main containments. It has got to be said that Tribunal. His speech prompted me to speak to it is only the marshmallow apologists for this report because there is forever a need in nuclear accidents who would get up and say any society for the law that operates in that that that was not a major thing. society to be kept under supervision by I was very concerned about Chernobyl appropriate bodies, to be monitored and, when when it happened. As the Senate knows, I there is need for change, for change to be Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 543 made. Clearly, there is a problem in the that. He has a real task ahead of him to get Superannuation Complaints Tribunal area this job done. He appeared before the Joint which ought to be looked at. Standing Committee on Public Works and For years, the Australian Law Reform said that he is totally committed to doing that. Commission has performed a great task in That remains to be seen. looking at issues in Australia where there is Construction of the National Museum of need for reform or alterations in the law for Australia is very important; so much so that the betterment of everybody in society. I the Public Works Committee, which is a joint acknowledge the part that the commission standing committee of this parliament, has plays in the all-important task of law reform. already had three days of hearings on this I wish it the best and hope that it has at least matter. It has found that the department satisfactory funds in the future to operate as responsible, the Department of Communica- it should. tions and the Arts, has, in what can only be I was, as I said, impressed by what Senator described as monumental terms, made a Hogg had to say, and also with what was said complete mess of the process of getting the by Senator Sherry, who had so much to do National Museum constructed. The govern- with the successful establishment of superan- ment initially committed $133 million, which nuation in Australia. When superannuation is not an amount that could be described as a was being looked at to make it effective for bagatelle; these are huge dollars. But it was everybody within the community, Senator not long after that that it was increased by a Sherry played an important part in getting that further $18 million, and the opposition asked movement going. Another Tasmanian on the what the $18 million was for. other side, Senator Watson, has also done I have to go back a couple of steps to great work in that area, but Senator Sherry address some things set up by the Minister for should certainly be praised. I make those Communications, the Information Economy remarks in the context of the Australian Law and the Arts, Senator Alston, who, along with Reform Commission, and I wish it well in its the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, announced future work. that they would have an international design Question resolved in the affirmative. competition for the National Museum. How- ever, they did not conduct the international National Museum of Australia design competition in accordance with inter- Consideration resumed from 21 October national design competition rules. The coali- 1997. tion government made up its own rules, but it still announced that it was an international Senator MURPHY (Tasmania) (6.50 competition. p.m.)—I move: What else has gone wrong with this pro- That the Senate take note of the document. cess? As recently as this morning, I received I address my remarks to the National Museum yet another design as part of the Public Works of Australia report 1996-97. This is a very Committee information. All of the competitors important report about a very important in the design competition were given a brief building which will hopefully be constructed which contained a minimum area of around in the not too distant future. The report starts 16,000 square metres of floor space to house out with the letter of the chairman, Mr J.G. all the icons, goods and chattels that we Service, who sets out the process for the would want to house for the people of Aus- construction of the museum, pointing to the tralia in our National Museum. site selection and the commitment of the now When the National Museum is built, it will government to its construction. be, I hope, a tremendous building and one Mr Service, who is the chairman of what is that will serve as a very important asset for known as the Construction and Coordination Canberra. Building it in Canberra is the right Committee, has often been described as a thing to do. From the opposition point of marshmallow, but I would certainly reject view, we want to ensure that, when the 544 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 museum is built, it will be a building that because, unlike Judge Roy Bean, I am not a Australians will be able to be proud of, barrister— because that is important. It really should not Senator Hogg—You are a lay person. come down to the question of whether it costs $133 million or $150 million; it really should Senator MURPHY—Yes, I am a lay come down to getting a building in place that person. It is the lay persons within this coun- can function as Australia’s National Museum try that deserve a proper explanation from the for the next 50 years. minister on the onus of proof. If you read the minister’s statements as he has gone around Mr Service along with his committee the country, it has been fairly clear that the members from the Department of Communi- minister does mean taking the onus of proof cations and the Arts seem to have made a from the plaintiff and placing it on the de- right royal mess of this. Indeed, as late as fendant. But unfortunately for the minister, December last year, they had to head off to who is in El Desperado straits to try to get the United States to talk to people about something right—he promised Australia the exhibit space because they did not really review of the print media ownership laws and know about it. I have to say that this is no failed there—this is his last stand. This is like whiffle of a process. I seek leave to continue Richard Custer’s last stand: he has to get the my remarks later. parallel import restrictions up. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator O’Brien—General Custer. Department of Communications and Senator MURPHY—General Custer’s last the Arts stand. The problem for the minister, Senator Consideration resumed from 21 October Alston, is that the Attorney-General’s depart- 1997. ment came before the Senate Legal and Senator MURPHY (Tasmania) (6.55 Constitutional Legislation Committee last p.m.)—I move: week and said in their submission, both That the Senate take note of the document. verbally and in writing, that ‘the new section 130A’—which the minister seems to place so This 1996-97 annual report of the Department much credence in—‘will not reverse the onus of Communications and the Arts covers a of proof. The government has not asserted to range of issues. One of particular interest to the parliament or to the public that it will.’ me is the government’s policy relating to the That is very clear. Yet the minister today said, removal of the parallel importation restric- ‘Oh well, Attorney-General’s has got it tions. Today I asked the Minister for Com- wrong.’ munications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, a question on revers- I am sure the legal and constitutional ing the onus of proof. The minister, as I committee will be very keen to hear about recall, stood up and said, ‘I don’t really that because this whole process is not only a know what you mean.’ mere bagatelle show. I have often heard But the minister seemed to know plenty Senator Alston described as a doormat. Well, about it as he has gone around the country in this case maybe marshmallow might be speaking on radio interviews and saying that more applicable. He is just whiffling up a the government will reverse the onus of proof. long, dark alley in this case because he is not He had plenty to say about it. So one would going to get parallel import restriction legisla- assume that he would know what the reversal tion up. of the onus of proof actually means. To the The minister will not get it up by trying to layman I suppose—for those less experienced deceive the Australian public by telling them than Judge Roy Bean who often sits over something that he cannot do. Attorney- there—it means that you take the onus of General’s has clearly put the case before the proof from the plaintiff and put it on the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation defendant. That is pretty much the layman’s Committee in legal terms—which may be a explanation. It is about as good as I can do little bit above the minister—but at least they Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 545 have tried to do it for the lay people. They ceived evidence from some 47 organisations have made it categorically clear that the onus and some 82 witnesses, and inspected a of proof will not be reversed as a result of the number of community organisations in Can- introduction of their legislation. I seek leave berra. Many of those submissions were to continue my remarks later. lengthy and of a high quality. Certainly they Leave granted; debate adjourned. could not be described as being mere whiffle. I particularly refer to quality submissions Consideration from the Australian Housing and Urban Question resolved in the affirmative on the Research Institute, the Australian Institute of following orders of the day without further Family Studies, the National Community debate during consideration of government Housing Forum, the Australian Council of documents: Social Service, the New South Wales Depart- Australia New Zealand Food Authority—Report ment of Urban Affairs and Planning, the New for 1996-97 South Wales Department of Housing, National Civil Aviation Safety Authority Australia— Shelter, the Community Housing Federation Corporate plan 1996-97 to 1998-99 of Australia and, finally, the Department of National Health and Medical Research Council— Social Security. Grants for 1997 and Report for 1996 The submissions and evidence from repre- Insurance and Superannuation Commission— sentatives of these organisations or agencies Report for 1996-97 were notable for a range of different reasons. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Some of those reasons in the reports were that (Senator Chapman)—Order! It being almost they contained considerable intellectual rigour 7 p.m., we will move to the consideration of supported by useful economic analysis of a committee reports and government responses. particular argument, the outlining of philo- sophical viewpoints, and the benefit to the COMMITTEES community from part or whole adoption of a Community Affairs References particular course of action. There was succinct Committee evaluation of other submissions, often putting a contrary viewpoint to that of the majority of Report submissions received by the committee. The Debate resumed from 2 March 1998, on objectives of different states which have motion by Senator Bishop: implemented responsibilities in the area of That the Senate take note of the report. public housing and public housing assistance Senator BISHOP (Western Australia) (7.00 were outlined to the committee, particularly p.m.)—I wish to speak on the report of the by New South Wales. Senate Community Affairs References Com- In total there were some 24 recommenda- mittee on housing assistance. That report was tions. Whilst all recommendations of commit- tabled at the conclusion of the business of the tees are important, some do have more conse- Senate last December, and this is the first quence than others. In this context, I identify opportunity that honourable senators have had recommendations 1, 5, 6, 11, 19, 21, 22, 23 to address the content and recommendations and 24 as being of particular note. Those nine of the report. I can say that it is a report of recommendations fit neatly into three sub- substance and certainly not from a group of groups: firstly, recommendations of current bagatelles. levels of public housing stock and adequate As I said in my tabling statement earlier planning for the future, recommendations 1, this week, the committee took evidence and 5, 6, 11 and 19; secondly, the importance of submissions on this topic right throughout community housing and community based 1997. At all stages of the committee’s deliber- organisation, recommendations 21 and 23; ations, there was extensive interest in the and, thirdly, the role of finance and the progress of the committee’s work. The com- private sector in the ongoing provision of low mittee received over 300 submissions, re- cost housing, after lengthy discussion, recom- 546 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 mendations 22 and 24. I now wish to address markets. In a recent edition of the Economist briefly each of those subgroups and offer a there was a table of future likely bond issues few comments. by national governments. The table demon- The first subgroup of recommendations strated that a range of OECD national govern- goes to the issue of public housing itself. In ments are, in an unprecedented fashion, the postwar years, the social role of public reducing their issues of debt. Because of this, housing has been both essential and critical to there will be significantly less demand for the ongoing development of this nation. government bonds. As governments dramati- Paragraph 2.5 of the report outlines some of cally reduce future issues of debt, balance the historical developments that led to very budgets and the like, the price of capital—that high levels of home ownership in this nation, is, interest rates—will also decline as we have and the committee notes that those housing seen it do in this country in more recent policies have served well the majority of the years. population of Australia. In this context, With less competition in capital markets, recommendations 1, 5, 6, 11 and 19 highlight continuing increases in national savings pools the critical role of public housing and its and an overall decline in interest rates, there maintenance at minimum of current levels, the will exist an opportunity for other players to need for ongoing research and the worth of enter the market and secure long-term bonds proper planning and accountability measures. at low interest rates to fund their particular The second subgroup of recommendations, cause, interest or whatever. In this context, recommendations 21 and 23, go to the role of recommendations 22 and 24 have particular the community housing sector. Community immediate appeal as they, if given effect, will housing is defined in the report from one of facilitate the entry of community organisa- the submissions as being ‘publicly subsidised tions into capital markets. non-profit housing which is not publicly managed’. The report goes on to state: Work obviously needs to be done with a The two most common forms of community range of financial institutions to work out the housing are housing cooperatives, in which new details of appropriate packages that will suit tenants take full responsibility for all of the the varying needs of a range of financial management decisions related to the properties institutions. Those institutions are obviously under their control: and secondly, housing going to be looking for security for their associations, in which tenants are encouraged to participate on a board of management, which in investments and guarantees of returns over turn takes responsibility for that housing decision 10-, 15-, 25- and 30-year periods if they are making. going to be issuing bonds that are going to be Chapter 6 of the report outlines the benefits utilised to fund the development of communi- of a continuing role for community housing. ty housing. In this context the discussions at Those benefits may be summarised as it caters paragraphs 6.37 and 6.56 set out a number of to niche markets, single parents with children, signposts which might assist the entry of a disabled persons and those in need of support range of players into this market. services. Community housing develops, as its In summary, as my earlier tabling statement name suggests, a sense of community within this week says, the committee believes that all the affected community. It offers choice for governments need to investigate ways of those of a low income with special needs. facilitating private sector involvement in low- Considering the background, recommenda- cost housing and of increasing the capital tions 21 and 23 are particularly appropriate. available for all those housing projects. The final subgroup of recommendations are Current national government policies of those numbered 22 and 24, which address the massive debt reduction and likely reduced role of the private sector and accessing of future bond issues do give an opportunity for finance. In this country, as in most OECD new methods of low-cost housing develop- countries, we will shortly enter a sustained ment. In conclusion, I commend the report to period of oversupply of capital in worldwide the Senate. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 547

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (7.10 various organisations and the adequacy of p.m.)—I would also like to speak to the funding, whether it meets the needs that are Senate Community Affairs References Com- out there in the community. I think all those mittee report on housing assistance, which issues are of great concern to people working was tabled in the break between sittings. It is in the non-government sector in the housing a report of substance, as Senator Bishop, the area. I am sure that a lot of those concerns chair of that committee said. It took over 300 were raised during the committee hearings submissions and had three fairly extensive that were held. They were certainly raised days of public hearings in Sydney, Melbourne with me in parts of Northern Queensland. and Canberra. It is a pity it did not get up to In Cairns, for example, I was fortunate Queensland and into the regions a bit, but I enough to attend a meeting of the local Cairns recognise that you cannot go everywhere. housing network. A lot of those sorts of Housing is obviously a fairly fundamental issues were raised—not just the adequacy of and crucial need. It is an issue that I think funding but the adequacy of assistance from does not get as much attention from govern- levels of government and the inability of ments at all levels as it should. It is some- government to understand the needs of the thing that impacts fundamentally on every community and the needs of the community Australian at the most basic level. There are sector in working with people in the housing lots of issues in the housing area around area. Whilst things can never be perfect, I Australia that need addressing and this report think there is a long way to go in terms of has identified a good number of them. In the recognising and giving the community more short time available to me I will not be able flexibility to address the needs that are there. to go into full depth in relation to all that is I think the committee’s report identifies some contained in the report, but I would like to of those issues and goes some way towards highlight a few issues that come from it. addressing them. One of the issues, which was touched on I would like to draw attention to the earlier on today as part of the motion that was minority report of my colleague Senator Lyn debated during general business, relates to the Allison, who was the Democrats’ representa- Commonwealth-state housing agreement. In tive on this inquiry. The Democrats initiated recent weeks before the Senate resumed this inquiry into housing assistance at the end sitting I spent a bit of time travelling around of 1996. We believed that the model of regional parts of Queensland and meeting housing reform proposed at the time by the with groups involved in the housing area, the Howard government would not address the people involved at the coalface who are growing housing crisis within the community. having to work with the real issues that are I hope this report does go some way to- facing people. wards developing a greater recognition about It is very clear that there is a lot of concern the need to change directions. Certainly there in the non-government housing sector in has been a lot of changes since that time at relation to even just the direction of housing state and Commonwealth levels in terms of policy in Australia. At one level there can be the direction of housing policy, partly in criticism about the content of the policy, but terms of deciding not to go down a particular when it is not even clear what direction it is path but not necessarily being much clearer going in, then that is a great cause of concern about what other paths we will go down for those people who put so much time and instead. effort and so much of their lives into trying The issues highlighted in the Democrats to assist people in the area of housing. minority report relate to the area of The lack of clarity about the direction of Commonwealth-state responsibilities and, the Commonwealth-state housing agreement again, the Commonwealth-state housing is something that is of great concern. That agreement. It is an essential framework for a spills over into things such as funding— national housing policy. The Democrats reliability of funding, the scope of funding for strongly believe that, for that policy to operate 548 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 at its maximum effectiveness, we really need housing policy but also the implementation of a more clearly defined nationally agreed housing policy and the sometimes inflexible housing strategy that has clearly defined and unhelpful implementation that occurs proposals and specific outcomes. This would through the state government housing depart- help the Commonwealth government not only ments. in terms of its responsibilities at the housing Certainly, there is disquiet in terms of the level but also in terms of having more consis- changes in Queensland with the Queensland tency and clarity of the focus of housing government in relation to the operation of policy across the states. public housing in that state—changes which The majority report incorporates what the will affect people in terms of having not only Democrats regard as the central features of to pay higher rents but also reduced security such a strategy, which would include the of tenure. Obviously, security of tenure is continuation of the Commonwealth-state very much a crucial issue for people. There is housing agreement and recognising that both nothing much more important than feeling levels of government have an important role secure about your own home, and it is some- to play in that. However, we are concerned thing that the Democrats believe needs much that there is no specific framework which greater attention. unites all the various factors into a single, Similarly, residential tenancy laws in the comprehensive and cohesive national housing private rental sector vary enormously from strategy. It is still somewhat disparate and state to state and across the territories. Again, fractured. The Democrats believe that that can the Democrats believe that we should be be a hindrance to a housing strategy and a setting a national set of benchmarks. I believe housing policy that has maximum effective- the report also touches on this area in terms ness. of agreed standards of tenant protection across One of the recommendations in our the states and of having not necessarily minority report is the establishment of a uniform legislation but uniform bottom line housing task force to assist with the develop- protection which all legislation has to em- ment of a national housing strategy, particu- brace. larly recognising the important role that local I would like to mention briefly another government can play, as well as the com- issue concerning private tenancy which also munity sector, in both policy development and came up at the consultations I had in Rock- implementation of a housing strategy. Whilst hampton as well as Cairns—the issue of it may not be appropriate for local govern- privacy and the development of tenant data- ment or local government associations to be bases. I believe it is something that is going a formal partner in the Commonwealth-state to be a growing problem. As the Senate housing agreement—and its involvement is by would know, the coalition came into govern- no means uniform across the country and its ment with a commitment to extend privacy input in the housing area varies enormously— legislation to the private sector. It has decided we certainly believe that, if local government not to go down that path now. Some of the did have a strong involvement in the develop- problems with not doing so are arising and ment of a national housing strategy, this this is one area where I think problems will would be a great contribution to a clearer arise more quickly than most. national housing strategy. Basically, privately operated tenancy data- As part of that, there is always a need for bases that record so-called bad tenants exist consultation with the community. As I men- now—a tenant black list, if you like. People tioned just before, one of the strong issues can be put on these lists without their know- that kept coming up at a meeting with hous- ledge, sometimes completely unjustifiably. ing groups recently in northern Queensland They can then have major problems in access- was the disconnection that the community and ing rental accommodation, often not even people working on the ground in the com- knowing why they may be having a problem. munity feel with not only the development of They have no legal right to access their Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 549 information, even if they are aware that they tralia. One knowledgeable commentator has are on those databases. They have no right to written that: demand the correction of incorrect informa- tion. That is something the Democrats are .. the ultimate reward of an enhanced level of political education and political participation . . . in greatly concerned about and something which the Australian electorate is not the least of the we believe needs more attention at both the blessings to flow from the Irwin committee. state and federal level. I seek leave to con- tinue my remarks later. Honourable senators will know that on the second Thursday of every sitting fortnight, the Leave granted; debate adjourned. publications committee presents to the Senate Publications Committee a report in which it recommends that a num- ber of documents be printed. That represents Report the committee’s necessary routine work. Debate resumed from 2 December 1997, on Occasionally, however, the committee pre- motion by Senator Calvert: sents special reports, such as the one tabled That the Senate take note of the document. in December. Four of the 10 special reports presented since 1970 have concerned the Senator SANDY MACDONALD (New parliamentary papers series. South Wales) (7.21 p.m.)—I take this oppor- tunity to make a few observations about the The parliamentary papers series consists of report of the Joint Publications Committee on those documents presented to the parliament the future of the parliamentary papers series. which are ordered to be printed by either The report was tabled on 2 December last chamber. Parliamentary committee reports, year. The report was made in response to a annual reports of government agencies and request for advice from the Presiding Officers other reports tabled pursuant to statutory on a proposal to discontinue the series. Before requirements are included in the series. The directly addressing the detail of the report, I parliament, when it determines that a docu- should like to make some general remarks ment is to be included in the parliamentary about the Publications Committee and the papers series, ensures that it is produced in parliamentary papers series itself. sufficient numbers for the needs of parliamen- The committee was first established in 1970 tarians and the electorate and that it is depos- to replace the then Printing Committee. Its ited in major libraries in a numbered and establishment resulted from a recommendation indexed printed series for easy retrieval by of one of the most influential but perhaps researchers and the general public. little known committees of the parliament, the Professor Finn Crisp, who gave evidence at Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and an inquiry into the parliamentary papers series Government Publications, which reported to almost thirty years ago, stated that publication the parliament in 1964. That committee, of the series enables the general public to commonly referred to as the Erwin committee understand the transactions, discussions and after its chairman, the Hon. Dudley Erwin, concerns of parliament and its committees, made 67 recommendations, including recom- and assists the rising generation of Australians mendations for the establishment of the to understand the nature and purposes of Publications Committee, the Australian parliament, its transactions and discussions Government Printing Service and government and the issues it is confronting and dealing bookshops. It also made important recommen- with. It could also be argued, as it was by a dations in relation to the parliamentary papers witness during the committee’s recent inquiry, series itself, the subject of the report being that the continued publication of the parlia- debated here tonight. mentary papers as a set and their preservation The select committee’s recommendations through deposit in libraries are important and their ready acceptance by the Presiding elements in the Australian parliament ensuring Officers and the government had a major and maintaining the accountability of the influence on government publishing in Aus- executive to the parliament. 550 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Why then was it proposed to discontinue of technology to reduce costs, he was mindful the series? The Presiding Officers stated, that access to the Internet and other on-line when seeking the committee’s advice on the technology is limited in our community. He proposal, that most documents included in the asked the committee to consider that issue series now receive wide circulation outside during its deliberations. the series, that many are available in other Another major problem with electronic than hard copy and that the costs to the publishing is the archival limitation of elec- parliament of maintaining the series, much of tronic copy. The committee concluded on the which consists of publications of the exec- basis of the evidence that on-line technology utive government, was unjustifiable in a is not now a suitable substitute for a printed climate of financial constraint. The Presiding series. The committee also concluded, how- Officers assured the committee that, if the ever, that government agencies should be parliamentary papers series were discontinued, encouraged to publish their documents elec- they would ensure that distribution of signifi- tronically. It has therefore recommended that cant parliamentary publications would be agencies which do not produce documents for maintained but the onus for the distribution of the parliamentary papers series in this form executive government documents would be should advise their reason for not so doing in with the executive. The committee, having their letters of transmittal to the minister. The considered the Presiding Officers’ proposal, committee intends to monitor progress in this resolved to conduct an inquiry into the future matter and to report on progress in 12 months of the parliamentary papers series so as to time. obtain the views of interested parties, not only within the parliamentary departments but also On the second point—that is, on whether throughout the wider community. there are suitable alternatives to the parlia- mentary papers series—the committee con- During the inquiry, the committee received sidered a proposal put forward by the Depart- 58 submissions, many of which came from ment of the House of Representatives. Briefly, libraries or from the academic community. this involved extending the current library Public hearings were conducted in February deposit scheme to disseminate all the docu- and September 1997. The great majority of ments now covered by the parliamentary submissions and the bulk of the oral evidence papers series and adapting to the new scheme supported the continuation of the parlia- an index already produced for all tabled mentary papers series in its current form. documents. The Department of the House of During its inquiry, the committee focused Representatives stated that the proposed on two main issues—firstly, whether electron- scheme would improve on the current parlia- ic printing and publishing have now reached mentary papers series in a number of respects, such an advanced stage that a printed parlia- such as in the more timely dissemination of mentary papers series is no longer needed publications. The department observed, and, secondly, whether there are other more however, that steps would need to be taken to effective or more economical ways of dis- ensure that documents in the scheme were seminating and preserving for the public the identified and numbered and that sufficient major documents presented to parliament. On numbers of copies were provided for the the first point, the evidence demonstrated that, scheme by authors. On this latter point, the despite advances in electronic publishing and department suggested that it might be neces- dissemination, there remains significant sary for the parliament to legislate to require problems to be resolved. Foremost among agencies to make sufficient copies of their these is the limited access to the Internet of publications available. the public, and even many libraries. The The committee, having considered this and Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr other proposals, concluded that the proposals Fahey), when responding to the committee’s were not sufficiently developed and that invitation to make a submission to the in- further investigation is required. The commit- quiry, stated that, while he supported the use tee has recommended, therefore, that the Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 551 parliamentary papers series should continue in Senator HOGG (Queensland) (7.31 its present form until there is a viable alterna- p.m.)—I rise in respect of report No. 5 from tive in electronic or printed form, but it has the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign also recommended that the Presiding Officers Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled The establish a working party to explore further Implications of Australia’s Services Exports the proposals made by the Department of the to Indonesia and Hong Kong and the govern- House of Representatives and the Department ment response. The reason I rise is that, when of the Senate for possible alternatives to the I looked back at the original report—and this series. is the concern that I have—I noted that this During its inquiry, the committee also report spanned two parliaments, the 37th and investigated the administration of the current the 38th parliaments. I noted from the report scheme and has made a number of recommen- that there was a substantial change in the dations relating to distribution and to the membership of the committee over that provision of documents by agencies. Govern- period, and the hearings spanned from 1994 ment agencies are obliged to produce 250 to 1996. copies of certain of their publications— usually their annual reports—for the parlia- I do not know if the government’s response mentary papers series. From time to time, is the right response because they are dealing some agencies have not fulfilled this require- with the difficult situation that, firstly, the ment, which has resulted in unnecessary report was a long time being compiled and, administrative expense—and occasionally secondly, the circumstances moved extra fast printing expense—for the Australian Govern- in this area. One could say that the original ment Publishing Service and the parlia- report, if one looks at it, was deficient in the mentary departments. fact that it ignored our involvement in APEC, The failure of agencies to provide copies it ignored our future and developing role in for the series was identified during the APEC and, therefore, our role with Indonesia committee’s inquiry as a failure of the series. and also with Hong Kong. I think the The committee does not agree but is con- government’s response has failed to pick that cerned that the failure of some agencies to up. provide copies of documents for the series, if allowed to continue, would adversely affect Senator Conroy—It is a load of whiffle. the value of the series. The committee has Senator HOGG—One would not whiffle written to ministers to remind them of about this, Senator, if one took it very seri- agencies’ obligations and will present a report ously. One would note that we are dealing to the parliament every 12 months identifying with a major meltdown crisis. any agencies which are in default. Finally, I would like to thank the other Senator Heffernan—Marshmallow. members of the joint committee for their Senator HOGG—No, it is not marsh- assistance and support during the inquiry and mallow either, Senator, and you know that. It in drafting the report. I should especially is a very serious crisis. mention the contribution of Mr Lou Lieber- man and Senator Jim McKiernan, also the Senator Sherry—It’s a lemon! secretary of the committee, Mr Terry Brown, Senator HOGG—It is not even a lemon. and committee staff. I seek leave to continue One would not even say it was a bagatelle of my remarks later. small trifling matters. It is a very serious issue Leave granted; debate adjourned. that we are seeking to address, and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade government’s response has failed to deliver on Committee: Joint addressing this report. Report: Government Response In the contemporary circumstances that are before us, we now have the Asian meltdown Debate resumed from 2 December 1997, on crisis—Indonesia, of course, being one of the motion by Senator Carr: worst affected. We are seeing Austrade now That the Senate take note of the document. making a response, but one thinks that we are 552 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 seeing a response that should have been better debate during consideration of committee prepared by the government. Of course, if we reports and government responses. look at the difficulties that we are confronted Corporations and Securities—Joint Statutory with, we see in the nation of Indonesia it- Committee—Report entitled: Annual reports of self—and I want to focus on Indonesia—a the Australian Securities Commission and other likelihood that we are going to see internal bodies: 1995-96—Government response turmoil as a result of the impositions placed Certain Family Law Issues—Joint Select Com- upon that nation by the IMF. One would have mittee—Report entitled: Child support scheme: hoped that we would see a fairly proactive An examination of the operation and effective- role by the Australian government in ensuring ness of the scheme—Government response that the average ordinary Indonesian was not Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—12th brought to their knees by the action of the report—Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimita- IMF. tion Treaty Public Works—Joint Statutory Committee— One has to be fairly critical of the govern- Reports— ment in one area where I believe they have Development of facilities—Stage 3, at HMAS failed and failed dramatically—that is, the Stirling, WA area of aid through a mixed credit scheme, Australian National Maritime Museum Mari- which proved invaluable to the Indonesian time Heritage Centre, Wharf 7, Pyrmont, NSW nation. This scheme was unceremoniously Regulations and Ordinances—Standing Commit- dumped by the government not long after tee—Paper presented to the Administrative Law they took office. It provided a forum and an and Ethics Conference, Canberra, 24 November opportunity for small to medium exporters to 1997—The impact of the Regulations and get a toehold in Indonesia. If that scheme had Ordinances Committee on administrative law and not been dismantled back in 1996, Australian ethics companies with very innovative products Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee— would now be very well placed to take advan- Report entitled: The effectiveness and appropri- tage of the meltdown crisis that has occurred. ateness of the redistribution provisions of Parts III and IV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act Instead, we are now trying to fight our way 1918—Government response back into the Indonesian market where we have missed opportunities through the actions Procedure—Standing Committee—Report— Proposed amendment of standing order 26 to of this government. allow estimates hearings in camera; Declaration So the government response not only to the of interests; Treatment of Ombudsman’s reports; report but also to the crisis in Indonesia has Consideration of government documents on Thursday; Formal motions; Prayer been abysmal, to say the least. One would have hoped that there would have been a Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report entitled: Hong more proactive and more deliberative response Kong: The transfer of sovereignty—Government in this particular instance. Of course, Indo- response nesia will play a significant role in our devel- Treaties—Joint Committee—11th Report (Agree- opment into the future, as will the other Asian ment with Kazakhstan and treaties tabled on 30 nations. But it is unfortunate that we see the September and 21 October 1997) report tabled in 1996 and then the government Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References response, albeit belated. We have had all Committee—Report entitled: Role and future of these events happening in the meantime and Radio Australia and Australia Television— life has passed this government by. We need Government response a more effective and efficient response com- Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of ing out of this government. Services Utilising Electronic Technologies— Select Committee—Report entitled: Report on Question resolved in the affirmative. operations of codes of practice in the television industry: Part 1—Government response Consideration Finance and Public Administration Legislation Question resolved in the affirmative on the Committee—Report—Format of the Portfolio following orders of the day without further Budget Statements Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 553

Consideration of motions to take note of the Australia is not obliged to put any of the following committee reports and government legislation in place for domestic air transport. responses adjourned without debate: Countries make their own judgments on what Legal and Constitutional References Commit- legislation is to apply domestically. Over tee—Report—Sexuality discrimination time, Australia has chosen to implement some legislation domestically, particularly in rela- Superannuation—Select Committee—Report tion to large aircraft. On a cost versus risk entitled: Parliamentary Contributory Superannua- tion Scheme & the Judges’ Pension Scheme— basis, it has been a decision of successive Government response governments not to take security measures down to small aircraft. Whilst most senators Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References would applaud airline passenger screening as Committee—Report entitled: Helping Australians abroad: A review of the Australian Government’s an anti-hijack measure and passenger baggage consular services—Government response reconciliation as a standard anti-sabotage measure, few senators would be aware of the Public Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee— Report 355—Aboriginal Councils and Torres passenger numbers to which these regulations Strait Island Councils: Review of financial actually apply. accountability requirements The Air Navigation Act 1920 as amended Public Accounts—Joint Statutory Committee— determines that on domestic flights passenger Report 354—Annual report 1996-97 screening only applies if a regular public Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legis- transport aircraft is fitted to carry 100 passen- lation Committee—Report entitled: Importation gers or more. The security systems for screen- of cooked chicken meet into Australia— ing and clearing passengers and airline per- Government response sonnel travelling from major Australian Finance and Public Administration References airports have been in place since the mid- Committee—Report—Contracting out of govern- 1980s. The last hijack occurred in 1986 and ment services—First report: Information technol- the official viewpoint is that screening has ogy had a significant deterrent effect since that time. Travelling from regional Australian ADJOURNMENT airports, some operators have chosen to The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT implement the screening of passengers and (Senator Murphy)—Order! Consideration of their possessions but others have not. In these committee reports having now concluded, I instances, up to 100 passenger could be propose the question: technically at risk. That the Senate do now adjourn. Similarly, the Air Navigation Act 1920 as amended determines that carriage of baggage Airline Passenger Security regulations apply to an aircraft fitted to carry Senator WATSON (Tasmania) (7.39 38 passengers or more. Under section 22C(8) p.m.)—Tonight I wish to take a few moments of the act, if a person whose baggage has of the Senate’s time to discuss the question of been accepted by an aircraft operator to be airline passenger security—a matter very close carried on board an aircraft has disembarked to the hearts of honourable senators because from the aircraft or has not boarded the we spend a lot of our time in the air. Austral- aircraft, the operator of the aircraft must ia is a signatory to the Chicago Convention remove the baggage from the aircraft before on International Civil Aviation. The conven- the aircraft starts its flight. This section tion agrees on world international airline therefore applies only to aircraft fitted to carry legislation in order that international civil 38 passengers or more and prompts the aviation may be developed in a safe and observation that legislators believe it is all orderly manner and that international air right to blow up fewer than 38 people but transport services may be established on the more than that number is not on. basis of equality of opportunity and operated Sabotage is presently unknown in this soundly and economically. country. With greater risk from exposure as 554 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 a result of world events, Australia must This has all come about because there was consciously work to ensure that this perfect a change in GWN’s transmitting technology. record remains intact. The Sydney 2000 They changed from using Optus’s analog Olympic Games are almost upon us. It would satellite to a digital system run by Telstra. indeed be prudent to review the regulations That is fine, but when you change from applying to airline passenger screening and analog to digital, unless you have a black box passenger baggage reconciliation before the that is digital, you cannot pick up the signal. massive influx of people expected for this Well back into last year, this move was event of international significance where going to occur. The government announced a terrorist activity has, unfortunately, carved a major program of subsidising the replacement path into its history. of analog black boxes with digital black I take this opportunity to welcome a re- boxes to the tune of $11,200,000, of which $8 evaluation of the floors pertaining to passen- million would come from the Networking the ger numbers under sections 20 and 22 of Air Nation fund. This was done as a special deal, Navigation Act 1920 and recommend that I think, under the influence of the Minister for they be reviewed downward, especially in the Communications, the Information Economy light of the strengthening international focus and the Arts (Senator Alston), who was trying on Australia and Australia’s increasing signifi- to find a way to make people less upset about cance on the world stage. having to pay the cost of a black box conver- sion or a new black box, which could be as Golden West Network Television high as $1,500. The subsidy was to the tune Senator SCHACHT (South Australia)(7.43 of about $700 per black box. p.m.)—I rise to speak in the adjournment That was put into place last year, and the debate about an issue that has arisen in minister made a generous statement about Western Australia in the last few days. It is how wonderful it was to reach this agreement something that I think may well be unique in to make the money available. What he forgot the history of television broadcasting in to do, on the day of the agreement with the Australia. At midnight on Saturday, 28 Feb- Golden West Network, was to ensure that, if ruary the Golden West Network television it was going to change from analog to digital, station, which covers most of outback West- those that had not until that stage transferred ern Australia and many small to medium over to the new digital black box could still sized regional towns, went off air while get the analog signal. But because Optus, people were watching it. This did not happen Telstra and the television station played hard to those in the main towns like Kalgoorlie, ball with each other, when it was changed to but to those who rely on having the signal a digital system with Telstra, Optus and the sent to them by satellite system either direct Golden West Network could not reach agree- to an outback farm or station or to a smaller ment to continue the arrangements for a town where it would be picked up by the limited period, in order to continue the analog dish, put through the black box and then broadcast. rebroadcast by a very low powered transmitter to the local town. In a statement today, the ABA indicated that they knew this was going to occur some I stand to be corrected, but since we have time last year unless action was taken. The had television operating in this country I have ABA has informed me that, under section 212 not heard of any other example of this hap- of the Broadcasting Services Act, they have pening. There are some suggestions in the the power to give special exemption to Optus Western Australian press that, at midnight on to rebroadcast GWN’s network signal on the Saturday night, as many as 100,000 viewers analog for a period of time so that people lost the signal, and it has not been restored. could still receive the transmission. However, It will not be restored, according to a state- that was never taken up. Optus did not ap- ment by the ABA, until the middle of next proach the ABA, apparently, until late last week at the earliest. week, when it was much too late. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 555

I point out that yesterday the minister they are entitled to receive under the legisla- issued a statement criticising Optus, Prime tion which this parliament has carried. and Telstra over this satellite switch-off. But I hope that the people in regional and in the statement there is no mention that the remote areas of Western Australia, when they ABA, given fair warning, could have allowed are looking at their blank screens, remember Optus’s analog signal to continue. He said in the name of Senator Richard Alston, the his statement yesterday: communications minister. If he had been on We— the ball, they would have been able to watch that is, the government— programs tonight, tomorrow night and over have at all stages in this process encouraged the the weekend. They would not have to wait commercial parties concerned to take the necessary until some time next week at the earliest—the steps to ensure that regional Australians did not middle of next week, if they are lucky—to get suffer. their programs back on. He also said, way back on 25 November, on If people do not think it is serious, today I this same issue, when he announced that the received a letter from the Shire of Yalgoo money would be made available through the addressed to me and signed by the Chief black box conversion program, as it is called: Executive Officer. It reads: After long and extensive negotiations with the carriers, Telstra and Optus, the government has I advise that we are still unable to obtain a com- ensured that viewers in remote areas will receive mercial Scientific Atlanta decoder, and GWN a full suite of services from a single set-top box. terminated its B-Mac signal from Optus B3 satellite at approximately 1.30 a.m. yesterday. The problem is that the minister did not follow through to ensure that in the change- The letter is dated 2 March. It continues: over period there would be dual broadcasting This means that this community is presently of both digital and analog so that this situa- without a service (as are all other communities tion, whereby up to 100,000 Western Austral- around here). ian regional viewers now have a blank televi- Believe me, we are not well pleased! sion set, did not occur. Here is a letter saying that they have lost their This minister was far too lackadaisical for service. The problem with the lack of plan- far too long, because advice was available ning by this minister is that, even if they want from the ABA that this would occur. He to get the new decoder, they are not available. could have, at the very least, suggested to This, again, is a terrible indictment of this Optus months ago that they apply immediate- minister’s lack of ability and lack of planning. ly to the ABA to get an exemption under The minister is to be condemned for another section 212 of the act. He did not do that. I disaster in a series of disasters that he has do not know what his discussions were; the inflicted on the communications industry in extensive negotiations with carriers clearly Australia. meant that he did not understand what he was doing. That is probably the most charitable Waterfront Reform description I can make of his incompetence. Senator FERRIS (South Australia) (7.52 This minister now has the record, as far as p.m.)—Recently I received an invitation from I am aware, of being the first communications the Maritime Union of Australia. I was minister in the history of Australian television particularly keen to accept it because it is not broadcasting to allow a television network to every day that I receive an invitation to meet go off air, to the detriment of many tens of with a trade union, especially given the thousands of viewers in a particular area of unfortunate histories of some trade unions Australia when it could have all been avoided. which, in the past, have come through the This is another example, in our view, of the front door of this place even when the door slapdash, lackadaisical attitude this minister has been closed. The invitation which I has to the task of ensuring that Australians happily accepted gave me the chance to raise receive the best communications system that some very important questions about how our 556 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Australian waterfront should be managed and But most of all I wanted to ask the wharfies by whom. about their public relations campaign and to learn from them what they were doing to turn Today, I met with members of the Webb public opinion around. Dock’s new peaceful assembly. Last week I believe they were known as the picket line. It I must declare immediately an interest here. gave me the chance to ask them why they I have a longstanding interest in public affairs believed they were entitled to have so much management and I had it long before I came say in the selection of people who staff our to this place. So I wanted to ask the deleg- waterfront and to ask why they do not see the ation why it was, when the first shots went new Webb Dock trainees as prospective new over the bow of the good ship MUA, that members of their union and not as the ad- they allowed such a negative image to be por- vance guard of the working class war. trayed in the media—the lawless, angry mob—notwithstanding the spitting, the name They told me that they have already been calling and the stone throwing. I could not active on the Webb Dock recruiting members. believe that this professional group of a In fact, they have signed up a couple, a totally integrated work force could have choice they are perfectly entitled to make and, allowed that to happen. They agreed with me of course, the new trainees are also perfectly that it was regrettable that some of the boys entitled to choose to do. But I wanted to had got a bit carried away, but they explained know why it was that they insisted on per- that it was ‘very hard to stage-manage that forming all the functions on the wharves such stuff’. as security, maintenance and other ancillary One of the delegates told me today that he functions, and why they have not allowed was proud of the discipline shown by his these activities to be contracted out to some fellow wharfies and of how they conducted of the specialists in those fields. In other themselves on that very important first day. words, why do not wharfies want to do what I can only say that Australians must be wharfies do best, or what they say they do incredibly proud of such effective crowd best—that is, stevedoring and seafaring control. Thank goodness they are not down at activities? the footie grounds. Their answers to these questions were both All of this happened before the MUA hired informative and enlightening and I would like a public relations company to develop a to share them in this place tonight. Apparent- communications and marketing strategy and ly, wharfies cannot outsource activities be- to brush up those negative perceptions that cause wharfies are a totally integrated work are around in the community. So what in- force. They say, ‘One minute we are doing trigues me now is why that public relations security functions and the next minute we are company allowed the boss of the wharfies, climbing up a crane somewhere.’ I wanted to John Coombs, to be filmed last Sunday night, ask them about the poor record of security on strolling around the chardonnay grapes grow- the wharves, to get them to tell me why it is ing on his lifestyle hobby farm. I just cannot that up to 78 spare wheels roll off the dock see how that communication marketing when they are not attached to a vehicle. It strategy is going to help turn around the intrigued me that they would want to carry negative perceptions of these working-class the can for such a questionable record on heroes. Could this footage of John Coombs security. strolling around those chardonnay grape vines Interestingly enough, they told me that and frisking around on his horse really be the pilfering on the wharves is not a big issue and working-class warrior that we know him to that they got blamed for everything. But I still be? could not understand, in spite of that, why I was prompted to ask: if wharfies can be they would let themselves become the guilty farmers, why can’t farmers be wharfies? party, why they would carry the can for that Indeed, why can’t anyone be a wharfie? Why security. can’t they apply, like anybody else, to work Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 557 on the waterfront? Provided, of course, they described as a ‘campaign by the industry undertake the necessary training and pass the against the government’s policies.’ The draft necessary tests, why can’t they join that strategy for an information campaign on totally integrated work force on our waterfront sound recording prices has been prepared for and then have the choice to join or not to join the minister, and funding has been achieved the MUA or any other relevant union that as one of the first steps in this strategy, which they might choose? is to conduct research. This research, on The delegates told me that they were behalf of the government, is designed to worried that those people currently under- establish whether or not there is a need for an going training on the Webb Dock will not be ongoing information campaign and focus on allowed their basic freedom to choose to the general public to help determine attitudes join—the freedom of association rule—or not to the government’s decision. to join a union and that, in some way, those So we are dealing with a publicly-funded new recruits on the Webb Dock will be information campaign designed to foster and financially coerced not to exercise their promote support for a current government freedom of choice. In fact, the delegates told policy—not a current government initiative, me that they were worried that they will not not anything that has passed through this even have the opportunity to explain the parliament, but to support the view of a benefits of joining the union to those training government that is currently engaged in a on the Webb Dock. I certainly hope that is political and a public debate. And that issue not true. is of course the parallel importation of CDs. Every Australian worker now enjoys the The government has long contended that right to choose to join or not to join a union, this will result in some reduction of prices in free from coercion and free from compulsion, CDs but it has as yet been unable to convince in the factories, on the farms or at the water- the industry sector—and certainly many front. That is what our government, along people in Australia—of the virtues of their with the Labor Party’s newest recruit, Mrs policy. I suppose if you look at it cynically it Kernot, has delivered for all workers. That is is no surprise that they have now come to why in this place our legislation passed with find the solution to their political problem in the consistent support of those Democrat a $750,000 information strategy on which colleagues whom she has now so dramatically they will embark—if it receives the appropri- deserted. ate levels of approval—within the next few weeks, the period of time leading up to when Compact Disc Imports the legislation is scheduled to be dealt with in Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital this place. Territory) (7.59 p.m.)—I rise this evening to I ask this question: is this a justified use of talk about the issue of the parallel importing taxpayers’ money? Is the public funding of an of CDs. During question time today the information campaign, designed specifically minister responded to a question put by me to support the government’s political argu- on this issue but, because of the tactics ments during a public debate, a legitimate employed by the government following expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars? I contend question time, we did not have the opportuni- that it is not; and that what we are seeing is ty to take note. The issue of parallel import- taxpayers’ money subsidising part of the ing of CDs is quite a critical one, particularly Liberal government’s political campaign. for young people of Australia who do spend The issue of the cost of CDs and parallel a proportion of their income or their available importation of CDs has been framed by this funds on music. government as being simply one where their The issue I would like to speak to tonight policy equals cheaper CDs. This is patently relates specifically to a strategy that has been false. One of the reasons the government has developed by the Department of Communica- found itself in a position where it needs three- tions and the Arts to counter what they have quarters of a million dollars to support and 558 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998 sell its own policies is that they cannot justify brackets. They will attempt to organise inter- that claim. views, primarily with the minister, on Triple J—look out Mikey and Jen on the breakfast Many contributions on the part of the show; you are about to get bombarded with minister have repeatedly referred to statistical requests from the minister’s office so he can information about the cost of CDs overseas come on and justify his policy on the parallel and the relationship with the cost of CDs importation of CDs—the ABC, major com- here—information that cannot be substan- mercial talkback stations, Recovery, and the tiated. In fact, what I have found is that the summer edition of the 7.30 Report. But minister has contradicted himself on a number Recovery is a classic example. I can see the of occasions when he has tried to argue and minister making a real impact there. specify just what those costs are and how his policy would be implemented here. The timing of this particular strategy is also worth while looking at. The contract, that has I would like now to turn to this draft already been let and is contained within this strategy for an information campaign prepared proposal worth $73,000, sits about a third of for the minister by the Department of Com- the way down the list of the program. It is all munications and the Arts. It has some inter- designed to culminate in the advertising esting features that I think are worthy of campaign in late March and April. We did being placed on the public record. One feature hear at estimates just the other day that the is who is targeted by this information cam- legislation was due to arrive in this place in paign. The target market reads as follows: the the May sittings. general public, broken into market segments based on research results; CD retailers; inde- All these questions about the probity of this pendent and small record companies and particular campaign need to be answered by performers, artists and composers. the minister. To simply rattle off ‘cheaper Cds, cheaper Cds, cheaper Cds’ is not going But it goes on. The target market also to convince the young people of Australia that includes government backbenchers, the media, this government’s policy is worth sacrificing and consumer organisations and related our music industry for. As so often with bodies. So this publicly-funded information Liberal government policies, one of the campaign is designed to convince the effects of these harebrained ideas that cannot government’s own backbenchers of the wor- be justified in terms of the final effect on thiness of their particular policy. It certainly consumers is that a major sacrifice is made by does raise some questions about Senator Australian industry. We know, and we have Alston’s ability to convince his own rank and heard so much evidence before the various file of the merits of the position they are committees of this place, that the Australian pursuing. music industry stands to be decimated if this particular policy of the government goes Let us turn to another interesting feature of through. this particular document: the communication mix. What we are talking about here is a So, Australians—young Australians, in proposal for a $600,000 advertising campaign. particular—beware. You are about to be And it has listed the national press, Arts on bombarded with a $750,000 information Friday, the Weekend Australian, the Contem- campaign, courtesy of Senator Alston, at your porary CD Review, all the major state and expense. It will tell you through postcards in territory newspapers, no less than about cafes, through the regional press and through twenty regional press outlets from New South all the youth cult media outlets that they can Wales and, systematically, each regional possibly access, that their policy is right. newspaper from every state. Meanwhile, you will hear a voice from Labor and you will hear the voices of many Austral- Then we turn to the section where they ian artists saying that the government’s target editorial or ‘free publicity’ as it is in policies will do untold and devastating dam- Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 559 age to the Australian music sector. That is a Nations, where he did an absolutely fantastic price that I believe is far too high. (Time job. expired) I think Robert Ray summed up a lot of Mr Roger Francis Shipton Roger’s life. On this side of politics, we Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (8.09 treasured Roger’s friendship, we admired him p.m.)—Because people have dropped off the as a person and we found him to be a very list tonight, or have made short speeches, an loyal person and colleague. His friendship is opportunity has arisen for me to say one or something I will not forget in a long time. I two words about a person who was mentioned am pleased to say that my association with his earlier this week and who became a very widow Suzie, his son James, his daughter good friend of mine in the last few years. I Katie and his son-in-law Richard will con- refer, of course, to the late Roger Shipton. tinue. In fact, I hope to meet them this week- end and I hope that our friendship will con- I listened to the very generous contribution tinue. We will always remember Roger for of Senator Robert Ray from Victoria the other what he was—a true gentleman and a wonder- evening. He delivered what I think is one of ful friend. the best obituaries I have heard in this place in the 10 years I have been here. Senator Ray Mr Roger Francis Shipton is from the other side of politics and I think Senator BROWNHILL (New South it shows the character of the man that Roger Wales—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- Shipton was that a person of the stature of ter for Trade) (8.13 p.m.)—I also rise to say Senator Ray delivered such a generous and a few words about Roger Shipton and to join heartfelt obituary. In a few words he summed Senator Calvert in his remarks. Roger was up the person that Roger was: somebody I knew as a friend when he was a He was honourable, gentle, urbane—a Liberal in member of parliament. When he left this the true Whig tradition. He was a good listener place, he remained a friend. I believe he who provided wise counsel when necessary, and he became a very good lobbyist on behalf of always thought the best of people. different industries when he came back here. That is, in fact, exactly as I knew Roger. I got He very often visited in that capacity, both to know Roger particularly well after he left when I was in opposition and since we came politics. He used my whip’s office as a depot to government. when he was here in Canberra doing the It is not often you can say that you have rounds of his many clients. He certainly gave got friends in politics, but the friendship that give me wise counsel. I found him to be a we had when he was in politics and the very generous person and I treasured his friendship that we retained afterwards is friendship. You get to meet a lot of wonderful something that I very much respect and people in politics, but Roger Shipton was a enjoyed. I know my wife joins me in extend- true gentleman by any stretch of the imagina- ing our condolences to Sue, James and Kate tion. on his sudden passing. I believe that he will I am very privileged to have spent New be very much missed, not only by his family Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day with Roger, but also by those of us who regarded him as his wife Suzie and James, Katie and Richard. a friend. He will be missed because of the I will always remember those days. I was very many happy times we had together, and most distressed when I heard that he passed he will also be missed because of the good away on Monday, 19 January. lobbying he did in this place on behalf of many industries. Roger had a very keen interest in the Interparliamentary Union, of which I was a The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am sure member for three years. We had many discus- that the whole of the Senate shares the senti- sions about international affairs. He obviously ments expressed by Senator Calvert and had a lot of friends and contacts overseas Senator Brownhill. because of his association with the United Senate adjourned at 8.15 p.m. 560 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

DOCUMENTS Taxation Determinations TD 98/2 and TD 98/3. Tabling Telecommunications Act—Technical Standards 1997—ACA TS 001-ACA TS 008, ACA TS The following documents were tabled by 014-ACA TS 016, ACA TS 018, ACA TS 019, the Clerk: ACA TS 022, ACA TS 024-ACA TS 026, ACA Customs Act and Excise Act—Instruments of TS 028, ACA TS 031, ACA TS 034 and ACA Approval Nos 29-38 of 1997. TS 038. Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 561

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Primary Industries and (4) How many contracts in (1) were awarded following an open tender process. Energy: Public Relations Services (5) Where there was no tender process, what (Question No. 817) assessment criteria were followed in selecting the contractor and why was the normal practice of Senator Faulkner asked the Minister calling tenders not followed. representing the Minister for Primary Indus- (6) Did the department seek guidance from the tries and Energy, upon notice, on 4 September Office of Government Information and Advertising 1997: before signing the above contracts; if not, why not. (7) How many journalists were employed by the (1) What contracts for public relations services department as at 3 March 1996. has the department, or its agencies, signed since 3 March 1996. (8) How many journalists are currently employed by the department. (2) What was the value of each contract. Senator Parer—The Minister for Primary (3) Did the value of any contract vary from the Industries and Energy has provided the original cost; if so, what was the reason for the following answer to the honourable senator’s price variation. question:

(1) Public Relations Services Contract (2) Value (3) Contract Variation a TMP Worldwide—for placement of advertisements in national print $8,127 media b National Mailing and Marketing—for packaging and mailout of $10,601 OUTLOOK 97 promotional material c TMP Worldwide—for placement of advertisements in national and $3,110 rural print media d National Mailing and Marketing—for packaging and mailout of $33,804 ABARE publications and promotional material e TMP Worldwide—for placement of advertisements in national and $13,972 rural print media f Cox Inall Communications—spots on Cross Country video press $23,000 releases g Artcraft Research—to evaluate profile of Australian Energy News $27,500 (AEN) readership and to improve AEN content and presentation h Capital Public Affairs Consultants—to promote the signing of the $49,638 An additional $20,297 Third round of Greenhouse Challenge Cooperative Agreements due to the scope of the including preparation of hiring of suitable venue, organisation of contract varying subse- luncheon and video equipment quent to the initial sign- ing. i Capital Public Affairs Consultants—to prepare, attend meetings and $35,711 complete management tasks for signing ceremony j Capital Public Affairs Consultants—to prepare, attend meetings and $27,579 complete management tasks for signing ceremony k Future Perfect Communications Pty Ltd—to promote the signing of $43,240 An additional $26,695 the third round of Greenhouse Challenge Cooperative Agreements due to an increase in and coordinate all the companies’ public profiles the number of com- panies requiring pro- filing which was not anticipated at initial signing. l Future Perfect Communications Pty Ltd—to develop a Public Rela- $35,840 tions strategy for the Greenhouse Challenge Program 1997/98 m Keep Consulting—to produce, distribute and promote the 1995/96 $87,300 and 1996/97 editions of Guide Supplement and the 1996/97 and 1997/98 editions of the Fuel Consumption Guide 562 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

(1) Public Relations Services Contract (2) Value (3) Contract Variation n Solutions Marketing & Research—to develop impact monitoring and $42,000 research strategy for the National Energy Management Program o Waalimma Productions—to prepare, attend meetings and complete $18,516 A reduction of $6,023 management tasks for Greenhouse Challenge signing ceremony as original contract price was an estimate only. p Waalimma Productions—to prepare, attend meetings and complete $44,099 A reduction of $1,798 management tasks for signing of the third round of Greenhouse as original contract Challenge Cooperative Agreements including preparation of TV/radio price was an estimate advertisements and editorials in major newspapers only. q Lonman Pty Limited—to assist with the promotion of investment $4,000 opportunities for Australian offshore petroleum exploration acreage r Terry White & Associates—to develop a Fishcare Program Strategy $2,900 In August 1997, the and Action Plan contract was extended for $1,350 to update the draft strategy following its name change and revised funding arrange- ment. The update in- cluded: linking the Fisheries Action Pro- gram (FAP) to the Natural Heritage Trust; linking the FAP to the regional planning con- cept; inclusion of re- view and evaluation procedures; inclusion of ethnic community fish- ing issues; changes in administration; and links to the Coasts and Clean Seas programs. s Ambience Consulting—editing and document management services $5,300 for the Victorian Central Highlands Comprehenisve Regional Assess- ment (CRA) Summary Report t Centre for Forest Tree Technology—to prepare a compendium of $12,000 published and unpublished literature relevant to the central highlands and forest management in Victoria u Centre for Public Awareness of Science—to organise a workshop on $9,260 integrating communication strategies into scientific research v Dr Penny Olsen—to rewriting and edit the ‘Pest Animal Book’ $15,000 w Green Words (Canberra Pty Ltd)—to write of reports on Tasmanian $4,899 craftwood industry and treeferns and sphagnum mosses x ERA Environmental Services P/L; $21,950 Peter Fleming, NSW Agriculture; $20,000 Peter Thomson, Agriculture Western Australia—for the writing of $20,000 Wild Dog Management Guidelines y Andrea Brumley, Brumley/Fletcher Aquatic Studies $20,000 Andrea Brumley, East Gippsland Institute of TAFE—; $5,000 D J Hart, Hart Consultancy Services; $14,000 John Koehn, Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute; and $4,000 Peter Gehrke, NSW Fisheries—for writing of Carp Management $20,000 Guidelines z Burson-Marstellar—to organise sod turning ceremony at new AGSO $27,000 DPIE paid $1,672 less building site than the $27,000 origi- nally quoted. aa Alpha Multimedia—for research, design and production of Quaran- $45,500 An additional $15,500 tine in-flight video for reshooting of scenes for replacement of presenter. ab National Mailing and Marketing—for packaging and mailout of $9,000 monthly AQIS Bulletin ac WhizzbangArt—for design, production, printing and delivery of $27,339 Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy "Top Watch" 1997 Calendar ad WhizzbangArt—for design, production, printing and delivery of $26,300 Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy "Top Watch" 1998 Calendar ae AC Nielsen McNair—for client survey to determine the level of $80,000 client satisfaction with AQIS services Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 563

(1) Public Relations Services Contract (2) Value (3) Contract Variation af AC Nielsen McNair—for Quarantine Awareness research with $97,145 specific target groups ag Mr Geoff Higgs—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $15,000 at schools in NSW ah Mr Brian Crank—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $6,500 at schools in Queensland ai Mr Alan Tennent—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $3,500 at schools in Queensland aj Mr Ken Reeve—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at $2,500 schools in Queensland ak Mr Max Schmidt—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $2,500 at schools in Queensland al Mr Geoff Higgs—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $15,000 at schools in NSW am Mr Paul Welsh—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $6,750 at schools in South Australia an Mr Harold Fraser—for providing Quarantine Awareness presenta- $15,000 tions at schools in Victoria ao Ms Fiona Paterson—for providing Quarantine Awareness presenta- $3,500 tions at schools in Queensland ap Mr Brian Crank—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $7,000 at schools in Queensland aq Mr Alan Tennent—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $5,000 at schools in Queensland ar Mr Max Schmidt—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $3,000 at schools in Toowoomba as Mr Paul Welsh—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations $15,000 at schools in South Australia at Mr Ken Reeve—for providing Quarantine Awareness presentations at $3,000 schools in Queensland au Travcour DX—for distribution of Quarantine Awareness brochures $60,000 travel agents in Australia av Travcour DX—for distribution of Quarantine Awareness brochures $10,000 travel agents in Australia

(4) None. The authors contracted under (x) and (y) were selected from participants in a workshop of experts (5) Both (a) TMP Worldwide and (b) National on the subjects based on expertise and availability. Mailing and Marketing were selected from the Department of Administrative Service’s Common Burson-Marstellar (z) was selected due to past Use Contracts Book and therefore did not go to performance, availability and fitness for purpose tender. which was why further competition was not sought in the form of a restricted tender. Cox Inall Communications (f) was not selected The AC Nielson McNair (ae) contract was the through a tender process. It was contracted by the second phase of a long-term program for tracking Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource AQIS client satisfaction levels being conducted Economics who felt Cross Country was the most over several years. AC Nielson McNair had suitable program to provide extensive coverage in previously been appointed to conduct phase one. As rural areas. a result of that company’s satisfactory completion Lonman Pty Limited (q) was selected on the of phase one, and because of its established know- basis of specialised knowledge and experience and ledge of the subject and the financial benefits of a proven track record with work previously under- using the existing systems and data-bases developed taken on behalf of the Department. The contractor for phase one, the company was contracted to also is listed among recommended contractors by the conduct the next phase. Bureau of Resource Sciences. Various contracts (ag-at) were let on the basis of Ambience Consulting (s) was contracted under the contractor’s specific combination of quarantine a cooperative arrangement with the PM&C Forest knowledge and presentation skills, in accordance taskforce. with the Secretary’s instructions concerning pro- curement of unique suppliers/services. Each con- The Centre for Forest Tree Technology (t) was tractor had been previously worked as a quarantine selected because it is the only agency with access officer and, combined with their presentation skills, to the information and data needed to compile the provided abilities unique within their regional compendium. locations. 564 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

All other contracts were awarded following support to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres restricted tender processes. Strait Islander Affairs (6) AQIS approached the Office of Government (2) (a) A copy of the terms of reference is Information and Advertising in relation to the AC attached Nielsen McNair (af) contract. OGIA was consulted (2) (b) The Office of Indigenous Affairs and and involved in the selection process. ATSIC were consulted about the terms of refer- The Department of Primary Industries and ence. Energy’s (DPIE) understanding is that there was no (3) (a) The review was conducted by Mr Rae requirement for it to consult with OGIA on any Taylor with assistance from Mr Thaddeus Leach other of the above contracts. (3) (b) and (c) Messrs Taylor and Leach were (7) There were 12 public affairs officers em- engaged as consultants by the Department of the ployed by DPIE as at 3 March 1996. Prime Minister and Cabinet, to prepare a report for (8) There are 14 public affairs officers currently consideration by the Department and me as employed by DPIE, two of which are temporary Minister. employees on contract. (4) (a) The total cost was $43,203 Commonwealth Indigenous Policy and (4) (b) $43,203 Advisory Structures (4) (c) The review was completed on 8 Decem- (Question No. 1048) ber (4) (d) The review was funded by the Depart- Senator Faulkner asked the Minister for ment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, normal consultancy contract arrangements upon notice, on 19 December 1997: (4) (e) The Department of the Prime Minister and (1) Has a review of Commonwealth Indigenous Cabinet policy and advisory structures been established; if (5) A range of current and former officials of so, why. ATSIC and of the Department of the Prime (2) (a) What are the terms of reference for the Minister and Cabinet were consulted plus myself, review; and (b) which individuals or agencies my predecessor and the current Chairman of provided advice on the terms of reference before ATSIC their finalisation. (6) The review concluded that current arrange- (3) (a) Who is conducting the review; (b) under ments are unsatisfactory and canvassed a range of what statutory or contractual basis is the review possible alternatives which are currently the subject being conducted; and (c) to whom does the review of consideration report. (7) The complete report will be made publicly (4) (a) What is the contracted cost for the available once the Government has completed its review; (b) how much has been paid to date; (c) consideration of the matter. what is the contracted term for undertaking the APPENDIX I review; (d) which agency is paying for the review and is this being done under ministerial direction; REVIEW OF POLICY STATEMENT ARRANGE- and (e) which agency is responsible for managing MENTS FOR THE MINISTER FOR ABORIGI- the contract. NAL TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS (5) What consultation have taken place or will Terms of Reference take place, while the review is being undertaken, The review will examine the current arrange- with; (a) indigenous groups or individuals; and (b) ments for the provision of policy advice and Commonwealth departments or agencies. support to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres (6) Has the review provided any reports to date; Strait Islander Affairs and propose any changes to if so; (a) what conclusions did the review come to; these arrangements, which would lead to the provi- and (b) what did the review recommend. sion of more effective support to the Minister. In particular, the review will consider: (7) Will the complete results of the review be made public; if so, when; if not, why not. (a) the current roles of ATSIC and the Office of Indigenous Affairs (OIA) in providing policy Senator Herron—The answer to the advice and support; honourable senator’s question is: (b) the extent to which existing arrangements (1) There has been no review of overall provide the Minister with expert, independent and Commonwealth indigenous policy and advisory impartial advice; c) possible administrative arrange- structures but there has been a review of existing ments for providing such advice and support to the arrangements for the provision of policy advice and Minister. Arrangements for the Review Thursday, 5 March 1998 SENATE 565

The review will be undertaken by Mr Rae Taylor special schools, it is recognised that the minimum with the assistance of a reference group comprising acceptable literacy and numeracy level by Year 3 Dr Peter Shergold, Public Service Commissioner; may not be realistically achievable. Ms Patricia Turner, Chief Executive Officer of ATSIC; Mr Bill Blick, Executive Co-ordinator, (2) According to research conducted by Professor Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; and Mr Peter Hill of University of Melbourne, about 2% of Greg Hunting, Chief of Staff, Office of the Minister the total school population do not have the cogni- for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. tive capacity to process linguistic information in print necessary to become literate. Generally, these The reviewer will undertake the review over the students attend special schools. course of 4-5 weeks through discussion with the key stakeholders (the Minister’s office, ATSIC and Of students attending mainstream schools, PM&C) resulting in the preparation of a report Professor Hill’s research indicates that: containing key findings and recommendations. . 80% of students can achieve an adequate level The review will provide a report to the Minister of literacy when provided with quality teach- for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs by ing in their first year at school; 29 November 1997. . 18% require one to one intervention to reach Literacy Standards: Learning Disabilities an average literacy by year 3; and Senator Allison asked the Minister repre- . 2% require intensive intervention and an senting the Minster for Schools, Vocational individual learning plan in order to reach a Education and Training, on 1 October 1997 minimum literacy standard by year 3. (Hansard page 7332): Taxation: Families (1) Is the government aware that in the US and Canada it is estimated that more than 10 percent of Senator Harradine asked the Treasurer on students are affected by specific learning disabili- 3 September 1997, (Hansard page 6294), a ties such as dyslexia and dysnomia. question without notice: (2) Minister, what research has your government undertaken to determine the number of Australian Whether the Government’s policy of not compen- students who have diagnosable learning disabilities sating for legislative changes will apply to the and how many children in Australia are affected by GST, if it is introduced, thus ruling out any proper attention deficit disorder and other disadvantages compensating reduction in the income tax payable which cause learning difficulties. by families. Senator Vanstone—The Minister for Senator Kemp—The Treasurer has provid- Schools, Vocational Education and Training ed the following information in answer to the has provided the following information in honourable senator’s question: response to the honourable senator’s question: (1) The Government is aware of estimates of There is no inconsistency between the Prime numbers of children in Australia with attention Minister’s statement on tax reform and the response deficit disorder, dyslexia and other learning dis- from the Treasurer to your earlier question concern- abilities but does not accept that these students ing the youth allowance. cannot meet minimum standards if appropriate strategies are used to meet the needs of every child. The Prime Minister has clearly indicated that, for any option for reforming the taxation system, there In setting the National Literacy and Numeracy should be appropriate compensation for those Goal: That every child leaving primary school deserving of special consideration. should be numerate, and able to read, write, and spell at an appropriate level and sub-goal: That There is no such analogy with decisions that every child commencing school from 1998 will reduce entitlements to benefits (as referred to in achieve a minimum acceptable literacy and numer- your earlier question). As previously indicated by acy standard within four years, Ministers in the the Treasurer to the honourable Senator’s earlier Ministerial Council for Employment, Education, question, the Government does not have a policy Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) noted that of introducing concessional tax treatment to the tax- a small percentage of the total school population able income of those who may lose entitlements to does not have the cognitive capacity to process benefits. This would seriously undermine the linguistic information in print necessary to become effectiveness of the changes intended to those literate. For these students, who general attend outlays programs. 566 SENATE Thursday, 5 March 1998

Common Youth Allowance from the Treasurer to your earlier question concern- ing the youth allowance. Senator Harradine asked the Treasurer on 23 September 1997, (Hansard page 6716), a The Prime Minister has clearly indicated that, for question without notice: any option for reforming the taxation system, there should be appropriate compensation for those Will the consequent outlays, of a family affected deserving of special consideration. by changes to the youth allowance, be regarded as tax rebatable under the taxation system and, if not, There is no such analogy with decisions that why not. Further, the honourable senator asked reduce entitlements to benefits (as referred to in would he be able to get a response to this prior to your earlier question). As previously indicated by discussing this legislation in the chamber. the Treasurer to the honourable Senator’s earlier Senator Kemp—The Treasurer has provid- question, the Government does not have a policy ed the following information in answer to the of introducing concessional tax treatment to the tax- able income of those who may lose entitlements to honourable senator’s question: benefits. This would seriously undermine the There is no inconsistency between the Prime effectiveness of the changes intended to those Minister’s statement on tax reform and the response outlays programs.