Senate Official Hansard No

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

Senate Official Hansard No. 13, 2005 WEDNESDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2005

FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

INTERNET The Journals for the Senate are available at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/work/journals/index.htm

Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives, the Senate and committee hearings are available at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

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

SITTING DAYS—2005 Month Date February 8, 9, 10 March 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 May 10, 11, 12 June 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 August 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 September 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 October 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 November 7, 8, 9, 10, 28, 29, 30 December 1, 5, 6, 7, 8

RADIO BROADCASTS Broadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on the following Parliamentary and News Network radio stations, in the areas identified.

CANBERRA 103.9 FM SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM GOSFORD 98.1 FM BRISBANE 936 AM GOLD COAST 95.7 FM MELBOURNE 1026 AM ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM HOBART 747 AM NORTHERN TASMANIA 92.5 FM DARWIN 102.5 FM

FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD

Governor-General

His Excellency Major-General Michael Jeffery, Companion in the Order of Australia, Com- mander of the Royal Victorian Order, Military Cross

Senate Officeholders President—Senator the Hon. Paul Henry Calvert Deputy President and Chairman of Committees—Senator John Joseph Hogg Temporary Chairmen of Committees—Senators Guy Barnett, George Henry Brandis, Hedley Grant Pearson Chapman, Patricia Margaret Crossin, Alan Baird Ferguson, Michael George Forshaw, Stephen Patrick Hutchins, Linda Jean Kirk, Philip Ross Lightfoot, Gavin Mark Mar- shall, Claire Mary Moore, Andrew James Marshall Murray, Hon. Judith Mary Troeth and John Odin Wentworth Watson Leader of the Government in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh Minchin Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Manager of Government Business in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Christopher Mar- tin Ellison Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate—Senator Joseph William Ludwig

Senate Party Leaders and Whips Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia—Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia—Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh Minchin Leader of The Nationals—Senator the Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell Deputy Leader of The Nationals—Senator John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) Macdonald Leader of the Australian Labor Party—Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party—Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Leader of the Australian Democrats—Senator Lynette Fay Allison Liberal Party of Australia Whips—Senators Jeannie Margaret Ferris and Alan Eggleston Nationals Whip—Senator Julian John James McGauran Opposition Whips—Senators George Campbell, Linda Jean Kirk and Ruth Stephanie Webber Australian Democrats Whip—Senator Andrew John Julian Bartlett Leader of the Family First Party—Senator Steve Fielding

Printed by authority of the Senate

Members of the Senate State or Terri- Senator tory Term expires Party Abetz, Hon. Eric TAS 30.6.2011 LP Adams, Judith WA 30.6.2011 LP Allison, Lynette Fay VIC 30.6.2008 AD Barnett, Guy TAS 30.6.2011 LP Bartlett, Andrew John Julian QLD 30.6.2008 AD Bishop, Thomas Mark WA 30.6.2008 ALP Boswell, Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle QLD 30.6.2008 NATS Brandis, George Henry QLD 30.6.2011 LP Brown, Carol Louise(4) TAS 30.6.2008 ALP Brown, Robert James TAS 30.6.2008 AG Calvert, Hon. Paul Henry TAS 30.6.2008 LP Campbell, George NSW 30.6.2008 ALP Campbell, Hon. Ian Gordon WA 30.6.2011 LP Carr, Kim John VIC 30.6.2011 ALP Chapman, Hedley Grant Pearson SA 30.6.2008 LP Colbeck, Hon. Richard Mansell TAS 30.6.2008 LP Conroy, Stephen Michael VIC 30.6.2011 ALP Coonan, Hon. Helen Lloyd NSW 30.6.2008 LP Crossin, Patricia Margaret (3) NT ALP Eggleston, Alan WA 30.6.2008 LP Ellison, Hon. Christopher Martin WA 30.6.2011 LP Evans, Christopher Vaughan WA 30.6.2011 ALP Faulkner, Hon. John Philip NSW 30.6.2011 ALP Ferguson, Alan Baird SA 30.6.2011 LP Ferris, Jeannie Margaret SA 30.6.2008 LP Fielding, Steve VIC 30.6.2011 FF Fierravanti-Wells, Concetta Anna NSW 30.6.2011 LP Fifield, Mitchell Peter(2) VIC 30.6.2008 LP Forshaw, Michael George NSW 30.6.2011 ALP Heffernan, Hon. William Daniel NSW 30.6.2011 LP Hill, Hon. Robert Murray SA 30.6.2008 LP Hogg, John Joseph QLD 30.6.2008 ALP Humphries, Gary John Joseph (3) ACT LP Hurley, Annette SA 30.6.2011 ALP Hutchins, Stephen Patrick NSW 30.6.2011 ALP Johnston, David Albert Lloyd WA 30.6.2008 LP Joyce, Barnaby QLD 30.6.2011 NATS Kemp, Hon. Charles Roderick VIC 30.6.2008 LP Kirk, Linda Jean SA 30.6.2008 ALP Lightfoot, Philip Ross WA 30.6.2008 LP Ludwig, Joseph William QLD 30.6.2011 ALP Lundy, Kate Alexandra (3) ACT ALP Macdonald, Hon. Ian Douglas QLD 30.6.2008 LP Macdonald, John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) NSW 30.6.2008 NATS McEwen, Anne SA 30.6.2011 ALP McGauran, Julian John James VIC 30.6.2011 NATS McLucas, Jan Elizabeth QLD 30.6.2011 ALP Marshall, Gavin Mark VIC 30.6.2008 ALP ii

State or Terri- Senator tory Term expires Party Mason, Brett John QLD 30.6.2011 LP Milne, Christine TAS 30.6.2011 AG Minchin, Hon. Nicholas Hugh SA 30.6.2011 LP Moore, Claire Mary QLD 30.6.2008 ALP Murray, Andrew James Marshall WA 30.6.2008 AD Nash, Fiona NSW 30.6.2011 NATS Nettle, Kerry Michelle NSW 30.6.2008 AG O’Brien, Kerry Williams Kelso TAS 30.6.2011 ALP Parry, Stephen TAS 30.6.2011 LP Patterson, Hon. Kay Christine Lesley VIC 30.6.2008 LP Payne, Marise Ann NSW 30.6.2008 LP Polley, Helen TAS 30.6.2011 ALP Ray, Hon. Robert Francis VIC 30.6.2008 ALP Ronaldson, Hon. Michael VIC 30.6.2011 LP Santoro, Santo (1) QLD 30.6.2008 LP Scullion, Nigel Gregory (3) NT CLP Sherry, Hon. Nicholas John TAS 30.6.2008 ALP Siewert, Rachel WA 30.6.2011 AG Stephens, Ursula Mary NSW 30.6.2008 ALP Sterle, Glenn WA 30.6.2011 ALP Stott Despoja, Natasha Jessica SA 30.6.2008 AD Troeth, Hon. Judith Mary VIC 30.6.2011 LP Trood, Russell QLD 30.6.2011 LP Vanstone, Hon. Amanda Eloise SA 30.6.2011 LP Watson, John Odin Wentworth TAS 30.6.2008 LP Webber, Ruth Stephanie WA 30.6.2008 ALP Wong, Penelope Ying Yen SA 30.6.2008 ALP Wortley, Dana SA 30.6.2011 ALP (1) Chosen by the Parliament of Queensland to fill a casual vacancy vice Hon. John Joseph Herron, resigned. (2) Chosen by the Parliament of Victoria to fill a casual vacancy vice Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Alston, resigned. (3) Term expires at close of day next preceding the polling day for the general election of members of the House of Representatives. (4) Chosen by the Parliament of Tasmania to fill a casual vacancy vice Susan Mary Mackay, resigned.

PARTY ABBREVIATIONS AD—Australian Democrats; AG—Australian Greens; ALP—Australian Labor Party; CLP—Country Labor Party; FF—Family First Party; LP—Liberal Party of Australia; NATS—The Nationals Heads of Parliamentary Departments Clerk of the Senate—H Evans Clerk of the House of Representatives—I C Harris Secretary, Department of Parliamentary Services—H R Penfold QC

iii

HOWARD MINISTRY

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

(The above ministers constitute the cabinet)

HOWARD MINISTRY—continued Minister for Justice and Customs and Manager of Senator the Hon. Christopher Martin Ellison Government Business in the Senate Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Senator the Hon. Ian Douglas Macdonald Minister for the Arts and Sport Senator the Hon. Charles Roderick Kemp Minister for Human Services The Hon. Joseph Benedict Hockey MP Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs The Hon. John Kenneth Cobb MP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer The Hon. Malcolm Thomas Brough MP Special Minister of State Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz Minister for Vocational and Technical Education The Hon. Gary Douglas Hardgrave MP and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister Minister for Ageing The Hon. Julie Isabel Bishop MP Minister for Small Business and Tourism The Hon. Frances Esther Bailey MP Minister for Local Government, Territories and The Hon. James Eric Lloyd MP Roads Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister The Hon. De-Anne Margaret Kelly MP Assisting the Minister for Defence Minister for Workforce Participation The Hon. Peter Craig Dutton MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Dr Sharman Nancy Stone MP Finance and Administration Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Warren George Entsch MP Industry, Tourism and Resources Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health The Hon. Christopher Maurice Pyne MP and Ageing Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Teresa Gambaro MP Defence Parliamentary Secretary (Trade) Senator the Hon. John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) Macdonald Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) and The Hon. Bruce Fredrick Billson MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister The Hon. Gary Roy Nairn MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer The Hon. Christopher John Pearce MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the The Hon. Gregory Andrew Hunt MP Environment and Heritage Parliamentary Secretary (Children and Youth The Hon. Sussan Penelope Ley MP Affairs) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Patrick Francis Farmer MP Education, Science and Training Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Senator the Hon. Richard Mansell Colbeck Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

SHADOW MINISTRY

Leader of the Opposition The Hon. Kim Christian Beazley MP Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Jennifer Louise Macklin MP Minister for Education, Training, Science and Research Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Shadow Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Shadow Minister for Family and Community Services Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Julia Eileen Gillard MP Opposition Business in the House Shadow Treasurer Wayne Maxwell Swan MP Shadow Attorney-General Nicola Louise Roxon MP Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Stephen Francis Smith MP Industrial Relations Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Kevin Michael Rudd MP and Shadow Minister for International Security Shadow Minister for Defence Robert Bruce McClelland MP Shadow Minister for Regional Development The Hon. Simon Findlay Crean MP Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Martin John Ferguson MP Resources, Forestry and Tourism Shadow Minister for Environment and Heritage, Anthony Norman Albanese MP Shadow Minister for Water and Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House Shadow Minister for Housing, Shadow Minister Senator Kim John Carr for Urban Development and Shadow Minister for Local Government and Territories Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Kelvin John Thomson MP Shadow Minister for Human Services Shadow Minister for Finance Lindsay James Tanner MP Shadow Minister for Superannuation and Senator the Hon. Nicholas John Sherry Intergenerational Finance and Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services Shadow Minister for Child Care, Shadow Minister Tanya Joan Plibersek MP for Youth and Shadow Minister for Women Shadow Minister for Employment and Workforce Senator Penelope Ying Yen Wong Participation and Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility

(The above are shadow cabinet ministers)

SHADOW MINISTRY—continued Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs and Laurie Donald Thomas Ferguson MP Shadow Minister for Population Health and Health Regulation Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries Gavan Michael O’Connor MP Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Shadow Minister for Joel Andrew Fitzgibbon MP Revenue and Shadow Minister for Small Business and Competition Shadow Minister for Transport Senator Kerry Williams Kelso O’Brien Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation Senator Kate Alexandra Lundy Shadow Minister for Homeland Security and The Hon. Archibald Ronald Bevis MP Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Alan Peter Griffin MP Shadow Special Minister of State Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Senator Thomas Mark Bishop Procurement and Personnel Shadow Minister for Immigration Anthony Stephen Burke MP Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Senator Jan Elizabeth McLucas Carers Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs and Senator Joseph William Ludwig Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Robert Charles Grant Sercombe MP Island Affairs Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Peter Robert Garrett MP Reconciliation and the Arts Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of John Paul Murphy MP the Opposition Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and The Hon. Graham John Edwards MP Veterans’ Affairs Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education Kirsten Fiona Livermore MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment Jennie George MP and Heritage Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Bernard Fernando Ripoll MP Infrastructure and Industrial Relations Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Ann Kathleen Corcoran MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury Catherine Fiona King MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Senator Ursula Mary Stephens Water Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern The Hon. Warren Edward Snowdon MP Australia and Indigenous Affairs

vii CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER

Chamber Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Issues) Bill 2005, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Future Proofing and Other Measures) Bill 2005, Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment (Industry Plans and Consumer Codes) Bill 2005 and Appropriation (Regional Telecommunications Services) Bill 2005-2006— Declaration of Urgency ...... 1 Suspension of Standing Orders...... 1 Allotment of Time ...... 7 Suspension of Standing Orders...... 8 Senate Procedures— Suspension of Standing Orders...... 12 Suspension of Standing Orders...... 14 Ruling of the President ...... 15 Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Issues) Bill 2005, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Future Proofing and Other Measures) Bill 2005, Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment (Industry Plans and Consumer Codes) Bill 2005 and Appropriation (Regional Telecommunications Services) Bill 2005-2006— Second Reading...... 16 In Committee...... 37 Matters of Public Interest— Women in the Work Force...... 49 Urban Policy...... 51 Disability Services...... 54 Mr David Hicks ...... 56 Leaking of Government Documents...... 59 Leaking of Government Documents...... 63 Senate Procedures...... 63 Politician Adoption Scheme ...... 66 Questions Without Notice— Mr and Mrs Kola ...... 66 Economy...... 68 Australian Customs Service ...... 69 Industrial Relations...... 70 Telstra ...... 72 Immigration...... 73 Carers ...... 74 Distinguished Visitors...... 76 Questions Without Notice— Internet Services ...... 76 Telstra ...... 77

CONTENTS—continued

Telstra ...... 78 Money Laundering ...... 79 Murray River Red Gums ...... 81 Money Laundering ...... 82 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers— Telstra ...... 83 Questions Without Notice: Take Note of Answers— Telstra ...... 83 Carers ...... 90 Petitions— Australia Post: Services...... 91 Information Technology: Internet Content ...... 91 Notices— Presentation ...... 91 Withdrawal ...... 92 Committees— Selection of Bills Committee—Report...... 92 Notices— Postponement ...... 93 Uranium Exports...... 93 Water Policy...... 94 Sustainable Cities...... 94 World Poverty...... 95 Notices— Postponement ...... 96 Recherche Bay...... 96 Committees— Scrutiny of Bills Committee—Report ...... 97 Public Works Committee—Report ...... 97 Membership...... 99 Copyright Amendment (Film Directors’ Rights) Bill 2005— First Reading ...... 99 Second Reading...... 99 Building and Construction Industry Improvement (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2005 and Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bill 2005— Assent ...... 101 Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Issues) Bill 2005, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Future Proofing and Other Measures) Bill 2005, Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment (Industry Plans and Consumer Codes) Bill 2005 and Appropriation (Regional Telecommunications Services) Bill 2005-2006— In Committee...... 102 Third Reading...... 140 Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill 2005— Second Reading...... 143

CONTENTS—continued

Documents— Australian Taxation Office ...... 146 Adjournment— Overseas Aid...... 147 Majarrka Festival...... 149 Telstra ...... 153 Documents— Tabling...... 153 Tabling...... 153 Indexed Lists of Files ...... 154

Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 1

Wednesday, 14 September 2005 Suspension of Standing Orders ————— Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (9.31 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. am)—Pursuant to contingent notice of mo- Paul Calvert) took the chair at 9.30 am and tion, and at the request of the Leader of the read prayers. Opposition in the Senate, Senator Evans, I TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL move: PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 2005 That so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent debate taking place on TELECOMMUNICATIONS the motion. LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER Surprise, surprise that it has taken the gov- ISSUES) BILL 2005 ernment so long to get to the position of being able to cut this debate short! They have TELECOMMUNICATIONS thrown out the principles of this Senate. The LEGISLATION AMENDMENT government know that, The Nationals know (FUTURE PROOFING AND OTHER that and The Nationals should be ashamed of MEASURES) BILL 2005 their actions. They should be absolutely TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CARRIER ashamed of being blocked with the Liberal LICENCE CHARGES) AMENDMENT Party to do this—to cut the debate and to not (INDUSTRY PLANS AND CONSUMER allow the full second reading debate to be CODES) BILL 2005 dealt with. What this government have done APPROPRIATION (REGIONAL is cut the process in half. They have ensured TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES) that there will not be a full and frank debate, BILL 2005-2006 and yet they have had the opportunity but Declaration of Urgency they have done one thing after the other. They have absolutely wrecked the program Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— and how this Senate works. Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (9.30 am)—I declare that the follow- You should be ashamed of the way you ing bills are urgent bills: treat this place. This week you have done the cut-off motion, you have forced and bludg- Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) eoned your way through this Senate. You Bill 2005 have done the cut-off motion not once but Telecommunications Legislation Amendment twice. There are five bills that were to be (Competition and Consumer Issues) Bill 2005 debated in this house in relation to the Telstra Telecommunications Legislation Amendment debate and what you have done is to ensure (Future Proofing and Other Measures) Bill 2005 that your will, and that of the National Party, Telecommunications (Carrier Licence will prevail irrespective of what should Charges) Amendment (Industry Plans and Con- properly happen in this place. There should sumer Codes) Bill 2005 be proper debate in this house on this matter Appropriation (Regional Telecommunications but what you have done is ensure that there Services) Bill 2005-2006 will not be proper debate. and I move: You only have to look at your record on That these bills be considered urgent bills. this. You have also ensured that the committee stage will not follow. What you have also done is ensure that the committee report and

CHAMBER 2 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 the ability to examine the legislation and bate in half. Why? To push the bills through properly look at how it would work have by the end of the week. been wrecked yet again. What you have not What you have then also ensured is that done is ensure that there will be a proper the processes within this place will not work, committee stage. The committee was given given the way that you have then tried to one day to deal with this debate in any bludgeon us into submission in relation to proper way. this debate. You have taken a liberty. As I It has all been done with little notice. have said, Senator Hill is not in this chamber. What we have today is the government com- He is not going to defend his position, being into this chamber with not even the cour- cause what he said back in 1993, in the na- tesy of consulting in the way that the place tive title debate, was: traditionally works. As I walked in the door, It is alright for— I was told, ‘We’re going to move the guillo- a senator— tine.’ That is what I was told as I walk into the chamber and listened to the movement of to say we do not want that full and complete debate; government senators are not interested in the guillotine. The way that you have done the democratic process ... that is abysmal. You should be ashamed; you should hang your heads in shame. What the You are not interested in the democratic Liberals and The Nationals have done is to processes. You have now thrown away your sign up to a process that you should be own principles. You have abandoned your ashamed of, because not only have you done own principles in relation to this debate, and the standing orders of the Senate an injustice you should hang your heads in shame and but you have also done yourselves an injus- reflect upon what you have now done in this tice. You should be absolutely ashamed of debate. You have now thrown the democratic the way you have behaved, because what principles of this place out the window, and you have done is to set the scene as to how you should hang your heads in shame. What you are going to use your Senate power. you have also done is to ensure that the debate would be frustrated, it would be cut off Senator Hill is not seen in this chamber. and it would not be able to be completed Of course he will not want to come into this properly. (Time expired) chamber and he will be bowing his head in shame because Senator Hill himself, in con- Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (9.37 tingent notice debates in 1993, argued why am)—The Howard government has just hung there should be proper scrutiny, why this is a up on Australia. It has slammed the phone house of review, why legislation should be down on the Australian people. This is the dealt with in a proper and considered man- Howard government saying, ‘We will treat ner. What you have now done is ensure that Australia with disdain by treating the parlia- there will not be proper debate in relation to ment of this country with disdain.’ Here is a these five bills. What you have ensured is government that cannot maintain an argu- that we will not be able to deal adequately ment. Here is a government that cannot de- with the five bills during the second reading fend its position. Here is a government that stage. I have not been able to make a contri- cannot even have its National Party here— bution in relation to the second reading. I had not one National Party person is in this come down to the chamber to make a contri- chamber. They are all hiding their heads in bution this morning in the second reading shame because they are coming in here debate, but instead you decide to cut the de- shortly to vote to have this important debate

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 3 cut short because the government is getting their getting a better deal. Where is it? the worst of it and the government cannot Where is it before this parliament? It is not maintain it. here at all. Senator Joyce has wimped out on Every day, the government is faced with the very constituency that he went to the embarrassing leaks about how this is a sell- election saying he was going to defend. He out to the big end of town. It is going to was not going to sell Telstra. Now he will be make billions, no doubt, out of Telstra as the voting for debate to be cut off on the Telstra rest of the country suffers and as, in particu- bills. lar, the average punter, who the Prime Minis- The big boys have moved in and, against ter has been so vocal about in his years in his conscience, Senator Joyce has collapsed. office, gets inferior telecommunications over He said, ‘I’m going to see what else I can get the big end of town, the scions of the Liberal out of it.’ I ask Senator Joyce: how do you Party and the National Party. Yesterday we get anything else out of it when the guillotine saw the National Farmers Federation come is dropping, cutting off those lines that you out, in the service of the Howard govern- were there to defend? What an inglorious ment, against farmers, against the bush. The day for Senator Joyce this is. What a sell-out millionaire Donald McGauchie should be day for the National Party this is. What an very pleased with that—and no doubt he had antidemocratic day for the Howard govern- a lot to do with it; after all, he is on the board ment this is. The Prime Minister is not even of Telstra now. here as the guillotine drops. We have five Here we have the big boys, the million- members of the government in this place, but aires and the billionaires, dictating to this not one National Party person, as this cru- government, through this government, in the cial— interests of themselves against the interests Senator Ferguson—Who would want to of average Australians. The government is come and listen to you? saying that we cannot debate this, that we Senator BOB BROWN—You are, Sir. cannot hold a debate on this in the Senate or You might make light of this, but the Austra- in the House of Representatives. This is a lian people think this is a very serious matter. disgraceful day for democracy. This is a dis- Certainly, we are not going to hear the gov- graceful day for proper parliamentary proce- ernment try to defend this. It is left to the dure. This is a disgraceful day for a parlia- opposition benches—the Labor Party, the ment that should be representative of, listen- Greens and the Democrats—to try to defend ing to and reacting on behalf of the people of the 70 per cent of Australians who think this Australia. is a sell-out by the government, and that 70 The Prime Minister says he is there for all per cent is right. of us—not today he is not. He has hung up Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (9.41 the phone. He has slammed it down on the am)—The urgency motion is not a surprise Australian people who, seven to three, do not but nonetheless it shows how gutless the want this legislation going through the par- government is. This government does not liament. And where is Senator Joyce? He is want scrutiny of what they are doing. They missing in inaction. He is out behind the are happy to have all of the raging back- screen there being told what to do. He has wards and forwards about whether or not to been worn down. He has gone weak at the sell, but they do not want anybody to look at knees. He has collapsed. He says he is out the substance of what they are doing with the

CHAMBER 4 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 competition regime, what the consumer con- circulated already in this chamber that go to trols will be, what the lack of controls over issues like so-called future proofing—that the funding in the future will be and how has to be one of the great new con phrases of many gaping holes there are in this entire the year, but that is what is in the legisla- shambles of a package. There is no clearer tion—the competition regime and the role of example of poor legislation than when the the ACCC. We have a range of amendments people putting it forward try and hide what is and, particularly given that we were pre- in it by pushing it through without allowing vented from having a committee inquiry of proper scrutiny. any decency at all, the Committee of the It is another crystal clear indication of not Whole stage of the debate becomes more just the extraordinary arrogance of this gov- fundamental because that is the only oppor- ernment, not just their gutlessness and cow- tunity the Senate has to actually ask ques- ardliness, but also their contempt even for tions of the minister about what the real other senators in this place. Obviously, a meaning, the real intent, of the legislation is. guillotine is not unprecedented in this cham- It is the only opportunity we have got. ber. All of us, Democrats, Greens and Labor We have had a total gutting of the com- alike, have supported guillotines in the past. mittee process—a farcical one-day process. But the minimum that is done before a guil- Senator Joyce said that one day was not lotine is brought down is, if not consultation, enough, that a one-day inquiry was inade- at least to inform people about what it is go- quate. Of course, the same Senator Joyce ing to contain and what the hours are going voted to allow that one-day inquiry to hap- to be, rather than just contemptuously walk- pen, along with all the other National Party ing in and saying: ‘Here it is. We’re just go- and Liberal Party senators in this place, so ing to bring out the steamroller because we complaining about it afterwards is pretty ex- can, and we’re not even going to bother tell- traordinary. But he will also prevent scrutiny ing you in advance what is going to happen.’ and questioning in the Committee of the As this debate attempting to suspend Whole process in this chamber. To quote standing orders surrounding the Telstra bills another National Party MP, the Leader of is under way, we are just now finding out The Nationals in Queensland, Mr Lawrence what the time frame planned is. The schedule Springborg: ‘You can’t bake a good fruitcake is being circulated around the chamber. We in 10 minutes.’ Well, this will not be a good have the opposition parties trying to get justi- fruitcake; it will not even be one decent fication from the government for this— pumpkin scone. It will be, clearly, a rotten justification from The Nationals would be and decaying piece of inedible trash that will nice as well instead of their complete ab- disintegrate not long after the vote is rail- sence from the chamber. We see now that the roaded through later on this evening. guillotine is to come down on the second The National Party and the Liberal Party reading debate at 11.30 am today. There is a must stand condemned. The complete failure likelihood of three hours for consideration in of any National Party MP to even turn up detail at the committee stage. Five pieces of and have the guts to justify this shows that legislation will have to be considered in de- they know in their hearts—those that have tail in about three hours. them—that what they are doing is wrong. As senators would know, the Democrats They are just, once again, rolling over for the have a range of amendments that we have political imperatives rather than for the policy good of this country. (Time expired)

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 5

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— port on previous occasions. It is important Manager of Government Business in the that we get on with dealing with these bills. Senate) (9.47 am)—There has been exten- We have always made it clear that we wanted sive debate on these bills. We have had a these bills to be dealt with this week. This total of 16 hours debate in one way or an- issue of the privatisation of Telstra has had other in relation to these bills. We have had longstanding public exposure. I will not go 10 hours on the substance and around six into the details again of the number of in- hours, I think, including an MPI, on the pro- quiries there have been, the number of times cedure. Just under 40 per cent of the total the Senate committee has looked at various debate has been on procedure, I would put to aspects of this. We have the Senate commit- the Senate. The fact is that these bills are tee report and we have amendments which urgent. There is a legitimate process for do- are due to be dealt with in the committee ing this. We are looking at standing order stage. We should get on with that committee 142, which has been used by this govern- stage. I move: ment previously and by the previous Labor That the question be now put. government. In fact, when you look at the Question put. record over 10 years, you see that 221 bills were put through with the use of the guillo- The Senate divided. [9.54 am] tine by Labor. When you compare that to the (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul record of this government—84 in eight Calvert) years—you see that the rate of using the Ayes………… 35 guillotine under the previous Labor govern- Noes………… 32 ment was much higher. Senator Robert Ray used it on 52 bills. Senator Gareth Evans and Majority……… 3 Senator Bob McMullan used it 144 times AYES combined. So there is a precedent. Labor can Abetz, E. Adams, J. hardly criticise what the government is in- Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. tending to do here. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. These bills are urgent and we want to see Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. debate continue in the Committee of the Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Whole. I foreshadow that there will be a mo- Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * tion moved by the government in relation to Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. allotment of time. I have circulated the times Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. that we propose. The more debate that we Johnston, D. Joyce, B. use up on process, the less time there will be Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, J.A.L. for substance. You just have to look at the Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. record to see that, out of 16 hours, just under Minchin, N.H. Nash, F. Parry, S. Patterson, K.C. 40 per cent has been not on the substance of Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M. these bills. Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. It is farcical of others to suggest that this Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. is in some way untoward. There is a prece- Watson, J.O.W. dent for using order 142. As I have pointed NOES out, the previous Labor government used it Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. on many occasions, and in fact this govern- Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. ment has used it with the opposition’s sup- Campbell, G. * Carr, K.J.

CHAMBER 6 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. NOES Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. Abetz, E. Adams, J. Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. McEwen, A. Milne, C. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Polley, H. Siewert, R. Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. Stephens, U. Sterle, G. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Stott Despoja, N. Webber, R. Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, J.A.L. Wong, P. Wortley, D. Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. PAIRS Minchin, N.H. Nash, F. Parry, S. Patterson, K.C. Humphries, G. Conroy, S.M. Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M. Kemp, C.R. Sherry, N.J. Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. Macdonald, I. Ray, R.F. Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. Vanstone, A.E. McLucas, J.E. * denotes teller Watson, J.O.W. Question agreed to. PAIRS Conroy, S.M. Humphries, G. The PRESIDENT—The question now is McLucas, J.E. Vanstone, A.E. that the motion moved by Senator Ludwig to Ray, R.F. Macdonald, I. suspend standing orders be agreed to. Sherry, N.J. Kemp, C.R. The Senate divided. [9.58 am] * denotes teller (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Question negatived. Calvert) In division— Ayes………… 32 Senator Bob Brown—On a point of or- Noes………… 35 der, Mr President. I would like it clarified to the Senate whether or not Senator Allison Majority……… 3 has been granted a pair by the government. AYES The PRESIDENT—That is not a matter Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. for the chair, Senator; it is a matter for the Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. whips. Campbell, G. * Carr, K.J. Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. Senator Bob Brown—Mr President, on a Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. point of order: I would just like to point out Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. the standing orders which require that any Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. senator who has a pecuniary interest, includ- Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. ing in Telstra, should state it at this juncture. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. McEwen, A. Milne, C. The PRESIDENT—I think you realise, Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. Senator, that pecuniary interests have been Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. registered some time back. The question now Polley, H. Siewert, R. is that the motion moved by Senator Ellison Stephens, U. Sterle, G. be agreed to. Stott Despoja, N. Webber, R. Wong, P. Wortley, D.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 7

The Senate divided. [10.04 am] * denotes teller (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Question agreed to. Calvert) In division— Ayes………… 35 Senator Bob Brown—On a point of or- Noes………… 32 der, Mr President. Not withstanding your Majority……… 3 statement a moment ago, I draw your attention to the standing orders and section 5 un- AYES der senators’ interests which states: Abetz, E. Adams, J. Notwithstanding the lodgment by a senator of Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. a statement of the senator’s registrable interests ... Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. … … … Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. (b) as soon as practicable after a division is Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. called for in the Senate, committee of Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * the whole Senate, or a committee of the Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Senate or of the Senate and the House of Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. Representatives, if the senator proposes Johnston, D. Joyce, B. to vote in that division; Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. and the declaration shall be recorded and in- Minchin, N.H. Nash, F. dexed ... Parry, S. Patterson, K.C. The PRESIDENT—I think you might be Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M. reading from an old set of standing orders, Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. Senator. I am assured by the Clerk that where Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. an interest is registered there is no require- Watson, J.O.W. ment for a senator to stand in the chamber, NOES and that is under a very recent amendment. Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Allotment of Time Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. Campbell, G. * Carr, K.J. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. Manager of Government Business in the Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. Senate) (10.08 am)—I move: Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. That the time allotted for consideration of the Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. remaining stages of the bills be as follows: Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. Second reading till 11.30 am today McEwen, A. Milne, C. Committee of the Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. whole from 11.30 am till 12.45 Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. pm, and from not later Polley, H. Siewert, R. than 4.30 pm till 6.15 Stephens, U. Sterle, G. pm today Stott Despoja, N. Webber, R. Wong, P. Wortley, D. All remaining PAIRS stages from 6.15 pm till 6.30 pm today. Humphries, G. Conroy, S.M. Kemp, C.R. Sherry, N.J. I also move: Macdonald, I. Ray, R.F. That the question be now put. Vanstone, A.E. McLucas, J.E.

CHAMBER 8 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Suspension of Standing Orders Senator CHRIS EVANS—Mr President, Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Aus- the reason my voice is raised is that you did tralia—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- not deal with interjections from the govern- ate) (10.09 am)—Pursuant to contingent no- ment in the first place. What I want to make tice, I move: clear is that the government have gagged Senator Barnaby Joyce. Under their resolu- That so much of standing order 142 be suspended as would prevent debate taking place on tion, he will not be allowed to speak in the the motion. debate on Telstra. They are so arrogant— they are so afraid—that they will not even let In doing so, I want to say that I think this is their own people speak on Telstra. They are the most disgraceful performance we have not scared of us. They know we have the seen for a long time. It is a reflection of the support of the Australian people. They know arrogance of the government. I do not argue we are right. They know they cannot win the that the guillotine is not a legitimate means argument. But they are so afraid, so very of managing business in the Senate on occa- afraid, that they will not let their own people sion. Labor has used the guillotine and does speak. At least three Nationals who are sell- not object to the guillotine being used on ing out the bush will not speak in this debate. appropriate occasions, so it is not a debate Senator Joyce, the Hamlet of Australian poli- about the guillotine. But what we have here tics—will he or won’t he?—will not be al- is the gag being applied before we could lowed to speak because they are not sure even debate the guillotine. That is how afraid what he will say. of the argument this government are. They moved the gag before I, as Leader of the Op- Senator Hill—Mr President, I rise on a position in the Senate, was given the call by point of order. Surely it is against standing the President. Standing orders were fla- orders to deliberately mislead the Senate. grantly abused. Even the Leader of the Op- This motion does not prohibit any individual position in the Senate was not allowed the senator or senators from contributing to the call before the gag was moved. What is the further parts of the debate: the second read- impact— ing and the committee stages. Senator Hill interjecting— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator CHRIS EVANS—Senator Hill, The PRESIDENT—Are you reflecting you were missing in action again. What is on the chair, Senator? If you are, I will warn the effect of this motion? Senator Joyce will you. not speak in the debate on Telstra. The gov- Senator Conroy—Rule on the point of ernment have gagged Senator Joyce. They order! have gagged Senator Fielding. Not only have The PRESIDENT—I am ruling on the you gagged the Labor Party, the Greens and point of order. There is no point of order. the Democrats, you have prevented Senator Joyce from speaking. Senator CHRIS EVANS—That is a pathetic attempt because the government can- Opposition senators interjecting— not defend itself. Under the resolution on the The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ev- hours, by 11.30 today the second reading ans, senators from your own side are making debate is over. I have the list of speakers. so much noise I cannot hear you. I ask them Senator Joyce is not on it. to come to order. Senator Ferguson—He didn’t ask!

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 9

Senator CHRIS EVANS—So Senator Senator CHRIS EVANS—Senator Joyce isn’t interested in Telstra now? Appar- Coonan, if you want to speak, get the call. ently the bullyboys from The Nationals and Senator Hill interjecting— the government have told him he is not really The PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, come interested. Senator Fielding did not get his to order. family impact statement but he will not get to speak because you are so afraid. You can- Senator CHRIS EVANS—Mr President, not win the debate—you cannot win the ar- I do not know whether I am going to be al- gument—so you gag your own. That is how lowed to continue, but I would appreciate arrogant, out of touch and disgraceful your your support. behaviour has become. I have no objection to The PRESIDENT—I just called Senator a proper guillotine being moved when ap- Hill to order. propriate. Labor moved— Senator CHRIS EVANS—Thank you, Senator Hill—When it suits you! Mr President. What we have is a situation Senator CHRIS EVANS—No! where the government not only moved the guillotine, which is a process for bringing the The PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Hill! debate to a head, but also immediately Senator CHRIS EVANS—Mr President, moved a gag. One is not even allowed to are you going to deal with this or shall we debate the processes. We have seen the abuse debate this issue? of question time. We have seen the abuse of The PRESIDENT—I have just called nearly every democratic process this Senate him to order. has supported over the last 100 years— Senator CHRIS EVANS—Thank you. within four weeks of this parliament sitting. What we have is the government walking in Four weeks of a government majority in the on the Wednesday morning with no consulta- Senate has seen every process of the Senate tion, no meeting and no warning and moving overturned and thrown out. The government that, with an hour and a half, debate is are drunk with power, they are scared of de- over—it is finished; we get out of here. bate and they are willing to abuse any Senate Senator Joyce, you cannot speak. The com- process. Every process has been abused in mittee stage has a total of 1½ hours. There the first four weeks. And now they are so are five bills and 1½ hours. That is about 15 scared they silence their own. Whatever hap- minutes a bill. That is the detail of the sale of pened to the National Party? The government $30 billion worth of assets—we get about 15 will not let Senator Joyce speak. They will to 20 minutes per bill. If the government had not let the other Nationals speak because been serious, they would have brought in a they are so scared of what they might say; rolling guillotine at the start of the week, they are so scared of the debate. (Time ex- consulted about the management of the de- pired) bate and ensured a proper debate. But they Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— do not want debate, because they cannot Manager of Government Business in the stand it. They cannot win the argument. Senate) (10.15 am)—I move: What we have had today is— That the question be now put. Senator Coonan interjecting— Question put. The PRESIDENT—Order! The Senate divided. [10.19 am]

CHAMBER 10 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

(The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Question agreed to. Calvert) Question put: Ayes………… 34 That the motion (Senator Chris Evans’s) be Noes………… 31 agreed to. Majority……… 3 The Senate divided. [10.24 am] (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul AYES Calvert) Abetz, E. Adams, J. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. Ayes………… 31 Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. Noes………… 34 Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Majority……… 3 Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. AYES Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Bartlett, A.J.J. Brown, B.J. Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. Brown, C.L. Campbell, G. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Carr, K.J. Conroy, S.M. Lightfoot, P.R. Mason, B.J. Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. Nash, F. Parry, S. Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. McEwen, A. Milne, C. Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. NOES Nettle, K. Polley, H. Bartlett, A.J.J. Brown, B.J. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. Brown, C.L. Campbell, G. Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. Carr, K.J. Conroy, S.M. Webber, R. Wong, P. Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. Wortley, D. Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. NOES Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Abetz, E. Adams, J. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. McEwen, A. Milne, C. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Nettle, K. Polley, H. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Webber, R. Wong, P. Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. Wortley, D. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Lightfoot, P.R. Mason, B.J. PAIRS McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. Humphries, G. O’Brien, K.W.K. Nash, F. Parry, S. Kemp, C.R. Bishop, T.M. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Macdonald, I. Ray, R.F. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Macdonald, J.A.L. Sherry, N.J. Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. Vanstone, A.E. McLucas, J.E. Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. * denotes teller

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 11

PAIRS McEwen, A. Milne, C. Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. Bishop, T.M. Kemp, C.R. Nettle, K. Polley, H. McLucas, J.E. Vanstone, A.E. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. O’Brien, K.W.K. Humphries, G. Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. Ray, R.F. Macdonald, I. Webber, R. Wong, P. Sherry, N.J. Macdonald, J.A.L. * denotes teller Wortley, D. Question negatived. PAIRS The PRESIDENT—The question now is Humphries, G. O’Brien, K.W.K. Kemp, C.R. Bishop, T.M. that the closure motion moved by the minis- Macdonald, I. Ray, R.F. ter in relation to the allotment of time motion Macdonald, J.A.L. Sherry, N.J. be agreed to. Vanstone, A.E. McLucas, J.E. The Senate divided. [10.28 am] * denotes teller (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Question agreed to. Calvert) The PRESIDENT—I remind honourable Ayes………… 34 senators that, when a division is being counted, senators should remain in their Noes………… 31 place. The question is that the motion for the Majority……… 3 allotment of time be agreed to. AYES The Senate divided. [10.33 am] Abetz, E. Adams, J. (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. Calvert) Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. Ayes………… 34 Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Noes………… 31 Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Majority……… 3 Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. AYES Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. Abetz, E. Adams, J. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. Lightfoot, P.R. Mason, B.J. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Nash, F. Parry, S. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. NOES Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Bartlett, A.J.J. Brown, B.J. Lightfoot, P.R. Mason, B.J. Brown, C.L. Campbell, G. McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. Carr, K.J. Conroy, S.M. Nash, F. Parry, S. Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G.

CHAMBER 12 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

NOES Senator Nash raised concerns yesterday. We Bartlett, A.J.J. Brown, B.J. are not allowed to have a committee process. Brown, C.L. Campbell, G. We are not allowed to get to the bottom of Carr, K.J. Conroy, S.M. what is in the legislation. We are not allowed Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. to have a debate on the second reading. We Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. are going to gag the committee process. We Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. are going to gag the third readings. This is a Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. government drunk on power. This is a gov- Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. ernment that promised after the election: ‘We McEwen, A. Milne, C. won’t abuse our control of the Senate. We Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. won’t take our position for granted. We’ll Nettle, K. Polley, H. continue with the process.’ Siewert, R. Stephens, U. Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. Senator Boswell, I see you are here again. Webber, R. Wong, P. I remind you of some very important words Wortley, D. that you said on The 7.30 Report when you PAIRS were asked about the abuse of Senate proc- Humphries, G. O’Brien, K.W.K. ess. You said, ‘I think that the system works Kemp, C.R. Bishop, T.M. pretty well.’ I thought, ‘Good on Senator Macdonald, I. Ray, R.F. Boswell. He is true to his profession, true to Macdonald, J.A.L. Sherry, N.J. his calling.’ But no, the first two or three Vanstone, A.E. McLucas, J.E. opportunities to prove those words, to prove * denotes teller those sentiments meant anything, Roll-over Question agreed to. Ron Boswell is in here gagging debate, gag- SENATE PROCEDURES ging committees, gagging process, abusing the government’s power. Suspension of Standing Orders What is this government hiding? Why do Senator CONROY (Victoria) (10.36 we have this rush? It became clear yesterday am)—I seek leave to make a statement reas Telstra were forced to admit that they have garding Senate procedure. created a redundancy fund. It is in the Age if Leave not granted. you want to read it, Senator Joyce or any- Senator CONROY (Victoria) (10.37 body else. That is the admission. They are am)—Pursuant to contingent notice and at going to be involved in mass sackings after the request of the Leader of the Opposition this bill is passed this week. They are push- in the Senate, Senator Evans, I move: ing back the date of the review. They do not That so much of the standing orders be sus- want Sol Trujillo’s review to possibly be- pended as would prevent me from making the come public before this chamber has to vote statement. because they know that they are going to be What an abuse of Senate power we are see- engaged in mass sackings. They put out a ing today. We have a government out of con- very mealy-mouthed statement yesterday to trol, drunk on power, that is determined to the Stock Exchange: ‘We don’t know any- abuse the Senate chamber, abuse the parlia- thing about a 104-page document that can- mentary process and abuse the Australian vasses cuts of that magnitude.’ All right, Tel- public. What do we know? We know that stra, they might not be 14,000, they might Senator Joyce is being gagged. We know that not be 10,000, but are they 8,000? Are they 5,000? Because, Senator Joyce, we know

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 13 where these cuts are going to be. They are Senator CONROY—I was not address- going to rip the guts out of Telstra Country ing any individual senator then, but I accept Wide. They are going to take all these people your admonishment yet again. So let us be out there. All these techs—they are going to clear: we have a senator who has been be gone. And you are going to say, ‘How on dragged from room to room, taken into meet- earth are they going to meet all these com- ings and pressured, who has had the presi- munity requirements that we’ve negotiated dent of the National Party announce publicly so toughly for? How on earth are we going to how he is going to vote. The president of the make them keep their word?’ I have got news Queensland National Party has stood up and for you, Senator Joyce: there is no chance. said: ‘I know how Senator Joyce is voting. Read Ross Gittins today. If you want a pic- This is how he’s going to vote.’ (Time ex- ture of what is going to happen after you pired) vote for this, you read Ross Gittins today, Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— because that is what is going on. Manager of Government Business in the The Prime Minister and Senator Hill do Senate) (10.42 am)—I move: not want the truth to come out. They are en- That the question be now put. gaged in a deceit of the Australian public, a Question put. deceit of this parliament and a deceit of this chamber. That is what is going on here. The The Senate divided. [10.46 am] PM does not want the truth out. We have (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul seen some extraordinary scenes in the last Calvert) few weeks. Senator Joyce has been followed Ayes………… 34 round by members of the National Party, Noes………… 32 members of the government. It is quite embarrassing and demeaning. He has been Majority……… 2 physically intimidated by Senator Heffernan. AYES I witnessed the exchange in the hall outside. Abetz, E. Adams, J. I saw Senator Heffernan front Senator Joyce. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. Senator Boswell, you were there as well. To Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. be fair to you, Senator Boswell, you were Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. trying to protect him from Senator Heffer- Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. nan, but I witnessed it. Eggleston, A. * Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. The PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. through the chair. Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. Senator CONROY—I accept your ad- Johnston, D. Joyce, B. monishment, Mr President. Now the gov- Lightfoot, P.R. Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. ernment are going to gag Senator Joyce, but Nash, F. Parry, S. the worst part is you are voting to gag your- Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. self. It is quite embarrassing. Is it so demean- Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. ing to have to stand up and tell the chamber Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. what you think and raise your concerns? Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. The PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, NOES through the chair. Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. Campbell, G. * Conroy, S.M.

CHAMBER 14 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. Stott Despoja, N. Webber, R. Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. Wong, P. Wortley, D. Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. NOES Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Abetz, E. Adams, J. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. McEwen, A. McLucas, J.E. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. Milne, C. Moore, C. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Murray, A.J.M. Nettle, K. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Polley, H. Siewert, R. Eggleston, A. * Ellison, C.M. Stephens, U. Sterle, G. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. Stott Despoja, N. Webber, R. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Wong, P. Wortley, D. Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. PAIRS Lightfoot, P.R. Mason, B.J. Humphries, G. Sherry, N.J. McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. Kemp, C.R. O’Brien, K.W.K. Nash, F. Parry, S. Macdonald, I. Ray, R.F. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Macdonald, J.A.L. Allison, L.F. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Vanstone, A.E. Carr, K.J. Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. * denotes teller Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. Question agreed to. PAIRS The PRESIDENT—The question now is Allison, L.F. Macdonald, J.A.L. that the suspension motion moved by Sena- Carr, K.J. Vanstone, A.E. tor Conroy be agreed to. O’Brien, K.W.K. Kemp, C.R. Ray, R.F. Macdonald, I. The Senate divided. [10.51 am] Sherry, N.J. Humphries, G. (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul * denotes teller Calvert) Question negatived. Ayes………… 32 Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) Noes………… 34 (10.58 am)—Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement. Majority……… 2 Leave not granted. AYES Suspension of Standing Orders Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) Campbell, G. * Conroy, S.M. (10.58 am)—I move: Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. That so much of the standing orders be sus- Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. pended as would prevent me making a statement. Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. The PRESIDENT—Order! A majority of Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. the Senate have decided not to grant leave Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. and not to entertain continued suspension McEwen, A. McLucas, J.E. motions, so I direct the Clerk to read the or- Milne, C. Moore, C. der. Murray, A.J.M. Nettle, K. Polley, H. Siewert, R. Senator Chris Evans—On a point of or- Stephens, U. Sterle, G. der, Mr President: I find your ruling a little confusing. As I understand it, Senator Con-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 15 roy moved a motion, based on a suspension The PRESIDENT—Senator, that motion standing in my name. I understand that now is not debatable. You have already moved it Senator Brown, as the leader of the Greens in and it has to be decided now. the Senate, has moved a suspension in his Question put: own right, which is an unrelated motion. I do That the motion (Senator Bob Brown’s) be not see how the defeat of an earlier motion agreed to. allows you to rule Senator Brown’s rights in The Senate divided. [11.06 am] this chamber out of order. It seems to me a further abuse of the processes of this parlia- (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul ment if the leader of a political party is not Calvert) allowed to exercise his rights to move a con- Ayes………… 32 tingency motion. I would like some explana- Noes………… 34 tion of your ruling. Majority……… 2 The PRESIDENT—I will explain. I do not know how many divisions we have had AYES this morning, but the majority of the Senate Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. has decided not to grant leave. A majority of Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. the Senate has agreed not to agree to a con- Campbell, G. Conroy, S.M. tingency suspension of standing orders. This Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. is not a precedent, I am presuming; Senator Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Sibraa gave the same determination on a Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. previous guillotine motion. It is time to move Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. on, and I am directing the Clerk to read the Lundy, K.A. McEwen, A. order. McLucas, J.E. Milne, C. Ruling of the President Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) Nettle, K. Polley, H. Sherry, N.J. Siewert, R. (11.00 am)—I move: Stephens, U. Sterle, G. That the ruling of the President be dissented Stott Despoja, N. Webber, R. from. Wong, P. Wortley, D. The PRESIDENT—I am led to believe NOES that the motion that you are moving, Senator, Abetz, E. Adams, J. is adjourned to the next day of sitting unless Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. an urgent motion to deal with it now is Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. agreed to. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Senator BOB BROWN—According to Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. the contingency provisions, I move that the Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. motion be an urgent motion. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. The PRESIDENT—Senator, you should Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. move that the matter requires immediate de- Johnston, D. Joyce, B. termination. Lightfoot, P.R. Mason, B.J. Senator BOB BROWN—I move: McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. Nash, F. Parry, S. That the question of dissent requires immedi- Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. ate determination. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. I so move because your ruling is quite bi- Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. ased— Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W.

CHAMBER 16 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

PAIRS speak about this bill in the very short period Allison, L.F. Kemp, C.R. of time we have left to speak about it, so I Carr, K.J. Humphries, G. just want to put on the record that Labor is Marshall, G. Vanstone, A.E. opposed to the sale of Telstra. We voted O’Brien, K.W.K. Macdonald, J.A.L. against it five times before and we are going Ray, R.F. Macdonald, I. to vote against it again. I am a new senator * denotes teller and I am absolutely appalled by what has Question negatived. happened in the Senate over the last week. Ordered that debate be adjourned till the One week ago we got these bills into this next day of sitting, pursuant to standing or- parliament. One week ago they were referred der 198. to a Senate committee for a one-day in- TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL quiry—one day for the people of Australia to PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 2005 contemplate this legislation that will radi- cally alter the delivery of telecommunica- TELECOMMUNICATIONS tions in Australia for the rest of their lives. LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER Now the bills are back in the parliament. ISSUES) BILL 2005 This morning, when there are senators want- ing to speak about it to represent the people TELECOMMUNICATIONS of Australia on this matter, the debate has LEGISLATION AMENDMENT been guillotined by this parliament, by those (FUTURE PROOFING AND OTHER people over there—that gutless crew over MEASURES) BILL 2005 there, those doormats over there. I wish you TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CARRIER good luck in the next election. I wish you LICENCE CHARGES) AMENDMENT good luck, because you are going to need it. (INDUSTRY PLANS AND CONSUMER You have sold Australia down the river, CODES) BILL 2005 down the creek. Seventy per cent of Austra- APPROPRIATION (REGIONAL lians do not want Telstra sold but, for a small TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES) grab bag of promises for Senator Barnaby BILL 2005-2006 Joyce’s constituents in Queensland, you have Second Reading sold out everybody. You have given us one week to consider the legislation. You are a Debate resumed from 13 September, on disgrace. motions by Senator Coonan and Senator Vanstone: Senator JOYCE (Queensland) (11.10 am)—Thank you very much, and I welcome That these bills be now read a second time the good honourable gentleman to our side of upon which Senator Bob Brown had moved the chamber— by way of an amendment: Senator Stott Despoja—Acting Deputy Omit all words after “That”, substitute “further President Hutchins, on a point of order: I am consideration of the bills be made an order of the next on the speakers list. Senator Joyce is not day for 4 October 2005”. on the list. Will we stick to the speakers list Senator McEWEN (South Australia) or have we gagged that too? (11.08 am)—I wish to speak against the Tel- stra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Senator Hill—It is a longstanding prac- Bill 2005 and related legislation before us tice: one side of the chamber then the other today. I am mindful that other people want to side of the chamber. The Democrats have

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 17 chosen to sit on the Labor side of the cham- Senator Bob Brown—On the point of or- ber, so they are part of that speaking contin- der: it is totally outrageous that the speakers gent. order now be broken to convenience gov- Senator George Campbell interjecting— ernment members who have not had the gumption to get up to speak until now. I Senator Hill—How many speeches has move, according to contingent orders: the government had on this bill? How many opportunities? Very few. That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Stott Despoja being Opposition senators interjecting— heard next. Senator Hill—In fact the Labor spokes- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT man damned the government for not allow- (Senator Hutchins)—I have been advised ing Senator Joyce to speak. Then, when that you cannot move that because there is a Senator Joyce rises, the Labor Party wants to point of order before the chair. gag him. They cannot have it both ways. Senator Bob Brown—I will move it im- Senator Chris Evans—Mr Acting Dep- mediately afterwards. uty President, on a point of order: I would The PRESIDENT—I believe there is a welcome Senator Joyce’s contribution to the point of order before the chair. As everybody debate but, unfortunately, we are faced with knows, it has always been the practice to a situation where the government and Sena- take one speaker from one side and then one tor Joyce have voted for a gag that ends the from the other. The order of speaking is de- debate at 11.30 am. I am happy for the gov- cided by the whips. I call Senator Joyce. ernment to move a motion extending the time for the debate. Senator Joyce is a victim Senator Bob Brown—Mr President, you of his own party discipline. He voted for a have an obligation in this place to recognise resolution that stifled the debate. Now he that there is a crossbench. It is not one side wishes to jump on the speakers list. The or the other; there are three sides. Senator speakers list is agreed between the parties Stott Despoja is on the speaking list and and circulated in the chamber. The speakers Senator Joyce is not. It is totally contrary to list shows McEwen, Stott Despoja and Field- all practice in this place that you suddenly ing. If Senator Joyce is to jump in and speak, come in here and give favour to a govern- then he denies Senator Stott Despoja and ment member over a crossbench member Senator Fielding their opportunities. who, according to the whips’ arrangements— Senator Hill—Not necessarily. You’re The PRESIDENT—Senator, you have wasting speaking time now. made a point of order. I am ruling on that point of order. It is always the custom of the Senator Chris Evans—My point of or- chair to take one speaker from one side and der, Mr Acting Deputy President, is that the then one from the other. The last speaker was government have overturned all the Senate Senator McEwen on my left. I propose to procedures and this is another one—a dis- take a speaker from my right, and I call tributed formal agreement between the par- Senator Joyce. I ask you to resume your seat, ties, the speakers list, which is given to the Senator Brown. I have ruled on the point of chair. They are going to break that conven- order. I call Senator Joyce. tion as well. According to the list, Senator Stott Despoja has the call and she ought to be Senator JOYCE—Thank you very much, given the call. Mr President. There have been a number of

CHAMBER 18 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 calls from the other side of the house that I Leave not granted. had been gagged, so it is very important— Senator JOYCE—I think it is very im- Senator Fielding—Mr President, I rise on portant to get on the record what the Na- a point of order. You were saying that you go tional Party wished to extract from the Tel- from one side of the chamber to the other. I stra legislation and what we have extracted, happen to be on the other side of the cham- what we have done in the last week and how ber to the previous speaker and I happen to the process goes on. It is very important for be on the speakers list. I think it would be people to know exactly what the resolutions more than appropriate for Family First to were that we came down to this chamber have their say in the second reading debate with. In Queensland we had two resolutions on this legislation. that were given to us. One resolution was to The PRESIDENT—There has been a lot not sell Telstra at all, and from the 350 or so of time wasted this morning and, Senator, I delegates at the National Party state confer- am sure that you will get the opportunity, ence it managed to attract two votes, because either now or in the committee stage. I call the people in Queensland realise the political Senator Joyce. dynamics that we have to work with and the fact that we have to go out and do the very Senator JOYCE—Thank you very much, best deal we possibly can. As such, and real- Mr President. It is important that we get it on ising that we do not actually have every vote the record today that the decision— in the chamber, although a lot of people Senator Bob Brown—Mr President, I think we do have every vote in the cham- dissent from your ruling that Senator Joyce ber—and I am flattered to think that a lot of be heard ahead of the other senators who are people think that I am the only senator in the listed. chamber— The PRESIDENT—It is not a ruling. It is Opposition senators interjecting— the right of the chair to call from one side or Senator JOYCE—and it is great to at- the other. I ask you to resume your seat, tract the attention from the Labor Party and Senator Brown. the free advertising they give me. I welcome Senator Bob Brown interjecting— the advertising. So far we have attracted a The PRESIDENT—We are not going to Labor member to our side of the parliament have a debate on standing orders. I have and I congratulate him for coming across. It called Senator Joyce and I ask him to con- is very important to know that what we actu- tinue with his— ally came down here to support was a five- Senator Chris Evans—Mr President, I pillar policy, which was the extraction of a seek leave to move a motion that the Senate deal. We made it well known and everybody allow Senators Stott Despoja, Joyce and knew that, if we did not extract that deal, we Fielding to give speeches in the second read- would not vote for the sale of Telstra. We ing debate on the Telstra bills. have gone into this process and we have ac- complished so much. Even in the last week The PRESIDENT—We are now under we have managed to— the rules of urgency and I have no alternative but to call Senator Joyce. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Chris Evans—Is leave granted Senator JOYCE—Who is gagging the or is leave denied? debate now? Opposition senators interjecting—

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 19

The PRESIDENT—Come to order! the position of leverage that the National Senator JOYCE—Thank you very much, Party has that has put so much into this legis- Mr President. I just want to go through what lation that it can actually deliver the services. has happened in the last week, because eve- The final question has to be this: will the rybody knows all the pros and cons. In the people of regional and rural Australia and the last week we have managed to have the re- people of Queensland be better off or worse view process of this legislation to clarify off after the passage of this legislation? All exactly what is in the $2 billion trust fund. the problems that are currently happening are We have got that. There was a problem with happening under the current ownership it and we have clarified that. The National guise. The National Party has used this posi- Party managed to get that clarified. We have tion of leverage to get both the money on the managed to get clarification of the means table and the legislation on the table to fix and mechanisms of the operation of the Re- the problems. That is what the National Party gional Telecommunications Independent Re- does. We are few in number but we managed view Committee. to extract a deal and I sit here today with my colleagues proud of what we have achieved. It was great to see in the last week the Na- tional Farmers Federation coming out in I know that when we were talking on the support of us, and in fact imploring me to John Laws show this morning, they were vote for this legislation. It is great to see that proud of what we have achieved. They know there has been recognition by the Minister that the National Party has gone into bat. for Communications, Information Technol- They know that the National Party is a safety ogy and the Arts of the need to get a wider valve in conservative politics. They know involvement in the Regional Telecommuni- that the National Party allows open debate cations Independent Review Committee and, if you are so irrelevant that the Austra- group. They will now get peak industry bod- lian people do not want to vote for you, that ies involved with it. All this is part of the is not our problem. You must make your- work you do when you are not involved in selves relevant. You must become engaged in the semantics and filibustering that is going the debate, you must come up with rational on here but you are actually reading the leg- solutions and you must become part of the islation and working out what is wrong with solution and not just a commentator on the it and getting it fixed—because that is what problems. It has become apparent that you we do in the National Party. We actually read have not even read the legislation yourselves. the legislation, and it is very important to You had the same amount of time that we read the legislation because in this chamber did. The National Party had to find the prob- you are supposed to check the veracity of the lems that you should have found. Why is legislation. All the theatrics here have that? Why is it that we found the problem amounted to nothing. Your theatrics have with the $2 billion slush fund? Why is it that amounted to nothing because nobody is lis- the National Party— tening to you. Honourable senators interjecting— It is good to see that the National Party Senator Hill—Mr President, on a point of have extracted this deal. We acknowledge order: screaming abuse at the speaker is to- that the deal that initially went to the lower tally out of order. Labor speakers receive the house delivered nothing for regional and ru- courtesy of being listened to. The Labor ral Australia. It delivered nothing, and it is

CHAMBER 20 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Party should cop it now and listen to Senator legislation and the money in place to fix Joyce. problems and to bring parity of service and The PRESIDENT—There is too much prices into the future. If we have the legisla- noise in the chamber. I ask all senators to tion and the money in place to deliver that— come to order. which were never there when the bill was initially put through the lower house—then Senator JOYCE—So the National Party the National Party has delivered. It is the had to do the Labor Party’s job on this. It had only party in this house that has managed to to become an effective mechanism to bring stand up for rural and regional Australia in some veracity to the legislation and to make such a way that it actually delivers. sure that we deliver what we intended to deliver. We worked very hard at that. I also Senator FIELDING (Victoria) (11.25 thank Minister Coonan for the assistance she am)—I seek leave to incorporate my speech. has given me. Leave granted. Opposition senators interjecting— The speech read as follows— Senator JOYCE—She has. Honourable Mr President, at the outset may I say that for the senators, last night we in the National Party record one of my brothers is an executive in Tel- delivered 10 proposed amendments to the stra—though, as I have learned in the last few legislation to the minister, and all 10 have weeks, that doesn’t mean that I am not as much in been agreed to. We are looking forward to the dark as everybody else when it comes to knowing what goes on in Telstra. such things as an independent assessor on the COT cases. We look forward to a greater Family First is disappointed that the Government, which claims to be a champion of the family, is connection. I can see some of the amend- refusing to tell families how selling the rest of ments here on the table this morning. That is Telstra will affect them. how it works on this side. We achieve things, When the Prime Minister announced during the we find the problems and we fix them. election campaign that he would take up Family I want to put on the record that the Na- First’s proposal to prepare Family Impact State- tional Party has extracted this deal. The Na- ments, the public thought the idea was to benefit tional Party has gone into bat. The National them. Party has delivered. I will conclude with this: So did Family First. there is strong sentimentality towards the Had Mr Howard explained to Australian families ownership of Telstra; I acknowledge that, that Family Impact Statements were solely for the and you hear about it everywhere you go. benefit of the Cabinet, people might have thought But when there is a choice between— they were not worth much at all. Honourable senators interjecting— Family First feels the same. Senator JOYCE—If you will let me fin- It is all very well for the Government to say ‘trust ish, someone else will get a chance to speak. us, we are looking after families’. But Australian families would prefer to get the information and If there is a choice between the sentimental- judge for themselves. ity— There is no point waiting around 30 years for a Senator Bob Brown interjecting— Cabinet document to find out whether a Govern- Senator JOYCE—You did not get a Sen- ment really was looking after families. ate seat in Queensland, Senator Brown. If ever there was an issue where families needed There is a choice between the sentimentality to know how they would be affected, it is the sale of owning Telstra as it is now or having the of the rest of Telstra.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 21

There are certain essential things that all Austra- Two billion dollars of their money ended up in a lians ought to be confident they can access re- black-hole in Hong-Kong—money which would gardless of where they live—including quality not have been lost had Telstra stuck to its knitting and affordable telecommunications. instead of bowing to market pressure to diversify This is especially so, given the Government’s into growing businesses and other sectors. record on this issue. This sorry tale highlights a fundamental issue— I note that, last week, in defending the Govern- whether the role of government is to run busi- ment’s decision to rush legislation through the nesses or provide essential services. Senate, even though there is no apparent reason to Australians expect the government to provide do so, a number of Senators said the full sale of essential services, including telecommunications, Telstra had been government policy for nine efficiently. years. They do not expect them to provide those services Since then the Communications Minister has ech- as though they were businesses driven by the oed this interpretation of history. bottom line. She may be right, but if she is, Australian families In the last couple of weeks we have become might think they have been misled. aware of the price we shall pay because of this. Back in 1996, when the then Communications In order to appease ‘the market’, Telstra borrowed Minister Senator Alston said the full privatisation $500 million this year, and will borrow $2 billion of Telstra was ‘inevitable and desirable’, the next year, to pay inflated dividends, presumably Prime Minister was quick to deny the Cabinet had to prop up the share price. any plans for a full sale. Meanwhile there has been under-investment in He told the ABC’s AM program: infrastructure; “We have a commitment to sell a third…Self- * More than 14 per cent of all lines are faulty; evidently if some people support the sale of a * Obsolete equipment has not been replaced; third of Telstra, they can vote for legislation to * New workers have not been properly trained; sell a third of it and vote against any legislation that might be submitted in 10 years time to sell * IT systems are not capable of handling the vol- any more.” umes and new services offered; and Back then, owning two-thirds of Telstra did not * an additional $2 to $3 billion should have been present a conflict of interest between being both spent over the last few years. owner and regulator, but less than 10 years later, Telstra management predicts a growing techno- we are told that owning 51 per cent of Telstra logical divide between rural and urban Australia presents huge conflict of interest problems. and even less investment in new networks and The question is whether the Government is mis- technologies. leading us now or was misleading us then. All this while the Government has been assuring A couple of years after the Prime Minister assured us that services are up to scratch! Australians that supporting the sale of a third of If this reflects how far Telstra has deteriorated Telstra was not giving a green light to selling it while the Government has control and people can all, he said his goal was to “make Australia the pressure politicians to maintain standards, it does greatest share-owning democracy in the world.’ not require much imagination to work out what A year later many Australians heeded Mr. How- will happen if Telstra is completely sold off. ard’s call and bought shares in Telstra, at $7.40 The Government’s response is that ownership is each. irrelevant and regulation provides the necessary Many were keen to be part of this ‘greatest share- level of protection. owning democracy’ and kept their shares in Tel- The Government points to the Universal Service stra. And they are now paying the price. Obligation, as an example, but the USO does not

CHAMBER 22 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 even deal with broadband, let alone future tech- That is why in May I asked the Communications nology. Minister for a Family Impact Statement. As for regulation, who is going to trust a govern- I said: “I need to be shown how (selling the rest ment, which nine years ago said a decision to sell of Telstra) will benefit Australian families.’ a third of Telstra did not mean it would all be I added that I did not want “to see this only about sold, to maintain its proposed level of regulation how it will benefit us economically. I want to be more than five minutes after it has sold its shares? convinced that it’s a good idea.” We know what Telstra wants. Its management has Mr President, nothing has changed. And I believe spelt it out in detail. most Australians think the same as I do. And we know the general view of the Finance Australians believe the Government should use Minister is that the Government should be “light- some of Telstra’s dividends to fix up its problems, handed in their regulation”. keep directing some of that money into defence, We know also the power of the market. pensions, health and education and still retain The chief executive of another former national ownership of Telstra. icon, Qantas, recently made clear that, despite a After all, it seems that what the Government’s record profit, more sackings were necessary, add- $3.1 billion package translates to is just $275 ing that he made no apologies for looking after million per year, for four years, assuming the shareholders. proceeds of Connect Australia are spent over that Telstra management has told us who will be the period and $100 million a year thereafter —which biggest losers from a completely privatised com- is not very much when you look at all of the prob- pany driven by market forces lems Telstra’s management has exposed. It will not be people living in inner metropolitan Senators opposed might be interested to know suburbs where Telstra’s market share in some that the Coalition did promote selling the rest of cases is less than 20 per cent. Telstra during the 1998 election. Rather it will be people in regional, rural and That was the election where the Coalition lost 16 remote Australia where there is little, if any, com- seats —hardly a ringing endorsement of its Tel- petition and where Telstra’s market share is more stra sell off. than 90 per cent. Despite the Government’s best efforts since then, Mr President, like Sir Robert Menzies I support the fact is today 70 per cent of Australians have free enterprise, not the free market. This sorry tale not been convinced selling the rest of Telstra is in is a stark example of the difference between the our best interests. two. The Government has failed to convince me. In my first speech I said that “the major parties Consequently I oppose the bills. struggle to reconcile their professed ‘family val- Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- ues’ with their ‘free market’ mantra.” tralia) (11.25 am)—In the short time remain- This incurred the wrath of some in this place, and ing, I will also seek leave in a moment to some outside, as reflected by editorial in The Aus- incorporate my speech, but I want to put a tralian on August 12. couple of things on the record. First of all: However, the views of a member in the other that is how it is done. Today Senator Mc- place proves this point. Ewen showed how it is done, Senator Field- He has said he does not think the Telstra legisla- ing showed how it is done—and they have tion is “really a family-related bill”. only been here for a short period of time. He thinks the legislation is “an economic bill”. Some of us have been here for almost a dec- I disagree, and I am sure most Australian families ade. Sixty-three of you have come in since I disagree as well. came to this place, and this is the most shameful day and the most shameful display

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 23

I have ever seen. A guillotine is not unprece- that they have really done the hard work. I dented, but a gag on a guillotine almost is. have forgotten what Senator Joyce said about Senator Hill—It has been done before. doing the work that Labor should have done. The Democrats have amendments to put too, Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Yes, I Senator Joyce, through you, Mr President, know it has been done before. Through you, but we have 15 minutes to debate them in the Mr President, they are as bad as each other at latter stages today, if you do not count that times when they want to get their legislation generous hour and a half for the committee through. But this is shameful. The irony of stage. So not only have we today defied someone voting for a gag and then jumping every rule in the book with regard to conven- up a speakers list that they were not even on! tion, process, standing orders, tradition, the I hope they understand as they get more gentlemanly nature that is supposed to rule blooded in this place that there are certain and govern this chamber, but we have left no conventions, that there are procedures and time for the debate on this policy. standing orders in this place that some of us have learnt to observe over the last decade or Do not, senators, come in here and try to so. So for those new senators: it was not al- compare this with other debates—and I have ways thus, I can assure you. Senator McE- a quote of 7 September from Minister wen is outraged by the treatment of people in Campbell, which I do not have time to read this chamber today and by the guillotine, and out, trying to compare this with other de- you have the right to be, Senator McEwen, bates—because this debate has not had com- through you, Mr President. But it was not parable time, not in relation to speeches on always this bad. the second reading debate and certainly not in relation to the committee stage. The De- I put on the record that the Democrats mocrats have participated in the committee have incorporated one speech, from our report. We have done a minority report. We leader. We have given two speeches, and I have been present for all votes. We have have waited patiently on this speakers list. I been engaged in the debate process. We have have never sought to disrupt the speakers incorporated a speech and had two speakers. list. I have never sought for us to betray or Yet you still managed to gag us and to defy the conventions by which we operate in change the speaking order today. It is a this place. And I am appalled that some sena- shameful day. Today I am really embarrassed tors who should know better have sought to and upset to be a legislator in this place. But do this. We have absolutely quashed and I know the tide will turn, because the Austra- gagged the debate that is before us today. lian people are going to want a check on ex- This is a shameful day on two grounds. The ecutive power after they see the way the first ground is the process—that is, a lack of mandate, so-called, has been abused and substantive opportunity for debate and insuf- used in this place today. It is shocking. To ficient scrutiny of the bills. And I love people those new senators who are culpable: I really lecturing us on the bills when half the people hope that you will hang your heads in shame, in this place who do so probably have not because this place is supposed to be where read a piece of legislation, let alone a pack- we cherish and nurture democracy, not where age of it, for a long time. we abuse it, erode it and undermine it. I seek The second ground is the debate on the leave to incorporate my speech. amendments. We are being told that the gov- Leave granted. ernment has put forward amendments and

CHAMBER 24 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

The speech read as follows— and National Parties believe privatisation should There is no rush to get this important legislation only occur where it is demonstrably in the public through so quickly—the Government’s majority interest … Indeed there are many government will still be there in a year’s time. functions which public interest and accountability considerations demand remain in public owner- This is one of the first clear signals from the gov- ship and control.” ernment that it will use and abuse its majority in this place without due process and analysis. This Government has completely failed to make the case that the sale of Telstra is in the public Is this perhaps some indication of what the next interest. Instead it is intent on selling away the two years, or longer, are going to be like—a gov- interests of consumers, regional and rural Austra- ernment intent only on its own ideological agenda lian’s and mum and dad shareholders. rather than genuine inquiry and debate. If the government was acting in the public inter- There has been no case made that the sale of Tel- est, it would have released the secret document stra is justified—whether it be on competition, Telstra handed to them in August about the true services, legal or financial grounds. extent of its networks failures. The sale of Telstra remains opposed by the over- Instead the Government covered up the report as whelming majority of Australians. Despite its it would have compromised the deal done be- claims, this Government does not have a mandate tween the Liberals and the Nationals for the full to sell Telstra—it may have a mandate to ensure sale of Telstra. interest rates don’t rise—but it does not have a mandate to sell Telstra. The report revealed that 14 per cent of Telstra lines have faults and that there is a gap in invest- Telstra provides a range of services that are abso- ment of approximately 3 billion dollars. This lutely vital to the national security, economic and means there is a 3 billion dollar gap between what social development of Australia. is occurring and what is necessary to ensure that Australians are increasingly reliant on Telstra’s network is adequate and up to scratch. e-commerce and banking and for many small How can the Government, having known the state businesses, efficient and effective communica- of Telstra service and network problems, justify tions are critical. And high speed internet and the full sale of Telstra as being in the interests of broadband connections are indispensable for suc- consumers and shareholders? cessful engagement with the modern economy. It is also deeply concerning to all Australians, as More importantly, an affordable, reliable and it should be to all in this place, that Telstra has efficient communication system is an essential dramatically reduced its focus on research and service for our regional and remote communi- development. Staff numbers at the Telstra Re- ties—bringing together families, neighbours and search Laboratories have been cut by almost half communities. since the early 1990s. Without continued majority Telecommunications is a service which is too ownership, without public scrutiny, Telstra will important to be left to the vagaries of the market continue to reduce its overall research and devel- place. opment activities and re-direct what remains to propping up stock market prices. Government has a necessary role in the provision of telecommunication services—the Democrats According to comments made by Telstra Re- do not see Government ownership and regulation search Laboratories worker Mr Kerry Hinton: of industry as incompatible. “Since partial privatisation in 1996, Telstra Re- search Laboratories management has reflected In fact, based on the Government’s own “Charter Telstra’s move toward Vendor Management and for the National Interest”, the Government has commodity technologies by re-focusing Telstra failed their own test. Research Laboratories’ research effort away from In 1996 the Liberal and National Party policy hardware to software. If Telstra is fully privatised, aptly titled “Privatisation: In the Public Interest with its focus on short-term profit and share price, and the Public Benefit” stated that “the Liberal

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 25 research will be further focused on “value add- Telstra remaining in majority public ownership is ing” to commodity technologies because this is the only way to protect services and jobs for all where the quickest and easiest profits reside.” Mr Australians, particularly in regional and remote Hinton further noted that the equipment Telstra communities. currently purchases is principally designed for As it is, many thousands of Australians in these North American and European markets, markets communities are subject to substandard services. vastly different from our own. Without local ex- This represents a dire threat to people’s health, pertise to ensure such equipment is either com- safety and financial security. This is not an exag- patible or can be made compatible, to conditions geration—this is simply how important telecom- in rural and remote Australia, the most affordable munications are to rural Australians—to all Aus- technologies will not be suitable for deployment tralians. Does anyone honestly think that privati- outside the highly populated and profitable east- sation will improve this situation? ern seaboard. As recently as July 2005 the NSW Farmers’ As- Surely this should be alarming to anyone really sociation released a survey into the state of tele- concerned about rural and regional Australia. communication services in the bush, with more Privatisation will not solve these problems, it will than half of respondents reporting major problems only make them worse as the company focuses including unreliable landline and mobile services. even more on profits and less on services, in- The Democrats do not believe the sale of Telstra vestments and research and development. guarantees affordable and effective telecommuni- At the recent Senate inquiry Telstra indicated that cation services for all Australians. it would be reluctant to increase its investment in This is not about deals and secret handshakes infrastructure under the conditions imposed in the Telstra sale package. made behind closed doors—this is about the farmers in the field, the teachers in the regional It is deeply disturbing that once privatised there schools, the doctors in our remote hospitals and will no recourse to public scrutiny about serious families from all over Australia. failures in Australians largest telecommunications Telecommunications brings together mums and company. dads, brothers and sisters, families and friends. Currently the Telstra Corporations Act provides It’s our link to doctors, police, hospitals, reporting requirements to the Parliament that pri- churches, schools and businesses. vate companies do not have. This includes the requirement for Telstra to submit to scrutiny by In 2001 as part of the Democrats’ election pledge—signed by those of us who faced the Senate Estimates committees and to “requests for information” under the Freedom of Information electorate at that time—which we signed so that the public knew exactly what they were getting, Act. More importantly the Act provides the ability for the Minister to give certain directions to Tel- we opposed the sale of Telstra. stra in the public interest. I am only three years through my 6 year term and I have no intention of breaking that pledge to the Once Telstra is privatised these public account- people who elected me. If anyone in this Cham- ability measures will be gone forever. ber has any doubts that the final sale of Telstra is The reality is that once Telstra is fully privatised not in the interests of ordinary Australians—don’t it will be a giant private monopoly—there will be let this pass. This is our last chance—once it’s no recourse to ensure it acts in the interests of all, gone it’s gone forever. and there will be no adequate mechanism for regulation or control. Senator McEWEN (South Australia) (11.29 am)—I am not sure of the process, but Regional and rural Australians know full well that once Telstra is privatised, services and jobs will I seek leave to incorporate my second read- go just as quickly as those of the banks did when ing speech. Labor privatised them—and there will be no-one Leave granted. to stop the decline. The speech read as follows:

CHAMBER 26 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Mr President I wish to speak against this bill and lia like Geranium and on the way to Loxton in the the related bills, which if passed will allow for the Riverland and on the way to Port Pirie in the Full Private Ownership of Telstra. I wish to start Spencer Gulf that you mobile phone won’t work. the day’s debate by saying Labor opposes the sale I’ve driven from Adelaide to Darwin several of Telstra….just in case that was in doubt. We’ve times and I can tell you there are long, long voted against the sale of Telstra five times before. stretches of that road where your mobile phone What we are debating is just another example of won’t work and where it’s a really long, long way the Government’s headlong pursuit of its extreme between public phone boxes. agenda. And in the debate so far on these bills we I occasionally spend time holidaying Yorke Pen- have had yet more evidence that this Government insula—a few hours drive from Adelaide. To use is out of touch with the people it claims to repre- the mobile phone I have to go outside and climb sent. up and down the sand dunes until I can find a spot Mr President, on Wednesday 7 September 2005, where it will work. I don’t mind not being in mo- Senator Nash said in this place that she believes bile phone contact when I’m at the beach but the “Labor do not care about the bush”. On the same many small businesses, and farmers and perma- day we hard Senator Mason accuse Labor of be- nent residents down there would probably like ing “inner city swingers”—whatever that is , I more certainty of access—certainty of access that don’t know what an “inner city swinger” is, Sena- this Government has had 9 long years to deliver tor Mason obviously does—but according to to the regions but has failed to provide. Senator Mason the salient characteristic of one is, I think I can reliably relay the frustrations of peo- apparently, someone who never go to the bush. ple in the bush who are deprived of the services It’s not a bad line, from Senators Nash and Ma- that are available to some, but not all, other Aus- son. A bit hackneyed and a bit tired like the gov- tralians ernment, and completely untrue but what else It’s no secret that Australians don’t believe the would we expect. Labor takes exception to the Government’s plans to flog off Australia’s com- lack of truth, just like we take exception to Sena- munications future will mean any more or better tor Abetz and others on that side pretending to services for them. know anything about the plight of working people Rural and regional Australians do not support the and to their pathetic insistence on using myths to sale of Telstra because they know that once Tel- justify the Government’s blind adherence to some stra is fully privately owned they have got Buck- ancient, worn out, view of the world of work. ley’s chance of getting those 4265 rural ex- I also take exception to being portrayed as igno- changes upgraded, of getting reliable landline, rant of the concerns of rural and regional Austra- mobile and broadband coverage, and—so impor- lians when clearly it is the Government that is out tantly- of getting the private companies to invest of touch with the bush on the matter of Telstra. in future communication needs for regional Aus- It’s true I am not a member of the doormat faction tralia because…it won’t be profitable for those of the Government and while the doormats might companies to do so and no amount of government have the monopoly on being stood over by the regulation will make private companies stay in a Government, they don’t have a monopoly on go- business that isn’t profitable…just look at what ing bush or speaking for the bush. has happened in the privatised energy industry in South Australia and elsewhere. I have spent quite a bit of time in rural and regional Australia. Regional and rural Australians have got Buckley’s chance of getting what they need now, with Tel- I know people who live less than 200kms from stra under the majority ownership of this neglect- Adelaide who don’t have broadband or mobile ful, incompetent Government. phone coverage. I know that 20kms from Port Augusta—a South Australian rural city of 15000 However what people in the bush know is that by people—your mobile phone doesn’t work. I know keeping Telstra in public hands they will at least that in areas in the mallee region of South Austra- have some chance in the future of having a Gov-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 27 ernment that will invest in telecommunications Australian rural communities aren’t convinced at for them. all with the rhetoric emanating from the Minister What are the facts of this debate? for Communications, the Minister for Finance • and everyone else on the other side who is hell- Australians don’t won’t Telstra sold. Polls bent on flogging Telstra. tell us consistently that 70% of Australians don’t want Telstra sold. You might be interested to know, Mr President, • that I have not always been flavour of the month Australians still don’t want Telstra sold de- with the Local Government Association and the spite 9 long years of this Government trying member councils of the South Australian Provin- to justify selling it cial Cities Association. I was Secretary of the • Labor opposes the sale of Telstra. Union that represented workers in those councils • The Government will sell Telstra. and, occasionally, Mr President, I was in a situa- Who is best representing the wishes of Austra- tion of conflict with the management and elected lians and who is best representing the interests of members of South Australia’s rural and regional Australians in rural, regional and remote commu- councils. I am sure I wouldn’t have been their nities ? first choice of someone to contact about Telstra. Well, not Senator Nash and Senator Mason and But those regional communities are trying to get their Government colleagues, certainly not Sena- someone in this Parliament to listen to their con- tor Joyce who promised he would look after the cerns. Both the LGA and the Provincial Cities bush—well, at least that bit of it that is in Queen- Association have motions on their books oppos- sland—and now apparently has shown by his ing the sale of Telstra …..in the case of the LGA actions this morning show that it is OK to sell out the motion has been on the books for nearly 12 the bush for a very small bag of silver, and who months and NOTHING the Government has said wimped it when he had the opportunity to support in that time has convinced the members of the the motion to delay finalisation of these bills so LGA to rescind their motion opposing the sale of that a proper consideration of them could be Telstra. I understand that the motion is likely to made. be reaffirmed at the LGA Annual General Meet- ing next month. To get back to this ancient, hackneyed myth being perpetrated by some Government Senators in the I am advised, Mr President, that the South Austra- Vaile/Howard/Howard/Vaile/Costello Govern- lian Provincial Cities Association has written ment—I’m not sure which it is—that Labor expressing its opposition to the sale of Telstra to doesn’t care about the bush. Senators and South Australian federal members of Parliament. In the week before this legislation was put into Parliament I was approached by the Local Gov- Some members of this Parliament have responded ernment Association of South Australia to for to the Association. When I last spoke to the CEO advice about what their members, and the mem- of the Association, he told me that Mr Wakelin, bers of the Provincial Cities Association of South the Member for Grey, a Member of this Parlia- Australia could do to get the Government to ment in the other place whose electorate covers change its mind on the sale of Telstra. 92% of the State of South Australia, hadn’t responded to the Provincial Cities Association letter The LGA—which represents all 68 local govern- about the sale of Telstra. ments in South Australia, and the Provincial Cit- ies Association, which represents the major re- Senator Helen Coonan responded, she even vis- gional city councils are totally unconvinced by ited some rural and regional areas of South Aus- the Government’s arguments for the sale of Tel- tralia a couple of months ago I believe. Despite stra. her visit the LGA and Provincial Cities Associa- tion of South Australia still remain unconvinced They wanted to talk to Labor politicians because that Telstra should be privatised. despite all the Government’s assurances and bags of sweets for the Queensland doormats, South

CHAMBER 28 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

I would like to quote from the letter that the Pro- Example 1 vincial Cities Association sent to members of this The January 2005 bushfire on Eyre Peninsula Parliament on 11 August 2005. caused major problems with telephone services, Before I go to the letter, Mr President, I should because significant lengths of cable were strung note that the Provincial Cities Association repre- between trees and not buried as is the norm. The sents the Cities of Port Augusta, Mount Gambier, disastrous size of the bushfire, and the sub stan- Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Victor Harbour, Port Pirie, dard level of Telstra services necessitated the Murray Bridge and the Riverland. All up repre- urgent provision of mobile telephones to be pro- senting about 120,000 electors and the majority of vided to those affected by the bushfire, to enable rural, regional and remote electors in South Aus- a semblance of communication to be established. tralia. When these issues were raised directly with Sena- That’s Rural and regional and remote electors tor Coonan during a visit to the region ( a number who deserve the same telecommunications ser- of weeks ago), they were generally ignored, with vices as everyone else in Australia. the Minister talking about an upgrade of Broad- These provincial cities areas aren’t all Labor band, when residents just want a more reliable strongholds, I will be the first to admit. I would telephone system.” say, and the CEO of the Provincial Cities Asso- Another example from the letter, Mr President, ciation, Mr Ian McSporran, said it to me himself, “The community of Cleve (also on Eyre Penin- the elected members of those Councils represent sula) with a population of approximately 1900 the whole gamut of the political spectrum from and a rate revenue of $1.4 million, has been en- ultra conservative to Labor supporters. There are deavouring to get Telstra to provide a mobile probably more of them at the conservative end of telephone tower in its area at Darke Peak. Telstra the spectrum than the Labor end of the spectrum. has recently advised Council that no mobile However they have put aside political and ideo- phone tower will be installed unless the Council logical differences—something this government enters into a funding agreement” can’t do—and have a thoughtful, considered and What an insult to rural and regional Australians— long standing opposition to the sale of Telstra. no mobile phone service unless your Council I would like to cite some comments from that coughs up some money. And I understand, Mr letter that the Provincial Cities Association sent President, that Senator Coonan on her visit to to, Senators in this House in August 2005. Eyre Peninsula suggested that Darke Peak resi- Insert comments from letter). dents could buy themselves satellite phones! Sat- ellite phones indeed. “As you are well aware, Telstra Senior Executives have already publicly indicated that they cannot No wonder the letter concludes Mr President meet the needs and requirements of regional and “As a vocal opponent of the sale of Telstra, the rural Australia, in having their telecommunication Provincial Cities Association of South Australia systems upgraded to meet what may be termed as calls upon you to oppose the legislation to fully acceptable standards. privatise Telstra, and keep on icon of our country “Despite these admissions the Government ap- in majority Australian Government ownership.” parently continues with its ideological “sale of the And it’s not just the Provincial Cities Association farm”. that are writing their concerns in letters. Here’s “As an example of this intransigence to acknowl- another South Australian example of the scepti- edge that all is not right with telecommunications cism about privatisation of Telstra—a letter to the outside of the major capital cities of Australia, we editor of The Murray Valley Standard, one of submit the following examples on behalf of the South Australia’s regional newspapers, dated Provincial Cities Association: 30 August 2005 from a Mr Tod Cusack of Murray Bridge. Murray Bridge is a rural city of 17000 people located just 80kms kilometres east of Ade- laide I know Murray Bridge quite well but I don’t

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 29 know Mr Cusack, I was just interested in his letter Well, that’s the theory. That’s the theory but when which is a very succinct summary of this whole it comes to the Government’s mad rush to flog off debate. Telstra its not the fact. He says I am amazed at the arrogance of this Government. “I am opposed to the sale of Telstra for two rea- Scrutiny of legislation reduced to a committee sons. Firstly I live on the eastside of Murray hearing of one day and a day and a bit to get a Bridge where we have unacceptable mobile cov- submission in. One day! Referred on Thursday, at erage; in fact it is almost non existent. the Committee for one day and a report due on If service is bad in a major rural city, I would hate the Monday. to think what it would be like in central Australia. Labor put up a perfectly reasonable alternative to Secondly, the government seems hell bent on the Government’s fast and furious path to privati- selling its assets; what happens when there is sation. We said, refer it to the committee for a nothing left to sell? proper inquiry and delay the reporting date for a month. Look at the mess power and water are in since privatisation, need I say more”. But no, that’s too long. The Government says let’s forget due process and let’s get this legislation Sadly, it looks like it is too late for rural and re- through, legislation that 70% of Australians op- gional Australia. Time’s up for rural and regional pose, let’s get it through with a token nod to the Australia and its probably pointless for them to appropriate Senate Committee. try and influence this Government because, whammo, the Bill was in the Parliament, the Sen- The Prime Minister allegedly, recently, made ate Committee meeting to consider the Bill was comments about the “disgraceful” behaviour of set for 9 September and the reporting date was set Telstra management for the 12 October and the Government is going Telstra management was only telling it like it is to use its Senate majority to get the Bills passed This abuse of power in the Senate by this Gov- by the end of this sitting period. ernment is what I call really disgraceful behav- The Government has already used its majority iour. this morning to once again subvert the proper Of course we know why the Government wants to processes of the Senate. use its Senate majority to ram this legislation Unless Senator Joyce or someone else over there through ..its because they got Senator Joyce to finds the courage to oppose these Bills, rural and commit to the deal that he thought looked after regional South Australians will see their last op- his chums and the Government are worried that portunity to preserve telecommunications in Gov- the more he looks at the detail of that deal, the ernment ownership gone. more times he will come back with his hand out Gone, along with any semblance of Government asking for more crumbs to throw to the people he respect for the processes of this Parliament.. says he represents in rural Queensland. And what other reports are out there about the appalling Now there’s a thing I’ve learnt here in these past state of Telstra and the plans that Telstra has to few weeks, Mr President, ….the contempt this slash up to 14000 more staff. Who will provide Government has for the processes of Parliament. services to the bush then? When I was elected a Senator one of the things Senators opposite say competition will provide. people would say to me is “the Senate Committee Well, good luck. Most of Australia thinks you are system is really good”—it is a system that holds wrong and with good reason. I wish the National the Government accountable, that allows for close Party good luck in the next election, you are go- investigation of bills that the Senate has to vote ing to need it on, it gives people the chance to contemplate the impact of proposed legislation. My thanks to all the Australians who have told us in this House that they want us to vote against the sale of Telstra.

CHAMBER 30 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Labor is listening to you however I am sure we way laws and policies are administered by minis- will watch in dismay together as the arrogant, out ters and public servants. The Senate performs the of touch, inept Howard Government destroys role of the house of review and is a powerful Australia’s telecommunication future both in the check on the government of the day. bush and for those inner-city slickers as well. Well, that’s the way it’s supposed to be, but that’s Senator WORTLEY (South Australia) not the way it’s going to be played out, if the ac- (11.30 am)—I seek leave to incorporate my tions of this Government during this sitting of second reading speech. Parliament are any indication.... Leave granted. Consider the facts—eight hours on one day only, is allocated for an inquiry into five pieces of leg- The speech read as follows: islation, which the Senate members on the Telstra There are many Senators who have been in this Inquiry Committee only had access to on the af- chamber for many more hours than I. And some ternoon of the day before the hearing. who have no doubt become slightly jaded with Further, the witnesses that were able to attend, what at times takes place here. The process by had only 24 hours notice of the Inquiry. which the inquiry into the Telstra legislation was So the witnesses all of whom were busy in their established, is testament to that. daily working life, receive a telephone call from However, I’m sure it’s not just because I have the secretariat on Wednesday afternoon advising recently come to this Chamber that I find the them of the Inquiry to take place at 8am on Friday haste with which this legislation is being treated morning. They didn’t have access to the five as astonishing. Bills, until after Thursday lunchtime or sometime And I’m equally sure that there are members on after that, at which they could only access them the opposite side of this Chamber who are princi- on the web. pled enough, who care enough, to feel uncom- So in effect, they had less than 24 hours to pre- fortable about the way the government is attempt- pare their submissions, and make their way to ing to rush the Telstra Bills through. Canberra to attend the Inquiry—many of them I quote from one such colleague who recently having to fly in from other states (including Syd- stated in this chamber: ney, Melbourne and from as far out as Goondi- “...it would be nice to see debate unencumbered windi in Queensland... in this Chamber, not in the caucus room or in the What an incredible impost to place on people you joint party room. Neither of these is mentioned in invite to have input into such an important proc- the Constitution and it is a convenient appendix ess. designed by political parties that was specifically On arrival, the witnesses found they had only not entertained in the Constitution”. limited time for the hearing of evidence—and for I ask of this Senator and others on the opposite committee members to inquire into the issues side of the chamber—why is it—that on such an permitted under the terms of reference. And then, import issue—the sale of Telstra—a request for some were faced with the terms of reference pro- reasonable time for debate and for a real inquiry, hibiting them from speaking about the issues they to enable proper examination of the bills, so that wished to comment on—the privatisation of Tel- interested parties and individuals have the oppor- stra. tunity to properly analyse the documents, form an Australian Competition and Consumer Commis- opinion and comment on them—is not supported. sion representatives had about 12 minutes to have If you go to the Senate web site you will find a real questions asked of them about these complex section titled The Role of The Senate. It says that: pieces of legislation. The Senate’s large and active committee system So the Telstra Inquiry Committee was required to serves the purpose of enabling Senators to inquire receive and read submissions from witnesses, into policy issues in depth and to scrutinise the prepare for and hold public hearings, consider

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 31 evidence, decide on recommendations and write a The money proposed by the government is sig- report all in one working day. nificantly short of the amount needed to fix Tel- Witnesses before the Inquiry raised this very con- stra’s problems. cern, about not having had time to properly con- According to Telstra itself, an additional $5.7 sider the content of the bills .. . billion will be needed to provide adequate access At the one day Claytons Inquiry—the Inquiry you to broadband , including at least $2.6 billion for have, when you don’t want a real inquiry—The rural and remote Australia—and now on top eve- Australian Telecommunications Users Group had rything else we’ve heard in the past few days— this to say and I quote: Telstra admits they have 4265 exchanges which are unserviceable or in need of work. “As part of the statement, we note the bills were released yesterday... Given the time, we will not AAPT summed up an aspect of the hearing pro- provide an exhaustive review from our perspec- cedure in their supplementary submission saying tive...” that it was somewhat surprising how an issue of such fundamental economic significance as tele- From Vodafone I quote: communications services and the regulation of “In the short time that has been available, we telecommunication services, is conducted in an have confined our analysis of the bills to a spe- environment totally free of economic discussion. cific area ...” Another area missing in the analyses of this legis- And from the Consumers Telecommunications lation. Network I quote: And at the inquiry, the Australian Competition “I note that we are the only consumer organisa- and Consumer Commission also raised concerns tion represented here today. That is a huge con- saying that some process issues may merit further cern....so there is definitely a need to have more examination by the government so as to ensure time. Generally, the rule is at least four weeks for that the model—referring to the process of a draft consultation when you get a new bill or discus- operational separation plan—reflects the govern- sion paper ...and generally we hear cries from ments intentions to have a robust set of equiva- industry and consumer organisations that this is lence obligations. inadequate. So a bare minimum at this stage So even they are saying that there’s more work to would be to follow previous practice.” be done on the legislation. And we heard—quote: On the basis of past practice and program admini- “Optus is pleased to offer these comments based stration there are significant questions to be raised upon the review of the legislation we have been about the government’s capacity to ensure ser- able to conduct in the brief time available”. vices are delivered where they are needed. And finally a quote from The National Farmers While we recognise that there have been some Federation: worthwhile projects funded under Regional Part- “We are not taking a position on the sale until we nerships—there has been considerable money see evidence that those problems are going to be wasted on projects that provide little sustainable addressed. We now have the opportunity to view outcome for local communities, and many deserv- the legislation, but we do not have a lot of time to ing regions, have been missed out altogether be- do it.” cause they do not fall within the Governments And now we know that subsequent rapid decision radar screen. making by the National Farmers Federation, show And so there are also questions regarding the they have been the latest victim to be seduced by future fund, given this governments history on the the Howard government’s promises on the provi- Regional Partnerships debacle. sion of telecommunications services now and into So we have opposition Senators saying there the future. wasn’t time to scrutinise the bills prior to the one day inquiry—we have witnesses who appeared at

CHAMBER 32 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 the one day inquiry saying they didn’t have The people of Australia, overwhelmingly, do not enough time to make a substantial and thorough want the sale of the remaining government inter- assessment and contribution and we have corre- est in Telstra, to go ahead. spondence from potential witnesses, with similar Thousands of Australians who have taken the claims. time to contact their parliamentarians— This is not what the people of Australia expect government and opposition—are saying categori- from their Parliament— cally—they don’t want Telstra sold! Fix Telstra, This is not the Australian way—The witnesses don’t sell it—is the message coming across loud and potential witnesses were not given a fair and clear. go!...The Committee was not given a fair go! The But this government is not listening—It doesn’t people of Australia have not been given a fair go! think it needs to—it disregards the views of more In attempting to defend the government’s actions that 70% of Australians that are saying, they don’t in relation to Telstra this week John Howard said want Telstra sold! and I quote: And, according to a recent poll by the Canberra “This is an issue that has been debated inside the Times newspaper, they’re not listening to the 97% Government parties, it has been debated in the of Queenslanders that are opposed to the sale. community, it has been reported into, it’s been There is no urgency to rush these bills through. trawled over and analysed now for, 9 to 10 years What Australian’s want is affordable and accessi- and the time has come for the Parliament to make ble telecommunications across all of Australia. a decision”. Out in the community, many people think the The Prime Minister can’t be serious—the Telstra controversy involving the availability and quality Bills have only been available since Thursday of telecommunication services is restricted to afternoon. Only available to the senators in this regional, remote and rural areas. chamber, only available to the witnesses present- But it’s not only our remote, rural and regional ing submissions to the one day inquiry, only available to the public and only available to the areas who want this and are suffering—major cities in Australia have black spots in telecommu- media since Thursday afternoon. nications—metropolitan consumers too, have Does the Government really believe the media issues regarding levels and provision of services. would be filling air time on radio and television Last year, Telstra was the subject of more than and dedicating columns in newspapers to this very issue, if it was old news. 26,000 complaints made to the telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. The lack of available detail, the lack of opportu- And now we find out that currently 1.4 million nity for real scrutiny, the undue haste in dealing with the passing of the legislation, all combine to Australians have a faulty telephone line, because Telstra has under-invested in its network. produce a lack of accountability to the Australian people by this government. The real life experience of many Australians is A privatised Telstra is all about profits, not peo- one of growing frustration with declining service quality and inability to get modern services like ple...and even then it doesn’t appear to be about affordable broadband. honesty to its shareholders, as illustrated by it not being upfront about where the dividend comes In my home State of South Australia, coming from. number eight in the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s list of worst performing What is missing? What other consequences, gaps, deliberate omissions or deceptions are lurking in exchanges is Blackwood. Blackwood is a suburb of Adelaide, just 13 kilometres from the Adelaide the legislation that the Inquiry was given only hours to consider. GPO. And there are many people who live within 15 minutes of the city of Adelaide who do not have access to ADSL broadband.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 33

One state member has had people come into the Howard government have tried to force through Electorate office the legislation. saying” I may as well live in the out- While this Government has focused on its ex- back..Because we don ‘t have any better facili- treme agenda of rushing through this parliament, ties”. the legislation for the privatisation of Telstra, it One constituent, who runs a tour business, with has neglected real issues in the telecommunica- most of his business coming from overseas was tion sector. told by Telstra that he will not have ADSL broad- Issue like why prices for services in Australia are band for at least another year. among the highest in the world, and why the ap- It is likely that if the issue cannot be otherwise propriate infrastructure has not been put in place resolved, he will need to move from the relatively in metropolitan as well as rural, regional and re- new area he is living in, to an older area which is mote areas. a couple of minutes away. The PRESIDENT—The time allotted for Constituents in the same state electorate of Tor- the consideration of the second reading stage rens attended a meeting in May this year and of these bills has expired. The question is were told by Telstra that it would be up to 3 that the second reading amendment moved months before ADSL broadband would be avail- by Senator Bob Brown be agreed to. able... and now these same people are being told do not bother to apply for at least another year. Question put: At the same meeting constituents in the suburb of That the amendment (Senator Bob Brown’s) Oakden 10 Kilometres from the city were told be agreed to. that the current demand for broadband services The Senate divided. [11.30 am] didn’t warrant a fixed upgrade for their suburb at (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul this stage. Calvert) Since the government commenced its privatisation agenda, services have plummeted and prices Ayes………… 33 have increased... Noes………… 36 How can the people of Australia trust a fully pri- Majority……… 3 vatised Telstra to look after services? We are already suffering from Telstra slashing investment AYES as this Government moves towards its full priva- Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. tisation agenda. Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. The services to remote, rural, regional and some Campbell, G. * Carr, K.J. metropolitan areas of Australia are inadequate. Conroy, S.M. Crossin, P.M. Even if the billions of dollars which lured the Faulkner, J.P. Forshaw, M.G. Nationals to the sale do eventuate, what guaran- Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. tees do we have that future technological ad- Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. vancements will be embraced? Marshall, G. McEwen, A. Under a fully privatised Telstra, what would hap- McLucas, J.E. Milne, C. pen if tele-medicine, remote education and other Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. forms of e-health and e-education, beyond what Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. we can imagine today didn’t generate the desired Polley, H. Sherry, N.J. profit? Will Telstra be there, prepared to deliver? Siewert, R. Stephens, U. Labor regards telecommunications services as Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. essential services that should be accessible and Webber, R. Wong, P. affordable to all Australians, and has voted Wortley, D. against the sale of Telstra on every occasion the

CHAMBER 34 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

NOES niary interests, they should do so now. That Abetz, E. Adams, J. is current standing orders. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. The PRESIDENT—That is up to sena- Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. tors themselves, and they would be well Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. aware of the rules. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Senator Heffernan—Mr President, on a Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * point of order: I would like to declare an in- Fierravanti-Wells, C. Heffernan, W. terest on behalf of everyone in the chamber. I Hill, R.M. Humphries, G. have got a phone. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, J.A.L. The PRESIDENT—The question now is Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. that the second reading amendment circu- Minchin, N.H. Nash, F. lated by Senator Milne be agreed to. Parry, S. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M. Senator Milne’s amendment read as fol- Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. lows— Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. Omit all words after “That”, substitute “further Vanstone, A.E. Watson, J.O.W. consideration of the bills be postponed and made PAIRS an order of the day for the next day of sitting after the Minister for Communications, Information Allison, L.F. Kemp, C.R. Technology and the Arts tables in the Senate the Evans, C.V. Fifield, M.P. family impact statement on the sale of Telstra, Ray, R.F. Macdonald, I. * denotes teller specifying the likely impact on Australian families including costs and service availability result- Question negatived. ing from the sale of Telstra”. In division— A division having been called and the Senator Bob Brown—On a point of or- bells being rung— der, Mr President. I again draw senators’ at- Senator Bob Brown—Mr President, I ask tention to the pecuniary interest clauses in that you request the Clerk to read out the the standing orders, which make it clear that motion for the benefit of the chamber. any senators who have not declared on that The PRESIDENT—The amendment has list that they have an interest in Telstra been circulated in printed form and there is should do so at this juncture. no need for it to be read. The PRESIDENT—I remind you again, The Senate divided. [11.39 am] Senator, that you are operating on the previous standing orders, as I reminded you be- (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul fore. Calvert) Senator Bob Brown—No, I am not. I am Ayes………… 33 operating on the current ones. Noes………… 36 The PRESIDENT—I am sorry; you are Majority……… 3 not. I am advised by the Clerk that you are— AYES so that is the end of that. Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Senator Bob Brown—Mr President, my Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. point was that if there are any senators who Campbell, G. * Carr, K.J. have not listed an interest on the list of pecu- Conroy, S.M. Crossin, P.M. Faulkner, J.P. Forshaw, M.G.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 35

Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. The PRESIDENT—The question now is Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. that the second reading amendment circu- Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. lated by Senator McLucas be agreed to. Marshall, G. McEwen, A. McLucas, J.E. Milne, C. Senator McLucas’s amendment read as Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. follows— Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. At the end of the motion add “but the Senate: Polley, H. Sherry, N.J. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. (a) condemns the Government for failing Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. to honour the Telstra election promise Webber, R. Wong, P. of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), Wortley, D. that “we won’t sell another share until we’re satisfied, completely satisfied NOES that things in the bush are up to Abetz, E. Adams, J. scratch;” and Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. (b) notes that: Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. (i) Telstra’s secret briefing to the Gov- Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. ernment on 11 August 2005 con- Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. firms that one in seven lines are Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * faulty, Fierravanti-Wells, C. Heffernan, W. (ii) the Australian Communications and Hill, R.M. Humphries, G. Media Authority has found that the Johnston, D. Joyce, B. worst performing exchanges in the Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, J.A.L. country service rural, regional and Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. remote communities, Minchin, N.H. Nash, F. (iii) the Minister for Communications, Parry, S. Patterson, K.C. Information Technology and the Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M. Arts (Senator Coonan) has admitted Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. that rural, regional and remote tele- Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. phone services are less reliable than Vanstone, A.E. Watson, J.O.W. metropolitan services, PAIRS (iv) the Government has overseen under- Allison, L.F. Kemp, C.R. investment of $2 to 3 billion in the Evans, C.V. Fifield, M.P. Telstra network over the past 3 to 5 Ray, R.F. Macdonald, I. years, * denotes teller (v) the proposed Connect Australia pro- Question negatived. gram will not adequately address the In division— existing service deficiencies in regional, rural and remote Australia, Senator Bob Brown—On a point of or- (vi) returns from the proposed Commu- der, Mr President: this is a motion that a fam- nications Fund will provide only a ily impact statement be presented by the fraction of the existing ongoing Tel- government. Was Senator Fielding notified stra dividend stream to government, that this motion was now being voted on in (vii) necessary telecommunications infra- the Senate? structure investment can be made The PRESIDENT—There is no point of from Telstra’s existing dividend order, Senator; you know that. stream to government, and (viii) the sale of Telstra will consign re- Question negatived. gional, rural and remote Australians

CHAMBER 36 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

to second rate telecommunications Ray, R.F. Macdonald, I. services in the future”. Sherry, N.J. Fifield, M.P. The Senate divided. [11.43 am] * denotes teller (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Question negatived. Calvert) Original question put: Ayes………… 33 That the bills be now read a second time. Noes………… 36 The Senate divided. [11.50 am] Majority……… 3 (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Calvert) AYES Ayes………… 35 Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. Noes………… 33 Campbell, G. * Carr, K.J. Majority……… 2 Conroy, S.M. Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. Faulkner, J.P. AYES Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Abetz, E. Adams, J. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Boswell, R.L.D. Brandis, G.H. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Calvert, P.H. Campbell, I.G. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. McEwen, A. McLucas, J.E. Coonan, H.L. Eggleston, A. Milne, C. Moore, C. Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. Murray, A.J.M. Nettle, K. Ferris, J.M. * Fierravanti-Wells, C. O’Brien, K.W.K. Polley, H. Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. Humphries, G. Johnston, D. Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. Joyce, B. Lightfoot, P.R. Webber, R. Wong, P. Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. Wortley, D. McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. NOES Nash, F. Parry, S. Abetz, E. Adams, J. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Trood, R. Vanstone, A.E. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Watson, J.O.W. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. NOES Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Heffernan, W. Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. Hill, R.M. Humphries, G. Campbell, G. * Carr, K.J. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Conroy, S.M. Crossin, P.M. Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, J.A.L. Evans, C.V. Faulkner, J.P. Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. Fielding, S. Forshaw, M.G. Minchin, N.H. Nash, F. Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. Parry, S. Patterson, K.C. Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M. Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. Marshall, G. McEwen, A. Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. McLucas, J.E. Milne, C. Vanstone, A.E. Watson, J.O.W. Moore, C. Nettle, K. PAIRS O’Brien, K.W.K. Polley, H. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. Allison, L.F. Kemp, C.R. Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 37

Webber, R. Wong, P. stitution. The bill appears to appropriate Wortley, D. money for the administration of two func- PAIRS tions which appear to be continuing func- Fifield, M.P. Sherry, N.J. tions for which appropriations have been Kemp, C.R. Allison, L.F. made in the past, although one of the func- Macdonald, I. Ray, R.F. tions seems to be created by the amalgama- * denotes teller tion and renaming of existing functions. Ap- Question agreed to. propriations having been made for these Bills read a second time. functions in the past, the classification of the bill as an ordinary annual services bill would In Committee appear to be in accordance with the Compact The CHAIRMAN (11.55 am)—There are of 1965 between the Senate and the govern- two technical aspects of these telecommuni- ment relating to ordinary annual services, as cations bills to which I should draw atten- interpreted since that time by the Appropria- tion, as they relate to the processes of the tions and Staffing Committee and the Senate. Senate under section 53 of the Constitution. There remains a question of whether the In the Telstra (Transition to Full Private original appropriations for these functions Ownership) Bill 2005 there are provisions should have been in the ordinary annual ser- which are described in the explanatory vices bill, but that cannot affect considera- memorandum as ‘switching off’ appropriation of these bills. tion provisions in the Telecommunications These points should be recorded in the in- Corporation Act 1991. In effect, they cease terest of clarity of Senate precedents. the operation of special or standing appro- The first bill for consideration is the Tel- priation provisions in the act after the com- stra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) mencement of the provisions in the bill. In Bill 2005. the Telecommunications Legislation TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL Amendment (Competition and Consumer PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 2005 Issues) Bill 2005 there are provisions which are described as ‘switching on’ the same ap- Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. propriation provisions in the principal act. Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) The reason for these seemingly strange pro- (11.58 am)—My first question, now that we visions appears to be that the bill will have have gone through that extraordinary process the effect of extending the appropriations to of truncating the debate so that the Prime a new purpose, namely the new sale of Tel- Minister can come home and find this tawdry stra shares. Because this bill was initiated in process has been completed in his absence, is the Senate, it could have been interpreted as to the minister about the $2 billion fund for initiating an appropriation in the Senate con- maintaining services. I ask the minister if she trary to section 53 of the Constitution. This can tell the committee what, in real terms on arrangement in the bills does not derogate an annual basis, the contribution to ensuring from the normal process of the Senate. services from that $2 billion fund will be The second point relates to the Appropria- now, 10 years from now and 50 years from tion (Regional Telecommunications Ser- now. vices) Bill 2005-2006. This bill is expressed Senator COONAN (New South Wales— as a bill for the ordinary annual services of Minister for Communications, Information the government under section 53 of the Con- Technology and the Arts) (11.59 am)—I will

CHAMBER 38 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 get some advice with the appropriate calcula- I am shocked that she does not know it. The tions. Obviously the fund will be constituted government have been touting this $2 billion. as soon as there is assent, if these bills are Senator Joyce caught them out saying, ‘Up passed, and will start to accrue interest and to.’ The minister rectified that. She says it is that will be invested in the fund. But I will cash. I am shocked that the government do actually do your math for you; I will have it not know what the expected interest flow-on done for you and get the calculation done. from that for the next year, let alone for the Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) next 50 years, is going to be. Let us hear it (11.59 am)—What an extraordinary thing! from the minister. It is crucial to the debate. The minister has not done her ‘math’, as she It is appalling and it is a sign of the unpre- calls it in the Americanised version, which I paredness of the government for this sale, guess is appropriate seeing as we are dealing which is going through for doctrinaire rea- with this legislation. Therefore, senators on sons without the homework that should be my left—the National Party senators— done and without the committee that should cannot know what the amount is either. The have investigated this central point that won minister has not told them, because she does Senator Joyce over. The minister does not not know. I gather from what the minister know what the amount of money is going to said that it will be the interest from this $2 be per year; Senator Joyce does not know billion that will flow to the upkeep of the and nor does anybody else in this committee. Telstra system, which is in such a shambles It is extraordinary that the minister is un- that, according to Telstra itself, $2 billion to able to get to her feet on this. She is stuck in $3 billion was required just to bring it up to her seat and does not have an answer. Let us scratch. My math is that the principal— go on to the next question—that is, the mat- Senator Faulkner—You sound like a ter of 10,000 jobs. Can the minister give an Yank yourself. assurance to the committee that jobs will not be shed under the new privatised arrange- Senator BOB BROWN—I thank you, ment in which the government will effec- Senator, because I want to be Australian tively retain control down to the instant when here. My maths says— its shareholding falls below 15 per cent? It Senator Coonan—I said ‘maths’, Bob. will retain control even though it will have a Don’t be ridiculous! minority shareholding once it sells off 1.8 Senator BOB BROWN—That has per cent of the shares. Will the minister give cleared that matter. The question here relates an assurance that 10,000, 2,000, 1,000 or 200 to the amount of money that is going to flow jobs will not be shed from Telstra? We all to Telstra when we know that $2 billion to $3 know that the job-shedding business is going billion was required in the last few years to to hit those who are in the bush and those upkeep Telstra. The minister should know supplying services. It is not going to be the that. That Senator Joyce did not get that from millionaires at the top of this who are going the minister shows how short of the mark to lose out; it is going to be the ordinary folk. any assurance from this government about What that says is that Telstra, in the name of the upkeep of Telstra is, especially when we becoming lean—that is, making more profits know that 14 per cent of lines are not work- for those who hold the shares—is going to ing adequately. I think it is important and oversee a mass exit of Telstra workers. Can urgent that the minister gives the committee the minister give an assurance that there will this information as soon as possible. Frankly, be no move towards mass sackings or mass

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 39 exiting of workers in the wake of this legisla- mittee stage, and I will do so in a moment. tion becoming law? Before I do that, I want to say that I think we Senator COONAN (New South Wales— have seen this morning an extraordinary Minister for Communications, Information situation in which a government and a minis- Technology and the Arts) (12.04 pm)—I can ter, who cannot win an argument in the in fact tell Senator Brown that yesterday chamber, decided upon a tactic of not having there was a story being peddled by Senator the argument at all. They are not having the Conroy and obviously taken up with alacrity debate, because they cannot win it. We have by Senator Brown that Telstra was about to the miserable and almost unprecedented sack 10,000 people. Senator Conroy stated situation in which a government have com- that 10,000 jobs were on the line, or 14,000 bined a guillotine and a gag. They were not jobs, as reported in the media. Yesterday, even willing to have a debate about whether Telstra issued a statement correcting that we should have a debate. The government peddling of misinformation. The statement is were not even willing to go to that extent. It dated 13 September. Telstra has announced is obvious that the government are desperate to the Stock Exchange that it has introduced to have this vote through today before the a number of immediate measures to address whole show unravels. the deterioration in the company’s earnings We know the National Party have got a outlook and that it will introduce further conference coming up on the weekend. Who measures to drive earnings growth and re- knows what the outcome of the National duce costs as the CEO completes his strate- Party’s federal conference might be? We gic review of the company’s operations. The know that the Liberal Party completely statement explicitly said: dominates the National Party in this parlia- Telstra has not taken any decision to cut 10,000 ment. We know that particularly in the Sen- jobs as stated by Senator Conroy, or 14,000 jobs ate the Liberal Party completely dominates as reported in the media. the National Party. We have the extraordi- Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) nary situation where in 9½ years of the (12.05 pm)—The minister ducked that an- Howard government not one National Party swer. Will the minister give this committee senator in this place has been considered by the family impact statement that the Prime Mr Howard and his government of sufficient Minister said had been done on the sale of merit to be able to sit in a Howard cabinet or Telstra? Will she present it and give it to the outer ministry. Not one of those clowns has committee while this debate is taking place? been of sufficient merit to become a minister—not one. None of them has been appoin- Senator COONAN (New South Wales— table. Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (12.05 pm)—The Senator Ronaldson—Mr Chairman, on a answer is that the family impact statement point of order: with the greatest respect to was prepared for the consideration of cabinet Senator Faulkner, I fail to see how this could in connection with its deliberations on the possibly be relevant to this debate. I ask you Telstra package. I am certainly not going to to bring him back to the matters before the be producing a cabinet document. chamber. Senator FAULKNER (New South Senator Conroy—Mr Chairman, on the Wales) (12.06 pm)—I would also like to ad- point of order: I am glad that newly elected dress a question to the minister in this com- Senator Ronaldson sees fit to bring us his

CHAMBER 40 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 wisdom from the House of Representatives, ard ministry in 9½ years—they are such a where he used to serve. This is a debate poor lot, they are such a pathetic group of about the objectives. It is free and far rang- representatives that they have at least made a ing. You can cover anything you want, Sena- world record in that regard: for the first time tor Ronaldson. So, while I appreciate that in the history of coalition government in you are the government’s hit man from the Australia not one of them has been able to Reps, the former whip, get yourself across serve in a ministry. Apart from that, of Senate standing orders and understand how course, not one of them is capable of putting the committee process works in the Senate a case in this chamber. Not one of them is before you seek to get on your feet and make capable of defending their own position. a fool of yourself. They have got to let their coalition partners Senator Ronaldson—Mr Chairman, on a do their dirty work for them. further point of order: I would be grateful if What a terrible situation it is for the Na- the— tional Party. Black Jack McEwen would be The CHAIRMAN—Is this a further point rolling in his grave if he saw the level of rep- of order? resentation that the former Country Party, the now National Party, has in this chamber. He Senator Ronaldson—wisdom came from would be rolling in his grave to see the way the chair, not from Senator Conroy. that the National Party has sold out its con- The CHAIRMAN—Senator Ronaldson, stituency and sold out its core beliefs in this there is no point of order. debate. He would be rolling in his grave be- Senator FAULKNER—I am sorry that cause the National Party senators are not members of the Liberal Party do not want to even willing to put up an argument in their hear this but I can understand that. They are own defence. always doing the dirty work for the National My question in this committee stage de- Party. That is the way it works in the Howard bate is a follow-on from one that Senator government and it is the way it works in this Brown asked about the parlous situation we chamber. The whole principle is that the Lib- now know about in relation to the impact of eral Party will save their coalition partners the sale of Telstra on the jobs of Telstra from themselves. The Liberal Party will take workers. Given that we now know, given the all the heat and the National Party will not admissions of Telstra today, that they have front up to debate the issues, will not ensure created a redundancy fund, we need the min- that we have a proper examination of the ister to confirm for the committee that Tel- legislation before the chamber and is going stra have established a redundancy fund. to ensure that the 70 per cent of the Austra- That is the first question I would like the lian community who do not want to see the minister to address. full privatisation of Telstra are going to be The second question I would like the min- sold out. That is what the National Party is ister to address is to indicate to the commit- going to deliver and they are going to deliver tee when that fund was established, if she it without debate in this chamber and without can. But most importantly—more impor- a thorough examination of the legislation tantly than those two questions, even though that we have before us. they are of crucial significance to the com- Not only are the National Party senators mittee—I would like the minister to indicate incapable of serving in the Howard minis- to the committee how much money is in the try—not one senator has served in the How-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 41 redundancy fund. What comprises the redun- way in which it manages redundancies—if, dancy fund? I would like her to provide a indeed, there are any. That is certainly some- dollar figure to the committee in relation to thing that the government would expect, and that fund. we have no reason to think that Telstra would Senator COONAN (New South Wales— act otherwise than responsibly and according Minister for Communications, Information to law. Technology and the Arts) (12.13 pm)—I can I want to place on the record my personal confirm that Telstra did mention that they view. I have a great deal of sympathy for had created a redundancy fund at the time of anyone, quite frankly, whose job may be un- their annual results. I do not have any figure der threat. I do not know whether that is the with me, if indeed the figure was mentioned, case, but in a corporate situation, where or- but that is something that obviously can be ganisations have to make commercial deci- asked. In relation to Senator Faulkner’s sions and where some people’s jobs are the broader point, I think it is fair to say that casualty of those restructurings or reviews, there was a scare campaign started yesterday we would expect the corporation to act re- by the Labor Party or by the union—I am not sponsibly and according to law, and I have sure where it came from—about an alleged no reason to think that it would do anything document that obviously does not exist ac- other than act legally. cording to Telstra. Telstra has in fact put out Senator FAULKNER (New South a statement refuting the fact that there is a Wales) (12.16 pm)—I am not impressed by document. Its statement says: those crocodile tears from the minister in Senator Conroy has referred to a 104-page relation to the thousands of Telstra employ- document. Telstra is not aware of the specific ees who are going to lose their jobs. Minis- document referred to. ter, I do not think that many people will Senator Conroy, I am sure that people are worry too much about the difference between sneaking around trying to give you informa- 10,000 and up to 14,000 employees. Most tion, but Telstra says that it is not aware of people will come to the conclusion that that the specific document and it specifically re- is a huge number of Australians and a huge futes both of the figures that have been ped- number of Australian families that will be dled—the figure of 10,000 jobs, as stated by affected. Most decent people would accept Senator Conroy yesterday, and the figure of that that is a monstrous situation. You have 14,000 jobs, as reported in the media. So we now confirmed in this Committee of the have to assume, for the sake of this commit- Whole that a redundancy fund has been set tee stage and for the sake of my answer, that up. So at least we have that confirmation Telstra has refuted both of the figures and from you. that neither of the figures, the one mentioned Senator Coonan—I have not. by Senator Conroy and the one in the media more broadly, are correct. Senator FAULKNER—You have confirmed in this committee stage that a redun- There has been, and there is, a strategic dancy fund has been established—a redun- review under way at Telstra. I do not know dancy fund has been created. Minister, what whether or not that review has in contempla- this committee wants to know is what that tion any rationalisation of jobs. But, if it has, redundancy fund comprises. What is the that is a matter for Telstra management, and I quantum in that redundancy fund? You have would expect Telstra to act responsibly in the said you might try and find that out. That is

CHAMBER 42 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 not good enough. I would have expected a this debate died at eight o’clock last Friday communications minister to be well aware of morning, when you refused to come to the this detail before she came along today to committee hearing. You wandered around take part in the committee stage debate on this building with your mobile phone to your these bills. I would have expected a halfway ear and you abrogated any sense of responsi- competent communications minister to have bility on behalf of the Greens. established that when she first became aware The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN of the existence of the redundancy fund. So I (Senator Barnett)—Order! Senator Ronald- say to you again: as you have confirmed for son, I would ask you to ignore the interjec- us that a redundancy fund has been estab- tions. lished, so we know there are going to be Tel- Senator RONALDSON—Mr Temporary stra job losses, the issue is the amount of Chairman, it was such an appalling act by jobs that will be lost—the number of workers Senator Brown that every time it is even who will become redundant. That is the first mentioned, I am afraid that I get in a height- issue, Minister. ened state of anxiety on behalf of the people If you are unable to indicate to this com- who voted for the Australian Greens— mittee whether the figure is 10,000 or up to Senator Conroy—They don’t want to 14,000—those appalling figures—let us have know about your heightened state of anxiety. an accurate figure from you about the num- Too much information! ber of Telstra workers who will lose their jobs, so that we know the number of Austra- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— lian families that are going to be affected by Order! I ask Senator Ronaldson to address this. And while you are at it, so that we can the committee. make our own assessments, tell the truth to Senator RONALDSON—Indeed, they this committee about the quantum amount said to me: ‘Why is it that you’re the only that is contained within the redundancy fund. person who has bothered to come to see us That is a perfectly reasonable question. It is about our loss of international telephony proper information for you to provide to this jobs? We invited Labor Party senators in committee, and we expect you to provide it government to come to Ballarat to speak to now. us. Why haven’t they come and why have Senator RONALDSON (Victoria) (12.20 you come?’ Quite rightly, the question of pm)—I vividly remember being in an inter- jobs in any industry and in any company in national telephony room in Ballarat a sub- this country is discussed in this chamber. stantial number of years ago. It was probably What has to be realised is that we have an in about 1992. I was invited there by the pre- organisation at the moment that is borrowing dominantly female employees of Telstra in from its own funds to pay— the international telephony section. They said Senator Lundy—I raise a point of order, to me at that time, ‘Thank you most sincerely Mr Temporary Chair. I am concerned that the for coming here as our local member; we are senator is misleading the Senate. In fact, La- predominantly union members.’ bor senators would have gone to Ballarat if Senator Bob Brown—What do they say we had been permitted to have a full and now? substantive inquiry into this matter, and we were not. Senator RONALDSON—Senator Brown, I am afraid that your participation in

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 43

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— ing the chamber when he makes statements There is no point of order. like that, and you should call him to order. Senator RONALDSON—What an ex- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— traordinary interjection: that Labor senators There is no point of order. would have gone if there had been an inquiry Senator RONALDSON—I will explain into the international telephony service job further why the Labor Party denied Senator losses. Why didn’t they pick up the phone Fielding and Senator Stott Despoja the op- after they were approached by the union portunity to speak. I thought it was quite dis- members, some of whom had been there for graceful. 35 or 40 years? They were conspicuous by Senator Lundy—I raise a point of order, their absence. How dare you preach to me Mr Temporary Chair. The Senator is telling about having an inquiry in Ballarat to talk this chamber a lie. about international telephony job losses. What a lot of utter rot! If that is the only con- Senator Coonan—Mr Temporary Chair, tribution you can make, then you should not on the point of order: I do not really think say another word in this chamber. that is parliamentary language. The realities are that the single greatest The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It is contribution this chamber can make to future not parliamentary language. Senator Lundy, I jobs for Telstra employees is to pass this leg- would ask you to withdraw. islation. Then and only then would this or- Senator Lundy—I withdraw, but I still ganisation be free to start accessing the capi- make the point that he is not telling the truth. tal markets it needs to to grow and Senator Conroy—Mr Temporary Chair, strengthen. If you are serious about protect- on the point of order: once again Senator ing jobs, you will pass this legislation so this Ronaldson is misleading the chamber. He is organisation, which has its hands tied behind actually telling an untruth and it is not com- its back and is incapable of investing in petent within standing orders to blatantly modern technology and employing Austra- mislead the chamber like that, and you lian men and women, can get on and do the should call him to order. job. I am sick and tired of the crocodile tears The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I coming from the other side of this chamber. I have listened to the point of order and I am sick and tired of the platitudes I have would draw Senator Ronaldson’s attention to heard over the last 24 hours. How dare you the question that we are debating in commit- deny Senator Fielding and Senator Stott De- tee. spoja the opportunity to speak in relation to this bill. Every single member of the Labor Senator RONALDSON—I am appalled Party over the last— at those attacks on me and accusing me of lying to the Senate. I am absolutely appalled Senator Conroy—I raise a point of order, because— Mr Temporary Chair. It is not competent for a senator to mislead the chamber in this way. Senator Lundy interjecting— This government moved the gag. This gov- Senator RONALDSON—I ask Senator ernment refused a motion to allow Senators Lundy to withdraw that; that reflection is Fielding, Stott Despoja and Joyce to speak. totally unacceptable. This senator voted against it. He is mislead- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I could not hear the interjection.

CHAMBER 44 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Senator RONALDSON—She knows the reverse filibuster to block time to protect what she said. the minister and truncate debate. Mr Tempo- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I rary Chair, I ask you to bring the member ask you, Senator Ronaldson, to ignore the into line with the committee’s deliberations. interjections. He is not doing that at the moment. I know that it is very likely you will rule that out of Senator RONALDSON—This is an ap- order, but I am appealing for a decent proc- palling attack on me today. I have been ess here. bringing the Senate’s attention to the fact that a large number of Labor Party senators—if The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— not all of them—who have spoken on this There is no point of order, but I would ask bill have taken up a large amount of time Senator Ronaldson to address the question doing so and have denied Senator Fielding before the chair. and Senator Stott Despoja the opportunity to Senator RONALDSON—In fact, if fili- speak. They made a number of comments bustering is talking about jobs and invest- relating to their opposition to the sale of Tel- ment and untying the hands of Telstra, then stra and indeed their opposition to the own- there will be a lot of filibustering in this ership question. They have wasted the Sen- chamber today, as there has been already. ate’s time because their own shadow minister Senator Bob Brown—At least you have has made it quite clear that the Labor Party is admitted it. not concerned about the ownership struc- Senator RONALDSON—Senator ture—and I will quote him in a minute. The Brown, why don’t you just sit down. You senators on the other side who jumped up abrogated any right of response that you had and spoke time after time in relation to this last Friday, so you are not relevant to this matter were actually not following Labor debate. Party line. By not following Labor Party line, they denied Senator Fielding and Senator The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Stott Despoja the opportunity to speak. I will Order! Senator Ronaldson, I would ask you quote— to ignore the interjections. Senator Lundy—What are you talking Senator RONALDSON—I quote what about, you goose? We have serious questions the shadow minister said on the Jon Faine to ask the minister. Why don’t you let us? show: Senator RONALDSON—If you hang on It makes no difference to the majority of Austra- a tick, you will find out. On 16 August on the lians one way or the other about the ownership structure. What they care about is what’s the best Jon Faine show— way to get cheaper prices and better services. Senator Lundy interjecting— What is the best way to get cheaper prices Senator RONALDSON—Do you want and better services? The best way to get to hear it or not? cheaper prices and better services is for there Senator Bob Brown—I raise a point of to be more competition. So in Labor Party’s order, Mr Temporary Chair. The government own words there is an acknowledgment that is guillotining debate here. We have just a the ownership structure is not an issue. I couple of hours to get information from the thank Senator Conroy for that, because he is minister, and we now have a government absolutely right, and the majority of Austra- backbencher engaged in a filibuster. This is lians believe what Senator Conroy said. The best way to get better services is to have bet-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 45 ter competition, to untie the arm from behind explain his ratting on his own promise, in his Telstra and let them get on with it, to access garbled attempt to justify how he promised those capital markets and to invest in the the Queensland public that he would vote future of telecommunications in this country. against the sale of Telstra but ratted. He That is the best way to maintain jobs. That is campaigned on that in the election. the best way to get services. That is the best Senator Ronaldson—You are verballing way to get cheaper prices. him. Senator CONROY (Victoria) (12.31 Senator CONROY—No, I am not. To be pm)—I enjoy Senator Ronaldson’s contribu- fair to Senator Ronaldson, he has at least tions, not least because he has brought with said, ‘I will sell Telstra.’ To be fair to Senator him the art form that he helped develop in Coonan, she said—and campaigned on it—‘I the House of Representatives, which is to will vote for the sale of Telstra.’ So you have verbal someone and selectively quote. Sena- got to give Senator Ronaldson and Senator tor Ronaldson has been on his feet and he Coonan credit: they are at least keeping their has talked all the way through the committee word; they are keeping their party’s policy process. He is like the donkey in Shrek jump- commitment, which was to sell Telstra. But ing up and down shouting, ‘Pick me!’ He just Senator Joyce promised not to. He said, ‘I wants to be noticed and to impress every- agree with the Prime Minister on a lot of body with what an effective politician and things but I won’t be voting to sell Telstra.’ parliamentary spokesman he is. He is just The Queensland party president said that too, like the donkey in Shrek: ‘Pick me! Pick me! and Senator Joyce campaigned right Pick me! I want to be on the front bench, throughout the election campaign last year please,’ he says. on the basis that the Queensland National Senator Carr interjecting— Party ‘are opposed to the sale of Telstra’— Senator CONROY—I know he is. pure and simple; no ifs, no buts, no ‘make me an offer’; they were opposed to the sale. Senator Carr interjecting— So Senator Joyce gave a pathetically garbled Senator CONROY—That is true. He is explanation of what he is trying to do and Peter Costello’s numbers man. That is true, how he has extracted things from the gov- Senator Carr. He is the hit-man. Do you ernment. know that I saw the entire Costello faction Let us be sure on this. Senator Joyce’s fa- having coffee yesterday around one table at vourite number is $3 billion—‘I got $3 bil- Aussie’s? lion. I extracted $3 billion from the govern- Senator Carr—Is that right? ment.’ I do not know how you feel having Senator CONROY—They filled up one that much money extracted from you, Sena- table—six of them. tor Coonan, but I am going to defend you. In Senator Carr—Who paid the bill? actual fact you played Barnaby for a mug, an absolute mug, because what Senator Joyce The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN was able to extract was a commitment to (Senator Hutchins)—Senator Carr, I do not spend $1.1 billion over four years. That is know if Senator Conroy can answer that. $250 million a year. To be fair to Senator Senator CONROY—But let us be clear: Joyce, that does buy a lot of photo opportuni- there are some serious issues that I now want ties for National Party members in marginal to take up. Senator Joyce made some com- and safe seats, because they are losing out ments this morning in his garbled attempt to

CHAMBER 46 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 every day to independents and, more impor- Senator CONROY—Senator Ronaldson, tantly, to Liberals. Senator Joyce is actually so you are aware of the forms of the cham- voting to give the Liberal Party more re- ber: committees are actually there for the gional and rural seats, because what is the opposition to ask questions in, and not for point in voting for National Party senators the government to come along and take half when in the end all they do is agree with the time. The tradition has been that the John Howard and do what he wants? That is committees allow the opposition and the mi- why there has been a collapse. People in nor parties to question. It is not for you to country and regional Australia say: ‘Why come along and take half the time and waste bother voting for the monkey? I’ll vote for it. You can; you are entitled to it. the organ grinder’—and that is what has ac- Senator Ronaldson—But you agreed to tually been happening. They are happy to the limit. You agreed to it. vote for the Liberal Party because there is no Senator CONROY—Let us be clear: you point in wasting their vote on a National moved a gag on the committee stage. Party member or senator. Senator Ronaldson—On a point of order: That is why The Nationals are in terminal it is totally inappropriate for Senator Conroy decline; that is why they are actually going to misrepresent me. The committee had a out backwards. That is why Bob Katter sur- meeting before the hearing started and there vives so strongly in a former National Party was an agreement as to time limit. seat and that is why Tony Windsor survives so strongly in a former National Party seat; The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— they have actually been prepared to vote the There is no point of order, Senator Ronald- way they say. But Barnaby Joyce has stood son. up today and made a number of references to Senator CONROY—There is certainly how he knows more about this bill than any- no point of order. It is also a serious misrep- body else in the building and how he has resentation. In this chamber, Senator Ronald- done what the Labor Party should have done, son and every other government senator which is read the bill. voted to gag the committee to one day. I ar- There is only one problem: Senator Ba- rived at the committee a few minutes early to rnaby Joyce voted to gag the committee find Senator Ronaldson outside with a piece process—he did vote on this—when he sat of paper summonsing Senator Eggleston and on the other side of the chamber and said, ‘I Senator Santoro to a quick caucus and say- am going to limit the committee hearing to ing, ‘This is what we will agree to.’ one day and I will limit Senator Conroy in Senator Eggleston—On a point of order: the committee to 12 minutes’—that is, four that is simply not true. Senator Santoro was questions. That was the entire opposition not there. He was in Sydney, so how could time available to question such an important he be in Canberra on Friday? witness as Graeme Samuel, the chair of the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Australian Competition and Consumer There is no point of order. Sit down please, Commission, so that Senator Ronaldson and Senator Eggleston. the government could engage in a filibuster Senator Ferris—Stick to the truth. even in the committee stage. Senator CONROY—The truth is that at Senator Ronaldson interjecting— the committee— Senator Eggleston interjecting—

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 47

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Sit Senator Eggleston—Senator Ronaldson down, please, Senator Eggleston. did not wave to people outside the commit- Senator CONROY—Sit down and let me tee— finish before you jump to your feet, Senator The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Sit Eggleston. It was not on the morning of the down, Senator Eggleston. There is no point committee that this little caucus took place; it of order. was the day before, after the Senate had Senator CONROY—To be fair to Sena- passed its— tor Joyce, he attended the hearing. He did Senator Ferris—How do you know what attempt on a number of occasions to ask they were even talking about? some questions. He was not allowed to be- Senator CONROY—I walked up to them cause the government was still terrified of as it was happening, Senator Ferris. It was what he would ask or say. I did enjoy having happening upstairs, outside 1S6. Senator Senator Boswell— Ronaldson called— Senator Lundy—Bozzie came and sat Senator Ferris interjecting— next to him. Senator CONROY—Santo walked up to Senator CONROY—Thank you, Senator the meeting with me. He called Santo over. Lundy. Senator Boswell, not a noted attender He was standing there with you and he said, of committees, turned up. He turned up for ‘This is what we’re going to do.’ So do not almost the entire day and sat next to Senator stand in the chamber— Joyce just to make sure he was under control. There was not a lot of space. It was a very Senator Ronaldson—On a point of order: cosy little day. Senator Adams was on this committee; Sena- tor Santoro was nowhere near it. Senator Joyce keeps pretending he did all the work. Given that Senator Joyce wants to The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— allege that I have done no work and have not There is no point of order. read the bill and that the Labor Party has Senator CONROY—This was on the failed in its obligations, I want to make two Thursday; not Friday, you idiot. It was at a points. On Wednesday or Thursday night, I Thursday meeting. It was at that Thursday cannot remember which, Senator Joyce and I meeting where you told them what they were had a debate on Lateline. After the Lateline going to agree to. interview finished, I said to Senator Joyce, The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— ‘Have you read the legislation yet?’ to which Senator Conroy, please withdraw that word. he said no, which was fair enough—the leg- Senator CONROY—I withdraw that islation had barely been tabled, if at all. I Senator Ronaldson is an idiot. said: ‘You should have a look at the section about the slush fund because they’ve stitched The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You you up. It actually allows for up to $2 billion should not repeat it. and shares.’ The reason I knew this was be- Senator Eggleston—On a point of order: cause that day Lindsay Tanner, the shadow that statement of Senator Conroy’s is a total minister for finance, who had examined the misrepresentation. bill on Wednesday, had stood up in parlia- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— ment and explained it. Lindsay Tanner stood There is no point of order. up in the chamber and explained how they had conned Barnaby Joyce.

CHAMBER 48 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Senator Coonan interjecting— There we have it, in Senator Joyce’s own Senator CONROY—Go to the Hansard. words. He sat next to me for 20 minutes That is what happened. Lindsay Tanner stood while I asked a string of questions on this up and said, ‘This is how they are dudding issue and he finally twigged that they had Barnaby.’ So I told Barnaby and he said, dudded him. I am doing this simply to de- ‘Thanks’. Senator Ronaldson knows it is fend the Labor Party’s honour from the out- true. When Senator Barnaby Joyce stands up rageous assertion by Senator Joyce that we and accuses the Labor Party of not having had not read the legislation. We asked the read the legislation, he is actually commit- questions that finally made Senator Joyce ting a gross misrepresentation. Let me turn to understand how you had dudded him. the Hansard of the committee hearing, which Senator Coonan—How is your blood Senator Ronaldson, Senator Adams, Senator pressure, Stephen? Eggleston and Senator Joyce were at. The Senator CONROY—Mine is fine. I sim- Labor Party asked nearly 10 pages of ques- ply wanted to make that point. Senator Joyce tions on this very issue. wants to pretend he found it and discovered Senator Coonan—Ten pages! all these problems. Senator Joyce should just Senator CONROY—You can read the come clean. He sat next to me for 10 minutes Hansard. Here it is. while I asked all the questions that got what had happened out in public. That is a slightly Senator Coonan—Did you ask any rele- more accurate representation, but if anyone vant questions? doubts it it is in the Senate committee Han- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— sard from last Friday. Let us be clear: Sena- Minister, stop interjecting. Most ministers do tor Joyce is trying to find every possible ex- not do that. cuse to explain his backdown, capitulation Senator CONROY—The government did and ratting on his own word. That is what he allow us an hour and a half to talk to the de- has done. He promised the Queensland pub- partment. So these are questions to the de- lic that he would vote against— partment. Senator Webber interjecting— Senator Eggleston interjecting— Senator CONROY—That is right, Sena- Senator CONROY—No, that was to the tor Webber. If you voted for Barnaby Joyce, ACCC. Stop trying to weasel your way out he would vote against the sale of Telstra. of what you have done. You have committed That is what his promise was, and he is try- an atrocity—just accept it, take the hit and ing to find every weasel word, trying to pre- move on. I asked a string of questions to Mrs tend he is the only one who has done any Holthuyzen, who is over in the gallery. I work. Well, Minister, he got to spend all day apologise for the pronunciation. Senator with your advisers and your department and Joyce then says: your legal people yesterday—not something Unfortunately—of course, it is in the media—I afforded to the opposition or the minor par- also have questions about the trust fund. Senator ties. We cannot get an answer from the min- Conroy was speaking about 158ZJ, where it refers ister. to ‘up to $2 billion’. I might be naive, but does Progress reported. that mean you could put in less than $2 billion and still be within the scope of the act? It actually refers to ‘up to $2 billion’, not to ‘no less than $2 billion’.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 49

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST sation has stabilised. As well, growth in cas- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ual employment for women has been much (Senator Hutchins)—Order! It being 12.45 lower than for men. The growth in casual pm, I call on matters of public interest. employment for men has been 6.6 per cent since the Howard government came to of- Women in the Work Force fice. The rise among women in the same Senator FERRIS (South Australia) time has been 0.4 per cent—a substantial (12.45 pm)—I want to speak today to correct difference. some of the false assertions that have been AWAs can include a long list of quite in- made in relation to women in the work force novative measures for women, particularly under the Howard government and outline those with children or caring responsibilities, some of the benefits the proposed work force and this has emerged through agreement reforms will have for Australian working making. AWAs can include flexible start and women. Fifty-three per cent of the total finish times, time off in lieu of overtime, number of jobs in Australia since 1996 have taking annual leave on half pay or on single been created for women. This is a total of days, purchased leave, innovations in caring 911,500 jobs, compared with 768,600 jobs and personal leave, paid parental leave, job which were filled by men. The government’s share arrangements, home based work, fam- proposed reforms will generate higher levels ily rooms and breastfeeding rooms, special of job growth and work force participation, leave, career break schemes and child-care which will continue to benefit women. It has subsidies. been claimed, both in this chamber and in the wider community, that the Howard govern- I would like to take the time today to out- ment’s reforms to industrial relations have line two South Australian examples of the encouraged the casualisation of Australia’s benefits of AWAs to working mothers and to work force, particularly for women. Nothing working women in general. People’s names could be further from the truth. In fact, none have been changed, but I assure this chamber of the employment figures which have been that the circumstances are genuine. The first released by the Australian Bureau of Statis- example is a woman I will name Karen. She tics reflect or substantiate this claim. works for a small business in the disability services sector in suburban Adelaide which The ABS social trends survey of July employs 22 people. Her work is demanding 2005 shows that there has been only a mar- but fulfilling, as she provides vocational and ginal increase in overall casual employment life skills training to intellectually disabled since the Howard government’s election in people. Karen is 37 years old and negotiated 1996. At that time, 26.1 per cent of all em- an AWA four months ago. The agreement ployees worked on a casual basis, compared allows her to work flexible hours in order to with 27.7 per cent of employees today. This attend to family matters, including care for is a rise of less than two per cent over nine an elderly friend who lives with the family. years. The substantial shift towards casual The flexible hours have enabled Karen to employment occurred before the government take time off work to care for her friend and set out on its reform agenda, during the years to take her on hospital visits. While under- of the accord and under the former ALP gov- taking these tasks, Karen has been able to ernment. One example of this was the 2.4 per maintain, on average, a four-day working cent increase in casual work in the two years week on differing days according to her per- to 1996. Since that time, the rate of casuali- sonal and family needs. Using this arrange-

CHAMBER 50 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 ment, Karen considers herself to be more friendly work arrangements. Of these agree- likely to remain in the work force for longer, ments, more than half had three or more fam- even if family circumstances become more ily-friendly provisions. Female average demanding. weekly earnings in 2002 were $554. Under The second example is a person I will call registered collective agreements, average Ann. She works as a full-time employee in a total weekly earnings were $600.40. How- small South Australian business which em- ever, under AWAs average total weekly earn- ploys 32 people. She works in a clerical ca- ings were $889.20. So earnings were pacity in the business and is one of only $600.40 under collective agreements and three female employees in the company. Ann $889.20 under AWAs—a dramatic differ- is married but has no children and is actively ence. Female employees on AWAs earned, involved in training and coaching sport on average, 89 per cent of the male AWA within her local community. This requires employee hourly rate of pay, far better pay her to organise sporting schedules and to be equity than the 2002 gender pay disparity of absent from work on at least two afternoons 77 per cent for the work force as a whole. a week. Ann has maintained her full-time job AWAs applying to women are also more by negotiating flexible working arrange- likely to include flexible working and fam- ments with the husband-and-wife partnership ily-friendly provisions. who own the business. On Monday afternoon I had the privilege These flexible arrangements mean earlier of meeting with a group of working women, starts some mornings or working through together with the President of the ACTU, breaks in order to be able to leave work by Sharan Burrow. It was the second opportu- three in the afternoon. Twelve months ago nity I have had to meet with Sharan, and we Ann incorporated these new flexibilities into had a productive and useful conversation. I an AWA, which has given her the confidence look forward to meeting with her again. I to use the flexibility that she had earlier ne- took the time to listen to the concerns of gotiated on an informal basis. Ann regards some of those working women who came to her AWA arrangement as a two-way agree- see me in my office and to highlight my ment that makes her more committed to the thoughts on the benefits to working women business in return for the flexibility that the of wage flexibility. I also understand some of business has given her and the opportunity to the issues that they raised in their capacity as take part as a volunteer in sporting activities workers in occupations which are in com- in her community. These are just two exam- munity service—very valuable occupations ples of the AWAs benefiting Australian in women’s refuges, drug rehab centres and women, and there are many, many more ex- job skills centres—and it was a privilege to amples that are available in the community. meet with them. While we disagreed on some issues, we are all as women working Despite vocal predictions to the contrary towards giving women the flexibility in the by some unions and by the opposition, al- work force that they deserve, and I look for- lowing women to make flexible AWAs with ward to promoting the rights of working their employers has not disadvantaged women through the changes to the workplace women. In fact, all of the evidence so far relations system in Australia as they come suggests that exactly the opposite is the case. through this chamber. Over 70 per cent of AWAs contained at least one family-friendly provision, or family-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 51

Urban Policy points from such terrible human suffering. Senator CARR (Victoria) (12.54 pm)—I But I do want to draw attention to some of raise today a matter of crucial importance to the lessons that might be drawn from this Australia’s future: the future of our cities. On natural and humanitarian tragedy. There are Monday, there was a report presented in the many, and they are very pertinent. House of Representatives by the House of The fundamental issue that arises from the Representatives Standing Committee on En- film footage shown since the hurricane vironment and Heritage entitled Sustainable struck is the gross inequality that emerges in cities. The report dealt with matters of ex- American society. Who is it who are left be- treme importance to the future of Australia’s hind, who face death, disease and the appall- urban dwellers. It detailed the serious envi- ing living conditions? It is the black people, ronmental challenges that face our cities. the poor people and the working people of However, being a bipartisan report, it fell far the United States. That is an example of how short of what is required to address the How- the market has gone mad—a situation ard government’s failure to engage in the whereby fundamental human rights are de- future of Australian cities—not only in rela- nied to so many people in a market driven tion to environmental issues but, more society such as that of the United States. broadly, in terms of the liveability of our There is a basic issue of public infrastruc- suburbs and the manner in which our society ture. We saw in the United States that the is organised to ensure that everyone gets a Bush administration, despite the clear warn- fair go. ings from experts, including many within the About 80 per cent of Australians now live government, cut spending on vital flood con- in 41 cities. Sydney and Melbourne alone are tainment measures in and around New Or- home to almost eight million people. Our leans. For instance, federal spending on cities are growing fast and there is a great flood control in south-east Louisiana has deal for us to do to ensure that they remain been cut by almost half since 2001. The lev- places in which people want to live. Unfor- ees had been maintained by the United States tunately, under the nine long years of the Army Corps of Engineers. They were not Howard government, there has been a lack of able to do their job properly. They asked for coherent national policy on urban planning $US27 million for this year for hurricane and development. The development, security control work. They were granted $US6 mil- and amenity of our cities must become a na- lion. An amount of $US14 billion for a tional priority for the government of Austra- longer term project to restore the marshes lia. surrounding the city was slashed to $US570 Nothing illustrates more starkly the need million. for national leadership in urban policy than The Bush government’s priorities were the tragic events that have unfolded in the about diverting moneys and support away American city of New Orleans in the wake from protecting American cities through in- of Hurricane Katrina. I want to add my voice frastructure maintenance and development to those expressing their sympathy and sor- and towards the war in Iraq and their so- row over those events, particularly the hu- called war on terror. If you were a black, man costs, which have been so terrible. The poor person in New Orleans who was left last thing the opposition wants to do in these behind, you would know what the war on circumstances is try to score cheap political terror means. There could surely be nothing

CHAMBER 52 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 more terrifying than being stuck in an attic as The issues of unemployment and the the water continues to rise and there is no- scourge of poverty in our cities have to be one there to help, the public sector having faced up to squarely in this country as well. completely broken down and the private sec- Moves have to be made to eliminate them. tor having abandoned people to their fate. The Commonwealth government has a lead- The United States government’s negligence ing role to play in ensuring that those chal- in terms of its responsibilities to fund public lenges are faced. Educational opportunities infrastructure has seen hundreds of thou- have to be improved so that everybody, no sands of mostly poor, black working people matter where they live, no matter what their in the United States being forced to confront postcode, has a genuine chance for a mean- that dreadful price. ingful life and has an opportunity to share in We have seen in Australia that the federal the prosperity that a few people have in this government has no commitment to infra- country. There has to be an integrated ap- structure development and renewal in our proach to urban policy on the part of the na- cities. The Howard government has made tional government, and it has to be able to sure that it is as far away as possible from work with the states and with local govern- the action when it comes to infrastructure ment to ensure that we do not have a situa- development in our urban areas. Labor, tion where ghettos develop in this country through its Better Cities policy and before and where we have poor people condemned that—going right back to the Whitlam pe- by governments to poor services. riod—with the Department of Urban and I am not suggesting that at this time Aus- Regional Development, has a longstanding tralian society is as bad as the United States commitment to ensuring that the Common- in terms of social gulfs. But we are in grave wealth government faces up to its responsi- danger if we do not take action to ensure that bilities when it comes to the development of the social and economic divisions in the fab- Australian cities. ric of our society are not repaired. We should New Orleans dramatically shows us why not provide opportunities for those inequali- it is so important that there be a restoration ties to develop as they have in the United of national policy on urban development. States. I am concerned that in some areas of What we have seen in New Orleans is that Australia all the signs are there. There is evi- cities can be the site of appalling poverty. dence of social disintegration occurring. They can be incubators for social inequality. There is evidence of the social tensions that We have seen that a huge disparity exists occur after such neglect. There are, for in- between those who are wealthy and those stance, areas within Sydney where that is all who are poor. We see an enormous rift de- too apparent. veloping in American society. There are peo- In terms of urban policy, there is a need to ple who are desperately impoverished: those ensure that there is social cohesion and that who are unemployed, those who are black there are genuine opportunities for educa- and those who do not have access to the tion, for training and for jobs. There needs to power of money, which brings access to the be transport and decent and affordable hous- marketplace. We saw all of those fault lines ing for every single citizen in this country. exposed through the recent events in New We have to make sure that those who are Orleans. privileged and those who enjoy the capacity to live in expensive suburbs are not the only ones who get a fair go. There have to be

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 53 means by which we can ensure that there is a barrelling. Regional Partnerships, for in- genuine commitment by the Australian gov- stance, is an example of that. We have no ernment to give everyone a fair go. minister for housing and we have no minister Recent reports suggest that Australian cit- for urban development in this government. ies are exposed to the threat of natural disas- We have seen no major coordinated infra- ter. I would hate to think what would happen structure program for our urban areas. in this country if such an event occurred. I Cities are the engine room of Australia’s trust that we would not see a repeat of what economic development and growth. But we has occurred in the United States. Cities are have had nothing but neglect from this gov- large and complex entities and environments. ernment. This government does not see this Huge numbers can be affected when an ur- as an important issue and believes that the ban disaster such as a flood, a cyclone or a market will be able to resolve whatever prob- bushfire occurs or when a terrorist attack is lems emerge. The evidence on that matter is visited upon them. Urban planning has a part clear: there is no doubt whatsoever that one to play. Cities have to be built so that disaster of the pressing problems facing Australian plans are integrated into the management of cities is the fact that we do not have the sort our cities. Disaster plans need to be inte- of support from the public sector that is re- grated not just at a vertical level but horizon- quired. By that I mean that the Common- tally and at all levels of government. That wealth government is failing in its obliga- means that the Commonwealth government tions. has a national responsibility to fill. It has a You only have to look at the issue of hous- leadership role to perform. ing affordability. Ordinary Australians are What really troubles me here is that our deeply worried that their kids will not be cities and urban areas around Australia are able to afford to buy a house in the cities and growing at a phenomenal rate, particularly suburbs in which they live and in which they along our coastal fringes. It is likely that a grew up. They have a growing sense that quarter of the nation’s population growth people are losing out in the race to ensure will occur in south-east Queensland over the that they are able to maintain their living next few years. There is a similar situation in standards. Reserve Bank figures show that south Perth, where there has been massive the average house in Sydney now costs some growth in the numbers of people moving 10 years wages, compared to seven years in there. It strikes me that under those circum- Melbourne and five or six in other cities. stances the Commonwealth has a direct re- That is in marked contrast to what we saw in sponsibility to assist the states in ensuring Sydney a decade ago. The amount of time it that people have proper access to services takes to buy a house in Sydney and Mel- and facilities to ensure that the opportunities bourne and most of the other big cities in this for a reasonable standard of living can be country has doubled over the last 10 years. maintained. We now have affordability rates that are In this country we have a serious underin- becoming quite shameful. This affects how vestment in our infrastructure, and that is a people live, where they live; it affects their serious underinvestment in the future of this life opportunities. We have a situation here country. What we have, on the other hand, is where whole groups of people—not just a government that sees infrastructure spend- those who are concerned about the weakest ing as essentially an opportunity for pork- members of our community but also those

CHAMBER 54 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 with private sector interests, building indus- ing welfare of some sort. However, when it try professionals, welfare organisations and comes to the issue of support services for various others—are all saying now that the Australians with disabilities and their carers, Commonwealth government has an obliga- this philosophy of self-reliance seems to fall tion which is currently not being met. The down. I am prepared to be generous here and Howard government is alone in turning its suggest that this problem is more a case of back on these issues. disinterest and neglect than deliberate mar- As our cities expand, the sustainable use ginalisation. I cannot be so generous on the of water, energy and land is a growing chal- wider issues of Welfare to Work and the so- lenge. Cities, and city households, are recalled industrial relations reforms. sponsible for a large proportion of our na- The people we are talking about here, the tional energy and water consumption. The carers of Australia and people with disabili- Howard government shows no interest in ties, epitomise this philosophy of self- these issues. For nine long years the Howard reliance. They take on huge workloads and government has neglected our major infra- tackle massive impediments in their efforts structure needs, and it is completely ignoring to be independent and to look after their the urban infrastructure which could improve families and themselves. Where is the sup- our cities and ensure that we are able to en- port for these people who are taking on what joy our current standard of living into the would otherwise be taken on by and be a future. The Howard government does not burden on the community? Where are their even have a minister responsible for those incentives? What is there in place for people issues. If you want to talk to the government with disabilities who actively want to hold about those issues, you have to go to a pleth- down a job, to have their own home and to ora of departments to try to get your message live as independently as they can? This is the across. (Time expired) hypocrisy of the government’s approach. Disability Services They are not offering help to people who Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia) wish to be self-reliant. They are not offering (1.09 pm)—The matter of public interest I enough incentives to people who want to get rise to speak on today is the specific issue of off welfare and into work, to gain meaning- accommodation and support services for ful employment, to improve their standard of people with disabilities. In doing so, I also living and ultimately fund their own retire- want to highlight issues surrounding the phi- ment. They are offering perverse disincen- losophy and approach taken by the coalition tives and creating further barriers. They are to the wider issues of social services, to high- making the whole process of looking for light its hypocrisy and to point out why this work or seeking to be independent compli- approach will not deliver on the goals it pur- cated, stressful, disempowering, frustrating, ports to be pursuing. confusing and depressing. In 2002, the Aus- tralian Institute of Health and Welfare esti- Let me start with a very general point. The mated that, for every one person with a dis- Prime Minister, John Howard, is very keen ability who was able to access support from on the idea that everyone should stand on the existing service system, another six to 24 their own two feet. The essence of this phi- people were being turned away. losophy is one of encouraging independence, and the ultimate goal is to have more Austra- I particularly wish to draw the attention of lians working and fewer Australians receiv- the Senate to the accommodation support

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 55 crisis for people with disabilities and their and who can no longer manage to live inde- families. I must say that I am wary of using pendently are being forced to live in nursing the word ‘crisis’ in this context, as we in the homes for elderly people. The human rights chamber have come to learn that everything of people with disabilities and their families can and will be called a crisis, and we are being ignored. This crisis is demeaning to quickly develop crisis fatigue. However, I our whole community. We believe that our put to you that, in the area of accommodation community expects real opportunities for all support for people with disabilities, there is a its members. We believe that our community very dire situation that is worthy of the term expects that people with disabilities will re- ‘crisis’. ceive the assistance they need to live a de- I would just like to point out a few of the cent life, to have a fair go and to have a horrifying statistics. In New South Wales, chance. there are an estimated 8,000 people with The original CSDA, or Commonwealth- unmet needs for accommodation support. In state disability agreement, clearly stated that Victoria, approximately 4,478 people are funding for accommodation was to be a listed as in need of accommodation support. shared responsibility between the Common- In Queensland, 5,117 people are listed as wealth and the states, while the administra- requiring accommodation support—an un- tion of accommodation support was to be a met need. In Western Australia, I am pleased state responsibility. This provision has been to report, the situation is slightly better; watered down in the subsequent CSTDA, or however, it is still extremely distressing, as Commonwealth State Territory Disability 225 people had an unmet need in 2001. In Agreement, as it is now called, which has led 2002-03, 330 people applied for accommo- to a critical shortfall in supported accommodation support. Only 92 of them—28 per dation services. However, even within the cent—were successful. That means the rest provisions of the existing CSTDA there is a were not successful. It is almost a race to the range of important responsibilities placed on bottom—in other words, who has the biggest the Commonwealth to ensure that the needs crisis? The carers have to tell their stories so of people with disabilities are being met. intensely, as in this race to the bottom the Subsequently, there is scope for the minister person who has the worst case wins, which is to show leadership in resolving this crisis. not a satisfactory situation to put carers in. Let me draw your attention to some of the We are facing a critical shortfall in sup- specific provisions within the agreement. ported accommodation services for people Under the policy provisions of the agreement with disabilities all across Australia. This is it states: having a devastating impact on people with In working towards this objective the Common- disabilities and their families. People born wealth and the States/Territories recognise— with a disability are being denied the oppor- amongst other things, the need to work to- tunity to leave the family home and live in- gether to— dependent lives with the support that they a) strengthen access to generic services for need. Parents and family carers are expected people with disabilities by: to care till they drop, sacrificing their physi- • cal and mental health, their marriages, their fostering a whole-of-government approach to maximise the opportunity for other children’s welfare, their employment people with disabilities to participate so- and their retirement. Young adults who acquire a disability through injury or illness

CHAMBER 56 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

cially and economically in the commu- Australia—some of whom are in the gallery nity ... today—and to those who travelled from It goes on to say: around this nation to take part in the ‘Walk a b) strengthen across government linkages by— Mile in Our Shoes’ event whom the minister met on the lawns of Parliament House yes- note that it says ‘across government link- terday, her passion, commitment and leader- ages’; it does not say ‘state linkages’— ship on this issue, to put her mark on social • G positively influencing the service system services and leave a legacy of a just, com- within and external to the Agreement to passionate and sustainable system. We urge ensure that access to appropriate services is supported and strengthened ... that the CSTDA be revised and altered to ensure that it works to deliver the support Under the heading ‘Shared Commonwealth services that people with disabilities and and State/Territory Roles,’ it goes on to list their families urgently need. We urge that the shared responsibilities as: indexation provided on Commonwealth (e) encouraging reform of the existing service grants be increased to match the cost in- system and supporting innovation and qual- creases experienced by disability service ity in service provision; organisations to ensure that the quality of (f) working towards the achievement of the ob- disability support services they provide can jective and policy priorities which underpin be maintained sustainably into the future. the national framework ... This is what the carers of Australia want: a In other words, there is scope for both Com- policy that respects the human rights of peo- monwealth and state involvement. The states ple with disabilities and their families; a pol- and territories cannot resolve this issue on icy that ensures the availability of appropri- their own. We need to see real leadership ate accommodation support to people with from the Commonwealth on this issue. We disabilities when they need it; a policy that need to see real leadership from the Minister enables families caring for people with dis- for Family and Community Services. We abilities to have the same opportunities as need to see a commitment to tackling this other families to lead a ‘normal’ life; a policy issue head-on, not to passing the buck back that enables young people with disabilities to and forth between the Commonwealth and live independently with dignity, respect and the states. We need to see a real commitment the support they need to contribute to, and to resolving the accommodation support cri- participate in, the life of their community; a sis now faced by people with disabilities and policy that lets young adults with disabilities their families. We need a real response to this leave the family home, as do other young crisis, beginning with an immediate injection adults; a policy that gets young people out of of funding to get assistance to these people institutions and nursing homes; and a policy in crisis. Real leadership is needed for the that lets families survive, parents work and Commonwealth to work cooperatively with old people retire. This is a national problem the states and territories to ensure that the that requires a national solution. crisis is addressed and that the policy, planning and funding infrastructure is put in Mr David Hicks place to prevent it happening again. Senator KIRK (South Australia) (1.19 There is a fantastic opportunity here for pm)—I rise this afternoon to speak about one the minister to demonstrate to people with of my constituents, South Australian Guan- disabilities and their families, to the carers of tanamo Bay detainee David Hicks, and to

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 57 draw attention to the recently announced a judge and jury model than a military court changes to the military tribunal process. where a panel of military officers with no These changes, which were announced by legal training decide on points of law and US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sentencing. Under the new rules, a presiding last week, were aimed at deflecting criticism officer will act more like a judge, deciding of the military commission process. But on legal arguments, and two other military these changes are inadequate, and in no way officers will decide on the verdict. To quote do they address the widespread criticisms by the President of the Law Council of Austra- Australian and international legal experts. lia, Mr John North: David Hicks’s military lawyer, Major Mi- To describe the commission as proceeding on a chael Mori, with whom I have had frequent judge-jury basis is laughable—a jury would nor- contact over the past few years, has called mally be randomly and impartially chosen from these changes ‘cosmetic’ and a ‘media stunt’. the general community rather than be appointed David Hicks is due to stand trial in a few by the state. months time, but the military tribunal proc- Let me give another example of one of the ess as it currently stands remains fatally changes. The old rule said, ‘Defendants may flawed. Whilst neither I nor the Labor Party be present to the extent consistent with the will ever condone terrorist activity—and I need to protect classified information.’ The want to make this clear—regardless of what new rule says, ‘Defendants shall be present David Hicks is alleged to have done it is in- to the extent necessary to protect classified cumbent on the Australian government to information.’ This is just meaningless word make representations to the United States play. It is pure farce. Another change is that demanding that he be given a fair trial. the so-called judge will have power to ex- clude classified information—proposed to be The military tribunal process, which our heard in the absence of the defendant—if, in government supports, will not afford David his opinion, its reception would deny an ac- Hicks a standard of justice to which Austra- cused person a fair trial. Again, this is farci- lians are normally entitled. By way of exam- cal. How can anyone claim that a trial which ple, the trial will not be conducted before prevents defendants from hearing all of the independent judges or magistrates; there are evidence against them is fair? unwarranted restrictions on the capacity of the accused to conduct his defence; a guilty Prime Minister Howard and Attorney- verdict can be reached by a two-thirds major- General Mr Ruddock, despite protests from ity, as opposed to unanimity; miscarriages of many legal experts, have repeatedly said that justice cannot be rectified by an independent the military trial process is fair. Mr Ruddock appeals court; evidence obtained by torture is described the new changes as ‘useful’, say- still permissible, as is hearsay; and an acquit- ing: tal does not necessarily guarantee the release I think these improvements make it more compa- of the accused. rable to what people here would understand. Let me spend a few minutes talking about Mr Ruddock’s expertise in using weasel some of the announced changes and why, as words is second perhaps only to the Prime the Law Council of Australia has recognised, Minister’s. It is interesting that the Attorney- they amount to nothing more than a rearrang- General was careful not to say that he ing of the deckchairs. One of the trumpeted thought the new changes would result in a changes is that the process will be more like fairer trial. How could he? He had already

CHAMBER 58 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 claimed that he was completely satisfied a fair trial. No country in the world, except with the previously existing process. Australia, tolerates their citizens going be- Last week I met with David Hicks’s Ade- fore the commission process. Even the laide based lawyer, Mr David McLeod, who United States will not tolerate their citizens’ is on the public record as saying that Saddam rights being compromised by this unfair Hussein will get a fairer trial than David process. Australia should follow the lead of Hicks. Mr Hicks has not been accused of the British, Spanish, German, French and killing anyone. His three military commis- Canadian governments, which refuse to let sion charges are: first, conspiracy to commit their citizens face trial by a military commis- war crimes; second, attempted murder by an sion. unprivileged belligerent; and, third, aiding Mr Hicks is suffering from health prob- the enemy. The Australian government lems. A member of his Australian legal team, should be ashamed that Saddam Hussein is Army Reserve lawyer Michael Griffin, who going to a tribunal where all the rules of evi- visited him in the first week of August, said dence are applied in a society that complies that he was suffering blurred vision, head- with the rule of law, but it will not stand up aches, back problems and depression, and to the United States to ensure that David that he had stopped eating on a number of Hicks has the same rights. And it is not just occasions. David McLeod described him as Saddam Hussein who is getting better treat- having a ‘haunted look’, with a pallid comment. Professor Tim McCormack, an Austra- plexion and dark rings around his eyes. I was lian adviser to the judges in the case against recently refused permission to visit David alleged Serbian war criminal Slobodan Mil- Hicks, who, as a South Australian, is one of osevic, claims that Hicks is being treated my constituents. I had intended to travel to worse than Milosevic. Guantanamo Bay, along with Major Michael Australian Law Council president John Mori, in August this year. I was very disap- North did not mince his words recently when pointed by the United States government’s describing the Australian government’s response, which was relayed through the readiness to accept the military commission Australian Embassy in Washington, and I process. Mr North said: would like to put their words on the record. They said: These changes expose how spineless the Austra- lian Government has been in endorsing the mili- Visits by non-US nationals— tary commission model of justice. At every turn to Guantanamo Bay— the Government has given the military commis- are with very few exceptions, restricted to those sion a tick, even in the face of mounting criticism related to law enforcement and intelligence pur- from all corners. poses. No Parliamentarians from third countries David Hicks was arrested in November have been permitted to visit the facility. 2001. He has been imprisoned in Guan- I would like to know why there is one set of tanamo Bay for nearly four years. On 25 Au- rules for US senators and another for Austra- gust last year, charges against Mr Hicks were lian senators. formally placed on the military commission record. This was nearly three years after his Senator Ian Macdonald—It is against US law. capture. The Australian government did nothing to help an Australian citizen held for Senator KIRK—It is not against US law. nearly three years without charge, and they According to Donald Rumsfeld, who said on are now doing nothing to ensure that he gets 21 June this year:

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 59

A great many members of the House and Senate all those people, not just me— have been down there— who regard US military commissions as that is, to Guantanamo Bay. He went on to unjust, say: (iii) that Spain, France and the United King- I think something like 77 members of the House dom have all refused to allow their citi- and the Senate, something well in excess of 100 zens to be tried before US military staff members. There have been any number of commissions, and foreign diplomats who have gone down to meet (iv) the comments by the United Kingdom’s and interview the nationals from their countries. Attorney General, the Right Honourable There have been hundreds of people from the Lord Goldsmith, that ‘the United King- press that have gone down there ... It is a very dom have been unable to accept the US transparent situation. military tribunals … offer sufficient However, it seems that people from Austra- guarantees of a fair trial in accordance lia—those who wish to visit their constitu- with international standards’; and ents, those who wish to attend the trial and (b) calls on the Government to advocate for Mr those who are lawyers—are unable to attend David Hicks’ trial to be conducted in a prop- the trial and visit the facility. Last week, to- erly constituted court with rules of procedure gether with Senator Natasha Stott Despoja and evidence that meet Australian and international standards of fairness. and Senator Bob Brown, I introduced a motion demanding a fair trial for David Hicks. Leaking of Government Documents The motion said: Senator BRANDIS (Queensland) (1.30 That the Senate— pm)—This afternoon I want to address the (a) notes: case of the two journalists Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus. As honourable sena- (i) the right of all Australians, regardless of their alleged crime, to a fair and trans- tors would be aware, Messrs Harvey and parent trial, McManus have been called as prosecution witnesses in the trial in the Victorian County (ii) the number of serious doubts raised by legal and military experts— Court of Desmond Patrick Kelly, a former Commonwealth public servant charged with and not just senators in this place— leaking confidential government informa- including retired High Court of Austra- tion. They do not appear voluntarily but are lia Justices Mary Gaudron and Sir under the compulsion of a subpoena. In pre- Ninian Stephen, the Presidents of the trial proceedings last month, Messrs Harvey Law Council of Australia and the 14 Law Societies and Bar Associations of and McManus declined, on the basis of the the states and territories of Australia, in- Australian Journalists Association’s code of dependent Law Council of Australia ob- ethics, to answer prosecution questions server Lex Lasry QC, head of the Aus- which might disclose the source of informa- tralian Military Bar Captain Paul Willee tion which they used in writing an article, QC, Mr Geoffrey Robertson QC, the published in the Melbourne Herald Sun American Bar Association, three United newspaper, relevant to the Kelly case, and States of America (US) military com- have indicated that they would feel bound to mission prosecutors and sitting High maintain that position at the trial itself. As a Court of Australia Justice Michael result, they have exposed themselves to the Kirby— risk of punishment, including potentially imprisonment, for contempt of court—a mat-

CHAMBER 60 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 ter which the trial judge, Judge Rozenes, ment between Australian jurisdictions. I have made clear to them in the course of last for a long time been of the view that the law month’s hearing. in this area is riddled with irrationality and I know Mr McManus and Mr Harvey, al- inconsistency, and has long stood in need of though I do not know either of them well. comprehensive reform which gives equiva- Nothing I am about to say is influenced by lent status to a range of professional relation- any partiality in their favour. The case of ships. At common law, there were only two Harvey and McManus raises squarely the relationships which were privileged from issue of whether the law should be reformed disclosure in courts: marital relationships and to give some measure of privilege in legal relationships between lawyer and client. proceedings to journalists to enable them to There were other forms of privilege as well, protect their sources. More broadly, it high- in particular the privilege against self- lights the inconsistency in the treatment incrimination, the privilege now called pub- which the rules of evidence give to informa- lic interest immunity, and the privilege of tion imparted in confidence, and provides an without prejudice negotiations. But those occasion for the whole area of the treatment privileges were not based on, and did not of professional confidences to be reformed. depend upon, the existence of a particular By coincidence, it comes at a time when the category of relationship. Australian Law Reform Commission is un- The doctrinal basis of the privilege in dertaking a major inquiry on the reform of those two categories was quite different. the law of evidence, and I commend to hon- Spousal privilege was based on the ancient ourable senators the ALRC’s very thorough legal fiction, ultimately derived from Chris- discussion paper No. 69 on this topic. This tian theology, of the unity of husband and follows a reference by the Commonwealth wife. The doctrinal basis of legal profes- Attorney-General to the ALRC on 12 July sional privilege, or lawyer-client privilege, as 2004, and a cognate reference by the Attor- it is today more commonly called, is more ney-General of New South Wales to that controversial, but most scholars agree that it state’s Law Reform Commission. ultimately derives from the principle that a The New South Wales Evidence Act 1995 lawyer is his client’s alter ego in court, and is based on the Commonwealth Evidence Act therefore there must be absolute freedom of 1995 and is substantially uniform with it, communication between the two. The justifi- although, as I will point out later, not in rela- cation is a functional one. tion to the treatment of professional confi- The traditional justifications for the exten- dences. Unfortunately, that uniformity does sion of relationship based privilege to only not, at present, extend to the other states and those two types of relationship have never territories, although all of them have ex- been satisfactory. The basis of spousal privi- pressed in general terms their support for a lege was a legal fiction, while the basis of common set of rules of evidence applying in legal professional privilege cannot explain all jurisdictions. It is one of the objectives of why it extends to non-curial lawyer-client the ALRC’s current inquiry to encourage that relationships. But more importantly, it en- process. tirely ignored other professional or intimate The law relating to the privilege of com- personal relationships which merit protec- munications does not, however, merely suf- tion. Most famously, the common law gave fer from the problem of inconsistent treat- no protection to the relationship between priest and penitent, so that a Catholic priest,

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 61 administering the sacrament of confession, vast. Yet in one specific area, the application could be required by the law to reveal the of the rules of evidence, that protection secrets of the confessional, on pain of im- ceases altogether. The philosophical and pol- prisonment for an indefinite period, notwith- icy reasons which impel courts to protect standing that to do so was a fundamental confidential relationships should not stop at breach of his priestly vows and a mortal sin. the door of the court; they are just as relevant There has traditionally been nothing to ex- to the courts’ own processes. cuse a doctor from refusing to reveal the Secondly, with the notable exception of medical secrets of his patients, even though the legal profession, the current law gives no they are imparted in the privacy of his sur- respect to the ethical standards of some of gery, and notwithstanding that to do so society’s most respected professions, such as would be a serious breach of the doctor’s the medical profession. And, as a conse- professional ethics for which he would be quence of doing so, it potentially places exposed to professional sanction. And, as the members of respected professions in the Harvey and McManus case has reminded us, morally hazardous position of having to there is nothing to protect journalists who, in choose between obeying the law, which any conformity with their own professional code decent citizen would wish to do, and abiding of conduct, are bound to protect confidential by the ethics of their own profession, which sources. any respectable professional person would There has, in recent years, been some feel morally obliged, and professionally statutory amelioration of the common-law compelled, to do. That is the very position in rules, as their irrationality, inconsistency and which Messrs Harvey and McManus have potentially oppressive application have been been placed. As a result, honourable people recognised. Today, for instance, the Com- face the risk of being punished in circum- monwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and stances not of their own making by resolving Tasmania give protection to confessions a genuine dilemma in an ethical fashion. The made to a priest in his professional charac- law should not have so oppressive an opera- ter—but, as yet, other jurisdictions do not. In tion. general, Australian law has not protected the Thirdly, because of its operation, the law confidentiality of the relationship between also places judges and counsel in an invidi- doctor and patient, although recently two ous position, for no doubt they would not jurisdictions, Victoria and the Northern Terri- wish to inflict punishment upon people tory, have made express provision for it. And caught in such a position merely for seeking no Australian jurisdiction has extended pro- to act honourably. tection to journalists. Fourthly, as I have already observed, there There are several strong reasons why the is a ludicrous inconsistency of treatment as law of professional confidences should be between the professions. While one can read- reformed. In the first place, the law—and in ily understand—and I would not seek for a particular courts of equity—have tradition- moment to dispute—the essentiality of main- ally offered very strong protection to the taining absolute protection of communica- confidentiality of relationships—not merely tions between lawyer and client in court pro- professional relationships, but all relation- ceedings, the same rationale for protection ships which might be classified as ones of does not apply to all forms of legal advice. trust and confidence. The jurisprudence gov- At the moment, and subject to certain excep- erning the protection of such relationships is

CHAMBER 62 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 tions, advice given by a lawyer to a client tice of a court deciding a case on the basis of which does not concern court proceedings— incomplete information. The law of privilege say, for instance, advice in relation to the is an example of that. For the various reasons client’s business affairs—is privileged. It is a I have argued, that part of the law of privi- little difficult to see why that should be so, lege which deals with professional relation- and yet advice of a similar kind, provided by ships is inconsistent and in many respects an accountant to a client, enjoys no privilege simply wrong. whatever. Nor is it obvious to me that the I believe that the Commonwealth gov- secrecy of confidential communications be- ernment, in its submission to the ALRC’s tween lawyer and client is, whether for rea- review of the rules of evidence, should rec- sons of principle or social utility, to be re- ommend comprehensive reform to the law of garded as any more fundamental than com- relationship privilege to address the issues munications between, say, doctor and patient which I have raised in this speech. While not or priest and penitent. Arguably—and I ap- wishing to be prescriptive, a good place to preciate that there are important differences; start might be to consider the inclusion in in particular the fact that there is not an ad- Commonwealth law of a provision resem- viser-client relationship between a journalist bling part 3.10, divisions IA and I B of the and a source—the same could be said of the New South Wales Evidence Act, which does, confidences imparted to journalists. for the first time in Australian law, give rec- In saying this I do not for a moment ig- ognition to a generic category called ‘profes- nore the very powerful reasons why courts, sional confidential relationship privilege’, whether trying crimes or adjudicating civil and affords some measure of protection to disputes, must not be unduly constrained such relationships. from having available to them all of the rele- Of course, such protection should not be vant evidence. The whole law of evidence is, absolute. Even the very comprehensive rules in a sense, a series of exceptions to one basic of legal professional privilege are subject to rule: that which is probative of a relevant exceptions. The most obvious is that the rela- fact should be admitted. But the law does tionship will lose its privileged status if the create extensive exceptions to that general communication is for the purpose of facilitat- rule for a variety of reasons. Some of those ing a crime or fraud. I can imagine other ex- reasons are intrinsic to the logic of the foren- ceptions as well but I do not intend to pursue sic process itself, for some facts, which that matter in the time available to me today. might seem superficially to be of probative The point remains that the law does need to significance, might on closer examination be be reformed to reflect consistency of treat- so hazardous as to create a serious risk of the ment between professions and between juris- court adjudicating the case on a false or un- dictions which gives effect to the strong phi- reliable premise. The rules governing hear- losophical and policy reasons to respect con- say are an example. fidences imparted in the course of profes- In the case of other rules, though, relevant sional relationships. facts are excluded from evidence for reasons And, finally, as to Mr Harvey and Mr anterior to the forensic process—not because McManus, who today find themselves the they are not probative but because there is an victims of the law in its unreformed state, I overwhelming public policy justification for hope that the wise exercise of prosecutorial withdrawing otherwise relevant facts from discretion will avail to remove them from the the court, notwithstanding the risk of injus-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 63 invidious position in which, through no fault It should be emphasised that being guilty of their own, they now find themselves. of contempt of court does not automatically Leaking of Government Documents mean that someone is immediately dragged away to jail to be locked up indefinitely. We Senate Procedures reserve that sort of treatment for asylum Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (1.44 seekers and other absolutely appalling peo- pm)—That was a measured and thoughtful ple, not journalists that just refuse to reveal contribution from Senator Brandis. That does their sources! It is open to the court to do not apply to everything he says but it is not that, but it is also open to the court to deter- totally unprecedented. I concur with a lot of mine that it is contempt but not to record a what he has said. It is my personal view, and conviction and perhaps just put forward a an argument I have put on the record in this nominal fine or something like that. It cer- chamber and through comments on my web tainly appears to me, at least from the evi- site, that there is a good argument for some dence I have seen, that that would be most degree of professional privilege for journal- appropriate in regard to the current circum- ists and their sources. As Senator Brandis has stance of Mr Harvey and Mr McManus. Ob- said, that certainly could not be absolute or viously, the judge will make up his own unqualified in every way. I do not support mind and I am not in any way seeking to absolute privilege for the notion of journal- improperly influence his views with regard ists being able to protect, or not reveal, their to that, but I think the issue of whether or not sources under all circumstances. Nor do I something is contempt is one matter, but support that for priests in a confessional, whether or not it constitutes a serious con- doctors with their patients or anybody else. tempt is a different matter. As Senator Brandis has said, even the legal We have that same issue here in the par- profession has exceptions to its own profes- liament. It is not often acknowledged— sional privilege in not revealing conversa- certainly not as much as it should be—that tions with clients and other aspects to do contempt of parliament is in many ways with its work. analogous in a legal sense to contempt of The big, and always difficult, issue is not court. We do, from time to time in this so much to do with having a general agree- chamber, find that a contempt has been ment about the acceptance of some sort of committed but choose not to take any action principle, but rather where you draw the line or to take a token action. It is certainly very and how far that principle goes before it has rare—I think there was only one occasion, to cede to a stronger principle with regard to and I think it was not in the Senate but in the the rule of law in ensuring that justice is other place—where a stronger action in re- done, and indeed the argument about gard to denying someone their liberty was whether codifying that line, wherever you undertaken as a consequence of a finding of might choose to draw it, is the best way to contempt. So there is a range of different go. I do not propose or suggest that I have issues, but the general reality is that there the perfect answer to that, but I do believe needs to be some recognition of the appro- the current circumstance that the two jour- priateness of journalists protecting their nalists in question are facing is a strong resources or not being required to reveal their minder that there is the need for reform in sources. The issue is how far that should go some shape or form as soon as possible. and what the framework is around it.

CHAMBER 64 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Another question I would raise is: what view is about the approach to whether or not actually constitutes a journalist? That is a journalists should be required to reveal their matter that has been debated ad nauseam but sources and in what circumstances, the sim- I think it is more relevant at the moment with ple fact is that the continual obstruction and the growing diversity of comments and web winding back of the reasonable operation of sites popping up online, not all of which, but freedom of information laws is at the core of certainly some of which, provide quite high- this. If there is a genuine belief from people quality analysis and information from a wide within the government—the Prime Minister variety of sources. Like lots of other things, himself has made sympathetic noises in this many things that appear on the internet are of case—that there needs to be reform, they zero value and quality, but there are some should know the reason why journalists, or people who write as amateurs, in the sense of the rest of us who are interested in policy being unpaid, who certainly provide high- issues, sometimes have to rely so much on quality information. One might hint at the leaks is because proper appropriate flows of possibility that every now and then they information are being constrained and might produce some information and analy- blocked off at every opportunity by this gov- sis that might even be of a higher standard ernment. I might say this government is not than some of the material that comes out of unique with regard to that. The Labor gov- the august press gallery that inhabits this ernment in my own state of Queensland has parliamentary building with us. That is an- a pretty poor record in winding back freedom other matter that does need be considered if of information laws and has administered we are looking at codifying these matters. those laws in a way which has led many The point that has to be emphasised, people to suggest they should be renamed though, in raising these questions, is the clear ‘freedom from information’ laws. That is a fact that this situation would not have arisen core aspect of this debate which should not and be current, and these two journalists be ignored. It is when the legitimate flow of would not be put in this position, were it not information is blocked that people, whether for this government’s absolute obsession it is journalists or others, are required to rely with targeting any person that is seen to be on leaks much more. I am sure all of us, acting, or is alleged to have acted, in a way journalists or anybody else, would much pre- that the government does not like. The sim- fer to be able to access information legiti- ple fact is that in this case a person is alleged mately and in an appropriate fashion rather to have provided information to journalists than having to rely on things falling off the which simply revealed the truth, which was backs of trucks. It puts everybody in a posi- that the government was dudding veterans in tion that is less than ideal. a very big way. The fact that that was re- But this government has a record, not just vealed proved to be a big public service be- in hampering freedom of information but cause it has certainly helped generate the also in not providing information, of com- political momentum for the government to mitting what I have argued is contempt of the change its approach and go a lot further to- Senate in refusing to comply with orders of wards providing the sort of assistance to vet- the Senate to provide information. This gov- erans that is appropriate and had been rec- ernment does that time and time again. You ommended in a relevant report. cannot have it both ways. You cannot es- That leads me to the other point that has to pouse the noble notion of journalists having be emphasised in this debate. Whatever your some great right of not being required to re-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 65 veal their sources of information as some whether there is a guillotine. What is impor- sort of doffing of the cap to the better opera- tant is the whole process from start to finish, tion of the democratic process while at the from when the legislation first sees the light same time doing everything possible to stop of day to when the guillotine is brought that information flowing through every other down, and whether or not there has been an source. The need for reform in the freedom appropriate opportunity for scrutiny and of information laws and improvement in the whether or not there is a compelling case for way the current laws are administered should urgency. There is no compelling case for ur- go hand in hand with the debate about gency in this. whether or not there should be some reform The second matter is that, if you look at to the laws regarding journalists and some the entire process from when the legislation sort of privilege over their sources of infor- saw the light of day to when the guillotine mation. came down to force the vote, we have had I would also like to briefly make a point— six days. On Thursday the legislation was because I do not want to take up the curtailed introduced. On Wednesday the following time we have for debate on the Telstra week the guillotine came down on five bills—about that process and I will do it very pieces of legislation. For all the comments quickly. There has been a lot of comment by other government speakers about what made by government senators that guillotin- has been done in the past with other privati- ing this debate on Telstra bills is not un- sation bills and how there was no committee precedented at all, that it is totally normal, inquiry into a bunch of those, that is true in a that it happens all the time and that we have lot of cases, but there are also significant had guillotines in the past. That is just part of differences from the false analogies the gov- the dishonesty and subterfuge that we have ernment wishes to draw. seen from this government on so many areas. Firstly, those privatisation bills, which Senator Ian Macdonald—You used to do were also opposed by the Democrats, were it in Labor’s day. You used to support Labor supported by the Liberals. Both major parties in guillotines. Be honest. supported them and wanted to pass them and Senator BARTLETT—Like any bully, both major parties did not believe that com- like any thug, like all arrogant people, they mittee inquiries were necessary. So to com- just want to whack everything through and as plain now and say, ‘We did not have an in- soon as we stand up to them for a second quiry back then so why should we have one they have this giant raw nerve and they start now,’ completely ignores the reality that on yelling out across the chamber. They just this occasion that circumstance does not ap- want to shout us down before we even have a ply. chance to put the facts on the table. I will The other thing that should be emphasised take that interjection to ‘be honest’, Senator is the total amount of time. Beyond anything Macdonald. That is all I ask. Let us be honest else, even if you do not have a committee in this debate. As I said before, the issue is inquiry, the total amount of time made avail- not whether we have a guillotine motion. able to scrutinise the legislation is an issue. If Every party in this place has supported guil- we look at all of the privatisation bills going lotine motions at various times including the back to 1990, the first tranche of the Com- Democrats, the Greens, Labor, Liberals and monwealth Banks Restructuring Bill—and I The Nationals. What is important is not should emphasise that this and all the other

CHAMBER 66 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 bills were opposed by the Democrats—was every state and federal politician that agrees first introduced into parliament on 8 Novem- to join the scheme is adopted by a family that ber, the committee report was 10 December is caring for a severely developmentally dis- and the bill was passed on 13 December— abled child. In some cases their child is now well over one month. The Aussat Bill was an adult, as you would appreciate, and these first introduced into parliament on 8 Novem- people have been caring for them for quite ber and was passed on 20 December—a some time. month and a half later. The first tranche of If it had not been for some of the quite the Qantas Sale Bill was introduced into par- heated debates we were having in this place liament on 4 November and was passed on this morning, I was going to be at a morning 7 December—over one month afterwards. tea, hosted by the member for Canning, Mr The Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill Don Randall and me, to join with the carers in 1993—the second tranche of that sale— to promote the scheme to politicians who are was first introduced on 18 August and was not part of it and try to encourage other states passed on 7 October. That was nearly two to adopt the scheme—for want of a better months later. The CSL Sale Bill was first word—and try to build a national structure introduced on 9 September and was passed that would allow each and every one of us to on 23 November—well over two months become a bit more personally familiar with later. Another Qantas Sale Amendment Bill the important role that carers play. I would was first introduced on 10 May and was therefore like to briefly place on record my passed on 8 June—just under a month after- thanks to Mr Randall for hosting the morning wards. The ANL Sale Bill was first intro- tea in my absence. My thanks to Senator duced on 20 September in 1995 and was Ellison for facilitating the arrangement of passed on 16 November—just under two that morning tea and for his encouragement months. The Commonwealth Bank Sale Bill, and suggestions to try to develop this very third tranche, was first introduced on 19 Oc- important and supportive Western Australian tober and was passed on 27 November— initiative and working together with some of over one month later. In 2005, five Telstra us on this side to look at making it a national sale bills including not just the sale bill but approach. I would also like to thank those of major changes to the regulatory regime, were my colleagues—perhaps more in the other first introduced on Thursday of one sitting place than in this place—that were able to week and guillotined through the chamber join the carers from Western Australia today the following Wednesday. This was less than to learn a bit more about their experiences. one week—totally unprecedented, totally QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE contemptible. Mr and Mrs Kola Politician Adoption Scheme Senator KIRK (2.00 pm)—My question Senator WEBBER (Western Australia) is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Im- (1.57 pm)—In the brief amount of time I migration and Multicultural and Indigenous have available to me today I would like to Affairs. Given that the minister now asserts place on record my thanks to the carers from that Venona Vata and Paulin Pali are the true Western Australia who have been visiting identities of Mr and Mrs Kola, why were this place. Most of the carers that are here these identities recalled and cancelled by the are part of a special program we have in Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade? Western Australia called the Politician Adop- Are the birth certificates identifying this tion Scheme, a scheme whereby each and

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 67 couple as Mr and Mrs Kola false? Why was Then it came to the question of their leav- Mrs Kola released from Baxter detention ing Australia, because unlawful noncitizens centre under that identity and not as Venona are required to do that. Travel documents Vata? Why has the department written to Mr were sought from the Department of Foreign and Mrs Kola using those identities when it Affairs and Trade in the name of Kola—the apparently considered these were not their name the couple alleged was in fact their real identities? If the minister is so confident name. Bridging visas were granted to the that the true identity of Mrs Kola is in fact couple so that they could make their own Venona Vata, why did she write to her as Mrs arrangements to leave. They signed the ap- Kola, as recently as 29 August 2005, in order plications for these certificates of identity, to exercise her ministerial discretion to re- which were lodged with the Department of lease Mrs Kola from detention and into the Foreign Affairs and Trade by DIMIA to as- community? sist them to leave voluntarily. The depart- Senator VANSTONE—I thank the sena- ment did not specify a destination. The tor for the question. What has happened yes- Refugee Review Tribunal accepted the state- terday and over the earlier part of today is a ment that they could return to Albania and very tawdry exercise in politics, where the found them to have effective protection in shadow spokesperson for immigration has Albania. Return to Albania was therefore an made very strong allegations that officers of option for them, but it was a matter for them. my department have knowingly and fraudu- The department did not seek to enforce their lently sought false identity documents on return to Serbia. The immigration department behalf of a couple known generally as the subsequently became aware of new informa- Kolas. I reject those allegations and have tion indicating that the new identity claims— invited Mr Burke to prove his case. I under- that is, Kola—were, in fact, called into ques- stand he has tabled some documents. I have tion and further inquiries were made. not had the opportunity to go through them, The great weight of evidence is that Kola but, if they are the documents that I have is not their true identity. Information from seen, they do not prove the case at all. the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic I think it is fair to explain what actually of Serbia states that the Kolas are not re- happened. This couple arrived in Australia in corded in the register of citizens in Preshevo, 1999 on documents they subsequently where they claim to have been born. Infor- claimed to be false. I am advised that they mation from the Albanian authorities states came in as Paulin Pali and Venona Vata and that they are in fact Albanian citizens and then said: ‘That’s not who we are; we’re that their true names are Pali and Vata—the someone else. We are actually Ergi and Val- names they entered Australia on. There is bona Kola, and we are ethnic Albanians, citi- also corroborating evidence from Interpol zens of Serbia.’ So it is the couple who actu- that documents provided by the couple to ally presented with two identities—the one verify their identity as Kola are false. For they came in on and the one they then said example, the driver’s licence that the couple was the real one. They pursued the opportu- produced carries a number that has more nities to stay in Australia, they were denied digits than those assigned to genuine li- by the Department of Immigration and Mul- cences. Further, in relation to the birth regis- ticultural and Indigenous Affairs, they were tration document the couple supplied, there rejected at the Refugee Review Tribunal, and is no matching record in the register of they were rejected at the Federal Court. births.

CHAMBER 68 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Further, in relation to an identity card sup- might say that letter is to me, but it would plied by the couple, the registration number not be your name. We all know, unfortu- corresponds to an identity card number is- nately, that people who want to stay in Aus- sued to another person. Given the evidence tralia sometimes do not tell the truth. available at the time, new certificates of Economy identity were sought in what was believed to Senator MASON (2.06 pm)—My ques- be their true identities, because it was con- tion is to the Minister for Finance and Ad- firmed by the Albanian government that they ministration, Senator Minchin, representing were in fact Albanian. I take the opportunity the Treasurer. Will the minister inform the to table two documents—one from Serbian Senate of the views expressed yesterday by authorities and one from Albanian authori- the International Monetary Fund in relation ties—which confirm much of what I have to the Australian economy? What are the just said. (Time expired) implications of these views for future policy Senator KIRK—Mr President, I ask a directions? supplementary question. Can the minister Senator MINCHIN—I thank Senator now indicate why her department was abso- Mason for an excellent question, which was lutely positive that this couple were Mr and very timely because the IMF released a re- Mrs Kola for nearly six years? port on Australia yesterday. I have to say I Senator Ian Macdonald—Didn’t you lis- think it is probably the most glowing report ten to the answer? on Australia ever produced by that independ- Senator KIRK—Is it the case that the ent organisation. The IMF did commend the Department of Immigration and Multicul- Australian government for: tural and Indigenous Affairs only changed ... the sustained strength of Australia’s economic that view after they failed to deport them? performance, which they attributed to an exem- Senator VANSTONE—I acknowledge an plary setting of economic policies and institutions interjection on my side: ‘Didn’t you listen to ... the answer?’ The answer that I gave made it The IMF found that recent economic reforms very clear that we did not try to deport them. had helped to reverse what has been a fairly That did not happen. They were given bridg- long-term decline in our relative living stan- ing visas so that they could make their own dards, with improvements since the early arrangements to depart—that is the good 1990s lifting per-capita incomes now to faith this government expresses to most peo- around 10 per cent above the average of all ple who are found to be unlawful nonciti- OECD countries. The IMF stated that the zens—and they did not do so. The identity resilience of the Australian economy re- documents were sought in the new names flected the increased flexibility brought because the information became available. about by these very important reforms. The They were referred to as the Kolas—and, in report praised Australia’s prudent and flexi- fact, still are referred to as the Kolas— ble management of monetary and fiscal pol- because that is who they indicated they were, icy within transparent medium-term frame- and we took them on good faith. That is what works. They went on to welcome the modest is written in all the files, but that does not cooling in the Australian housing market and mean that is who they are. As you well know, they remain up-beat about our growth pros- Senator, I could send you a letter under an- pects. The IMF predict that we will have a other name. I might put your photo on it, you

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 69 return to 3½ per cent growth per annum in liabilities. Of course, Labor opposes that the medium term. linkage and wants to fritter away the earn- What I thought was particularly interest- ings of this fund on its pet projects. The IMF ing about this report was the extent to which, welcomed recent reforms to the PBS to make on the evidence available to us, it really does it more sustainable. But Labor again opposed contradict much of what the Labor Party has our efforts to increase the copayments to been saying about the economy and eco- make it sustainable. The IMF praised our nomic policy settings by us. The Labor Party welfare reforms—but of course Labor is op- has been desperately trying to get foreign posing those. Labor is on record as opposing debt up as an issue. At least they are talking just about every single reform that we have about the economy. But the IMF found in put up which has produced one of the best relation to foreign debt: economies in the Western world, as testified to by the IMF in its latest report. ... it is not clear that it significantly raises vulner- ability to external shocks because private sector Australian Customs Service balance sheets are strong and currency and liquid- Senator LUDWIG (2.10 pm)—My ques- ity risks are well managed ... tion is to Senator Ellison, Minister for Justice It also said: and Customs. Can the minister confirm that, Medium-term prospects for stronger growth in a year after the exports side of the integrated exports supported by high investment in the re- cargo system was turned on, industry is still source sector, together with moderate growth in experiencing major problems with the opera- domestic demand, will tend to narrow the large tion of this program? Can the minister con- external current account deficit. firm that the exports side of the ICS experi- It also states: enced outages on more than 20 per cent of Experience during the Asian crisis underscores days between April and September this year? the resilience of the Australian economy to exter- Is it the case that the cost of the cargo man- nal shocks ... agement re-engineering project, of which The IMF particularly noted that our debt- this is a part, has now blown out almost ten- servicing ratio has declined in recent years fold from some $25 million when first pro- and is considerably lower than the extraordi- jected to more than $220 million today? How nary levels reached during the early 1990s. is it that the minister can spend $220 million In a number of other areas the Labor Party on a computer program that does not work finds itself at odds with the International properly? Can the minister now provide a Monetary Fund. The IMF actually praised guarantee that, when the imports side of ICS the tax cuts we produced in the 2005-06 is eventually turned on, there will be no simi- budget—tax cuts which the Labor Party op- lar outages? posed. It was Labor Party policy not to de- Senator ELLISON—I can confirm that liver any tax cuts in 2005. The IMF praised things are going well in relation to the CMR our fiscal policy, with surpluses worth one program. They are going very well indeed. In per cent of GDP over the medium term. Of fact, I can say that we can expect the busi- course, the Labor Party has opposed every ness readiness simulations which are under single measure we have tried to bring the way at the moment to continue right through budget into surplus. to the proposed cut-over date on 12 October. The IMF praised the Future Fund and its The latest brief I had is that that cut-over role in offsetting unfunded superannuation date will occur. I have had a series of round-

CHAMBER 70 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 table meetings with industry over the last 18 Senator LUDWIG—Mr President, I ask months to two years and I can say that we a supplementary question. Can the minister have absolute support from the private sector confirm that the program to cover the im- for these reforms. ports side of ICS is due on 12 October? Can These will be the greatest reforms to occur he give a guarantee that it will turn on on to the Australian Customs Service since Fed- 12 October? Can the minister give a further eration. What we are doing is streamlining guarantee that this system will be up and the export and import of goods into this fully operational at that time? Can the minis- country. In fact, when this is in place, we ter confirm that Customs and software de- will have world’s best practice in relation to velopers have been hiving off functionality the handling of goods coming into and leav- of the ICS in a desperate effort to meet the ing Australia. We already have border control 12 October deadline? Can the minister ex- which is without rival. What we are seeing is plain to business users of the system what the Customs Service moving into the modern functions have been lost in the headlong age with a— panic to get the system going, right in the middle of the Christmas rush? Senator Ludwig interjecting— Senator ELLISON—The very thing I Senator Mark Bishop interjecting— discussed with industry was that we had the Senator ELLISON—The opposition do cut-over on 12 October to avoid the Christ- not want to hear this, because obviously it is mas rush. Of course, there is a marked in- good news and it is something that we are crease in imports around October-November seeing occur under this government. Cus- for Christmas, and what we are achieving toms is placing itself at the forefront of cus- with this cut-over is accommodating the toms practice in the world with the CMR wishes of business. This ICS has been avail- program. My latest briefing demonstrates able since 19 July this year and it has been that things are progressing well. We have no progressing well. As I say, I stand by my reason to expect that the 12 October cut-over previous comment: we have no reason to date will not be achieved. I can only say that believe that the 12 October cut-over date will the communication to me personally from not be achieved and this will deliver one of the private sector has been nothing but sup- the greatest reforms to Australian business in port for something which will make it much the private sector, and for Australian indi- easier for business and individual Australians viduals involved in import and export, since to deal with the export and import of goods, Federation. which is so important to the economy of this Industrial Relations country. We want to see the streamlining of the handling of goods coming into and leav- Senator SANTORO (2.15 pm)—My ing this country. question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Abetz, representing the Minister for But it will also enhance border protection. Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the That is also in this country’s interest. So minister aware of any significant and inde- what we will see with the CMR program is pendent assessments of the Australian econ- not only an increase in efficiency of the han- omy which confirm the need for further in- dling of exports and imports but also an industrial relations reforms in this country? crease in border control and scrutiny of those Furthermore, is the minister aware of any imports and exports. alternative policies?

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 71

Senator ABETZ—I thank Senator Mr President, can I note one other very Santoro for his question—a man who, as important comment by the IMF about our minister for industrial relations in Queen- industrial relations reforms. They said: sland, got a very enviable record— … strong social protections would remain in Opposition senators interjecting— place for employees. The PRESIDENT—Order! Can I repeat that: strong social protections would remain in place for employees. Senator ABETZ—and we are now trying to emulate that which he did in Queensland. Senator Carr—The government writes that! Opposition senators interjecting— Senator ABETZ—So workers’ rights will The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on be protected. my left will come to order and allow the minister to answer the question. The PRESIDENT—Order! Shouting across the chamber is disorderly. Senator ABETZ—I did not realise that Senator Santoro was so popular! The Bris- Senator ABETZ—Unfortunately, those bane Courier-Mail said that ‘Mr Santoro on the other side do not share the views of adopted a sensible, incremental approach to the IMF, and that is because they are be- reform in Queensland’s industrial relations holden to their union masters. In fact, Sena- system,’ and that is exactly what we are try- tor Marshall has been squeezing them into ing to do on the national scale. his office today, trying to shore up his posi- Opposition senators interjecting— tion given the withdrawal of support by Mr Shorten. But, talking of unionists, let us have Senator ABETZ—Mr President, I am another ‘who said it?’ aware of an independent and very significant Opposition senators interjecting— assessment that was released yesterday, and that of course was by the International Senator ABETZ—Who said this: Monetary Fund or IMF. This is what the IMF I’m not opposed to unionism per se, just the idea said in its report in relation to the govern- of six union secretaries sitting around a Chinese ment’s proposed industrial relations reforms: restaurant table planning the future for everyone else. They supported the proposed reforms of the industrial relations system aimed at further im- Opposition senators interjecting— provements in labor market flexibility— Senator ABETZ—It is very easy. No tak- Senator Carr—The Australian govern- ers? It is a pity that Senator Frank—I mean ment writes those reports! Senator Faulkner—is not here, because he Senator ABETZ—And listen to this, would know. It is also a pity that Brother Senator Carr— Brown of the exclusive Greens is not here today, because he would have a fairly good that would facilitate additional gains in productivity and employment. idea as well. And the rooster should not be listening to the House of Representatives, And the IMF is spot on. The government is because he knows as well. And Senator Hut- proposing further incremental reform of the chins, I think, has got a bit of stage fright industrial relations system in this country for today, because he knows who said it as well. one reason and one reason only: to create It was of course the former Labor leader, more and better-paid jobs for Australian Mark Latham. But the problem in this place workers and their families. is not—

CHAMBER 72 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Government senators interjecting— nobbling really is pretty outrageous. It is ex- Senator ABETZ—that we have got six traordinary: the Labor Party has been trying trade union officials— to beat up everything it possibly can on Tel- stra. This is the party that went on record The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on talking about a totally fictitious document my right will come to order. and that got caught out when it was asked: Senator ABETZ—but that we have 28 where is this document that says ‘14,000 job former trade union officials reincarnated as losses’? ‘Oh, I haven’t seen the document,’ senators trying to not develop a plan for the said Mr Beazley. ‘We don’t know where the future but take us down the path back to the document is.’ past. We as a government do not suffer from Senator Sherry—Have you seen Lucy’s the reform fatigue of those opposite. We as a transcript from last night? government are still full of ideas, full- throttle, on trying to get more jobs, higher Senator MINCHIN—They got found paid jobs for the Australian work force, out; it was a complete beat-up. And this is a whilst maintaining those important protec- complete beat-up as well. tions that all workers deserve. Senator Conroy—Why didn’t you stop Telstra the cover-up? Senator WONG (2.19 pm)—My question The PRESIDENT—Order! is to Senator Minchin, the Minister repre- Senator MINCHIN—The Labor Party senting the Treasurer. Is the minister aware has completely beaten up what Mr Lucy was that last night ASIC Chairman Jeff Lucy was reported as saying, and because of the Labor asked questions regarding the scope of the Party beat-up of his remarks— corporate regulator’s investigation into Tel- Senator Conroy interjecting— stra? Is the minister further aware that Mr Senator MINCHIN—because of their Lucy was specifically asked whether the abuse of process in this case, Mr Lucy has Prime Minister’s statement that Telstra ex- had to issue— ecutives should ‘talk up’ the interests of the company was a matter before ASIC in its Senator Sherry interjecting— investigation? Wasn’t it the case that Mr The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lucy indicated that the Prime Minister’s Sherry! statement was a matter before ASIC in its Senator MINCHIN—a statement making investigation? Why has ASIC now issued a clear the position of ASIC in relation to min- statement utterly contradicting the evidence isterial and prime ministerial statements. The of the chairman? Can the Minister represent- Labor Party is suggesting that— ing the Treasurer, who is responsible for Opposition senators interjecting— ASIC, now advise whether any contact whatsoever was made by the Prime Minister’s Senator MINCHIN—The Labor Party office or the Treasurer’s office with ASIC to went out and put the spin on this that some- engineer this retraction? how ASIC was saying the Prime Minister was being investigated. What absolute rot. Senator MINCHIN—I gather that is an accusation that somehow ASIC was nobbled, Senator Conroy interjecting— which is a fairly extraordinary accusation The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Con- and an extraordinary slur upon ASIC itself. roy! To suggest that it would be subject to such

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 73

Senator MINCHIN—Their spin, their to- Senator VANSTONE—I thank the sena- tal cynical manipulation of this, has required tor for the question, and I acknowledge the ASIC itself to put out a statement clarifying interjections and laughter from the other its exact position. side. The party on the other side, that alleg- Senator WONG—Mr President, I ask a edly represents the workers, laughs at a ques- supplementary question. Last night ASIC tion about the morale in a department, a very was asked: large department, with a lot of people who are members of a union— Do I infer from that that the answer given by the Prime Minister is a matter that is before you? Opposition senators interjecting— And Mr Lucy replied: The PRESIDENT—Order! Any matter that has been mentioned publicly Senator VANSTONE—and they do not in respect of this Telstra issue we will consider. seem to care— The question was then asked, ‘Including this Senator Chris Evans—You resign; then matter?’ and Mr Lucy replied, ‘Yes, includ- morale will improve. ing this matter.’ Given that that has now been The PRESIDENT—Order, Senator. retracted by the Chairman of ASIC, will the minister now rule out that there has been any Senator VANSTONE—at all. They do contact between the Prime Minister’s office, not care at all. But the answer is that these the Treasurer’s office and ASIC in order to sorts of allegations are particularly damag- engineer this retraction? He failed to answer ing. What Mr Burke did yesterday was not to that in the first question. Can he rule it out ask a question. He did not simply raise an now? issue and ask for it to be looked at. He went much, much further than that. He made a Senator MINCHIN—The Labor Party direct allegation that officers in the depart- totally misrepresented what was said by Mr ment had knowingly and fraudulently sought Lucy, and Mr Lucy has put out this state- false identity documents. ment: That is a very serious matter. It goes well It has been suggested this morning that the beyond the charter of a shadow minister, Australian Securities and Investments Commis- sion (ASIC) is investigating the Prime Minister in which is to question, to probe, to get matters relation to Telstra’s continuous disclosure obliga- investigated. But Mr Burke went much fur- tions ... This is not correct ... I can categorically ther than that. When he was told in the state that ASIC is not undertaking any investiga- House of Representatives chamber that the tion of the Prime Minister, Mr Lucy said. relevant minister did not have information Immigration but would come back to him, he ignored the Senator LIGHTFOOT (2.23 pm)—My opportunity for further information and went question is directed to the Minister for Im- straight out and repeated the allegations against workers again. He did it again. migration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Senator Vanstone. How have allega- To the best of my knowledge, he has not tions that her department issued false identity raised this matter with the Federal Police. He documents to a couple seeking asylum im- certainly has not raised it with me, with the pacted on morale within her department? Ombudsman or with the new secretary. Opposition senators interjecting— Where one thinks there has been knowing and fraudulent falsification of documents, they are the appropriate places to go. That

CHAMBER 74 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 tells workers in the department that what Mr Commonwealth’s powers as recognised un- Burke wants to do is damage their reputation der the CSTDA— and not be concerned to get at the truth. So Senator Abetz—What does that stand what about the workers? Well, we would like for? to know about that. It is a terrible, terrible The PRESIDENT—Order! slur to make against the department. People who work there have families, they have Senator SIEWERT—for example, sec- their own pride in their job— tion 4.2(b), which obliges the Common- wealth and states to: strengthen across gov- Senator Conroy—Jeannie, you were sup- ernment linkages to ensure access to appro- posed to pull this question. priate services, and improve collaboration Senator VANSTONE—and this is a very, and coordination across programs and gov- very serious allegation to make. Of course— ernment, and section 4.2(d), which obliges Opposition senators interjecting— governments to take a strategic approach to The PRESIDENT—Order! equitable funding to respond to unmet demand, and given the shared roles outlined in Senator VANSTONE—Of course, we section 6(1)(b), (e) and (f), which encourage should all bear in mind that when Mr Burke reform of existing services to achieve objec- took on the job of being shadow immigration tive and policy priorities of the agreement spokesperson, he got a pretty easy ride. It is and to fund R&D in the provision of ser- common knowledge that the department has vices, does the minister acknowledge that the made a number of mistakes in relation to two federal government has a clear mandate un- matters. They are out in the open; one has der the Commonwealth State/Territory Dis- been investigated; the investigation of the ability Agreement to address unmet need? other has nearly concluded. Mr Burke was Can the minister outline what actions she able to ride on a whole lot of free kicks in intends to take to meet these unmet needs? Is relation to work that he had not actually done the Commonwealth prepared to put in more himself. money to make this happen? But this matter is all his own work. There The PRESIDENT—Senator, that was a is no pressure for him to comment. This is all very long question. his own work. With no pressure, he chose to rush in and vilify unnamed bureaucrats and, Senator PATTERSON—I thank the hon- in doing so, vilify a whole department. That ourable senator for her question. I also thank is what the public service now understands her for her cooperation yesterday, in discuss- about Mr Burke. My message to Mr Burke is ing a formal motion, so that we could come perfectly simple: when the department makes to an agreement on it and actually pass it, a mistake, it admits it and it seeks to remedy unlike her Labor colleague who would not the mistake, and that is what Mr Burke compromise on any part of it and therefore should now do. we had to oppose it. Carers Opposition senators interjecting— Senator SIEWERT (2.26 pm)—My Senator PATTERSON—But I do thank question is to the Minister for Family and the honourable senator for her cooperation. Community Services. Given the unmet need Opposition senators interjecting— for disability support services acknowledged Senator PATTERSON—We were able to by the Senate yesterday, and given the acknowledge the work of the people—

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 75

Opposition senators interjecting— that $99 million to make sure those business The PRESIDENT—Order! Order on my services are viable. left! On the other hand, the states have respon- Senator PATTERSON—We were able to sibility for accommodation and respite. I was acknowledge the people who came here in very concerned about the fact that many the program, ‘Walk a mile in my shoes’— older people were coming to me saying that people who have been caring for their sons they could not get respite, sometimes for and daughters, some of them for 30, 40 or 50 ideological reasons. In Victoria, we have an years. In the last three years, I think we have old motel that was renovated to accommo- had more money going into carers of people date people from a nursing home while they with a disability than ever before; unprece- were building the new nursing home. It is dented levels of assistance, through the good empty, like the facility in Bega Valley, be- economic management that we have been cause the state government said that, because able to share with people by reducing income it has 12 rooms, it is an institution and the tax. But to those people who are on carers state government will therefore not give any payment, for example, and cannot benefit respite services there. People in the Warragul from that, people who might otherwise be district are desperate for respite. Not only are working, we were able to give, last year, a the states not spending money, they are also $1,000 bonus and a $600 payment for those driven by ideologues. When the parents say, on carers allowance, and we have been able ‘We’re prepared for our people to have res- to give them assistance again this year be- pite in a place with 12 beds’, the Victorian cause we ran a surplus budget. government says, ‘We’re not going to do it.’ Under the Commonwealth State/Territory The states have responsibility for accom- Disability Agreement, the states have re- modation and respite. I was so concerned sponsibility for accommodation and respite; that I got $75 million in the budget before we have responsibility for employment ser- last to ensure that older parents caring for vices and supported employment. We have adult sons and daughters with a disability actually increased funding by $99 million to would get up to four weeks respite a year. It business services, once called ‘sheltered has taken months—in fact, over a year—for workshops’—those facilities and services most of the states to sign up. New South that provide employment for people who are Wales—I suppose because there are a few not capable of being in open employment. by-elections coming up—cynically said they would agree to it this week. Queensland has We have worked assiduously, and I give not signed. The money is still languishing, credit to some Labor members of the House waiting for Queensland to match it and actu- of Representatives who worked with Mr ally do what they should be doing and giving Pyne in addressing the issue of productivity respite and accommodation to people with based wages. We do get some cooperation sons and daughters with a disability. The sometimes from some people, and I ac- states need to step up to the plate and meet knowledge that some former presidents of their responsibilities under the Common- the ACTU worked with Mr Pyne when he wealth-State Disability Agreement. We have was my parliamentary secretary to ensure poured more money into carers of people that we could have productivity based wages with a disability in the last three years than in business services. We are working with ever before. The states need to do the same. It is an increasing problem. They should

CHAMBER 76 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 have formulas to address the fact that we semblies Commission for Economic Affairs have more people with disabilities. They of the Republic of France led by Monsieur should do something about it and take their Patrick Ollier MP. On behalf of senators, I responsibilities seriously. (Time expired) welcome you to Australia and to the Senate, Senator SIEWERT—Mr President, I ask and I apologise for not having time to meet a supplementary question. Given that succes- you this morning, but affairs in the chamber sive CSDAs, as they were known previously, did delay me somewhat. have watered down the Commonwealth’s Honourable senators—Hear, hear! involvement in supported accommodation, QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE are the government prepared to consider re- Internet Services negotiating the SDTA so that they can accept greater responsibility for supported accom- Senator BARNETT (2.34 pm)—My modation? question is to the Minister for Communica- tions, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator PATTERSON—It is actually the Senator Helen Coonan. Is the minister aware CSTDA, the Commonwealth-State Territory of any recent announcements of new tech- Disability Agreement. We have given the nology to deliver high-speed internet in Aus- states assistance to carry out their responsi- tralia? What are the implications of such bilities. In addition, they have had increased technological developments, and is the min- benefits from the GST, a growth tax, and ister aware of any alternative policies for some of that money should be going to peo- internet service delivery? ple with a disability. They have had increased stamp duty, which should be going Senator COONAN—I thank Senator towards housing those people. They need to Barnett for the question and acknowledge his get rid of their ideological blockage. Those longstanding interest in ensuring quality people are saying they want cluster housing; telecommunications services for his state of they want multiple facilities for people to Tasmania. As the Senate would be aware, the live in maybe groups of 10, and we have Howard government have consistently taken places like New South Wales and Victoria a technology-neutral and a pro-competitive saying, ‘We won’t do it because that’s an approach to the delivery of broadband inter- institution.’ As I said yesterday, we have a net services—that is, we do not mandate any place in the Bega Valley, funded by the state particular technology and we do not pick any government and supported by money raised particular providers. An announcement made by the community, empty and waiting for yesterday by a Tasmanian consortium is a people who are in desperate need of respite. perfect example of why this approach is The states need to take their responsibilities needed and why it is working. TasTel, Aurora seriously and do something about a group of Energy, Datafast Communications and Mit- people who deserve all of our assistance and subishi Electric have announced a commer- deserve a reasonable response from the cial trial in Tasmania of broadband over states. (Time expired) powerline technology. This technology can deliver internet access over standard power- DISTINGUISHED VISITORS lines at theoretical speeds of up to 200 The PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the at- megabits per second. For the consumer, it tention of honourable senators to the pres- provides the benefit of using existing electri- ence in the President’s gallery of a parlia- cal cabling so that every power point in a mentary delegation from the National As- house suddenly becomes broadband enabled.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 77

For people living in Hobart, this commer- munication services for Australia and we will cial trial means access to packages which make sure that all Australians will continue currently go up to four megabits a second, in to have access to affordable communication comparison to the commonly available services irrespective of where they live. ADSL packages, which range between 250 Telstra kilobits per second and 1.5 megabits per sec- Senator SHERRY (2.38 pm)—My ques- ond. Access to this broadband service also tion is to Senator Minchin, the Minister rep- allows residents to use voice over IP ser- resenting the Treasurer. Minister, isn’t it cor- vices, which can provide a more economical rect that ASIC’s media release of this morn- alternative to the traditional telephone. What ing in respect of Telstra matters confirms that was announced yesterday is a commercial other members of parliament are being in- trial, but it has the potential for a roll-out of vestigated? Can the minister explain why it broadband over powerlines, and the benefits is that ASIC believes it appropriate to rule are obvious. Using the existing network of out investigating the Prime Minister while it powerlines as an alternative to the copper is still investigating statements by other phone network is simply another way of pro- members of parliament? Who is it that lent viding competition and choice in this very on ASIC to get them to state that it is only important emerging market. We are already the Prime Minister’s comments that are not seeing a rapid growth in wireless broadband being investigated? services throughout the country offering mobile as well as fixed broadband solutions. Senator MINCHIN—The Labor Party There are also satellite services available are continuing this pretty outrageous spin across Australia and fibre-optic and cable that they are putting on this whole matter. If networks being used, particularly in they read the ASIC statement carefully they greenfield sites. Most sensible observers will be reminded that what is being investi- agree that competition is the best way to en- gated is the continuous disclosure obligations sure affordable services to all Australians of Telstra. That is what is being investigated. irrespective of where they live. There is no investigation of any statements made by anyone from the parliament, I am asked about alternate policies and I whether it is the Prime Minister, a minister can tell the Senate that I am aware of some. or anybody else. As this statement says: For example, I am aware of the recommendation from Labor senators just last year that ASIC commenced an investigation into— $5 billion be spent to mandate obsolete dial- what is the investigation into?— up internet access. So under Labor’s plan, the continuous disclosure obligations of Telstra while commercial operators were rolling out last week. As is usual in such investigations— 4,000 kilobit per second services, the tax- that is, into Telstra’s obligations— payers would have been funding the roll-out we are reviewing a wide range of material includ- of a 40 kilobit per second dial-up service a ing that provided by Telstra. We are also consider- 100 times slower. While the Howard gov- ing public comments attributed to Telstra execu- ernment is committed to targeting funding to tives and Members of Parliament that were made provide broadband however it may be deliv- leading up to our investigation— ered and the roll-out of clever networks, La- the investigation into Telstra’s continuous bor is still wedded in the past, wedded to disclosure obligations. It is outrageous for copper wire. This government have an un- the Labor Party to be putting the spin on this paralleled track record for improving com- that there is some sort of investigation into

CHAMBER 78 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 comments made by ministers or the Prime Senator Sherry—I seek leave to table the Minister. That is a complete misrepresenta- transcript and the press release in respect of tion of what ASIC is doing and that is why this matter. ASIC put out this statement to refute the Leave granted. nonsensical claims, the quite outrageous Telstra claims, being made by the Labor Party in relation to this matter. It is perfectly appro- Senator BARTLETT (2.42 pm)—My priate for ASIC of its own volition to decide question is to the Minister for Communica- that it should investigate the question of the tions, Information Technology and the Arts, continuous disclosure obligations of Telstra Senator Coonan. Minister, at last Friday’s and, obviously, in doing that it will review a very brief Senate committee hearing into the whole lot of material, which is what it is Telstra bills the chairman of the Australian making clear here. What ASIC has done in Competition and Consumer Commission, Mr this statement is refute the nonsensical and Samuel, was asked if he was satisfied with outrageous misrepresentation made by the the government’s operational separation Labor Party that somehow there is an inves- model. He indicated that there were signifi- tigation into the Prime Minister. That is what cant outstanding issues from his point of it is rejecting in its statement. If you read the view, including matters such as compliance statement carefully it is obvious that it is not and investigatory powers. Could the minister investigating anybody’s statements; it is in- indicate to the chamber whether the ACCC vestigating Telstra’s continuous disclosure has since written to the minister or the gov- obligations. ernment detailing its concerns, and could the minister outline to the chamber what con- Senator SHERRY—Mr President, I ask a cerns the ACCC has expressed about the op- supplementary question. Can the minister erational separation model it is planning to offer any explanation as to why the Prime apply to Telstra? Minister gets this special treatment from ASIC? How can Australians be expected to Senator COONAN—Thank you to Sena- believe there has been no political interfer- tor Bartlett for the question. My understand- ence in the corporate watchdog by the gov- ing of Mr Samuel’s reaction to the opera- ernment? Further, I offer to table both the tional separation model is that he said he press release and the transcript of last night. thought that it was a workable model. It is not the ACCC’s preferred model—there is no Senator MINCHIN—As I said before, secret about that—but Mr Samuel has gone this really is an outrageous slur upon ASIC. on record saying that in his view it is a The Labor Party is asserting that ASIC can workable model, and we will be making it a be nobbled, that this organisation can be told workable model as we develop the condi- what to do in relation to public statements of tions that are to be attached to it that were this kind by ministers. That is outrageous. referred to and worked through during the ASIC is responding to the misrepresentation committee stage. Seeing this matter is on the of its statements by the Labor Party in sug- Notice Paper I do not propose to comment gesting that the Prime Minister’s statements on it further. I have absolutely no doubt that are being investigated. As a result of their it is a workable model and that the ACCC misrepresentations, ASIC felt compelled to will work very constructively with my de- put out this statement making it clear that it partment and with me as we develop the is not doing any such thing.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 79 parts of the model that are to become the was set up to look at the systems in place in subject of a licence condition on Telstra. our banks and financial sector. We recog- Senator BARTLETT—Mr President, I nised that it would be inappropriate to devise ask a supplementary question. The ACCC’s legislation without looking at what systems opinion is not on the Notice Paper. Could I were in place. ask again: has the ACCC written to the min- As I said, several roundtable meetings ister or the government detailing its con- were held prior to the last election. Included cerns? Can the minister indicate whether that in the group that met were lawyers, account- is the case and whether or not the govern- ants, jewellers and real estate agents. Until ment will be making public any such corre- now, they have not been greatly involved in spondence before any vote on the operational the financial transactions reporting regime. separation model actually occurs? We realised that, because these were very Senator COONAN—The answer to that large sectors in Australia, we could not bring is no. in a law overnight which said, ‘You’ve got to comply with the FATF 40 recommendations Money Laundering on money laundering.’ So we included those Senator LUDWIG (2.45 pm)—My ques- sectors in the roundtable meetings. tion is directed to Senator Ellison, the Minis- We realise that this is a very big reform. ter for Justice and Customs. I refer the minis- The financial sector were represented at the ter to the answer he gave on Monday in re- meetings, and they have much more exper- spect of money laundering. In particular, I tise in this area, as they have been regulated refer to his statement that—and I quote: under the FTR Act for some time now. The In approaching this, we realise that, if this is to systems working group, in looking at the succeed, we need the cooperation of the financial broad range of reforms that would have to be sector of Australia. introduced, reported that it would be best to Can the minister indicate when it was that he make the implementation changes in two realised that he would have to consult with phases: firstly, in the financial sector; and, industry? Isn’t it the case that the minister secondly, in those other sectors which hith- only began the roundtable discussions with erto had not been covered by the financial industry after cabinet rejected his original transactions reporting regime. This is not out embarrassing proposal in June? Given the of keeping with what is occurring in other minister’s promise in December 2003 to co- countries. We have seen it in countries like ordinate ‘an extensive consultation process the United States, and we have been looking which will involve the industry-specific is- at what Canada, the United Kingdom and sues papers and direct consultation with in- Europe have been doing. But one thing we dustry sectors’, why was the minister miss- will not do is to overburden the private sec- ing in action between 2003 and being rolled tor with regulation, which would not only in cabinet in June 2005? impair the private sector unduly but also Senator ELLISON—Senator Ludwig would not achieve the aim of fighting money would do well to look at the record and the laundering. facts because the situation is that I set up a Australia has a fine record in the fight ministerial council some time ago—in fact, against money laundering. We helped to meetings were held before the last election, found the Asia-Pacific Group on Money in the form of roundtable meetings with in- Laundering. We are one of the co-founders dustry. As well, a systems working group

CHAMBER 80 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Senator LUDWIG—Mr President, I ask Laundering, which is the key international a supplementary question. Does the minister group which fights money laundering. We recall making the statement in 2002 that— have helped countries in our region to set up and I quote: financial intelligence units. Only today, I was ... criminals and terrorists ... will continue to take talking to our ambassador who is departing advantage of jurisdictions where the law en- for Indonesia about the great work we had forcement and regulatory powers are the weakest. done with Indonesia, how Indonesia now is Given the minister’s statement, can he now no longer on the FATF list, and how Austra- indicate why he has allowed criminals and lia has been working with that country inter- terrorists to take advantage of our weak nationally. We realise that this is going to be laws? When will he finally get his act to- an ongoing effort and that other countries gether to meet Australia’s international com- like the United States, the United Kingdom mitments? Given that anti-money-laundering and Canada are going through the same legislation is important in combating terrorist process. financing, why is the legislation two years Senator Ludwig—What are you doing overdue? now? Senator ELLISON—If Senator Ludwig The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator looks at my record, he will find that I said Ludwig, you can ask a supplementary ques- that in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, tion later. because what I have said is that money laun- Senator ELLISON—One thing we will dering is at the centre of criminal and terror- not do is foist legislation on the private sec- ist activity and that, in AUSTRAC, we have tor which, firstly, does not work and, sec- one of the finest financial intelligence units ondly, imposes an undue burden on the fi- in the world today. We have resourced nancial sector, as great costs will be passed AUSTRAC. Through our expanded efforts, on to individual Australians if we do not get AUSTRAC represents world’s best practice it right. Today, the banks and financial sector in the fight against money laundering. This is have said just that. One of the points we have also the case with the Australian Crime been talking to them about is the cost, having Commission and the Australian Federal Po- regard to the wide-ranging nature of the re- lice when it comes to tracking down money form that we are committed to introducing. laundering. Many of our successful drug busts have come, firstly, from detecting the In relation to financing of terrorism, we money trail. When you follow the money have said we will take this issue to the trail, you get to the Mr Bigs. What else have COAG meeting to be held on 27 September we done? We have brought in the proceeds and we will further develop our anti financ- of crime regime, which means we do not ing of terrorism laws. That will be dealt with, have to wait for a conviction before taking as it should be, by COAG—the government the money off the Mr Bigs. We have taken leaders of Australia. We have a fine record in the profit out of crime and we have intro- the fight against money laundering. We will duced the toughest laws that this country has continue our efforts in this regard, and we ever seen in relation to the fight against or- will continue our efforts to implement the ganised crime. (Time expired) FATF 40 recommendations and the nine special recommendations with regard to the financing of terrorism.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 81

Murray River Red Gums the governments, but also to about 11 other Senator FIFIELD (2.51 pm)—My ques- sites: Lindsay Island, Maclay, Wallpolla Is- tion is directed to the Minister for the Envi- land, Belsa Island, Abbotsford Bend, John- ronment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell. sons Bend—where John Thwaites and I Will the minister inform the Senate of the turned on the pumps yesterday—and a range latest initiative by the Howard government to of sites along the river that will benefit from help restore Victoria’s Murray River red $1 million to pump it there. gums back to health? Is the minister aware of Senator Fifield asks about alternative any alternative strategies? policies. I think people make jokes about Senator IAN CAMPBELL—Thank you Mark Latham and the diaries. Labor would to Senator Fifield for a very important ques- try and have us believe that Mr Latham is tion for Victorians and, I think, for all Aus- something from the past, that he is history. tralians who care deeply about the health of The reality, as with so many areas with La- the Murray River. It has gone through a pe- bor, is that Labor’s policy on this, the alter- riod of enormous stress throughout the native policy on this, is in fact a Latham pol- drought over recent years. There are river red icy. It was announced at that site on the gums in serious stress along the whole length Murray River that was made famous by for- of the river, particularly in Victoria. We re- mer Prime Minister Bob Hawke and former cently did a survey of 1,450 kilometres of Labor minister Graham Richardson when river and found that roughly 50 per cent of they went there a decade or more ago. Dur- the red gums were stressed back in 2002 and ing the last election, Mr Latham and Mr Pe- that at the end of last year 75 per cent were ter Garrett went there. Mr Peter Garrett said, stressed. It is a crisis situation for river red ‘What’s our policy going to be?’ This will all gums and also for the black box. It is crucial be in the diaries, I am told, in about chapter that we put in place very good quality policy 14 where Mr Latham turns to Mr Garrett and to make sure that the red gums are returned says, ‘The policies? Two words: 1,500 gigs.’ to health. Also important of course is the Smaller than their Kyoto policy; that is a native wildlife that is found within the for- four-word policy. This is a two-word policy: ests: planigales, bush thick-knee birds, bark- 1,500 gigs. Peter Garrett says to Mr Latham, ing owls, egrets, regent parrots and white- ‘They’re going to ask where the water is bellied sea eagles, not to mention the Murray coming from, aren’t they?’ Latham says, cod that make themselves part of the river. ‘Don’t worry about that. Just tell them 1,500 gigs.’ Mr Garrett says, ‘Mr Latham, people Yesterday I went to the river with John are going to ask where the water is going to Thwaites, the Labor Minister for Environ- go, aren’t they?’ Mr Latham says, ‘Don’t ment from Victoria. Within a matter of hours worry. Just tell them it is going to the mighty on Friday, we reached an agreement to spend Murray.’ Two words: the mighty Murray. Mr just under $1 million between the two gov- Garrett says, ‘But someone is going to ask ernments to take advantage of about 14 bil- how it is going to save the trees and where it lion litres of water that have become avail- is going to go.’ Latham just said, ‘It’s going able because of the rains we have had. The to go to the mighty Murray. Just remember agreement will ensure that that water gets to 1,500 gigs and the mighty Murray, and keep where it can do some good, not only to the repeating it.’ Then Peter Garrett said, ‘Mr icon sites of the Living Murray project, Latham, but what if they don’t believe you?’ which is a half a billion dollar investment by

CHAMBER 82 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

He said, ‘Just get into our plane and we’ll fly I also said in answer to the previous ques- down to Tasmania.’ tion on money laundering that we were look- Money Laundering ing at a whole-of-government approach to the whole spectrum of change and that law- Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (2.55 yers, accountants, jewellers, real estate pm)—My question is to Senator Ellison, the agents and the financial sector will be in- Minister for Justice and Customs. I again cluded. As I said, we looked at it and said it refer the minister to his response on Monday would be better to do it in two parts. We about money laundering, in particular his made that decision this year to approach it in announcement regarding the government’s two parts because industry said they wanted long overdue exposure draft of new anti it done in that fashion. We had representa- money-laundering legislation. Is this the tions from accountants, lawyers, real estate same exposure draft the minister promised agents and the private financial sector and on 10 June 2004 in his press release entitled we responded to those concerns. We will still ‘New laws take shape to strengthen fight have an exposure draft, but it will relate to against money laundering’. Does the minis- the first tranche. That is what we experienced ter recall promising at that time: and saw in other countries. There is nothing This exposure Bill will form the basis of the sec- unusual in this approach. And we will then ond round of public consultation. have an exposure draft in relation to the sec- Can the minister now confirm that the second phasing. ond round of consultation never actually Senator George Campbell might suggest eventuated and that we are still awaiting the that we just ride roughshod over the private release of the exposure draft? Can the minis- sector and impose upon them a regulatory ter now explain how he has botched for so regime which is costly, which will tie their long and so badly a matter that is so vital to hands behind their backs and which will cost fighting crime and terrorism? individual Australians who deal with the fi- Senator ELLISON—I think what Sena- nancial sector money, and perhaps account- tor George Campbell does not realise is that ants, lawyers, real estate agents and jewel- he ought to have a look at what was said and lers. We are not in the business of doing that. done before the election last year in relation We are going to get the legislation right and to the proposed exposure draft which was we are going to get the level of regulation going to be released. He might remember right. We are also going to be mindful of any that we had an election late last year. Despite potential costs that this might involve. that election, I instructed the systems work- Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Mr ing group to try and carry on working as President, I ask a supplementary question. much as possible. He knows full well that the Minister, will you now commit to a main election period did not enable us to carry on date for this long-running farce? How much further negotiations with the private sector. longer will industry and law enforcement He would be the first to complain if we did have to wait before Australia meets the under the caretaker provisions. What I said to minimum international standards set out un- the officials was that we should keep the der the Financial Action Task Force recom- work going on as much as possible within mendations? Minister, is it any wonder that the caretaker provisions so that we do not the US State Department has us on its list as lose time and opportunity. a major money-laundering country?

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 83

Senator ELLISON—Mr President, Sena- providing certain information. The rest of my tor George Campbell talks about the recom- answer remains: that, so far as I am con- mendations. One has to remind oneself of the cerned, Mr Samuel has said that this is a fact that the nine special recommendations workable model, and I certainly do not pro- dealing with terrorism, the guidelines for pose to release the letter. implementation by FATF, were only released QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: earlier this year. I say to you, Senator Camp- TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS bell: how can we implement those recom- Telstra mendations when FATF itself has 40 recommendations, then a further nine and those Senator WONG (South Australia) (3.02 nine deal with terrorism? What we are saying pm)—I move: is this: the nine are being specially ad- That the Senate take note of the answers given dressed—and we are dealing with terrorist by the Minister for Finance and Administration financing at the COAG meeting on 27 Sep- (Senator Minchin) to questions without notice tember. We also have in place laws dealing asked by Senators Wong and Sherry today relat- with terrorist financing—some of the tough- ing to Telstra. est in the world. We have addressed those Today the opposition questioned the Minister issues of security threats first up, but the representing the Treasurer about the extraor- wider reform that is going to touch on law- dinary backdown that we have seen in less yers, accountants, jewellers, real estate than 24 hours between questions which were agents and the whole of the private financial asked and answered last night by the Austra- sector is going to take more time, naturally, lian Securities and Investments Commission because it covers such a broad area. We are and the release of a media statement today not just going to do it by way of a knee-jerk by ASIC. Senators will recall that the Prime reaction, which the opposition would have us Minister, at one point in question time in do. answer to a question, put the view that a Tel- stra executive should talk up the interests of Senator Hill—Mr President, I ask that the company. further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Senator Brandis interjecting— QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: Senator WONG—Thank you, Senator ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Brandis; I am sure you will have your turn shortly. We have been here on previous occa- Telstra sions speaking about the inappropriateness of Senator COONAN (New South Wales— the Prime Minister exhorting Telstra execu- Minister for Communications, Information tives to do something which fairly arguably Technology and the Arts) (3.01 pm)—Mr was contrary to their legal obligations, which President, I would be grateful if I could add were to act in good faith in the best interests to an answer I gave in answer to Senator of the company. Then last night, at the Par- Bartlett’s question lest I have in any way liamentary Joint Committee on Corporations provided misleading information in relation and Financial Services, ASIC was discussing to the answer I gave on operational separa- its investigation in relation to Telstra issues. tion. I have in fact, I am now informed, re- As senators will be aware, there is an inves- ceived a letter from the Australian Competi- tigation by ASIC into various matters associ- tion and Consumer Commission relating to ated with Telstra, including an alleged failure certain aspects of operational separation and by some persons not to disclose issues in a

CHAMBER 84 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 timely manner to the market. This is what this media statement going out—that is a was the subject of discussion at the joint disgrace, Senator Chapman. On two occa- committee. Senator Sherry asked: sions he was asked. He could have ruled it Mr Lucy, have you checked to verify what the out; he could have said: ‘We would not nob- Prime Minister said in relation to this matter in ble ASIC. This is not an issue we would have question time? spoken to ASIC about.’ He could have ruled Mr Lucy, the Chairman of ASIC, said: it out so Australians could know that there All matters to do with this investigation are be- has been no political interference in the cor- fore us. We are looking at all areas, and at this porate watchdog. Did he do that? stage we really cannot comment any further. Opposition senators—No. I then asked: Senator WONG—He was given two op- Do I infer from that that the answer given by the portunities and another question from Sena- Prime Minister is a matter that is before you? tor Sherry. On any occasion did Senator Mr Lucy then said: Minchin, representing the Treasurer, rule out Any matter that has been mentioned publicly in that there had been any political interference respect of this Telstra issue we will consider. with ASIC prior to the statement being issued? No, he did not. What we do have is Senator Sherry asked: ASIC’s media release today which states as Including this matter? follows: Mr Lucy confirmed that with: We are also considering public comments attrib- Yes, including this matter. uted to Telstra executives and Members of Par- It was absolutely clear, and it is clear if you liament that were made leading up to our investi- look at the public record that the ASIC gation. chairman confirmed that the Prime Minis- However, ASIC then goes on to say: ter’s statement was one of the issues before it I can categorically state that ASIC is not underin its investigation of the Telstra matters. taking any investigation of the Prime Minister ... Senator Chapman—That is a gross mis- Most reasonable observers would think there representation—that is absolutely disgrace- is a slight contradiction between those two ful, and you know that. statements. On the one hand we have ASIC Senator WONG—Senator Chapman al- saying, ‘We will look at public comments leges I am not telling the truth. There is a attributed to various people, including mem- tabled document which I am sure you can bers of parliament, leading up to our investi- refer to, Senator Chapman. gation, but we’re not going to look at the Prime Minister; we won’t look at the Prime Senator Chapman—I’ve got that docu- Minister,’ and on the other hand we have got ment. I can read it too. It doesn’t read like ASIC saying categorically that there will be that. Shame! You’re a disgrace! ‘no investigation of the Prime Minister’. The Senator WONG—I will take that inter- jury is out on this. On what basis can ASIC jection. Do you know what is a disgrace, make that decision? There may be a reason- Senator Chapman? Senator Minchin repre- able basis. senting the Treasurer in here refusing on two Senator Brandis—Because there was occasions to rule out that either the Prime nothing to investigate. Minister or his office, or the Treasurer or his office, made any contact with ASIC prior to Senator WONG—If there is nothing to investigate, why is it that the Prime Minister

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 85 is ruled out but every other member of par- taken by ASIC in the way it was beaten up to liament is in? Why is that? Why is it that the suggest that in the article. Treasurer’s representative here in this cham- Senator Wong—We didn’t write the arti- ber refused to rule out any interference, any cle. contact or any discussion by the Prime Min- Senator CHAPMAN—No, you are just ister’s office and the Treasurer’s office prior compounding the felony, Senator Wong and to the ASIC statement being released today? Senator Sherry. In fact what happened in the Senator Minchin could have closed this meeting last night was that a question was down: he could have indicated quite clearly asked by Senator Sherry. He asked: on the public record that no such contact had occurred. He chose not to do that. He chose ... are you aware of the comments made by the not to do that at a time when it is clear that Prime Minister in parliamentary question time about talking up the share price? ASIC’s statement and its statements last night are quite clearly at odds. (Time expired) Mr Lucy said: Senator CHAPMAN (South Australia) I read them. (3.07 pm)—What we have heard from the My colleague Senator Brandis took a point Labor Party today in question time and this of order and said: debate really compounds the disgraceful mis- ... that is a false statement. The Prime Minister representation on this issue that began with did not use the expression ‘talking up the share this article in the Australian newspaper this price’. morning. I will read from the front page arti- Senator Wong interjected and said: cle: It was: ‘talking up the interests of the company’. In an extraordinary development late last Senator Brandis said: night, the chairman of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, Jeff Lucy, said he He used the expression ‘talking up the interests of was investigating all public comments in relation the company’, which is quite a different thing. to Telstra, including those made by John Howard. Then Senator Sherry asked: It goes on to talk about ASIC already inves- Mr Lucy, have you checked to verify what the tigating whether Telstra executives had kept Prime Minister said in relation to this matter in the market informed and so on. It has been question time? inferred from this that ASIC is investigating Mr Lucy said: the Prime Minister, which is absolute rub- All matters to do with this investigation are be- bish. That was never indicated last night nor fore us. We are looking at all areas, and at this has it been confirmed today in this debate. stage we really cannot comment any further. The article describes it as an ‘extraordinary He then confirmed that that matter was in- development’. It certainly was not anything cluded. So in fact ASIC was looking to ver- extraordinary. It is also presented as if it ify what the Prime Minister said—whether in were an initiative taken by Mr Lucy, as if he fact it was, as Senator Wong herself said, made some public statement. In fact, it was a merely to say that Telstra should be talking comment made by Mr Lucy in response to up the interests of the company rather than, questions asked at the Joint Committee on as had been misrepresented, talking up the Corporations and Financial Services hearing share price of the company. That is the only last night into its half yearly oversight of matter that was relevant to this issue regard- ASIC’s activities. It was not an initiative ing the Prime Minister.

CHAMBER 86 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

There is absolutely no investigation of the Senator Brandis—It doesn’t stand scru- Prime Minister whatsoever. That was con- tiny. firmed by what was said last night and, of Senator CHAPMAN—Thank you, Sena- course, is reconfirmed by the press release tor Brandis. It is based on this dreadful beat- put out by ASIC this morning, which simply up in the media which completely misrepre- reinforces the fact that it is those statements sents the circumstances of last night. It tries that are being looked at to confirm whether to create an impression that there has been the Prime Minister said what we know he some dramatic announcement by Mr Lucy said or whether it is as the media has beaten on behalf of ASIC when all Mr Lucy was it up. This is a complete beat-up and a com- doing was responding to a question from the plete misrepresentation of the situation re- Labor Party in a committee. There is abso- garding the Prime Minister. lutely no reference to the committee hearing It has also been raised as to whether the in this article whatsoever. It is a complete Treasurer made contact with ASIC this misrepresentation. (Time expired) morning. Of course he has made contact. He Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (3.12 has acknowledged that he made contact be- pm)—What I find most interesting about cause he knows very well the way the Labor Senator Chapman’s contribution is that he Party operate in this place, the way they beat has confirmed that the Treasurer’s office or things up and misrepresent things in an at- the Treasurer himself—that point was not tempt to damage individuals and the gov- clear—has made contact with ASIC this ernment. He contacted ASIC to determine morning. Firstly, it would be interesting to what had happened last night from their know where Senator Chapman got that in- point of view. As has happened in this cham- formation from, but I do take it that he is ber and the other chamber, he expected the telling the truth and that he has confirmed issue to be raised and he expected questions with the Treasurer’s office as to whether to be asked, so he needed to be briefed on they, or indeed the Treasurer himself, have exactly what had happened so that he could spoken to ASIC—and presumably to Mr confirm the veracity of what happened, as I Lucy—this morning after last night’s hear- have today. There is absolutely nothing in ing. It is interesting that Senator Chapman what happened last night. knows this. It begs the question why, when I am sure Senator Brandis, who was also my colleague Senator Wong directly asked present at the committee last night, will sub- the Minister for Finance and Administration, sequently confirm that absolutely nothing Senator Minchin, representing the Treasurer, that happened last night suggests in any way whether anyone from the Prime Minister’s that the Prime Minister was being investi- office or the Treasurer’s office had contacted gated with regard to these Telstra issues. The Mr Lucy this morning, Senator Minchin only thing that ASIC was looking at was to evaded the question. He did not answer the confirm that the Prime Minister had said that question at all. Yet Senator Chapman has Telstra should be talking up the interests of owned up and said that, yes, the Treasurer’s the company. The issue raised by the Labor office did contact Mr Lucy this morning. Party today is a complete beat-up. It shows It is not surprising, frankly, given the the depths to which they will sink to try to do revelations at the committee hearing last damage to the government and the individu- night when Mr Lucy was being questioned als in the government. It has absolutely no by not just Labor senators, I might say, but substantiation and it simply does not stand—

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 87 my colleagues opposite in respect of the in- $4 mark and the future prospect for divi- vestigation into Telstra. If you look at the dends is not good, as Telstra itself has said. transcript of last night, Mr Lucy made it That is why the government has got itself clear that the Prime Minister was one of into a mess with respect to the privatisation those being investigated in respect of this of Telstra. It is desperate to talk up the price whole Telstra saga. The Prime Minister him- in preparation for privatisation. It is desper- self, Mr Howard—quite understandably, ate to get the $30 billion that it has put in the frankly, if we reflect a little bit on the history forward projections of the budget based on a and background of what has been going on price of $5.25. And it is desperate because of in respect of Telstra’s privatisation—is going the calls—my office is getting them and I am to be checked out by ASIC, according to Mr sure the office of every other member of par- Lucy last night. liament is getting them—from T2 purchasers Why is this occurring? Let us look at what who are very worried about what the gov- has happened with respect to the Telstra ernment has been doing and the activity share price and the government’s privatisa- around the privatisation of Telstra. That is tion proposals for Telstra. This is a govern- why the Prime Minister got himself into ment in panic, in large part because the share trouble when he went into parliament and price of Telstra has declined significantly. said that Telstra executives should talk up the When T2 came onto the market the share interests of the company—in other words, price was around $7.40. The share price for talk up the price. privatisation in the budget is $5.25, and the Senator Brandis—No, not in other government wants to raise some $30 billion words. dollars by privatising Telstra. Where is the Senator SHERRY—That is what it is all share price today? It is around the low $4 about, Senator Brandis. You are in big trou- mark. Why is it down there? In part because ble on Telstra because the price has declined of the secret report that was released about dramatically. That is why Mr Lucy should be the poor condition of Telstra; in part because investigating not just Telstra executives but of the comments by Telstra executives that the Prime Minister. And who nobbled Mr the dividends cannot be maintained. There is Lucy? That is what we want to know. It is a a series of reasons why the Telstra share sure bet that the Prime Minister’s office and price has declined dramatically. the Treasurer’s office got onto him this What does the government want to do? morning and nobbled him. (Time expired) The government, because it wants to sell Senator BRANDIS (Queensland) (3.17 Telstra, wants to get that price back up again. pm)—Those sorts of foolish, spurious allega- It wants to get it back up at least to $5.25, tions could only come from the bosom of a because that is the figure in the budget that is political culture as dysfunctional, dishonest needed to get that $30 billion. But the share and disgusting as the Australian Labor Party. price is significantly below $5.25. The gov- As Mr Mark Latham, their former leader, is ernment wants to get the share price back up desperate to tell us and will tell us in his because it wants to at least try and get it memoirs to be published this weekend, it is a closer to the $7.40 that the T2 shareholders party unfit to govern and beyond repair. And paid. The T2 shareholders, who paid around what more would you expect when senior $7.40, are in a very difficult position. At this politicians, frontbench politicians, of the stage the share price has dropped to the low Australian Labor Party such as Senator

CHAMBER 88 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Wong and Senator Sherry, both of whom Tuesday last week. Senator Sherry put it to should know better, come into this chamber Mr Lucy that the Prime Minister had said and make ridiculous, ludicrous, dishonest that executives of Telstra should talk up the statements? share price. I took a point of order and, refer- I was at the hearing last night and I will ring to the Hansard, which was open on the tell you precisely what happened. What laptop internet of the secretary of the com- Senator Wong and Senator Sherry have not mittee, read what the Prime Minister in fact told you is that Mr Lucy was asked and said, which was that executives of the com- prompted again and again by the Labor sena- pany should talk up the interests of the com- tors present to say that there had been some pany, not talk them down. Any honest person political interference in relation to the Telstra who read what the Prime Minister said in the matter, in relation to the Vizard matter and in House of Representatives on Tuesday of last relation to ASIC’s ongoing investigations. week—that the senior executives of the Notwithstanding the fact that time and again company should talk up the interests of the Senator Wong and Senator Sherry tried to get company, not talk them down—would have Mr Lucy to concede that there had been found that remark utterly unexceptionable some measure of political interference, Mr and indeed merely a layman’s rendering of Lucy could not have been more emphatic the statutory duty of senior officers of corpo- and unambiguous and categorical— rations under the provisions of the Corpora- tions Act. Senator Chapman—And honest. Senator Sherry, having relented from mis- Senator BRANDIS—And honest, Sena- quoting the Prime Minister and given Mr tor Chapman; quite right—in saying there Lucy the accurate quote, then said: has not been any political intervention by or on behalf of any politician in these investiga- Senator SHERRY—Mr Lucy, have you tions whatsoever. That was Mr Lucy’s em- checked to verify what the Prime Minister said in relation to this matter in question time? phatic, unambiguous evidence, which has been misrepresented in a disgraceful fashion Mr Lucy—All matters to do with this investi- this afternoon. And Mr Lucy agreed with me gation are before us. We are looking at all areas, and at this stage we really cannot comment any when I said to him: ‘Would any suggestion, further. Mr Lucy, that there has been intervention by Senator WONG—Do I infer from that that or on behalf of any politician in relation to the answer given by the Prime Minister is a mat- these matters be either ignorant or dishon- ter that is before you? est?’ Mr Lucy said yes. Any suggestion that Mr Lucy—Any matter that has been men- there has been political intervention in this tioned publicly in respect of this Telstra issue we investigation, according to the Chairman of will consider. ASIC, is either ignorant or dishonest. That is Senator SHERRY—Including this matter? what Mr Lucy said. When the full transcript is available—because we have had selective Mr Lucy—Yes, including this matter. quotation so far—it will be there for all to It is a long stretch from saying that a matter, see. any matter, that has been put on the public record is before ASIC in an investigation to What happened last night in the relevant saying ASIC has announced an investigation piece of the evidence? It started with Senator into the Prime Minister. But that is the lie Sherry misquoting what the Prime Minister that was bruited about by the Australian La- had said in the House of Representatives on bor Party last night. (Time expired)

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 89

Senator WEBBER (Western Australia) ing that Telstra is in such a state at the mo- (3.22 pm)—This is a fine mess that we seem ment that he would not even advise one of to have got ourselves into. Whilst it would his nearest relatives to buy shares—a very seem that Senator Brandis accepts the tran- open and honest approach. It was an ap- script that was alluded to by Senator Wong proach that the government did not find to its and Senator Sherry, what he neglects to liking, so the Prime Minister came out and quote is the press release that was put out by said that he would prefer senior management the Chairman of ASIC today that states: of Telstra to talk up the value of Telstra, just Last evening, I advised the Parliamentary Joint like the likes of Rodney Adler talked up the Committee on Corporations and Financial Ser- value of HIH and FIA. We seem to have vices that the comments attributed to the Prime learnt none of the lessons we needed to learn Minister regarding obligations of Telstra execu- from that royal commission and from various tives were included amongst those matters being other investigations. considered. Why does the Prime Minister feel that the The words from the horse’s mouth are that value of Telstra needs to be talked up? It is he advised the committee that they were in- because in the budget papers, as Senator cluded. Sherry said earlier, the expected sale price is Senator Chapman—You weren’t even listed as in excess of $5 a share. Yet, as of there! last night when the market closed, the share Senator WEBBER—So we can play se- price was trading at just above $4 a share. mantics about interpreting the investigation That is a marked difference—the difference and interrogation by the committee last eve- of $1 that I am sure the government was ning—and you are correct that I was not counting on to pay for the slush fund that there. We can play with semantics and we Senator Joyce is claiming all the credit for. can have all that melodrama from Senator There is a very good reason that the mar- Brandis and Senator Chapman, but Mr Lucy ket is extremely concerned about the ongo- himself says that he did advise the committee ing financial return from Telstra. When you that the Prime Minister’s comments were have a CEO warning about revenue falling included. So, if you do not like the press re- because of the regulatory framework and the lease that he put out, perhaps the Treasurer’s company borrowing money to pay dividends, office needs to go and talk to him again and of course the share price will fall. And an get him to put out a further statement. honest senior executive would therefore How is it that the government has got it- think that perhaps it was not advisable for self into this mess? Most members of this significant members of his family to invest in chamber would remember that the Prime that company at that point in time. With that Minister’s comments about the obligations, situation, what has been the response of the according to him, on those in Telstra to talk majority shareholder—that is, until 6.30 pm up its value came hot on the heels of the this evening, the Australian people through comments of one of the famous three ami- their government? Simply put, it has been to gos, who said that he would not advise his suggest that the executives of the company mother to buy Telstra shares. That is how we should be talking up Telstra. These are irre- have ended up in this position. We have one sponsible actions that should rightly be in- of the three amigos actually being honest vestigated by ASIC. In other words, the view with the mum and dad shareholders and say- of the government is, ‘Don’t highlight the potential or actual problems, just talk the

CHAMBER 90 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 company up. Talk the value up.’ It is an ex- the blame game. She chose to blame the traordinary way to behave for a majority states instead of actively looking at ways that shareholder or for someone who is acting on she and the government could show leader- behalf of the majority shareholder. (Time ship on this issue. expired) There are a number of things that the Question agreed to. Commonwealth government can do to ad- Carers dress this problem. The carers of this nation are looking for the government to show lead- Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia) ership and to ensure that there is a national (3.27 pm)—I move: commitment across all levels of government, That the Senate take note of the answer given not just the state governments. It is not just by the Minister for Family and Community Ser- the states’ responsibility to resolve the crisis vices (Senator Patterson) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to in unmet need for disability support services. carers. The minister chose to blame the states instead of looking at what the Commonwealth I would like to start by sharing a note that I can do. The Commonwealth can, for exam- had from a carer yesterday in response to the ple, provide an immediate injection of fund- motion that the Senate passed: ing to expedite assistance to the people with I generally prefer to be called a “mum” than a disabilities and their families who are living “carer”, but your motion brought tears to my in crisis. This funding is absolutely urgently eyes. It’s only words, but they touched me. Some- times a bit of understanding and recognition is all needed by disability services and these car- we need. ers. I run a national e-mail support group for parents The minister was concerned that she does of children with CP. While I could send you a 20 not have the power to do these things, but it page document of issues we face as carers, I’d say is in the Commonwealth’s power to renego- the biggest problem people face is equipment tiate this agreement with the states. The (from the big things like wheelchairs, hoists, original agreement—the CSDA as it was wheelchair accessible cars, to the little things then called—shared responsibility for ac- such as bathing chairs, feeding chairs, splints ... commodation support services between the Second would be access to services—there is just states and the Commonwealth. That has been not enough money for decent services. For example, kids get Botox pumped into their muscles at watered down. The Commonwealth can, if the hospital, and there is no physiotherapy follow they think they need the powers, renegotiate up, as The Spastic Centre has not enough funding the agreement so that they do have those for the necessary physio that would maximise the powers. I repeat that we are very disap- effect of the Botox. pointed that the minister failed to answer this I am greatly disappointed that the minister question and fails to acknowledge the very failed to answer the question about whether real elements within the existing agreement she would acknowledge that she had a man- that can be used to actually address this is- date to tackle this significant unmet need in sue. It is very disappointing that the govern- accommodation support and other things. As ment continues to blame the states. The I pointed out to the Senate earlier today, states may not be perfect, they are struggling, there are a number of ways under the but they are injecting a lot of money into CSTDA that the Commonwealth can be in- disability services—twice as much as the volved, but instead the minister chose to play Commonwealth, yet the government and the

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 91 minister still blame the states rather than ac- expect parents to teach children to cope with cepting their responsibility. the damaging effects of pornographic images AFTER exposure. Question agreed to. • It is the primary duty of community and PETITIONS Government to prevent children being ex- The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged posed to pornography in the first place by for presentation as follows: placing restrictions on pornographers and Australia Post: Services those businesses distributing such material. • Internet Service Providers (ISPs), should To the Honourable President and members of the accept responsibility for protecting children Senate in Parliament assembled: from Internet pornography, including liability The petition of the undersigned shows: for harm caused to children by inadequate ef- There are three aged care facilities on Burkitt forts to protect minors from exposure. Street, Page, ACT (Ginninderra Gardens, Villag- Your petitioners therefore, pray that the Senate gio Sant Antonio, Ridgecrest Retirement Village). take legislative action to restrict children’s expo- A number of residents at these facilities are dis- sure to Internet pornography abled and have mobility difficulties. Many residents rely on mail as their primary form of con- by Senator Stephens (from 849 citizens). tact. An Australia Post mailbox will be beneficial Petitions received. to local residents, ensuring they can maintain NOTICES contact with and remain active members of the local community. Presentation Your petitioners ask/request that the Senate: Senator Wong to move on the next day of Ensure that an Australia Post mailbox is installed sitting: on Burkitt Street as soon as possible for the bene- That the following matter be referred to the fit of the local aged and disabled residents. Employment, Workplace Relations and Education by Senator Lundy (from 154 citizens). References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2005: Information Technology: Internet Content The Government’s proposed changes to To the Honourable the President and Members of welfare, as detailed in Budget paper no. the Senate in Parliament assembled 2—Budget measures 2005-06, with par- We, the undersigned citizens of Australia draw to ticular reference to: the attention of the Senate the common incidence (a) the financial impact on people with a dis- of children being exposed to Internet websites ability, parents and their children; portraying explicit sexual images. These images (b) any implications for the capacity of par- may involve children/teens, sexual violence, bes- ents to manage their family and work re- tiality, and other disturbing material. Many such sponsibilities, and the consequences for websites use aggressive, deceptive or intrusive family life; techniques to induce viewing. We submit to the Senate that: (c) the effectiveness of the proposed changes in improving the employment prospects of • Exposure to pornography is a form of sexual people with disabilities and parents, in- assault against children and should be con- cluding through: sidered, like all sexual abuse of children, as a serious matter causing lasting harm. (i) the provision of employment services assistance and training, • It is not adequate to charge individual parents with the chief responsibility for protecting (ii) the implementation of employer de- their children from Internet pornographers mand strategies, and determined to promote their product, OR to

CHAMBER 92 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

(iii) the impact of changing the structure of Senator Bob Brown to move on the next income support payments on work in- day of sitting: centives and effective marginal tax That the Government gives the Senate a de- rates; tailed explanation for the detention of United (d) the impact of the new compliance ar- States’ citizen, Mr Scott Parkin, before he is de- rangements on welfare recipients; and prived of his right to remain in Australia. (e) the adequacy of child care assistance for Withdrawal parents affected by the changes, including the adequacy and accessibility of the ex- Senator WATSON (Tasmania) (3.31 isting Jobs, Education and Training child pm)—Following satisfactory responses and care assistance program. pursuant to notice given on the last day of Senator Stott Despoja to move on the sittings, I now withdraw business of the Sen- next day of sitting: ate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for today. That the Senate— (a) notes that: COMMITTEES (i) the annual Australian Book Industry Selection of Bills Committee Awards took place on 12 September Report 2005, and Senator FERRIS (South Australia) (3.31 (ii) award recipients included Harper- pm)—I present the 10th report of 2005 of the Collins Publishers Australia (Publisher Selection of Bills Committee. of the Year); Dymocks Booksellers Ordered that the report be adopted. Rundle Mall and The Avenue Book- store (joint winners of Bookshop of the Senator FERRIS—I seek leave to have Year); Alliance Distribution Services the report incorporated in Hansard. (Distributor of the Year); the CSIRO to- Leave granted. tal wellbeing diet, published by Pen- guin Group (Australia) (Publishing The report read as follows— Project 2005); Sue Donovan (the Lloyd SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE O’Neil Award for Services to Publish- REPORT NO. 10 OF 2005 ing); Rosalind Price (the Pixie O’Harris (1) The committee met in private session on Award for Children’s Publishing); and Tuesday, 13 September 2005 at 4.20 pm. Helen Garner for Joe Cinque’s Conso- lation (the Booksellers’ Choice Award); (2) The committee resolved to recommend— That the provisions of the Student Assistance (b) acknowledges the important contribution Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 be re- of the book industry in Australia; and ferred immediately to the Employment, (c) recognises that books are integral to liter- Workplace Relations and Education Legisla- acy, knowledge-building and education, tion Committee for inquiry and report by 5 and should be affordable and accessible to October 2005. all. The committee recommends accordingly. Senator Vanstone to move on the next (Jeannie Ferris) day of sitting: Chair That the following bill be introduced: A Bill 14 September 2005 for an Act to amend the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the law relating to migration, and for related Appendix 1 purposes. Migration and Ombudsman Legisla- Proposal to refer a bill to a committee tion Amendment Bill 2005.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 93

Name of bill(s): Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (3.33 pm)— Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill Before supporting formality, I seek leave to 2005 make a short statement. Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- Leave granted. sideration Senator MILNE—I wish to make it clear, Potential significant weakening of Parliamentary on behalf of the Greens, that our support for oversight regarding changes to two important this motion can in no way be construed as student income support schemes. support for the export of uranium from Aus- Possible submissions or evidence from: tralia to the 36 countries covered by the Aus- Student organisations; tertiary education institu- tralian bilateral safeguard agreements under tions; peak interest groups (eg AVCC); Student the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Whilst Financial Advisors Network (SFAN). we recognise as a fact that, under the NPT, Committee to which bill is referred: Australia has the right to be selective as to Employment, Workplace Relations, and Educa- the signatory countries to which it exports tion Legislation Committee uranium, it does not indicate the Australian Possible hearing date: last fortnight in Septem- Greens’ support for the export of uranium. ber 2005 We are opposed to such export to China and Possible reporting date(s): first sitting week in India. October 2005 Further, we note that the Labor Party has NOTICES now completely watered down its own mo- Postponement tion in the operative paragraph such that the The following item of business was post- operative paragraph (c) now makes no spe- poned: cific reference to ruling out the export of uranium to India and omits reference to any General business notice of motion no. 228 specific treaty, let alone the non-proliferation standing in the name of Senator Milne for today, relating to the proposed pulp mill in treaty. This amended motion further signals Tasmania, postponed till 5 October 2005. Labor’s change of policy position in relation to the export of uranium to India. URANIUM EXPORTS The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (3.32 any objection to the motion as amended be- pm)—I seek leave to amend business of the ing taken as formal? Senate notice of motion No. 260 standing in my name for today, which relates to the Nu- Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (3.34 clear Non-Proliferation Treaty and uranium pm)—I seek leave to make a statement in exports, before asking that it be taken as a regard to the same matter. formal motion. Leave granted. Leave granted. Senator BARTLETT—I would have Senator O’BRIEN—I ask that the motion done this when the vote was taken, but, to as amended be taken as formal. flow on from the last contribution, I will say that the Democrats do not oppose formality The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there but are not prepared to support the motion any objection to the motion as amended be- because of the watered-down nature of it and ing taken as formal? the implications that it has for potentially

CHAMBER 94 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 opening the door down the track to such ex- WATER POLICY ports. Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (3.35 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there pm)—At the request of Senator Murray, I any objection to the motion as amended be- move: ing taken as formal? There being no objec- That the following matter be referred to the tion, I call Senator O’Brien. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Refer- Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (3.35 ences Committee for inquiry and report by the pm)—I move: last sitting day in March 2006: That the Senate— The impact on rural water usage of recent water policy initiatives and the possible role for (a) notes that: Commonwealth agencies, with particular ref- (i) based on longstanding bipartisan policy erence to: as announced by the then Prime Minis- (a) the development of water property titles; ter, Mr Fraser, in May 1977 (Ura- nium—Australia’s Decision, Fraser (b) methods of protection for rivers and aqui- Government, 24 May 1977), export of fers; uranium from Australia is permitted (c) farming innovation; only to those states which are party to (d) monitoring drought and predicting farm the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty water demand; and and with which Australia has a bilateral (e) the implications for agriculture of pre- safeguards agreement, dicted changes in patterns of precipitation (ii) Australia has a right to be selective as and temperature. to the countries to which it is prepared Question agreed to. to export uranium on the basis of the need for assurances that exported ura- SUSTAINABLE CITIES nium and its derivates cannot be used Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (3.36 pm)— in the development of nuclear weapons I move: or in other military programs, That the Senate— (iii) Australia has 19 bilateral safeguard agreements which cover 36 countries (a) notes: that are party to the treaty, providing (i) the report of the House of Representa- for the continued export of uranium to tives Standing Committee on Environ- those countries including existing ex- ment and Heritage, entitled Sustainable ports to Japan, South Korea, France, cities, tabled on 12 September 2005, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Canada, Belgium, Finland and the (ii) the committee’s call for the Govern- United States of America, ment to exercise leadership in address- (iv) China is a signatory to the treaty, and ing urgent issues of sustainability, in- (v) India is not a signatory to the treaty; cluding: and therefore (A) increasing funding for public trans- (b) notes that Australia does not export ura- port, nium to India and the Government has no (B) establishing an Australian sustain- plans to alter this policy; and ability charter and an independent (c) calls on the Government to continue to Australian sustainability commis- uphold our international obligations. sion, Question agreed to. (C) reviewing fringe benefits tax con- cessions for car use,

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 95

(D) considering lifting the tariff on four- ment Goals, from 14 September to wheel drive vehicles, while exempt- 16 September 2005, to commit to lifting ing primary producers, Australia’s overseas aid contribution to the (E) coordinating a national report on UN recommended level within 3 years; options for future water use, includ- and in the meantime ing greater use of recycled water, (c) calls on the Government to double its cur- (F) encouraging state and territory gov- rent overseas aid budget and allocate $5 ernments to mandate disclosure of billion in the 2006-07 Budget for the pur- energy efficiency and greenhouse pose. performance of residential proper- Question put. ties at point of sale or lease, The Senate divided. [3.41 pm] (G) ensuring that Commonwealth de- (The Deputy President—Senator JJ Hogg) partments improve the energy efficiency of the properties they own or Ayes………… 7 lease, Noes………… 51 (H) doubling the photovoltaic rebate to Majority……… 44 encourage the uptake of photovoltaic systems, AYES (I) examining the environmental and Bartlett, A.J.J. Brown, B.J. economic benefits of decentralised Milne, C. Murray, A.J.M. energy delivery and encouraging in- Nettle, K. Siewert, R. * vestment in this area, and Stott Despoja, N. (J) developing a set of national envi- NOES ronmental objectives for Australia; Abetz, E. Adams, J. and Barnett, G. Bishop, T.M. (b) calls on the Government to adopt the Boswell, R.L.D. Brandis, G.H. committee’s recommendations. Brown, C.L. Campbell, G. Question negatived. Carr, K.J. Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Crossin, P.M. WORLD POVERTY Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (3.36 pm)— Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * by leave—I move the motion as amended: Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Forshaw, M.G. Heffernan, W. That the Senate— Hogg, J.J. Humphries, G. (a) notes that: Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. (i) half of the world’s population lives on Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. less than $US2 a day, and Lundy, K.A. Macdonald, J.A.L. (ii) the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has Marshall, G. Mason, B.J. announced that Australia’s overseas aid McEwen, A. McGauran, J.J.J. contribution will increase by $1.5 bil- McLucas, J.E. Moore, C. lion, phased in over 5 years, which will Nash, F. O’Brien, K.W.K. still leave Australia well short of the Parry, S. Payne, M.A. United Nations (UN) recommended Polley, H. Ronaldson, M. level of 0.7 per cent of gross national Scullion, N.G. Stephens, U. income; Sterle, G. Troeth, J.M. (b) calls on the Government at the New York Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. summit on the UN Millennium Develop- Webber, R. Wong, P. Wortley, D.

CHAMBER 96 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

* denotes teller (c) any related matters. Question negatived. Senator BOB BROWN—Before I seek NOTICES leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for Postponement today, relating to petrol sniffing in remote Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (3.46 Aboriginal communities, I seek leave to pm)—I seek leave to amend Senate notice of make a short statement. motion No. 2 standing in my name for today. Leave granted. Leave granted. Senator BOB BROWN—Thank you, Mr The notice of motion read as follows— Deputy President, and I thank the Senate. It (1) That the Senate notes that: is important that it be understood what is (a) the problem of petrol sniffing remains happening here. The government has fore- widespread and endemic in remote shadowed to me that there will be a further Aboriginal communities; and amendment of this motion which effectively (b) this problem is exacerbated by the moves the operating part, deleting reference proximity and availability of aromatic to the roll-out of non-sniffable petrol in Cen- petrol in major town centres. tral Australia, which was the whole intent of (2) That the following matters be referred to the debate, and instead replaces that with a the Community Affairs References Com- motion congratulating the government and mittee for inquiry and report by 9 Novem- one which is inherently critical of Indigenous ber 2005: communities in Australia. The numbers will (a) the means, including costs, of imple- be there to see that get through, but what an menting a comprehensive roll out of appalling way to deal with this serious issue Opal fuel throughout the central desert about the government’s ability, for a few mil- region of Australia (defined for these lion dollars, to roll out non-sniffable petrol purposes as extending from Coober throughout Central Australia—to go materi- Pedy in South Australia to Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory and ally further than the government has gone Laverton in Western Australia), and and help to stop this scourge. No, that is not specifically to the town centres of Al- going to happen. What we are going to see ice Springs and Tennant Creek; tomorrow is an amended motion which sim- (b) the recommendation of strategies to ply removes reference to that roll-out in the enable the comprehensive roll out of operative clause and is inherently critical of Opal fuel throughout the central desert Indigenous people. We will get an inquiry region of Australia, including: out of this, and the inquiry will go to the (i) proposals for any legislative heart of matters, but I think the government’s amendments which may be required, form on this is deplorable. I move: (ii) the identification of and assignment That business of the Senate notice of motion of a clear delineation of Common- No. 2 standing in my name for today, relating to wealth and state responsibilities for petrol sniffing, be postponed till the next day of the matter, to ensure the rapid and sitting. streamlined Commonwealth/state Question agreed to. coordination of the roll out, and RECHERCHE BAY (iii) ensuring that mechanisms are in place to guarantee price parity Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (3.48 throughout the specified region; and pm)—I move:

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 97

That general business of motion No. 251 Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. standing in my name for today, which calls for the Sterle, G. Troeth, J.M. protection of the Recherche Bay forest in Tasma- Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. nia— Webber, R. Wong, P. —a very pertinent call with eight French Wortley, D. * denotes teller MPs in the parliament today— Question negatived. be taken as formal. Leave granted. COMMITTEES Senator BOB BROWN—I move: Scrutiny of Bills Committee Report That the Senate calls on the Government to protect the Recherche Bay forest in Tasmania Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (3.57 from logging in order to protect its historic, cul- pm)—On behalf of the Chair, I present the tural and natural values for the nation. 10th report of 2005 of the Senate Standing Question put: Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also That the motion (Senator Bob Brown’s) be lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest agreed to. No. 11 of 2005, dated 14 September 2005. The Senate divided. [3.53 pm] Ordered that the report be printed. (The Deputy President—Senator JJ Hogg) Public Works Committee Ayes………… 6 Report Noes………… 47 Senator TROETH (Victoria) (3.57 pm)—On behalf of the Parliamentary Stand- Majority……… 41 ing Committee on Public Works, I present re- AYES port No. 16 of 2005 entitled Redevelopment of Willis Island Meteorological Office, Coral Sea. Bartlett, A.J.J. Brown, B.J. Milne, C. Nettle, K. I move: Siewert, R. * Stott Despoja, N. That the Senate take note of the report. NOES I seek leave to incorporate my tabling state- Abetz, E. Adams, J. ment in Hansard. Barnett, G. Bishop, T.M. Leave granted. Brandis, G.H. Campbell, G. * Carr, K.J. Chapman, H.G.P. The statement read as follows— Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. The proposed work is intended to replace ageing Crossin, P.M. Eggleston, A. and dysfunctional facilities on Willis Island, to Ellison, C.M. Ferris, J.M. enable the Bureau of Meteorology to continue its Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. important monitoring and research work. The Forshaw, M.G. Heffernan, W. estimated cost of the proposed works is $7 mil- Hogg, J.J. Humphries, G. lion. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Most of the current facilities on the island were Kirk, L. Lightfoot, P.R. constructed in either 1950 or 1968 and are either Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. nearing the end of, or have already exceeded, Marshall, G. Mason, B.J. their useful economic lives. McEwen, A. McGauran, J.J.J. Specifically, the bureau has identified a need for McLucas, J.E. Moore, C. redeveloping the facilities, based on: Nash, F. Parry, S. Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M.

CHAMBER 98 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 substantial damage to the structure of existing but had concluded that only the year-round, fully facilities, with some areas no longer able to be staffed observations and monitoring program made safe for operational use; would satisfy all reporting and research require- health and safety hazards for station staff, visitors ments. Moreover, the bureau anticipates that this and maintenance personnel as a result of the pres- level of function will be necessary for at least the ence of asbestos and ageing services infrastruc- next 20 to 30 years. ture; Having learnt that some of the buildings ear- the considerable cost of maintaining the existing marked for demolition contain asbestos, the facility in such a harsh and remote location; and committee wished to ensure that the removal of any hazardous materials would be done safely. the need to enhance the station’s desirability as a The bureau assured the committee that asbestos staff posting. would be removed from the island in accordance In order to address these deficiencies, the bureau with relevant legislation and expressed confi- proposes to demolish and remove existing redun- dence that the tenders, including shipping costs, dant buildings and to construct new accommoda- would cover the asbestos-related costs in a worst- tion, office and storage facilities, and to upgrade case scenario. utilities and services. The resulting facility will In response to questions regarding the environ- support a four-person deployment and will allow mental impact of the proposed work, the bureau for a six-monthly resupply and staff changeover stated that the Department of Environment and period, during which the facilities will be required Heritage had determined that the work did not to accommodate a further 15 persons for about constitute a controlled action under the terms of three days. the Environment Protection and Biodiversity At the public hearing into the proposed work, the Conservation Act 1999. The bureau explained that committee expressed concern that the bureau had the successful construction contractor would be contravened the provisions of the Public Works required to prepare and implement an environ- Committee Act 1969 by undertaking documenta- mental management plan for the works. tion and design work prior to parliamentary ap- Noting that the bureau had originally anticipated proval of the project. While the committee ac- that the construction project would be completed cepted the bureau’s contention that some funds before the summer cyclone season, the committee had to be spent to determine the viability of the wished to know how a delay in the construction project, it did not believe that the bureau was schedule would impact upon both the project justified in proceeding to tender before referring costs and the bureau’s operations. The bureau the work to the committee. The bureau explained explained that the magnitude of any delay would that this had been the result of a misunderstanding depend upon the severity of the coming wet sea- as to when the work should be referred. The chair son, but anticipates that some excess costs could observed that the act is very clear on this point be absorbed by budgetary contingency provisions. and emphasised the problems caused by agencies The bureau assured the committee that the Willis failing to refer relevant works to the committee in Island radar system, which is pivotal in providing a timely manner. In this instance, as a conse- forewarning of cyclones approaching the North quence of the delayed referral, the bureau will be Queensland coast, will be operational before the unable to complete its proposed six-month con- cyclone season. struction schedule prior to the summer cyclone season, as originally hoped. The committee undertook a close examination of the project costs and, given the remoteness of the The committee explored the requirement for the work site, was especially interested in the costs ongoing retention of the Willis Island meteoro- associated with shipping and logistics. The com- logical station and the alternative solutions con- mittee also noted that the cost estimate included a sidered. The committee was assured that the bu- number of as yet undetermined items. The com- reau had considered both the automation of the mittee recommended that the bureau supply it station and a ‘wet-season only’ staffing option,

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 99 with cost details of these items when such infor- Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— mation becomes available. Minister for Justice and Customs) (4.00 Having given detailed consideration to the pro- pm)—I move: posal, the committee recommends that the con- That this bill may proceed without formalities struction of facilities for the Bureau of Meteorol- and be now read a first time. ogy on Willis Island proceed at the estimated cost of $7 million. Question agreed to. Mr President, I wish to thank those who assisted Bill read a first time. with the public hearing and my committee col- Second Reading leagues. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— I commend the report to the house. Minister for Justice and Customs) (4.00 Question agreed to. pm)—I move: Membership That this bill be now read a second time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The I seek leave to have the second reading President has received letters from party speech incorporated in Hansard. leaders seeking to vary the membership of Leave granted. certain committees. The speech read as follows— Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT (FILM Manager of Government Business in the DIRECTORS’ RIGHTS) BILL 2005 Senate) (3.59 pm)—by leave—I move: I present the Copyright Amendment (Film Direc- That senators be discharged from and ap- tors’ Rights) Bill 2005 to make amendments to pointed to committees as follows: the Copyright Act 1968. Legal and Constitutional Legislation The bill delivers a commitment made by the Gov- Committee— ernment in its Strengthening Australian Arts pol- Appointed—Substitute member: Sena- icy for the last election. tor Evans to replace Senator Kirk for This bill will, for the first time, recognise direc- the committee’s inquiry into the provi- tors as having a share of the copyright in their sions of the Corporations (Aboriginal films. As such they will be entitled to a share of and Torres Strait Islander) Bill 2005 the remuneration to be payable by subscription Legal and Constitutional References television broadcasters for retransmitting free-to- Committee— air broadcasts of their films. Appointed—Substitute member: Sena- This bill marks an important further stage in the tor Parry to replace Senator Fierra- evolution of legal recognition of films as creative vanti-Wells for the committee’s inquiry works. In the international copyright system, into the administration of the Migration films have long been protected as a form of copy- Act. right subject matter. Australia, as a member of the Question agreed to. main international copyright treaties, provides extensive protection under its copyright laws to COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT (FILM films. At present, like many other countries with DIRECTORS’ RIGHTS) BILL 2005 the common law system, the Australian Copyright First Reading Act gives first ownership of the copyright in a film to the ‘maker’. The definition in the Act of Bill received from the House of Represen- the maker of a film describes what a film pro- tatives. ducer does.

CHAMBER 100 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Films are a conspicuous example of a product of The case for recognising directors as owners of creative input from a number of different con- copyright in their films in Australia was given tributors. Apart from the director and the actors, impetus by the debate on the Copyright Amend- important contributions are made by others in- ment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000. Amongst the cluding the script writers, cinematographers, extensive reforms that it made to the Copyright composers of the musical score and production Act, it established a new right for owners of copy- designers. Copyright is currently vested in the right in films to royalties for the retransmission producer as the person who draws all these con- on subscription television services of free-to-air tributors together and ‘makes the production hap- broadcasts of their films. At that time, the Austra- pen’. However, the producer is already used to the lian Screen Directors Association (ASDA) sub- fact that a film is subject to multiple layers of mitted that a share of the royalties under the copyrights involving some of the contributors as scheme should be made payable to film directors. authors. One of the reasons given by the Association was There will be a separate copyright in the musical that Australian directors could only claim their score for the soundtrack and another separate entitlement to royalties under corresponding copyright in the film script. If the film is based on schemes in Europe if European directors could be a novel, the producer will have had to acquire the reciprocally entitled to remuneration in Australia. film rights to that work. If the soundtrack incor- The Digital Agenda Act was passed without porates a pre-existing sound recording, the copy- specifying directors as beneficiaries of royalties rights in that recording will have to be negotiated. under this retransmission royalties scheme. How- In arranging for the distribution and licensing of a ever, the Government agreed to look at the issue film, the producer, as owner of copyright in the of extending a share of copyright in films to di- film, has to ensure that the consequences of these rectors. An issues paper was published and sub- separate copyrights in the novel, sound recording, missions were received from stakeholders, includ- script and musical score are addressed by con- ing the Association and also representatives of tract. There is a need to avoid unexpected diffi- film producers and broadcasters. The bill that I culties for licensees down the distribution chain. am now presenting has resulted from a careful There is already a precedent for directors having consideration of those submissions and from con- rights in their films. In the last decade, legislation sultations with the main stakeholders. was developed by this Government that conferred The Government is very conscious that the Aus- comprehensive moral rights on authors of works tralian film industry is a most important form of and films. This legislation recognised, for the first Australian cultural expression. At present the time, directors as authors of their films, along industry is under severe challenge from the daunt- with the producers and screenwriters. These rights ing competition of much larger overseas film are important in enabling authors to protect their producers. Films by nature depend on the raising reputation as authors of their works. However, of substantial investment to cover the costs of they do not amount to economic rights to enable production. They inevitably face uncertainty them to licence and derive income from the con- whether that can be recouped at the box-office. sumption of their works. Any diminution in the sources of revenue that can In many countries of the world, including mem- be generated by films could put at risk the ongo- bers of the European Union, directors do have a ing prosperity or even viability of the industry. copyright in their films. As common law EU In framing this bill, the Government had to bal- member countries, the United Kingdom and Ire- ance the interests of directors in being recognised land had previously vested film copyright in the for their creative input into films against the in- producer like Australia. In the last decade both terests and welfare of the film industry as a countries have extended the ownership of copy- whole. Indeed, in its submission, ASDA itself right in films to directors as required by EU law. recognised that producers needed to have control over the copyright in films in order to continue managing the marketing and distribution.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 101

In its submission, the Association also indicated ferable. The same applies to the new directors’ directors should have access to royalties under copyright. Further, where a director is working schemes, such as the subscription television re- under an employment contract, that director’s transmission scheme, as something that directors copyright will vest in the employer, unless it is should have a right to. These schemes, or statu- otherwise provided in the contract. This is consis- tory licences as they are called, allow a particular tent with the existing law vesting copyright in the use of the film without the copyright owner’s works of employed authors in their employers. permission subject to paying the required royal- This bill, although short, represents a major mile- ties. Thus extending a share of the royalties to stone in giving due recognition to the important directors would not interfere with the important creative contribution of directors to their films. function of distributing and licensing the films. The bill does so without disturbing the existing Film producers’ representatives have clearly indi- practices for securing investment in and arranging cated that they are opposed in principle to extend- distribution of films, and in particular, the Austra- ing any copyright in films to directors. However, lian film industry. in the case of the subscription television retrans- I commend the bill to your consideration. mission scheme, no payments have yet been made to film copyright owners. This is because the Debate (on motion by Senator Ellison) quantum of payments is in dispute and has been adjourned. taken to the Copyright Tribunal where the pro- BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION ceedings are still pending. Until the Tribunal INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT hands down a determination, producers are in no (CONSEQUENTIAL AND position to rely on any estimate of expected reve- TRANSITIONAL) BILL 2005 nue from this source in budgeting for film production. The Government concluded that to give BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION directors a share of this revenue when it is deter- INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT BILL 2005 mined and becomes payable would respond to the Assent essential claim of ASDA without the risk of prejudice to producers and the whole film indus- Message from His Excellency the Gover- try. nor-General was reported, informing the Following the same reasoning, the Government Senate that he had assented to the bills. will consider giving directors a share of royalty TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL revenue that would be due to film copyright own- PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 2005 ers under any future scheme of this type. No such TELECOMMUNICATIONS scheme is presently in contemplation. However, the pace of technological development affecting LEGISLATION AMENDMENT dissemination of copyright material is rapid and (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER unpredictable. Its impact in the future might ISSUES) BILL 2005 prompt somebody to propose, for example, a new TELECOMMUNICATIONS scheme for facilitating access to copyright mate- LEGISLATION AMENDMENT rial against the payment of royalties to copyright (FUTURE PROOFING AND OTHER owners. MEASURES) BILL 2005 In giving directors a share of the royalties under the subscription television retransmission scheme, TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CARRIER the bill recognises film directors as owners of LICENCE CHARGES) AMENDMENT copyright in their films for this purpose. The (INDUSTRY PLANS AND CONSUMER Government understands that such recognition is CODES) BILL 2005 important in itself to film directors. One of the fundament features of copyright is that it is a form of personal property and, as such, is trans-

CHAMBER 102 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

APPROPRIATION (REGIONAL if they had read the small print on the refer- TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES) ences to the Stock Exchange on Telstra’s BILL 2005-2006 future dividend policy—which, of course, In Committee did not spell out in anywhere near this detail the fact that dividends had been inflated, ob- Consideration resumed. viously in order to prepare for the sale and to TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL make it look as if Telstra was a much better PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 2005 proposition than it actually is? Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (4.01 pm)— This letter to the Stock Exchange from the The issue that I would like to take up with company secretary quotes Telstra’s chief fi- the Minister for Communications, Informa- nancial officer as saying: tion Technology and the Arts relates in particular to the dividends of Telstra. This issue, The final tranche of our three-year capital management program will be executed based on the I am sure, is of particular concern to all of flexibility of our balance sheet going forward. To those small shareholders around Australia— ensure all shareholders are treated fairly we will the mum and dad shareholders—who have continually monitor this as the regulatory and the taken up Telstra shares in the last five or six T3 environment unfolds over the next little while. years in particular. It was of great concern to This letter is dated 7 September. It goes on to me that, when the document was finally re- say: leased, it was sent by the company secretary In terms of the dividend policy, the dividend to the Stock Exchange. This indicated that guidance that we gave in the last meeting still the document was not originally intended for holds. Obviously we will always as a board reas- public release, but, once it got into the public sess if there is a material change in outlook going arena, the company secretary then sent it to forward, but at this point in time we are not the Stock Exchange. What the document changing our guidance from August 11. says is that Telstra is borrowing from re- I ask the minister: in terms of the dividend serves to pay dividends—more than $550 outlook as a result of the sale of Telstra, what million in 2005 rising to more than $2.2 bil- can she tell me about the guidance that Tel- lion in 2006. stra has already given the Stock Exchange? The Telstra board has already recognised They obviously want a very different regula- that this kind of borrowing to pay dividends tory environment from the one that the minis not a sustainable policy or practice. The ister and the government are going to impose board is signalling very clearly that borrow- on Telstra. What impact will the governing from reserves to pay dividends is not a ment’s regulatory environment and the cur- sustainable practice and is presumably one rent legislation have on the likely dividends that will not continue. It is clear that about that Telstra will be able to pay once it is pri- $1.9 billion has been stripped out of Telstra vatised? Once it is privatised, the board of in order to pay these dividends to make it directors is not going to engage in an unsus- look to the ordinary investor as though in- tainable policy or practice—that is, borrow- vesting in Telstra in the long term is going to ing from reserves to inflate the dividends that give you a reasonable return on your invest- are given to shareholders. We already know ment. Yet these documents that have come that the small mum and dad shareholders lost out have shown that, in fact, that is not the a great deal when Telstra 2 went through, case. If this document had not come out, how because they were led to believe, in the pro- were the small investors to know, other than spectus, that the shares were worth $7.80. Of

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 103 course, they were worth half of that, as the Let me put on the record what the divi- market reflected over time. dend policy is so that there can be no confu- I am concerned about this whole issue of sion about what Telstra’s position is in rela- the government talking up the sale and work- tion to its dividend policy and the fact that it ing with the board to give dividends that has been public knowledge for some consid- could not be justified in terms of operating erable time. The company’s constitution profit and so on. What does it actually mean clearly provides that the setting of dividends for the small mum and dad shareholders of is the company’s responsibility, not the gov- Australia who might be tempted to buy Tel- ernment’s responsibility. The Telstra board stra shares on the basis of the returns over and management, not the government, are the last few years? Maybe they are not rec- responsible for the day-to-day management ognising that those returns were in fact un- of the commercial operations of the com- sustainable. Will the minister guarantee divi- pany. Telstra has been an independent com- dends into the future of the same percentage pany since 1991, when it was a corporatised value, if you like, as have occurred in the last by Mr Beazley, and its board is responsible couple of years or will the minister admit to for the dividend policy. In June 2004, the the people of Australia that the dividends of Telstra board announced its capital manage- Telstra in the last few years are not likely to ment policy, stating that it was its policy to be repeated once it is privatised? I would declare ordinary dividends of around 80 per really appreciate the advice the minister has cent of normal profits after tax and, in addi- on the dividend policy of Telstra. This advice tion, the board expected to return $1.5 billion I have is dated 7 September. What is your a year to shareholders through special divi- advice now, knowing what you know from dends and share buybacks over the following the Telstra board? In terms of the regulatory three years. These were initiatives of the environment, what is likely to be the out- board, not the government, and reflected the come for dividends? board’s judgment on the most effective use of the company’s resources in the interests of Senator COONAN (New South Wales— all shareholders. Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) (4.07 pm)— The government was consulted about the Senator Milne seems to have a few concepts plan after it had been considered by the confused. The competitive regime and the board. The government does not direct the operational separation regime, to my knowl- company on the level of dividends. I am ad- edge, do not have much to do with the divi- vised—and, indeed, it is common knowl- dend policy set by Telstra. Also, Senator edge—that there are many examples where Milne would be aware, as indeed anybody companies pay dividends that are higher than listening to the debate would be aware, that their reported profit in a particular year and the government does not run Telstra. The so they are paid out of reserves or borrow- government does not set the dividend policy ings. My information is—and I have said this for Telstra, and the government will not have in the chamber before—that 14 of our top an impact on the setting of the dividend pol- 100 companies are currently adopting this icy going forward. It is regrettable that Sena- policy, paying dividends that exceed their tor Milne seems to have swallowed some of latest reported annual earnings. The most the misrepresentation and scuttlebutt that well known of these would be Suncorp Met- was in the media and, indeed, in this place way, Alinta, Seven, Telecom New Zealand last year. and PaperlinX.

CHAMBER 104 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

The fact that Telstra was borrowing to pay On 23 June 2004 Telstra issued a media re- special dividends was certainly not secret or lease headed ‘Telstra announces international concealed information that was simply pro- debt investor roadshow’, which read: vided to the government last month. Telstra Telstra today announced plans to conduct an in- announced last year that it would be borrow- ternational debt investor roadshow in Europe ing to fund the capital management plan. At from 2-6 July. This follows Telstra’s capital man- the press conference on 21 June 2004, when agement announcement to the market ... Telstra announced its capital management Indeed, it was such a secret plan to borrow to plan, Telstra chief financial officer John pay dividends that Telstra did a five-day Stanhope said: promotional tour of Europe about it. Another We will need to borrow some new money shortly example of Telstra’s disclosure occurred on to provide for the 04-05 return of capital, that new 11 August 2005—the day ministers had the borrowing is probably going to be around $1 bil- meeting with Telstra in the afternoon. Telstra lion, after that I can’t comment because it will be had released its annual results in the morn- a borrowing program over the period of the plan. ing. The directors report released that morn- This plan received a large amount of cover- ing stated: age in the media. Indeed, it was noticed by Net borrowing costs increased by 3.4% to $736 Labor’s Mr Tanner, who put out a very inter- million in fiscal 2005, primarily due to increased esting press release headed ‘Telstra gets it borrowings to fund the purchase of our recently right’. The opening paragraph in Mr Tanner’s acquired entities, increased levels of capital express release stated: penditure, the payment of dividends and the share Labor welcomes today’s announcement to the buy-back. Stock Exchange by Telstra that it will focus on its The company has made it clear to all inves- existing businesses and return money to share- tors, including small investors, that the cur- holders. rent capital management policy applied for So what the Labor Party claimed last week three years. The capital management policy and has been claiming was a Telstra secret announced in 2004 explicitly applied to three plan was in fact, for Senator Milne’s infor- financial years only—2004-05, 2005-06 and mation, publicly announced a year ago—and, 2006-07—after which the dividend payout not only that, the Labor Party came out and ratio would be at 80 per cent. So there can be welcomed it. What we have got is Mr Tanner no suggestion that the government has mis- welcoming Telstra paying higher dividends led investors into believing that a dividend and Senator Conroy spending last week criti- payout ratio of over 100 per cent would con- cising the very fact of these higher divi- tinue past 2007. It has been a completely dends. Labor does not know if it is coming false assertion that on 11 August, and in the or going on this one, Senator Milne. 11 August briefing document, the govern- On 21 June 2004 the capital management ment was first advised that the company had plan announcement was followed by a large changed its dividend policy. This is com- amount of media. The Age had a front story pletely false. headed ‘Telstra to give back $4.5bn’. It read: The company did not announce that it had Telstra’s chief financial officer, John Stanhope, changed its policy. It is still delivering on the said he expected Telstra to borrow around $1 bil- three-year capital management plan. As part lion to provide for the return of capital ... of its annual result announcement on the morning the company stated:

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 105

As part of the previously announced three-year, Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.16 $1.5 billion per year capital management pro- pm)—The Deputy Prime Minister seems a gram, the Board has also declared a fully franked little confused so perhaps you might want to special dividend of 6 cents per share, to be paid in explain, at least for the Deputy Prime Minis- conjunction with the final ordinary dividend. It is ter, what the situation is. The Deputy Prime the current intention of the Board to pay a further 6 cents per share special dividend with the Minister answered in the other place and did 2005/2006 interim dividend not seem to have a clue what you were talking about. This is all very much on the record and there is nothing there saying that the policy to sus- Senator COONAN (New South Wales— tain this three-year plan to pay higher divi- Minister for Communications, Information dends has been changed. But the critical part Technology and the Arts) (4.16 pm)— of this answer for Senator Milne’s purposes Senator Conroy, I am going to turn up in is that what happens in the future is a matter Hansard what I said yesterday and I will for Telstra. As far as its dividends policy inform you again of precisely what the price goes, it is certainly not a matter for govern- parity pillar that the government has agreed ment. to contains. I have not heard anything to the contrary put by Mr Vaile, but for more abun- Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.15 dant caution and for clarity I will turn up my pm)—Minister, recent newspaper reports in answer so that there can be no doubt. relation to the bills have indicated that the National Farmers Federation have sought Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.17 assurances from the government on the issue pm)—To clarify: I was talking about line of parity of pricing for telecommunications rental charges, not call costs. services in the bush. Can the minister con- Senator COONAN (New South Wales— firm whether the government has provided Minister for Communications, Information assurances to the NFF that the government Technology and the Arts) (4.17 pm)—Yes, I will mandate parity of pricing for line rental understand that. charges? If so, what is the nature of those Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.17 assurances? pm)—Can the minister confirm whether the Senator COONAN (New South Wales— government has provided assurances to the Minister for Communications, Information NFF that the government will mandate parity Technology and the Arts) (4.16 pm)—Thank of pricing for retail broadband charges? you, Senator Conroy. I gave that answer in Senator COONAN (New South Wales— question time yesterday. Minister for Communications, Information Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.16 Technology and the Arts) (4.17 pm)—No, we pm)—The Deputy Prime Minister claimed have not. that it was in the ministerial statement. I am Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.17 just wondering whether you can clarify who pm)—Has the government provided the NFF is right. with an assurance that the ACCC’s upcoming Senator COONAN (New South Wales— decision on unbundled local loop pricing will Minister for Communications, Information not result in differential retail pricing for Technology and the Arts) (4.16 pm)—I gave various regions of Australia? the answer yesterday. That is correct. Senator COONAN (New South Wales— Minister for Communications, Information

CHAMBER 106 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Technology and the Arts) (4.17 pm)—I am into it. They have not yet finished their in- going to turn up my answer that I gave yes- quiries. Obviously the government will have terday, because I have provided that answer. a look at it when the ACCC have finished I will add to my previous answer that with their deliberations and, clearly, make a deci- respect to broadband it cannot have escaped sion then about what we will do. anyone’s attention—the NFF or the Labor Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.19 Party or any member of the public—that pm)—So you have not made a decision? what the government are doing in relation to The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN broadband policy is that we have very tar- (Senator Chapman)—Order! I ask both geted subsidies by way of HiBIS that, sub- Senator Conroy and the minister to direct ject to the passage of this package before the their questions and responses through the Senate, will be augmented by a very large chair rather than conducting a conversation package, a $1.1 billion package, that is going across the chamber. to provide not only an augmented broadband subsidy but also one that is going to relate to Senator COONAN (New South Wales— clever networks and innovative services. So Minister for Communications, Information it is certainly not the case that there has been Technology and the Arts) (4.20 pm)—How no attention by this government to assistance can the government have made a decision to those who otherwise would not get broad- about something when the ACCC is still con- band at an affordable price. sidering what to do? Obviously the government will make some response. When I an- Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.18 swered the question to Senator Boswell yes- pm)—I appreciate that you are answering terday I said—and I am picking up the exact questions that I have not actually asked but I wording so there can be no doubt about it: guess the chamber welcomes the minister’s contributions. I want to clarify whether with Line rental pricing parity— ULL it is retail pricing or wholesale pricing and that is what you are asking me about— that you are addressing. is important ... Let me make it very clear that the Senator COONAN (New South Wales— government can and the government will ensure Minister for Communications, Information that people in regional Australia are not disadvantaged in the line rental prices they pay compared Technology and the Arts) (4.19 pm)— to people in metropolitan Australia—in other Wholesale. words, parity arrangements between city and Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.19 country consumers will remain. pm)—So you would be proposing to over- That is not necessarily pre-empting what the rule the ACCC? ACCC will do. But I did want to be clear Senator COONAN (New South Wales— that, when I said I had answered it yesterday, Minister for Communications, Information that is what I said and that is what I adhere Technology and the Arts) (4.19 pm)—No. to. Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.19 Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.21 pm)—They proposed de-averaging. That is pm)—Thank you. I was just looking for that what I am trying to get to the bottom of. clarification. Could you table the correspon- Senator COONAN (New South Wales— dence between you or the Deputy Prime Minister for Communications, Information Minister and the NFF clarifying what com- Technology and the Arts) (4.19 pm)—Let us mitment you have given to the NFF? be clear about this. The ACCC are inquiring

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 107

Senator COONAN (New South Wales— that need to be brought to the Senate’s atten- Minister for Communications, Information tion. Technology and the Arts) (4.21 pm)—No, I Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.23 would not be prepared to table confidential pm)—Thank you for that, Minister. I have correspondence between any constituent and two questions. Firstly, I understand that the my office. Deputy Prime Minister has written to the Senator Conroy—This is not confiden- NFF. Are you aware of what is in that letter? tial; this is about public moneys. Senator COONAN (New South Wales— Senator COONAN—Just a minute, Sena- Minister for Communications, Information tor Conroy; settle down for a second. If other Technology and the Arts) (4.23 pm)—I did people make public correspondence, that is not see a settled letter. I have no idea one thing; but I am not going to be tabling whether a letter was written or not. I do not correspondence between constituents or rep- have a copy of a letter signed by the Deputy resentative groups and my office if I do not Prime Minister to the NFF. If it is some- have their consent—but I would not think it where in my office, I will correct the record, appropriate in any event. I am quite happy to but I certainly do not have one. answer questions that relate to the expendi- Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.23 ture of public moneys in an appropriate way pm)—I am not actually seeking to catch you in this debate. out; I am actually just trying to clarify if you Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.22 know what he said, because there is a sub- pm)—It is a little hard to ask you a question stantive difference between what it appears on something that is a secret. Perhaps you the Deputy Prime Minister said and what you would like to outline it, without releasing the are saying here. I am just trying to ascertain actual correspondence. I appreciate that point what that is. This is from the NFF press re- that you make, but the substance of the cor- lease: respondence is a substantive matter to do NFF has sought and received a guarantee from with the expenditure of public money. I am the Government in regard to future pricing parity, seeking to find out what is the substance of for both basic telephone and broadband services the commitment that you have made to the ... NFF in writing. So they believe they got a commitment about Senator COONAN (New South Wales— broadband. Minister for Communications, Information Senator COONAN (New South Wales— Technology and the Arts) (4.22 pm)—There Minister for Communications, Information are no commitments made to the NFF apart Technology and the Arts) (4.24 pm)—As I from the issues to do with pricing parity. I understand it, they believe that they are enti- will refresh my memory as to whether there tled to what I have said about parity. That are any matters that I think should be means that there will be that equivalence, if brought to the attention of the public. There you like, or certainly equal treatment of met- was another issue to do with the network ropolitan and country areas, as I said yester- reliability framework, and I put that on the day. In relation to broadband, of course they record when I answered a question in this as representative of country constituents are place a couple of days ago. I will check entitled to access the subsidies from the gov- whether or not there are any other matters ernment. As I understand it, the NFF were particularly pleased with the very large pack-

CHAMBER 108 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 age—the $1.1 billion package as well as the think it does not really matter much to the $2 billion communication fund—that actu- National Farmers Federation how they de- ally delivers affordable broadband in places liver decent services, be they phone or where otherwise it would not be available. broadband services, to their constituents in Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.25 rural and regional Australia. I, as the minis- pm)—Thanks, Minister. I appreciate the ter, have made it very clear what our com- point you are making, and you have been mitment has been, not only to the NFF but consistent on broadband for some time, so more broadly, although I acknowledge the what you are saying is not inconsistent with NFF have worked constructively through what you have said consistently. I think the these issues. I, for one, am very pleased not words you used were ‘affordable broadband’. only for the NFF but for people living in ru- That is not quite the same, though, as a guar- ral and regional Australia. This government antee from the government with regard to can stand on its extremely proud—in fact, future pricing parity for broadband services. unparalleled—record of acknowledging, You understand that that is a substantive dif- where people otherwise would not be able to ference. The NFF believe they have received get these kinds of services, that not only can a commitment from the government, so I am they get services, so they have access to ser- seeking, in the very limited time available to vices, but they are affordable because of the us, to clarify what it is the government has government’s subsidies. I am quite sure that said to the NFF. I am hoping that you, as the that is how the statement that you have read minister with carriage of this, can give us out can be construed and I feel very comfort- some clarity. Otherwise the NFF are going to able that everyone is clear about what is be- discover that they have misunderstood the ing delivered, not only in terms of pricing government’s position. parity but also in terms of the package that delivers broadband. Senator COONAN (New South Wales— Minister for Communications, Information Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.27 Technology and the Arts) (4.26 pm)—I pm)—I understand and accept the point that would be very surprised if the NFF have you make, and I think I do fully understand misunderstood, and I think it is consistent it. HiBIS does delivers a subsidy to broad- with the interpretation in their press release band users, but the subsidy is not the same as and it is consistent with what I have said. a guarantee from the government of future pricing parity for broadband services. I just Senator CONROY (Victoria) (4.26 want to be clear: you have not given the NFF pm)—I think you acknowledged—maybe a guarantee for future pricing parity for Hansard did not get it, but you seemed to broadband. They have the HiBIS system, nod—that the words ‘affordable broadband’ which delivers—but ‘in a different way’ is are different to the words ‘a guarantee about your argument—but there is no guarantee future pricing parity for broadband’. They about future pricing parity. are two different things. Both are noble goals, but they are two different goals. Senator COONAN (New South Wales— Minister for Communications, Information Senator COONAN (New South Wales— Technology and the Arts) (4.28 pm)—I can Minister for Communications, Information appreciate how you are trying to pin down Technology and the Arts) (4.26 pm)—I really why it is different, but it is not. HiBIS does think that it is a difference of emphasis. Cer- deliver broadband parity; that is exactly what tainly the outcome is very much the same. I it does. And the NFF knows that absolute

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 109 parity for broadband, for instance, is impos- cluding for the 14 per cent of failed services sible, since there are so many packages and that already exist. That is not going to hap- technologies that deliver it. It is absolute pen. I think the committee and the public nonsense to be trying to deliver exactly the deserve to know how much is going to come same kind of parity that you do for line rent- out of that fund—that Senator Joyce and his als— Nationals colleagues have voted for—to Senator Conroy—Different kinds of par- have a go at fixing up a proportion of ser- ity. vices. We know it is not going to fix up anything like all or even half of the failing ser- Senator COONAN—There are different vices, but how much will that fund provide kinds of parity. But it is a guarantee that this to have a go at fixing up some things for ru- funding will flow. To be perfectly fair to the ral and regional services while the massive NFF, I think they are entitled to have said money gets poured into the big end of town what they said. I think that makes perfect and the big cities? sense and it is consistent with the fact that HiBIS also delivers parity. Because you have Senator COONAN (New South Wales— a different product with different technolo- Minister for Communications, Information gies, different mixes and different amounts Technology and the Arts) (4.32 pm)—It is that people want, or whatever they can eat in extraordinary the way Senator Brown, in a broadband sense, obviously you have got particular, and certainly some Labor senators to deliver it through a different mechanism, and others, pick out the bit of information but their claim is correct. that suits them and then try to assert it as fact. Senator Brown’s question seems to be Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (4.30 premised on Telstra’s information that they pm)—I want to bring the minister back to the used to try to stump up in excess of $2 bil- question I asked before lunchtime about the lion from the government for the roll-out of $2 billion fund that is alleged to be there to their proposed new broadband network, ensure that maintenance of rural and regional which is not consistent with information that areas will be maintained for telecommunica- Telstra gave to the regulator. Everyone gets tions into the future. The question I asked the to see the number of telephone faults that minister was, ‘How much, on a per annum occur in this country, and everyone can see basis, would be coming from that $2 billion how quickly they are repaired, because this in the coming year, in 10 years from now and government has put in place a consumer in 50 years from now, to ensure that those framework to provide that information. services are being maintained?’ Let me make it clear that the mere idea that $2 billion is I think it is very important for those who going to make up for the 14 per cent of ser- want to participate in a telecommunications vices we know are failing at the moment is debate that they have a basic understanding ridiculous because Telstra’s own information of how this gets reported. It is very important is that you need $2 billion to $3 billion to not to misrepresent technical network data have been invested in by now just to catch up simply because it might suit the basis of on the standards that are expected. The gov- some political argument. The 14.3 million ernment is not going to insist on that. The calls about faults quoted in the Telstra docu- government is saying there is a $2 billion ment certainly does not seem to correlate fund and the interest from that will be avail- with the information that Telstra has pro- able for the maintenance of all services, in- vided to the regulator, ACMA. It is up to Telstra to explain this discrepancy. I have

CHAMBER 110 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 written to them about that to reconcile the liability framework designed to achieve apparent discrepancy. Telstra publicly reports greater repair response times. monthly on the percentage of services which The facts are that telephone faults inevita- were fault free and those numbers are moni- bly occur, but when they do they are fixed tored by ACMA. Telstra cited these figures quickly in accordance with the customer ser- when announcing its annual results on the vice guarantee. It is an interesting statistic same day that this other document was pre- for the Senate that, on average, a phone ser- sented to the government as evidence that vice will have a fault once in seven or eight customer service performance continued at a years. Just picking up on Senator Brown’s high level across Australia. That is what they question, it is very interesting that service said in the morning. These numbers are pub- standards, at least under this government, licly available on Telstra’s web site and show have remarkably and markedly improved. that, on a national average, more than 99 per Subject to getting some explanation as to the cent of services were fault free in July 2005. reason for the discrepancy, I simply do not The regulator, ACMA, publicly releases in- accept the fact that the faults that were re- formation every three months on fault repair ferred to as part of Telstra’s advocacy to and reports annually on actual numbers of government are necessarily consistent. It faults. may be that they are measuring something Our focus is on providing all Australians differently, using a different metric, and I am with reliable, high-quality services. That is a very interested in the answer to that. reasonable objective and it is a reasonable Getting back to the other part of Senator expectation that Australians have. We Brown’s question, obviously the $2 billion achieve this by setting tough regulatory ar- will be available on the assent of these bills rangements, including the USO, the cus- and will be deposited in a term deposit from tomer service guarantee, the network reli- day one whilst an investment mandate is de- ability framework and, of course, price con- veloped. You would certainly receive from trols. The latest fault repair time performance day one, when it is constituted, not less than figures show that 91 per cent of telephone the cash rate. As Senator Brown would faults were repaired within the customer ser- know—because we have talked about this vice guarantee time frames in the last quar- absolutely ad nauseum—the proceeds will be ter. That is three percentage points higher available to respond to those issues that have than for the same quarter in 2004. To give been identified as particular needs in rural Senator Brown an idea of just how much and regional Australia that require invest- Telstra’s performance has improved in recent ment and remediation or whatever it might years, according to Telstra’s figures which be. The independent telecommunications are public and checked, back in 1998 when inquiry that will be held every three years the Howard government introduced the cus- will identify how the interest on the deposit tomer service guarantee Telstra was repairing is to be paid. When I say that that is what just 70 per cent of telephone faults on time. will happen from day one, obviously there It is now up to more than 90 per cent, and the will be an investment mandate developed. government has just delivered a package of It is very interesting to note that, from my strengthened consumer protection measures, information, a very similar fund, the Queen- including further improvements to the cus- sland Investment Corporation, returns, I tomer service guarantee and the network re- think, in the order of eight per cent. It would

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 111 obviously be an objective that we put in The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— place an investment mandate and invest- Order! ments that will ensure that the amount that is Senator ADAMS—Senator Conroy criti- earned on the $2 billion will grow and be cised government subsidies of satellite inter- available for investment and use in response net because, as far as Labor is concerned, if to the recommendations of the independent the copper wire does not reach your prem- regional telecommunication inquiry. ises, tough luck. I would like to say to Sena- Senator ADAMS (Western Australia) tor Conroy that I happen to be one of those (4.39 pm)—As a rural based Liberal senator people who has been very fortunate— for Western Australia, I would like to put on Senator Conroy—I don’t mind having a the record my appreciation to my fellow Lib- debate with you—just don’t do it in the eral senators and members for the work they committee stage. have done behind the scenes to ensure that Senator ADAMS—I am going to con- rural, remote and regional Australia has ade- tinue. As far as I am concerned, the HiBIS quate communications services. satellite subsidy, which in Western Australia Senator Conroy—Stop abusing the has been taken up— committee process. Senator Conroy—I will see you on the Senator ADAMS—Senator Conroy can- adjournment later tonight, if you like. Stop not have it both ways on regional communi- wasting the time that you voted could be lim- cations. On the one hand, after visiting two ited. rural centres with a committee, Senator Con- Senator ADAMS—Senator Conroy criti- roy claims he knows what rural Australia cised government subsidies of satellite inter- needs in terms of services but, on the other net because, as far as Labor is concerned, if hand, he has been abusing anyone seeking to the copper wire does not reach your prem- deliver those services. ises, tough luck. Senator Conroy—This is an abuse of the Senator Conroy—You are filibustering committee process. on your own gag. It is a disgrace. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Senator ADAMS—I am just trying to ex- (Senator Chapman)—Order, Senator Con- plain how lucky I am and how lucky my fel- roy. low colleagues throughout rural and remote Senator Conroy—The government is Australia are. chewing up the remaining, pitiful committee Senator Conroy—Do it in the adjourn- time that we have left. ment or stand up in the debate. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Order, Senator Conroy. All senators are enti- Senator Conroy, you know very well that all tled to the call during the committee stage of senators are entitled to contribute during the debate. committee stage of a bill. We are dealing Senator Conroy—This is a blatant mis- with the motion that the bill stand as printed. use of the process. I call Senator Adams. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Senator ADAMS—Thank you. The 9,000 This is the first opportunity— Australians in more rural and remote areas Senator Conroy—No, it is not. You had who enjoy satellite broadband would be Senator Ronaldson earlier. abandoned if Senator Conroy had his way.

CHAMBER 112 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

So where does Senator Conroy actually stand the need to make her remarks relevant to the on these issues? He does not want the gov- legislation. I call Senator Adams. ernment spending money on regional tele- Senator Lundy—Mr Temporary Chair- communications but he says that they need to man, I rise on a point of order. My point of improve. He continually says that the gov- order is about the opportunity that you took, ernment cannot sell Telstra because the Mr Temporary Chairman, to make a com- phone company will leave town as fast as the ment on this debate while trying to chair this banks did, but it was his own party that sold debate. the bank. Senator Conroy said: The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I Given half a chance, a privatised Telstra would made no comment, Senator Lundy. leave town quicker than the banks. Senator Conroy—You should check the A bank left our town but we were rather for- Hansard. tunate that we had two banks that decided to stay. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I made a ruling. What Senator Conroy fails to understand is that this government has a range of protec- Senator Conroy—No, you made some tions in place for rural and regional Austra- commentary first. lia. We have a customer service guarantee, a The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I universal service obligation, a local presence made a comment to the effect that all sena- plan and targeted funding for where the mar- tors are entitled— ket will go. If Senator Conroy is concerned Senator Lundy—You made a contribu- that proper protections were not in place tion on the debate from the chair and I think when the Commonwealth Bank was priva- that is out of order. tised, perhaps he had better cast his mind The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I back to those— made no contribution to the debate. I call Senator Conroy—On a point of order: Senator Adams. Mr Temporary Chairman, I was just wonder- Senator ADAMS—I will now quote from ing if you could explain how the Common- my first speech, which I delivered in the first wealth Bank has anything to do with the week of the parliament. In my first speech, I telco bill and whether you would like to said: bring her back to the actual committee stage. It is essential that the regulations set down for the Government senators interjecting— privatisation of Telstra allow for rural and remote Senator Conroy—No, she has about 10 Australians to be given access to new communi- pages there that she is planning on reading. cations technology. Australia’s wealth is created This is a filibuster inside your own gag, and in regional, rural and remote areas, and it is im- it is a disgrace. portant that business opportunities are not lost due to inadequate communication services. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Senator Conroy—Mr Temporary Chair- Senator Conroy, you have raised a point of man, I rise on a point of order. I understand order. Let me rule on the point of order. there is a standing order to do with tedious Senator Adams is addressing the issue of the repetition—like reading out your own privatisation of Telstra, and the Common- speech. wealth Bank was also a Commonwealth business enterprise that was privatised. I am sure that Senator Adams will be mindful of

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 113

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I scribed period. Let us hear the figures for the call Senator Adams. There is no point of or- bush. You know that it is loaded in the bush der. as against the CBDs, where the fix-up rate is Senator ADAMS—I have experienced much higher. It is a use of figures which does first hand the improvement of telecommuni- not reflect the situation in rural and regional cations services in rural and remote Australia Australia. and I want to be guaranteed that it will con- What we do know today, what is mani- tinue. The reason I read my speech was to be festly obvious here—and this is the answer able to say to my constituents in rural and to the question that Senator Joyce should remote Australia that I have been given that have asked but did not—is that $160 million guarantee. I was fortunate enough to sit on per annum maximum will be available over the inquiry on Friday. I have been fully in- the coming years to fix up a system that formed and I am very satisfied as to where I needs $2 billion up front to bring it up to am going. I have also today received emails scratch. It is not going to work. The money is about the integrity I said I would use to make not there. It is a failed prescription. Senator informed decisions in this place. I feel I have Joyce knows that and the National Party done that and I fully support the bill. know that. But they have been heavied into Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (4.45 accepting this failure under threat and coer- pm)—The difficulty here is that Kojonup is cion. The whole party has. The big wigs in not being well served by Senator Adams. The the National Farmers’ Federation, the mil- problem here is that she is using a false anal- lionaires, came out yesterday. ogy. Telecommunications services are im- I ask the minister to look at the figures for proving in the Congo from a very low base. the people who have been forced off family They are improving right around the world. farms during the Howard period if she wants The problem is that we are not getting the to look at statistics, and add those to the mix services that are equal to those elsewhere in that we are dealing with today. What a sell- comparable countries in the world and the out this is. What a failure this is. Surely statistics show that. somebody on the government side over there I want to go back to the minister and this looked at these figures, which you now give fund. She has now effectively shown that the Senate in answer to a question from the there is going to be less than $160 million a Greens, and saw that they were manifestly year out of this fund available for the catch- inadequate. up and the patch-up of the telecommunica- Beyond that there is no guarantee that that tions system. It is patently short of the mark. $2 billion will not be dismantled in the next Senator Joyce is back in the chamber. There budget or the budget after. There is no guar- is a $2 billion catch-up—that is Telstra’s own antee on that money at all. We know that it is assessment to start off with—and with this not going to get bigger. We know that in a $160 million, and it is going to be less than decade or two down the line it is not going to that, it is going to take decades to catch up matter a twinkle to the growing disparity the shortfall as at 2005. Then there is a whole between what the bush and the big end of suite of other things that Telstra will have town get in telecommunications and the ser- failed to deliver. The minister gave us some vicing of telecommunications. This is a fail- figures on the complaints about faulty ser- ure to defend the bush by the National Party vice that were not answered within the pre- and by those Liberals who live there, like

CHAMBER 114 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Senator Adams, who should have had this tions with Telstra as to how good or bad their defined and set in place now. It is not defined figures were. and it is not set in place and the sharks are Instead, what he has done is swallow the circling—the sharks who are going to make line about Telstra’s faults by looking at one money out of this are circling to rip apart— set of information that Telstra has put out, Honourable senators interjecting— instead of clarifying what metric they are The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN using and instead of looking at ACMA’s re- (Senator Chapman)—Order! Senator sponse and report. The next thing he has McGauran, interjections are disorderly. done is swallow the line that Telstra has been Likewise, Senator Conroy, interjections are underinvesting in its network, without hav- disorderly. ing a clue as to what he is talking about and without having a clue as to what money is Senator BOB BROWN—Finally, a fam- available. ily impact statement—Family First is missing in action. It is a flop, isn’t it? Senator It is pretty obvious when you look at the Fielding came in here as the representative of capital expenditure that is available for this family impact statements. Today he voted year—which I notice Senator Brown did not against a family impact statement being concede and probably does not know— asked for before the final debate. Family Telstra told the market on the morning of 11 First voted against having a family impact August that for 2005-06 it would be around statement on this massive bill that affects $4 billion, up from $3.6 billion in 2004-05. every family in the country—end of Family The Telstra management identified areas First; end of its mission statement. Total fail- where it thought Telstra had underinvested in ure! Flop! The minister says: ‘There was a relation to its pitch to government for a con- statement. It was brought into cabinet and tribution of some $2.5 billion. you cannot see it, people of Australia.’ I no- What is important to get very straight tice that the Treasurer said that he had not about this is that Telstra is responsible for seen it either. I simply do not believe her. I investing in its own network. It is not the do not believe the Prime Minister. It is a responsibility of the Australian taxpayer to farce and Family First is a farce with it. invest in Telstra’s network. It is the responsi- Senator COONAN (New South Wales— bility of the Australian taxpayer, through the Minister for Communications, Information government, to look at where it is neces- Technology and the Arts) (4.51 pm)—What sary—because there is market failure—for is extraordinary about Senator Bob Brown’s there to be subsidies to ensure that all Aus- recent contribution is, firstly, that he should tralians, irrespective of where they live, have be so gullible; secondly, that he can be so an opportunity to have access to affordable wrong; and, thirdly, that he has failed to in- and available services. form himself by not turning up to the com- We know from the deregulation of tele- mittee. Senator Conroy, to his credit, turned communications in 1997 that competition up to the committee; Senator Joyce, to his works extremely well. We know that because credit, turned up to the committee. Senator the economy is about $10 billion bigger and Bob Brown did not turn up to the committee, we have more than 100 telecommunications where he could have seriously tested some of providers. We know that, where there are these propositions with Telstra there as a reasonable populations, competition will witness. He could have tested the proposi- ensure that new services are available and

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 115 bundles of products are available—all sorts tions—as they do now in rural and regional of options and choices are available. That is Australia—and to have access to the subsi- very good for consumers. But we also know dies. The important point is that there seems that, in areas where it is simply uncommer- to be some confusion here. People seem to cial for telecommunication providers to op- think that somehow the taxpayer should be erate, it is appropriate—because we think it responsible for all of Telstra’s upgrades. is important that people have decent tele- The final point is that whether or not there communication services—that there be sub- is underinvestment is a very moot point, with sidies provided. $4 billion, up from $3.6 billion, being avail- Working back from that, instead of acceptable in 2005-06. My recommendation to ing what Telstra suggested—upgrading its Senator Brown is that if there is a committee network—the government prefers a competi- in which you can find out this sort of infor- tively neutral and a technology neutral ap- mation you should go to it. If you choose not proach. We know that combinations of solu- to and you are going to ask me questions, tions deliver better outcomes than simply please get your fundamental facts straight mandating one type of technology and sup- first. porting one telecommunications provider. Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (4.57 Otherwise, as Senator Brown would appreci- pm)—We now have 1¼ hours left for the ate if he thought about it for a moment, you consideration in detail of these five pieces of would end up remonopolising the whole of legislation. We are only on the first of those Australia, and you would not get the same five pieces of legislation, although one is degree of benefits that competition would tempted to observe that perhaps the speeches bring. to date have not gone terribly much to the It is certainly not correct that there will be specifics of the Telstra (Transition to Full no investment in Telstra’s network. Telstra is Private Ownership) Bill 2005. responsible for investing in its own network. I remind the Senate and those following This government will continue to look at the this debate that the Democrats have a range needs of rural and regional Australia, and the of amendments that go to some—only needs of those who otherwise would not get some—of the key flaws with this package of these benefits, through our targeted invest- legislation. I am not naive enough to think ment. that any of those are going to get passed in We know that, under the current design, the current political environment. Clearly, Telstra gets the lion’s share of the HiBIS the deal has been done, the brains have been program money. It is certainly not correct to switched off, all intelligent argument is now say that Telstra is simply limited by the in- redundant and we can just do our finger vestments in the $2 billion fund going for- pointing across the chamber and ignore what ward. Obviously, Telstra will have a fair is in the interests of the public, who, one has share because of its footprint across Australia to remind oneself occasionally when listen- and because Telstra is capable of delivering ing to debate here, we are meant to be serv- very good services. Telstra is a good coming in considering these issues. Nonetheless, pany and it delivers very good services to a there are amendments there and they go to lot of people who otherwise would not have improving some of the flaws with the legisla- any. We know that they will have an oppor- tion. tunity to come up with these kinds of solu-

CHAMBER 116 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

The amendments are to the second and without proper equality—in a sense, it has third bills. At the rate we are going, we are been over the top with regard to value for obviously not going to get to the second and money or even how best it can be deliv- third bills. The logical place to raise those ered—there is a real risk of getting a divide issues and seek a response from the govern- going. There are millions of people in the ment would be when we get to those bills—I cities who are getting appalling services could move the Democrats amendments from Telstra. The way the regulatory regime then. Because of the guillotine and the way is currently structured—and it is not going to this debate—to use the term loosely—is oc- improve under this legislation—they are go- curring, that does not seem likely, so I will ing to continue to get bad service. If you need to raise some of them here, even though have people living in the middle of cities that is less than ideal. continually being told that there are billions There are a few key points that need em- of dollars—even though it is not true—going phasising here. We have had some commen- to rural areas when the services are appalling tary throughout this debate in the last few in the cities, I think you run a real risk of days—which is all we have been allowed to some resentment developing between the have—about the bush and services to the city areas and the country areas. bush. Senator Adams made a reasonable con- I would ask people who like to push the tribution before about her experience as a rural pork-barrelling approach to think of person who lives in rural Australia. The De- that because there is undoubtedly a growing mocrats have been as strong as anybody concern amongst many in the Australian about emphasising the importance of decent community that there are endless buckets of services to rural and regional Australia and money being poured into various areas and the importance of actually taking some of the various industries to prop them up for politi- pressure off the cities by getting good quality cal purposes whilst other businesses, other infrastructure—including high-quality broad- communities and other industries in city ar- band and other telecommunications ser- eas are getting nothing. That is a recipe for a vices—to as much of regional and rural Aus- divided community, let alone an economi- tralia as possible. cally inefficient approach, and it is one that Just speaking personally for a minute as is at risk of being exacerbated by the ap- somebody who has lived their entire life in a proach here. The Democrats support the at- range of different houses but never more tempt to establish a regional review commit- than five kilometres from the GPO in Bris- tee to assess how things operate over the bane—so I suppose that counts me as an in- coming few years but I do not see why it ner city person, although I do not drink lat- should be regional only. I do have a concern tes—there is ample evidence about massive that it tilts attention even further away from failures in the delivery of decent quality tele- addressing some of the very real, very seri- communications services, let alone at decent ous problems that exist in the cities. prices, to people in the capital cities—not I would like to also mention the issue of just in the outer urban areas but in the middle operational separation. Perhaps if the minis- or close to the middle of capital cities. ter has an opportunity she will respond to Whilst I am a supporter of good quality this. I note she clarified or corrected the an- services to the bush, I do think that if we swer that she gave in question time today keep this blatant pork-barrelling mentality about the ACCC and that she has actually received correspondence from the Australian

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 117

Competition and Consumer Commission That seems to me a pretty clear indication relating to certain aspects of operational from the ACCC—which, remember, actually separation. I note that she also said at the has to try to oversee Telstra’s performance in time that she is still not proposing to release the telecommunications market—that there the letter but I do think it is incumbent on the are significant outstanding issues about the minister that before the Senate votes on government’s operational separation model. I something like this we get an indication of know the way the government have worded just what the concerns of the ACCC are, this legislation—they have this blank cheque what issues they are raising and how serious to give themselves until the end of time to those concerns are so that we can have more sort things out—but I do think it is appropri- of an informed vote. The minister said that ate, particularly given that the minister has the ACCC have said that operational separa- confirmed that she has correspondence from tion is a ‘workable model’. That does not the ACCC, to at least inform the Senate prior really seem to gel with the evidence they to this vote about the nature of those con- gave at the Senate committee last week. cerns and how serious they are, because I Before I get fingers pointing at me and am believe that will be a key issue into the fu- asked why I was not there, I admit I was not ture. there. Actually, I was there; I was at the back The other aspect that has to be emphasised of the room occasionally. But Senator Alli- with operational separation is that there will son from the Democrats was there and she be a plan put forward as to how this is going was doing a good job on our behalf so I did to operate. If we look at who is going to not feel the need to cramp her style by add- write that plan, it will be Telstra. If we look ing my presence, although I certainly fol- at what the obligations are with regard to that lowed the proceedings. We only got six min- plan, it is quite clear that the minister may or utes per witness, so it was pretty difficult for may not decide to give Telstra a direction her to make a telling contribution. But she requiring it to submit a draft rectification was there and certainly she did work effec- plan if it is seen to be operating in a way that tively at getting some of the information out. is at variance with the operational separation One of the pieces of information that plan, once it is finalised. The key question came out included the views of Mr Samuel that I think needs to be asked is: if Telstra about the operational separation model. It contravenes the final plan, when that is fi- was actually in response to a question from nally done and which will probably take Senator Brandis, who also was there. He many years, will the minister give a guaran- probably got a few minutes per witness as tee that the government will give a direction well. He asked Mr Samuel whether or not the to Telstra requiring it to rectify its actions? ACCC was satisfied with the government’s Our view is that, in any case, it is an in- operational separation model. According to adequate process because there is still a the Democrat’s minority report in the com- whole range of steps, draft rectification mittee report, Mr Samuel said: plans, before a final rectification plan, giving ... there are about five outstanding issues that Telstra plenty of time in the meantime to need to be developed. It would depend on the wriggle their way out of things. It does not satisfactory development of those issues, which even seem clear whether or not it is auto- are quite significant issues, including compliance, matically an obligation of the minister of the investigatory powers and the like, before I could day under the law to make Telstra do any- give an opinion on that. thing about it if they do contravene that plan.

CHAMBER 118 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

I would appreciate it if the minister could, matter of life and death. The government firstly, give more detail about the ACCC’s make no apology for the fact that we think it concerns and, secondly, say whether or not is important that we address the market fail- there will be a definite requirement on the ure areas; of course, both numerically and minister and future ministers to act under the geographically, rural and regional Australia law if Telstra do contravene the operational is where the greatest preponderance of those separation plan. areas are. Senator COONAN (New South Wales— That is not to say that there are not some Minister for Communications, Information bad spots, some black spots, in metropolitan Technology and the Arts) (5.07 pm)—Firstly, areas. But I am happy to inform the Senate I want to commend Senator Bartlett on step- that as competition develops they are cer- ping into the breach in his leader’s absence. tainly disappearing. Two years ago, around It is an absolute mystery that Senator Alli- 900,000 households in metro areas could not son, who is not only the leader of the De- access a terrestrial broadband service. I am mocrats but also the Democrats spokesper- happy to tell the Senate that that number has son— dropped to just 200,000, and it will continue Senator Conroy—We are feeling smug to drop. Commercial solutions are the reason today, aren’t we? that metropolitan broadband black spots are disappearing. Telstra has invested hundreds Senator COONAN—Not at all. I am just of millions of dollars upgrading its copper interested because Senator Allison seems to network to make it ADSL enabled, and wire- have always taken such a close interest in less broadband is now available in metro these matters, yet Senator Bartlett has val- areas as an alternative solution for people iantly stepped into the breach. I think that who cannot get ADSL. In the next couple of should be commended. In fact, he has put months we are going to have excel enabled forward a good argument about a number of ADSL2 become available. matters and I am going to do my very best to give Senator Bartlett some answers that he So for households that do not get a com- can take to Senator Allison to show her how mercial solution—and we know that Telstra well he did. was prepared to invest, I think, $3.1 billion in this kind of broadband roll-out because, The first point, broadly, that he raised was they said, it was commercial—the govern- his concern that metropolitan areas not be ment has, as part of its Broadband Connect left behind in the acknowledged emphasis program, a $50 million metro Broadband that this government put on providing ser- Connect program. It will pay providers to vices to rural and regional Australia, for the connect people in that position to affordable very simple reason that that is the area where broadband. Metro Broadband Connect will there is most need. Quite simply, it makes a commence in January 2006. So there can be big difference to how you live, work and do no suggestion that the government is either business if you have decent communications ignoring or not aware of issues in metropoli- in rural and regional Australia. Whilst it is tan Australia, because it has targeted assis- extremely important right throughout Austra- tance where broadband is simply not com- lia that people have good services, from hav- mercial. I am assuming that no-one in this ing travelled extensively around Australia I Senate would support, where there is a know that if people do not have those ser- commercial solution, doing the taxpayers’ vices in more remote areas it really can be a dough on top of that. This government be-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 119 lieves, and I would assume everyone on the The ACCC will have a critical role to play other side of the chamber would support the in both implementing and enforcing opera- government in this contention, that it is tional separation. No minister is going to where there are areas of market failure that exercise their powers under these arrange- taxpayers’ dollars should be invested. That is ments without taking advice. The ACCC is the justification for it; you certainly cannot of course one of the key agencies that will be justify spending taxpayers’ dollars if there providing advice to government. I want to are viable commercial solutions providing place on record that I appreciate the contri- what is required. bution the ACCC has made in the very con- The other major point of Senator Bartlett’s structive discussions that we have had so far. contribution related to operational separa- The ACCC will have the ultimate enforce- tion. About that I say that the government ment responsibility if Telstra is found to be have developed a model that is workable and breaching a rectification plan. It is my under- that will deliver benefits to all Australian standing that it is no secret that the ACCC consumers. The advantage of this particular has indicated in the past that it has concerns model is that it does not unreasonably inter- about the structural arrangements in the tele- fere in Telstra’s legitimate commercial op- communications industry but has walked erations. If it were to unreasonably interfere away from requiring structural separation as in Telstra’s commercial operations we would such, as has the former opposition communi- have a telecommunications company on our cations spokesman, Mr Tanner. I notice Mr hands that simply would be unable to func- Tanner is very complimentary about the gov- tion. ernment’s model. The government’s approach to operational Senator Conroy—What? separation includes roles for both the minis- Senator COONAN—He is very compli- ter and the ACCC. It has been developed in mentary about the government’s operational consultation with the ACCC—and of course separation model. In fact, he tried to pinch it my department and Telstra—over a number as his own idea, which I thought was very of months. The plan is the core component of amusing. It is very flattering, I must say, that the arrangements. The plan is under devel- Mr Tanner is so enamoured of the opera- opment—it still has to be developed—and tional separation model— this legislation puts in place the core frame- Senator Wong—Madam Temporary work. We believe it is appropriate that the Chair, I rise on a point of order. We are in a minister determines what the plan should committee debate, which the government has cover and approves the final plan. That is guillotined so that we have less than an hour. certainly not an unusual approach. It has, for The minister is now talking about opposition example, been adopted in relation to devel- policies. We have five bills before us. We opment of the local presence plan. I have not ought to be able to discuss those bills in the heard anybody complaining bitterly about short time that the government has allowed the fact that there is a ministerial role in the us to do that. development of that. Also, the minister de- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN termines the requirements for the price con- (Senator Kirk)—There is no point of order. trol regime, and I have not heard anybody complain about that—probably because no- Senator COONAN—It is abundantly body realises that the minister has a role in clear that the Labor Party does support the all of these particular regulatory frameworks. fact that there needs to be operational separa-

CHAMBER 120 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 tion. It is a plan that this government has that have been brought to us from a number developed. I can understand how those on of other stakeholders, including Telstra. It is the other side get a bit antsy about the fact entirely appropriate, as we develop the op- that we have actually done it. You wimped erational separation plan, that we do so in out on not only operational separation; you consultation, that we take into account issues wimped out on doing anything about Telstra. that have been raised and that we have an You corporatised it and left it stranded. You operational separation plan that has the in- were not prepared to take the consequences. tended objectives. This government is finally liberating this Senator JOYCE (Queensland) (5.19 telecommunications company from the yoke pm)—I want to know if there is any reason at of government ownership to let it get on with all why the current government ownership providing decent services for Australians and would be a predetermination for a better ser- to let it invest and grow. vice than a fully privatised entity— At the Senate Environment, Communica- Opposition senators interjecting— tions, Information Technology and the Arts Senator JOYCE—No, I think this should Legislation Committee hearing last Friday, be on the record. One of the key issues is the ACCC indicated that it had considered what actually gets better services out to re- alternative models for operational separation. gional Australia. I cannot for the life of me It also indicated that it believes there are a think of one reason why the current owner- number of matters relating to operational ship would get better— separation that will need to be carefully addressed during the process of developing the Senator Conroy—Madam Temporary operational separation plan. I agree with the Chair, I rise on a point of order. I seriously ACCC. However, for the purposes of today’s implore the minister to respond. This is a debate, let me say that while the ACCC has question about the philosophical basis of expressed its views on operational separa- ownership. It has nothing to do with the bills. tion—and I take those views very seri- You cannot filibuster in your own gag in the ously—it has also publicly acknowledged committee stage when you have given us one that the model can work. The ACCC has said hour to go. that the government’s proposed model for Senator Ronaldson—On the point of or- the operational separation of Telstra: der, with the greatest respect to Senator Con- ... maintained the balanced approach of the exist- roy, there was a long discussion this morning ing regulatory regime while recognising that Tel- about job losses. In light of that and a wide stra is in a unique position through its local access range of other topics that were discussed, network monopoly of being able to stifle innova- Senator Joyce is totally within his rights to tion by frustrating its competitors’ investment raise the matter that he is raising. plans. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— For this reason, the ACCC welcomes changes There is no point of order. which should increase transparency and equivalence in the way Telstra provides key access ser- Senator JOYCE—This is only going to vices to its own downstream operations relative to be a short question, and really it does not those of its competitors. require much of an answer. I just want to get Clearly, we will work very closely with the it on the record. There is always the belief ACCC in relation to issues that it has that because the government has sold Telstra brought to us, as indeed we will on issues it does not get a return from it. Of course it

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 121 does; it gets 30 per cent of the tax profit, competition to ensure that in populous areas which is a huge return. So, if the company competition would deliver the benefits that grows and becomes more prosperous, the people need in choice and availability. That potential further return from the company is was the genesis of our looking at what we immense. But I am interested to know can do to ensure that we can actually deliver whether there has been any scoping of what services in rural and regional Australia and the sale price of the share might be in the non-commercial areas. future. I want to know that because a future Part of deregulation was to sell Telstra, Labor government might be in control of and the progressive sale of tranches of Tel- 51.8 per cent of the shares. Everybody needs stra has meant that investments can be made to know whether Labor would rescind that, into rural and regional areas that otherwise whether they would bring it back into public would be unlikely to be made—certainly in ownership. We need to know whether they the magnitude that is being offered under this would move that motion. current package—if Telstra remained gov- Senator Conroy—You can’t ask the min- ernment owned. However, the most impor- ister a question about Labor policy. tant thing that the government have often Senator Coonan—I can’t answer it. said inhibits us from being able to look across Australia at what services need to be Senator Conroy—Correct. He has asked rolled out to deliver competition is the fact you a question, Minister. that you cannot seriously regulate Telstra and Senator Wong—Madam Temporary own it. You simply cannot be the rules setter Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Minis- and the owner of the largest competitor in the ter, are you answering? paddock. Senator Coonan—I am saying that I do For all of those reasons, the government not know what Labor’s policy is. have said that, apart from the fact that it is Senator Wong—The minister does not not a good investment on behalf of taxpayers want to answer you, Senator Joyce. to have all your eggs in one basket—and that Senator Coonan—I am going to in due has been demonstrated by the volatility of course. the Telstra share price over the past few weeks—we think that the taxpayers’ invest- Senator Wong—I am happy for the min- ment in Telstra can be otherwise deployed in ister to take the call ahead of me to answer a more appropriate mix of investments that the question. are going to deliver a better outcome for the Senator COONAN (New South Wales— economy, consumers and Australians more Minister for Communications, Information broadly. So, when you consider that what we Technology and the Arts) (5.22 pm)—I thank are doing is encouraging competition, deliv- Senator Joyce for that very perceptive con- ering services and encouraging investment in tribution, because what we have to look at new infrastructure, that is really where we when we look at telecommunications more now look at the contemporary need to divest broadly is: how can we deliver good services ourselves of our interest in Telstra. Telstra throughout rural and regional Australia? needs to be freed of the yoke of government Back in 1997, this government set down a ownership. It needs to be fast on its feet, it path of ensuring that there would be a com- needs to be nimble and it needs to invest in petitive playing field that would actually de- infrastructure that will enable it to provide— liver these services and would encourage

CHAMBER 122 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Senator Lundy—Madam Temporary short amount of time in which to debate the Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It is one rest of these bills. I am one of those senators of relevance, because the minister is just re- who were not permitted to speak in the de- sponding to a dorothy dixer put by Senator bate on the second reading because this gov- Joyce and wasting the committee’s precious ernment chose to guillotine the debate of time. these very important pieces of legislation to The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN prevent senators from putting our views, our (Senator Kirk)—There is no point of order. party’s views and the views of our constituents in the context of the debate on the sec- Senator COONAN—Senator Wong very ond reading. That is what is happening here graciously deferred to me so that I could deal today. We have a highly controversial set of with the senator’s question. I did offer to legislation and a highly controversial policy give her the call, but as I have it I wish to issue before the chamber, and this govern- continue and finish my response to Senator ment has chosen to run away from the debate Joyce. The new infrastructure that this gov- and to gag and guillotine the debate so that in ernment want to encourage, where we do not less than an hour we will have to vote on it. pick providers and do not mandate technology, will be augmented by the competition Senator Coonan—You took 10 hours. that Telstra will have to face as a private Senator WONG—Senator Coonan says company. Telstra will need to attract invest- that we took a number of hours. So we ment and invest in new and innovative ser- ought, because this is important legislation vices, as I am sure it will. We know from about which the majority of the Australian what we have seen already that it is very people are with those on this side of the anxious to do just that. That can only be to chamber. They do not want Telstra sold. If the benefit of consumers. But the final point you want to come in here, debate your posi- is that, where the market fails, the govern- tion and use your numbers, as you will, to ment are determined that we will not leave vote on this legislation, that is your preroga- Australians behind. We will ensure that those tive, but you should at least have the courage who otherwise cannot get services will be to have the debate and not have senators like able to get telecommunications services go- me and others on this side and on the crossing forward and access to reasonable ser- benches prevented from speaking on the sec- vices at an affordable price, irrespective of ond reading of this bill—prevented from where they live. speaking on a highly controversial issue. Senator WONG (South Australia) (5.26 Senator Coonan—You ran away from pm)—I hope Senator Joyce listened to the debating the bill. answer that the minister provided, because it Senator WONG—You have had a lot of did not appear to me or, I suspect, others on time to put your points of view, Minister. this side that there was a cogent argument Perhaps it would be appropriate for you to let put as to why removing public ownership of some senators on this side of the chamber Telstra was going to lead to better outcomes who have not had the opportunity to put their for regional Australia. But that is a matter for views to do so now. There are a couple of you, Senator Joyce, to consider after your things that I would like to put on the public many public statements. record in terms of some of the emails and I rise to speak briefly—because I am con- communications I have had from constitu- scious that my fellow senators have a very ents in South Australia, because the fact is

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 123 that the great majority of the communica- of the Labor Party, that in fact we are repre- tions I have had as a senator for South Aus- senting the interests of the South Australian tralia are from people from all over the state Farmers Federation. What did they say in who do not want Telstra sold. They do not their release today? It is headed ‘South Aus- think services in South Australia are up to tralian Farmers Federation: say no to Telstra scratch, and they do not see what these sell-off’. Their release says: bills—what the government’s package—will The South Australian Farmers Federation does actually deliver for South Australians. not support the full sale of Telstra by the Federal It is not only regional areas. I will come to Government while rural and regional areas of this some regional and rural issues in a moment, state suffer from some of the oldest and poorest but I am conscious of the time. As I said, we infrastructure in the country. If we don’t act now, South Australian farmers will be passing on a only have 45 minutes and Senator Conroy substandard telecommunications system to future very graciously has allowed me to speak de- generations on the land. Ring the Federation to spite the fact that he is the shadow minister register your support for the campaign. We will and has barely been able to get a word in take it to South Australia’s political representa- edgewise because he has had a filibuster tives in Canberra … from the other side. I have had many emails, It ends, Senator Joyce, by saying: but this one is from the outer metropolitan Selling off Telstra means selling out our country suburb of Marino, which is in the seat of people. Boothby, a government seat. It is complain- These are not my words; these are the words ing about the fact that there is no broadband of the South Australian Farmers Federation. connection available. Even the mobile phone This is the sort of debate that you do not connection is often flaky and subject to want to have. That is why you have gagged dropouts. This is what this constituent says: the debate and why those on that side, in- ‘It would seem that profit is still driving Tel- cluding those who have eaten up the time in stra,’ rather than the provision of reasonable this committee stage, voted for a gag—so services to even many people in metropolitan that you did not allow us to have this discus- areas of Australia. This is not even in an sion. It is an outrageous misuse of power. outer metropolitan suburb of Adelaide, al- More importantly, perhaps those on the other though I suppose you could argue that it is side who pretend to represent regional Aus- almost outer. It does not have proper broad- tralia should be listening to some of the con- band connection. He says, ‘Why is profit still stituents in South Australia who have written driving Telstra?’ Tell me, Minister: how is to me and to other South Australian senators, privatising this company going to assist with I am sure, indicating their opposition to the this constituent’s complaint and the many sale of Telstra. others that I have received? Senator RONALDSON (Victoria) (5.32 My next point is for Senator Joyce’s bene- pm)—Madam Temporary Chair, I just fit, if he has not read his email today, be- want— cause he is so interested in regional Austra- lia. Perhaps he should be listening to the Senator Conroy—What are you standing South Australian Farmers Federation. They up for? are not known, I concede, for their strong Senator RONALDSON—I actually want support of many Labor policies. But on this to finish the time that I did not use this morn- issue I think you will find, Senator Joyce, ing. I would assume those opposite are not despite whatever criticism you might make

CHAMBER 124 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 going to deny me that opportunity. I just order that prevents senators from being ap- want to clarify— pallingly patronising in this chamber? Senator Wong—You voted for the gag! The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Senator RONALDSON—Look, Penny, There is no point of order. with the greatest respect, you just said before Senator RONALDSON—Is there a that we are here to debate the bills and put standing order where actually appointment to our views, our parties’ views and our con- the Senate has got to be merit based? Can I stituents’ views— again go through for Senator Wong what her Senator Wong—It is Senator Wong, actu- own shadow minister has said in relation to ally. You might not like it, but I got elected! this issue. He said that it makes no difference to the majority of Australians one way or the Senator RONALDSON—I am sorry; other about the ownership structure, so Senator—and that is exactly what I am going please don’t come in here and say it. You can to do. Thank you very much for allowing me have a philosophical debate, but at least the opportunity to speak in the Senate. It is know what your own party stands for. There very gracious of you. What I would like to is one other matter that I want to raise. There raise again, for Senator Wong’s benefit— are others who want to speak; I respect that Senator Wong interjecting— and acknowledge it. Senator RONALDSON—You obviously Senator Bartlett interjecting— were not here this morning, Senator. I will Senator RONALDSON—I did not inter- read this out to you again so that it is on the rupt you, Andrew. There was a long debate public record— this morning about jobs. I am going to ask Senator Conroy—It is called tedious the minister a question in a second about repetition; it is against standing orders. Now jobs. I am going to ask her after I have made sit down! some preliminary comments, which I assume The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN I am entitled to do, to discuss what was said (Senator Kirk)—Senator Conroy— about jobs over the last 24 hours—Telstra Senator Conroy—If you want to filibus- jobs. Last night the Labor Party were run- ter your own gag, you get what you deserve, ning around with a whisper campaign that all right? they had found some secret document identifying massive job losses. When they were The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— pressed overnight as to where this secret please address— document was, they could not produce it. So Senator Conroy—You are filibustering they back-pedalled last night and back- your own gag. pedalled this morning. We got to the stage Senator RONALDSON—In relation to today where Senator Conroy was saying, this absolutely fundamental issue about own- ‘Maybe it’s 5,000 jobs; I don’t know.’ ership, for Senator Wong’s edification, can I My first question to the minister is again indicate to her what her shadow minis- whether she is aware that there were 24,000 ter has said in relation to— jobs in Telecom cut between 1990 and 1994. Senator Lundy—Madam Temporary In two of those years, the Leader of the Op- Chair, I raise a point of order. I am actually position was the minister for communica- seeking your guidance. Is there a standing tions. I also ask the minister if she is aware that the Commonwealth Bank Sale Act was

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 125 introduced into the House on 19 October the Qantas sale was not referred to a Senate 1995, passed by the House on 25 October, committee and nor was the CSL sale bill. introduced to the Senate on 26 October 1995 Senator Conroy—Madam Temporary and passed on 27 November. Is she aware Chair, I rise on a point of order. This is not that it was not referred to a Senate commit- relevant. This is a dorothy dixer outside the tee? Is she aware that the Qantas Sale Act terms of this bill. We have only got an hour. 1992 was introduced into the House on At least allow us to ask questions for an 4 November 1993, passed on 11 November, hour. introduced into the Senate on 12 Novem- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— ber— There is no point of order. Senator Conroy—Madam Temporary Senator RONALDSON—I also ask the Chair, I raise a point of order. These ques- minister, in relation to the issue of regulations have nothing to do with the bill before tions and Telstra, whether she is aware of the the chamber. I ask you to draw the senator question that I asked Telstra on Friday on back to the matters at hand. This is a point of their profit for this year and the previous order about relevance. What does the Com- year and whether she is aware their response monwealth Bank sale bill have to do with the was that there is about $100 million or $200 bill before this chamber right now? This is a million difference in the profit—very mar- disgraceful filibuster. You gagged us and you ginal—which would put paid to the argument are now taking up the time so that we cannot by Telstra that government regulation has even ask simple and straightforward ques- somehow destroyed this company’s profit. I tions or engage in trying to have some de- ask the minister if she could answer those bate, when we were gagged earlier today. questions for me. This is a disgrace. Senator COONAN (New South Wales— Senator Coonan—Madam Temporary Minister for Communications, Information Chair, on the point of order: this morning Technology and the Arts) (5.39 pm)—Before when we started the discussion there was I respond to Senator Ronaldson’s questions I certainly some discussion in the chamber want to point out, and I will be extremely about the loss of Telstra jobs. brief about this because I do acknowledge Senator Conroy—He was asking you the time, that by the time the debate proper about the Commonwealth Bank. on the bills had begun—this is talking about Senator Coonan—He also asked about the gag and the unreasonableness or other- the loss of Telstra jobs. wise of the government’s approach to this— Senator Conroy—I’m not talking about 10 hours had been taken up debating motions that. and undertaking general debates rather than debating the bills. They were ready to be Senator Coonan—Okay. If that is the introduced last Wednesday. It is fair to place problem, that is not an issue. on record that all the procedural motions, the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— arguments about the cut-off motions and the There is no point of order. Senator Ronald- general hubbub meant that the time for de- son, I draw your attention to the legislation bate is limited. But that is not of the govern- before the committee. ment’s making; I had the bills ready to go Senator RONALDSON—Just to finish last Wednesday. off, I assume that the minister is aware that Senator Conroy—You moved the gag.

CHAMBER 126 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Senator COONAN—You could have had seen a document. Telstra informed the Aus- the bills available a week ago and you could tralian Stock Exchange last night that the have had a general debate. That is my point. corporation has not taken any decision to cut You are wrong when you say that you could 10,000 jobs, as stated by Senator Conroy, or not have had those bills. Had you not had all 14,000 jobs as reported in the media. It in- these time-wasting procedural motions, you formed the Australia Stock Exchange of that, could have. You know that obfuscation and obviously in response to Senator Conroy’s resistance to debating these bills has gone on misinformation. for hours and hours and days and days. The Senator Conroy is becoming a serial pest bills were available to be debated last as far as the Australian Stock Exchange is Wednesday, if you had not carried on about a concerned. It has obviously had to clarify the cut-off. position or else people might think that he In relation to Senator Ronaldson’s percep- knew what he was talking about. Once the tive questions that did relate to loss of jobs, Stock Exchange had this information con- they are important because it has been said veyed to it, Senator Conroy started back- that Senator Conroy has been running around pedalling frantically. He tells the Senate that with a nonexistent document, beating up it might not be 14,000 jobs, but it might be some story about loss of jobs, and he got 8,000 jobs or 500,000 jobs. He has effec- caught out. tively admitted that he is making a complaint Senator Conroy—It does exist and you to the corporate regulator on the basis of know it. some sort of political guess. It is inappropriate to behave in a misleading fashion like Senator COONAN—Senator Conroy got that. Labor and Senator Conroy need to stop caught out because he does not have it. running scare campaigns on behalf of the Senator Conroy—I never said I had the union and the CPSU and stop waving around document. press releases; they need to start focusing on Senator Lundy—Madam Temporary a bit of sound telecommunications policy. Chairman, I raise a point of order. My point Labor will do or say anything to progress of order goes to the minister misleading the some agenda about job losses. I cannot be- Senate. Her response in question time today lieve that the Labor Party would walk in here in fact confirmed that there was a document and start talking about jobs. If we look at in existence. Labor’s record, what did we get? One mil- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— lion people out of work. Close to 11 per cent There is no point of order. of people lost their jobs because Labor could Senator COONAN—On Senator Con- not manage the economy—and Labor actu- roy’s interjection, he still says that a docu- ally comes in here and talks about jobs. ment exists, yet Telstra says that it does not. Senator Ronaldson is quite right that, under Mr Beazley and Senator Conroy were both Mr Beazley’s tender regime and Labor’s mad running around yesterday implying they had privatisation of everything that moved, some secret Telstra document or they had something like 24,000 people lost their jobs seen some Telstra document about job cuts in telecommunications. That is a disgrace. It and demanding that it be released. From the is an appalling record and it shows not only media yesterday, it is pretty obvious that that Labor cannot manage telecommunica- there is no such document. They have not tions but that it cannot manage the economy either.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 127

Senator Conroy—Madam Temporary they announced a couple of weeks ago—$4.4 Chairman, I rise on a point of order. What billion—that they could not have been se- has that got to do with the bill before the verely constrained by the existing regulatory minister? Will you take the dorothy dixer in regime. When you look at claims that Telstra question time? We have only 45 minutes left. are overregulated I think they are a bit over- Senator COONAN—You raised it. stated. Australia has a very balanced and specific regulatory framework which con- Senator Conroy—You are talking about tains the same elements that you get in most the general unemployment rate under Labor; countries. It is an access regime that will it has nothing to do with the bill, Helen. ensure that there can be new market entrants Come on, we have 45 minutes left. and that they can get access to essential ser- Senator COONAN—You raised jobs, not vices provided by the incumbent telecom- me. Getting back to Senator Conroy’s adven- munications company. That is all about the tures of the last day or so, he has put jobs ULL—and I distinctly recall Senator Conroy fairly and squarely in the middle of this de- asking me a question about the ULL in the bate and he cannot make his case and he is earlier part of that debate—and the rules to embarrassed. He has simply overreached, as tackle allegations of anticompetitive conduct, he usually does, and he has run flat into a which is also an important part of it. There brick wall. Now Telstra has clarified for the are price controls and specific consumer Australian Stock Exchange that Senator Con- safeguards like the USO. roy has got it wrong. He is running around in Telstra’s very high degree of both vertical an irresponsible fashion and he is an absolute and horizontal integration is, I think, of itself disgrace. evidence that the existing regime is not too John Stanhope has spoken about jobs and tough and that it does need operational sepa- Telstra announced publicly that it had made ration. If you look at the situation overseas redundancy provisions in August but was yet then you can see that in Australia we have to make any decision on job cuts. It was an- got a very benign regime. In fact, experts nounced by Telstra’s chief financial officer who advise on these matters say that Austra- more than a month ago and it has been re- lia’s regime is benign. In Australia the regu- ported in the media repeatedly. An issue does lator does not have powers, for instance, to not become a scandal simply because the force divestment or separation of companies, Labor Party fails to stay on top of its brief although I think that that is something Mr and comes to something late in the day and Tanner urged on Telstra some years ago and still gets it wrong. The only thing Labor has then abandoned it as a loony idea. Telstra is exposed in this argument about jobs and Tel- not prevented from operating in any part of stra is its own ignorance and ineptitude. the market and it has probably the most inte- Another very important point that Senator grated telecommunication business in the Ronaldson raised was about regulation. world, with platforms across fixed line, mo- Regulation is really part of this debate, Sena- bile, a directory business and a pay TV busi- tor Conroy, and I feel compelled to respond ness. In the first instance it is expected that to Senator Ronaldson. It is true when you access prices are settled through commercial look at it that Telstra’s profits do not appear negotiation as opposed to those being fixed to have been impeded by the existing regula- by the regulator, so the costs of providing the tory regime. I think you would have to say if USO are shared by the whole industry. In you compare last year’s profit and the profit other countries, including the UK, the in-

CHAMBER 128 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 cumbent is expected to absorb the entire cost debate about whether we should have a de- of providing the USO. bate. And now we have this farce. It is dis- Finally, in response to Senator Ronald- graceful and the Australian community de- son—because I do note the time—this reserves better. gime has served us well. We know that the Senators are not small elements of one economy is $10 billion bigger and that small great big Liberal rubber stamp. They are here business is $2 billion better off through the to make sure that the bills that pass into law deregulation of the telecommunications re- are robust, legitimate and do not have unin- gime. We know that we have got over 700 tended consequences. You cannot do that ISP providers, over a hundred telecommuni- with one day before the legislation commit- cation providers, and a vibrant and emerging tee. You cannot do that if you gag the debate telecommunications market. We are going to on these bills in such a shameful way. I put in place these enhancements to the com- firmly believe that there are many more risks petition regime that will be good for compe- posed by the proposals before us than bene- tition, good for the economy and, as Mr fits. With majority government ownership, Samuel said in response to a question, good Telstra has a duty to consumers, and where for Telstra. It will be good for consumers and things are not up to scratch the government it will certainly be good for the economy wears the blame—and there is plenty of more broadly. blame for this government to wear. However, Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania) make no mistake: a privatised Telstra will be (5.50 pm)—I have a question to put to the driven by shareholder interests at the ex- minister, but before I do I would like to say a pense of consumers. It will be profits before couple of things about the disgraceful situa- phone calls, bottom lines before basic ser- tion we are confronted with in the Senate vices, and percentages before people. today. As a new senator I have been as- We have had a taste of this over the last tounded by the arrogance displayed by the few years, with ever-increasing service and Howard government in bringing these mat- line rental charges, while actual services in ters on in this way. Indeed, we have seen an many parts of the country are declining. It is early signal of what is to come. Under this a sad irony to be paying so much more for so government the role of the Senate as a le- much less. To a degree, that is why the gov- gitimate house of review, a check and bal- ernment is restricting analysis and debate on ance on executive decision making, will be this matter. It thinks it can win the vote; it treated with contempt. knows it cannot win the argument on tele- In the last week we have seen a govern- communications services in Australia. We ment prepared to only go through the mo- have said repeatedly over the last few days tions, allocating one day in front of a legisla- that these bills cannot and will not stand up tion committee for five bills surrounding a to scrutiny. No amount of diversion, cloud- $30 billion taxpayer asset. Today we have ing or downright misinformation from the seen a government that, once it placates its government will change the fact that Tel- black-sheep senator, moves the guillotine stra’s services should be fixed and the 51.8 debate to gag the voices of senators and per cent of the company that remains in gov- states that are bitterly opposed to this push. ernment hands should stay in government Why? Just in case Senator Joyce wanders off hands. The government knows it, and the last again. Having done this, it moves to gag the thing it wants is to be shown up, as it would

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 129 have been through a full debate in this to get some mobile phone reception. Tasma- chamber. nia is suffering from black spot fever, and The government’s arrogance and risks to that is just in mobile services. It is ridiculous. the community aside, this move also begs the It should be fixed and the government should question: what is the rush? Is there a sale be held accountable. It should be fixing Tel- planned this weekend? Are we issuing a pro- stra, not flogging it off. spectus next week? Are we even looking at Mat Rowell, the Chief Executive Officer flogging Telstra off this year? ‘No, we are of the Tasmanian Council of Social Service, not,’ say the Prime Minister and Senator was reported today in the Mercury newspa- Coonan. ‘We will wait till the price is right.’ per as saying: I stand here today to argue that the cost is ... recent Tasmanian research showed many outly- wrong. The cost is wrong on many fronts. ing residents could not get mobile coverage at I live south of Hobart, the capital of Tas- their homes ... mania. I commute 20 minutes from my home Dial-up services were often too slow and regu- to the Hobart CBD. In that 20-minute trip it larly dropped out and ... there were instances is possible for me to experience major drop- where residents had bought CDMA phones after outs in mobile phone reception. This is Telstra maps showed they would get better coverage, only to later discover this was not the case within 20 minutes of the centre of Hobart, on and they were then left with a phone that could one of the busiest highways in Tasmania’s not be used. south. One, in particular, occurs at the top of This is a shocking indictment of this gov- the southern outlet and still within the greater ernment’s mismanagement of the nation’s Hobart municipality. ‘Okay,’ you might say, telecommunications infrastructure. Tasmania ‘perhaps the beautiful green rolling hills of deserves more than this. If we look at the in- Tasmania are getting in the way; perhaps the ground technology that underpins Tasmania’s trip up the southern outlet momentarily inter- economy and innovative ICT businesses, the rupts what is otherwise the top-quality tele- story is even worse. The fixed line network communications service you would expect in in Tasmania is in an ever-deteriorating state. a state capital city.’ But no—far from it. One of the major problems associated with Take a trip up the Brooker Highway, the Telstra service delivery in Tasmania is the main arterial road into Hobart from the state of the copper network in the ground. north, and you will find the same thing: There are cables known to have faulty pairs, black spots—more black spots than you will giving rise to noisy circuits and unreliable find on a Dalmatian. As a tradesman at and insecure services to Tasmanians. There Austins Ferry explained to one of my state are cables in the ground known to be major colleagues, his business is suffering because breakdowns waiting to happen. There are of the mobile phone drop-outs he has to deal even major cables in the ground that are full with. This is at a time when we are dealing and have no spare capacity, for which there with skills shortages in traditional trades. are no remedial works in place or plans for There is plenty of work but, increasingly, no upgrades. It is a joke. way of reaching the worker. Or take my fam- Then there is the great con of pair gains. ily home in Leslie Vale as an example. On a For those not familiar with the concept, a good day, a mobile phone conversation is pair gain system is a small switching system available if I face south. On a bad day, if I that allows an existing telephone line to pro- put my head out the window I might be able vide service to multiple customers. Pair gains

CHAMBER 130 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 were meant to be a stopgap measure in Tas- band reaches twice the distance it does in mania, providing additional telephone ser- Australia. Why? Canada invested in better vices where cable constraints existed, but technology than Telstra did. This aside, at a instead they became par for the course. Be- time when Telstra has posted an annual profit cause pair gains were meant to be an interim of over $4 billion, mums and dads in Hobart measure, they have a range of limitations for suburbs cannot even access ADSL services, telephone users. The most common arrange- let alone anything more advanced. ADSL is ment is 15 or 16 customers sharing five tele- simply jazzed-up copper wire, yet even if phone lines in the exchange: a six-by-15 or a you live in some areas close to the centre of six-by-16 pair gain. This means that if more Hobart and therefore to an exchange, such as than five of the 15 or 16 people want to use Fern Tree or Mount Nelson, you still cannot the phone at the same time, the sixth cus- access ADSL. Compared to the rest of the tomer and any customers beyond that will world, Telstra’s broadband ADSL service is get an engaged signal when they pick up the the equivalent of tin cans and string, but at phone. Whilst I am far from an expert on least in some parts of Hobart you can access telecommunications infrastructure, it is fairly it. Once you travel outside the city, things apparent that congestion problems and no only get worse. dial tone problems will be more prevalent But beyond this plan to sell Telstra, and where lines are shared. the spin the government puts out, there are Let us put a human dimension on this for those living in far-flung places who have an a moment. One case in particular that I am equal right to expect quality telecommunica- aware of involves a young woman in Chig- tion services. We live in the age of commu- well who has an asthmatic son. She regularly nication. We are surrounded by an ever- picks up the phone to be met with no dial increasing array of technological tools to tone due to the widespread pair gains in her help us in our daily lives and we should all street. Aside from the worry this causes her, expect to be able to access them. A fully pri- she is of course paying for a full phone ser- vatised Telstra would be even less likely to vice and line but is potentially receiving only extend the benefits of new technology to one-third of a service. What do the govern- regional and remote Australia. You only have ment say to this woman and the thousands of to look at the way Australian banks have others around Australia in similar situations? pulled back to the cities to see that there is They say, ‘We will flog it off, we will make not a lot of money to be made by private some cash and then, presumably, we will line banks or telcos in the bush. up next to you saying it is not good enough My questions to the minister are these: and the phone company should do more, but what contingency measures are in place to we as a government are powerless to act improve the state of Tasmania’s failing tele- against market forces.’ communications infrastructure, and what Telstra makes all sorts of claims about guarantees, if any, did Tasmanian Liberal broadband being available in a majority of senators seek for improving telephone access suburbs or centres across Tasmania, but it and services in the state as the government will not tell you that hundreds of these cen- made its move to fully privatise Telstra? Fur- tres still have huge broadband black spots. ther, how much of the Telstra slush fund will Telstra claims its technology is not capable be spent in Tasmania, a state without Na- of reaching these black spots, but that is only tional Party representatives? partly true. In Canada, for example, broad-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 131

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland) (6.01 whaling organisation is relevant to this de- pm)—In contributing to the committee stage bate. of the debate, I do not think the historic sig- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN nificance of this occasion should pass with- (Senator Ferguson)—What is your point of out being noticed, because if shortly this bill order? is read a third time then this will probably be Senator Lundy—My point of order is the last occasion in Australian history on one of relevance. which a major Commonwealth trading corporation will have been denationalised. I Senator BRANDIS—Can I speak to the believe that 14 September 2005 will go down point of order? in history and be remembered by historians The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes, of future generations as a red-letter day in you can. the development of the Australian economy. Senator BRANDIS—As I often do, I am Today brings to a culmination, at the in- trying to put this legislation into an historical stance of the Howard Liberal government, a context. series of progressive public policy measures The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— to denationalise industry, which first began There is no point of order. with the Menzies Liberal government. When Senator BRANDIS—The denationalisa- the 19th parliament was elected in 1949, the tion of the Commonwealth Whaling Com- first Liberal government began the process mission in 1950 by the first Liberal govern- of denationalising the Australian economy. It ment, the Menzies government, laid the basis began by denationalising the Commonwealth of a prosperous industry, which today, in Whaling Commission. Who could believe in more environmentally sensitive times, we no this day and age that two generations ago the longer support, but for decades it was a pros- Commonwealth ran a nationalised whaling perous industry in private hands. The dena- corporation? Later on in the 19th parliament, tionalisation of Amalgamated Wireless Aus- the great parliament elected in 1949, the tralasia in 1950 laid the foundation— Menzies government denationalised AWA— Amalgamated Wireless Australasia— Senator George Campbell—Mr Tempo- Commonwealth Oil Refineries and the rary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation. would like to have some explanation from There were others as well but those are four you as to how this issue of the AWA even that come to mind. Each of those enterprises, gets near to the issue of relevance of the bill which had through the socialist doctrine of before the chamber. This is a filibuster. It is the time fallen into public ownership—the outrageous. They are using up time; they are most inefficient way of holding and conduct- preventing the opposition from genuinely ing those enterprises—moved into private questioning the minister about issues relating ownership and prospered. When the Com- to this bill. It is an absolute disgrace and his- monwealth Whaling Commission was dena- tory will judge you, Senator Brandis! It will tionalised and the shares in it were taken up judge you! by private capital, it became the foundation The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— of a— Senator Campbell, resume your seat. There is Senator Lundy—Mr Temporary Chair- no amendment before the chair and we are man, I rise on a point of order. Just to be debating the whole bill in committee. There consistent, I do not think the Commonwealth is no point of order. I call Senator Brandis

CHAMBER 132 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 and I remind him of the bill that we are de- poration. In those days, in the 1940s, cour- bating. tesy of the Labor Party, then in the thrall of Senator BRANDIS—The denationalisa- their socialist doctrines, refining of alumin- tion of that industry provided the foundation ium was regarded as something which for one of Australia’s most prosperous indus- should be done by the government, not by tries today—the commercial radio industry. private enterprise. The argument we have heard from the oppo- The interesting point to make is that, when sition in relation to the Telstra bills is that each of those enterprises—the Whaling they will destroy telecommunications in Aus- Commission, Commonwealth Oil Refineries, tralia. Yet, if you look at every Common- Comalco, AWA and several others that I can- wealth corporation that has been denational- not remember at this moment—were dena- ised by both Liberal and Labor governments tionalised, the denationalisation of those in- over the course of the last 55 years—a dustries by act of parliament was opposed by course of history brought to fulfilment and the Labor Party in the Senate. Senator Con- culmination on this historic evening—in roy, if you care to check the Hansards of every case the denationalisation of that in- 1950 and 1951, you will see the same taw- dustry, the placement of its capital into pri- dry, predictable arguments that are being vate hands and the discipline of the market, made by you and your colleagues today has been the foundation of its prosperity. So about the denationalisation of Telstra were it came to be with the denationalisation of being made about those enterprises, too. His- Amalgamated Wireless Australasia. It was tory is against you, Senator Conroy. You similarly the case when, in the 19th parlia- were wrong then and you are wrong about it ment, Commonwealth Oil Refineries Ltd today. was denationalised. Does anybody seriously Senator Mason—The ghost of Ben suggest that the introduction of private capi- Chifley. tal into the oil refineries— Senator BRANDIS—The ghost of Ben Senator Conroy—Mr Temporary Chair- Chifley might stalk the Senate, Senator Ma- man, I rise on a point of order. You did give a son, but fortunately the shade of Robert commitment to five minutes, George. Menzies stalks the Senate in a more illustri- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— ous form this evening. When this bill is Senator Conroy, that is not a point of order. passed, it will bring to fulfilment and glori- Senator Bartlett interjecting— ous completion 55 years of history—55 years in which my side of politics has been Senator BRANDIS—I do not have long on the progressive side. We have led the ar- to go, Senator Bartlett. The denationalisation gument and we have set the agenda. Our ap- of Commonwealth Oil Refineries Ltd like- proach was followed by the Hawke and wise provided the foundation for a rich, Keating governments but there has been prosperous oil refining industry in this coun- some recalcitrance and recidivism, sadly, by try—which, had it remained tied up in gov- the modern directionless Labor Party which ernment hands and not been subject to mar- Senator Conroy is embarrassed to have to ket discipline, would not have happened. apologise for in the chamber this evening. Finally, there is Comalco. People think of Today is a great day for free enterprise and a Comalco today as a company traded on the great day in Australian history. Having made stock exchange, but Comalco was the acro- nym of the Commonwealth Aluminium Cor-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 133 those preliminary remarks, I have a question workable model. In fact, the ACCC will be for the minister. working with the government to develop Senator Bartlett—On a point of order: one. In relation to the Telecommunications the Senate would well be aware—and this Legislation Amendment (Future Proofing should be a lesson for Senator Joyce—that, and Other Measures) Bill 2005, I table a having gagged us and having indicated, with supplementary explanatory memorandum only 15 minutes to go— relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— circulated in the chamber on 14 September What is your point of order? 2005. Senator Bartlett—The senator promised Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (6.13 that he would speak for five minutes. He pm)—If ever there was an indication of how cannot even keep his word for one second. worthless this government’s word is, we The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— have had it from Senator Brandis. As he said Senator Bartlett, resume your seat! There is on the record, he gave an indication— no point of order. Senator Brandis—Mr Temporary Chair- Senator BRANDIS—I have 15 minutes, man, I rise on a point of order. as all other senators do, but I did indicate Senator BARTLETT—And he will not informally to Senator Conroy that I expected even give me the two minutes to speak. They to be only about five minutes—and I will be made a mistake and left two minutes for if you allow for the time taken by all of the us—and they are even trying to gag that. interjections and the frivolous points of order. I finished my preliminary remarks on the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— point of free enterprise and the competitive Resume your seat, Senator Bartlett. There is effects of this progressive legislation which a point of order. brings to fulfilment 55 years of Australian Senator Brandis—Yes, there is a point of history. Through you, Mr Temporary Chair- order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I have been man, I ask the minister: having regard to the reflected on by Senator Bartlett. Senator evidence of Mr Graeme Samuel, the chair- Bartlett has accused me of breaking my man of the Australian Competition and Con- word. That allegation is false and it is unpar- sumer Commission, to the Senate committee liamentary and I ask you to correct him. which met for eight very full hours last Fri- Opposition senators interjecting— day—without Senator Bob Brown or Senator The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Bartlett—does the minister have any obser- Order! I have been asked to rule on a point vations to make to the Senate in relation to of order. It was a debating point. There is no Mr Samuel’s evidence in which he indicated point of order. the ACCC’s support for the operational separation model adopted by the government? Senator BARTLETT—We have had a perfect example that their word does not Senator COONAN (New South Wales— even last a minute—let alone what it is worth Minister for Communications, Information after the legislation is passed. If ever we Technology and the Arts) (6.12 pm)—I am needed an example that ideology is driving conscious of the time, and I do thank Senator this, not public good, we had the speech Brandis for his contribution. As I said a little from Senator Brandis: privatisation good, earlier in this debate, the ACCC has said that public ownership bad; four legs good, two it regards the government’s model as a

CHAMBER 134 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 legs bad. They could not give a toss about (5) Schedule 11, item 7, page 35 (lines 5 and 6), the public. They do not care what the impact omit the definition of “final rectification is—they have got their grand, ideological plan”. zealotry implemented. Of course, you have (6) Schedule 11, item 7, page 35 (line 22) to forgotten about Australia Post. page 36 (line 9), omit subclauses 50A(2) to (6) substitute: Senator Brandis—Ideology is driving this for the public. It is called free enterprise, (2) A determination under subclause (1) has effect accordingly. Senator Bartlett. (3) Before making a determination under Senator BARTLETT—Look at them. He subclause (1) in relation to a service is going off his tree—‘Privatisation has won, that is not an active declared service, hurrah! Bad luck for the public. Bad luck for the Minister must, by writing, request the facts.’ You are so keen to show how good the ACCC to give a written report it is you have gagged debate on any attempt about whether the proposed determina- to question what the consequences will be. tion would promote the achievement of Not only have you prevented the only oppor- the aims and objectives of this Part. tunity of questioning the minister and re- (4) The ACCC must give the report to the duced it to three hours, you then filled up Minister within 30 days after receiving have of that time with dorothy dixers and a request in accordance with subclause filibustering. It is a red letter day for privati- (3). sation and it is a black letter day for democ- (5) In deciding whether to make a determi- racy and for the Senate’s time honoured role nation in accordance with subclause of scrutinising the government. And you of (1), the Minister must have regard to: all people who have had the hypocrisy to say (a) the ACCC’s report; and that the Senate will still do its job properly (b) such other matters (if any) as the have been shown to be— Minister considers relevant. The CHAIRMAN—Order! The time al- (6) A determination under subclause (1) is lotted for consideration of these bills in a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Committee of the Whole has expired. In re- Act 2003. spect of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer (7) Schedule 11, item 7, page 36 (after line 23), at the end of the Division 1 add: Issues) Bill 2005, the question is that De- mocrat amendments (2) to (16) on sheet 50 Wholesale pricing and price equivalence model 4685; amendments (1) to (15) on sheet 4681 revised; and amendment (1) on sheet 4694 be (1) In setting Telstra’s internal wholesale agreed to. pricing and rules regarding pricing equivalence, the ACCC must approve Australian Democrat amendments on the final price equivalence model. sheet 4685 — (2) Before the wholesale pricing model (2) Schedule 11, item 7, page 34 (line 10), omit may be varied: “Minister”, substitute “ACCC”. (a) Telstra must first consult with the (3) Schedule 11, item 7, page 34 (lines 11 to ACCC; and 15), omit all the words from and including (b) The ACCC must approve the final “If” to and including “Minister.” variation to the price. (4) Schedule 11, item 7, page 34 (line 16), omit “If a final rectification plan is in force,”.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 135

(8) Schedule 11, item 7, page 36 (line 24) to 151AJA Taking advantage of market page 37 (line 11), omit “Minister” (wherever power occurring), substitute “ACCC”. In determining whether a corporation has (9) Schedule 11, item 7, page 37 (line 15) to taken advantage of its market power, a court page 38 (line 24), omit “Minister” (wherever is to consider whether: occurring), substitute “ACCC”. (a) the conduct of the corporation is (10) Schedule 11, item 7, page 37 (lines 19 and materially facilitated by its substan- 20), omit “, the ACCC”. tial degree of market power; or (11) Schedule 11, item 7, page 38 (line 27) to (b) the corporation engages in the con- page 40 (line 19), omit “Minister” (wherever duct in reliance on its substantial occurring), substitute “ACCC”. degree of market power; or (12) Schedule 11, item 7, page 39 (lines 11 and (c) the corporation would be likely to 12), omit subclause 54(10). engage in the conduct if it lacked a (13) Schedule 11, item 7, page 39 (line 20), omit substantial degree of market power; “not”. or (14) Schedule 11, item 7, page 40 (lines 25 to (d) the conduct of the corporation is 34), omit “Minister” (wherever occurring), otherwise related to its substantial substitute “ACCC”. degree of market power. (15) Schedule 11, item 7, page 41 (lines 1 and 2), (4) Schedule 4, page 8 (after line 23), at the end omit subclause 56A(3). of the Schedule, add: (16) Schedule 11, item 7, page 41 (lines 3 to 35), 4 Subsection 152EF(1) omit “Minister” (wherever occurring), sub- After “for the purpose”, insert “, or with the stitute “ACCC”. effect,”. ————— (5) Schedule 7, page 12 (after line 25), after Australian Democrat amendments on item 5, insert: sheet 4681 revised — 5A Subsection 152AT(10) (heading) (1) Schedule 4, heading, page 8 (line 2), omit Omit “6”, substitute “3”. “Penalties”, substitute “Divestiture, mar- 5B Subsection 152AT(10) ket power and penalties”. Omit “6” (wherever occurring), substi- (2) Schedule 4, page 8 (after line 5), before item tute “3”. 1, insert: 5C Subsection 152AT(11) 1A After section 81 Omit “6”, substitute “3”. Insert: 5D Subsection 152AT(12) 81A Divestiture—misuse of market power Omit “6” (wherever occurring), substi- The Court may, on the application of the tute “3”. Commission, if it finds, or has in another (6) Schedule 7, page 13 (after line 3), after item proceeding instituted under this Part found, 6, insert: that a person has contravened section 46, by order, give directions that the corporation di- 6A Subsection 152ATA(12) (heading) vest itself of shares or assets. Omit “6”, substitute “3”. (3) Schedule 4, page 8 (after line 23), at the end 6B Subsection 152ATA(12) of the Schedule, add: Omit “6” (wherever occurring), substi- 3 After section 151AJ tute “3”. Insert:

CHAMBER 136 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

6C Subsection 152ATA(13) (1A) The Commission established by sub- Omit “6”, substitute “3”. section (1) must include a Telecommu- nications Commissioner. 6D Subsection 152ATA(14) (10) Schedule 9, page 25 (after line 6), at the end Omit “6” (wherever occurring), substi- of the Schedule, add: tute “3”. 7 After subsection 152AQA(4) (7) Schedule 7, page 14 (after line 11), after item 11, insert: Insert: 11A Subsection 152BU(5) (heading) Assessing access undertakings Omit “6”, substitute “3”. (4A) The Commission must have regard to the determination when assessing ac- 11AA Subsection 152BU(5) cess undertakings. Omit “6” (wherever occurring), substi- (11) Schedule 9, page 25 (after line 6), at the end tute “3”. of the Schedule, add: 11B Subsection 152BU(6) 8 After subsection 152AQB(1) Omit “6”, substitute “3”. Insert: 11C Subsection 152BU(7) Additional core service to be determined by Omit “6” (wherever occurring), substi- Minister tute “3”. (1A) The Minister must, by written in- (8) Schedule 7, page 17 (after line 6), after item strument, declare backhaul routes as 23, insert: a core service for the purpose of this 23A Subsection 152CF(5) (heading) section. Omit “6”, substitute “3”. (12) Schedule 9, page 25 (after line 6), at the end 23B Subsection 152CF(5) of the Schedule, add: Omit “6” (wherever occurring), substi- 9 After subsection 152AQB(8) tute “3”. Insert: 23C Subsection 152CF(6) Assessing access undertakings Omit “6” (wherever occurring), substi- (8A) The Commission must have regard to tute “3”. the determination when assessing ac- (9) Schedule 9, page 24 (after line 4), before cess undertakings. item 1, insert: (13) Schedule 11, page 29 (after line 20), after 1A At the end of Division 2 of Part IIIA item 3, insert: Add: 3A After subsection 63(2) Subdivision D—Reasonable access Insert: 44QA Reasonable access Mandatory divestiture The owner of a facility that is used to (2A) In accordance with subsection 63(2), provide a service must make all reason- the Minister must, by written instru- able endeavours to accommodate the re- ment, require Telstra to cease to have quirements of a person seeking access. any interest or control in FOXTEL by the time Telstra is majority private R(9A) Schedule 9, page 24 (after line 4), before owned. item 1, insert: (14) Schedule 11, page 29 (after line 20), after 1B After subsection 7(1) item 3, insert: Insert: 3B After subsection 63(2) Insert:

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 137

(2B) In accordance with subsection (2), ously, consideration of what is in the inter- the Minister must, by written instru- ests of the public no longer an issue for the ment, require Telstra to cease to have Senate, so I will not move any more amend- any interest or control in the Hybrid ments so we can get onto the next stage. Fibre Coaxial network by the time Telstra is majority private owned. The CHAIRMAN—I am advised that the (2C) For the purposes of subsections (2A) amendments have to be put, Senator Bartlett. and (2B), control includes control as In respect of the Telecommunications Legis- a result of, or by means of, trusts, lation Amendment (Competition and Con- agreements, arrangements, under- sumer Issues) Bill 2005, the question is that standings and practices, whether or schedule (9) and schedule (11), item (7) divi- not having legal or equitable force sion 3 and items (8) and (9) stand as printed. and whether or not based on legal or Question agreed to. equitable rights. (15) Schedule 11, page 29 (after line 20), after The CHAIRMAN—In respect of the item 3, insert: Telecommunications Legislation Amendment 3C After subsection 63(2) (Future Proofing and Other Measures) Bill 2005, the question is that government Insert: amendments (1) to (7) on sheet QS333 be Dividends agreed to. (2D) In any year, or part of a year, in (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 10) before which the Commonwealth holds “The purposes”, insert “(1)”. shares in Telstra, Telstra must not pay dividends other than from profits (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 13) after for the financial year to which the “158Q”, insert “, so long as the response re- dividends relate or are reasonably lates to telecommunications services in re- expected to relate. gional, rural or remote parts of Australia”. ————— (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (after line 18) at the end of section 158ZI, add: Australian Democrat amendment on sheet (2) In this section: 4694 — Australia has the same meaning as in (1) Schedule 9, page 25 (after line 6), at the end section 158P. of the Schedule, add: telecommunications services has the Telecommunications (Consumer Protec- same meaning as in section 158P. tion and Service Standards) Act 1999 (4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 12 (lines 24 to 29) 7 At the end of section 10 omit subsection 158P(4), substitute: Add: (4) Each subsequent review must be com- ; and (d) to ensure that the speed of pleted within 3 years after the last day the service required by this on which a copy of a statement setting section must not be less than out the Commonwealth Government’s 512 kilobits per second from response to the recommendations of the the year 2010. previous review was tabled in a House Question negatived. of the Parliament under paragraph 158Q(6)(b). For this purpose, a review Senator Bartlett—Mr Deputy President, is completed when the report of the re- on a point of order: to save even the feeble view is given to the Minister under sec- 14 minutes we have left I will withdraw the tion 158Q. rest of the Democrat amendments. Obvi-

CHAMBER 138 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

(5) Schedule 2, item 4, page 14 (after line 25) TIRC means the Telecommunications after subsection 158Q(6), insert: Independent Review Committee estab- (6A) A statement prepared under paragraph lished by Section 158R. (6)(a) must contain an explanation of (3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 11 (lines 13 and how the Commonwealth Govern- 14), omit the definition of RTIRC Chair, ment’s response to the recommenda- substitute: tions will improve telecommunications TIRC Chair means the Chair of the services in regional, rural or remote Telecommunications Independent Re- parts of Australia. view Committee. (6) Schedule 2, item 4, page 15 (after line 3) at (4) Schedule 2, item 3, page 11 (lines 17 to 19), the end of section 158Q, add: omit the definition of RTIRC member, sub- Definitions stitute: (8) In this section: TIRC member means a member of the Australia has the same meaning as in Telecommunications Independent Re- section 158P. view Committee, and includes the TIRC Chair. telecommunications services has the same meaning as in section 158P. (5) Schedule 2, item 4, page 12 (line 6) to page 20 (line 1), omit “RTIRC” (wherever occur- (7) Schedule 2, item 4, page 15 (after line 27) ring), substitute “TIRC”. after subsection 158T(4), insert: (6) Schedule 2, item 4, page 12 (lines 1 to 6) (4A) The Minister must ensure that at least and page 15 (lines 4 to 8), omit “regional” one RTIRC member is nominated by and “Regional” (five times occurring). an organisation that represents the interests of people, or bodies, in re- (7) Schedule 2, item 4, page 12 (line 7) to page gional, rural or remote parts of Austra- 20 (line 8), omit “RTIRC” (wherever occur- lia. ring), substitute “TIRC”. Question agreed to. (8) Schedule 2, item 4, page 12 (lines 7 to 17), omit subsections 158P(1) and (2), substitute: The CHAIRMAN—In respect of the (1) The TIRC must conduct reviews of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment adequacy of telecommunications ser- (Future Proofing and Other Measures) Bill vices. 2005, the question is that Democrat amend- Note: TIRC means the Telecommuni- ments (1) to (12) on sheet 4683 revised and cations Independent Review amendment (1) on sheet 4692 be agreed to. Committee established by sec- Australian Democrat amendments on tion158R. sheet 4683 revised— (2) In reviewing the adequacy of services (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (after line 19), at in accordance with subsection (1), the the end of section 158ZK, add: TIRC must have regard to: (8) Financial assets to which this section (a) the extent to which those services applies must be monitored to ensure meet the social, industrial and com- that their value does not fall below the mercial needs of the Australian peo- fund amount credited in accordance ple including those in regional, rural with subsection 158ZJ(1). and remote parts of Australia, for telecommunications services; and (2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (lines 9 and 10), omit the definition of RTIRC, substitute: (b) whether those services are equitably and reasonably available throughout Australia for all people who rea-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 139

sonably require those services, in- For as long as the Commonwealth cluding whether those services are: holds any shareholding in Telstra, if the (i) significant to people in regional, Commonwealth receives any informa- rural and remote parts of Austra- tion that is publicly disclosable under lia; and the Corporations Law or Australian Stock Exchange Limited rules, the (ii) currently available in one or Commonwealth must advise the board more urban parts of Australia; to disclose the information publicly. and ————— (c) the extent to which the objects of the Telecommunications Act 1997 are Australian Democrat amendment on sheet being achieved; and 4692— (d) the extent to which the long-term (1) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 24), at the interests of end-users of telecom- end of the Schedule, add: munications services are promoted. 3 After section 159A Note: Section 152AB of the Trade Insert: Practices Act 1974 sets out 159C Australian Broadband package the requirements for the “promotion of the long-term (1) The Parliament requires the Common- interests of end-users”. wealth Government to introduce legislation before December 2006 to appro- (9) Schedule 2, , item 4, page 13 (line 26), omit priate $7 billion for the Australian “does not include the eligible Territories”, Broadband package. substitute “includes the States, the Austra- lian Capital Territory and the Northern Terri- (2) The Australian Broadband package will tory”. be used to: (10) Schedule 2, item 4, page 15 (line 17), at the (a) undertake a mapping exercise of end of paragraph 158T(2), add: optic fibre networks (including dark fibre) and telecommunications satel- ; or (c) competition policy; or lite coverage in Australia; (d) economics; or (b) develop a National Broadband Plan; (e) consumer protection; or (c) fund the roll out of optic fibre net- (f) Australian industry; or works and telecommunications cov- (g) public policy; or erage for a period of 5 years, com- (h) the needs of community organisa- mencing in accordance with legisla- tions. tion introduced pursuant to subsection (1). (11) Schedule 2, item 4, page 16 (line 16), omit “does not include the eligible Territories”, Note: The development of a Na- substitute “includes the States, the Austra- tional Broadband Plan is to lian Capital Territory and the Northern Terri- be done by the Department in tory”. consultation with ACMA and industry and consumer (12) Schedule 4, page 26 (after line 4), before groups. item 1, insert: Question negatived. 1A After section 8AB Insert: The CHAIRMAN—The question is now that the Telecommunications Legislation 8ABA Commonwealth disclosure re- Amendment (Future Proofing and Other quirements

CHAMBER 140 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Measures) Bill 2005, as amended, and the want to know what the dirty deal with the remaining bills be agreed to. NFF includes. This government has spent the Question agreed to. whole day making sure we could not ask these questions. A dirty little deal has been Telstra (Transition to Full Private Owner- done. We know this because the Queensland ship) Bill 2005, Telecommunications Legis- Farmers Federation, the West Australian lation Amendment (Competition and Con- Farmers Federation, the South Australian sumer Issues) Bill 2005, Telecommunica- Farmers Federation and the New South tions (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Wales Farmers Federation will be putting out (Industry Plans and Consumer Codes) Bill a statement later today. They have all said 2005, Appropriation (Regional Telecommu- no; so what is the dirty deal that you have nications Services) Bill 2005-2006 reported done here? without amendment or request for amendment; and the Telecommunications Legisla- Quite a few of the Treasurer’s boffins tion Amendment (Future Proofing and Other have been in here today. We can see a few Measures) Bill 2005 reported with amend- across on the other side—the smug faction. ments; report adopted. They have all had the smirk on—Senator Ronaldson, Senator Brandis and Senator Ma- Third Reading son. The smug faction has been in today be- Senator COONAN (New South Wales— cause they know what they are doing today Minister for Communications, Information has been a travesty of parliamentary democ- Technology and the Arts) (6.19 pm)—I racy. I am willing to bet that, if we go back move: through 20 years of Senate Hansard, we will That these bills be now read a third time. not see the government filibustering in the Senator CONROY (Victoria) (6.19 committee stage of the bills. pm)—What we have seen today has been the Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (6.21 worst abuse of parliamentary process in my pm)—Nor is it likely that any bill so impor- 9½ years. Let us quickly recount: the bills tant as these has been treated with such con- were available last Thursday at 12 o’clock; tempt as far as procedures are concerned as the ad for the Senate inquiry appeared before by this government—certainly not in the last the bills; one day’s hearing was allowed and half century in this parliament. it started before submissions closed; we have Government senators interjecting— got to this stage where they have gagged the debate; and, in the most extraordinary dis- Senator BOB BROWN—The shouting play I have seen my 9½ years, they have ac- and braying members on the other side can tually asked dorothy dixers in the committee deal with their guilt however they might— stage of a bill to filibuster and talk the time including those who are missing. The Prime out so that we could not get to the bottom of Minister made an assurance to the Australian a number of shady little deals that this gov- people after the election that the Senate ernment has entered into in the last 48 hours. would not be treated with contempt. But today has been wall-to-wall contempt for the We know that a deal has been done with Senate and for the people of Australia by the the NFF. We have not had a chance to ask Howard government. The Prime Minister is one simple question about what is going on not here. He is absent. He wants to fly back, here. This government is bordering on cor- with the dirty deed having been done while rupt in its dealings with public moneys. We he is away in Washington.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 141

But the big failure here has been the Na- time. The grand bright prospect—speaking tional Party, who sold out rural and regional as a Queenslander—of Barnaby Joyce com- Australia today—and they will never recover ing along and standing up for Queensland from that—to the big end of town. They sold has disappeared in record time as well. out the farmers, as did the National Farmers Speaking of standing up for Queensland, I Federation. They sold out the small towns, want to raise, as Senator Conroy did, the they sold out the regional centres and they communication from Mr Gary Sansom, the sold out their constituency. They went to the President of the Queensland Farmers Federa- election saying that they would not do this. tion, a body which represents over 14,000 They broke that promise to the electorate. primary producers in Queensland, with 14 They were totally taken in and suborned, commodity organisation members. Senator Joyce most of all. He went weak at Senator Boswell interjecting— the knees, wimped out, was suborned and collapsed from his promise that he would Senator BARTLETT—I hope you are listen to the people of his own constituency not reflecting poorly on the commodity and his own state. And he is not here now. I members of the Queensland Farmers Federa- do not blame him for not being here. What a tion, Senator Boswell. There are 14 com- failure. There was all the lead-up, all the modity organisation members under the sig- theatre and all the weight of the world on his nature of the president, including the Queen- shoulders. But when he got to the point of sland Irrigators Council and cotton growers. standing up for rural and regional Australia They supported Senator Joyce. They put out and supporting a fair program he collapsed. a statement today. I have not got time to read What is more, his vote endorsed this farce in it because of the gag, so I will summarise it: the Senate today—that is what Senator Joyce ‘Don’t sell Telstra.’ This is the last chance did. So much for the promise! He is a total for Senator Joyce to listen to his constitu- failure. The Prime Minister, from a distance, ency. got what he wanted here today. It is a shame- Let me reinforce what Senator Conroy has ful day for the Senate, it is a shameful day said. I came into this chamber in 1997. I for democracy and it is a shameful day for have been involved since 1990 as a staff communications in this country. member observing and participating in the Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (6.24 parliamentary process. The extraordinary pm)—For those listening who do not know, contempt that has been shown by this gov- the guillotine will come down for a final vote ernment is almost undoubtedly without on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private precedent. It has allowed a total of a little Ownership) Bill 2005 and the related bills in over three hours for the Senate to have the five minutes, and they will be forced through opportunity to question the minister about this chamber. The grand dream of the ideo- the content of five different pieces of legisla- logical zealots will obviously have been real- tion. ised, although we still have Australia Post in During the committee debate, in answer to public ownership. It should be feeling pretty one of the many dorothy dixers that came nervous after Senator Brandis’s speech. But from government senators to use up even the ideological zealots are pleased. Public that small amount of time, the minister had good has been tossed to one side. The credi- the gall to say it was the Senate’s own fault bility of the National Farmers Federation, that we only had six days from when these such as it was, has been shredded for all bills were first tabled to when we had to vote

CHAMBER 142 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 on them because we spent so much time op- made by a government senator when Senator posing the cut-off and trying to have proper Conroy made the point about this being un- committee examinations. How dare we actu- precedented about why: it is because the ally move and debate motions suggesting government did not have the numbers then. that we should have a proper committee Now they have the numbers, this is what will process and that we should not exempt the happen time and again. bills from the cut-off and the normal process Telstra is bad enough. What are we going of allowing time to look at them. It is our to see when they rip away the income from own fault for doing that, because we would sole parents and the disabled? What are we have had more time—we would have had going to see when they rip away the indus- seven days instead of six. That would have trial safety net for workers throughout the made a big difference! country? We will see the same thing, because Time and again government senators said, the government have the numbers and that is ‘When Labor privatised everything, we all that matters. It was the people of Queen- didn’t have committee examinations into it.’ sland who gave them that extra seat, so I There are two key things there. First, we did give this message to the people of Queen- not have committee examinations because sland for the next election: this is the re- the Liberals did not want them either. Both sult—a total breaking of their word to the major parties supported privatisation. The people who elected them, a complete indica- Democrats did not. Second, every single one tion that their word is worthless, and total of those bills—I went through this in a contempt for the democratic process and for speech at lunchtime because I knew I would the parliament. not have time to do it now—had one month The PRESIDENT—Order! It being 6.30 or more from when they were first tabled to pm, the time allotted for the remaining stages when the vote happened in this chamber. having expired, I put the question that the Many of them had two months or three bills be read a third time. months and almost all of them were individ- The Senate divided. [6.34 pm] ual bills. Even when we did not have a committee examination, we had the time to (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul examine the detail for as long as we wanted Calvert) in debate in this chamber and to seek views Ayes………… 37 from the public. We did not have guillotines Noes………… 35 for most. We did not have filibusters during Majority……… 2 the committee stage preventing us from questioning the minister for even the patheti- AYES cally small amount of time that we were Abetz, E. Adams, J. permitted to do so. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. I have no doubt—from my more than 15 Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. years as a senator and staffer examining this Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Eggleston, A. * Senate, following its procedures closely, in- Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. volving myself in it and feeling honoured to Ferris, J.M. Fierravanti-Wells, C. be part of a process that actually tries to ex- Fifield, M.P. Heffernan, W. amine legislation for the public good—that Hill, R.M. Humphries, G. this is unprecedented. What is different? Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Why is it unprecedented? A comment was Kemp, C.R. Lightfoot, P.R.

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 143

Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. 2005. The bill before the Senate provides for McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. the establishment and operation of the gov- Nash, F. Parry, S. ernment’s proposed Australian technical col- Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. leges. Labor’s position on the Australian Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. technical colleges is clear: we believe they Trood, R. Vanstone, A.E. duplicate existing world-class programs and Watson, J.O.W. infrastructure in our TAFE colleges and NOES schools. We believe that the government should be increasing its investment in what is Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. already in place and working—building on Campbell, G. * Carr, K.J. what we already have rather than reinventing Conroy, S.M. Crossin, P.M. the wheel. But Labor will not stand in the Evans, C.V. Faulkner, J.P. way of the technical colleges. Any action is Fielding, S. Forshaw, M.G. better than the Howard government continu- Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. ing to do nothing, and Labor will support the Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. bill in the parliament. Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. McEwen, A. Our support for the bill should not be mis- McLucas, J.E. Milne, C. taken for uncritical and unquestioning sup- Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. port of the technical colleges proposal. Labor Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. question the motivation for the technical col- Polley, H. Sherry, N.J. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. leges, and we have many questions, which Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. have not been answered by the government, Webber, R. Wong, P. about their implementation. Those are ques- Wortley, D. tions we were unable to hear answers to after PAIRS public hearings before the Senate inquiry Campbell, I.G. Allison, L.F. into this bill were cancelled—yet another Macdonald, I. Ray, R.F. display of arrogant misuse of power by this * denotes teller government in the chamber today. Question agreed to. Australia’s skills crisis needs action now, Bills read a third time. and not in 2010, 2011, 2012 or whenever these colleges will finally produce their first AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL qualified tradesperson. The lack of skilled COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN workers has already emerged as a critical ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA’S SKILLS issue for the Australian economy. It is a crisis NEEDS) BILL 2005 of the Howard government’s own creation, a Second Reading crisis born of their disregard for adequate Debate resumed from 10 August, on mo- investment in Australia’s skills base during tion by Senator Coonan: their nine long years in office. Australia has a That this bill be now read a second time. shortage of skilled workers because the Howard government has massively cut edu- Senator WONG (South Australia) (6.39 cation and training investment since coming pm)—After all the fire and brimstone of the to office. A recent report by the OECD re- guillotined Telstra debate we now come to vealed a damning lack of investment in our the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility skills base. The report revealed that over the in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill last decade Australia has had one of the larg-

CHAMBER 144 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 est declines in public investment in universi- extra 20,000 workers will be needed every ties and TAFE of any OECD country. Austra- year until 2010 to meet employment demand. lia dropped by 8.7 per cent, while the major- The strong demand for extra skilled workers ity of our competitors increased their in- is being felt right across the country, yet the vestment. Australia is one of only seven technical colleges will not produce their first OECD countries to reduce government fund- qualified tradesperson until 2010 at the earli- ing for tertiary education per student be- est, and that is only if the colleges are run- tween 1995 and 2001. Since 1997, there has ning next year. The minister ducks and been a declining percentage of the year 12 weaves every time he is asked how many cohort going on to TAFE or university. colleges will be open next year. The government’s priorities in this area This government should be training more are all wrong. Figures uncovered by the Sen- Australians now in areas of skill need. In- ate estimates process reveal that seven out of stead, all the key indicators of skills devel- the 10 companies that received the most tax- opment are pointing backwards. This gov- payer funding between 1998 and 2004 ernment has presided over the most signifi- through the government’s new apprentice- cant drop in a decade in the number of Aus- ship employer incentives are employing only tralians in training. There were 122,000 0.6 per cent or less of their new apprentices fewer people in training in 2004 than in in the traditional trades. The government’s 2003. That is a seven per cent decline in the top priority should be training new appren- last year alone. The number of new apprentices in the traditional trades and other areas tices in training also fell by four per cent of skill shortage, and not subsidising salaries during 2004. The latest figures from the Na- in companies that do not provide training in tional Centre for Vocational Education Re- areas of skill shortage. Nine long years of search show that apprentice cancellations Howard government incompetence have cre- and withdrawals are at a record high, up a ated a skills crisis that is threatening Austra- massive 61 per cent since March 2001. Most lia’s economic performance. The Howard disturbingly, cancellations and withdrawals government missed the opportunity to reform by those in trades, and related workers, are Australia’s education and training system to up a staggering 54 per cent since March address skills shortages. From the time it was 2001—all this at a time when businesses are elected it has confused cutting education in- crying out for more qualified tradespeople. vestment with real reform. It is no wonder Completion rates for traditional appren- that a shortage of skilled workers is hurting tices have been in decline under the Howard Australian businesses and families. government. Forty per cent of people who Warnings about Australia’s skills crisis are commence an apprenticeship do not com- being shouted by everyone from the Reserve plete their training. These declines are the Bank to the OECD. Our economy needs ac- product of a sustained neglect of skills de- tion now. A report on Western Australia’s velopment during the nine long years of this skills needs conducted by Monash University Howard government. As soon as the Howard and released a few weeks ago pointed to the government took office, it slashed funding alarming need for an immediate 30 per cent for vocational education and training. In increase in apprentice commencements in the 1996 and 1997 $240 million was slashed mechanical and fabrication trades and a 15 from the VET budgets. In the 1997-98 per cent increase in the electrical trades. The budget, the government abolished the stand- report said that in Western Australia alone an alone National Skills Shortage Strategy. In

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 145

1998 the so-called ‘growth through efficien- every area that has been promised a technical cies’ policy effectively froze Commonwealth college will receive less money. Minister VET funds, resulting in a loss of growth Hardgrave’s announcement of the extra col- funding estimated at around $377 million lege in Adelaide is yet more evidence that over the 1998-2000 period. the technical college program was dreamt up The misnamed Skilling Australia’s Work- on the run and is changing day by day. The force legislation, which was recently consid- Pilbara, Port Augusta, Western Sydney, Gos- ered by this chamber, contains no significant ford, Lismore, Warrnambool, Dubbo, new money for the funding of VET in con- Queanbeyan and Sunshine Coast regions junction with the states and territories over have all been left out of the Howard gov- the next 3½ years. At the same time that the ernment’s announcement, despite being government was cutting and freezing funds, promised a technical college in the 2004 businesses were crying out for more skilled election campaign. These forgotten regions staff. We all know there has been a major will now have to wait until after the next shortage of TAFE places. These matters are a election for a technical college to open. direct result of the Howard government’s These colleges, the Prime Minister said in education and training policies. This skills his election announcement, were designed to shortage has developed under this govern- accelerate national skills development in ment’s watch. It cannot pass the buck and it traditional trades. If the government defini- cannot shift the blame. This government tion of accelerated skills development means must own up to its own failings and incom- waiting until 2010 for a handful of the col- petence. leges to produce their first qualified trades- Now we have before the Senate the matter person, I would hate to see this government of the Australian technical colleges. The idea take its time. The government’s confusions was dreamt up on the run during the last and contradictions reveal a lack of proper election campaign and announced with scant thought in the original policy which has seen detail. Only now is the government figuring that policy unravel during implementation. out how the colleges will be implemented. In The government has been rendered July the government announced out of the breathless by its repeated exhortations that blue that it is increasing the number of tech- these colleges would not be able to charge nical colleges to 25. The government has fees or run at a profit. It has been forced to now decided to fund two technical colleges find a position after a shambolic perform- in Adelaide instead of one. Clearly, Labor ance during question time in the House last welcomes the extra college. More effort in year, when the Prime Minister, Minister Nel- skills development is always welcome. But, son and Minister Hardgrave all gave differ- whilst it added on an extra college, the gov- ent interpretations of the government’s pol- ernment has not increased funding to the icy regarding the fees to be charged. But the technical college program. That can only truth finally slipped out when Minister Nel- mean one thing: less funding for every indi- son admitted in June that private training vidual technical college. providers associated with these colleges will The implementation of the policy is turn- be able to make profits. This admission fol- ing into yet another Howard government lows comments made by the Australian mess, because, without an immediate in- Council for Private Education and Training crease in the technical college funding pie, in relation to technical colleges. They said:

CHAMBER 146 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

It would need to be a commercial arrangement ... per cent and three per cent. But you have to where there needs to be the opportunity to cover look at the fine print when you look at a Lib- costs and have a return for the operator ... eral government promise, because they re- Debate interrupted. served the right to vary the method of the DOCUMENTS contribution. They then kept the funding— $4½ billion in the 1996 budget—in the for- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ward estimates and in 1997 decided that they (Senator Ferguson)—Order! It being 6.50 would not deliver the scheme. They replaced pm, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents. it with what was called a savings rebate, which lasted for six months or so, and used Australian Taxation Office the difference in the revenue—billions of Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (6.50 dollars—to assist in delivering income tax pm)—I move: cuts as part of their GST package in the run- That the Senate take note of the document. up to the 1998 election. The tabled documents that I wish to speak to The other comment I would make about tonight are the Australian Taxation Office the process here is that this is a report pre- Super Co-contribution Quarterly Report, on pared under the legislation by the tax office, the operation of the government co- and there is a requirement to do that. What I contribution scheme during the quarter 1 find interesting, and a further highlight of April 2005 to 30 June 2005, and the Super government arrogance, is that most of this Co-contributions Annual Report for the fi- report, not all of it, was dropped to the me- nancial year 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005. dia—sorry, some of the media—on Sunday The co-contribution scheme which was in- afternoon by the Minister for Revenue and troduced by the Liberal government for the Assistant Treasurer, Mr Brough. He selec- period under consideration was up to a dollar tively dropped elements of this report to the of government contribution matching a con- media. I know that because one of the jour- tribution by the employee. The first point I nalists rang me on Sunday afternoon and will make is that the co-contribution scheme provided me with a copy of this document— that this government has introduced is a pale albeit one with a couple of tables missing. I imitation of Labor’s original co-contribution find it a little interesting that the law requires scheme, which was a matching scheme of the tax office to report to the parliament, but three per cent and three per cent, phased in on Sunday night we had the minister selec- over a number of years. Labor’s original tively dropping to some media a copy of scheme would have delivered a much greater most of this document. As I said, the gov- level of benefit to all Australian employees ernment’s arrogance and their contempt for through their superannuation. It would have parliament is highlighted yet again by them had an important impact in the form of bene- not allowing the document to be presented, fits to the future retirement incomes of all as required by law, by the Commissioner of Australians, as well as lifting savings in this Taxation, Mr Carmody. country. Savings are negative and have been The other interesting aspect to the docu- for the last five years in the household sector ment I obtained on Sunday night—the selec- at least. tively leaked document circulated by the The Liberal government, in the run-up to minister, Mr Brough—is that a couple of the election in 1996, committed to maintain- tables are missing. It is interesting, because ing Labor’s co-contribution scheme of three the tax office were unable to identify the to-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 147 tal number of beneficiaries, running to about Today’s announcement by the Prime Min- 605,000, and were unable to identify the ister of plans to significantly increase our spouse income, as required by law, of some overseas aid budget to $4 billion by 2010 is 233,000 persons. The document also shows an important step forward by Australia in that almost 12,500 people who received a assisting those, particularly those in our re- contribution have spouses whose income was gion, who need it most. I note from events in greater than $100,000. It is a certainty that the chamber today that not everybody is pre- there are some millionaires in that category. pared to welcome and acknowledge the im- Why on earth should a scheme be providing portance of that announcement. I certainly do for the spouses of millionaires? That is very so this evening, and I am disappointed with poor public policy. In the opinion of the Aus- those who continue to carp and not recognise tralian Labor Party, the scheme does need the important step that this is. The an- some adjustment where you have spouses nouncement represents a doubling of our aid with a very high income. We will be explor- funding from 2004 levels, and it will, in an ing this and other issues in terms of what we appropriate fashion, involve significant con- see as some inadequacies of this scheme. ditions to strengthen governance and anticor- Question agreed to. ruption measures. ADJOURNMENT Australia as a nation has a long tradition of giving international assistance, particu- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT larly in our region, the Asia-Pacific. It is also (Senator Ferguson)—Order! There being no fair to say that Australia has traditionally further consideration of government docu- been of the view that trade and investment ments, I propose the question: liberalisation is also a very important way of That the Senate do now adjourn. reducing and removing poverty in develop- Overseas Aid ing nations. It does, in many cases, provide a Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) longer term solution than short-term direct (6.56 pm)—I want to make a few remarks foreign aid possibly can. Australia, through this evening in relation to the summit cur- the Cairns Group, supports efforts in the rently taking place at the United Nations WTO Doha Round to eliminate agricultural headquarters in New York, which Prime export subsidies to significantly reduce trade Minister Howard is attending. This is a meet- distorting domestic support and remove bar- ing that will be crucial to the future of the riers to market access. All of those initia- UN; crucial on very many levels that are tives, if fulfilled, will substantially benefit perhaps not appreciated in what is occasion- developing nations. ally fairly superficial media attention—by The paper which has come out of the UN necessity, as it is a very complex process. today does not respond to all of those things The meeting is also going to provide an op- as positively as some in the international portunity to reflect on and examine progress community may have hoped, but it is fair to towards the global Millennium Development say that it has made some progress. As I un- Goals. Those goals, broadly speaking, of derstand it, at one stage it was thought noth- eradicating poverty, hunger, disease and gen- ing would be produced, so it is good to see der inequality and of achieving universal some result. I am pleased to note the positive education, health and environmental sustain- response that the Prime Minister’s an- ability are an international responsibility in nouncement in relation to the increase in which Australia plays a significant role. ODA funding in Australia has received from

CHAMBER 148 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 many in the aid sector in this country. It is anti-domestic-violence committees across important to note that that aid will be tar- that country; and assistance in the prevention geted in our region, where half of the world’s of up to 35,000 child deaths a year through poor currently live. the community based Integrated Manage- Additionally, I think it is important to note ment of Childhood Illness program and the that our support continues to be felt on the national vitamin A program. They are all ground in the communities that need it most. very important, very direct and very practi- I want to cite a few examples of our effective cal. interventions in that regard. Today the Par- I want to make further reference to the liamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the progress we are making on the achievement Hon. Bruce Billson, announced that we will of the Millennium Development Goals, contribute a further $1 million to the World which were adopted in 2000. AusAID re- Health Organisation to support their new cently released a very interesting and im- national polio immunisation campaign in pressive document, entitled ‘A global part- Indonesia, which is part of protecting over nership for development’, which charts the 24 million children from polio—in particu- progress of the Australian government to- lar, the very vulnerable who are less than five wards achieving the MDGs. It is optimistic years of age. We also, for example, support and positive, and it is about improving the significant programs of debt relief. We world. spearhead that with a $110 million contribution to the HIPC, the Heavily Indebted Poor We take very much a whole-of- Countries, initiative. We have also commit- government approach to development. This ted to 100 per cent debt relief to all countries means that we want all of our departments that qualify for the HIPC initiative. Nicara- and agencies where relevant to take account gua and Ethiopia, for example, fall into that of the needs and interests of developing category. In other arenas, we contribute to countries in the evolution of the global econ- debt relief through our membership of the omy. That whole-of-government approach is Paris Club of bilateral supporters. We have one we adopt in a number of areas—in trade, really played a very important role in ensur- in investment, in labour mobility and in dealing a better deal for Indonesia there. We ing with corruption, drug trafficking, people strongly support the development of a debt trafficking and so on. What that enables us to sustainability framework by the World Bank do is provide well-targeted and effective aid; and the IMF. look at things like the appropriate debt relief I have referred to already, as well as things I think we also have a human touch in like duty-free and quota-free market access much of our international aid provision to goods from the least developed countries; through practical and direct programs. Many and promote and support global economic of us in the chamber have the opportunity to growth and, as I referred to earlier, more lib- hear much about those through our involve- eralised world trade. ment in the committee process in the parliament. For example, there is the provision of That aid program has established strategic basic teaching and learning resources to partnership agreements between AusAID and 4,000 primary teacher trainees in Papua New Treasury, the AFP, the Attorney-General’s Guinea; support for the Fiji Women’s Crisis Department, the Department of Finance and Centre in providing the centre which trains Administration, the Public Service Commis- sion and the Department of Health and Age-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 149 ing and so on. All of those relationships are of-government approach to development, very important to effective delivery of noting in particular the essential complemen- whole-of-government responses. Those tarity, if you like, of our aid, foreign, trade agreements outline shared goals and coordi- and agriculture policies and the way they nation arrangements for programs and pro- work together. The OECD definition of pol- jects, particularly in the Pacific. One very icy coherence for development is the promo- good example of that is the work that is done tion of mutually reinforcing policy actions through the RAMSI Special Coordinator’s across government to support development. Office in the Solomon Islands. That involves It recognises that poverty reduction and sus- senior officers from DFAT, Defence, AFP tainable development do require much more and AusAID working together. than aid. One might ask oneself what the story is That brings me effectively back to the with aid and the Department of Health and point where I began. Australia’s approach Ageing. They consult with AusAID, for ex- involves more than aid. But, most impor- ample, on health related issues, including, as tantly, with today’s announcement we have I understand it, the Asia regional zoonotic recognised the very important engagement diseases initiative and the South Pacific Sen- that we have in this region and made that ior Health Officials Network. It is all useful very significant financial increase in our input, advice and engagement. I think that is commitment. Our aid program works with a very positive part of our response in the whole-of-government partners to invest di- region. rectly in specific MDG areas. There are a We recognise that the MDG blueprint, the number of those, ranging through health, whole-of-government approach, is not the education and water and sanitation. There is be-all and end-all and it is not always the the government’s commitment, for example, way to go. So, for example, we have taken a to fighting HIV-AIDS and particularly our different approach in Indonesia with recon- commitment and funding for the global fund struction post-tsunami. We have established to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Re- Later this year we will see the release of the construction and Development there. For the government’s white paper on aid, which will reconstruction and development of fragile provide further guidance and analysis of the states, that might not be the correct approach effectiveness of our aid program. I look for- either. We recognise that and we are flexible ward to parliamentary input into that process. about the approach that we take across port- Majarrka Festival folios. We are also working, as I said before, Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Aus- on trade, investment and labour mobility. We tralia—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- look at corruption and other transboundary ate) (7.06 pm)—Hopefully I will not need to concerns, as I think you would describe struggle as much as Senator Payne did be- them, like HIV-AIDS, drug trafficking and cause of her worrying cold. I want to make people-trafficking, which invariably cross some remarks tonight on a visit I made to an several government portfolios as well. Aboriginal cultural festival—the Majarrka The OECD Development Assistance festival in the Kimberley in my home state of Committee, which reviewed our aid program Western Australia. I did that as a Labor sena- in 2004 and with which I had the pleasure of tor but also as Labor’s Indigenous affairs meeting at that time, commended our whole- spokesman. The festival was at a camp site

CHAMBER 150 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 just out of Fitzroy Crossing in the Kimberley range of dancers from the Kimberleys and region. It was a tremendous success. I think also from the Tiwi Islands and Arnhem Land, thousands of people visited over the day and so there was a mixture. The show went on many hundreds camped out. It went for hours over time because so many people about five days. I was only there for one wanted to dance, which is a great thing. It night and the best part of two days. It was a was typified by people like an elder called tremendous celebration of Aboriginal law Spider, who is in his 80s and not only well and culture. respected for his dance performance and art It was presented by the Kimberley Abo- but a carrier of the culture. One of the issues riginal Law and Cultural Centre to celebrate that people raised with us was the need to be the 21st anniversary of its establishment, able to pass that on. Young people have to go along with that of the Kimberley Language through initiation ceremonies to be accepted Resource Centre. Both organisations are as carriers of the dances, traditions and committed to maintaining Aboriginal culture songs. One of the concerns of a lot of people in the Kimberley and maintaining language there is that, because of the dispersion of vital to keeping those cultural traditions. young people away from the communities They are both grassroots organisations that and the loss of some of those connections, really serve the Kimberley Aboriginal peo- they are not going to be able to hand on that ple’s preservation of their law, language and culture, but events like this allow people to culture. do that and allow them to participate. The involvement of so many young people at the I was joined at the festival by the shadow festival was great and obviously gave great minister for regional development, Simon hope for the culture surviving. Crean, and the shadow parliamentary secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous I also had the opportunity to meet with a affairs, Warren Snowdon. They drove across range of Aboriginal leaders, including Wayne from Alice Springs, up the Tanami Road. I Bergmann from the KLC, Peter Yu and Pat was glad I was not with them; I only drove Dodson, and a range of other people in- out from Broome. So it was a bit of a drive volved in the Kimberley area. They raised a for them. As I said, we were all very pleased lot of really interesting issues. I will not go to be there. We attended the Kimberley Land through them all tonight, but one of the Council’s annual general meeting as guests, things that is occurring under the state gov- while they went through their annual reports ernment auspice is the implementation of a and spoke to their memberships. They had Kimberley custodial plan. It was quite heart- representatives from the entire Kimberley breaking to be faced again with the numbers region, encompassing up to 25 language of young and old Indigenous people in pris- groups. It is a reminder of the diversity of ons in Western Australia. Forty-two per cent Aboriginal culture in that region and of the prison population across Australia is throughout Australia. Indigenous. For a people who make up such a small proportion of our total population, On the Wednesday evening, 1,400 people they make up 42 per cent of the prison popu- at the campsite enjoyed the dancing and lation. When you go to somewhere like the probably did not enjoy a very short address Kimberleys, they make up a much larger from me, but it was a great opportunity to proportion of the prison population. Many of speak to them and to be involved with the these people are locked up because they celebration of the culture. There was a whole could not pay fines for driving offences or

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 151 for quite minor offences. There is at least an Centre, and the Kimberley Language Re- attempt to try to review some of the custodial source Centre. They are three organisations issues in the Kimberley, but it really is a at the heart of Aboriginal life in the Kimber- blight on our society that so many people ley and at the heart of advocacy and mainte- end up in jail at great cost to the taxpayer for nance of law and culture. I hope to have that quite minor offences. It is a problem that resolution incorporated. I have shown it to really needs to be tackled. the whips, and I will move to have it incor- In terms of the Commonwealth’s respon- porated at the end of my speech. It was a sibilities, I want to mention first of all the message about their views that they asked us concern about funding for native title repre- to bring to the parliament. It included these sentative bodies. I know the Attorney- words: General, Mr Ruddock, has put out a discus- We want a relationship with governments that is sion paper looking at the review of native not only about practical outcomes but one where title matters. I have my concerns about re- we can settle the differences of the past and nego- opening the debate. Mr Ruddock claims that tiate the future way forward in mutual respect. he is looking to address some technical and … … … procedural matters. One of those ought to be We seek your support for the establishment of a the funding of representative bodies because Kimberley Indigenous forum to represent the whether they have the capacity to do the interests of Aboriginal people in the Kimberley, to work they need to do is a serious concern. consult with government on things that are impor- They certainly find themselves short of re- tant to us. sources and unable to provide the resources It also said: to negotiate claims, to meet the increasing Regional development has to take account of our demands from resource companies and oth- presence in the region. ers who want to develop land. In order for In commenting on that, I want to make a that to occur, representative bodies need to couple points. Firstly, it is in some ways a be resourced. critique of the government’s focus on so- The other concern, which I notice Mr called practical reconciliation, in the sense Ruddock’s paper does pick up, is about the that it still leaves Aboriginal people feeling lack of funding for prescribed bodies corpo- disenfranchised. They see the need for genu- rate. They are the people who hold the native ine dialogue, premised on respect and the title, and the Minerals Council of Australia principles of self-determination. They want and others are conscious that that is a real practical reconciliation, but they also want problem. I hope that is addressed as part of reconciliation based on respect and recogni- the review announced by Mr Ruddock. tion of their place in our society and in Aus- Clearly there are also issues about the Abo- tralia’s history. riginal corporations bill, and Senator Payne The second point that this resolution and I will get the chance to review that clearly concentrates on is the support and the shortly, so I will be taking up those issues need for elected representation of Indigenous then. people. Labor supported the abolition of The main thing I want to do tonight is to ATSIC because it had failed. But we do not bring to the Senate the resolution carried by say, as the government seems to say, that this meeting of the Kimberley Land Council, there is no need for replacement. There is a the Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Cultural need for a national Indigenous voice. There

CHAMBER 152 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005 is a need for a national Indigenous represen- our life, or until there is proper recognition tative body. A hand-picked council reporting and respect for us in the Australian Constitu- to the Prime Minister is not the answer. tion. The Kimberley is also very much focused (5) We do want your support for: on the fact that there needs to be regional Recognition: That we are the first representation. One thing that is very clear in people of this land a region like the Kimberley is that decisions Respect: Respect for traditional made by whitefellas or blackfellas in Can- law and culture and our berra very rarely meet the needs of the Kim- relationship with the berley—we do not have the understanding. land. They have the same view about Perth and Acknowledgment: Valuing the oral culture, they are right there as well. It is a different traditional learning and teaching ways of our part of Australia. The region has different peoples needs and issues are different. As well as national Indigenous representation, they are (6) We want a relationship with governments that is not only about practical outcomes but really arguing for greater involvement of one where we can settle the differences of representative bodies like the KLC in a direct the past and negotiate the future way forward communication with the Kimberley region in mutual respect. and the Indigenous people of the Kimberley (7) Regional development has to take account of region. I do not think that the solution is our presence in the region. We, like most shared responsibility agreements negotiated others in regional Australia, need better ser- community by community often by media vices and quality of life. Too often we are driven programs. They want programs that even the least considered of those in the re- systemically address the issues that confront gion. Today we need governments to negoti- the community and the region. We share that ate with us about OUR regional priorities desire, and I think that it is something that and aspirations. Regional representation that this parliament ought to take on seriously. I allows sub-regional representation to occur is important. What we do not want is further seek leave to incorporate the resolution. division of our people by governments not Leave granted. negotiating with us on a regional basis. We The resolution read as follows— are linked across the Kimberley not only by our regional organisations but by common Resolution from Meeting at Majarrka Festival cultural, social and family values and tradi- (1) We welcome all of the members of the Can- tions. These strengths of ours have got to berra Parliament to this celebration of our help deal with the legacy of the challenges land, law, language, and culture. we have from our intertwined histories. (2) The Kimberley has often looked to the lead- (8) We have to work together if we are to respect ership of the Commonwealth to protect what each other and make the better changes we is very important to us. We ask for your help know Australia has to make if justice is ever to raise awareness of Kimberley issues. to happen for the Aboriginal peoples and the (3) We do not have any elected body of our own nation itself. Help us convince both Canberra in Canberra to put our matters forward and to and Perth our solutions have to be found in defend our rights to land, language, culture the region for some things but at the national and law. level for other important things like the con- (4) We want you to stand up for us until there is stitution, treaty and resources. a proper agreement between governments (9) We seek your support for the establishment and ourselves over these essential parts of of a Kimberley Indigenous forum to repre-

CHAMBER Wednesday, 14 September 2005 SENATE 153

sent the interests of Aboriginal people in the But I am sure Senator Joyce thought he Kimberley, to consult with government on put up a good fight. You can just imagine the things that are important to us. Treasurer trying to keep a straight face as he Kimberley Land Council patted Senator Joyce on the back and told Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Centre him that he had driven a hard bargain. I am Kimberley Language Resource Centre surprised Senator Joyce thinks he got a good 31 August 2005 deal for Queensland now that it has been revealed that Telstra has short-changed Aus- Telstra tralia by around $3 billion on infrastructure Senator STERLE (Western Australia) investment in the last couple of years alone. I (7.16 pm)—As I speak to the adjournment of bet the Prime Minister and the Treasurer proceedings in the Senate today, I would like were rolling around the floor laughing after to reflect on the unfortunate demise of Sena- Senator Joyce came back from Queensland tor Joyce. Today we saw the unsettling sight and told them he had accepted the deal. Just of Senator Joyce hanging himself in the as Kerry Packer was rumoured as saying arena of public opinion. Before the last elec- after the Nine Network deal: tion Senator Joyce and his trusty sidekick You only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime, James Baker travelled all over the country- I would not be surprised to learn that, in his side in rural and regional Queensland telling the voters that if they elected him he would moments of quiet contemplation, the Treas- not vote to sell Telstra. In fact, on 7 Septem- urer has a smirk and thinks to himself: you ber last year Senator Joyce said: only get one Barnaby Joyce in your lifetime. I think it is clear to most Australians that I agree with John Howard on most things, but I Senator Joyce has been conned. Senator won’t be endorsing the sale of Telstra. Joyce made a promise to the people of My, how things have changed in a year! In Queensland, a promise that will not be for- fact, how things have changed in a weekend! gotten. The people of Queensland will square Senator Joyce now says he has done a deal, up with Senator Joyce the next time he fronts so Telstra is fit to flog. And you can just them on the ballot paper. imagine the negotiations. You can imagine Senate adjourned at 7.20 pm the Prime Minister and the Treasurer rubbing their hands and saying, ‘Come in, spinner,’ DOCUMENTS the day Senator Joyce came to town to do a Tabling deal on Telstra. The following government document was Let us have a look at this deal. This is not tabled: the $5 billion package Senator Joyce asked Superannuation (Government Co- for. It is not the $5.7 billion plan proposed by contribution for Low Income Earners) Act the Telstra CEO. It is not the $7 billion re- 2003—Quarterly report on the Govern- quired to deliver a fibre optic network for ment co-contribution scheme for the period Australia. Senator Joyce’s grubby little deal 1 April to 30 June 2005, together with re- is for $1.1 billion over four years and then port for 2004-05. around $100 million a year down the track. It Tabling is going to take around 20 years for Senator The following documents were tabled by Joyce to see his $2 billion spent. At least Ju- the Clerk: das got his 30 pieces of silver up front and in full.

CHAMBER 154 SENATE Wednesday, 14 September 2005

Christmas Island Act—List of applied Western Australian Acts for the period 18 February to 5 September 2005. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—List of applied Western Australian Acts for the period 18 February to 5 September 2005. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—Accreditation of a management plan for the purposes of a bilateral agreement— Management Plan for the Sydney Opera House, dated August 2005. Notice of Intent to accredit the Man- agement Plan for the Sydney Opera House, dated 12 September 2005. Sydney Airport Curfew Act— Dispensation Report 5/05 (Addendum). Dispensation Report 6/05. Indexed Lists of Files The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended: Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 January to 30 June 2005—Statement of compliance— Attorney-General’s Department and portfo- lio agencies.

CHAMBER