COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

THURSDAY, 2 MAY 1996

THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FIRST PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA CONTENTS

THURSDAY, 2 MAY

Petitions— Australian Coastline ...... 191 French Nuclear Testing ...... 191 Election Campaign ...... 191 Election Campaign ...... 191 Superannuation ...... 191 Religion and Democracy in Australia ...... 192 Notices of Motion— Family Court ...... 192 How-to-Vote Cards ...... 192 Introduction of Legislation ...... 192 Condolences: Mr Rob Riley...... 192 Australian Maritime College ...... 192 Federal Election 1996 ...... 193 Women in Federal Parliament ...... 193 Order of Business— Procedure Committee ...... 193 General Business ...... 193 Election Campaign Material ...... 194 BHP Petroleum ...... 194 Uranium Mining and Milling in Kakadu National Park Committee . . . 194 Acts Interpretation Legislation (Delegated Legislation) Amendment Bill 1991— Restoration to Notice Paper ...... 194 Great Famine in Ireland ...... 194 Uranium Mining and Milling Committee— Suspension of Standing Orders ...... 194 Procedural Motion ...... 196 Motion ...... 196 Consideration of Legislation ...... 212 Ministerial Statements— Reform of the Treaty-Making Process ...... 217 Deaths at Port Arthur ...... 247 Questions Without Notice— Wages Outcomes ...... 248 Public Service ...... 248 Economy ...... 249 Budget Accounts ...... 250 Seasonal Workers ...... 251 Budget Cuts ...... 252 Family Court of Australia ...... 253 Howard Government ...... 255 Native Title ...... 256 Women in Federal Parliament ...... 256 Information Technology ...... 257 Telephone Call Charges ...... 258 Civil Aviation Safety Authority ...... 259 Families ...... 260 Aboriginal Flags...... 261 Economy ...... 261 Information Technology ...... 264 Budget Cuts ...... 266 Question Time ...... 268 Matters of Public Importance— Economic Policy ...... 268 Documents— Commonwealth Grants Commission ...... 279 CONTENTS—continued

Australian Broadcasting Corporation ...... 279 Order of Business— General Business ...... 293 Documents— Auditor-General’s Reports—Report No. 20 of 1995-96 ...... 293 Committees— Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee ...... 297 Membership ...... 297 Community Affairs References Committee—Report ...... 298 Economics References Committee—Report ...... 303 Electoral Matters Committee—Report ...... 308 Adjournment— Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission ...... 310 Condolences: Mr Rob Riley...... 312 Credit Unions ...... 313 Diabetes ...... 315 Clarence By-election ...... 315 Documents— Indexed Lists ...... 317 SENATE 191

Thursday, 2 May 1996 And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 173 citizens). The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Election Campaign Michael Beahan) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers. To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: PETITIONS The petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the Senate the The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for recent election to the House of Representatives of presentation as follows: Members who during their election campaign, openly manipulated racist sentiments against and Australian Coastline about the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia as a To the Honourable President and Members of the means to gain office in the national Parliament. Senate in the Parliament assembled: Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to We the undersigned, wish to lodge our protest, publicly condemn the use of racial attacks by in the strongest possible terms, at the Federal candidates or political parties in federal elections, Government’s inaction to take legislative measures and to call upon all parliamentarians to represent to protect our coast. all of their constituents without racial discrimina- tion, fear or favour, and to establish and enforce a We the surfriders and TRACKS readers of code of race ethics to be observed by parliamenta- Australia have watched our coastal treasures, the rians as national representatives of the citizens of ecology, biodiversity and beauty of the Australian Australia. coast marred by urban development, poor planning and pollution, especially over the last 25 years. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. The ALP has been in government for half that time and we’ve lost double our resources. by Senator Reynolds (from 28 citizens). We (not so humbly) demand that you urge the Election Campaign Federal Government to act now to establish a national coastal agency with national powers to To the Honourable the President and Members of stop the destruction of our Australian coastline. the Senate in the Parliament assembled. We also demand that the Federal Government The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the recognise and include surfriders in the major printing and distribution of ‘How to Vote’ Cards on decision making forums and call on you to contri- Polling Day in State and Commonwealth Elections bute resources toward those who protect our surfing is extremely wasteful as the distribution of approxi- coast. mately 40 million pieces of paper during the last Federal Election indicates. Finally, we demand that the environment be recognised in the Australian Constitution. Your Petitioners request that the Senate should: Enact legislation to stop the use of ‘How to Vote We are tired of waiting! You must act now. Cards’ at Commonwealth elections and that it Please write to me and inform me of what you are should prevail on all State Governments in Austral- going to do to save our surf. ia to pass similar legislation for State elections. by Senator Bell (from 94 citizens). by Senator Spindler (from 1,789 citizens). French Nuclear Testing Superannuation To the Honourable the President and members of To the Honourable the President and the members the Senate in the Parliament assembled. of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the petition The petition of the undersigned citizens and of the undersigned shows: residents of Australia respectfully showeth that: "That same sex defacto relationships are not We register our strongest protest at the decision recognised under superannuation schemes, funds by the French Government to resume nuclear and associated legislation across Australia." testing in the South Pacific. Your Petitioners request that the senate should: The decision to resume testing is without regard In view of the current Federal Government’s to strident opposition from not only the people and Superannuation Guarantee Charge seek recognition nations of the South Pacific, but also many other of same sex defacto relationships under Superan- countries around the world. nuation Schemes, funds and associated legislation 192 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 across Australia, so that all Australians are ensured distribution of how-to-vote cards at future of equality of access to all superannuation benefits. federal elections; by Senator Spindler (from 2,012 citizens). (b) notes that up to 40 million how-to-vote cards were discarded on the evening of Religion and Democracy in Australia the federal election on 2 March 1996; To the Honourable the President and Members of (c) calls on the Government to investigate the Senate in the Parliament assembled: alternatives to this extraordinarily waste- The petition of the undersigned requests: ful practice, for example, by displaying (i) that those of religious conviction who have party preferences on poster sized how-to- contributed to the development of Australia should vote cards displayed on the walls of be recognised in the study of Australian history to voting cubicles or on small laminated ensure that a balanced history is taught; cards fixed to a rotating file placed in each voting cubicle; and (ii) that any syllabus prepared on the teaching of Civics and Citizenship should include the contribu- (d) calls on the Government to table its tion of people of religious conviction highlighting findings in the Senate on or before their religious motivation; 18 June 1996. (iii) that funds be allocated to ensure that teach- Introduction of Legislation ers are given in-service training on their role of religious influences in the development of Austral- Senator KEMP (Victoria—Parliamentary ian democracy; and Secretary to the Minister for Social Securi- (iv) that materials are produced to support the ty)—I give notice that, on the next day of above for use in the classroom. sitting, I shall move: by Senator Woodley (from 67 citizens). That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for Petitions received. an Act to amend the Customs and Excise Legisla- tion Amendment Act 1995. Customs and Excise NOTICES OF MOTION Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1996. Family Court Condolences: Mr Rob Riley Senator McKIERNAN (Western Austral- Senator CHAMARETTE (Western Aus- ia)—I give notice that, on the next day of tralia)—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: sitting, I shall move: That the Senate— That the Senate— (a) notes the reported comments of the Chief (a) notes with deep sorrow, the news of the Executive Officer of the Family Court of sudden death of long time Aboriginal Australia that the Government’s $3.5 activist Rob Riley; million cut to the court’s budget would hit hardest in Australia’s rural communi- (b) notes that, in recent times, Mr Riley was ties; closely involved in the Royal Commis- (b) expresses concern that these cuts could sion into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, lead to even more bitter, and possibly the campaign against Western Australia’s violent, disputes between divorcing or juvenile justice laws and the Mabo de- separating couples; bate; (c) condemns the Government for targeting (c) will always remember Mr Riley for his rural and regional Australia and making tireless work to enhance the position of them pay for the Government’s Fight- indigenous people across Australia, and back! package. particularly in his home State of Western Australia; and How-to-Vote Cards (d) expresses its heartfelt condolences to his Senator SPINDLER (Victoria)—I give family and friends. notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: Australian Maritime College That the Senate— Senator MURPHY (Tasmania)—I give (a) notes the tabling of a petition bearing notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall 1 789 signatures calling for an end to the move: Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 193

That the Senate— Women in Federal Parliament (a) notes that: Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales)—I (i) the Coalition Government is consider- give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I ing reversing the previous Labor shall move: Government’s funding commitment of $14.5 million to the Launceston-based That the Senate— Australian Maritime College (AMC) (a) notes, with pride, that the Liberal Party for the development of a hydrodynamic has achieved 25 per cent representation testing facility, by women in the 38th Parliament on (ii) such a decision will have a major ability not quotas; impact on the AMC’s long-term future (b) confirms that the Australian Labor Party and its national and international stand- has only 8.3 per cent of its seats repre- ing as a leader in the marine and mari- sented by female members of Parliament, time research areas, and well short of the 35 per cent quota target (iii) the loss of approximately $17 million that it has set for the year 2004; in infrastructure investment in the (c) notes that the Australian Labor Party is Launceston area will also have a major very unlikely to achieve its target when, impact on employment opportunities in at the election held on 2 March 1996, of the area and compound the already the 12 Australian Labor Party sitting declining economy of the region; and members who retired, in only one case (b) in noting the seriousness of the situation, was a female member of Parliament, Ms calls on the Government to immediately Macklin preselected to replace the former guarantee to the AMC and the people of male member of Parliament; Bass that the funding will be forthcoming (d) questions the sincerity of the Australian in accordance with the commitment of the Labor Party to achieve its stated aim in previous Labor Government. female parliamentary representation when two retiring female members of Parlia- Federal Election 1996 ment, Ms McHugh (Grandlyer) and Ms Senator PATTERSON (Victoria)—I give Fatin (Brand), were replaced by male notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall candidates; and move: (e) notes that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazely) was the candidate who That the Senate— replaced Ms Fatin in Brand, an action at (a) notes that: odds with Labor’s aim to increase female (i) the Coalition won 21 out of the 37 representation. seats in Victoria as part of its victory The PRESIDENT—I hope this is not at the federal election held on 2 March setting a pattern for notices of motion. 1996, and (ii) 19 Liberal Party candidates and 2 ORDER OF BUSINESS National Party candidates won federal Procedure Committee seats in Victoria; (b) congratulates the new Liberal Members of Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to: Parliament, who were elected to represent That government business notice of motion No. the people of Victoria and who worked so 1 standing in the name of Senator Hill for today, hard and so tirelessly to achieve their relating to a motion for the adoption of recom- places in the new Coalition Government; mendations in three Procedure Committee reports of 1995, be postponed till the next day of sitting. (c) recognises this achievement by Mrs Bailey in the seat of McEwen, Mr Barresi General Business in the seat of Deakin, Mr Billson in the seat of Dunkley, Mr Broadbent in the seat Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to: of McMillan and Mrs Stone in the seat of That the order of general business for consider- Murray; and ation today be as follows: (d) acknowledges that the State of Victoria (a) consideration of government documents; has shown its support for the policies of (b) general business notice of motion No. 7 the Howard Government by electing in standing in the name of Senator Bourne, the House of Representatives a majority relating to funding for the Australian Broad- of Coalition candidates in Victoria. casting Corporation. 194 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

Election Campaign Material (ii) the tragedy stripped Ireland of a huge proportion of its population, some of Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the which came to Australia and became request of Senator Reynolds) agreed to: the ancestors of a great part of its present population and authors of much That general business notice of motion No. 10 of its culture, and standing in the name of Senator Reynolds for today, relating to a code of race ethics, be post- (iii) Australia owes much to Ireland; and poned till the next day of sitting. (b) takes this opportunity to acknowledge that debt. BHP Petroleum URANIUM MINING AND MILLING Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: COMMITTEE That general business notice of motion No. 11 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, Senator MARGETTS (Western Austral- relating to a review of BHP Petroleum’s offshore ia)—I ask that general business notice of safety arrangements, be postponed till the next day motion No. 19 standing in my name for of sitting. today, relating to the establishment of a select committee to be known as the Select Commit- Uranium Mining and Milling in Kakadu tee on Uranium Mining and Milling, be taken National Park Committee as formal. Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the Leave not granted. request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner)) agreed to: Suspension of Standing Orders That general business notice of motion No. 20 Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, (9.42 a.m.)—Pursuant to contingent notice, I relating to the establishment of a select committee on the impacts of uranium mining and milling in move: Kakadu National Park, be postponed till the next That so much of the standing orders be suspend- day of sitting. ed as would prevent Senator Margetts moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of ACTS INTERPRETATION the Senate, namely, a motion to give precedence to LEGISLATION (DELEGATED general business notice of motion No. 19. LEGISLATION) AMENDMENT BILL This debate is urgent today. We have seen 1991 there are advantages in using an existing Restoration to Notice Paper structure. Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to: Senator Panizza—Mr President, so as not to waste time I point out that we are not (1) That so much of standing orders be sus- pended as would prevent the succeeding objecting to the suspension of standing orders. provision of this resolution having effect. The PRESIDENT—That is not a point of (2) That the Acts Interpretation (Delegated order but it is information. Did you hear that, Legislation) Amendment Bill 1991 be Senator Margetts? restored to the Notice Paper and that con- sideration of the bill be resumed at the stage Senator MARGETTS—With the agree- reached in the last session of the Parliament. ment of the Senate, I am happy to proceed to the substantive debate. I wish that general GREAT FAMINE IN IRELAND business notice of motion No. 19 be moved Motion (by Senator Cooney) agreed to: immediately and have precedence over all That the Senate— other business— (a) notes: The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Senator, we are still (i) that this is the 150th anniversary of the great famine in Ireland, a most horrific on the suspension motion you moved earlier. event in the history of that wondrous We will have to deal with that first and country, foremost. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 195

Senator Parer—The move to suspend Panizza for putting the chamber into a state standing orders to reappoint the Select Com- of some confusion. Rather than ruling, I will mittee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste give some advice to Senator Margetts. You and to extend it terms of reference— have moved for the suspension of standing Senator MARGETTS—I wish to raise a orders; you have a right to speak to that point of order. motion for suspension of standing orders. With Senator Panizza’s intervention, you Senator Parer—I am going to do exactly sought, as I understand it, to bring that deci- what Senator Panizza did. sion forward. Some confusion was further Senator MARGETTS—I was given to caused when Senator Parer stood to his feet. understand that you wanted to move the I give you the opportunity now to speak to suspension immediately so I was going to your motion to suspend standing orders if you speak briefly to that, but if you are going to so choose to exercise your right to do so. speak to it I have lost my ability to speak. Senator MARGETTS—Thank you, Mr The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Acting Deputy President, and I thank the We have to deal with the motion to suspend Senate. I will not speak long. This is a mo- standing orders first and foremost, and that is ment of opportunity for us as a Senate to put what I was drawing your attention to earlier forward a proposal to advance the cause of when you sought to move a different motion. public information in relation to the uranium You cannot do that until we have dealt with debate. There is an opportunity at the mo- the suspension of standing orders. ment, in the existing committee structure, to Senator Faulkner—Mr President, I rise on use the Select Committee on the Dangers of a point of order. Clearly, any senator in this Radioactive Waste, although it has officially chamber, up to a limit of six if all use the dissolved. There is an expertise within that available time limit—in fact, without sessional committee and an expertise within its secre- orders applying perhaps there are different tariat which I believe are useful. We also procedures in place—has a capacity to address have the opportunity to use that. this motion to suspend standing orders, The new government has already made an including Senator Margetts, Senator Parer, announcement about its decision to open up Senator Panizza or anyone else. While it is uranium mining. Therefore, the time is right interesting to know how various parties and to bring information together for the public senators in this chamber are going to vote, it interest and for public debate. There are is merely no more than an indication of your limitations on public input via the environ- views for any likely division or likely vote in mental impact statements. They relate to what this chamber. is and what is not available to be mentioned Senator Hill—Mr Acting Deputy President, on an environmental impact statement. What on the point of order: I submit to you that is not available to be used is the history of Senator Faulkner in this instance is quite the last 20 years within the industry. It is correct. Senator Panizza has indicated, for the therefore well overdue. benefit of Senator Margetts, that the coali- The Fox inquiry, which was not a parlia- tion—the government—will support the mentary inquiry, was held nearly 20 years suspension. Nevertheless, if she still wants to ago. It may have been excellent for the time put her case for the suspension, she is quite but it was limited. We now have 20 years of entitled to do so. We will respond, through experience to match up the expectations of Senator Parer, and tell the reasons why we the time with the realities. I therefore seek the will agree to the suspension. support of the Senate for both the suspension The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— of standing orders and for the substantive Thank you, Senator Hill, for your assistance motion. in determining the point of order. I do uphold Senator PARER (Queensland—Minister the point of order that Senator Faulkner took. for Resources and Energy) (9.48 a.m.)—The I probably should express gratitude to Senator move to suspend standing orders to reappoint 196 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 the select committee on the dangers of radio- Motion active waste and extend its terms of reference Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) is, we believe, unnecessary and a gimmick. (9.51 a.m.)—I move: The notice of motion given by Senator (1) That the select committee known as the Margetts was followed by a motion by the Select Committee on the Dangers of Radio- Australian Labor Party. I can understand with active Waste, appointed by resolution of the some degree the move by Senator Margetts, Senate on 9 March 1995, be reappointed, because she does represent a very extremist with the same functions and powers, except group in society who are not only opposed to as otherwise provided in this resolution. uranium mining but to all mining. The notice (2) That the committee be known as the Select of motion of the Labor Party is unadulterated Committee on Uranium Mining and Milling. hypocrisy. However, we will support the (3) That the committee inquire into and report suspension of standing orders rather than on the environmental impact, health and debate the substantive issues now. I would safety and other implications and effective- prefer, as indicated by Senator Panizza, to ness of security agreements in relation to the mining, milling and export of Australian move to the substantive motion as quickly as uranium. possible. (4) That in considering these terms of reference Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— the committee is to take into account, and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (9.49 where necessary report on, the following a.m.)—The opposition will not be opposing issues: the suspension of standing orders. There is (a) the environmental impact of uranium clearly a majority in the chamber to bring this mining and milling in Australia and the debate on. In the interests of good Senate effectiveness of environmental protection and monitoring in relation to existing and process in dealing with business quickly, we previous Australian uranium mining will be supporting— operations; Senator Hill—There is a lot of business (b) the role of the Office of the Supervising before the chamber. Scientist in monitoring Australian urani- Senator FAULKNER—Senator Hill cor- um mining and milling activities; rectly makes the point that the government (c) the health and safety implications of uranium mining and milling for workers has no other business to deal with. He is at mining and milling sites and workers desperate to support any suspension of stand- involved in the transport and handling of ing orders he can. He really does not have uranium and uranium waste; anything to do today. So this is the first (d) the health, safety and other effects of matter to deal with. I am sure that Senator uranium mining and milling on communi- Hill will be in here with a few other proposals ties adjacent to mine and mill sites and to waste the Senate’s time. We will be very communities on existing or planned happy to get on with the government’s legis- transport routes for uranium ore and lative program—when it has one. uranium waste; (e) the effectiveness of Australia’s bilateral Senator LEES (South Australia—Deputy agreements with countries importing Leader of the Australian Democrats) (9.50 Australian uranium, in ensuring that a.m.)—I wish to make it very clear that the Australian-sourced uranium is not used in Australian Democrats are actively supporting military nuclear technology or nuclear the suspension and will also be actively weapons testing activities; and supporting the substantive motion. (f) the volume and location of Australian- obligated plutonium currently in existence Question resolved in the affirmative. in the international nuclear fuel cycle Procedural Motion (produced as a result of the use of Aus- tralian uranium), in what form it exists Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: (for example, separated or in spent nu- That general business notice of motion No. 19 clear fuel), and its intended end use. may be moved immediately and have precedence (5) That the committee have the power to over all other business today till determined. consider and use for its purposes the Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 197

minutes of evidence and records of the from uranium mining at a regulated pace. Select Committee on the Dangers of Radio- That is, it was always assumed that there active Waste appointed in the previous would be radio toxins leaking into the envi- Parliament. ronment. The assumption that radio toxins in (6) That the committee consist of seven sena- the environment were safe was the basis of tors: that decision. (a) three nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; Therefore, whilst some people would argue, (b) two nominated by the Leader of the and have argued in the past, that the very Opposition in the Senate; position of the Office of the Supervising (c) one nominated by the Leader of the Scientist is a safeguard of the health of, and Australian Democrats; and the environment for, workers and the com- munity, it is very clear right from the very (d) one nominated by the Greens (WA) or Independent Senators. beginning that it was never set up to be a safeguard for the community from the radio (7) That the chair of the committee be elected by the members of the committee. toxins in air and water. (8) That the quorum of the committee be three Let us face it: in Western Australia there is members with one representing the Govern- a list of over 14 proposed or prospective ment, one representing the Opposition and uranium mines and I believe in other states one representing either the Australian there would be a considerable list to add to Democrats, the Greens (WA) or Independent Senators. that. The breadth of an environmental impact statement for any new proposal, whether it is (9) That the chair is authorised to make state- Kakadu or any other proposed uranium mine ments to the media on behalf of the com- mittee concerning its activities, without in Australia—which, of course, is a useful disclosing confidential proceedings of the thing to do—has limitations because each committee. environmental impact statement can only look (10) That each statement to the committee by at the proposal as put forward by the propo- a person in relation to the inquiry be nent. So if the proponent says, ‘We will published only after a resolution to that maintain the highest levels of environmental effect by the committee. safety and standards,’ then it is a bit like a (11) That the committee report to the Senate court. You cannot necessarily then go back on or before the last day of sitting of and say, ‘Well, in the past people have said 1996. similar things and they just have not been Whilst I mentioned that there was an excellent able to come up to scratch,’ or, ‘This is the inquiry around 20 years ago, namely the Fox way it has worked over history, these are the inquiry, and that there is to be an environ- licensed conditions under which other mines mental impact statement on the first cab off have operated and this has been the outcome.’ the rank in relation to uranium mining—the There are many other issues involved in Kakadu mining proposal—there is a limitation relation to uranium mining, of course. We in both the process used and breadth of the know the concern within the Australian coverage of such inquiries. The Fox inquiry community in relation to French nuclear originally looked at the Alligator Rivers testing. We know that there were statements region. Two reports resulted. They looked made by the French government at the time carefully at the implications of uranium that Australia was being naive to hide behind mining as they were seen at that time. assurances in relation to the security arrange- It is worth mentioning that the proposals for ments for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty the Office of the Supervising Scientist were, in relation to the use of Australian uranium. contrary to many people’s belief, never set up That is, they admitted to us publicly—as have to protect the environment from radioactive Australian government officials in inquiries— waste. The Office of the Supervising Scientist, that there is no way of guaranteeing that from reading about that inquiry, was there to Australian uranium is not used in the nuclear monitor the dispersal of radioactive waste weapon cycle. 198 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

There are security implications not just for gram to a different method which does not our present uranium exports but for any produce the same enriched materials. But if increase that may be based on the current we are expecting China to participate in that increase in price in uranium oxide ore. The kind of strategy now and in the future, then reason is that if people are seeking markets it is hardly the right thing for Australia to do there is an extra problem in that, in areas to be negotiating prospective contracts for where in the past we might have been very uranium sales to South Korea. circumspect in arranging sales and exports, there may well be the temptation to get into Senator Parer—We already do it for power markets that we would never have touched for generation. security reasons before. The more uranium Senator MARGETTS—Certainly we are mines that open in Australia, if we find that already doing it, but we are heading into a a number of those uranium mines are margin- situation where there is— al—depending on what happens to the price and depending on how much uranium there is Senator Cook—You are not apologising on the market—then there is the temptation to for China’s weapons testing, are you? maintain that structure. Once the status quo Senator MARGETTS—Absolutely not. has been established, the temptation is to get Senator Cook asks whether I am apologising into markets or to promote markets that for China’s weapons testing. Absolutely not. normally you would not touch with a barge What I am pointing out is the sheer hypocrisy pole. of any parliament pointing the finger at China We are especially concerned about regional and at the same time being prepared to supply security implications. We pointed a finger at nuclear materials to South Korea. As I said, China. Everybody was concerned about even France admitted that they had no way of Chinese nuclear testing and the fact that the guaranteeing that Australian uranium was not Chinese government has not yet promised to going into their weapons program because suspend their nuclear weapons testing pro- you cannot determine what is an Australian gram, but it is rather hypocritical of Australia uranium atom compared with what is a and the Australian parliament to point the uranium atom supplied by another country finger at China and say, ‘You must not which has not signed the nuclear non-prolifer- continue your nuclear testing,’ if we are ation treaty. prepared to export uranium to South Korea, Therefore, if Australia provides uranium to Japan and to other countries in the region countries which have or are developing a which might create concern for countries like nuclear weapons program and if other count- China. ries are also supplying uranium to the same China joined with the countries of the world country, then all it means is that there is an in assisting to defuse the dangerous situation increased pool of uranium. There is no way that was developing with worldwide pressure that you can guarantee where the Australian on North Korea. It always seems strange to atom is going. All there is is an accounting me that the pressure was on North Korea in procedure which says that a certain amount of relation to the build-up of nuclear materials uranium comes in, a certain amount of urani- and not on Japan. However, that is what the um goes out. Therefore, the assurances are western world community decided to do: they nonsense. would concentrate on North Korea. It was a The broader implications of uranium mining very tricky situation and China joined with on local communities have been of great the world community. concern. It is not just the implications on China, if you like, was the most important local communities’ environmental health and factor there. They joined with the world safety and the issues of the control of land community to convince North Korea to accept and land use. That is extremely important and the compromise positions and to accept obviously extremely important for indigenous funding to change their nuclear power pro- communities in Australia. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 199

It is not just about the situation of local and environmental impacts of mining. That communities in and around uranium mining has been the approach we have always taken. and milling. It is about communities on Therefore, if you are going to look at the transport routes. It is about communities environmental values—whether they are living around ports. I am sure that, if the World Heritage values, national park values Yeelirie mine were to go ahead, the people of or the impact of environmental pollution—this Esperance in Western Australia would be is the time to bring that information together. appalled at the prospect of being a port for That information should be not just from one the export of uranium. I am not sure that the mine, but from all the experiences that are people of Port Hedland in Western Australia occurring. Either the mines that have operated would be terribly thrilled about the prospect in Australia or examples from the various of being a uranium export port for the Kintyre proposed mines in Australia should enable deposit. As I mentioned before, there are that information about the possible impacts of around 14 prospective uranium mines in mining national parks to be brought forward. Western Australia and some that do not even I will not speak for long because many of have a name yet. these kinds of issues have been canvassed in The committee that I mentioned—that is, the public arena. I strongly urge the Senate to the Senate Select Committee on Radioactive support this inquiry. It certainly is timely for Waste—has already looked at some aspects of it to take place. I believe the community the effectiveness of waste management. But, expects that any new decisions in relation to so far, that committee has not had the chance such an important issue are looked at careful- to look at the impacts of radioactive waste ly, and are seen to be looked at carefully, in management from uranium mining because, a process that involves people. The environ- by the choice of this chamber, that was mental impact process is one where people excluded from the terms of reference. That can have an input; they can put in a submis- always was an anomaly of the original inquiry sion. But, often, it is a case of a lot of people and that is why it is important that we now putting in a submission and the decision, as address the problems, if they exist, in relation originally stated, still going ahead. There to the handling and storage of radioactive might be some variations, but it does not give waste from uranium mining. people the chance to have a two-way process There are social impacts of uranium with the parliamentary system. mining—and this has been mentioned by the This is the important thing that we are coalition. In many instances, they have em- asking for now: firstly, that there is the phasised the economic benefits for communi- opportunity to bring that information together; ties. If people want to argue for the economic to be able to ask those questions of the bodies benefits, perhaps this is the opportunity when who have been involved with uranium mining they can put those ideas forward and others for so many years and to have those questions can talk about the counter argument. If there put on the public record; and then for the are economic benefits, there may well be chance to test all of those assumptions and social and environmental costs, and even statements that have been made in the past economic costs if one activity precludes about uranium mining. It is important to have others. It is the time to put those ideas on the those questions put on the public record, and record. It is also the time, with a secretive it is important that those statements have a industry, to ask the questions which for so chance to be aired. I therefore strongly urge long have been denied. support of this motion. There is the ongoing argument about Senator PARER (Queensland—Minister mining in national parks. Contrary to Senator for Resources and Energy) (10.04 a.m.)—As Parer’s assumptions earlier, the Greens have I indicated earlier, there were two notices of always talked about the values in mining. The motion put before the Senate. One was from Greens do not have a no-mining policy. The Senator Margetts which, as I indicated, was Greens have a policy in relation to the social to some degree understandable. The other one 200 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 was put by the government. I must say I hazards will be enhanced if Australia continues to could not help but be amused— participate as a uranium exporter in the nuclear cycle, but only on the terms and conditions set out Senator Chris Evans—You’re the govern- below. ment now! This was all to do with nuclear safeguards Senator PARER—By the opposition— and the absolutely ludicrous three-mine thank you. Senator Faulkner, who moved the policy. Of interest, too, were the remarks second notice of motion— made by Senator Collins, who was the Senator Chris Evans—I know it’s hard to minister. In July 1994, less than two years believe. ago, the Age reported : Senator PARER—I might tell you that Senator Collins, an advocate of changing the ‘three mistake has been made on both sides in the mines’ policy said, ‘My position is that we should past couple of days. But Senator Faulkner either be in the uranium business or not be in it.’ seems to be struck with what I would call a I know the Greens’ view is that we should not bad case of selective amnesia. He would be be in it at all. That is clear. It is their view on aware that many of his ALP colleagues have most mining operations, but they have a different positions in respect of uranium particular passion about uranium. But the mining. It just shows the longstanding hypoc- Labor Party’s view is total and utter hypocri- risy of the Labor Party on the issue of urani- sy. Senator Collins also went on to say: um. . . . Bob Collins, a NT Senator, has the backing of We had this incredible situation where the Aboriginal custodians of the Kakadu region who want the Koongarra uranium deposit to be mined, Labor Party had a so-called three-mine policy. to create jobs for their people. Despite uranium’s In other words, some uranium was good low price— uranium, whereas uranium from other areas was bad uranium. Then we had the position at that time— where one of the mines closed, so we did not Senator Collins also wants the 180,000-tonne have a three-mine policy at all; we had a two- Jabiluka prospect, 18 km north of Ranger, devel- oped because of its potential to generate $6.3 mine policy. Nabarlek extracted ore for about billion in sales... five or six months, processed ore for about nine or 10 years and currently has been That is, to address our current account deficit rehabilitated. and our foreign debt. Of course, who created that foreign debt? The Labor Party. In their Then the Labor Party bent its own so-called 13 years in government, they did not address rules and allowed the development of Olym- it. You come in here and have a ‘me too’ pic Dam, because politically it suited them policy with the Greens, whose policy we with the then Labor Party government in understand, but yours is utter and total hypoc- South Australia. I thought it might be worth risy. On 30 September 1994, Senator Collins quoting from the ALP policy on uranium said: mining. What it says is— "I have to be honest— Senator West—What’s your policy? You’re the government. That is a change—not for Senator Collins, but for the Labor Party— Senator PARER—You know our policy; . . . as the Minister responsible I had a real good we have made it very clear. The ALP policy push at getting the industry expanded and I lost," says: Senator Collins said last night. "I am disappointed The alternate sources of supply of uranium are in the result and I am feeling a little bruised and available to the world’s nuclear power industry, battered from it." He said the Conference decision including some which are subject to less stringent to send the issue back to the ALP uranium policy nuclear safeguard conditions— review committee was "like returning to the past." That means less stringent than from Australia. What about Senator Faulkner’s notice of It goes on to say: motion? He is returning to the past. There is For the time being at least, Australia’s ability to a whole range of other quotes from Senator contribute to the reduction of those risks and Collins on this particular matter. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 201

Let us talk about the Premier of Western Senator PARER—I will come to that. Australia at the time, Miss Carmen Lawrence. Senator Margetts said that the Office of the Senator Faulkner—‘Doctor’ actually. Supervising Scientist was there really not to care for the environment. That is patently not Senator PARER—Dr Carmen Lawrence. true. If you go to Ranger, and you should go Thank you, Senator Faulkner. She needs to Ranger, you will find you have a total something. This is where we had this marvel- work force in Ranger of about 200 people. Of lous contradiction within the Labor Party. that 200 who work for that particular com- Reported in the Sunday Times on 7 April pany, 30 people are involved specifically in 1991, Dr Lawrence gave her resolve that there environmental matters. In addition, there are would be no uranium mining in Western 55 people from the Office of the Supervising Australia while she was premier. That is Scientist measuring just about every effect of good, clear, direct stuff. But guess what? In mining and milling that you could imagine, the Western Australian Hansard of 18 August whether it be radon in the air or whatever you 1993, when she was still Premier, her govern- want to think about. ment excised the Kintyre deposit from the national park reserve. The mine itself has won awards for its successful environmental management and for Senator O’Chee—Why would they do landcare research, and I do not think you that? would disagree with that. It is one of the best- Senator PARER—Good question. Here we run mines in the world. I am not specifically have them saying one thing publicly and then supporting a particular mine; I am just giving excising an area. I have no particular problem you the facts as they occur in a mine that has with that because I happen to believe that you been in operation for 16 years. can, in certain cases, have mining operations The Office of the Supervising Scientist has in national parks, provided it is done sensibly reported over the period, quite publicly—you and is environmentally safe. But that shows can read the reports any time you like—on 46 the utter hypocrisy of that particular govern- incidents. If you read the report of the Office ment. of the Supervising Scientist, you will find that I would like to address some of the terms in not one case, either individually or cumula- of reference. The reason that we really are not tively, did those incidents have any effect on very keen on having this done is not because the environment. The sorts of things that we are afraid of it. All the information is on occurred are the sorts of things that happen the table. I heard Senator Margetts say, ‘We really in any industrial situation. I noticed in want this to be publicly exposed.’ I do not some of the discussions we had with some of know what information you will get from this the environmental groups that one of the committee that is not already on the table. things they talked about was a spillage of You missed out, Senator Collins; I was water. A spillage of water did occur. It was quoting you. held within the bund wall, if you know what Senator Bob Collins—No, I didn’t, Senator a bund wall is, and I am sure Senator Sherry Parer; I was hanging off every word on the knows what a bund wall is. But do you know monitor. how much water was actually released that Senator PARER—Let me just go on caused the great furore? It was about half the further with some of the terms of reference. size of a normal backyard swimming pool. Uranium mining and milling has been con- That is the sort of thing you are talking about. ducted for 16 years in the Alligator River This experience shows that uranium mining regions in the Northern Territory and for eight can be undertaken safely. years in the Olympic Dam area in South Senator Margetts—Radioactive water! Australia with no significant effects on the Senator PARER—What an emotive state- environment. Senator Margetts said the office ment from Senator Margetts—‘radioactive of the— water’. It had no effect on the environment Senator Margetts—Who said that? whatsoever. Experience shows that mining 202 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 can be undertaken safely, as with any mining radiation in Australia. AGSO actually surveys operation. Any sort of operation, whether it be the whole of Australia with regard to its mining or industrial, has its particular hazards. radiation levels. The whole country, to some In mines that have similar plant requirements, degree, is radioactive. The exposure comes you need to manage mine and mill waste. We from traces of radioactive elements in rocks, do not disagree with that. It has to be done in soil, the roads you drive on and building a proper way. materials. Radiation hazards, of course, are relatively Senator O’Chee—Bricks. minor and not unique to the uranium industry. Another example, of course, is mineral sands, Senator PARER—Bricks—you are quite where you do have some radioactive content. right, Senator—and cosmic rays and minute The government has clearly stated that all amounts of radioactive elements which are proposals for new uranium mines will be naturally present in our bodies. I am not subject to stringent and comprehensive envi- saying you should not be stringent in every- ronmental impact assessment processes. We thing you do, but there has to be a sense of have not budged one inch from that. balance in this. The government has also ensured that The typical dosage from this background where projects are approved there are ad- radiation is two millisieverts per annum. equate measures in place for monitoring and Nevertheless, it is important to minimise the reporting for the duration of the mine’s additional radiation received by the communi- operations. Clearly, we have the technology ty and by people working in the industry. No to conduct mining of uranium responsibly. I disagreement there. The standards that apply think that is shown by 16 years experience of to protect workers in Australia are based on very little impact. internationally agreed approaches which have Reference (b) of the terms of reference proven effective in protecting community would examine the role of the Office of the health. As I mentioned earlier, uranium Supervising Scientist. Senator Margetts, I do mining is really no more hazardous than any not know if you are aware just how many other mining. people from the Office of the Supervising I know this is an emotive issue. I do not Scientist are on the Ranger site. I mentioned disagree. It is emotive because people have there are 30 people within the work force of abused what, I believe, is a gift to use some- ERA concentrating entirely on environmental thing for the generation of power, but they matters and another 55 people from the Office have abused it by making bombs. We were of the Supervising Scientist. They measure most stringent in our opposition to the nuclear everything, as I indicated, even things like testing by the French in the Pacific. That is an nuclides that are used for the filtration process abuse by humankind, if you prefer non-sexist through dam walls. Every single thing you language, of what is used in many parts of the can possibly imagine is being done by the world to help people improve their standards Office of the Supervising Scientist. of living. The next terms of reference that Senator It should be pointed out that the Ranger Margetts is proposing is again, I believe, a uranium mine is the only mine in Australia waste of resources. The health and safety with a five-star safety rating from the Nation- implications of mining and milling uranium al Safety Council. That is pretty impressive. and transporting it are well understood. There You cannot walk away from that. Hazards are is no need for a Senate select committee or not unique to uranium and are effectively anyone else to inquire further into these managed in all types of mining where radio- matters. active materials are present in the ore body, To give some perspective to the idea that and in certain industrial and medical oper- people working and living near uranium ations. People often neglect the benefits mines will be exposed to radiation, all human because they talk about bombs a lot. They do beings are exposed to low levels of ionising not talk about the radioactive isotopes used Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 203 within the medical profession which contri- records from state authorities and where these bute to human health. are not available for privacy reasons it will be Health and safety requirements apply to all necessary to negotiate with employers and these activities and are based on international- employee organisations. I would like to ly accepted codes of practice. For example, emphasise that the current health and safety public and occupational radiation dose limits requirements relating to radiation exposure are were recommended by the International based on internationally accepted codes of Commission on Radiological Protection and practice. published in 1991—that is, ICRP 60. These As regards the transport of nuclear materi- new lower dose limits were reduced from five als, again, safe practices are well understood to one millisieverts per annum and from 50 to and recognised internationally. There is no 20 millisieverts over 50 years. The back- need for concern for the health or safety of ground figure, as I gave you before, is two. workers involved in such transport or for The new limits were jointly adopted as the people who live near the routes along which voluntary Australian standard by the Austral- the material will move. As an aside, for ian National Health and Medical Research Senator Margetts’s interest, in the first 10 Council and the National Occupational Health years of my working life I worked with X- and Safety Council in June 1995. Relevant rays and radioactive isotopes in the industrial state and territory regulations have been or are field. We were very conscious of the health being updated to reflect those new standards. effects but nothing like we are today. That The Ranger and Olympic Dam mines are was over 20 years ago. I believe people were operating well within these limits and any very aware of the fact that one had to take new mines will also be required to operate very careful safety precautions. within those limits. Let me say more about the important issue As regards bilateral safeguard agreements— of the health of uranium workers. While this the opposition cannot disagree with this is a matter that falls more within the health because it was instrumental in putting some portfolio, I have sought advice on the current of these into place—why inquire into their position in the context of my responsibilities effectiveness? They are on the table and for uranium mining. A national radiation dose everyone knows about them. They are clear registry is being established by the Australian for everyone to see. There is not a shred of Radiation Laboratory, ARL, as a national evidence to suggest that any Australian database of personal radiation dose records of nuclear material and material derived from it all Australians occupationally exposed to covered by such an agreement has ever been external ionising radiation. This covers people diverted away from peaceful non-explosive working in the radiography fields across the purposes. I have heard the opposition say that board. This will provide from a single source over and over again. If my memory is correct, a complete history of individual radiation I think it was repeated ad nauseam by former exposure throughout the working life of Senator Gareth Evans when he was in this individual workers. place. Routine collection of data commenced in Our safeguard agreements are the most February 1996 and the system is due to be stringent in the world. No other country has operational by July 1996. I understand that as exacting a set of requirements. Hence the some privacy concerns have been raised and ALP’s policy. As we have such stringent that these will be addressed in legislation agreements, we should encourage the export being drawn up for the establishment of an of uranium because we know what it is being Australian institute for radiation protection. So used for. Australia has 14 such agreements far as internal radiation exposure is con- covering AONM in 24 countries. Each is a cerned—that is, through inhalation—dose treaty level document with the recipient records are held by state authorities and country giving guarantees about AONM employees. The ARL has requested dose within its borders and in transit. 204 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

The starting point for our safeguard agree- have to do is read the annual report of the ments is careful selection of countries with director of safeguards. It is all there, tabled in which we trade uranium. Countries which are this place and publicly available. I do not not nuclear weapon states must be members understand the whole point of the exercise. of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and The information you claim to be seeking is subject to NPT full-scope safeguards. That is, already publicly available. IAEA safeguards apply to all existing and future activities. Nuclear weapon states with Let me tell you what the last report says which we trade uranium, that is the United about our obligated plutonium. It tells how States, France and the United Kingdom, must much is irradiated plutonium—that is, spent give a treaty level assurance that AONM will fuel—and how much is separated. It tells be used only for peaceful purposes and must what countries the material is in. We know have arrangements in place for AONM to be what its end use will be: it can be used only covered by IAEA safeguards. for peaceful purposes—for power genera- tion—because that is what Australia’s safe- Our bilateral safeguard agreements contain guard agreements and the IAEA safeguards the following main conditions. The AONM system guarantee. So all Senator Margett’s can be used only for peaceful purposes and questions about plutonium are answered every IAEA safeguards will apply. None of the year by the director of safeguards. I do not following can occur without Australia’s prior think anyone questions the integrity of the consent: transfer to AONM third parties; director of safeguards. enrichment to 20 per cent or more in the uranium 235 isotope; or reprocessing. Ad- Let me just make the following points in equate physical security will be applied to conclusion. I know what Senator Margetts is AONM in the country concerned and detailed doing. She is playing to a little constituency arrangements will be established setting out out there. the procedures that will apply in both count- Senator Bob Collins—That’s what we all ries to account for AONM. do, Warwick. I will provide just a little detail on these Senator PARER—I think, Senator Collins, accounting arrangements administered by that with the passage of time you will learn Australia by the safeguards office. In each that this government is made up of statesmen. customer country, ASO’s counterpart organi- I know it will be hard to come to grips with. sations ensure that detailed records are main- What you are doing is pursuing something in tained, that there are regular reports to ASO an emotional way, and not in a balanced way, and that transfer and receipt documentation which I believe is to the disadvantage of this for AONM is provided. The ASO’s account- country. Senator Collins has just left now. I ing is based on those reports and documenta- think he agrees with me, in view of his past tion plus calculations of process losses and remarks. nuclear consumption. Senator Kemp—He should speak. Senator Margetts suggests that the commit- tee inquire into the volume and location of Senator PARER—I was hoping he would Australian obligated plutonium currently in come in and speak. existence. ‘What form is it in?’, asks Senator Senator Faulkner—You’ve got me. Margetts. She makes it sound as if there is some sort of big secret—that it is hidden, that Senator PARER—It would be fascinating the Australian government does not know to hear what Senator Faulkner has to say in about or must be hiding this information view of all that he has done in the past. about plutonium. When she gives that impli- Senator Margetts has an ideological hang-up cation it is not just about this government but that lacks balance. These mines generate about the past government. That is absolute wealth in a safe way. It is essential that we paranoia. It is just not true. If you want your care for the environment and meet social question about plutonium answered, all you needs. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 205

For example, in the last 10 years something nuclear power—are in a position to take a like $115 million went to the Aboriginal very high moral ground in regard to green- people from the Ranger mine alone. When I house gas emissions. They sell their nuclear was up there I spoke to a number of the power into adjoining countries who will not traditional owners and they were very suppor- put in nuclear power stations. There is some tive of these mines. One of the reasons they irony in that. were supportive is that the mines provide Australia has around 30 per cent of the infrastructure that would not normally be world’s economically recoverable reserves. provided. Out of that infrastructure, they get We do not have the lot, but we do have 30 roads and they develop their own tourism per cent and we supply about 10 per cent of industry. If you go up to Jabiru you will see the market. Canada, by comparison, has 10 a magnificent motel owned by the Aboriginal per cent of the reserves and supplies 30 per groups which, as they told me, would not be cent of the market. This has occurred because there if it was not for the Ranger mine. of this ludicrous ALP three mines policy. I I also make the point that these mines have know that the Greens say, ‘Let’s supply zero.’ a relatively short life and they cover a very That would not affect one iota the number of tiny area. I know the pickies on television nuclear power stations generating electricity may not show that, but, if you look at the around the world or the growth of that. There amount of material moved in one year by the are lots of other sources. That in itself is not Ranger mine, it is about 100,000 tonnes. just a reason for going ahead, but I think I Compare that with one of the open-cut coal- have made the point that it is no different to mines in the Bowen basin. One of those any other mining. They are relatively small mines moves that amount of material in two mines and it can be done safely. days. That gives you an idea of the size. The There is a window of opportunity to in- mines are relatively small. They do not cover crease our sales under stringent safeguards a big area. from around $250 million a year to $1.2 Let me just conclude by saying this. I think billion by the year 2002. This came out from this is where we need a sense of realism in an Access Economics report printed last year. the whole picture. As I indicated, we have no That is not insignificant in addressing our problems with extending the inquiry because current account deficit and foreign debt. most of the information is already known The coalition has not varied its position in anyway. The inquiry will just reinforce what respect of uranium mining. We have taken the I have been saying. Uranium is a source of view that we would abandon the ludicrous power, and a very important source, especially ALP policy. We have already announced that. if you have a power station in a country Our policy has not changed, but we have where you do not have indigenous reserves of changed the previous government’s policy. It other energy materials. To give you an idea will be done under stringent safeguards. of volumes, 2,000 tonnes of uranium is equal Proper EISs will be carried out and the to 32 million tonnes of coal. uranium itself will only be used to generate There are already over 450 nuclear power electricity for peaceful purposes. We under- stations around the world, with more being stand that the government does not have the constructed, notwithstanding the fact that numbers in regard to this particular motion so, people say they are not. Those nuclear power inevitably, we also understand that the select stations supply 17 per cent of the world’s committee will continue its work with the power. Nuclear power, by its very nature, enlarged terms of reference suggested by requires stringent safeguards. No-one dis- Senator Margetts. agrees with that. The benefit of nuclear power Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— is that there are no greenhouse gas emissions, Leader of the Opposition) (10.34 a.m.)—The no CO2. That is why the French—who we continuing policy of the Labor Party is that criticise for letting off bombs in the Pacific no new uranium mines should be allowed to and who generate 80 per cent of electricity by open. There is a very clear difference between 206 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 ourselves and the government on this particu- of their lack of commitment to the protection lar issue, one that was the subject of consider- of the environment in this country. able debate during the recent election cam- The comparison between the previous Labor paign. This policy that the former Labor administration and the new coalition govern- government had meant that a significant ment on this issue is very obvious. We went number of new uranium mines in this country to great lengths to protect World Heritage were prevented from opening. That included areas. We opposed the opening of any new potential uranium mines in the Kakadu Na- uranium mines in this country and we are tional Park, a World Heritage area. The gov- happy to work with others in the community ernment’s position—very eloquently put by to ensure that no uranium mines are opened Senator Parer, at extraordinary length but, as in this country. he said, what do you expect from a states- man—is simply open slather uranium mining I know that Australian environment groups in this country. It is a position that we do not have called for a full public inquiry under and will not accept. section 11 of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act in relation to I join with other senators in the chamber uranium mining in Kakadu. Senator Hill has who have expressed very great concern about rejected that on behalf of the government but the health hazards of uranium. Uranium ore Kakadu deserves the highest level of protec- has a low level of radioactivity. Although tion and warrants the closest possible scrutiny contaminants are always present, the dangers in relation to the Jabiluka and Koongarra to workers in this particular industry come proposals. mainly from dust and radon gas and can be That particular focus is an important one for accumulated in the lungs. Radioactive materi- the Senate to reflect upon as it determines to als escaping from mines, tailings dumps, spills establish this particular select committee. For or wastes can certainly accumulate markedly that reason, I move the following amendment through the food chain and endanger both to Senator Margetts’s motion: wildlife and humans. At the end of paragraph (3) add the following The position that the opposition has taken words "with particular emphasis on the impacts of in relation to this particular inquiry is that we uranium mining in and around the Kakadu World believe it ought to be targeted to that area Heritage area". which is being very closely examined right I believe that the preferred option put forward now by the new government to open uranium by the opposition—a tightly focused, targeted mines, particularly in the Kakadu World Senate inquiry—could get to the heart of the Heritage area. The new government is com- key issue, the issue that is right up there in mitted to moving helter-skelter to open the public mind and right at the top of the uranium mines in the environs of Kakadu government’s agenda, which is to expand the National Park. That is a very great concern Ranger uranium mine. That would be the not only to the opposition but also to many most sensible thing that the Senate could do. people in the Australian community. Let us The Senate would need to consider seriously put it clearly on the record again: the opposi- the alternative proposition to a more targeted tion absolutely totally opposes any plans to and focused inquiry because it would have open any uranium mines and we are particu- much more bearing and influence on the larly concerned about mines in the environs approval process for that mine at Jabiluka. of Kakadu. That would have been the most effective We had a very fine record in government in approach for the Senate to take. terms of our commitment to protecting the We have a situation where the Liberal values of World Heritage areas in this coun- government is clearly indicating that it will try. This proposal to open mines near Kakadu take less account of and be less concerned completely violates the principle of World with an adequate level of environmental Heritage protection. As far as the new govern- scrutiny for proposals than the previous Labor ment is concerned, it is a very clear indicator government. That adds weight to the argu- Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 207 ment that a focused Senate inquiry is the way well directed, well focused, well targeted and to go. most effective in derailing the outrageous A very broad-ranging inquiry dealing with plans of the new Liberal government. all the issues that Senator Margetts has ad- Senator LEES (South Australia—Deputy dressed in her motion and in her contribution Leader of the Australian Democrats) (10.46 in this chamber would be a very useful a.m.)—I am not going to spend a lot of time addition to the debate on these issues in this looking at the issues which I believe the country. But I would not want to see that Select Committee on the Impacts of Uranium mean that we could not concentrate on the Mining and Milling in Kakadu National Park real agenda of the new government. We will be inquiring into, but I do want to pick genuinely believe that a broad-ranging Senate up on a couple of points that the minister has inquiry is a risk because on the line at the raised. I would like to begin with a comment moment is uranium mining and its impact in about the committee itself, the committee that and around the Kakadu World Heritage area. is just about to lapse and which we are trying, That is top of the pops with the government. before it is too late, to see continue. This That is what the government wants to do. committee has not had any opportunity to I do not want to be part of any process, be look at this issue before. As my colleague it a Senate process or otherwise, that will in Senator Bell has said time and time again, it any way assist the government in the clear really did need this additional reference. It objective that it has been very willing and was deliberately omitted, apparently. But it is happy to state time and time again and has a natural derivative to now move on and have made clear again today. I suggest to senators what is really the rest of the inquiry. in the chamber that the amendment I have Another issue Senator Parer raised was in moved is a sensible and constructive one and regard to the traditional owners being suppor- is likely to have a very positive impact. It tive. A couple of weeks ago I also spent some certainly embraces the approach that the time in Kakadu meeting with some traditional opposition has taken because of our concern owners and with a range of different people. with the way the government is tripping over I know there are a few traditional owners who itself to open up these uranium mines near are still supportive, but I was not able to meet Kakadu. I think the amendment is worthy of any of those particular people. The people I support. spoke to raised a wide range of concerns As I have indicated many times in this about what is now happening at Ranger. chamber, the Labor Party does not fall over Yes, they are obviously benefiting. The itself to support either new committee refer- Aboriginal people are seeing a small ences or the establishment of new select amount—a very small amount—of the profits committees. Obviously, we need to be able to flowing in their direction. But, unfortunately, look at proposed terms of reference and to that money is going into services that the rest ensure that the Senate’s resources and ener- of us take for granted. For example, that gies are best directed to those key issues of money is going into providing a health ser- public policy that senators have a responsibili- vice, a health service which really should ty to address. have been provided by the former Common- We see the urgency in relation to Jabiluka. wealth government; it is also going into I accept many of the arguments that have providing services—the infrastructure—which been put forward by my colleague Senator one would have expected the Northern Terri- Margetts in relation to her concerns with that tory government should have put in place. proposed uranium mine. I commend this So, rather than really enjoying what are the amendment to the chamber. I understand that fruits of their land, they are in many cases the substantive motion will be agreed by the forced to spend this money in areas that will Senate. It is not the opposition’s intention to at least guarantee them some housing, al- oppose this committee reference but we are though not adequate housing by any stand- keen to ensure that the work of the Senate is ards. Indeed, some of them are living in 208 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 appalling conditions, and the public housing about that; we will have an inquiry; every- possibilities in the Northern Territory are so thing will be fine’ and simply to push ahead, limited that that is where some of the money basically already agreeing that North Ranger is going. will go ahead, leaves many questions un- Yes, it has gone into tourist ventures but, as answered. they have explained to me, that is also to get I am pleased to hear that the government is profits to spend on basic infrastructure and in fact going to support this motion. The services that most people in Australia are able minister had been assuring us that all was to tap into through either federal or state well, but he really did run out of excuses for programs. not supporting this. We have to have an open, Senator Parer—And jobs, too. thorough and public look at what is actually happening now. Senator LEES—The jobs issue is an absolute furphy. I am pleased Senator Parer This brings me to one of the concerns that noted that there are some 200 people em- I will raise today and that is the release of ployed at Ranger. Only about 10 of those are contaminated water—whether it is accidental Aboriginal people and only two or three of or intentional. I do not believe it is reasonable them are local Aboriginal people. As for the to push this aside as being something that jobs that are available in the two major tourist does not matter terribly much. In particular, ventures that they operate, again, there are a I do not believe it is reasonable to suggest few jobs, but unfortunately they are very low that the long-term effects are negligible when paid intensive jobs—for instance, in the we simply do not know. The Office of the laundry. Indeed, one of the key traditional Supervising Scientist, for all the work that it owners, a senior member of the local people, is doing, is doing virtually nothing to look at who will be making one of the major deci- the health of the local people and the impact sions on Jabiluka, works in the laundry. I of their exposure in this area. believe those jobs could be far better allocat- In particular, I refer to what has been ed or open to Aboriginal people than they are happening as far as the mobilisation of water at the moment. Of course, they are pleased for off the Ranger site is concerned. As we know, any jobs that they are able to access, but it is that is a high rainfall area, as is the area still— where Nabarlek was, as is the area where Senator Parer—But they own it. Jabiluka and Koongarra are. That presents us with a whole range of very specific problems. Senator Hill—They own the motel. The tailings from uranium extraction contain Senator LEES—The motel is actually more than 70 per cent of the radioactivity of partly managed by Aboriginal people; they the original ore. We simply cannot suggest own the motel. But, unfortunately, the job that a small leakage is basically nothing when opportunities have not flowed to the extent we may be talking about very highly concen- that many of the local people had hoped they trated leakages of water, as happened at would. So, to say that the Aboriginal people Nabarlek where some five kilos of tailings are benefiting in some additional way from slurry sprayed well outside the restricted the extra royalties that are flowing, beyond release zone. We simply cannot push it aside the standard of living the rest of us enjoy, is and say, ‘Sorry, we are not really going to not correct. worry about that.’ To move on to a couple of other issues, I During 1995 there was a very heavy wet make a general comment on the fact that the season. This was one of the first issues that government would like to push this aside as was raised with me when I was talking to the being a not terribly important environment traditional owners and to other people up issue. I am sure the Minister for the Environ- there. The Aboriginal people had always ment (Senator Hill) would recognise that, for believed, when they agreed to Ranger, that the environment movement, this is one of the they would be involved in the processes of key issues. For him to say, ‘Don’t you worry making decisions that were going to affect the Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 209 environment. But they were not consulted. of mining activities—Koongarra would be Ranger applied to release the water from going ahead only a kilometre or two away, retention pond No. 2 and it would have gone just over the nearby hill—will put at risk the out into the Magela Creek system. tourism industry in the Northern Territory. As The traditional owners had to fight this all I say, it is the only all-weather accessible art the way. They eventually ended up in the gallery. All the bus tour companies insist, Northern Territory Supreme Court, which when they come to the point of making travel heard the matter on 16 March. Unfortunately, arrangements, that their tourists visit that there again, they lost. The wet season ended particular site. For most of the year, if you rather suddenly and the flow in Magela Creek want to visit Aboriginal art you have to go reduced very rapidly. Eventually the Office of there. While you talk about jobs in the mine, the Supervising Scientist said, ‘Alright, it is you may be looking at a loss of jobs and a really getting too late in the season. There is loss of tourism opportunities in Kakadu. That not enough water; we won’t release it.’ That is what the Aboriginal people are very con- is the only thing that saved the Aboriginal cerned about. people from having to put up with a substan- This brings me to the opposition’s amend- tial release of water, although I would argue ment. I really do not think it is needed. If the any release of water would have been bad opposition is very enthusiastic about just enough. It would have been a substantial looking at Kakadu, they are quite able to release of water out into that wetland area. encourage submissions on that issue from This is one of the concerns that the tradi- those people who are also concerned, includ- tional people raised with me when I was ing traditional owners. We could look at some there. They are having no say in decisions of the findings of the Office of the Supervis- that affect their environment. They were ing Scientist and some of the concerns they promised a say. They were supposed to be have raised just as a start. If we begin to involved. They do not even have any regular narrow down the reference to referring just to contact with the Office of the Supervising that particular area of the Northern Territory, Scientist. The occasional meeting and the we lose the opportunity to look in depth at occasional briefing are all too few and far issues in my home state and also in Western between. So for the minister to suggest that Australia. traditional owners are in favour of this is simply not correct. They have many, many Therefore, the Democrats will not be sup- concerns about what is now happening at porting the Opposition amendment, largely for Ranger. To then suggest that they are going the reasons that we did not support the Labor to agree with the new mine is a bit premature. Party’s motion in the first place. That was The meetings are still going on. I believe it is because we believe we need a far broader going to take at least a month or so before inquiry. We should not quarantine it. This any final decision is reached. Surely we at amendment begins to bring it back into a least owe them a thorough look at what is fairly narrow area of just looking at the happening now and a look at all the plans for specific problems that we have at Ranger. Jabiluka and particularly for Koongarra where Rather than go through what I could spend most of the deposit is not only inside the most of the day talking about—specific national park outside the current lease area, problems and some of the comments from the but is also in the world heritage area. That Office of the Supervising Scientist—I will presents a whole new range of problems. finish here. I hope that we will see all parties in this chamber agreeing to this motion. I do not know whether the minister visited that particular art site while he was there. The Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister site just near Koongarra is the only site that for the Environment) (10.57 a.m.)—The is accessible all year round. To have people hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party visiting a world heritage area to look at knows no bounds. What we hear from them traditional Aboriginal artwork within hearing today is astonishing. 210 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

Senator Short—Even Senator Sherry is surprised that he has left before the conclu- looking embarrassed about it. sion of the debate, because they have no Senator HILL—The Greens and the credibility at all on this issue. Is an inquiry of Australian Democrats have been consistent. this type necessary? We actually do not think They have consistently opposed uranium it is. mining per se and they continue to do so. But Senator Carr—Why are you voting for it? the Labor Party, with its the policies of Senator HILL—Because in the 13 years opportunism— that you were in government, you claimed Senator Sherry—I am looking at the that uranium mines can be operated safely and superannuation committee report. that exports can be controlled through the international mechanism and bilateral agree- Senator HILL—Senator Sherry is embar- ments. You said it to us for 13 years. Our rassed. He is hiding his face behind his position has been put very well by Senator papers, and so he should. For 13 years of Parer. government those opposite supported uranium mining in this country. For 13 years they Senator Sherry—You just contradicted supported the Ranger mine in the vicinity of him. Kakadu park. The Australian Labor Party supported it. They have had within their Senator HILL—Listen to my speech. province the Office of the Supervising Scien- There is an enormous amount on the public tist and all the environmental mechanisms to record now that can give us confidence that ensure that that mine would be operated uranium mining can proceed safely and in an safely and environmentally sensibly. Now, environmentally sound way. That has been the within a few days of being out of office, there experience in this country. That has been the is suddenly a revision of thought. It is time experience overseas. We have had the particu- for the Senate to review the whole issue of lar value of the Office of Supervising Scien- uranium mining—the mining, the production, tist for so long now specifically monitoring the export. ‘Let’s consider it all again’ says the Ranger mine and also broadening our the ALP. It was embarrassing enough for the scientific knowledge generally in this area. Labor Party when in government to have that That is why we start from the position nonsense three-mine policy. What is it? Three today, which I have stated before outside this mines— chamber, that we do not actually think that a Senator Parer interjecting— new Fox-type inquiry into the whole issue of uranium mining is really warranted. Neverthe- Senator HILL—It turned out to be a two- less, we are also cognisant of the numbers in mine policy. I must say, for the benefit of the this place. We are not a majority. The majori- Labor Party, that they should visit the reha- ty in this place, with the Labor Party, now bilitation of the Narbalek site because it does decides that it is time for a uranium mining seem to be proceeding extremely well. It goes inquiry. They have decided this is how they on. Three big mines are worse than six small wish to spend Senate committee funds. I mines, or vice versa. It was a nonsense presume after this they will decide there is policy. Everyone knew it was. It was just insufficient funding for an inquiry into the political opportunism. Now it has been beaten Victorian casino as well. by their new reflection upon coming to opposition that the whole issue of uranium Senator Carr—No, we won’t. should now be revisited. It is just astonishing Senator HILL—You can’t have them all. that Senator Faulkner can stand in this place You have to make some choices and appar- and put that argument today. ently you are choosing this as the priority. Senator Parer—He was blushing. This is the first one, Senator Carr, that you have put on the Notice Paper. This is your Senator HILL—I am not surprised. My first priority. But, as I said, the majority in colleague says that he was blushing. I am not this place clearly believes that this inquiry is Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 211 worth while. We, as always, respect the view to be the better of the two options that have of the majority. been presented to us. Whilst we start from the Our policy is well known. It was taken to position of believing that it is unnecessary, the people at the last election; it is clear and that there is sufficient material on the public unambiguous. We believe in uranium mining record already for the Australian people to as a legitimate activity to create wealth for the make judgments and to feel secure in these benefit of all Australians. But any uranium matters, nevertheless we accept the numbers mining must go through a very strict and in this place. We will give whatever support transparent set of tests before it will be is necessary to ensure that the committee can approved. carry out its functions in order to produce the best possible report for the benefit of the Certainly, as I have said publicly—and I Senate. will repeat it here—those tests that I will Senator PARER (Queensland—Minister apply as environment minister will include all for Resources and Energy) (11.06 a.m.)—I my obligations under the environmental would like to speak briefly to the amendment impact act and, in the cases where it is rel- moved by the opposition. The government evant, under the World Heritage Act, the will not support the opposition’s amendment. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, I think it is an example of the utter hypocrisy in fact, all pieces of Commonwealth legisla- of the Labor opposition in the Senate. As tion. If and when any particular application Senator Hill pointed out, for the past 13 years for a new uranium mine reaches my desk, Ranger has operated under Labor govern- those laws will be applied with all proper ments. It has been defended, over the years, vigour. That is a responsibility that we obvi- by people such as former senator, now mem- ously accept as a government because we are ber of the House of Representatives, Gareth committed not only to further development in Evans, in response to various questions raised this country, particularly the creation of jobs by the Greens. I may be wrong. They had the that can come from further economic develop- opportunity over the past 13 years to do ment, but also to environmentally responsible exactly what they are proposing today. One policies. has to ask why they did not do it then. It is It was a major plank at the last election. We hypocrisy in the extreme. took it up-front. In fact, we have committed In his response, Senator Faulkner talked ourselves to establishing a $1 billion natural about how good their policy was and how heritage trust for the benefit of the Australian they were limiting it to three mines; in fact environment. We will apply the environmental there are two mines. He did not say that principles, as I said, with vigour. Notwith- recently, in the last year, they extended the standing the deliberations of the Senate and operations at Olympic Dam. Again, I have no any outcomes that might come from this particular problem with that; in fact, I would inquiry, the Australian people can also have support it. But, as Senator Hill said, they are the confidence that, in relation to any applica- saying it is all right to have two big mines tion that might reach us for a new uranium but not three or four little mines. For that mine in this country, it will only be approved particular reason, and I simply base it on the if it can be conducted in an environmentally hypocrisy of the Labor Party’s position, we safe way. will not support this amendment. The question I want to ask is: why choose Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) this particular committee and why choose this (11.08 a.m.)—in reply—I will briefly con- motion over the newly converted Labor clude this debate today. I would like to thank Party’s? It seems to us that this committee all of the senators who have contributed to does have a track record. As was said by the debate. There is obviously a great deal of Senator Margetts, its secretariat is in place community interest in the inquiry that will be and it can be seen as an extension of its set up as a result of today’s vote. I am very previous inquiry. That seems to us, therefore, pleased to see that there is now support from 212 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 all parties in relation to this inquiry. It is that information together. I am very pleased extremely important that the inquiry takes to be here to see this motion adopted. place. Amendment negatived. It is perfectly reasonable that the committee be able to set its agenda. If in the first in- Original motion agreed to. stance there is a wealth of concern in relation CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION to Kakadu, I am sure the committee will go to Kakadu and listen to those concerns. If Senator HILL (South Australia—Leader of necessary, and if there is a particular urgency, the Government in the Senate) (11.12 a.m.)— it can make a brief report to the Senate in I move: relation to that urgency. That is always in That the order of the Senate of 29 November there. 1994, relating to the consideration of legislation, Whilst I thank the opposition for their not apply to the following bills: proposed amendment, I believe that it would Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and not be helpful in this debate. If we are talking Imports) Amendment Bill 1996 about international security arrangements, we Health Legislation (Powers of Investigation) are not just talking about international securi- Amendment Bill 1996 ty arrangements in relation to Kakadu. There- fore, the particular emphasis is redundant. Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1996. Kakadu is extremely important and I can This motion is so we can get on with the guarantee that the Greens will fight tooth and legislative program of the new government, nail in relation to that particular consideration. and in particular have the opportunity to That does not mean to say that limiting the debate the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of inquiry to specialise in Kakadu will be of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1996, major assistance in this regard. I believe that the Health Legislation (Powers of Investiga- the general arguments ought to be put. Kaka- tion) Amendment Bill 1996 and the Therapeu- du obviously will receive a great deal of tic Goods Amendment Bill 1996. attention by the community because of its As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Presi- symbolic nature. It is extremely important to dent, in what I might describe as an inadver- the people of Australia. tent consequence, the effect of an order of the I have to agree with Senator Parer that the Senate of 29 November 1994 is that the new decision to continue mining in that area has government does not have the opportunity to been with the previous government for so have legislation debated in this place unless long. It is very nice to see that they have the Senate is prepared to agree that that rediscovered this concern. However, creating particular order should not apply. That order a smokescreen on the general issue—that is, was put in place to encourage an orderly continuing or expanding uranium mining process of legislation in this place and we opportunities—is not helpful. There is nothing accept, as I said yesterday, the principle at all in the terms of reference which preclude behind it. the committee responding to the community’s However, it does create an impossible particular concerns. Therefore, whilst I thank situation for a new government that is anxious the opposition for their support now for the to get on with the legislative program, to get general terms of reference, the WA Greens on with the chance of implementing the poli- are unable to support their amendment. cies that it took to the community at the last I believe this is a very important day for the election. It is, therefore, our argument that it Australian environment movement, for the certainly should not apply to all bills that are communities living in and around uranium introduced within the first two-thirds of this mines, for the peace movement and for the first sitting session, but that is a debate we general community of Australia because now still have to conclude. Certainly, in relation to we have the opportunity to have the first the three bills before us today, it should not general inquiry into uranium mining and put apply. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 213

The hazardous waste bill was before the Therefore, what we are seeking to do by Senate under the authority of the last govern- this bill is to continue the operations of the ment. It is very familiar to senators. In fact principle act, which would otherwise cease on both the Labor Party and the coalition had 1 July 1996. In other words, it would cease at indicated their support for it on the last what was going to be the end of the sittings occasion. It would have been carried on the but now might be even before the end of last day of the sitting but the Western Austral- these sittings. That is the urgency of this ian Greens indicated that there would be an matter, and that is why we want to deal with extensive debate and there simply was not it during these sittings. Again, the same time. principle applies: this is not new business in You will remember, Mr Deputy President, the sense that the Senate is unfamiliar with that the then Labor government had got itself the argument. into an awful mess with the program. As I It was the Senate that inserted the sunset recall, some 40 packages of legislation were clause. It has been addressing this issue for a sitting there on that last day. In some ways, very long time. So there can be no suggestion what we are seeking to do is to clean up the that, by our seeking that it be debated in this mess, for which no doubt the Leader of the session, it is in any way putting the Senate at Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) a disadvantage. will express gratitude. The third bill, the Therapeutic Goods In this instance, the hazardous waste bill Amendment Bill 1996, is also very familiar to had been through an extensive public consul- this chamber. It was fist introduced by the tation process. An exposure draft was put to former government in early 1995. Senators interested parties. Furthermore, a reference will recall it was initially part of an omnibus group of interested parties was set up to assist bill, which was subsequently divided on by the then government in the drafting and this Senate. This is the path that incorporates finalisation of the bill. What I am saying is and reintroduces the Therapeutic Goods that the bill is very familiar to senators; Amendment Bill 1995, which was passed by therefore, any argument that senators have not the House of Representatives on 28 Septem- had sufficient notice will obviously not have ber of that year. It was still awaiting consider- merit. I argue, therefore, that the order of ation by the Senate when the parliament rose November 1994 not apply to this bill. at the conclusion of the 1995 sittings. It has The Health Legislation (Powers of Investi- been around for a long time. The Senate is gation) Amendment Bill presents a slightly well familiar with the arguments. different situation. It is, as I understand it, a new bill. But there is urgency in relation to it. I understand that, as a result of the delay, The original legislation was passed by the over 600 applications for listing particular parliament in 1993, but it was subject to a products for supply in Australia have had to sunset clause. The clause was inserted by the be delayed. These applications comprise parliament after the Senate Standing Commit- relatively simple, low-risk products—vitamin, tee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs mineral, herbal, homoeopathic and sunscreen expressed concerns that the broad-ranging products. Producers have been sustaining powers provided for in the act offered officers financial losses because of the current heavy of the Health Insurance Commission scope for backlog under the existing processing system. corruption and abuse of delegated authority. As a result, there is urgency in dealing with The clause allowed for a reasonable period it. Because of its long history and the famili- of time, roughly two years, for the parliament arity of senators with the bill, we would also to make a considered judgment about whether seek that this bill be exempted from the cut- the powers had been abused by the Health off clause and that it be debated in the course Insurance Commission in any way. The of these sittings. Australian National Audit Office has conclud- Senator LEES (South Australia—Deputy ed that the requirements of the sunset clause Leader of the Australian Democrats) (11.20 have now been met satisfactorily. a.m.)—The Australian Democrats will be 214 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 supporting these three bills—the Hazardous hope—that you have put in the amendments Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) and the amendments to the amendments. Amendment Bill, Health Legislation (Powers Senator Hill—I said that yesterday. of Investigation) Amendment Bill, the Thera- Senator LEES—Fine. There were three or peutic Goods Amendment Bill—which will four packages. While we would like to take come before this chamber as soon as possible. your word for it that there are no drafting But I would like to put in a couple of provi- errors, I believe we owe it to this chamber to sos. With regard to the Health Legislation make certain that that is the case. (Powers of Investigation) Amendment Bill, I agree with the Minister for the Environment As for the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Senator Hill) that this is a very simple and Bill, I think Senator Harradine would like to straightforward bill. make a couple of comments on that. All of us in this chamber have wanted to make sure Indeed, the Democrats were most disap- that his amendments, which he feels so pointed to see the sunset clause inserted in the strongly about, are indeed ready and that we first place. Both we and the government now have all had a chance to look at them and believe that the powers have not been abused. discuss them before they are actually present- The HIC has been doing quite a good job. ed to this place. Some would say that it has not done a good enough job, that it should have been working The bill itself is fine. As you say, it has a little bit harder. But there is certainly no already been through the House of Represen- concern in that area. We welcome the oppor- tatives, but I think that the delay did come tunity to take the sunset clause out as soon as about because we wanted to give Senator possible. Harradine the opportunity to have his amend- ments ready. As far as this bill is concerned, I now refer to the hazardous waste bill. As he is the one that can now explain to us of first thing this morning, when I took a whether they are. Again, I think we need to phone call from your office, Senator Hill, I wait until we see that on Monday rather than still have not seen the new bill. I understand, try and bring any of this legislation on today. as you have just said again, that it is the same Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.24 as the previous bill— a.m.)—I support the motion to exempt these Senator Hill—Which one? bills from the cut-off motion. The reason that Senator LEES—The hazardous waste bill. I do so is consistent with the approach that I I understand that you have had to add in have taken on this matter over a considerable amendments that were circulating period. separately. So long as the intention of the cut-off Senator Hill—We introduced it yesterday. motion—the actual text of the cut-off mo- It is on the public record. tion—is observed, I see no reason to insist upon the cut-off motion for bills on measures Senator LEES—We are still in the process that have been around in the last parliament. of trying to get our hands on it. As the Leader of the Government in the Senator Hill—It is on the public record. Senate (Senator Hill) has observed, there was Senator LEES—Fine. Your office said that a stack of legislation that was outstanding it would have a copy for us first thing this when we drew stumps at the end of last year. morning. It has not happened. I have not left As was indicated, these particular measures this chamber since we began first thing this have been around for some considerable time morning. I will go and see whether my staff and we have had an opportunity to have a has got it. look at them. While we will be ready to debate it on I want to respond very briefly to what Monday, we certainly will not be ready to Senator Lees mentioned. My amendments to debate it today. That is the only proviso I this legislation were distributed yesterday. present. My reasoning is that it cannot be They are almost identical—very similar—to identical to the previous bill. I presume—I the ones that were distributed, with explan- Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 215 ations, last November in a letter to all mem- that legislation has been able to be assessed bers and senators. If honourable senators have adequately. not been able to find those amendments in The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT their files, I do not blame them, because I (Senator Watson)—Order! The chair is cannot find a lot of things in my files. The having difficulty hearing. If honourable explanation of the amendments was sent senators want to hold a conversation, would around in November of last year. The updated they please go outside the chamber. amendment, which is very similar to the amendment that I previously proposed, was Senator CHAMARETTE—Thank you. I circulated yesterday in the chamber. I hope was having difficulty hearing myself. For the that we are able to have a look at that. If benefit of Senator Hill I will repeat my honourable senators want me to send other remarks. The principle is still valid. In a new material around, I am quite happy to do that government, community scrutiny may be even and I am quite happy to debate this when more valid and necessary and a good govern- honourable senators wish to debate it. ment will demonstrate, right from the begin- ning, its commitment to public consultation Senator CHAMARETTE (Western Aus- and scrutiny. tralia) (11.26 a.m.)—I rise to indicate that the There are no grounds for saying that a new WA Greens support the motion put by the government can suddenly push through Leader of the Government in the Senate legislation within the first two-thirds of its (Senator Hill) with a proviso on one of the first sitting and expect to have it passed in the bills that is under consideration. I would just Senate when it opposed, when it was in like to clarify that I understand Senator Hill opposition, that exact behaviour by the former was merely moving the motion that related to government, who did it in the last two weeks the exemption of the three bills from the cut- of the session. There is an hypocrisy there, off order rather than actually referring to and I think that the whole benefit of a cut-off another motion that he has on the Notice motion debate is demonstrated by what we are Paper which deals with some amendment to doing here. that cut-off motion, requesting that a new government should have some kind of auto- To go on to Senator Hill’s specific motion, matic exemption in its first sitting of a new the Greens have no problem with exempting parliamentary session. I will speak to that the hazardous waste amendment bill from the motion when it is before the chamber. cut-off motion. It is, as has been pointed out, a bill from a previous sitting of parliament. I would like to respond in passing to com- The same thing applies to the therapeutic ments made by Senator Hill and Senator goods bill. They are very familiar. Because Harradine. It is not quite accurate to say that time has drawn on, there is urgency associat- a new government is not able to have any ed with both of them. We have no problems legislation to debate in this place, for the very there. reason that is demonstrated by the motion that But we would like to request an assurance is at hand. from the government in relation to the Health We have, unfortunately, a myriad of pieces Legislation (Powers of Investigation) Amend- of legislation from the last session of parlia- ment Bill. If I thought I had the numbers to ment where there was already demonstrated oppose it and to amend this motion to remove bipartisan agreement on the content of the it, I would, and I would do a separate cut-off bills by the major parties. This new govern- motion for it. In my view, the reason to have ment has legislation which is quite familiar to a sunset clause in any legislation is to allow members of this chamber and also to the the re-evaluation of the important measures community. Regardless of whether a govern- that were introduced by the community. ment is a new government or a continuing We know that with this particular bill, the government, the principle of the cut-off Australian National Audit Office has conclud- motion is still valid: it provides the opportuni- ed that the requirements of the sunset clause ty for community scrutiny and for checking have been met satisfactorily. They do not 216 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 believe that the broad-ranging powers provid- proper process. I am pleased to see on this ed for in the act—about which the Senate particular issue that there has been a conver- Standing Committee on Legal and Constitu- sion on Senator Hill’s part in the corridor to tional Affairs expressed concern—should be the executive wing. removed. The order of continuing effect, inasmuch as Therefore, I think that it is very important it applies to sittings of the Senate, does not that we do not give consideration to the take account of the fact that there is a particu- removal of that sunset clause until the last lar and unique set of concerns and problems week of the coming sittings. If it is done when a new government wins office at a straightaway, it really prevents the community general election. I think that there needs to be from being able to have an input into the some flexibility in terms of giving a new removal of the sunset clause and a say as to government a capacity to bring forward whether there would be unintended conse- legislation and to have that legislation dealt quences of the broad-ranging powers which with. could not be brought to the attention of the As Senator Hill has indicated to the Senate, Australian National Audit Office or parlia- some of this legislation is identical to that mentarians in this place. which had been previously introduced by the So, with the exception of the Health Legis- previous Labor government. In the case of the lation (Powers of Investigation) Amendment hazardous waste bill that he speaks about so Bill, the Greens support this motion of the enthusiastically, that was a bill that I intro- Leader of the Government. We would like to duced in the life of the last parliament and see an assurance from a member of the desperately tried to have debated in this place. government that it is not intending to pursue I did not receive the level of cooperation from a very quick process of debate in relation to the then opposition that I would have liked in that particular bill. To have it within this seeing that hazardous waste bill concluded. sitting is quite appropriate, but to have it in Senator Hill—What! We said we were the last two weeks is honouring the whole going to vote for it. intent and purpose of a sunset clause. It does violate the cut-off motion because it has not Senator FAULKNER—What you ought to been introduced in this parliament before. The do, as you are very interested in history, is go removal of the sunset clause is something that and read the Hansard of the last day of sitting has not been introduced in this place before of the last parliament and come into this and I alert honourable senators to that because chamber and offer a mea culpa. I am not we will be moving something that may have expecting your mea culpa but I do accept the ramifications within the community. contribution that you just made a few mo- ments ago as tantamount to a mea culpa in The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT relation to debate on the hazardous waste bill. (Senator Childs)—Senator Harradine, can I clarify whether you have moved an amend- I pointed out on many occasions during the ment? life of the last parliament, as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, that there Senator Harradine—No, I have not moved were weaknesses in the order of continuing an amendment to this motion. effect. I pointed out that there always needs Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— to be a capacity for the Senate to deal with Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) urgent pieces of legislation and that opposi- (11.32 p.m.)—The opposition will be support- tion and minor parties in the Senate need to ing the motion that has been moved by approach their responsibilities in granting of Senator Hill. As debate has ranged over the exemptions to that order with a reasonable last period of the last parliament on this order degree of understanding and cooperation, not of continuing effect, I think that many of the only in relation to the processes of the parlia- substantive general arguments that were put ment, but also the needs and requirements of forward by Senator Hill were ones that I have government. But clearly, the order has a advanced in this place in the interests of weakness in relation to the first sittings of the Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 217 parliament after a new government is elected. you have learnt at least a little since yesterday Perhaps it is possible for Senator Hill, or and that the opposition will cooperate in Senator Kemp as the Manager of Government relation to this particular motion. Business, to consider bringing forward an Question resolved in the affirmative. appropriate sessional order that might deal with the particular problem that is faced in the MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS first sittings of the parliament. I commend Reform of the Treaty-Making Process that course of action to Senator Hill and Senator HILL (South Australia—Leader of Senator Kemp—something that I have spoken the Government in the Senate)—I seek leave to them informally about as I continue my to make a statement on behalf of the Minister process of providing them with tutorials on for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) on the how to run government business in this place. government’s action to reform the treaty- Senator Kemp—Ha. Ha. making process, to incorporate the govern- Senator FAULKNER—I am very pleased ment’s response to the report of the Legal and to say that many of the suggestions I have Constitutional References Committee entitled made you have now taken on board—I might Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth Power to say without very much good grace in the Make and Implement Treaties in Hansard and chamber, but considerably more good grace to move a motion in relation to the statement outside the chamber—as you begin to realise and document. that there is a wealth of experience here with Leave granted. me in relation to the sorts of problems that The response read as follows— you are facing up to. You need a lot of help, Introduction Senator Kemp. I said to you, after your The government expresses its appreciation to the performance yesterday, that I am pleased to Senate Legal and Constitutional References Com- see Senator Hill taking over the reins and that mittee for its comprehensive and detailed report on you have been relegated to a person of— the treaty making power and the external affairs power. The government considers that the Senator Kemp—Where are you! Committee’s report provides a sound basis for the Senator FAULKNER—You have done reform of aspects of the treaty-making process as very well in this debate—you have not even it affects Australia, particularly as the Committee spoken. I think that is just the sort of role that was able to reach unanimity on the recommenda- you should keep because, if yesterday is any tions put forward. indication of the sort of contribution you have The Committee’s hearings took place during a period of profound debate on the place of treaties to offer, I do not think anyone will be waiting in Australian domestic law and process. The for your assistance in any of these matters. government has also taken account of that debate Obviously, there is some sense in being in framing its response, paying particular regard to flexible about the order of continuing effect submissions made by the states and Territories as in relation to the first sittings of the parlia- well as concerned non-governmental groups and individuals. ment, particularly when a new government has been elected. I repeat what I said yester- It is the government’s intention that treaty-making should be accepted as playing a legitimate part in day: from the opposition’s perspective, we the development of Australia’s place in the eco- will be taking a sensible approach on these nomic, political and social framework which is issues. We will be taking it also, having had evolving in the modern post-Cold War world. It is recent experience in government—which, neither possible nor sensible for Australia to stand again, on many occasions during the last aside from this evolution. It is, however, equally parliament, as I pointed out to Senator Hill necessary for the Parliament, the states and Terri- tories and the Australian community to participate and others as they involved themselves in in the task of finding the best way for Australia to unhelpful, obstructive and time wasting acti- participate constructively in international law vities in this chamber, is always useful. making and negotiate treaties which serve Austra- Experience in government is always useful in lia’s national interests. terms of getting a better understanding of The government will augment the existing treaties process in this place. So it is good to see that unit within the Department of Foreign Affairs and 218 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

Trade to coordinate information dissemination and Successive governments have sought to clearly consultation and ensure that by the time Australia identify Australia’s obligations in relation to enters into a treaty there will have been the fullest international treaties. The fully revised Australian possible opportunity for all Australians with an Treaty List, published in 1990, included all treaties interest to participate in the consultation process. to which Australia was formally a party. A detailed The development of National Interest Analyses examination was made in its preparation of avail- (NIAs) for all treaties to which Australia is con- able archival and filed material and notifications to sidering becoming a party will assist decision depositaries for multilateral treaties. This informa- making and provide a further source of information tion was published under the entry for each treaty. to all interested parties. If no evidence was available to the contrary, it was The government has also noted that the Commit- assumed that the treaty was still formally in force. tee’s report envisages an enhanced role for Parlia- The first Supplement to the List, published in 1995, ment in scrutinising Australia’s treaties. The while adding subsequent treaties to the List, also government will introduce a new tabling arrange- updated existing entries where further information ment whereby all treaties, with the exception of had become available. This is an ongoing process. urgent and sensitive treaties, will be tabled at least Updates to the List are published monthly as 15 sitting days to allow for Parliamentary scrutiny "Treaty Action" in the Departmental magazine before binding treaty action is taken. The govern- Insight and annually in the Australian Treaty ment will also support the creation of a special Series. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The Secre- The introduction to the 1990-1994 Supplement tariat to be formed within the Department of contained a detailed analysis of the number of Foreign Affairs and Trade will also be tasked with treaties in force for Australia. It explained that the coordinating the provision of treaty materials to the precise number of treaties in force for Australia is Parliament and the Committee. not easily established, because some treaties may Successive governments have recognised the still be formally in force but of no practical effect. importance of consultation with the states and These include a number of treaties whose purpose Territories. The government agrees with the states has expired and some colonial and pre- World War and Territories that a Treaties Council should be 2 treaties inherited from the United Kingdom. created and will consult further with the states and There are also a number of treaties entered into Territories on this. with the former Soviet Union and the former Many of the Senate Committee recommendations Yugoslavia whose status remains to be clarified. envisage legislation. The government believes that In this regard, Australia is in a similar position to it is important to move quickly to put the new other countries. The extent of this uncertainty processes in place and that this is best done through should not be overstated. The status of the great non- legislative means. It will, however, review the bulk of treaties is clear. The Department of Foreign new tabling arrangements after two years and this Affairs and Trade as part of its ongoing responsi- would be the most appropriate time to consider the bilities seeks to terminate or replace treaties which need for legislation and the suggestion that there are no longer practically operative, as well as should be further examination of a parliamentary undertaking diplomatic efforts to resolve the status approval procedure. of those treaties whose status is unclear. However, Recommendation 1 the allocation of the additional resources required to undertake a full scale audit to produce a list of That the government should conduct an audit of treaties in force, for example, in terms of consulta- treaties to provide the following information: tions with depositaries for multilateral treaties or . a list of treaties to which Australia is currently other parties would be substantial, while the a party; benefits would be questionable. Moreover, such an . a list of which Departments administer the audit would probably take a number of years to treaties to which Australia is currently a party; complete since it would depend on the responsive- and ness of other countries, who would not necessarily . the manner in which treaties have been imple- regard it as a priority. mented in Australia, i.e. whether they have been Nonetheless, the government accepts the need to implemented by executive action or by legisla- present in a more accessible way information about tion, and if implemented by legislation, which Australian treaty making. An explanation of the legislation. sources of information and a general description of Response Australian treaty practice will be included in Accept the need to provide more accessible infor- revisions of the Department of Foreign Affairs and mation about treaties. Trade’s publication Australia and International Treaty Making: Information Kit (1994), as well as Comment in future electronic information retrieval initiatives Treaties in force for Australia (see recommendation 4). Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 219

Identification of Departments/agencies responsible actions taken in a year to implement all the treaties for treaties to which Australia is a party. Under the Administrative Arrangements Order, the However, each year, a list of commonwealth Foreign Minister is responsible for treaties. Respon- legislation specifically implementing Australia’s sibility for particular treaties is allocated by subject treaty obligations is prepared for the Australian matter, e.g. the Department of Industrial Relations Year Book of International Law. A similar list will is responsible for International Labour Organisation be tabled annually. treaties. However, there are a number of instances In addition, as the Committee noted in its report, where several Departments or agencies will have Australia is required to prepare comprehensive, a shared involvement in or responsibility for a part- public, periodic reports on implementation under a icular treaty or a category of treaty. The govern- range of multilateral treaties including the major ment will prepare a general outline of responsibili- human rights and environment treaties. Current ties for inclusion in the new Australia and Interna- practice is to table the reports prepared under the tional Treaty Making: Information Kit, the Comm- six major human rights treaties in Parliament. The onwealth Government Directory which is published government agrees that it would also be appropriate quarterly by the commonwealth government, and to table similar reports prepared under other treaties in other publicly accessible sources. The Depart- to meet the Committee’s concern ‘that the Austral- ment of Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to ian Parliament is provided with at least as much publish twice annually a list of treaties currently information about the implementation of treaties as under negotiation, with the names of contact offic- are international organisations.’ [Paragraph 11.35] ers in relevant agencies. With respect to treaties of the International Labour Manner of implementation of treaties Organisation, Australia prepares a comprehensive Information on legislation and other means of First Report shortly after their entry into force, but implementing treaties is available from relevant subsequent reports (either every two or every five administering Departments and agencies. As part years) usually simply update the First Report. In of fulfilling reporting requirements under particular order to supplement the information provided in treaties, agencies publish detailed reports on the these updated reports, reference could be made to implementation of treaties and, in future, these will the publication Status of ILO Conventions in be tabled in Parliament (see recommendation 2). Australia 1994 (SICA), which was tabled in The Attorney-General’s Department will also table Parliament in August 1995. Under the entry for annually a list of Commonwealth legislation each ratified ILO Convention, SICA includes a list specifically implementing treaties. The government of the major legislation which implements it. will look at making more information on the Legislation is not required to enable the tabling of implementation of treaties available in the context the legislation list and reports. of future electronic information retrieval initiatives. Recommendation 3 Recommendation 2 That the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade prepare a special publication which provides That legislation provide that the government report information on the treaties under consideration by to the Parliament annually on actions taken in the the government and make it available, free of course of the previous year to implement treaties charge, to all public libraries in Australia. to which Australia is a party. Response Response Accepted. The government agrees to table annually a list of Comment commonwealth legislation specifically implement- ing Australia’s treaty obligations. In addition, the The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade government undertakes to table the comprehensive, already substantially meets Recommendation 3, as periodic implementation and update reports which a list of multilateral treaties under negotiation or are prepared in order to comply with Australia’s review is published twice a year in Insight. New reporting obligations under various treaties. treaties under negotiation, amendments to existing treaties, finalised treaties under review and treaties Comment to which Australia is already a party, but for which In Australia treaties are implemented by a myriad further action is under consideration, are all listed. of legislative, judicial and everyday administrative In keeping with international practice, the negotia- actions at both the commonwealth and state and tion of bilateral treaties is considered confidential territory levels. In addition, where treaties set between the parties until the signature of the treaty, standards, for example, there may be no need for and therefore they do not appear. In its hard copy any action to implement a particular obligation form, Insight has a circulation of over 8000 readers where the standard is already met in Australia. It and is currently sent out to 235 public libraries. In does not seem feasible, therefore, to produce an future, it will be sent to any public library which annual report to Parliament setting out all the does not currently receive it. 220 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

The Department also distributes treaty informa- access is being provided at other outlets, including tion by electronic means on the Department’s Commonwealth Government Bookshops. Discuss- Internet homepage, the address of which is ions with academics, industry, and NGOs suggest http://www.dfat.gov.au. Both means of distribution that the use of this dissemination resource will occur free of charge. meet the needs of most of those with whom consul- tative relationships would be established. The The government supports the establishment of a government will, however, continue to produce treaties database on the Internet (see Recommenda- hard copies of certain treaty information such as the tion 4). The electronic provision of both a list of all Australian Treaty Series and the Select Documents. multilateral treaties under negotiation or review and a treaties database to all public libraries via the Initially, the following treaty information would be Internet will enable the public to obtain the most placed on the database: the Australian Treaty List; up-to-date information on treaties as the list will be the Australian Treaty Series (1948- present); Select continually amended by the government. Documents on International Affairs: Treaties and Conventions (1966- present); explanatory material Recommendation 4 being prepared in relation to forthcoming multi- That the government fund a project for the estab- lateral treaty action; and National Interest Analyses lishment of a treaties database, which would that are tabled in Parliament. The Department of include: Foreign Affairs and Trade will form a government Treaties Database Committee to manage what . the full text of all multilateral treaties included treaty information goes onto the database. The in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Committee would also establish guidelines on the publication Select Documents on International management of the database and the development Affairs; of complete and up-to-date treaty information. . any available explanatory material on these The Senate Committee also recommended that the treaties; and decisions of international bodies which interpret . decisions of international bodies which interpret these treaties, such as the United Nations Human these treaties, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the complaints bodies Rights Committee and the complaints bodies of [supervisory machinery] of the International Labour the International Labour Organisation. Organisation be placed on the database. The selection of an appropriate service provider will The treaties database should be made available, free facilitate this task (some material is already avail- of charge, on the Internet (so that commonwealth, able through the Australasian Legal Information state and local governments, universities, schools, Institute, an institution referred to in the Senate libraries and the general public may access it) and Committee’s Report). The government will work should also be able to be accessed through com- toward placing the decisions of international treaty monwealth government bookshops, in the same bodies on the database in line with the resources manner as the SCALE database which is main- allocated to this task. Initial indications from the tained by the Attorney-Generals’s Department. United Nations and its agencies is that the UN is currently considering the exchange of information Response through the Internet, including in relation to Accepted. treaties. The government will work towards ensur- ing that as much UN information as possible is Comment available to the public through the Internet. Seed funding has also been provided by the Attorney- The government supports the establishment of a General’s Department for the Australian Human treaties database which would be accessible free of Rights Information Centre (AHRIC) for the purpose charge through the Internet. Given the enormous of establishing an Internet site which holds interna- volume of treaty information available the only tional human rights materials. AHRIC proposes that viable way of making this information accessible the second stage of the project will expand the core to the widest range of people is via the Internet. collection of human rights documentation, however, The government indicated in its statement entitled this would require further funding. Australia On-Line that it supported the Electronic Links for Public Libraries Program, announced in The treaty information database should be integrat- December 1995, which aims to provide Internet ed into an existing domestic legal database so that access to all public libraries in Australia. The it would be possible to cross-reference domestic Department of Social Security also has a pilot legal materials (i.e. federal or state implementing program under way (Community Information Net- legislation, Hansard references, case law, legal work) designed to provide 400 Internet access articles) relating to a particular treaty. The treaties points in DSS offices and community centres in database would hold certain information on the selected states and towns. In addition, Internet database site but would also provide access via Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 221 hypertext links to other treaty information on other Recommendation 6 global Internet sites. That the government increase its efforts to identify Recommendation 5 and consult the groups which may be affected by That funding be provided to the Department of a treaty which Australia proposes entering into, and Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney- groups with expertise on the subject matter of the General’s Department for a joint project to publish treaty or its likely application to Australia. information on the meaning and interpretation of Response treaties, including collections of interpretative decisions and the travaux preparatoires (records of Accepted. the negotiation proceedings) of treaties. Comment Response The Committee received a variety of views about Not accepted. the efficacy of the consultative process now undertaken with industry, NGO’s and the wider Comment community. It noted, however, that ‘there seemed Much of the information referred to by the Senate to be some agreement that the government was Committee in this recommendation, and in the elab- making a greater effort to consult industry on oration of it in paragraph 12.50 of the Report, is relevant Conventions’ (paragraph 12.12). It also either already available, or will be available as a stated that ‘‘there appears to be some evidence that result of the implementation of responses to other the commonwealth has done much more in recent recommendations made by the Senate Committee. years in consulting relevant non-government organisations and industry groups’’ (paragraph Information in relation to multilateral treaties under 12.24). It did, however, receive evidence indicating negotiation or in relation to which treaty action, that the consultations process was conducted such as signature or ratification, is being considered unevenly, and that there was a lack of transparency will be placed on the Department of Foreign in the treaty process from the viewpoint of com- Affairs and Trade homepage on the Internet and munity groups and individuals. thus be made available to the public. It is already available to the public in the Foreign Affairs The government considers that it is important to magazine Insight. The text of treaties to which ensure that all those groups and individuals which Australia is already a party will also be placed on might be affected by a treaty or which could the Internet. The National Impact Analyses which contribute expertise to the preparation of Australian will be prepared in relation to each treaty to be positions on treaty issues are able to present their tabled in Parliament will include material relevant views at appropriate stages in the negotiation to the meaning and interpretation of treaties. process. Consultation with such groups and indi- viduals not only promotes community understand- There are also existing texts which collect or ing of treaties and their potential value or impact, summarise the travaux preparatoires of many major but also enables Australian Delegations to attend treaties and these are already available through conferences with stronger briefing taking account libraries (including on Inter-Library loan). However of Australia’s strengths in different fields. Repre- the gathering of information on the meaning and sentatives from state and territory governments, interpretation of treaties, including collection of industry and NGO’s have, where appropriate, been interpretative decisions and the travaux prepar- included on Australian government delegations atoires, if undertaken independently by the Depart- attending treaty negotiations. ment of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attor- ney-General’s Department would require a large The government seeks, with the assistance of peak injection of funds. In particular, the collection of organisations and known players, to bring the the travaux preparatoires of the treaties to which significance of treaty issues to the notice of all Australia is a party would be extremely resource parties who might have an interest. Well-developed intensive and of little practical benefit to the mechanisms for consultation with industry and general community. NGO’s already exist, such as in the international environment arena, which discuss proposed treaties, Nevertheless, in order to improve access to the treaties under negotiation and possible adherence travaux preparatoires for future treaties, the govern- by Australia to treaties. Hundreds of consultations ment will give consideration to sponsoring a resol- are undertaken every year. The government has ution in the United Nations General Assembly also relied on publications like Insight to let the urging all United Nations agencies and bodies to wider community know of treaties under negotia- keep comprehensive records of treaty negotiations tion, and has responded to enquiries generated as for which they are responsible and to make such a result. It also uses public affairs opportunities in information available in electronic form, preferably centres around Australia to discuss treaty issues and on the Internet. seek reactions and views. Nonetheless, in some 222 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 areas, there is the perception that the existing that some experience because they only learn of arrangements are not sufficient. consultation opportunities at the eleventh hour. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has The National Interest Analysis presented to Parlia- already begun a review of the consultation process ment in respect of treaties will identify the consul- with the aim of identifying ways of improving it. tative process used for each treaty for which an This will extend to considering the value of formal NIA is presented, affording Parliament an oppor- meetings with representatives of interested peak tunity to review the adequacy of the consultations organisations (as now happens with respect to undertaken. Environment, Human Rights and Peace and Dis- Recommendation 7 armament treaties). It will also consider the value of treaty-specific consultations, which are common That the existing Commonwealth-State Standing with the various environment and ILO conventions Committee on treaties be abolished and replaced and the need for additional consultations with with a Treaties Council that is preferably estab- community groups. It will also consider the work lished by legislation. The Treaties Council should done by peak bodies to disseminate treaty informa- comprise members appointed by both the govern- tion to their constituents. ment and Opposition of each of the Parliaments of the states and Territories and the government, The review will also discuss the capacity of private Opposition and minor parties of the Commonwealth sector groups to digest and provide advice on the Parliament. The role of the Treaties Council should volume of information which is available on treaty be to consider the potential impact of treaties on issues. The delivery of information through elec- state, territory and commonwealth laws, and the tronic media, both by government and by other method of implementing treaties. The Council agencies, is transforming the consultative process should provide public reports which could be tabled and raising the possibility that government needs in the Parliaments of the states, Territories and the to see itself more as a provider of analysis rather commonwealth. than of raw information for consultation processes, at least where peak organisations and specialist Response groups are concerned. It is, however, important to The government accepts the need to establish a bear in mind the importance of ensuring that treaty Treaties Council. consultation is not made so complicated that it cannot be accessed by community groups who Comment might be affected. The government supports the formation of a The diverse subject matter of modern treaties Treaties Council with an advisory function to makes it difficult to respond with a single answer enhance commonwealth/state consultation on to the identified need for increased efforts in this treaties. However, the composition and the role of field. The government does, however, anticipate that Council are matters which need to be agreed that the creation of the treaty database, and the between the commonwealth and the states and wider dissemination of treaty information to the Territories. In their Position Paper presented to the public through libraries and increased contact with Council of Australian governments (COAG) the the media, will encourage more interested groups states and Territories recommended a Treaties and individuals to seek involvement in the consulta- Council comprised of all Premiers and Chief tion processes relevant to particular treaties. Ministers and chaired by the Prime Minister. The Officers of functional Departments will work with government proposes to consult with the states and the groups and persons to find a way to assist the Territories in COAG on the formation of a Treaties presentation of views to the consultative process Council and on other commonwealth/state consulta- relevant to the treaty in question. tive procedures and bodies including the role of the Standing Committee on Treaties. The Committee also heard evidence that in some Recommendation 8 cases consultations took place at short notice, and with insufficient time for the presentation of That legislation be enacted which requires the considered views. The government endeavours in tabling of treaties in both Houses of the common- all cases to allow all potential consultative partners wealth Parliament at least 15 sitting days prior to sufficient time to provide their views, but there are Australia entering into them (whether by signature times when the international processes move at a or ratification). This should be subject to an excep- speed which makes this impossible. The govern- tion for urgent and sensitive treaties, in circum- ment trusts that continual improvements to dissemi- stances where it is not possible or not in the nation- nation procedures will ensure that community al interest to table them before Australia becomes groups wishing to involve themselves in consulta- a party to them. In such cases, the treaty must be tions will be in a position to do so from the tabled as soon as practicable after Australia has beginning of negotiations, obviating the problem party to it, accompanied by a statement explaining Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 223 the reason why it could not be tabled before practical consequences of the new system have Australia became a party. become clear and a the review of the desirability Response of a parliamentary "approval process" foreshad- owed in response to recommendation 11 is com- The recommendation is accepted and will be pleted. implemented at present by non-legislative means. The issue of legislation will be considered in the Recommendation 9 light of practical experience with the new tabling That legislation be enacted to establish a Joint arrangements. Parliamentary Committee on Treaties. The func- tions and powers of the Committee should include: Comment a) the function of inquiring into and reporting The government gives a firm commitment to the on any proposals by Australia to ratify or accede tabling of treaties to allow for Parliamentary to any treaty, proposed treaty, or other interna- scrutiny but believes that the new arrangements tional instrument or proposed international should be implemented for the time being by non- instrument, including whether Australia should legislative means. Under the new arrangements, all become a party to the treaty or instrument; treaties will be tabled in the Parliament at least 15 sitting days before the government takes definitive b) the function of inquiring into and reporting treaty action, that is action to become a full party. on whether Australia should make any reserva- The new arrangements will apply to all treaties i.e. tion or declarations upon ratification or accession bilateral treaties, as well as multilateral treaties. to any treaty; The Senate Committee accepted that a requirement c) the function of inquiring into and reporting to table bilateral treaties before signature was on any other proposed treaty action, such as the problematic because of the international convention removal of a reservation, or the making of a that such treaties are confidential until signed. It declaration which subjects Australia to additional recommended that all bilaterals be drafted to come obligations under a treaty; into force through a two step mechanism of signa- d) the function of inquiring into and reporting ture and ratification and be tabled before ratifica- on treaties to which Australia is already a party, tion. The same end can be achieved through including the method of their implementation and Australia’s normal practice of signature and ex- how they should be dealt with in the future; change of notes (the exchange of notes procedure differs from formal ratification in that it is not e) the function of scrutinising treaty impact necessary to refer the treaty to the Federal Exec- statements; utive Council for approval a second time). Under f) the power to hold public hearings and hold this proposal, the exchange of notes would be the hearings in camera; definitive treaty action and treaties would be tabled between signature and exchange of notes. The g) the power to call for documents and wit- tabling procedure will apply to all treaty actions, nesses; and including amendments to, or termination of, h) the power to commence an inquiry into a treaties. treaty, proposed treaty, international instrument, The only exceptions will be for urgent and sensitive proposed international instrument, or any other treaties. The Senate Committee acknowledged the treaty action, at any time, regardless of whether need for this. Acceptance of a requirement for it relates to a document that has been tabled in tabling must be accompanied by provision for those the Parliament. inevitable urgent or sensitive treaty cases where it Response is desirable to take binding treaty action either The government will seek to establish a Joint before tabling or where a treaty has been tabled but Standing Committee on Treaties by way of resolu- the 15 sitting days have not expired. This seems tions in both Houses of Parliament. essential in any new procedure. The Senate Com- mittee acknowledged 15 sitting days might be 30- Comment 100 calendar days. The government accepts that The government fully accepts the importance of for "sensitive" treaties or cases where urgent treaty parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, facilitated by action is required the treaty should be tabled later tabling at least 15 sitting days prior to Australia’s with an explanation to Parliament. entering into them. Accordingly, the government It is possible to implement the government’s new proposes to move quickly to establish a Joint tabling policy immediately under existing arrange- Standing Committee on Treaties by resolutions of ments, pending consideration of legislation. This both Houses rather than by using legislation, which would avoid delay in the government’s proceeding would entail delay. with treaty action. It would also make sense to It is proposed that the Committee be established defer any decision about legislation until the with functions and powers allowing inquiry on the 224 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 full range of matters listed in Recommendation 9 Response arising from the tabling of treaty proposals and, for The government will prepare and table a ‘National other treaty questions, on reference by either House Interest Analysis’ for each treaty to which Australia or a minister. Consistent with the exceptional intends becoming a party. considerations affecting tabling of urgent and sensitive treaties (Recommendation 8), consider- Comment ation by the Committee of such treaties should A National Interest Analysis (NIA) will be tabled take place only under procedures which will ensure with each treaty tabled in Parliament. They will the protection of national interests and observance also be made available to the states and Territories of international comity, for example in camera and the general public. hearings and restricted circulation of documenta- In general, the size and complexity of NIAs will be tion. These considerations apply particularly to tailored to particular treaties. More sensitive and bilateral treaties, which international convention complex treaties, such as the Energy Treaty, will requires be confidential between the negotiating require a more detailed statement. On the other states during negotiation and until signed. The hand, a number of bilateral agreements follow an Minister for Foreign Affairs should be able to refer approved model text. These are referred to as such treaties to the Committee and to prescribe ‘template treaties’. Such treaties include double terms of reference for their consideration. taxation agreements, investment promotion and Recommendation 10 protection agreements and social security agree- ments. A standard form, simplified NIA will be That the legislation establishing the Joint Parlia- prepared for this category of treaty. mentary Committee on Treaties require that treaty NIA’s will address the elements outlined in impact statements be prepared on each treaty tabled recommendation 10, however, several of the in Parliament. The impact statements should elements identified may be combined, for example, address the following matters: the economic, social, cultural and environmental a) reasons for Australia being a party to the effects of the treaty may be addressed in the treaty; reasons for Australia to become, or not to become, a party to the treaty. b) any advantages and disadvantages to In relation to future protocols, the NIAs will Australia of the treaty entering into force in indicate whether a treaty foreshadows additional respect of Australia; protocols or other legally binding instruments. c) any obligations which would be imposed Frequently, however, it is not possible to predict on Australia by the treaty; that a further related instrument will be negotiated or what form such an instrument will take. Where d) any economic, social, cultural and envi- an additional instrument is negotiated, however, it ronmental effects of the treaty, of the treaty is, in effect, a separate treaty. Therefore, under the entering in force in respect of Australia, and new tabling arrangements it will be tabled before of the treaty not entering into force in respect Australia takes final action to become a party to it of Australia; and a separate NIA will be prepared at this time. In constitutional terms, the impact on the Fed- e) the costs to Australia of compliance with eral/state balance of entry into any treaty is funda- the treaty; mentally the same, that is, it brings the implemen- f) the likely effects of any subsequent tation of the treaty within the legislative compe- protocol to the treaty; tence of the Federal Government. In practice, however, the effect on the Federal/state balance g) measures which could or should be will depend on how the treaty is implemented. adopted to implement the treaty, and the NIAs will address this issue in the section on intentions of the government in relation to implementation. such measures, including legislation; The NIAs will be finalised in time for tabling in h) the impact on the Federal-state balance of the Parliament as part of the new processes before the implementation of the treaty; Australia becomes a party to a treaty. They will also be made available to the state and territory i) a statement setting out the consultations governments and the wider community at this time. which have occurred between the common- The states and Territories would be consulted in the wealth, the states and the Territories and with development of NIAs in which they have a major community and interested parties in respect of interest, as would other interested groups. These the treaty; and views would be reflected in the NIA. j) whether the treaty provides for withdrawal NIAs will be prepared for the information of or denunciation. Parliament and others and will represent the best Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 225 understanding of the commonwealth at the time that taken and proposals to be submitted to the they are prepared, but they will not represent parliament are intended to implement the undertakings of any kind. Legislation is not re- policy commitments announced by the coali- quired to enable the preparation and tabling of NIAs. tion during the election campaign. Recommendation 11 These changes will provide proper and That the issue of what legislation, if any, should be effective procedures enabling parliament to introduced to require the parliamentary approval of scrutinise intended treaty action. Importantly, treaties be referred to the proposed Treaties Com- they will also overcome what this government mittee for further investigation and consideration. considers to have been a democratic deficit in Response the way treaty-making has been carried out in The government will review the initiatives taken to the past. The measures will ensure that state reform the treaty-making process after two years. and territory governments are effectively It will give consideration at that time to whether involved in the treaty-making process through the issue of an approval procedure should be the establishment of a Treaties Council. They referred to the new Treaties Committee. will also ensure that every Australian individ- Comment ual and interest group with a concern about This question was the subject of widely divergent treaty issues has the opportunity to make that views during the Senate Committee hearings. These concern known. Consultation will be the key included presentations arguing for either approval word, and the government will not act to or disallowance requirements, and the question of ratify a treaty unless it is able to assure itself whether the Constitution empowered the Parliament to restrict the power of the Executive to enter into that the treaty action proposed is supported by treaties. It concluded that there was ‘‘little reason national interest considerations. to doubt that the Legislature has the power to limit or regulate the Executive’s power to enter into In considering policy options, the govern- treaties, to make or remove reservations or to ment has taken careful account of national denounce treaties’’ (para 16.99). and international considerations. Among the The Committee’s report discusses difficulties which latter, it is vital to note that trade flows, envi- would need to be addressed if an approval or ronmental concerns and human rights—to disallowance procedure were to be introduced, and name only a few of an increasing array of concluded that the issue was of such importance such issues—can only be effectively managed that it should be the subject of further public debate and handled through international agreement. and consideration. It felt that the implementation of This means that treaties, the fundamental other recommendations could ‘‘assist in curing some of the problems which a system of parlia- instruments of international law, are an mentary approval of treaties would also be designed increasingly important component of contem- to address’’ (para 16.102). porary international relations and of Austra- The government considers that it would be sensible lia’s own legal development. Accordingly, the to review the experience to be gained from the treaty-making system must be reformed and establishment of a Joint Committee and the imple- updated so as to reflect this growing import- mentation of other recommendations before moving ance and influence on our domestic system in to consider the need for an approval or disallow- a way which will provide greater accountabili- ance procedure. Accordingly, the government will ty to the treaty-making process. review the initiatives taken to reform the treaty- making process after two years. It will give This, for Australia, means that we must consideration at that time to whether the issue of an approval procedure should be referred to the have an efficient domestic methodology for new Treaties Committee. assessing the way proposed treaties meet our own national concerns. Parliament should be Senator HILL—It gives me particular in a position to examine the considerations pleasure that my first statement in this cham- which are weighed by the government when ber as Minister representing the Minister for it determines the need for Australia to take Foreign Affairs in the Senate should be to binding treaty action. inform the chamber of the government’s action to reform the treaty-making process. The new arrangements should go a long This reform is long overdue, and the actions way towards rectifying the democratic deficit 226 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 identified by so many commentators during Mr Acting Deputy President, I shall now the hearings conducted during 1995 by the describe the reforms we have decided to make Senate Legal and Constitutional References to the treaty-making process. Committee. Very many individuals and THE NEW ARRANGEMENTS organisations put their views forward on treaty-making in 1995. I cannot name them all Tabling of Treaties here, but I can say that they came from Treaties will be tabled in parliament at least virtually every part of the Australian social, 15 sitting days before the government takes economic, cultural and political spectrum. binding action. This means that treaties will They ranged from community organisation be tabled after the treaty has been signed for representatives to persons like Justice Michael Australia, but before action is taken which Kirby and Sir Ninian Stephen. My colleague, would bind Australia under international law. the Attorney-General, also made two submis- This latter action, which is often inaccurately sions to the Senate committee, and has played called ‘signature’ is usually ratification or an instrumental role in the development of the accession, but there are occasionally other actions and proposals I am privileged to forms or procedures for taking binding action. announce today. The procedure will also be used whenever It is my earnest hope that the government’s other types of binding action are proposed, response to the Senate committee’s report including termination or denunciation of a Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth Power to treaty. Make and Implement Treaties, which I am now tabling for the information of the Senate, The new arrangements will apply to all will restore confidence in the treaty-making treaties, bilateral as well as multilateral. They process. The government, however, offers an will also apply to all actions which amend a undertaking to revisit these issues after experi- treaty if the amendment would alter obliga- ence with these reforms. tions with a legally binding impact on Aus- tralia. Before stating the changes that are to be introduced, I should note that they respond to The Senate committee recognised that there the belief of state and territory governments would be occasions when the government that reforms are needed. The states and would need to take treaty action urgently, and territories put their views forward in 1995 in recommended that special procedures be their position paper entitled ‘Reform of the instituted to cater for this need. It noted, for Treaties Process’, to the Council of Australian example, that a 15 sitting day tabling require- Governments. They proposed a number of ment would often translate into 30-100 calen- reforms which have been considered by this dar days. Treaties which require immediate government. While discussions are continuing implementation, like the Bougainville Peace with the state and territory governments on Keeping Treaty of 1994, demonstrate the need the detail of some of the reforms announced for special arrangements to meet special today, I believe the new arrangements will go circumstances. a long way to allaying their concerns over the Therefore, and in accordance with the treaty-making process. Senate committee’s recommendation, where In particular, I note that the Prime Minister tabling in advance of binding action is not has already written to premiers and chief possible, it will be tabled as soon as possible ministers to inform them that the Common- together with an explanation. These excep- wealth will support the creation of a Treaties tions will be used sparingly and only where Council as an adjunct to the Council of Aust- necessary to safeguard Australia’s national ralian Governments. Further discussions will interests, be they commercial, strategic or take place with the state and territory govern- foreign policy interests. ments on the composition and working met- hods of the Treaties Council, but it is my National Interest Analyses hope that it will begin functioning without de- Treaties will be tabled in the parliament lay. with a national interest analysis. This will Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 227 facilitate parliamentary and community parliament’s role in treaty making as the scrutiny of treaties, and demonstrate the committee will be empowered to inquire into reasons for the government’s decision that all tabled treaties and bring forward reports Australia should enter into legally binding for consideration by the parliament. obligations under the treaty. The analysis will Treaties Council be designed to meet the need identified both by the Senate committee and the states and The Commonwealth will support the cre- territories in 1995, namely that no treaty ation of a Treaties Council as an adjunct to should be ratified without an analysis of the the Council of Australian Governments. The impact the treaty would have on Australia. council will have an advisory function, but its composition and operational details will be This document will note the reasons why the subject of further discussions with the Australia should become a party to the treaty. states and territories. Where relevant, this will include a discussion of the economic, environmental, social and The government believes that together with cultural effects of the treaty; the obligations the commitment to prepare national interest imposed by the treaty; its direct financial analyses for all future treaty actions, the costs to Australia; how the treaty will be establishment of a Treaties Council will implemented domestically; what consultation herald a new phase in Commonwealth-state has occurred in relation to the treaty and consultation on treaty making. whether the treaty provides for withdrawal or Treaties Information Database denunciation. The establishment of a treaties database was The size and complexity of national interest recommended by the Senate committee, and analyses will, of course, be tailored to particu- the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, lar treaties. More complex multilateral treaties in consultation with the Attorney-General’s will require a more detailed statement but this Department, is now working on its creation, will not be allowed to become an unnecessari- taking advice from potential users in the non- ly lengthy, resource consuming exercise. I governmental community as well as from expect the consultation process will identify state and territory governments. which issues merit detailed analysis. Ministers The database will be designed to make it will ultimately determine the appropriate easy for all persons and groups with an balance between the size and utility of the interest in treaty information to obtain it free document and the resources required to of charge, as recommended by the Senate prepare it. committee. Present planning envisages that I expect the first tablings of treaties to see although the database will be available from the beginnings of the national interest analysis the Internet, it will remain possible for those system. The government looks forward to without electronic communication equipment discussing these issues with state and territory to obtain information in hard copy form from governments in the COAG context. the agency responsible for the treaty or the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. on Treaties Arrangements will be made to advertise the The government will propose the establish- availability of the database once it is estab- ment of a Joint Parliamentary Committee on lished. The government recognises that it is Treaties to consider tabled treaties, their one thing to have the information available, national interest analyses and any other but quite another to make that very availabili- question relating to a treaty or international ty widely known. instrument that is referred to it by either Once established, the treaties database will house of parliament or a minister. The com- complement the electronic links for public mittee will provide detailed scrutiny and libraries program, which aims to provide examination of those treaties that are of Internet access to all public libraries in Aus- particular interest to Australians. I consider tralia. The Department of Foreign Affairs and this to be a landmark step in strengthening Trade will work with the Office of Govern- 228 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 ment Information Technology and other governments in the making of new interna- relevant agencies to ensure that the database tional laws. I firmly believe that the impact of both stays abreast of technological develop- international laws in the domestic context ments, and provides information in a user- make it imperative that we continue to im- friendly form. prove that transparency and recognise the This exciting step will truly modernise the fundamental right of people to scrutinise the dissemination of treaty information in Austral- way international law is made. ia. Industry bodies and NGOs are increasingly The government foreshadowed these re- turning to the Internet as a means of com- forms in both its foreign policy and law and munication that is particularly suited to the justice policy statements. I am happy to be vast spaces of the Australian continent. able to announce today that the government Libraries in remote and rural communities that has delivered on these election promises previously would not have kept hard copy within two months of being elected to office. texts of treaties and other information will, in I move: future, be able to download this information That the Senate take note of the statement and from the Internet and make it available to document. anyone who wants it. Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) The treaties database also has implications (11.55 a.m.)—I rise on behalf of the opposi- for consultations on particular treaties. The tion, representing the shadow minister for Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is foreign affairs in the Senate, to respond to examining the possibility that new forms of this report. information dissemination, for example via Let us be quite clear about this. This electronic news groups, will make it easy to ministerial statement and decision by the provide immediate advice of treaty develop- government is a damp squib by the Minister ments to anyone who wants to be linked to for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer). It reveals the system. Discussions with potential users just how conservative the new government is of this facility have already started, and I in its foreign affairs ambitions. Despite the hope it will be possible for the new system to minister’s bold claim in this statement that the be up and running quickly. I also hope this government has delivered on its election will be able to be developed for the benefit of promise, it has done nothing of the sort. the parliament, for it is important that the parliament and the new Joint Standing Com- Senators will remember that amongst the mittee on Treaties is linked to this form of promises being flung around by the minister information dissemination. before the election were: an audit of all treaties Australia has signed; legislation to CONCLUSION require the government to make an annual The reforms I have described represent a report to parliament on what has been done to significant enhancement in treaty scrutiny and them; and the creation of a national treaties consultations at all levels in the Australian council. He has done none of these things in government and the community. Implement- substance. On the latter he has simply ing them will be a major endeavour, and the changed the words about the existing Joint Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has Standing Committee on Treaties which engag- already established a new treaties secretariat es the Commonwealth in discussion twice a with responsibility for managing the reforms year with the state and territory governments and coordinating their implementation. The on all treaty negotiations. The minister’s new treaties secretariat will also be responsible for so-called treaties council is said to be an monitoring public reactions to the reforms and adjunct to the Council of Australian Govern- reporting to the Minister for Foreign Affairs ments. Senators should watch the speed with on ways in which they might be further which it becomes simply part of the normal enhanced. COAG agenda, as it has always been. I am proud to say that the reforms give In any case, this council will only have an Australians unparalleled access to the work of advisory function—whatever that might Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 229 mean—and its composition and operational in Australia and opposition to the use of the details are the subject of further negotiations external affairs power. Over the last few years with the states and territories. In other words, in this parliament, in this Senate we heard the central role of the council has still to be endless humbug and hypocrisy from the then determined, so we do not know yet what this opposition about how we were traducing the major reform may mean. Yet again, as in so constitution of Australia—the powers to the many other areas, the Minister for Foreign Australian parliament in signing treaties, Affairs, since taking over as the minister, has which outlaid the powers of the federal been mugged by the reality which he refused government in the constitution since 1901. to acknowledge before the election. That political campaign by the then opposi- Even on the proposal that treaties be tabled tion confused the Australian people by saying at least 15 sitting days before ratification or that we would be bound in legislative action accession, the minister now accepts that there and the supremacy of the Australian parlia- will be situations when tabling in advance of ment would be traduced and affected by binding action is not possible. He acknow- signing foreign treaties—for example, the ledges for the first time that such a require- World Heritage listing that stopped the dam- ment could often translate to up to 100 ming of the Franklin River in Tasmania. That calendar days of delay. He accepts ‘the need only came into effect to actually stop the for special arrangements to meet special damming once this parliament had carried the circumstances’. We have always said that this appropriate legislation based on the foreign would be the case. powers and it was upheld by the High Court. Let me make it quite clear on behalf of the If the parliament had not carried the appropri- opposition that we have no concerns about ate legislation, the damming would not have any actions which provide for greater under- stopped; it would have proceeded. The parlia- standing of the role of treaties and greater ment made the decision. That was always iced opportunities for public involvement wherever over by the opposition as they tried to con- this is possible. That is why the former Labor duct a fear campaign. government set in place the Standing Com- I remember some years ago an extraordi- mittee on Treaties with state and territory nary campaign about the UN charter on the governments, now apparently simply to be rights of the child. I think all senators would renamed the treaties council. have received extraordinary petitions and It was why we consulted industry and letters from members of the public claiming community groups on a regular basis on all that it was the end of the right of parents to major treaty negotiations such as the Uruguay have a say over the upbringing of their own Round, the Energy Charter Treaty, the Law of children. This was a scare campaign aided the Sea Convention, the Chemical Weapons and abetted by the opposition, claiming that Convention, the United Nations Framework this UN treaty that we had supported meant Convention on Climate Change, the Montreal that parents in Australia lost the power to Protocol and the International Convention on control and bring up their children in their Biological Diversity. Many representatives of own sensible way. industry and community groups participated We had a campaign going on here on this in negotiations as members of Australian issue by the opposition who, in their ideologi- delegations. The minister’s claim that ‘consul- cal position, disliked very much the fact that tation will be the key word’ reflects a strong the federal parliament should have powers view of the Labor Party which we had already that affect and have a national viewpoint put into place when we were in government. rather than state rights. We were very happy The problem with much of the govern- to use those powers for the benefit of Austral- ment’s position on treaties has always been its ia. None of them were used contrary to the use of so-called treaty reform to mask its real powers of the Australian parliament or the agenda—its hostility to the use of Australia’s sovereignty of this parliament. If the parlia- international commitments to support reform ment did not want to use those powers, it 230 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 would have carried legislation and resolutions with the federal government unless the parlia- accordingly. When it chose to use it, it was ment takes action to direct it otherwise, as it always decided here. does have the power to direct the federal Nowhere in the minister’s statement does he government at any time if you can get legisla- refer to the agreement on security with Indo- tion through both houses of parliament. We nesia, although honourable senators will recall do not object to the committee, but we accept that this was the core of the criticism by the what it always should have had—the power minister when he was the spokesman for the to advise and the power to express an opin- coalition, criticising the treaty’s practice ion, but not the power to veto. during the election campaign. These concerns Despite six years of humbug in this Senate were always fabricated. Since coming to from the then opposition, in the end after two office the government has again endorsed the months in government they have done nothing security agreement, and we welcome and else but dress it up. The existing position of support that. It is an important document the former government continues as it should. which should have bipartisan support. We congratulate the minister for climbing In relation to this new Treaties Council, let down and accepting reality. We condemn him it be quite clear that before the election the for going around before the election and coalition suckered in the state conservative conducting a fear campaign that did not have premiers and state governments to imply that any substance. this new council would be a veto on the Senator ELLISON (Western Australia) federal parliament. The reality is that this (12.06 p.m.)—Today we have one of the most statement today says that there is no such significant reforms in relation to the Com- veto. There will be consultation, as there monwealth’s power under section 51(xxix) of always was. I congratulate the minister for the constitution. Over the years there has backing down on this and accepting the been much concern expressed by community supremacy of this parliament and of the groups, business groups and state govern- federal government to decide treaties and not ments as to how this government entered into giving the veto power to any state or territory international treaties. I am pleased to see that government. Once that happened, the interna- the government has accepted 10 out of 11 tional obligations of this parliament would be recommendations made by the Senate Legal dreadfully affected. and Constitutional References Committee, The minister has backed down, but he which I chaired during this inquiry. I take this suckered in the conservative state govern- opportunity to thank those members of the ments by implying that he would give this committee for their hard work and their veto power to the Treaties Council. He has contribution. I also wish to thank the secre- backed down, but he should have the good tariat who served us so well at that time, in grace to admit that we were right and he was particular, Ms Anne Twomey, who has now wrong. At long last he has acknowledged that gone on to lecture at Sydney University. this power shall remain after the consultation This report was one of the most significant period, unimpeded to the federal parliament reports made by a Senate committee in the and the federal government, which is respon- last parliament. The government has recog- sible to this parliament. nised the concerns which were expressed to A new joint standing committee of the the committee and has sensibly accepted its parliament has been established. Before the recommendations. I point out to the Senate election—if you read the manifesto of the that recently in the House of Lords this coalition—it was implied that this committee Senate committee report was referred to would have some power of veto and so on. favourably in the course of a debate on a bill That has been backed right away from. It will introduced by Lord Lester which involved have the power to look at, consult and take parliamentary scrutiny in that country. We evidence, but in the end the power to ratify a have the so-called mother of all parliaments treaty—to accede to a treaty—still remains in the United Kingdom looking to Australia Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 231 for leadership in this area of reform in the the committee that the council should be process of entering into treaties. I think that made up of elected representatives rather than is significant and completely overshadows the officials. That is a step forward. remarks made by Senator Schacht. The committee also recommended that the Let us look at some of the responses made council would issue reports from time to time by the government. The first is that treaties be and that those reports be made public. That is tabled in parliament at least 15 sitting days in stark contrast with the existing situation— before the government takes binding action. another point that Senator Schacht has over- Previously, treaties were tabled twice a year. looked. I recall an instance in October last year when I turn now to the treaties information no less than 100 international instruments, database, which will be designed to make it comprising treaties and amendments to trea- easy for all persons and groups in the com- ties, were tabled with senators having no time munity with an interest in this area to obtain at all to scrutinise them. This response is a information on treaties free of charge. The great leap forward. committee heard that the current situation was And so is the national interest analysis— unsatisfactory, that information was not basically a treaty impact statement—which available to the community at large. This was recommended by the committee. No such database will be another great leap forward in statement has existed before. It will enable increasing the transparency of the treaty people looking at treaties and impact state- process. ments to have a better understanding of what Up until now there has been a democratic they entail. Through that process alone the deficit in the way this country has entered community will be better informed about what into treaties. That concerned many people we are letting ourselves in for. who gave evidence to the Senate committee The Parliamentary Joint Standing Commit- inquiring into this matter. At the last election tee on Treaties is something else new. It will the community raised the question of what a allow the parliament—the House of Represen- future government might do in this regard. tatives and the Senate—to inquire into and That is why the coalition saw fit to put out its report on any treaties under consideration. policy on the matter. This can only be looked upon as an innova- The coalition did not say at any stage that tive step forward. it would bring in a system whereby the In relation to the Treaties Council, I remind parliament would disallow treaties. The Senator Schacht that the standing committee government has sensibly said that it will on treaties is really a body made up of offi- review in two years time how these reforms cials. The Treaties Council will be made up work. It will also review whether further of elected representatives from the states and consideration should be given to parliament chief ministers. having the ability to disallow treaties. That is a very sensible approach to reviewing how Senator Schacht—That is not in the state- these reforms operate. I can tell Senator ment. Schacht that a great deal of concern in this Senator ELLISON—It is in the report. The regard was expressed to the Senate commit- Senate report outlined how the standing tee. committee worked. Obviously, Senator I concede that there were divergent views. Schacht, you do not have that understanding. That was because this is such a complex and In relation to the council, I refer you to difficult area that no-one has the experience recommendation 7. The government’s re- to draw on to form a definitive view. I sug- sponse says that the composition and role of gest that in two years time, once we have the council are matters to be agreed with seen the operation of these reforms, we will between the Commonwealth, states and have the experience and hindsight to make an territories—properly so. But the government informed decision. This, fellow senators, is a has accepted the recommendation made by great step forward in the way this federation 232 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 operates. It means that the people of Australia Australia unless the parliament gave its will have greater input into how we enter into approval. treaties. Community groups, business groups, We have long held the view that parlia- state and territory governments will all have ment’s role should not be usurped by the input. executive when it comes to making commit- To date there has been no formal procedure ments and entering into international obliga- for the government to follow before entering tions on behalf of the entire country—on into treaties. We had no notice of what was behalf of every single one of us. There has to be signed or ratified. We now have a clearly been an undermining of some very situation where treaties will be tabled 15 basic democratic principles in this area recent- sitting days prior to signing or ratification, ly and the Democrats were critical of the which could mean having as long as three previous government’s failure to take action calendar months. That will give an opportuni- in that regard. ty for a joint parliamentary committee to I congratulate the Minister for Foreign review and inquire into these treaties and to Affairs (Mr Downer) and the coalition on report to the people on what the country is their decision to make changes to the area of letting itself in for. treaty making as one of their first actions in government. The government’s changes are in Most importantly, with recommendation 1, line with much of what the Democrats have the government has accepted the need for an proposed. However, there is one great disap- audit or listing of treaties that we have en- pointment. That is, the coalition government tered into. It was discovered during the course has followed the course of its Labor predeces- of our inquiry that no-one was certain about sors and backed off making the final commit- how many treaties we had signed. I take on ment to the democratic process: to allow both board the department’s difficulty with the fact houses of the federal parliament to decide that some of the countries we have signed whether or not Australia should be a party to treaties with have since disappeared. Nonethe- a treaty. less, there must be an ongoing audit of how many treaties we have signed and what they The coalition gets to that hurdle—and it are. That information should be available to makes some positive changes and commit- all Australians. ments along the way. But it cannot quite bring itself to jump over that final obstacle We have here a comprehensive response to and recognise the supremacy of the parliament a unanimous report from a Senate committee over the executive. That failure to take the comprised of members from the Labor Party, final step does weaken the impact and the the Australian Democrats, the National Party strength of today’s statement. and the Liberal Party. The committee reached The government has agreed to table treaties complete consensus on what was needed and in parliament at least 15 sitting days before the government has adopted 10 of the 11 the government takes binding action. That is recommendations. a step forward. As we have frequently heard Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) before, in the past the parliament has put up (12.15 p.m.)—The Democrats welcome with having a swag of treaties and internation- today’s ministerial statement by the Leader of al agreements tabled once or twice a year in the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill) one big lump, with time—if we are lucky— on reform of the treaty-making process. As for half an hour’s worth of debate on the lot everyone in this chamber knows, we have of them. Tabling usually comes after ratifica- been calling for reform of treaty-making tion—quite often, a long time after ratifica- processes for several years. In fact, I have tion—and impending legislation accompany- introduced two private senator’s bills, both for ing treaties has been very rare. a Parliamentary Approval of Treaties Act. The So the government’s decision to table second of these, introduced last year, would treaties 15 days before ratification is wel- ensure that no treaty could come into force in comed by the Democrats. As Senator Hill Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 233 said, 15 sitting days does often extend into a ensuring a greater level of public access to month or more in calendar days, and I accept information about treaties. that this move will not only improve parlia- I cannot finish a speech on treaty making mentary scrutiny of treaties but also open without mention of the Australian-Indonesian them up for public debate and comment. That bilateral security treaty which was put in level of openness in scrutiny is very much place, almost single-handedly, by the previous overdue. Prime Minister, Mr Keating, in December of We support the decision to table treaties last year. That treaty must rank as the prime accompanied by a national interest analysis. example of how not to carry out the process That sort of impact statement is something of writing and ratifying a treaty. The terms of which will certainly facilitate public debate the treaty were agreed on in absolute secre- about the possible flow-on effect of treaties cy—and the last Prime Minister was im- and it makes the tabling process a more mensely proud of that fact. meaningful exercise than it otherwise might I heard the former Prime Minister say on have been. We will also support—though with television that the reason he kept it absolutely reservations—the decision to establish a joint secret was that if it had been public it would parliamentary committee on treaties, although not have happened. How is that for democra- I again make the point that scrutiny is not the cy! If I, as an Australian citizen, am going to same as approval. be bound by an international treaty to closely The Democrats are already on the record as cooperate with a defence force, one section of saying that we are not keen to set up a special which—Kopassus—has one of the worst committee to examine treaties. I have called human rights records in the world, I want to for an expanded role for the Selection of Bills know about it. As a citizen of a democratic Committee to enable it to make referrals on country, I have a right to know about it. And treaties to whatever Senate committee—or, I want to have the democratically elected indeed, joint committee—is best equipped to members of the federal parliament decide by deal with the content of the particular treaty. a vote whether or not I will be bound by that The Democrats still believe that is the better treaty. course of action, but we will not stand in the It is quite interesting to note that, before way of the government’s proposal. that treaty went ahead, there was a lot of I also make the observation that the com- debate—including in the committee that mittee will need adequate resources if it is do Senator Cooney, Senator Ellison and others its job properly and play a genuine and are members of—about what the rules and effective role in leading public debate on regulations should be for treaty making. But treaties. That is something the government it was all a bit academic at the time, because needs to seriously consider if it is about to cut most of the treaties that Australia had put in resources to the parliamentary committee place over the previous 20 years or so, over process. I trust the government will ensure several different governments, had been fairly that that joint committee has sufficient re- public. We had had debates on them in sources to do its job. parliament—the more contentious ones, at any The Democrats also support the creation of rate—and they usually led to some sort of a a treaties council under the auspices of the vote in parliament. Council of Australian Governments. That But the treaty with Indonesia was the most should ensure a greater level of Common- outrageous abuse of democratic process I have wealth-state cooperation on treaties—I certain- seen in a very long time. It was outrageous ly hope it does—and it should also raise the because we did not have a say on what went level of debate and understanding about the into that treaty; we did not have a say on impact of treaties. We also support the whether we should be a part of that treaty; government’s decision to fund the establish- and it was, I am sure, deliberately timed to be ment of a treaties database and I commend put to the Australian people just after the the government for its stated commitment to parliament had risen, just before Christmas, so 234 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 there would be very little public debate—and The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT no debate whatsoever in parliament. It is just (Senator Childs)—Order! The time allocated an absolute outrage. for debate on this matter has expired. Leave granted for the time of debate to be The bottom line, though, is really this: the extended. democratic deficit will remain in existence until such time as the government of the day Senator O’CHEE (Queensland) (12.24 is prevented from entering into treaties, p.m.)—Today is a historic day in the constitu- conventions or protocols without the approval tional development of this country. It is a of both houses of parliament. During the historic day because, for the first time ever, election, the coalition, in its foreign affairs a government has come to the parliament and policy, pointed out with great clarity the said, ‘We wish to put controls over the power current problems in the treaty-making process. of the executive government to enter into and I agreed with them. Their policy talked of the ratify treaties.’ That is why today is signifi- increasing impact of internationalisation on cant. It is significant because this government, domestic laws. It talked of the inadequacy of in the first week of sitting, has said that the Australia’s treaty-making processes to manage process which had been in train for the last 50 the growing task of international law making. years—by which the power of the states and the Commonwealth parliament to legislate and Perhaps most significantly, the policy said the sanctity of the constitution had been that there was already ‘compelling evidence’ eroded by continual transgressions by govern- of the direct and undesirable impact on ments of all political persuasions—has been domestic laws and the division of powers as arrested. a result of those inadequate processes. We This is the first time that a government has have to think of the Teoh legislation here. We said, ‘We believe that the practice of govern- have to remind ourselves that if we have ment should adhere more strictly to the agreed to a piece of legislation, through both intention of the constitution.’ As my col- houses of this parliament, that piece of legis- league Senator Ellison so eloquently said lation is something that Australia has to be earlier, section 51 of our constitution lays bound by. down certain restrictions upon the right of the federal government to legislate. Yet what we In the same way, if we have signed a treaty have seen, most particularly since the Franklin and said, ‘We believe this is our international dam case in 1983, has been the efforts of the obligation’, it should also be our domestic previous Labor government to ignore section obligation. We cannot say, ‘We have agreed 51 and to use spurious treaties as the basis of that everybody else should do this—but, by oppressive legislation overriding the rights of the way, we won’t.’ That is a really outra- the states and overriding the interests of the geous thing to say. We have to keep that in people of Australia. mind when we look at the treaty making Senator Schacht—You would have process. We have to keep that in mind when dammed the Franklin—typical National Party! we look at the treaties that we have already signed. Senator O’CHEE—That is why today is an historic day and that is why Senator Schacht The coalition says all these things but it still is so bitter and twisted on the other side of cannot bring itself to solve those problems the chamber. This government shows that it through the relatively simple mechanism of is concerned with the true basis of democracy giving the parliament the right to approve in this country, which is that the executive treaties. It would have been better to go down government must be held accountable to the that path. It is a great pity and a great loss of parliament. That is the basis of the reforms opportunity that we did not. But I think we which have been outlined today by the Leader are going down a path which is far better and of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. far more clearly spelt out than the one we Before I go on any further, it is appropriate have gone down before. to pay tribute to a number of honourable Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 235 senators present in the chamber today. They process of true federalism which recognises include my colleagues from both sides of the the fact that state parliaments and state gov- chamber who served on the Senate Legal and ernments have as much of a stake in these Constitutional References Committee and also treaties as does the federal parliament and the the current Manager of Government Business federal government. For that, I believe the in the Senate, Senator Kemp. When he sat on government deserves to be congratulated. the other side of the chamber, he was one of More importantly, I believe the government the people who had the courage and the is deserving of congratulations in respect of fortitude to say, ‘We believe that the powers the recommendation it accepted for a joint which the federal government currently parliamentary committee on treaties. The exercises in relation to treaties should be wording of the recommendation is quite examined and should be subject to some sort important. The committee recommended that of oversight by the parliament.’ the joint parliamentary committee on treaties Let me move to some of the great reforms have the power to inquire into: proposals to that are introduced in this ministerial state- enter into treaties; whether there should be ment. I wish to concentrate on two of those any reservations; whether there should be any reforms. The first of those reforms is a com- changes or removal of reservations we already mitment to a treaties council which will truly have; the obligations Australia already has involve the states as well as the federal under treaties; the function of scrutinising government in the process of considering treaty statement impacts; the right to hold treaties before they are entered into. Senator public hearings and hearings in camera and to Schacht in his contribution said, ‘There are a call for documents and witnesses; and the number of treaties and we consulted with power to commence an inquiry into a treaty industry.’ But, as Senator Bourne quite rightly at any time, regardless of whether or not it said, there have been more treaties which the relates to a document which has been tabled government has entered into in secret. Most in parliament. The government has accepted notably, the recent treaty entered into with this recommendation for the establishment of Indonesia on security matters was negotiated this committee. and signed in secret and only wheeled out Therefore, for the first time ever in Austral- before the parliament and the people of this ian constitutional history, not only will there country after the ink was dry on the paper. be parliamentary oversight by virtue of this That we believe is wrong. That we believe is joint committee but, because the committee an abuse of executive power. That is why this will have the power to call witnesses and to coalition government has taken the unprece- hold hearings into treaties, the people of dented step of saying, ‘We believe that Australia will have a say about Australia’s wherever possible these matters should be treaty obligations. You would well be aware, subject to scrutiny.’ Mr Acting Deputy President Childs, that there The role of the treaties council will be to are many people in Australia today who are allow the states input into whether treaties horrified at the way in which the previous should be signed, whether there should be government abused the treaty making power. reservations—that is, restrictions—upon Aust- This will give the ordinary Australian the ralia’s obligations under those treaties and chance to present his or her view to the what scope a treaty should have in the process parliament of this country, for all to see. They of negotiation when it is being drawn up. can give their view as to the impact of a That is something that no government of treaty, as to whether we should make reserva- either political persuasion has been willing to tion to a treaty or as to whether the treaty entertain to date. It is a sign of the commit- should be entered into or not. That is a bold ment of this coalition government to return step by this government, but a step which the parliament to its paramount position in the says, ‘We trust the people of Australia and we Australian democracy and to involve the trust the good sense of the people of Australia states in a process of true federalism—not when it comes to these matters.’ More import- sham federalism and not centralism, but a antly, we trust them to make recommenda- 236 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 tions which we can consider and, if appropri- The treaty which gave rise to the saving of ate, implement. the Franklin Dam has already been mentioned Senators from both sides of the chamber and I use that illustration again. Another who sat on the committee should be happy to illustration is the one that concerned your see that so many of these recommendations state, Mr Acting Deputy President Childs— have been accepted by the government. I and the matter that arose from the Toonen case. others may have differing views as to whether You would be very well aware of that. treaties ultimately should be subject to parlia- That is an illustration of how treaties more mentary disallowance or whether they should and more come into the forefront of our lives. be subject to parliamentary approval processes That is particularly the case with treaties that and so on. That is an appropriate debate for deal with civil rights, arising from such us to have. The government does not walk conventions as the International Convention away from that. The government, in the on Civil and Political Rights; treaties that deal ministerial statement, is committed to a with the way and conditions under which we further examination, in two year’s time, of the work, the International Labour Organisation workings of the processes we commence here. treaties, which are very significant in- I believe that we have started a process which deed; and environmental treaties. It is those will ultimately lead to parliamentary ratifica- three categories of treaties—dealing with tion or parliamentary disallowance of treaties. work, civil and economic rights, and the It may take two years; it may take 22 years. environment—which impact upon people in The most important thing to say today is an everyday sense. It is for that reason that this: hitherto treaties were formal affairs of people and citizens of other countries general- state that were discussed, agreed and signed ly have become more and more interested in in secret. Under this government we have what their particular governments have to say taken the historic and, hopefully, irreversible to each other about what will be the norm, step of involving the parliament and the what will be the agreement as to how things people in the treaty making process, which will function around the world. can only befit a great democracy such as this. When the constitution, which has been Senator COONEY (Victoria)—(12.34 mentioned, came into operation in 1901, our p.m.)—We are debating a most important foreign policy was very much dictated by document which arises out of a very import- Westminster, by the British parliament. It was ant report. Much has been said about that so only later with statutes like the Statute of far and I agree with most of what has been Westminster that the separate foreign policy said. Senator Schacht is, of course, right when of the former colonies became more and more he says that, in the end, it is still government their own possession. So this particular that makes, signs and ratifies the treaties. That committee report and government response is understandable because historically that is must be seen as now coming within that great the position: the government, as distinct from sweep of change, if you like, from 1901 to parliament, was the institution that made the present time and into the future. treaties, in the sense of agreeing to them, and The importance of this report, amongst that signed them and ultimately ratified them. other things, is that it anticipated that change. The position over the last few decades or so It has, as it were, seen the growing appetite has been that treaties have impacted more and of people in this country to have a greater say more directly on the lives of citizens of in what is agreed between us and other countries around the world than was the countries because the fact of the matter is it position prior to that. States went to war affects their lives. So if we are going to have usually on the declaration of war by their laws, for example, about the way sexual executive. That had a horrific impact. But practises are conducted, about the way our putting that aside, most treaties did not touch land is to be used and about the way the the lives of people in the way that they do workplace is to be regulated, they will need today. to be looked at by the public and by the Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 237 public’s representatives, which is this parlia- organic sort of thing. This is a major step ment. They will then be passed into law if along the way. It is for that reason I join with they are appropriate. Senator Ellison, as deputy chair of the com- People are starting to understand more and mittee, in thanking the committee and in more that the laws that ultimately fill our thanking the secretariat. Over the years the statute books in many instances have their secretariats of this committee have served this origin, their birth, in the agreements that are country well. I join, finally, with Senator made in the United Nations and, to a lesser Ellison in thanking Anne Twomey. (Time extent, between nations on a bilateral basis. expired) The United Nations is the engine of much Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leader change around the world. The European of the National Party of Australia in the Community has its own dynamics but as far Senate) (12.44 p.m.)—It is a big day when a as Australia goes, as we are a separate coun- government, after three or four days of sit- try, down here in the Southern Hemisphere it tings, meets one of its electoral promises so is the United Nations which gives most force soon. While Senator Schacht was very churl- to the changes that arise from international ish in his response to the proposition that was agreements, international treaties. put down— So when this parliament passes statutes to Senator O’Chee—Senator Cooney’s been outlaw racism, to promote the equality of much more magnanimous. gender, to give people with disabilities— Senator BOSWELL—Senator Cooney is people who are injured in mind and body—an a big man in this parliament. We all recognise equal place in society with those of us who that. are whole, it should be understood, which is happening more and more, that those sorts of Senator Schacht—You are right. You have laws come from international agreements changed nothing in substance, and I applaud which may have been reached many years the government for changing nothing in before and are, therefore, appropriate to be substance. looked at by the people of Australia prior to Senator BOSWELL—The fact is that this their actually being ratified at least. government has gone as far as is practical. It Senator Bourne, who has done much work has gone as far as it could go. In contrast to in this area, says, as I understand her, that that, Senator Schacht, on 30 November 1994, before treaties are signed this parliament 36 bilateral and multilateral treaties were should give agreement to them. We looked at tabled, of which 16 had been ratified by your that issue, as Senator Ellison, Senator government and a further seven had come into McKiernan, who is about to speak, and force. You must concede that the document Senator O’Chee would agree, but clearly the laid down today goes a long way to improve United Nations, where most of this change that position. Even the most ungenerous comes from, is an organisation of executive person would concede that a lot of advance- governments not parliaments. As you know, ment has been made since your position of Mr Acting Deputy President, the parliaments dumping 36 treaties on the table and saying, meet on occasions in such forums as the IPU, ‘Here they are. Whether you want them or at which you have represented Australia with not, they are ratified.’ great distinction. This proposition may not go as far as the It is a difficulty which will need to be Australian Democrats want to go. It may not discussed further but it would be premature to go as far as you want it to go. But at least it have a situation where this parliament must is going somewhere. I believe it is really agree to a treaty being signed before it is so answering something which concerns the signed. The practicalities are very much constituency of Queensland. People have against that being a viable matter. Also, the recognised over the last 13 years, with the way we deal with treaties has to be seen as government’s continued use of international being in continuing development, as an treaties to override their vote, that they have 238 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 been losing their democratic right to have an process to stop those treaties going ahead and influence on governments, both federal and affecting their lives. state. So, in contrast to the Labor Party’s gung-ho The new arrangements do meet the con- approach of dumping 36 treaties on the cerns of the public. They meet, as far as is table—seven of which have come into force practical, the concerns of the state and terri- and 16 of which have been ratified—that tory governments. The members of the Legal process will never be allowed to happen again and Constitutional Affairs Committee should while this government is in power. I believe be congratulated on recognising these and on that that will be for a very long time. coming up with a deliberate way of satisfying What you are seeing now—it may not be some of the concerns that have been raised. obvious to Senator Schacht or senators oppos- ite—is one of the first processes of a new The treaties will have to be tabled for 15 government taking the concerns that have sitting days before any decisions can be made. been expressed to the National and Liberal That will allow scrutiny. It will allow debate. parties by the people through their branches It will allow people to become involved in and through other processes. These concerns issues that they are concerned with. An have been recognised by the two parties, and exceptional circumstances provision is there action has been taken at the earliest possible for when parliament is not sitting. I think that opportunity. we all recognise the need for that. The nation- al interest and people’s concerns will be met I once again congratulate the people who through analysis, which will accompany the were responsible for the report: the members tabling of the treaty. No treaty will be ratified of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Com- without an analysis of the impact a treaty will mittee. They have done a good job, as has the have on Australia and the states. Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) in responding in such a quick fashion. A joint parliamentary committee on treaties Senator CHAMARETTE (Western Aus- will be set up to scrutinise treaties before they tralia) (12.51 p.m.)—I, too, on behalf of the come into parliament. The proposed treaties Greens (WA), welcome the statement deliv- council will include representations from ered by the Leader of the Government in the states and territories and will be part of the Senate (Senator Hill) concerning the reform COAG agreement. There will be a database of Australia’s treaty making processes. In for information on treaties, and that will be particular, the Greens welcome the decision able to be accessed by all Australians. to table in parliament all treaties for at least It is a red-letter day for Australia. It is a 15 sitting days prior to any binding action. day that should be recognised. A newly This is a crucial democratic step. We also formed government has tried to grapple, and welcome the creation of a treaties council to has grappled successfully, with an issue that involve all states and territories, and the has been raised on numerous occasions in establishment of a treaties information data- Australia. I would say that it is of concern to base, which will enable the general public to rural Australia, and it is of even more concern be better informed about the whole interna- to the people of the cities because they have tional treaty process and what those treaties seen democratic rights being eroded through oblige Australia to do. treaties laid down on the Franklin Dam, on However, all this is made somewhat irrelevant the wilderness areas in the north of Queens- when one puts it alongside the move by the land, and on the timber industry where rights former government, with the support of the were completely eroded under an international then opposition, to bring before this parlia- treaty. Jobs were lost and industries were ment the Administrative Decisions (Effect of destroyed. People then started to take note of International Instruments) Bill 1995. That bill treaties being forced down their throats. But would have negated the effect of many of the they had no practical way of voting against treaties Australia has signed by removing any those treaties or of using the democratic administrative necessity to fulfil our interna- Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 239 tional obligations unless expressly legislated exigencies of any one country. Treaties allow by the parliament. The passage of such the international community to focus on what legislation would have severely damaged should be, rather than on what we can get put Australia’s international reputation. in place back home. Because treaties are As Justice Elizabeth Evatt said in her oral aspirational, even the negotiation process can submission to the Senate Legal and Constitu- compromise ideals and in some sense already tional Committee’s inquiry into that bill: international treaties are the result of the lowest common denominator approach. It— However, this would be exacerbated much the anti-Teoh legislation, as abbreviated— further if that were the result of the domestic gives the message that we have no reasonable parliament constraining the executive. expectation that our government will comply with obligations that it has undertaken. I would be These particular reforms that we have in ashamed to have to say that at an international place and see introduced today are historic. forum. They will keep the executive accountable Many others have spoken out against the without allowing the executive to be rendered gutting of Australia’s international obligations impotent in relation to its very responsible through the so-called anti-Teoh bill. I would role in international fora. The Commonwealth hope that, by instigating an orderly process of government has the right to participate in implementing treaty commitments, this will international fora and the responsibility to remove the need for this new government to exercise its national role in the global com- proceed to reintroduce the Administrative munity. That right and responsibility does not Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) give it licence to make treaties without open Bill 1995 or any other legislation that looks and clear processes of consultation with the remotely like it. Australian community and with the parlia- ment. These measures today guarantee that There has been a void in Australia’s inter- that licence not be allowed in this country. national treaty procedures. We have not had an effective and comprehensive mechanism Neither should that right and responsibility for consultation, scrutiny and implementation of treaty making give any government the of international instruments. So I could not licence to enter into treaties and make treaties agree more heartily with Senator Bourne, who without any intention of honouring them in its expressed her grave concerns about the administrative decision making. That is why Australian-Indonesian security treaty that was I have referred to the High Court decision on negotiated in such a secretive way and with Teoh, which affirmed the common law posi- such disdain for democratic principles. I do tion of 1969, that there should be a legitimate agree with and endorse the comments previ- expectation that decision makers will take ously made in relation to concerns that that provisions of international conventions into way of entering into treaty making is utterly consideration. Therefore the Greens (WA) unacceptable and undemocratic. I believe the welcome the government’s reforms in relation new government has made a strong stand. By to treaty making and believe it will go far in that, I hope it will distance itself from any addressing the community’s concerns about such similar behaviour. the role of treaties in the past and in the I must disagree, however, with Senator future. Bourne and the Democrats, who assert that Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia) parliament should dictate to and veto the (12.58 p.m.)—I am going to take a somewhat executive in the area of international treaties. different position from some of the earlier Treaties are essentially aspirational. Interna- speakers in this debate. I differ from my tional treaties ensure that standards are set colleague, Senator Schacht, and actually which have a wider perspective than that welcome the response by the minister to the brought by any one country. Treaties provide report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional a measure of intent which, hopefully, will be Committee. I think it is admirable and it sets greater than that allowed by the political a standard, which I hope will be repeated 240 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 through the life of the parliament, that com- actions as they relate to treaties, because that mittee reports will be responded to with the is what the committee was about. speed with which this one has been responded We recognised when we were taking evi- to. dence and when we were deliberating on and It has been mentioned that the government preparing the report that there would be some has only had two months in which to respond treaties that this country would enter into that to the report. That is absolutely correct be- would not be the subject of the scrutiny of the cause the election was only held two months parliament. Indeed, I believe, and I can be ago today, and here we are discussing the corrected, that one of the treaties mentioned response. That perhaps overlooks the fact that here today by Senator Bourne—the one the report has actually been in the parliament relating to Indonesia which was publicised and in the public eye now for six months. A late last year—was supported by the then considerable amount of work has been done opposition and that it will not repudiate the on the report and the preparation of the content of the treaty now that it is in govern- response by officers of the Department of ment. So it might have been more honest if Foreign Affairs and Trade. In commending the minister had enunciated that it is only the government for the speed in which the some things that will change. I welcome the response has been brought into the parliament, changes that are going to be made. one must also commend the individuals who I want to deal in part—and very briefly are part of the Department of Foreign Affairs because of the time limitations here today— and Trade for the efforts that they have put with the contents and the detail of the re- into the preparation of the response that we sponse. Essentially, what we have before us, are debating in the Senate this afternoon. and I welcome it, is a holding report; it is a holding response. The real response hopefully I do agree with my colleague Senator will come in two years when, as the minister Schacht, though, on the content of the re- said, the government will review the new sponse. I would urge people, particularly tabling arrangements. They consider that then, those who spoke earlier, not to get too carried two years hence, will be the most appropriate away with the response that is before us. I time to consider the need for legislation and have not had the opportunity of having an any suggestion that there might be a further early copy of the report, but I do not believe examination of a parliamentary approval that it does all the things that has been said of system. This response does not automatically it in this place. Hopefully, in the few minutes give that parliamentary approval system now. remaining to me here, I will be able to deal with that. Senator Bolkus—It does not go near. Senator McKIERNAN—It does not go It seems to me that the minister, in deliver- near, as my colleague Senator Bolkus has ing his response here this afternoon, dwelt said. Recommendation 2 of the report recom- more on the contents of the government’s mends legislation provide that the government reforms—as foreshadowed in its foreign report to parliament annually. The response to affairs and law and justice policy statements this recommendation says: enunciated before the election—than on the The government agrees to table annually a list of recommendations in the report of the Senate Commonwealth legislation specifically implement- Legal and Constitutional References Commit- ing Australia’s treaty obligations. tee. The minister said that the changes would provide proper and effective procedures to There is a very distinct difference in the enable parliament to scrutinise intended treaty words, and a more distinct difference in the action. It is commendable if they do that, but meaning of the words. The committee asked it would have been more honest if the for legislation: the government said that it minister had said that the changes would will agree to table a list. provide proper and effective procedures to Recommendation 3 was agreed to. Recom- enable parliament to scrutinise some policy mendation 5 was not accepted and there are Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 241 reasons given in the response as to why it was not been accepted by the government. They not accepted. Recommendation 6 called for say that a better way of progressing this the government to increase its efforts to would be by resolutions of both houses of identify and consult. The response is that that parliament. I understand that sometime to- recommendation is accepted. The comment day—perhaps the manager of government actually does not take the response all that business might nod in approval—we will be much further than what has become, in recent told what the joint committees of the parlia- years, the current practice—the practice that ment are going to be. has evolved in consulting with representative Senator Kemp—You want a job, do you? groups, with individuals and with non-govern- ment organisations. I hasten to add that the Senator McKIERNAN—I do want a job, comment that goes with the response is that yes. I would prefer a job in government than it has been accepted by the government. one in opposition but that is not to be. Recommendation 7 stated: Senator Kemp—You are applying for That the existing Commonwealth-State Standing chairman, are you? I will put in a good word Committee on Treaties be abolished and replaced for you. with a Treaties Council that is preferably estab- lished by legislation... Senator McKIERNAN—No, I am not applying for chairman. Recommendation 10 The response was: also called for the legislative path but, again, The government accepts the need to establish a the government has sought not to undertake treaties council. that path. I wonder why the government has There is a very great difference between not given a greater commitment to going accepting the need to establish a treaties down the path of legislation in this very council and going out there and legislating, or important area, especially when there is an even giving a commitment to legislate, to increased interest within the community about establish one. it. The committee recommended, yet again, a I hope that the people who beat up the legislative means to progress what we had issues that led to the inquiry, and kept the determined would arise out of the committee’s matter going during the inquiry, will in turn inquiry. We called for legislation to be enact- do the proper thing and let everyone who ed which would require the tabling of treaties made submissions know what the response is. in both houses of the Commonwealth parlia- I hope those people, many of whom were ment within 15 sitting days. We recognised, very genuine in their beliefs—some of the as a committee, that it would not always be beliefs were misguided, I believe—will not be possible to do that within 15 sitting days. I too disappointed in the report. To conclude, welcome the fact that some of the earlier you have set a pattern of responses within six speakers recognised that in some instances it months of delivery of committee reports. Let could be up to three months before the parlia- us hope you stick to that in the future. ment would have an opportunity to table the Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (1.08 p.m.)—I treaties. have a few comments on the government Equally important in the process was the response to the report by the Senate Legal and fact that the committee lent itself to the Constitutional References Committee entitled legislative path. However, from the response Trick or Treaty? Commonwealth power to it seems that there is no wish to move to make and implement treaties. I welcome the legislative means at all. I think that is a bit government’s response and put on record sad but I also welcome the fact that the matter again my thanks to all my fellow committee will be looked at within a two-year period. members and the secretariat of the references With respect to recommendation 9, the committee. committee again took the legislative path by It would be fair to say that the question of recommending the establishment of a joint treaties and the implementation of them parliamentary committee on treaties. That has within the body politic of Australia has been 242 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 somewhat controversial over the last decade be made transparent and be made subject to or so. I think it is a credit to the committee as the Australian parliament and through that to a whole that we were able to bring down a the people of Australia. unanimous report. Such a controversial topic Some two years ago, in my first speech in required serious consideration and I believe this place, I expressed my concerns at the the Senate committee did give it that. way in which the international treaty-making When people such as Senator McKiernan, process was subverting our federal system of Senator Spindler, Senator O’Chee, Senator government. Basically the federal government Ellison and me all sign off on the one docu- could simply sign any international treaty and ment, I think it is a credit to the workings of thereby get a head of power to legislate in this chamber and to the Senate committee areas which had usually been the preserve of system. the states. That provided a great degree of Senator McKiernan—Under the chair of uncertainty in constitutional law. If there is the committee! one thing that any country needs it is certain- Senator ABETZ—That was my very next ty in the law. Unfortunately, the treaty-mak- point, Senator McKiernan. I also pay tribute ing processes adopted, especially under the to the chairmanship of my colleague, Senator past Labor government, were such that the Chris Ellison. Some of us are somewhat certainty of law was undermined. concerned as to who is going to chair the next The government’s response has been a legal references committee, Senator McKier- considered and appropriate one. Furthermore, nan, but we live in hope and trust that you I am delighted that the government has taken will live up to the great precedent set by the initiative to respond so quickly. Indeed, I Senator Ellison. believe it is the government’s first response The Liberal Party and the National Party to a Senate committee report. It is a great went to the last election on the promise of credit to Mr Downer—I listened to his com- reforming the processes of parliament. I ments in the House of Representatives—and welcome the government’s response to this to others in the new Howard-Costello govern- report because if there has been one criticism ment that they have brought down this report of the treaty-making process in the past, it has so quickly and yet so thoughtfully. been of its lack of transparency and of the I thought the 11 recommendations that the lack of community involvement. Literally, committee made were good ones. At the time members of this parliament could wake up that the report was brought down, I indicated one morning finding that we had entered into that I had limited some of my thoughts and international obligations without any consulta- views to ensure that we could get a unani- tion with the parliament of Australia and mous report. It is disappointing when a without any consultation with the people of unanimous report is not fully accepted by the Australia. government. But this new government has As we now know, as a result of certain been left with a fiscal hole of $8 billion—the High Court decisions in recent times, these legacy of the Labor government—and, as a international treaties can affect our domestic result, some of the initiatives in this report laws in ways in which the Australian Labor cannot be implemented, simply because that Party used to say they would not be affected. would just add to the financial dilemma that There were people on this side of the cham- this country finds itself in. ber, such as the capable Manager of Govern- I am hopeful that once we have got the ment Business in the Senate, Senator Kemp, economic imperatives back in order the and others who made comments to the effect government may be able to revisit its con- that these international treaties would be of sidered response to this report and ascertain importance in determining our domestic law. whether, after some of the Labor legacy debt The High Court has now, I say regrettably, has been paid off, funds could possibly be confirmed that view. It is absolutely important made available to implement some of the that the system of international treaty making programs suggested by our committee. This Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 243 would ensure that the people of Australia Trick or treaty? Commonwealth power to have a say in international treaty making. make and implement treaties. I was delighted that during the campaign It was not long ago—perhaps two years, or the then shadow Attorney-General, Senator slightly more—that the issue of considering Amanda Vanstone, was able to announce the treaties in this parliament was regarded as Liberal Party’s policy in relation to interna- perhaps not being within the normal stand- tional treaty making. That policy was to look ards. I remember that, when we raised these through an international treaty and ascertain issues and drew attention to some of the what domestic obligations might flow from anomalies which were starting to come that treaty if we were to sign it, and to imple- through as a result of the government’s treaty- ment those domestic obligations prior to making activities, we did not elicit a great signing the actual international treaty. We response at the start. could then go to the world with a clear conscience and say, before signing the inter- What is encouraging about this whole national treaty, ‘We have already abided by process and about this report is not only the our international obligations by having legis- government’s very positive response but also lated domestically.’ That is the exact rev- the responsive chord that it has clearly struck erse of what those on the other side did. They on all sides of the chamber. If we discount would sign treaties so that they could some- the contribution of Senator Chris Schacht and how use their powers to effect changes in the listen to the comments of Senator Cooney and law. There have been occasions on which the others, there is no doubt that there was a very signing of international treaties was done positive response to the government’s state- without any thought whatsoever as to the ment today. domestic obligations. Certainly there has been a variety of views, That is how the former Labor government including whether we should have gone a bit got itself into so much trouble. The Labor further. There was a debate when that issue government used to prance around talking was raised by the Democrats and the Greens. about its international obligations until the This is a prime example, certainly in my High Court told the Labor government, ‘You experience—six years in this parliament—of have international obligations. Your laws are the way an issue can be raised and picked up not to be upheld and we will impose those by a variety of senators. It then attracts public international obligations on you.’ What did attention; a serious committee looks at what the Labor government do? It ran in to this can be done; recommendations are made; and parliament with a bill to overturn the High the government acts in a positive manner in Court decision and thereby to overturn its responding to the report. international obligations. In anybody’s lan- guage that is two-faced. You either believe When I look back, there are a number of and take seriously your international obliga- things which have generated widespread tions or you do not. community concern about the treaty-making activities of the previous government. The I believe that this government, as opposed first one, which was given some attention by to the former government, has taken a fresh the committee, was the decision to allow look at this issue and is going to act respon- domestic disputes to go to UN human rights sibly in this area. As a result, I have great committees without any public debate at all. delight in supporting the government response Some people—for instance Justice Michael and welcoming the new approach to interna- Kirby—have drawn attention to this matter tional treaty making. and have noted that there was not much Senator KEMP (Victoria—Parliamentary public debate at that time. Australians sudden- Secretary to the Minister for Social Security) ly found that, as a result of a particular case (1.18 p.m.)—I rise to speak briefly on the which went to the UN human rights commit- ministerial response to the Senate Legal and tees, an important process which could have Constitutional References Committee report, constitutional implications for this country 244 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 had been put into effect without any public mentary scrutiny—would somehow threaten debate about it. the treaty-making regime which it had adopt- Another case which caused great concern ed and it was prepared to ignore contrary was the ratification of ILO convention 158. voices. This was an extraordinary occasion where, I certainly welcome the fact that as this almost hours before the writs for the 1993 debate has occurred over the last two or three election were issued, this treaty was signed years virtually all sections of the political and ratified. It was really only after the spectrum have become involved. The Demo- election that people discovered what the crats have been very actively involved and government had done. My understanding was Senator Bourne has spoken quite regularly on that there was no press statement at that time. the subject in this chamber. As was pointed That particular convention has been the out in the debate today, the bill that she put subject of widespread public debate. Some forward went further than the ministerial elements of the industrial relations legislation statement which has now been presented. of the previous government were based on it. Senator Chamarette used the word ‘historic’ But, as I said, it was signed without any in her response. She did not feel that it was community debate at all and there was no appropriate that the parliament move to have announcement by the government. That sort the capacity to actually veto a treaty, but my of approach, which the Hawke and Keating understanding was that she welcomed the Labor governments had, did cause concern. greater scrutiny and the greater chance for No-one would argue that many of the more effective public involvement. treaties we sign are not extremely important. I think this has been a very important And there is no argument that, in the world process. It has been very encouraging to see we have today, there will be more and more that an issue such as this can be put firmly on treaties which will have to be signed, both on the national agenda, and that political parties a unilateral basis and a multilateral basis. But which differ on many things—and this is an it is important that there be a proper process issue on which many do differ—can sit down, by which this is carried out because of the take evidence, do a serious report and make implications such treaties can have for the some important proposals which are very domestic affairs of this country. rapidly responded to by the government. What the government has done today is to Given my own interest in this area, I would ensure that through the parliament the nation certainly like to extend congratulations to the and its people are more effectively involved. committee members, through their chairman, The democratic deficit, which Sir Ninian Senator Ellison, and to the secretary, Anne Stephen drew attention to in an excellent Twomey, who did an excellent job in the speech about 12 months ago, is starting to be preparation of this report. effectively addressed. In my view, we have I was interested to read a press cutting—I taken a very important step forward in treaty- think it was from the London Times—that was making processes through this announcement sent to me recently. This committee report today. was in fact referred to in the mother of I can remember having a debate with the parliaments in London. It is interesting that former Senator Gareth Evans on this issue. there was a debate—in the House of Lords, I We were discussing the treaty-making activi- think—which was based very much on the ties of the previous government and I asked sorts of assumptions that underlie the report him, ‘Is there no way our people should be that we have here. That debate turned to the involved?’ He said, and I believe I am quot- fact that it was very important that parlia- ing him correctly: ‘No way, Jose.’ The former ments become more effectively involved in government really did feel that any parlia- the treaty-making process. That was in the mentary involvement in the treaty-making UK, and I think it shows how even the effect process—and one way we have put forward of a good committee report can extend far here is essentially more effective parlia- wider than one would sometimes imagine. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 245

As I have said, I welcome the report which erly by the various parties in this place, and has been brought down. I certainly find most thus people had had the proper opportunity to encouraging the very positive responses which analyse the powers that existed in it in terms have come from all sides of the chamber. I of relationships between the states and the think that the committee and the government Commonwealth, I question whether that treaty can consider that their work has been very would ever have got up or got past the scru- well done. tiny of this place. Senator CRANE (Western Australia) (1.27 This response, as I have already emphas- p.m.)—I also have some comments to make ised, will prevent that from ever happening about the document before us—Trick or again. For that reason, I feel very comfortable treaty? Commonwealth power to make and with that aspect of it. When we make domes- implement treaties—and about the govern- tic law, it affects the Commonwealth, the ment response that we have received from the states and the community, and it should be appropriate minister, Mr Downer. made within the province of the Australian I do so against a background of interest in nation. You should not be able to hang it, in the subject. I think one of the first questions the way that this was done, on conventions I asked in this place when I became a mem- which are made by people outside of this ber some six years ago was a question at country, people who have no feeling or estimates related to treaties. I know my understanding of how we operate as a colleague Senator Kemp has taken a keen Commonwealth country. The importance of interest in that matter. I was always concerned this decision will manifest itself and we will about the way treaties were used to inter- see better legislation in coming years as a fere—as I call it—with the making of domes- result of it. As a Western Australian, I must tic law, when there was no right, without the say that it has long been a contentious issue proper parliamentary processes, to use treaties at our state conferences, and the various in such a way. forums of the lay party, that decisions are made and hooked to these conventions. I particularly want to concentrate on ILO convention 158, because that convention was I want to acknowledge the work that was the one brought in at one minute to midnight done in terms of convincing people of the before the calling of the last election, and that necessity to reform this particular aspect of was the convention used by Mr Brereton of the operations of treaties and get them before the Labor Party to hang his industrial rela- the federal parliament. Bill Hassell, a presi- tions reform legislation on. We all know of dent of the party not so long ago, a member the problems that arose from the use of that of the Western Australian state parliament and convention in terms of that legislation, par- a leader of the Liberal Party in Western ticularly with regard to unfair dismissal laws, Australia, did make this an issue many years and of the pain that it caused to so many ago, when it was not so popular, and he businesses and employees. I believe it cost pursued it. I think Bill would rest very happy many people the opportunity of gaining a job, today to know that we have this report before because it overrode what was really the us. province of the states. As that convention had I join my colleagues and people from the never been before either of the houses of other side in congratulating the members of parliament or had a proper opportunity to be the committee—Senator Chris Ellison, Senator scrutinised by the states, it was an inappropri- Cooney, Senator Abetz, Senator McKiernan, ate use of power by the Commonwealth. Senator Neal, Senator O’Chee, Senator In terms of the government’s response, that Spindler and Senator Vanstone, and the particular action will never be able to occur participating members: senators Chamarette, again, because it will have to go through the Margetts, Kemp and Short—for bringing this proper processes of this parliament—and so report before us. It demonstrates that when it should. In terms of what was in that act, if members of the Senate put their minds to it had been presented here and debated prop- addressing a particular issue, and put party 246 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 politics aside momentarily, they can come up ber when the Senate has just demonstrated its with a document that is representative of the great value through this committee process by views of the states, the Australian people and delivering this report which has now been the parliament. I take this opportunity to acted upon and which is, as has been pointed congratulate the committee, and in doing so out, a unanimous Senate report. I include staff members who worked on It was very encouraging to hear Labor particular aspects, for bringing this report senators applaud the government’s response. before us. Of course, it is interesting to us that Labor This is a very good day for the Australian remains divided on this issue, with Senator parliament. As I have heard other speakers Schacht taking a different line. It is a reflec- say, I think that the quick response to this, tion upon the former government that we have now that we are in government, demonstrates come to this. It was the former government that as a government we intend to respond to that brought the treaty-making process into things and be a government of action. Having disrepute. This was never an issue in Austral- made those comments, I reiterate that I am ian politics prior to the advent of the Hawke- delighted that this report is before us today. Keating government. The external affairs I re-emphasise my congratulations to those power of the constitution was treated as an people who worked on it and to the minister external affairs power. Many of us have for getting it into this place so quickly. watched the ALP over many years and we were not surprised to see that its centralist Senator MINCHIN (South Australia— pretensions were put into effect through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) back door of the constitution in a way which (1.33 p.m.)—I would like to make a few really did begin to subvert the constitution. comments with regard to the statement deliv- The Labor Party really has a central core ered by Senator Hill today. I want to com- philosophy that is centralist, that is not sup- mend in the first instance the new Minister portive of a federal structure of government, for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) on his that does not like this Senate, that does not outstanding response to the report by the like the existence of states and does not like Senate committee: its speed, its haste, its the fact that we have a constitution which comprehensiveness. I think my South Austral- prescribes the powers of the central govern- ian colleague Mr Downer will prove to be one ment, and the remaining powers lie with the of Australia’s great foreign ministers and this states. That is not a model they support and is an excellent start to the performance of his they have always attempted to centralise great duties. The committee itself deserves authority in Canberra. The external affairs Australia’s congratulations. Senator Ellison, power suddenly became a magic door that Senator Abetz and others have done a terrific opened for them to pursue that path in a very job and have given great credence to the dangerous and subversive way through the Senate committee process. They have demon- course of the 13 years during which, unfortu- strated how valuable Senate committees can nately, they remained in office. be. We propose to bring that to an end and we It was very disheartening and disappointing have done so with a very comprehensive to read what former Senator Gareth Evans response. All treaties will now be tabled in said in the House of Representatives the other the parliament at least 15 days before they are day in relation to Mick Young when he ratified. We will genuinely seek consultation condemned the Senate in the vein of the with the people and with the community. It former Prime Minister, Paul Keating. While will not be the false consultative model he did not use the word ‘swill’, he certainly adopted by Labor where a few peak interest described the Senate as unrepresentative and groups were brought into the inner sanctum he used other derogatory terms. I think it is and given special privileges. We will be a very disappointing that someone who has genuinely consultative government. Our app- served in this chamber for so long should go roach to treaties is demonstrated by this to the House and condemn his former cham- statement today. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 247

We do have a genuine respect for the result of the Port Arthur massacre, and that parliament, unlike Labor in its previous guise. certain elements in the media, in particular the We will be tabling these things in the parlia- Sydney Morning Herald, had been harassing ment with, I note, a national interest analysis the family and others for details. I indicated that will accompany the tabling—a very to the Senate that Mr Pears’s body had not comprehensive assessment of the domestic been identified and it was therefore still listed impact of these treaties that are proposed for as missing. ratification. I think that will be a tremendous advance in involving the parliament in the In this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald, process of executive government. The creation undeterred by my speech last night a journal- of a joint standing committee on treaties is a ist by the name of Helen Pitt wrote: terrific advance and, of course, as a federalist party, a major advance in forming a treaties Severe burns meant his body could not be identi- council as an adjunct to the Council of Aus- fied by police until late Tuesday night. tralian Governments, so that states and terri- tories who are affected by international treaties can be involved in the analysis of In other words, this implies—although my their effects and the question of their ratifica- name is not mentioned—that what I said last tion. And there is to be, of course, the treaties night was wrong. This morning at about 11 database administered by the Department of o’clock I rang Sergeant Chris Ellis, the Foreign Affairs. These are all tremendous coroner’s clerk in Tasmania, and he once advances which we welcome and which the again confirmed that my friend Glen Pears government must be commended for. has not been identified and is still listed as missing. I then read to Sergeant Ellis that The question of parliamentary veto of sentence from the Sydney Morning Herald treaties, I suppose, is one that will always be and he indicated to me that he had no idea there. We are not supporting that proposition. how any journalist could have that sort of I think we go a very long way towards open- information, because the police have not ing up the process and towards involving identified the body. I simply make this plea parliament in it. We will not have the farce to the Sydney Morning Herald, Helen Pitt and where dozens of treaties are dumped in the any other journalist: why do you write stories Senate allowing only a few minutes for feeble like this, why do you manufacture ‘facts’ comments to be made on them, with no time which are not facts? It is just for the sake of at all for any proper debate. a story.

So I do not think parliamentary veto is an In conclusion, I simply say that Australian option. The parliament has the option of Associated Press gave my speech last night vetoing any laws made with respect to any high priority rating. And, guess what? Not a treaties that are entered into. Nevertheless, single media outlet ran with it, but a low this is a very comprehensive statement, and priority rating story from the Newspaper a welcome end to the 13 years of develop- Publishing Association congratulating them- ment of the subversion of the constitution by selves on the coverage of the Port Arthur abuse of the external affairs power which has massacre got a run. I hope that out of this now been brought to an end. sorry saga the media in this country start to look at their ethics and start to adopt practices Question resolved in the affirmative. which are more in tune with the ethics and morality that I think the Australian communi- DEATHS AT PORT ARTHUR ty want but, more importantly, deserve. I Senator ABETZ (Tasmania)—by leave— thank the Senate for the time given to me. Last night I gave an adjournment speech in which I indicated that a friend of mine, Glen Sitting suspended from 1.43 p.m. Roy Pears, had still not been identified as a to 2.00 p.m. 248 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Senator Faulkner—We are asking for an answer. Wages Outcomes Senator HILL—Why don’t you listen to Senator FAULKNER—My question is the answer? directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill, in his capacity as Senator Faulkner—You haven’t got an Minister representing the Prime Minister. answer. Under the Labor government the accord had The PRESIDENT—Order! The minister successfully constrained excessive wage has a right to be heard, whether you like the increases, as evidenced by the underlying answer or not. inflation rate of 3.3 per cent. Now that the accord has been discarded, what are the Senator HILL—You just slip back into the government’s targets for wages outcomes this rhetoric of the past—a rhetoric and a policy year? application which has failed. If you free up Senator HILL—I think the accord was an the industrial relations situation in this coun- unmitigated disaster. Labor’s accord had a try, if you correct the underlying deficit, if special relationship with the trade union you institute the microeconomic reforms that movement and what it gave ordinary Austral- we are advocating, you will end up with ians was mass unemployment and falling better outcomes on interest rates and inflation. living standards. You will enable government to keep taxation down and you will therefore produce growth Senator Faulkner—What are the targets? in employment and higher living standards. Senator HILL—This is your record. Let’s put it this way; the accord was the corner- Public Service stone of your economic program, was it not? Senator MacGIBBON—My question is And the result of your economic program was directed to Senator Alston as the Minister 750,000 Australians out of work and many representing the Prime Minister in public Australians in work with less income. That service matters. I ask: to what extent does the was the result of the accord. There has to be current downsizing of the public service a better way than the accord and the better reflect Labor Party policies and plans? And is way is in fact to free up the economy and the there any possibility at all that the copious labour market, implement the industrial flood of tears we are seeing from the Labor relations reforms that we are advocating, Party may not be genuine? correct some of the economic deficiencies, attack the underlying deficits, help make Senator Bob Collins—Downsizing! They business more competitive and that will result are being sacked. in a better outcome. Senator ALSTON—There is a very real Senator FAULKNER—Mr President, I ask possibility. And Senator Collins—who would a supplementary question. I did ask Senator take a lot of distinguishing from a crocodile Hill what the government’s targets were for at various times—ought to know that that is wages outcomes this year. As a supplemen- exactly what is going on here. The fact is tary question, given your answer could you that, if you listen to some of the ALP and confirm that you have no targets, no bench- public service union spokespeople—or some marks against which the Australian people can of them at least—you would think that what evaluate the efficacy of your wages policy? is in contemplation is a massive downsizing And will you accept that that must necessarily all as a result of policies that we have simply create huge uncertainty in the financial mar- decided to implement unilaterally without any kets and in the wider community? particular need to do it. Senator HILL—The trouble is that what The fact is that we went into the last elec- Senator Faulkner does not understand is that tion with you lot promising faithfully on a he is still using the language of the past. He stack of bibles that there would be a budget is still referring to the policies— surplus. You would think that nothing had Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 249 changed since then, but the fact is that Treas- about job reductions in certain departments, ury has made it abundantly clear that some bear in mind that some of those relate to pre- tough action needs to be taken. It is very clear cisely the process that you had already put in that you were not prepared to take it. Unfortu- train. The rest of them will relate to the $8 nately we have now been given that responsi- billion hole, thank you very much. So the fact bility. is, when it comes to reductions in the public If you look at what will be put in place sector, we know where the blame lies. since the last election, we have a threefold Economy approach. We gave a commitment prior to the election to a two per cent reduction in run- Senator SHERRY—My question is ad- ning costs. That is currently being implement- dressed to Senator Short in his capacity as ed. In meeting our commitments we also spelt Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister inform out some particular agencies where we the Senate where Australia ranks in compari- thought there was scope for additional cuts son with other OECD countries for govern- and that approach is also being implemented. ment outlays and government tax revenues as Over and above all that is the need to a percentage of gross domestic product, and address your $8 billion Beazley black hole. does he believe this ranking to be good or The fact is that you just cannot conjure those bad? figures out of nowhere. I know you would Senator SHORT—The figure that I will like to pretend that it is business as usual, but give Senator Sherry is this: during the time it simply is not. Over a period of 10 years his government was in office, between 1983 from 1986 to 1996 what you did without and 1996, in terms of standard of living per telling anyone was reduce the size of the capita, Australia fell from 10th to 22nd in the public service from 181,000 to 146,000. In international league ranking. In other words, other words, 35,000 people were surreptitious- during that period Australia went backwards ly given the boot, some of them by involun- in the world, and it went backwards in the tary redundancies. world for one reason, and one reason only, Indeed, in the last financial year you had a Senator Sherry. That was because the eco- further 19.2 per cent reduction; something like nomic policies— 14,000 people were taken off the list. We are Opposition senators interjecting— sensitive to the needs of those people. We are not proposing to simply slash and burn for the The PRESIDENT—Order! sake of it. It will be a managed reduction. It will be negotiated pursuant to the Australian Senator Faulkner—Out first ball. Public Service award. We are not setting The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Short! targets and hopefully we will be able to If there are going to be incessant interjections achieve the great bulk of that on a voluntary from the other side every time a question is basis. being answered, we should stop question The fact is that you are the ones who time. imposed on the Australian community the Senator SHORT—We went backwards in necessity for those sorts of reductions to be the world for one reason and one reason only, pursued. Therefore it is absolute hypocrisy— and that was the disastrous economic manage- as Senator MacGibbon’s question made ment of the former Labor government. The plain—to suggest that somehow this is all our main reason that happened was, under Labor, fault. It is almost entirely your fault, simply contrary to everything that they purported to because of the combination—under the guise have as policy, taxes went up by astronomical of a one per cent efficiency dividend—of your amounts. Every household, every family and getting rid of all those thousands of public every individual in Australia were hit by a sector employees. massive range of tax increases, contrary to the That process you put in place is what is promises that were given. Indeed, the promis- currently under discussion. So, when you read es that were broken by their government so 250 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 far as taxation was concerned were without government income tax in this country rose precedent in the history of this federation. from $28 billion to $87 billion. Sales tax rose Taxes have gone up and government ex- from $3½ billion to $14 billion. Every prom- penditure has gone up. In any event, the size ise of the former government in relation to of taxation and government expenditure in taxes was broken, at great cost to integrity of any particular economy is only one of the government and the well-being of every indicators of the wellbeing of a nation. You Australian. (Time expired) have squeezed the private sector to increase Budget Accounts the size of government and, through doing that, you have reduced competition, reduced Senator CALVERT—My question is freedom of choice and lowered the real living directed to the Assistant Treasurer. I ask: is standards of each and every Australian. the $8 billion black hole the only unwelcome inheritance from the former Labor govern- Senator SHERRY—Mr President, I ask a ment? supplementary question. Given that the Senator SHORT—I thank Senator Calvert minister has answered everything that I did for a very perspicacious question. I would like not ask about, will the minister inform the to be able to answer his question ‘yes’ but, Senate what implication his government’s regrettably, bad though that would be—that policies will have on Australia’s ranking in $8 billion black hole is a black hole that is a the OECD for government outlays and tax legacy of disgrace that Labor has left to the revenue? Australian nation, not just to the new govern- Senator SHORT—Through you, Mr Presi- ment—the government has acquired another dent, the implications of the government’s series of disastrous inheritances from Labor. policies—and the No. 1 priority is to repair On numerous fronts—on virtually every the fiscal vandalism and ravage that was front—the Labor government failed and caused by the former government—are to deceived the Australian people. repair, block and balance the government’s Let us look at a few of the legacies they books on an $8 billion deficit that Senator left. Let us have a look at the state of our Sherry’s government— external accounts. Labor left Australia with a Senator Sherry—If I could take a point of current account deficit of six per cent of gross order, Mr President, Senator Short has taken domestic product. That figure is the worst in off into outer space looking for black holes. the whole of the industrialised world, with the The point of order relates to No. 194, rel- single exception of Mexico. After four years evance. of economic growth and after 13 years of Senator Abetz—Mr President, on the point Labor in government, we still had a record of order: you will recall that on numerous balance of payments deficit last year. Under occasions I had difficulties with your rulings, Labor we had amongst the higher interest but I indicate to you that on 2 March I be- rates in the whole of the western world. came a sudden convert. I would ask you to Honourable senators interjecting— continue your rulings in favour of government The PRESIDENT—Order! The level of ministers, as you did in the past. noise is just too great, not simply from the The PRESIDENT—One thing you can be opposition benches—also from the govern- assured of, Senator Abetz, is that my rulings ment benches, but mostly from the opposition will be consistent. The only thing that can be benches. A senator has a right to ask a ques- said about the relevance of the answer so far tion and to hear the answer. is that it is broadly relevant to economics, but Senator SHORT—They left us with a I would ask the minister to get quickly to the legacy of almost the highest real interest rates point of the question, which was a fairly in the industrialised world—at great cost to precise question. home buyers, to every Australian, particularly Senator SHORT—What I can say to Sena- Australian families. Despite 18 quarters of tor Sherry is that during the period of his economic growth—more than four years of Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 251 economic growth, according to them—we still cause her government managed to preside have three quarters of a million Australians over 13 years of a system which became more unemployed. We have 26 per cent youth and more complex, with disincentives for unemployment in this country, despite the people to— four years of economic growth after the Senator Cook—Are you an accessory? recession Labor deliberately induced. Our economy grew by about 17 per cent, but in Senator NEWMAN—Are you interested in the 18 quarters after the 1983 recession the the answer? You are a very cheeky Charlie. economy grew by 23 per cent or 24 per cent. Have you ever done an honest day’s work in In other words, Labor has gone backwards your life? Have you ever run a small busi- over its period in office. ness? No. Those opposite ran a small business right into the ground, but they started with a Senator Sherry—Mr President, on a point big one. That was the problem with them. The of order: this answer sounds remarkably like situation is that, throughout Australia, small the answer to the question I just asked. I refer business people have had great difficulty in you to standing order 196: tedious repetition. working their way around the combination of The PRESIDENT—There is no point of the tax and the social security systems. order. Senator Faulkner—Did you dob? Senator SHORT—It is partly deliberate Senator NEWMAN—I have put names to because it takes an awful lot to get anything the Department of Social Security over the through the heads of those opposite. I repeat years, as have most members of parliament, to Senator Sherry that during Labor’s period I would hope. in office you allowed, and engineered as a result of your policies, Australia’s living Senator Carr—We will check on that. standards to fall from a ranking of 10th in the Senator NEWMAN—We all get constitu- world to 22nd in the world. The legacy goes ents who come to us with complaints. on and on. Honourable senators interjecting— Perhaps the greatest legacy we inherited Senator NEWMAN—Do you want the from Labor was a distrust of government. answer? Every major promise that you made to the Australian people was broken in a way that Senator Burns—Why didn’t you tell your deceived them and reduced their trust and neighbour not to do it? faith in government and reduced their living The PRESIDENT—Order! standards. Senator NEWMAN—I thought the previ- Seasonal Workers ous government would give me the courtesy Senator WEST—My question is directed required on the other side, Mr President. Most to the Minister for Social Security. On 16 Australians have a natural antipathy to dob- April you conducted a radio interview in bing people in to the tax system or to the which you spoke of your time as a farmer. social security system. I would imagine that, You said that it was being made difficult by over the years, they would have gone to talk neighbours who used to pay seasonal workers not only to coalition senators and members ‘underaward wages, but they’d pay them but also to people on the Labor side. I would behind the barn, with no tax taken out and no be curious to know whether Labor members records made and so therefore the people and senators were prepared to report to Social could get social security, could defraud the Security. tax system as well’. Given your keenness to Senator West—Do you report the other clean up this sort of action, could you give us way? more details about those incidents and tell us Senator NEWMAN—Do you? Exactly. whether you reported those frauds? Over the years I have done it on a number of Senator NEWMAN—I am delighted to get occasions because I believe that people who this question from the senator opposite be- behave like this—whether it is the people 252 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 who are being employed or whether it is the Senator NEWMAN—Senators opposite can small business people who are getting away make as much noise as they like. The fact with not paying people the rate for the job, remains that we have inherited a system knowing that those people are avoiding the where it is not difficult to cheat the system, tax system, as they are themselves—are whether it is the tax system or whether it is defrauding the nation. They are defrauding the social security system. We have small their neighbours and they are defrauding their business people who conceal, and are able to mates. I do not condone it. I have never conceal, their assets and their income under condoned it. That is why I have paid people the current arrangements. It cannot continue. award rates and taken their tax out. I have not Cheating is endemic and it must be stopped. had cheats, to my knowledge, working for It has become endemic under 13 years of me. Labor rule and it is to be condemned wher- ever it occurs. (Time expired) Senator WEST—Thank you, Minister. You did say that you have, over the years, put Budget Cuts people in to Social Security—I am sure every Senator KERNOT—My question is to the member of parliament has passed on informa- Minister representing the Prime Minister. tion—but you did not answer the question as Minister, yesterday you described my ques- to whether you had actually put in your tioning of the need for the $8 billion of neighbours. There is a form here—if you spending cuts as ‘quite offensive’. You said: want it afterwards—to do so. On the same interview, the same program, you talked about The best information is surely the information the small business, and you have talked about it Treasury has provided to us... here also. You said that the solution to unem- Aren’t we lucky, because, just today, Treasury ployment caused by your government’s Public has released its economic round-up? In this, Service cuts is, if you have got an ‘entrepre- it has cast doubt over the $8 billion budget neurial spirit’, to find another job by going deficit, saying that economic growth should ‘into business for yourself’. You have said strengthen during 1996, with improving that again here today—that small business is investment, rising profits, moderating inflation very important. How do you propose to and a falling balance of payments. I ask the prevent the plethora—and you are admitting minister: with the same information, is it less that it is happening—of under-award pay- offensive today? Can you deal with it today? ments and these small businesses conducting Honourable senators interjecting— cash transactions? The PRESIDENT—Order! There are too Senator NEWMAN—I remind the senator many interjections on both sides. that her government was in a power for the last 13 years. What did you do about it? The Senator KERNOT—I do not know if situation we have inherited is one where these Senator Hill heard that question. rorts are able to be continued. We are not Senator Hill—No, you had better start going to condone that at all. As I said before, again. it does not matter whether it is the person on Senator KERNOT—No, not start again. It wages or whether it is the person employing is the same information. Will you deal with them. We do not condone cheats, whether it today? Is it less offensive today? Secondly, they are at the big end of town or the small if the $8 billion estimate is revised down- end of town. You have condoned big end of wards by Treasury, will the government alter town cheating for years. You have also the current slash and burn riding orders to obviously condoned it at the lower end. That ministers? is why there is such a need for action in this area. The PRESIDENT—Order! The senator’s time has expired. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator KERNOT—I had some time taken The PRESIDENT—Order! out, Mr President. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 253

The PRESIDENT—It was not recorded, low and unemployment of 750,000 unfortu- but go on. nate Australians. Senator KERNOT—I only want to finish Senator KERNOT—You said that it was this sentence. your hope that economic growth will increase, but both ANZ and Westpac are now forecast- The PRESIDENT—Just finish it off. ing that your budget cuts will shave between Senator KERNOT—Will you alter the half and one per cent off economic growth slash and burn riding orders to ministers during the next year, adding to rising unem- which are causing untold distress and anxiety ployment. There is an incompatibility in what within the wider community to reflect the you say you hope for and the policies you are lower figure? putting in place to achieve this. Are you Senator HILL—Senator Kernot is asking ruling out categorically that there will be no me better questions than those opposite are. change to your policies—your $8 billion What I took offence at yesterday, Senator overall plan—even if Treasury revises this Kernot, was your suggestion that it was all a downwards? plot against the Public Service. I did find that Senator HILL—What we have in place, offensive, because clearly it is not. I take we believe, is the correct answer to Aust- equal offence today at your language that it ralia’s economic problem—a problem that we is a ‘slash and burn’ policy. It is not that inherited from Labor. It is part of Labor’s 13 either. It is a sensible and sound response to years of failing. We did not ask for an $8 an inherited situation of a forecast deficit of billion hole—Mr Beazley’s $8 billion hole in $8 billion. That forecast deficit is made up of the budget forecast. In fact, he assured us reductions in growth— during the election that the surpluses would continue. We did not ask for that. No incom- Senator Carr—Will you answer it this ing government would want to be welcomed time? by an $8 billion hole in the forecast. But, Senator HILL—Yes. And increased out- having got to government, we are determined lays. It is made up of both, if you go back to address it and to address it with correct and check the figures, Senator Kernot. economic policy, and that is exactly what we What I saw reported this morning from are doing. Treasury was not inconsistent with that. They Family Court of Australia have not said that they have revised the Senator BOLKUS—My question is direct- advice previously given to the Treasurer. We ed to the Minister representing the Attorney- hope that economic growth will increase and, General. Minister, during the last election in fact, that is the purpose of our policies. The campaign you promised to cut a total of $3.5 purpose of our policies to reduce public million a year from the budget of the Family expenditure is to take pressure off interest Court. That figure includes the two per cent rates, inflation and taxation so that small service wide efficiency dividend and the business might grow and expand and employ Family Court’s share of the AG’s running more Australians. That is what it is all about. cost reductions. At the time you claimed that So, no, we do not intend to change the these cuts would ‘ensure a more efficient policy just because of the circular that came service for litigants and the legal profession’. out yesterday. We think it is correct and, in Does the government still stand by your fact, any revision would be irresponsible. The statement in light of the minutes circulated by policy that we have in place is the right the Chief Executive Officer of the Family policy in the circumstances. Your policy if Court on 23 April this year, which advised you were ever in government—and you will that the loss of funding would result in a not be—would be simply to increase taxes. dramatic cut to services, including: the reduc- That is what the Labor Party did year, after tion of judicial circuits by some 30 per cent, year, after year. What was the legacy of that? the reduction in the number of conciliation The legacy of that is growth rates that are too conferences by 50 per cent, and the cancella- 254 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 tion of the delay reduction programs at the other cuts announced, such as the closure of Parramatta and Melbourne registries? How do the Bendigo and Mackay sub-registries and you even try to justify these cuts to the many the reduction of Family Court judges in families in crisis, particularly those in rural Tasmania from two to one following the and regional areas, that will be affected by retirement of one of those judges later this your cuts? year, will the minister explain to the commu- Senator VANSTONE—Mr President— nities of Bendigo, Mackay and Tasmania as a whole how these cuts will make the Family An incident having occurred in the gal- Court more ‘efficient’, given that that was her lery— statement? Also, what do you say to those The PRESIDENT—Order! Please remove family law court staff who will lose their jobs those people from the gallery. because of your policies? Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, Mr The PRESIDENT—Order! Before you President, and I appreciate your taking the start, Senator Vanstone, are you wishing to opportunity to keep order in this place, and I table that document, Senator Bolkus? will take the opportunity to remind members Senator Hill—You need to seek leave. opposite of what the now defeated Prime Minister, who was so proud of his policies The PRESIDENT—I was about to make that he slunk quietly out the back door, said that point, Senator Hill. You need to seek to people like that last time he got the oppor- leave to table that document, Senator Bolkus. tunity. Do you know what he said to them? Senator Bolkus—I am just trying to help He said, ‘Ah, go and get a job.’ So you ought Senator Vanstone, Mr President. to reflect on that and just ask yourselves— The PRESIDENT—You need to seek Opposition senators interjecting— leave. The PRESIDENT—Order! I suggest you Senator Bolkus—I seek leave to table the might be better to get on with the answer. document. Senator VANSTONE—Yes, I will, Mr Leave granted. President, but I do think that members oppos- Senator VANSTONE—Sooner or later, ite should ask themselves whether that kind Senator Bolkus, you are going to cotton on to of attitude that permeated through to the the opportunities, and lack thereof, of being whole community had anything to do with in opposition, and you will not bother to their comprehensive loss and with them being ask— the party that Australia has comprehensively rejected. Senator Bolkus—You will have to do a bit better than you are doing now. Turning to your question, Senator, I have not seen the memo that the chief executive Senator VANSTONE—I hope in your case officer, or whomever it is that you mentioned, it is later, but it might be sooner. I intend to has released. I will take the opportunity to get ensure that you have plenty of time to learn a look at the memo. I will ask the Attorney- this lesson and plenty of time, once you have General what he wants to tell you in relation learnt it, to keep exercising the skills you to the allegations in that memo and, when the acquire as being a shadow minister and in Attorney-General has an answer, I will give opposition. One of the skills you will learn is it back to you. not to bother asking a supplementary question if it is quite clear that you are not going to Senator BOLKUS—This is amazing. I get any further information. Even someone table the memo— with your— The PRESIDENT—Order! Just a take a Senator Bolkus—Mr President, on a point seat for a while and we will wait for some of order: that is not a standing order that she quiet. is invoking. If in fact I was actually in genu- Senator BOLKUS—Everyone has seen the ine need of information I would not ask her memo, and I will table it. In the light of the in the first place. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 255

The PRESIDENT—Order! There is no just one of a number of encouraging signs of point of order. consumer and business confidence since the Senator Patterson—Mr President, I raise election. a further point of order. When we were on the I remind you of the rise of four per cent in other side, Mr President, you constantly consumer confidence in March, according to reminded us not to involve ourselves in Morgan research and the Westpac Melbourne frivolous points of order. Today we have had Institute monthly survey of consumer confi- numerous frivolous points of order. You told dence, which reached its highest point for us not to engage in that and I would suggest about two years. The Australian Chamber of that you encourage them not to engage in Commerce and Industry March quarterly frivolous points of order. survey shows a surge of confidence with a 20 The PRESIDENT—I have just said there per cent net balance of firms predicting an is no point of order. improvement in business conditions under a Howard government. The Australian Bureau Senator VANSTONE—In light of the of Statistics survey of business expectations senator’s indication that, if he wanted a also predicted a rise in profit expectations sensible answer he would not bother to ask which was good. The ACCI March survey of me, it might not yet have occurred to the investor confidence showed that almost half senator that he no longer has a department to of businesses expect conditions to improve. administer. One of his roles—to put out your hand and take your pay cheque—is to try to Why they expect that is that the Howard do a job seriously. You should not waste the government has had the courage to attack the Senate’s time if you don’t really want a real deficiencies of the former government— sensible answer. (Time expired) Labor’s economic program. In particular, it has had the courage to attack the forecast Opposition members interjecting— budget deficit of $8 billion, that that was The PRESIDENT—We will wait again for hidden from us. some quiet. Senator Cook—They expected that in Howard Government January, mate. If the economy is strong, that Senator CRANE—Thank you, Mr Presi- comes back to us. dent, I will wait as long as you require. Will Senator HILL—It is interesting Senator the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Cook is interjecting because I remind him of Senator Robert Hill, please inform the Senate what he said in September 1995, ‘Our budget about the good news concerning the positive will continue to move into greater surplus.’ A business and consumer reaction to the election greater surplus to $8 billion down. Well done, of the Howard government? Senator Cook. There is confidence that busi- Senator HILL—I have even got some ness is being restored because they know that notes. What I did notice this morning was that the Howard government is now addressing the the opposition, the Labor Party, has in fact issue, and it is addressing it for the first time slumped in the polls since it lost. It sounds as by being prepared to cut public expenditure. if it is not even doing the job of opposition It is doing that. It is bringing in industrial well. Anyway, it will improve. It will have relations reform to encourage both employers plenty of time to practice. and employees to work together for mutually beneficial outcomes. Certainly there is good news around since the election of the Howard government. Senator Burns—Rubbish, rubbish! Optimism is increasing. It is pleasing to read Senator HILL—It is not rubbish at all. reports from the Australian Institute of Com- Why do they feel more hopeful under us? It pany Directors and KPMG this morning is because you failed them and we have a talking about an expected improvement in the program that can restore confidence in the economy over the next six months. Senator economy and we can do something to start Kernot will be pleased to hear that. This is eating into your worst legacy—mass unem- 256 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 ployment, which, Senator Burns, you should Mabo stood for ‘money available, barristers be ashamed of. only’, still your view, minister, or do you now concede that that was a gross over-simpli- Native Title fication of what Mabo stands for? Senator BOB COLLINS—My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Senator HERRON—Mr President, I have Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Minister, given been misquoted. I said that was a quote at the that your government has put up in lights its time. I did not say that I believed that. I said intention to amend the Native Title Act, that was what the quote was, Senator Collins. particularly in respect of extinguishing native You look back at the Hansard—and I am title on pastoral leases, will you, as Minister happy to produce the Hansard for you. for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Affairs, give Having said that, you have also misrep- this Senate an undertaking today that the resented the government. We have not said previous government’s commitment to fund that we are doing that. You well know that $1.4 billion into the land acquisition fund for Senator Minchin on my right is consulting the acquisition of land for Aboriginal peo- with the community, with the indigenous ple—and that fund, as you know, commenced community, with the pastoralists, with the in June last year—will be maintained under mining community—everybody who has an your government? interest in the Mabo legislation—to make it more workable. You will recall, senator, that Senator HERRON—That’s a nice try. at the time I said in relation to it that if there Senator Schacht—We are proud of our were no amendments to that legislation it record. would be years before it became workable. Senator HERRON—No, it was a good try. Here we are two years later and what deci- Give him a go. Don’t interject on him. sions have been reached? Senator Bolkus—You’re a buffoon. Senator Bob Collins—You are not extin- Senator Bob Collins—No, he’s not. He’s guishing native title on pastoral leases? a surgeon. Senator HERRON—I said there were The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Herron, consultations in relation to it. That is still on I would ask you not to get bated by those the table, as you know. Senator Minchin is interjections. I would ask you not to interject, going around seeking consultations with of course. everybody. There will be a working paper produced. (Time expired) Senator HERRON—Thank you for your defence, Mr President. The facts of the matter Women in Federal Parliament are, Senator Collins, the budget will be announced on budget night. Senator PATTERSON—My question is to Senator Newman, Minister Assisting the Senator BOB COLLINS—Mr President, Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I ask a supplementary question. I know that Minister, you have been a strong advocate for Senator Herron accepts the fact that the whole the representation of women in parliament question of native title or Mabo, as it has over your time in parliament and before you come to be known in terms of a simple word got into parliament. In the light of the 2 that has now become synonymous with it, is March election results, what is your view very, very important to Aboriginal people. I about the current level of female representa- am interested in your reluctance to commit tion in the federal parliament? yourself to that previous commitment when you are so busy creating publicity about Senator NEWMAN—Of course, Senator actually extinguishing rights that Aboriginal Patterson herself has long had a longstanding people might have. Is the view that you put interest and involvement in matters relating to in debate last year—that is, when you identi- the status of women, and so I thank her very fied yourself with the average Australian— much for her question. We on this side of the that the average Australian believed that chamber are very proud to have seen the Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 257 influx of so many women into the federal The number of women in the House of parliament. Representatives is now 23 out of a total of 148. That is 15.5 per cent. This means that, Senator Vanstone—How many? as from 1 July, the total number of women in Senator NEWMAN—Let me tell you, the federal parliament will be 46 out of a total Senator Vanstone. The results of the election of 224 seats. That is 20.5 per cent. We are prove that Labor’s quota, which has never proud of this, because we brought those looked secure, is now entirely remote. I will women into the parliament. We added to the come to the figures later. The sad thing is women who are already here. We are devel- how unwilling some members opposite are to oping the critical mass that is so important. acknowledge how important it is to Australia Any criticism from the other side is mean- that so many women have come into the spirited and envious. If you are fair dinkum federal parliament. I think that when you have you would be doing something practical about a spokesman for the Labor Party saying, ‘Oh, getting women in and not going on with this but they’re all going to lose. They’re not nonsense about quotas which only rebounds going to be here very long,’ it shows a grudg- on the people who are chosen through the ing and envious spirit, if you like, to some- quotas. It is tokenistic. The Labor Party goes thing which they aspired to—certainly the through these mechanistic and rhetorical women in the Labor Party aspired to—but measures but they do not achieve results. have not been able to achieve. Remember former Senator Peter Walsh who The sad thing is that the Labor Party does used to say you could tell the difference not look like ever achieving their goal. They between Liberal and Labor women—one lot have one more federal election before the year got chosen on merit! 2002 in which they have to get 35 per cent of winnable seats. At the last election they had Information Technology 12 seats where people were retiring which Senator COOK—My question is to the they could have filled with women. Two seats Minister representing the Minister for Fi- had women retiring and they did not fill one nance, Senator Short. Yesterday I asked of them with a woman. How can they pos- Senator Short a question about the govern- sibly smirk over on that side of the chamber, ment’s intention to slash $985 million out of Mr President? But on this side the Liberal the IT budget. Senator Short dismissed my Womens’ Forum under Dame Margaret concerns as ‘absolutely speculative’. My Guilfoyle helped women to learn techniques question to Senator Short today is: isn’t it true and to gain confidence in applying for pre- that, on 15 February, Mr Costello announced selection and then election by the public. It a cut of $985 million to the government’s IT was a proven method that worked: giving budget as a ‘savings measure’ to fund opposi- assistance to those who are interested in tion promises made before the election? Does standing for parliament. That is going to give the government intend to keep this promise you long-term— or, in view of your answer, Senator Short, are The PRESIDENT—Order! all your election commitments to be regarded as ‘absolutely speculative’? Senator Vanstone—What about Blaxland? Senator SHORT—My answer is precisely Senator NEWMAN—No, we are not going what it was yesterday, and that is that the to get a woman in Blaxland—we know that government will be announcing its decisions already. The factions have already got that in relation to expenditure and revenue items delineated. Mary Easson looks as if she is in the budget on 20 August—the day the going completely. From 1 July we will have budget is introduced. Until that time the 23 women in the Senate out of 76 senators. Labor Party opposite can whistle in the wind That means we are up to 30.2 per cent in this in terms of seeking information on particular chamber. All senators should be pleased that items. They are all budget matters which will we in the Senate have got that. be announced in the budget. 258 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

Senator COOK—I seek leave to table a in Britain, where local call rates rose by 27 press release by the shadow Treasurer, Mr per cent and domestic installation costs rose Peter Costello, on 15 February 1996 entitled by a massive 61 per cent, with only govern- ‘Meeting our commitments’, in particular ment regulation preventing further rises? page 3 of that press release. Senator ALSTON—The fact is that New Leave granted. Zealand has free local residential calls. Senator COOK—Senator Short is confus- Senator Bourne—They always have. ing election commitments with a budget Senator ALSTON—Indeed. That is why— process, so— Senator Bell—That has nothing to do with Senator Hill—What is he doing? it. The PRESIDENT—Are you asking a Senator ALSTON—If the parrot brigade supplementary question? will listen to the answer, I will explain it. The Senator COOK—Yes. He is confusing reason they have very high access charges is election commitments with budget process, so to compensate for the fact that they have free I will give him another chance. Does the local residential calls. You cannot compare government stand by the commitment of Mr the access charges of a country that has no Costello on 15 February or not? local residential calls with a country that has both. Therefore, if you look at Australia’s Senator SHORT—The government stands access charges under NUS, I think you will entirely on its commitment to take measures find that we are about the fifth highest out of which will repair the economic vandalism to the 12-day survey. I have not seen the latest the finances of this nation that were undertak- one, but it is consistent with the one before en by your government in the most deceitful that. NUS has done consistent surveys on way. These actions led to there being a black local call charges in recent years which have hole of $8,000 million in the budget figures. shown that Australia—I think they reduced Right until election day the then government the rate of 25c to 23.8c to average it out— refused to come clean about this $8,000 effectively has the highest local call charges million black hole and open the books to the in the world. Australian people. The Leader of the Opposi- tion, the then Minister for Finance, is abso- It is rather sad that you want to quibble lutely and inexcusably responsible for this about whether or not the rate is 25c or 24c or black hole. whether it is the highest or maybe only the second highest. The fact is that it is far too Telephone Call Charges high and there are ways in which you can get Senator BOURNE—My question is ad- these things down very substantially. If you dressed to the Minister for Communications look at the New Zealand experience, for and the Arts. Minister, yesterday in question example, you will find that 10 years ago their time you intimated that Australia has the level of total factor productivity was well highest local telephone call rates in the world. below that of Telstra’s. Over the last decade Are you aware that the March survey by cost they have doubled the rate of growth and they analysts NUS International showed that are now performing much better than us. That Australian local call prices are lower than just happens to coincide with the privatisation comparable countries such as Belgium and the process which commenced in 1988 and, of Netherlands? Are you also aware that the course, the opening up to very dramatic Bureau of Industry Economics has said that competition, even without a regulator. Their Australia’s household phone rental rates are regulatory costs are much lower than ours and comparatively low and, in particular, are their levels of efficiency are much higher than about half of New Zealand’s, where home ours. phone rentals have risen by 30 per cent since We have all learnt from the British experi- privatisation? Finally, what lessons do you ence; we borrowed Austel. One of the reasons draw from the first eight years of privatisation why we introduced consumer guarantee prop- Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 259 osals in our election commitments was that than competition that delivers reduced local we were concerned to ensure that those call prices and dramatic efficiencies, will the benefits flowed on—that you did not simply minister be issuing instructions to Telstra to find even worse quality of service as a result deliver lower prices to domestic consumers of any major changes that you might make. while he has the opportunity to do so? We are actually going to require penalties to Senator ALSTON—The first statement is be paid if installation and maintenance calls categorically wrong. New Zealand does not are not made on time. I do not regard it as have a regulator. You ought to know that. satisfactory for Telstra to agree to come to They rely on the commerce act, which is the your premises. You take the day off waiting trade practices equivalent. They rely entirely for them and then they say, ‘Sorry, we on negotiations in the market place. As a couldn’t make it.’ We are actually putting in result, they have achieved enormous efficien- place a very rigid and effective customer cies and very significant reductions in local regime. call charges. Do you know what I find deeply disturbing Honourable senators interjecting— about this whole debate? When the Democrats were asked, ‘What further customer protect- Senator ALSTON—I have forgotten the ions would you like in relation to the second part of your question; you may wish privatisation of Telstra?’, they said, ‘We’re to kindly remind me. not really interested in that at all; we are Senator Bourne—Lower prices while you simply opposed. In other words, we have a have time. blind ideological commitment based on 1960s notions of natural monopolies. We are not Senator ALSTON—Oh, yes, while we still concerned about how you could deliver the have time. You do not have much longer to goods for consumers.’ Go off and study the wait before Optus comes into the market with rest of the world. You will find that they are local call charges. I think you will find that all going down that privatisation track for the they will be offering significant discounts. one very good reason that it has enormous Once they do that, Telstra will no longer be consumer benefits. You would say that the able to charge monopoly rates. rest of the world is out of step. You would Senator Schacht—That will reduce the say that they all have $8 billion holes and that price of Telstra. is why they are doing it. They are all doing Senator ALSTON—Indeed, that might be it because they know that you can achieve your mind-set, but that is not our priority. We dramatic efficiencies. The only way you will want to see efficiencies in the system; we do get costs down and quality of service up is to not want to maximise revenue first. We have make the sorts of cuts that Telstra itself a very different approach. (Time expired) recognises needs to be made. Senator Schacht—How many will they Civil Aviation Safety Authority sack? Senator FORSHAW—My question is Senator ALSTON—They talk to their directed to the Minister representing the annual report about a 30 per cent unit cost Minister for Transport and Regional Develop- reduction over the next two years. Do you ment. Has the minister for transport called in support that? As a failed Telecom technician, members of the board of the Civil Aviation do you support that? (Time expired) Safety Authority to resign? If so, what rea- sons does the minister give for such a course Senator BOURNE—I wish to ask a supple- of action? mentary question, Mr President. Firstly, I wish to say that I find what the minister has Senator ALSTON—Thank you, Mr Presi- just said quite offensive. After saying that— dent. As I understand it, no, they have not and I do find it offensive—given the evidence been called in. It is a four-member board, as from overseas, which the minister must have you would be aware, Senator Forshaw. The read because I have, that it is regulation rather Minister for Transport and Regional Develop- 260 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 ment, Mr Sharp, phoned each member of the Senator FORSHAW—I ask the minister a board personally— supplementary question: is it the intention of Senator Forshaw—Called them up? the government to appoint Mr Dick Smith to the board of the authority? Senator ALSTON—Called them up, yes, or dressed them down; I don’t know. All I am Senator ALSTON—I have no knowledge saying is that I understand that he did not call of whom Mr Sharp might have in mind but, them into his office. He simply rang up and undoubtedly, he would be wanting to appoint reminded them of our pre-election commit- people with aviation experience. If we are ments and asked them to honour that. He did going to be confronted with the current not do that because of the fact that the chair- impasse, Mr Sharp has already obtained the man of the commission might have been the Prime Minister’s agreement to priority for the federal Labor candidate for Lowe once; he did introduction of legislation to amend the Civil it because we take the view that it is very Aviation Act 1988 to allow us to fulfil our important— election commitment. Senator Robert Ray interjecting— I can assure you that at the end of the day, if we are in a position to make those neces- Senator ALSTON—What are you paid for sary and important changes, the people we these days? Sitting back up there pontificat- will put on board will not be the usual party ing? You might be able to beat Bolkus’s TA hacks, old mates or branch networkers that if you really try. The fact is that, unlike you you might like to appoint to government lot— authorities. The people we will appoint to a Senator Bob Collins interjecting— board that is charged with the very important responsibility of oversighting civil aviation Senator ALSTON—You ought to be will be people with the requisite experience. ashamed of yourself—all those specious It is a pity you did not recognise that long reasons you trotted out for the east-west ago. runway not being able to open up. The fact is that we think it is very important to have Senator Knowles—Mr President. people with aviation experience on the CASA. Senator Hill—I ask that further questions We do not have that at the present time. We be placed on the Notice Paper. therefore took the view that it was very important to be able to have that expertise. The PRESIDENT—I have called Senator Knowles. That is why Mr Sharp very publicly but very politely made it plain that we did not Families have confidence in a board that was not Senator KNOWLES—Mr President, my constituted in the best possible way. We took question is addressed to Senator Short, who that view prior to the election. We did not is the Minister representing the Treasurer. simply sneak up on them afterwards, having One of our government election promises was said all nice things to them beforehand. We a family tax incentive. Minister, could you made it plain that we put safety first. explain to the Senate how this initiative will Senator Sherry—Could you take the same give recognition to the families so badly attitude to the High Court? ignored by Labor, particularly those with very young children and single parents. Senator ALSTON—Actually, there is a constitution that stops that, Nick, so it’s a bit Senator SHORT—I thank Senator Knowles harder. for that question because it demonstrates the vast gulf that exists between Labor and the Senator Sherry—Have you thought about Howard government in their attitudes towards it? families. Under the Labor government Aus- Senator ALSTON—Changing the constitu- tralian families were absolutely ravaged so far tion? If you want to support us on constitu- as their living standards were concerned. In tional change give us a yell. contrast, the new government has the well- Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 261 being of Australian families at the very income testing, with one being based on the highest point of its priorities. number of children in the family. As to the As I said, under Labor the wellbeing of matter Senator Knowles particularly asked Australian families was ravaged. Real wages about, there will be an additional level of fell. Those on the lowest incomes saw their assistance available to single income families earnings fall the most. Middle Australia found with a child under the age of five. The policy it harder to make ends meet and to save for package is designed to restore the wellbeing the future. of every Australian family.(Time expired) The current account deficit and the foreign Senator Hill—Mr President, I ask that debt forced up interest rates to amongst the further questions be placed on the Notice highest in the world, which hurt every Aus- Paper. tralian family. Average monthly mortgage Aboriginal Flags repayments rose by nearly 50 per cent during Labor’s term in government and many Aus- Senator HERRON (Queensland—Minister tralians have seen the value of their most for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prized possession, the family home, fall. Affairs)—Further to the answer I gave to Senator Collins yesterday when he asked, During Labor’s 13 years there was a dra- ‘Does the government have any plans to matic increase in taxes payable and that change the status of the Aboriginal and Torres impacted heavily on every family. We all Strait Islander flag?’, I am pleased to tell him know the infamous promises of tax cuts with that the answer is no. which the then government lied its way back into office in 1993, only to break those Senator Bob Collins—Sorry? promises and deceive every Australian family Senator HERRON—The answer to your after the election. question yesterday is no. Have you forgotten Mr President, the coalition believes that the question you asked yesterday? families are the very best social welfare Senator Bob Collins—Why didn’t you say system that has ever been devised. One of the that yesterday? greatest challenges of modern family life is to Senator HERRON—I am telling you now. balance effectively work commitments and goals against family responsibilities and Economy aspirations. Any credible family policy must Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy be directed at helping families to achieve that Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.06 balance. p.m.)—I move: The coalition’s $1 billion family tax pack- That the Senate take note of the answer given by age does just that. It demonstrates our com- the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Short), to a ques- tion without notice asked by Senator Sherry today, mitment to Australian families, particularly relating to the economy. low and middle income families. It will give families greater incentive and more choice Senator Short showed that he was totally about how they balance their work and their unprepared not only for my question but for family responsibilities. the range of economic questions put to him today by the opposition. Since he could not The family package is a two-pronged give me an answer to my question, for his initiative and it will deliver assistance to edification I have obtained the information families with children, commencing on 1 from the library. Australia’s tax revenue as a January 1997. It will benefit all types of percentage of GDP in 1993 was 28.7 per Australian families—working couples with cent—second lowest to Turkey. If we look children, single income families and single through a list of the revenue statistics for 24 parent families. It also recognises the extra OECD countries, we see that Australia has the cost of very young children. second lowest tax revenue as a percentage of There will be two forms of assistance gross domestic product. Let us look at out- available to eligible families on the basis of lays, which the new government is busily 262 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 slashing in its slash and burn approach to the Norway 45.7 budget. Australia’s outlays as a percentage of Belgium 45.7 GDP is 37.3 per cent—the second lowest only Finland 45.7 to the United States of America. Yet we have Luxembourg 44.8 accusations from the new government that France 43.9 taxation was too high under the former Labor Austria 43.8 government and that expenditure was too high Greece 41.2 Germany 39.0 under the former Labor government. Nothing Ireland 36.3 can be further from the truth. Canada 35.8 I apologise for not having given a copy of New Zealand 35.7 these tables to Senator Short. I seek leave to Spain 35.1 incorporate a copy of OECD Revenue Statist- United Kingdom 33.6 ics and of the OECD Economic Outlook for Switzerland 33.2 December 1995 which shows the percentage Portugal 31.4 of nominal gross domestic product total Iceland 31.3 outlays. United States 29.7 Japan 29.1 Leave granted. Australia 28.7 The documents read as follows— Turkey 23.5 Table 1 Unweighted Total tax revenue as percentage of gross Average: domestic product at market prices OECD Total 38.7 1993 OECD Europe 40.5 Denmark 49.0 EC 41.4 Sweden 49.9 Footnote to Table 1: Netherlands 48.0 1. Provisional estimates for 1994 are provided in Italy 47.8 Part 1V.

Annex Table 2B: General government total outlays as a percentage of nominal GDP Estimates and projections 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 United States 29.9 31.8 32.1 33.9 33.9 32.6 33.2 33.7 33.4 32.5 32.4 33.3 34.0 35.0 34.5 33.5 33.5 33.4 33.2 Japan 31.1 32.0 32.8 33.0 33.3 32.3 31.6 32.0 32.2 31.6 30.9 31.7 31.4 32.3 34.3 35.8 37.6 39.2 40.0 Germany 47.2 47.9 48.7 49.0 47.8 47.4 47.0 46.4 46.7 46.3 44.8 45.1 47.9 48.5 49.6 49.1 49.5 48.5 48.2 France 45.0 46.1 48.6 50.3 51.4 51.9 52.1 51.3 50.9 50.0 49.1 49.8 50.5 52.2 55.0 54.8 53.7 53.7 53.0 Italy 41.6 41.9 45.9 47.6 48.7 49.3 50.9 50.7 50.2 50.3 50.3 53.2 53.5 53.6 56.9 54.1 52.5 51.1 49.8 United Kingdom 40.9 43.0 44.2 44.5 44.7 45.1 44.0 42.4 40.7 37.9 37.5 39.9 40.7 43.0 43.6 43.2 42.2 41.6 41.1 Canada 37.3 38.8 39.8 44.8 45.3 45.0 45.3 44.6 43.5 42.5 43.1 46.0 49.2 50.2 49.4 47.1 46.5 45.8 44.8 Total of above 35.0 36.4 37.4 38.8 39.0 38.3 38.4 38.4 38.1 37.2 36.9 38.0 38.9 39.9 40.6 40.1 40.1 40.1 39.9 countries Australia 31.4 31.4 31.4 32.9 35.1 35.4 36.4 37.4 35.3 33.6 33.0 34.9 37.3 37.8 37.6 37.4 37.3 36.0 35.2 Austria 48.2 48.1 49.5 50.1 50.4 50.0 50.9 51.6 51.9 50.2 49.0 48.6 49.7 50.5 53.2 52.2 52.1 51.9 51.6 Belgium 57.7 58.6 63.7 63.8 63.8 62.5 61.9 61.3 59.5 57.0 54.9 55.0 56.2 56.3 56.8 56.1 55.4 53.8 53.5 Denmark 53.2 56.2 59.8 61.2 61.6 60.4 59.3 55.7 57.3 59.4 59.6 58.6 59.2 61.3 63.8 63.3 61.6 61.2 60.5 Finland 38.4 38.1 39.0 40.8 42.4 42.0 43.8 44.7 45.0 44.0 42.0 45.4 53.9 59.1 60.2 59.2 57.6 54.6 53.5 Greece 30.2 30.6 35.3 36.0 37.9 40.3 43.6 42.7 42.6 42.7 44.0 46.4 43.7 44.7 46.9 48.0 47.0 46.7 46.0 Ireland 45.1 48.9 50.2 53.0 53.0 51.3 52.4 52.7 50.6 47.3 40.6 41.2 42.2 42.9 42.8 43.5 42.1 41.6 41.2 Netherlands 53.7 55.8 57.5 59.4 59.7 58.5 57.1 57.0 58.5 56.7 53.9 54.1 54.6 55.1 55.3 53.1 50.9 49.9 49.2 Norway 45.2 43.3 43.0 43.3 43.4 41.5 40.9 44.6 46.0 47.9 48.7 49.2 49.9 51.4 50.9 49.3 46.5 45.2 45.1 Portugal 34.4 23.8 41.9 40.9 45.6 42.1 41.2 41.6 40.2 39.4 38.4 41.8 43.9 43.4 45.0 44.0 44.0 43.5 42.8 Spain 30.1 32.2 34.9 36.6 37.7 38.1 41.2 40.7 39.6 39.5 40.9 42.0 43.5 44.5 47.6 46.1 44.4 43.7 42.9 Sweden 60.0 60.1 62.6 64.8 64.5 62.0 63.3 61.6 57.8 58.1 58.3 59.1 61.3 67.2 72.5 68.8 66.7 64.9 62.6 Total of above 41.7 42.2 45.2 46.5 47.5 46.9 47.9 47.8 47.0 46.2 45.7 46.8 48.3 49.6 51.3 50.1 48.8 47.8 47.0 smaller countries Total of above 43.8 44.7 47.2 48.2 48.6 48.6 48.9 48.3 47.7 46.9 46.4 47.5 48.8 50.0 51.9 50.9 50.0 49.1 48.4 European countries Total of above 35.9 37.2 38.5 39.8 40.1 39.4 39.7 39.7 39.3 38.4 38.1 39.2 40.1 41.2 42.0 41.4 41.3 41.1 40.8 OECD countries Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 263

(a) Current outlays plus net capital outlays. (b) Excludes deposit insurance outlays. Includes interest received (which is treated as a negative outlay in the National Income and Product Accounts) and payments made by federal, state and local employee pension schemes. (c) Includes outlays of the German Railways Fund from 1994 on and of the Inherited Debt Fund from 1995 on. ECONOMIC INDICATORS OUTPUT, DEMAND AND JOBS In February, French industrial production edged up 0.2%, leaving it a mere 0.4% higher than a year earlier. Over the same period Swedish industrial output fell by 0.5%. In the 12 months to January the volume of retail sales in Japan rose by 1.9%, its lowest rate since December 1994; Canada’s fell by 1.2% and Sweden’s by 0.5%.

% change at annual rate The Economist poll Industrial Retail sales Unemployment GDP GDP forecasts production (volume) % rate

3 mths# 1 year 1996 1997 3 mths# 1 year 1 year latest year ago

Australia + 2.0 + 3.1 Q4 + 3.0 + 3.1 - 1.4 - 0.3 Q4 + 4.6 Q4 8.5 Mar 8.7 Austria + 7.9 + 1.2 Q3* + 1.6 + 2.5 - 9.3 + 0.6 Dec - 2.7 Dec 7.4 Mar 6.3 Belgium + 1.6 + 0.7 Q4 + 1.4 + 2.3 - 24.2 - 2.8 Sep + 1.0 Nov 13.7 Mar* 13.6 Britain + 2.3 + 2.0 Q4 + 2.2 + 3.2 + 0.5 + 1.2 Feb + 1.9 Feb 7.8 Mar 8.4 Canada + 0.8 + 0.6 Q4 + 1.9 + 2.7 + 0.5 + 0.1 Jan - 1.2 Jan 9.3 Mar 9.7 Denmark - 0.2 + 1.4 Q4 + 1.9 + 2.4 na - 6.0 Dec* + 0.7 Dec 9.1 Feb 10.8 France - 1.2 + 0.7 Q4 + 1.3 + 2.7 + 3.4 + 0.4 Feb + 2.9 Feb 11.8 Feb 11.8 Germany - 1.6 + 1.0 Q4 + 1.0 + 2.5 - 3.7 - 4.8 Feb nil Feb 10.8 Mar* 9.6 Italy - 3.6 + 2.3 Q4 + 2.0 + 2.6 + 6.1 + 3.8 Feb - 10.6 Dec 12.6 Dec 12.1 Japan + 3.6 + 2.2 Q4 + 2.3 + 2.3 + 13.2 + 3.3 Feb + 1.9 Jan 3.3 Feb 2.9 Netherlands + 0.2 + 1.6 Q4 + 1.8 + 2.5 + 0.9 + 1.4 Dec + 2.6 Dec 7.1 Feb ** 7.3 Spain + 1.6 + 2.6 Q4 + 2.5 + 2.8 - 8.5 - 1.2 Jan na 22.8 Q4* 23.9 Sweden - 1.4 + 1.7 Q4 + 1.6 + 2.0 - 7.7 - 0.5 Feb - 0.5 Jan 7.4 Mar* 7.6 Switzerland - 0.4 - 0.2 Q4 + 0.8 + 1.9 nil + 2.7 Q3 + 4.5 Feb 4.6 Mar* 4.4 United States + 0.5 + 1.3 Q4 + 1.9 + 2.4 + 2.7 + 1.3 Mar +2.3 Mar## 5.6 Mar 5.5 * Not seasonally adjusted # Average of latest three months compared with average of previous three months, at annual rate ** Dec-Feb ## New series

Senator SHERRY—We had some more education and health and to destroy the jobs good economic news today that Senator Short of public servants in this country. did not refer to. It is always the bad news that Senator SHORT (Victoria—Assistant he refers to. He never attributes any good Treasurer) (3.09 p.m.)—Let me pick up the news to the former Labor government. It was final point that Senator Sherry was making. interesting to note today that the seasonally He was saying that today’s balance of pay- adjusted current account deficit and the trend ments result of $1.5 billion was a good result. estimate was down 3 per cent. It is the lowest Anyone on either side of the chamber who figure since March 1994. But there was no thinks that a monthly balance of payments mention of this by Senator Short. There was deficit of $1.5 billion is a good result has no no attributing that to the record and the right to represent any economic portfolio in performance of the former Labor government. this parliament. It is still a disastrously high result. It is good that the deficit is falling; we All you do is pick up bad news to suit your welcome that. I readily acknowledge that. But circumstances—to slash and burn, to reintro- to be complacent about the balance of pay- duce Fightback. That is all you do—pick up ments and the external accounts of this bad news in order to destroy the programs on country when we happen to have a balance of 264 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 payments figure which, annualised, still gives which wreaked such economic havoc in a balance of payments deficit of $18 billion Australia that we are, in some respects, still absolutely defies comprehension. living with today. Let me make a few points about the figures We will be living with the legacy of the that Senator Sherry was talking about. It is vandalism of your 13 years in government for very difficult, as I am sure Senator Sherry many years to come. That is the point I was acknowledges, to make comparisons of the making today. Your party has always been a tax regimes of different countries. There are high-taxing, high-spending government which the questions of what is included and what is has reduced the opportunity, incentive and excluded and so on. choice of average individuals and families to Senator Sherry—I agree. do the things that they are best able to do. You believe that a big state and a big govern- Senator SHORT—I am glad to see you ment overrides the interests of individuals. acknowledging that. My first point is that it That is shown in tax and expenditure statist- is very difficult to make accurate international ics. That is the point I was making, and I comparisons. My second point is that I did reaffirm it. not deny today that, within the span of OECD countries, Australia is down towards the lower The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I put the end of taxation. I have never denied that. This question: government has never denied that. But that is That the Senate take note of the answer. a difficult comparison to make accurately. It Question resolved in the affirmative. also totally ignores the tax regimes of many Senator Cook—Madam Deputy President! of our main competitor countries—the devel- Senator Michael Baume—I think it is our oping nations of Asia and South East Asia. It turn for the call, isn’t it? is those countries that are the biggest com- petitive threat and that also have a competi- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator tive advantage. So you cannot ignore the Sherry moved that the Senate take note of an wider than OECD tax regime comparisons. answer. Senator Short has spoken. I would The point that I was making to Senator then call somebody from the government Sherry today was that, under the former benches. government, taxes and expenditure rose Senator Michael Baume—The motion is inexorably and there was little or no attempt to take note of another answer. The motion to to keep them under control. take note of the first answer came from the opposition side. As I understand the proced- Senator Cook—That is not true. ure, the next motion should be the right of the Senator SHORT—You say that it is not government side. correct. In the last year of the Fraser govern- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—That has not ment, income tax as a proportion of GDP was been the practice. 16.3 per cent. In the year that we are in now, 1995-96, it is anticipated on the budget Information Technology figures that, as a percentage of GDP, income Senator COOK (Western Australia) (3.15 tax will be 17.6 per cent. p.m.)—I move: Senator Cook—He is anticipating the That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Short), to a ques- figure. Make up a number. tion without notice asked by Senator Cook today, Senator SHORT—Make up a number, you relating to the effect of proposed budget cuts on say. That is what you spent your whole life information technology. doing. That is income tax. So far as sales tax In question time today I asked Senator Short is concerned, it has gone from 2.0 to 2.9 per a very direct and succinct question about cent. Indeed, today, as a result of 13 years of where does the government stand on its Labor, the proportion of income and sales tax election promises. What I was met with was, to GDP is higher than it was even at the in the first place, a reply that he stands by the height of the Whitlam years, those years answer he gave yesterday. Yesterday he did Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 265 not give an answer, so I guess he stands by tive industry worldwide. Australia has a very nothing at all. But today we never got an competitive position in that industry. In part answer either. What we got was a confu- its position of competitiveness is achieved sion—and it may well be that the minister is because it is able to win government contracts in fact confused on this point—about an in this country. If you deny it that opportunity election undertaking and the budget process. its economies of scale suffer and its ability to I am not asking about the budget process; I win markets in the world is reduced accord- am asking about the election undertaking. The ingly. election undertaking was quite clear and This is not just ‘a savings measure’. This is specific. a measure which reduces services that the In question time today I referred to this government can provide, efficiencies that the press release by Peter Costello, the Deputy government can achieve. By this cut you do Leader of the Opposition and then shadow cut off your nose to spite your face. It is not Treasurer, which he put down on 15 February a saving. Reducing these expenditures is 1996. It was headed, ‘Meeting our commit- indeed a cost. More than that, they create the ments’. Specifically, I table page three of that prospect of job loss in information technology which is headed, ‘reduce information technol- industries. If Australia is not world competi- ogy expenditure’. Then there is a list of tive in that field, given that we are in an financial implications showing a cut in the IT information age and an information revolu- budget by the government of, in 1996-97, tion, then we will be importing foreign made $350 million; in 1997-98, $335 million and in computers and foreign made information 1998-99, $300 million, a total over the three- technology, which will blow the current year period of $985 million. account deficit right off the face of the earth. That was a commitment given by the This is a serious matter. opposition prior to the election in an effort to All I want to know is: does the government demonstrate to the Australian people that they intend to honour the commitment it gave could fund their election promises. Yesterday before the election to make these cuts? I I asked a specific question: what studies did would like to hear a big no, but, since yester- the opposition at the time undertake to see, if day my inquiry was described as entirely you slash information technology by that speculative, I simply ask. This is not a specu- amount, what efficiencies that you could have lative matter. You have said on the record achieved do you forgo, what services that you that the black letter of what you have pro- could have delivered to the Australian com- posed is that you will do this. Are you going munity do you forgo, or did you simply think to do it or are you not? Do we have to simply of a figure and cut it? wait for four months because you confuse an These sorts of decisions are not simply election undertaking with the budget process? decisions of funding. These are decisions in Do we have to wait four months to find out? which cost benefit analysis must be undertak- What does the Australian information technol- en if you are serious about managing govern- ogy industry do in the meantime? Does it ment responsibility. There ought to be, there- hold back investment or does it proceed with fore, a consideration of what limitation on it? Does it continue to prepare applications efficiency and services there will be by for government tender or does it not? Do you reducing the IT budget in this way. put the whole industry in stall, ultimately The opposition’s position is clear. We do leading to free-fall and a lack of competitive- not want these cuts to occur. We do not think ness? What do you do? they should occur. I also wanted to know The fact that there is a deafening refusal to from the government whether or not they had answer that question is a major condemnation conferred with the Australian information of the government and a position in which the technology industry. It is a major supplier of government is clearly offside with a leading services to the government. A cut of this sector of the Australian business community, nature will devastate it. It is a highly competi- and a leading area of Australian industry 266 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 which is the hope of this country. (Time This profile, incorporating a period of temporary expired) weakness, was implied in the economic forecasts released by the Treasurer on 12 March 1996 as Question resolved in the affirmative. background to a statement of the Government’s fiscal policy intentions. It is also consistent with Budget Cuts expectations recorded in recent business surveys. Senator MICHAEL BAUME (New South In other words, this booklet that just came out Wales) (3.21 p.m.)—I move: clearly shows that these factors were taken That the Senate take note of the answer given by into account. Senator Kernot tried to misrep- the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), to resent that to this chamber. I think that is just a question without notice asked by the Leader of disgraceful, but no doubt it meets Senator the Australian Democrats (Senator Kernot) today, Kernot’s particular political requirements. relating to the economy. The fact is that, as this document reveals, Senator Kernot did an extraordinary thing on 12 March 1996 the Treasurer released a here today. She produced a document and revised estimate of the 1995-96 Common- then misquoted it in a way deliberately wealth budget position, revised projections of aimed, it seemed to me—I could be open to the budget position over the medium term and correction—to mislead the chamber. Senator the government’s intended strategy for reduc- Kernot said that the Treasury’s latest econom- ing the budget deficit. The revised budget ic document indicated that the budget black figures contained in the table include the hole of $8 billion was overstated and would impact of policies announced by the previous be reduced. That was the clear implication of government but not the underlying budget what she said. balances for the out years. The document Senator Kernot—Had ‘cast doubt.’ That is states: what I said. . . . the underlying budget balances for the outyears Senator MICHAEL BAUME—‘Cast similarly reflects weaker economic parameters and in addition the impact of projected public debt doubt,’ she said. This is the sort of doubt that, interest payments of the upward revisions to the when you read the document, is no doubt Budget deficits over the forecast period. whatsoever. I will read from the document for The document then goes on to say, on page Senator Kernot’s benefit and the benefit of the 7: chamber. The document says of the slow- down: The Treasurer announced the objective of returning the Budget to an underlying balance in 1997-98 ...... the indications are that it is temporary... In this very document it says: This is at page 1. I thought you might have . . . this will involve measures to reduce the Budget been able at least to get through page 1. The deficit by $4 billion in 1996-97 and a further $4 report says: billion in 1997-98. . . . the indications are that it— This is not revised. There is no resiling from that is, the slowdown in growth— the $8 billion. Not on your nelly. This docu- is temporary and growth should strengthen during ment confirms what was said to the Treasurer the course of the calendar year. and the revised budget deficit expectation— Senator Kernot—That is what I said. I the $8 billion dollar blow-out. It confirms it. quoted that in my question. It does not in any way diminish it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME—Why don’t Senator Kernot should be ashamed of you just be quiet and listen. It goes on to say: herself. Another matter that is of significance Divergent movements appear to have continued in in that document which should be brought to the first quarter of 1996 . . . As the impact of the the attention of the Senate is that on a nation- contractionary influences from the stock and al accounts basis growth in unit labour costs dwelling cycle wanes, stronger growth in activity increased significantly over the second half of should resume over 1996-97... 1995. This reflected on the one hand an It then goes on to say this, which Senator increase in average earnings stemming from Kernot magically missed: a pick up of wage pressures in 1995 com- Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 267 bined with increases in various other things— Senator SHORT (Victoria—Assistant superannuation entitlements, and so on. Treasurer) (3.28 p.m.)—Is Senator Kernot So they are warning, if you like, that there seriously suggesting that every time there is is an underlying CPI inflation problem and a report that economic growth might change that the longer term outlook for inflation will from the present official level of forecasts you be heavily dependent on movements in labour should revise all your other economic statist- costs and the stance of monetary policy. ics, including your budget parameters? Thank heavens we have a government now Senator Wheelwright—That’s exactly what that will respond properly to those challenges you’ve done. and those risks. I hope we do not have to put up with the sort of misleading nonsense we Senator Murphy—That’s what you keep have just heard from Senator Kernot. saying. Senator KERNOT (Queensland—Leader Senator SHORT—That is absolutely of the Australian Democrats) (3.26 p.m.)—A wrong, Senator Wheelwright and Senator couple of things need to be made clear. We Murphy. We have said that, based on the are asking questions about economic forecast- latest official forecasts, there is a black hole ing. We are asking questions about how you of $8 billion in the budget bottom line. If you can say in January that by the end of the year, do not believe that there is an $8 billion hole especially by August, you will definitely have in the budget, you are saying that you do not an $8 billion black hole. You cannot. That is believe the official forecasts that are on the the point which I think needs to be made. public record and reinforced, as Senator The key question is: are the forecasts right? Baume says, in the Treasury’s bulletin of The second question we have been asking in yesterday. Nothing that the bulletin article question time is: is the $8 billion spending cut said yesterday in any way contradicts the the appropriate response? That is all we are official forecasts that are there. asking. If I can find the appropriate page in Yesterday’s document does not provide an today’s Treasury Economic Round-up,I official revision of the forecasts. It does not would like to point out that Treasury admits say that at all. It simply reaffirms the under- its GDP growth forecasts have been out by an lying basis of the existing forecasts, and it is average of 1.25 per cent over the last two the existing forecasts on which the $8 billion decades. Do you know what that translates to? black hole is based. There is no prevarication In economic terms that is a $6 billion margin about this in any way at all. The $8 billion of error. bottom line figure follows automatically on Senator Hill—What if it goes the other the government’s official figures, which are way? based on those from Treasury. We are saying Senator KERNOT—That is right. All I that until such time as forecasts change, and asked Senator Hill was whether the govern- of course forecasts can change in the future, ment was prepared to adjust their $8 billion the only way in which any government can figure in the light of revised forecasts if those operate is on the basis of the existing fore- forecasts were revised downwards. That is the casts. That is the only way in which govern- issue because a lot of people are having their ment can operate responsibly. lives, their livelihoods particularly, terminated What Senator Kernot was putting to the based on this entirely imprecise science of Senate today, with great respect to you, forecasting when Treasury itself has said, Senator Kernot, was highly misleading be- ‘Yes, we have to admit this. Actually, we’ve cause she gave the impression that somehow got quite a good record but we have been out or other the Treasury was now saying some- by 1.25 per cent over the past two decades.’ thing different from what it said in the release All I am saying is that surely the government of the official forecasts, on which the can give us a reassurance that if the forecast- government’s $8 billion deficit has been ing is revised downwards it will act humane- based. That is quite simply wrong, with ly. respect. I think you have misread and 268 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 misunderstood the Treasury bulletin docu- matter of public importance be submitted to ment. the Senate for discussion, namely: Senator Patterson interjecting— The government’s deliberate attempt to create undue and needless anxiety in the Australian Senator SHORT—I am being very gener- community in its ideological pursuit of $8 billion ous. It is early in the life of the new parlia- in spending cuts. ment, so I am giving Senator Kernot the I call upon those senators who approve of the benefit of the doubt on this second day. If she proposed discussion to rise in their places. does the same thing next week or in a few weeks time, we will be a little less generous. More than the number of senators required The fact is that what she put to the Senate by the standing orders having risen in their today was quite wrong. There is an $8 billion places— budget deficit. It is a deficit of deceit by the Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy previous government. It is a deficit that it Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.36 knew about before the election. The key role p.m.)—The new government has come into was very much played by the now Leader of office professing honesty and integrity. But the Opposition, the then Minister for Finance one of its first actions has been to make (Mr Beazley), in deliberately covering up the incorrect assertions about an $8 billion budget true state of the previous government’s finan- deficit. In fact, it does not just make an ces. (Time expired) assertion, it boasts about an $8 billion so- called black hole. It is using this as an excuse Question resolved in the affirmative. to slash and burn not just public service jobs QUESTION TIME but a variety of public programs, like educa- tion and health. We are going to find out the Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral- true extent of that slash and burn, as ministers ia)—by leave—As the Assistant Treasurer keep reiterating, in August when the budget (Senator Short) has thought that there is time is delivered. for warnings, I want to put on the record at this early stage of the parliament that, as I There are a number of aspects of the ap- understood it, the Liberal Party’s traditional proach of the government that I want to deal position about taking note of answers had with today, as do my colleagues Senator Cook been that it was a time for opposition sena- and Senator Wheelwright. I want to place on tors. They made that point very strongly to record and reiterate Labor’s economic record, us. since it is being subjected to some consider- able rewriting of history—a rewriting of I do not think we should have any hard and history that the new government was very fast rules for the minister to use up 10 fond of accusing the former Prime Minister of minutes of the 30 minutes allocated for taking doing. notice when he is going to speak to the MPI that comes on later today. It is perhaps exces- I also want to examine very briefly the sive. We might have an informal consider- record of the Prime Minister (John Howard). ation on how it is going to operate. If we have a black hole, you have a black void. Go and ask an astronomer what the Senator Hill—You are asking for a better difference is between the two. Your contribu- performance from us than what yourselves tion to a black hole under John Howard as gave; is that what you are asking? Treasurer, up until 1983, was massive com- Senator CHRIS EVANS—Yes. pared to any alleged black hole we had. Senator Hill—Okay, we will do our best. In terms of our general economic perform- ance, I would like to quote from a speech, MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE which appears in the Reserve Bank bulletin, given by the head of the Reserve Bank, Mr Economic Policy Fraser. It says: The PRESIDENT—I have received a letter By the standards of other developed countries we from Senator Sherry proposing that a definite have not done badly. The economy has expanded Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 269 by more than a third over the past decade and a able to maintain inflation in a lower band proper interpretation of the data— than that. I emphasise ‘a proper interpretation of the A lot has been said about the current data’— account, and certainly it could be better. We —as well as casual observation—suggests that the could have a more comfortably low current vast majority of Australians are better off today account. It is currently approximately 4½ per than ever before. To be distracted by concerns that other countries (including some of our Asian neigh- cent of gross domestic product, but there has bours)— been a major improvement in recent times. It was approaching six per cent last year. The as Senator Short alleged earlier— sorts of figures that were released today, have caught up or surpassed us is to confuse the which Senator Short and I referred to earlier, issues at stake. show a continuing downward trend. I would also like to refer to the latest eco- nomic indicators in the Economist. Interest- A key to this, of course, is the issue of ingly, of the dozen countries surveyed, Aus- national savings. I highlight the introduction tralia—surprise, surprise—has been at the top of the superannuation levy when we were in of the economic growth league over the last government. It has been adopted as a biparti- year. Australia is at the top of the economic san policy. I will acknowledge that of the new growth league when compared to other com- government. They did not give us any credit parable OECD western countries. That is a for it. They opposed it bitterly when we very impressive record. I will seek leave to introduced it. That will further enhance incorporate that when I conclude my speech. national saving, particularly when we get to the contribution of 15 per cent of total overall We have generally had good economic wages by the year 2001. performance at a time, I might say, of severe drought and at a time when prices for our raw Whilst on the issue of wages, we had an materials, particularly minerals, were very low accord, which the new government has torn in the world marketplace. We have had a up. The new government has said, ‘We don’t good growth economy, particularly compared need any agreement on wages. Let the market to the rest of the world. Even at the bottom of decide.’ That is an enormous gamble that the the business cycle, which is where we are at new Prime Minister and his Treasurer, Peter the present time, we have had economic Costello, are taking. If it fails and inflation growth running at just over three per cent. We goes up, interest rates will go up. The new have created on average 220,000 new jobs government is gambling that inflation will not each year. That is a significant record. rise and is taking a gamble on every Austral- ian family’s mortgage. I will make some brief Also connected with this has been an comment about John Howard’s— essential restructuring of the economy focused on export growth. An ANZ bulletin—which Senator Panizza—Mr Howard to you. I was attempting to find; I do not have it in Senator SHERRY—Prime Minister front of me at the moment—highlights the Howard’s ‘black hole’ remark. As I said, if important transition of the Australian econ- we have got a black hole, you have a black omy and the increase in export growth, void. The difference is that a black hole has particularly to Asia, over the last 10 years. some substance; a black void has nothing in Inflation has been a very major constraint it at all. When Mr Howard was last Treasurer, on the growth of the Australian economy, the projected deficit in 1983-84 was $9.6 particularly in the last Liberal government. billion, or about 4.9 per cent of our gross But under the Labor government, over the last domestic product. What would that be in 13 years, we have been able to reduce infla- today’s dollar terms? It is $24.5 billion. That tion to a target band of two per cent to three is what John Howard left us from his time as per cent, and perhaps lower. Looking at the Treasurer in 1983-84. The black void from figures that were released about 10 days ago John Howard, as I refer to it, was five times of 0.4 per cent for the quarter, we may be worse than the alleged void that we left. 270 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

This issue of the $8 billion, this so-called range of other issues estimated by Finance hole, is merely an attempt to shift the blame prior to the election—I am sure Senator Short onto Labor for what the new government is has seen the figures—which expose shortfalls engaged in, to blame us for the massive in the new government’s election commit- reduction in programs, services and employ- ments. They are some of the reasons we are ment by a reduction of public service jobs. faced with this so-called $8 billion hole. The shortfall is not $8 billion. It is much Really, what is it all about? It is not about closer to $4.9 billion. good economic management. It is about a Senator Woods—You are proud of that, new government implementing its philosophi- are you? cal approach, which was very well outlined in Senator SHERRY—We are not proud of Fightback over three years ago. It is Fight- it. In large part the figure is due to many of back. That is what it is. Fightback wasn’t the promises made by the coalition at the last dead and buried. You decided to be clever election. My colleague Senator Wheelwright and smart. You went to the last election with will talk about projections and forecasts in Fightback in the bottom draw. some detail. What I find fascinating about reading In addition to the coalition’s promises, the Fightback today is that many of the things other reason for this budget blow-out has been you are doing now, particularly in cutting the the performance of the government, then in Public Service, are in fact more severe than opposition, in this Senate. I think we have to what is outlined in Fightback. So Fightback refresh the memory of the now government wasn’t dead and buried. It was just put in the about their performance in this Senate. In bottom draw and you took a politically smart 1995-96, they knocked $265 million off our position, as it turned out, to hide what you measures when we were in government. In were going to do. That is the reality of both 1996-97, the now government knocked over the cuts to the public service and the pro- $2.5 billion of the then Labor government’s posed cuts to government programs. That is budget, including airport sales, leasing propo- why you are engaged in perhaps one of the sals of $2 billion and building material propo- biggest lies this country has ever seen. Repeat sals of $O.3 billion. When we went to the it over enough and often enough: $8 billion. election there was a further $185 million That is why you have engaged—(Time ex- worth of various measures held up in this pired) Senate. When you take those sorts of billions of dollars into account, you see that the Senator SHORT (Victoria—Assistant alleged $8 billion hole has been largely of the Treasurer) (3.48 p.m.)—Let me at the outset now government’s own making. correct one total inaccuracy. I referred earlier to the new government’s Senator Woods—Only one? promises at the election, which are included Senator SHORT—It is a big one. I want within this $8 billion hole. One of the promis- to nail Senator Sherry on this one. He claimed es the new government made was to cut IT that, of the $8 billion Beazley black hole, a expenditure by $985 million over three years. significant portion of it—I am not sure what We will be fascinated to see whether they can he said; I think he said almost half of it—was carry out a cut of $985 million in IT expendi- due to the policy commitments of the coali- ture, particularly when there are going to be tion government. Let me draw his attention to so many public servants retrenched or made the latest Treasury bulletin, Economic Round- redundant through the government’s slash and up. On page 5 it says: burn policies. The revised budget figures— We will be particularly interested in the other promise written into this so-called $8 those are the ones showing the $8 billion billion; that is, the savings of about $500 black hole— million through reductions in fraud and by the contained in the table below include the impact of tightening of the activity tests. There were a policies announced by the previous government, but Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 271 not the election commitments of the coalition would have them pretend to be able to do. government. We do have to address, seriously, honestly I hope that Senator Sherry will take the first and openly, the problems that we have inher- available opportunity to correct the totally ited as a result of the mismanagement of false statement that he made during his Labor’s rule. The difficult position that the introduction to this debate. new government is in financially, in terms of If Senator Sherry believes that returning the the budget, is a direct result of the opposition budget to balance is an ideological obsession, leader’s deceit as finance minister. That said, then it is no wonder that Labor left the coalition government has made it clear Australia’s finances in ruins and why the that we will keep faith with our commitment Australian people so comprehensively rejected to provide assistance to those most in need, Labor on 2 March. His assertion is in the despite the enormity of the fiscal problem same league as his incredible inference today facing us. that, somehow or other, a monthly balance of The uncaring and irresponsible attitude to payments deficit of $1.5 billion, an annual fiscal policy by Labor is the one thing that deficit rate of $18 billion, is somehow good has created the problem that we now face. news. If that is good news, I would hate to Labor got itself out of touch. It was unwilling hear what Senator Sherry regards as bad news or unable to face the challenges to get Aus- for the Australian economy and for the Aus- tralia on track. It seemed to live in cloud- tralian people. cuckoo-land. Senator Cook, who I see is Senator Sherry claims that we are in ideo- speaking later in this debate, was a leading logical pursuit of $8 billion spending cuts, but architect of that through his ministerial port- then he says that there is not really an $8 folio. There were many others as well. Sena- billion black hole left by Mr Beazley and the tor Sherry’s claim in his MPI earlier today outgoing government. No-one else in Austral- that a balanced budget is a mere ideological ia believes you, Senator Sherry. Every com- pursuit highlights the absolutely irresponsible mentator, from the government’s own official cloud-cuckoo-land attitude of the Labor Party forecasts down, accepts the unequivocal fact towards fiscal management and fiscal respon- that there is an $8 billion hole in the budg- sibility. et—a hole that the Labor government said, It is this Labor mind-set that has led to five right until election day, did not exist. consecutive underlying budget deficits, despite Indeed, on the contrary, your then Minister the fact that the economy has been in a for Finance, now Leader of the Opposition growth phase for the last four years. If you (Mr Beazley) was saying, ‘Everything is are going to run huge underlying budget sweet, we are actually in surplus. The forward deficits at a time when you have a period of estimates show that we are going increasingly economic growth, then the inevitable conse- into surplus.’ In fact, the forward estimates quence of that is that you are going to pro- which the outgoing government knew existed duce over the life of the economic cycle an were absolutely and totally the other way. absolutely huge, even greater, underlying They showed that the true situation was that deficit. Of course, that causes huge problems the budget was going increasingly into deficit for interest rates, for inflation, for competi- throughout the period of the forward esti- tion, for our ability to provide for families in mates. There is absolutely no doubt that there need, and for the opportunity for Australians is an $8 billion black hole. If there is anxiety to grow their living standards. It is this in the community—and that is what is stated attitude— in the wording of Senator Sherry’s matter of Senator Sherry—Inflation is low at the public importance today—it stems totally moment, thanks to us. from Labor’s ineptitude in having an irrespon- Senator SHORT—Inflation is, I think, at sible budget policy for many, many years. a five-year high. It is exceeding the on aver- The Labor Party cannot hide its head in the age target that the previous government, your sand any longer, nor can Australians, as Labor party, set as its benchmark. It is this attitude 272 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 of Labor’s that has led to a 400 per cent Government senators interjecting— increase in Commonwealth debt. As a propor- Senator KERNOT—I seem to be really tion of GDP, Commonwealth debt has gone getting you excited today, senators. I am only up fourfold, I think, over the last five years or halfway through the ritual. I am only up to thereabouts. election day. Then we get to, ‘I’m terribly Senator Sherry, how many more budget sorry. The cupboard is bare. I really mean to deficits do you actually want? Why didn’t do the best I can, but I can’t honour my Senator Sherry say today whether he believes promises and, unfortunately, I have to cut an $8 billion budget deficit is acceptable? much more than 2,500 jobs from the public Would he seek to reduce that deficit? If not, sector.’ Nick Greiner did it; Jeff Kennett did then let him say so and let him be judged it; Dean Brown did it; Richard Court did it; accordingly for the fiscal irresponsibility and and Bob Carr did it. Now even Deputy stupidity that that implies. If, on the other Premier Joan Sheldon is trying to do it in hand, he does share the coalition’s view that Queensland, despite the fact that the Queens- the Beazley $8 billion black hole is disas- land government has a debt-free status. trous, unacceptable, and in desperate and But we have to ask the question: what sort urgent need of correction, then he should say of condition is the federal budget really in? so. He should also tell the Australian com- Where did this $8 billion so-called black hole munity how he would achieve it. come from? It was almost entirely due to So, far from anxiety induced by the new Treasury downgrading its economic forecast government, the policy agenda of the new on growth to 3.25 per cent on 12 March. The government means that all Australians can debate really is not about whether Labor is look forward to a brighter and more prosper- more duplicitous than the coalition for the ous future. That, I think, is the reason why Democrats. For us, it is a matter of now the latest opinion polls show that the govern- looking at the impact of relying on an impre- ment is in stronger standing in the community cise science of forecasting and the effect it than it was even at the time of the election. will have on people’s lives. We have to ask We are absolutely committed to stopping ourselves: firstly, are the forecasts right and, Labor’s legacy of budget irresponsibility. We secondly, is the $8 billion spending cut the will make the necessary decisions to restore right response? an underlying budget surplus. If Labor and As I said a little earlier, those who treat the Democrats had any sense of fiscal respon- Treasury forecasts as holy writ etched in stone sibility, they would be sharing the wish to really need to look at other parts of the work with the government and the Australian Treasury Economic Roundup today— people to correct the situation which is quite obviously untenable and in the worst interests Senator Short—What would you do? of the nation. (Time expired) Senator KERNOT—I will get up to that in Senator KERNOT (Queensland—Leader a minute. Treasury admits in Economic of the Australian Democrats) (3.53 p.m.)—I Roundup that its GDP forecasts have been out do not know about you, Madam Deputy by an average of 1.25 per cent over the past President, but I think most Australians are two decades. As I said earlier, 1.25 per cent getting a bit sick of this ritual—the hand on translates into a $6 billion margin of error. the heart before the election, ‘I make the Treasury says that by world standards that is following promises.’ After election day— not too bad. That is a real comfort—‘by world standards that is not too bad’. But it is Senator Woods—You can talk! not a comfort to the thousands of public Senator KERNOT—I am going to honour servants shortly to be out of work on the basis my promise; I am going to vote against the of a figure that is likely to be revised. sale of Telstra. That is the promise I made to You asked me this: what should we rely the Australian electorate. I am only halfway on? Since the release of the updated Treasury through— forecasts on 12 March, there have been a Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 273 string of economic indicators suggesting that crats opposed those tax cuts as unaffordable Treasury was unduly pessimistic. Treasury’s and they were very badly targeted. Economic Roundup today says that the indica- Senator McGauran interjecting— tions are that the growth slowdown is tempo- rary and that growth should strengthen during Senator KERNOT—We did. We also the course of the calendar year. There are called for the 1994 Working Nation to be plenty of other indicators: today’s balance of fully funded. We accept that, because of these payments figures; the December national key failings by Labor—and Senator Short accounts, and we need to remember that those asked me what I thought and what I would came out after the 12 March release; the do—some element of fiscal repair is neces- various business investment surveys; credit sary, but how much remains a matter of growth figures—all of which have led the careful judgment. The key factor must be the Reserve Bank and others to suggest stronger impact on unemployment. We need to remem- growth later this year. ber that unemployment is rising. It is up from 8.1 per cent to 8.4 per cent in four months As well as black holes, I would suggest and there has been another projection by there is a black cloud over the growth figure. Westpac that it will reach 8.7 per cent next It is not because of former finance minister year. Kim Beazley’s actions, but this could well be We have to ask what is the most appropri- due to the actions of Treasurer Costello ate way to deliver fiscal tightening, taking himself. For his determination to slash $8 into account expert advice from people like billion out of the budget, there is the in- Vince Fitzgerald. It is his advice that it has creased likelihood that that action will cut the been the rundown of the revenue base, rather growth rate by, according to the ANZ and than excessive spending, which is the main Westpac forecasters, between one half and problem. one per cent of GDP. Of course, that adds to The government has ruled out looking at unemployment. the revenue side and in our view that leaves them dealing with fiscal policy with one hand Instead of low growth requiring budget tied behind their backs. However, we will cuts—and that is the situation we are told we support the coalition government’s efforts to have—we could end up with a case of budget identify and eliminate inefficiency. We will cuts made by the coalition causing low support their efforts on the abolition of growth. In my view that is a self-defeating redundant programs and better targeting of policy adjustment. That leads us to fiscal assistance to those in need. But we just policy. Irrespective of how much of the cannot lend our support to cutbacks which projected deficit is caused by forecast chan- lead to the reduction of access to standards of ges, how much deficit reduction is really essential government services or any of these needed? Recently the Governor of the Reserve reductions which leave low income earners Bank, Bernie Fraser, described as basically a worse off. failure the fact that after 17 quarters of growth the budget is not in surplus, and it is Earlier today in question time I simply true. asked Senator Hill: if the $8 billion figure was revised downwards, would the govern- The previous Labor government did drop ment adjust its policies more humanely. All the ball on deficit reduction and one really I got after that was some kind of abuse for important contributing factor in this was the misquoting the Treasury Economic Roundup. 1993 One Nation tax cuts that were always Senator Hill did not answer my question and unaffordable, unfunded and fiscally irrespon- my position was then misrepresented. How- sible. In 1994 they followed that by setting up ever, I will not worry about that. The question $10 billion in the Working Nation employ- we have to ask is: when will the government ment programs, which were funded not accept that the $8 billion is not cast in stone through revenue and expenditure offsets, but and that the reliance on that figure is causing from the growth dividend. In 1993 the Demo- incredible anxiety and distress which is wide- 274 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 spread across the community? If the cuts are and therefore we can’t go ahead and do the not necessary and if the forecasting is revised things that we promised to do.’ What they downwards, will you desist from the slash and have said is—and it is their term for it—that burn policy? there is a black hole. Senator Kernot de- Senator Woods—What if they are revised scribed it as a black cloud. I would say that upwards, Cheryl—$14 billion? they are black of heart and really never did have any intention of delivering those election Senator KERNOT—We take that into promises. They tried to gull the Australian account, too. All I am saying is that it is not community into believing that this was a etched in stone, but your policy response government that would not rock the boat; it seems to be that it is. I believe we need to would adopt Labor policies, govern inclusive- watch the economy very closely over the next ly and that it would in fact do the things that few months to work out what the most appro- Labor was doing. It would adopt Medicare, priate deficit target is and the most socially keep the employment programs in place and and economically responsible way of meeting do all those things on health and education that target. that we were doing. Senator COOK (Western Australia) (4.07 p.m.)—I rise to support the Deputy Leader of Senator Sherry has described this so-called the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Sherry, black hole as a furphy, and it is. But it is a in this matter of public importance. At a press furphy which the government knows to be a conference prior to the election, the then furphy, yet they continue to knowingly repeat Leader of the Opposition, now Prime that furphy. This is almost entirely due to the Minister, Mr John Howard, was asked a Treasury revising its forecasts and downgrad- simple and straight question by a journalist. ing the budget parameters. It is not a fact that That question was, ‘If there is a budget it exists. It is a forecast opinion and one deficit, will the government still deliver on its where the Treasury has changed the param- election promises?’ The answer by Mr How- eters post the election to come to this conclu- ard was also simple, straightforward and to sion. the point. He said, ‘Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. As Ross Gittins said in the Sydney Morning The trouble is that it now appears that that Herald, forecasts are not facts—and nor are answer has become, ‘No, no, no, no, no.’ they. The government is running around Because now we have a massive campaign by saying that this forecast opinion will change the government to position public expecta- as budget parameters change, and they are tions by producing a so-called black hole out changing even now because the inflation rate of a black hat which justifies them walking is lower than anticipated by the markets and away from their election promises. That is by the Treasurer (Mr Costello)—and thanks what appears to be the case. to a Labor government, it is, according to the During the election campaign, honest John inflation rate that came out last week. Howard, who is now the Prime Minister of This is a callous trick. We have a situation this country, stood by hand on heart and made in which forecasters, reputable agencies, are honesty in government an election issue and saying that, if the budget outlays are cut by he will be called to book by the Australian the figure the government is talking about, people at the next available opportunity. They economic growth in Australia will be stunted want the person who claimed that he is the by—according to the figure Senator Kernot honest man of Australian politics to live by gave today—between a half and one per cent. his word. They took him at face value; they I concur that this is a reasonable forecast in expect him now to deliver. the circumstances. Upon being elected to government, predict- That means increasing unemployment, that ably—as we have seen with state Liberal means that Australia under-performs in the governments around Australia after they are world, and that means the government cannot elected—they came in and said, ‘Oh, my deliver on any of its promises. It is a callous God! There is a problem now with the budget trick, too, to have industry lobbyists go and Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 275 talk to ministers in this government and have election, campaigned in a mealy-mouthed ministers defend themselves, limply and way, calling for the books of Treasury to be lamely, by saying, ‘I agree with you, the opened, has refused the opening of the Treas- lobbyist, that if we were to abolish these ury books when it comes to revealing Treas- programs then that would be bad policy. ury estimates on his own costs. Unfortunately, we might have to look at doing The overall budget shortfall, as distinct that because we have this so-called black from the underlying deficit, I might say, is hole’. That is the ready excuse to do what currently estimated for 1996-97 not at $8 was always intended, to do what was at the billion, as we have been hearing from the back of the Liberal mind before the election. government, but at something more like $4.9 We will, of course, shine the light of truth billion. It has to be remembered that a signifi- on this. Indeed, the black hole is not there; it cant part of that shortfall was in fact due to is a furphy. This is an exercise in naked the coalition itself when last year it blocked ideology—not naked ideology, as Senator some $2.5 billion worth of budget measures. Short tried to pretend in this debate, to the So they are, to the extent that there is a extent that we are somehow opposed to a deficit, the architects of it. balanced budget. We were the governments The cuts in the industries area are particu- that had balanced budgets. larly savage. They have gulled Australian The Liberal Party is not a party with any industry leaders into believing they stand for record of balancing budgets in this economy. small business, but they are cutting out of Its ideology is all about small government, of industry expenditure targeted programs to government withdrawing from education, of help small business, medium-sized business government withdrawing from health, of gov- and large business everywhere in Australia. ernment withdrawing from welfare, of govern- Let us hear about the industry position on the ment withdrawing from programs to support diesel fuel rebate. What are industry leaders industry and business, and of government saying to this government about the tariff withdrawing across the board from other concession order? What will small business areas, including the dismissal of public ser- say about the loss of access to the NIES vants. So here we have an ideology whereby scheme, R&D concessions and export you blame the victims, you penalise them by schemes that help them penetrate foreign removing services from them, and you ensure markets? therefore that you can deliver. The forecast for this budget in the second I recall that before the election the coalition half of this year is good. That forecast was promised there would be no tax rises, that put down in January, before the election. The there would be no new taxes, that there would business confidence survey showed that that be no compulsory redundancies and that there was high. That was true before the election. would be no cuts to welfare. They made The economy in the second half of this year spending promises which mount up to in will be good, and that will be an achievement excess of $3 billion per annum by the year of the outgoing Labor government. 1998-99. They are all promises that have to Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (4.16 be met on top of this so-called funding cut. p.m.)—Having been where the Labor Party is We in the opposition will be holding the now, in opposition, I know only too well that government to a position, if they run away a government directly after an election always from any of their election promises, of having enjoys a honeymoon period. Given the MPI to face the Australian electors. No wonder today and the opposition’s denial mode it is yesterday in the House of Representatives the in at the moment, I can see this government Prime Minister, Mr Howard, when asked by will have a very extended honeymoon. Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, That is borne out very much by today’s to produce the Treasury estimates of what the news polls in the Australian, which show a cost of the coalition election promises is, very strong lead, if not stronger than the refused to do so. Someone who, before the result of the 2 March election, and that 276 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 business confidence has shot up since our But I tell you one thing for sure: our budget will be election which will naturally lead to improved balanced and in surplus. Our budget will continue investment and therefore greater hope for to move into greater surplus. improved jobs. It is quite obvious our tough That is the honesty you gave to a very simple decisions that are before us are expected by question from Senator Short. the electorate. They are not having a down- ward effect, a downward impact, upon the Senator Cook—Quite right. electorate, rather that is why the electorate put Senator McGAURAN—You have been in us into government. denial mode since then. You even knew in I would like to particularly relate my September 1995 that the estimates had clearly comments, given the short time in this MPI, blown out. We know you knew that, Senator to the previous speakers. Just prior to me Cook, because in September 1995 the Joint Senator Cook spoke of the very simple ques- Economic Forecasting Group warned the tion that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was government that the budget blow-out would asked during the election campaign: would he occur in 1996-97, let alone Treasury’s own deliver on all his promises? The answer to estimates, which you said have been revised that is yes. We are going to deliver on all our since the election. That $8 billion hole was an promises, on all our policies. We know the estimate compiled prior to the election be- task before us is very tough but, rest assured, cause it was available to the incoming Treas- we are going to deliver upon the promises we urer (Mr Costello) on 3 March. The day after gave to the Australian people during the the election he received a blue folder with the election campaign. Treasury estimates—a day, quite ironically, known as Clean Up Australia Day. The The area of most concern out in the Aus- outgoing government knew full well the task tralian community is social welfare, and more before the incoming government. than ever we are committed to delivering to that area. The Prime Minister said on radio I want to assure Senator Sherry and Senator only a few days ago that we are not going to Kernot that this government will deliver on its slash and burn—reduce pensions or pull back promises regardless of the herculean task on our commitments to homeless youth. before many of our ministers of finding sav- Already we have acted upon our commitments ings. That is the job we must do. The Victori- to homeless youth by setting up a task force an government, the Jeff Kennett government, in that area. proved that when tough decisions are made and budgets are brought into surplus the I refer the Senate to a speech John Howard public will go along with that. That is what made in regard to social welfare which clearly they want the government to do. Do not fall sets out our directions and commitments in for the trap of denial like John Brumby does this very sensitive area and the honest ap- or, come the next election, you will end up proach toward delivering our policies that we just like John Brumby. will undertake. Senator Cook, that is the simple answer to that simple question. But Senator WHEELWRIGHT (New South when you were asked for a simple answer to Wales) (4.20 p.m.)—I rise to support the a very simple question regarding the budget matter of public importance proposed by surplus, what you said in this chamber on 20 Senator Sherry. Let me say in relation to this September 1995 when you knew quite well debate that this spurious $8 billion figure, the estimates were moving against you at that which has been so greeted with enthusiasm by time, was this: senators opposite and indeed all members of the coalition parties, is in no way reliable I say to Senator Short that the honesty is all on this enough to be used as the basis for spending side of the chamber— plans over the next financial year or the year that is when you were in government— thereafter. not on that side of the chamber. It comes as no surprise after the election to ...... see senators opposite and other members of Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 277 the coalition whooping with joy that they year on government expenditure and govern- have the prospect of cutting government ment savings. This is the sort of distinction spending by $8 billion. But there is all the which this government has not made; this is world of difference between a full budgetary the sort of distinction which puts the lie to round of forecasts, which was done last this $8 billion number. It is not reliable. November and has not been done since, and a quickie estimate that is given to an incom- Let me give you an indication of just how ing government—outside the processes of the unreliable these quickie estimates can be. Joint Economic Forecasting Group. There is There is an organisation called Consensus all the world of difference and that is some- Forecasts. Every month they get all the thing which senators opposite will not recog- private market forecasts for the budget defi- nise. cits, inflation and all the other major econom- I think this is the sort of problem which ic variables. Listen to how much they varied Senator Kernot was wrestling with. I am glad over the course of the year. Let us take the to be in a position to explain the situation to 1995-96 deficit: in January 1995 they thought her. You have to realise that senators opposite there would be a deficit of $7.4 billion; by and members of the coalition are very keen March they had changed to $4.6 billion; by on market estimates. These quickie estimates April they were expecting a deficit of $3.7 of what the budget position is are the sorts of billion; by June 1995 they were expecting a things the coalition is very keen on, certainly surplus of $0.4 billion; by July 1995, these it was before the last election campaign. market economists, doing these quickie estimates upon which the government is now In fact, if you look at what happened in the relying, were back down to a deficit of $0.9 last election campaign, the Deputy Prime billion. Minister, Mr Fischer, accidentally blurted one out on the Sunday program, which was quite And so it went on month by month—0.7, off strategy. It was very embarrassing, but it 1.4, 1.3, down to 0.9 again, 1.3, 1.4 by March indicates, as he said then, that that was the 1996. If we look at this fiscal year, 1996-97, thing upon which they were basing their fiscal already, in January, they are expecting $3 strategy. billion; in February they are expecting $3.1 The fact is that it is entirely unreliable. billion; in March 1996 they are expecting These market estimates, these quickie esti- $3.3 billion. That is the is the sort of variation mates—which this government received from you get if you rely on these spurious quickie Treasury and which they so rely upon—are estimates which you are flaunting in front of very unreliable indeed. Let me tell you about the public. them. I can tell you about them because I used to do them. I was a market economist I can tell you this, and I am very confident and I was in the position of making these in saying this: we will never see this exercise estimates. done again, will we? We will never see these sorts of quickie exercises trotted out again. It Senator Kemp interjecting— was the Labor government, the Labor Party, Senator WHEELWRIGHT—Why are they that had two forecasting rounds in a year different, Senator Kemp? Let me tell you. In instead of one, and it was the Labor Party, not a financial market you have to make minute- John Howard when he was Treasurer, not to-minute decisions about whether you are Senator Short when he worked for the Treas- going to buy financial securities. You have to ury, that brought out projections of the for- make estimates on the best available informa- ward estimates with the budget. That is about tion. The point is that, if you are wrong—if as much as a Treasury can do in any one you have bought the wrong bond or you have year. It takes hundreds of economists and it bought the wrong equity—you can sell them takes a great deal of detailed work to build up again. That is a fundamentally different a useable forecast upon which you can make process for making plans which are going to estimates of public spending. We will never have their full effect throughout the entire hear it again. This is the only time you have 278 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 ever brought this number out and we will a million people unemployed, I remember that never hear it again. there was more anxiety created in our com- The fact of the matter is that it will not be munity than the average person should ever $8 billion in August, and you know it. It is have to put up with. Why did we have that not a number upon which you would choose anxiety? Because of your economic program to rely. All of this was an attempt to bring in and because of your former Prime Minister’s Fightback. All you wanted to see was the decision to have ‘the recession that we had to number $8 billion, which neatly fits in with have’—a recession which we are still getting the sort of budget cuts that you want to bring, out of. You ought to be the last ones to talk and that is what you have got. We will not about creating needless and undue anxiety in see this sort of thing again. If it is such a the Australian community. great idea, do it again. Why don’t you bring The very fact that you now seem to be it in every three months? Do it every week. going into this state of denial, as was said by Let’s run a sweep. That is how reliable these my colleague Senator McGauran, is an affront figures are. (Time expired) to the people of Australia who have judged Senator Cook—Mr Acting Deputy Presi- you for what you are worth. They judged you dent, I raise a point of order: I noticed a on 2 March, and it seems as though you are moment ago that Senator Bob Woods was finding it very difficult to realise that you are interjecting. That in itself is against standing now in opposition and that the people have orders, but he was interjecting out of his place made their judgment. It is you who are in the chamber and that is also against stand- responsible for the budgetary position that we ing orders. Mr Acting Deputy President, I find ourselves in—you alone—and you are suggest that you tell him that, if he wishes to the ones that must accept the blame. interject, he should take his place in the This is the opposition that would not tell chamber. us the true budgetary position before the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT election—not even the latest available fore- (Senator Colston)—I had noticed the trans- casts. The dishonesty that you displayed in gression. In the interests of the debate pro- that pre-election period was one of the main ceeding properly, I turned a blind eye to it. I reasons why you find yourselves where you understand that Senator Woods is now aware are today. The people of Australia resound- of his transgression. ingly rejected the Australian Labor Party in Senator FERGUSON (South Australia) the biggest electoral defeat since 1951. (4.26 p.m.)—I know I have only a very brief After such a massive loss, you would time to speak to this MPI. It is very interest- expect that the new opposition would have a ing to hear Senator Wheelwright talking about good look at themselves, make some signifi- the things we are very good at. I can tell you, cant reforms and change the ideas that they Senator Wheelwright, that in the past few tried to put before the Australian people. years one of the things that we have become What we have seen here today is a re-run of very good at is winning elections. One of the the same old Labor untruths that we were told reasons that we were able to win this election when we were in opposition and when you so convincingly is that people believed what were in government, and that same denial we were telling them rather than what you mentality still seems to exist. were trying to defend. The people of Australia know that that $8 I know you have not been in opposition billion black hole belongs to you. It belongs very long, but if this is the best MPI you can to your government. All your denials here come up with in the first week of your period today will do nothing to change their view. in this chamber in opposition, then we are in The fact that you are now trying to ignore its for a pretty dull time for the rest of the very existence will make you a laughing-stock year—especially when you start talking about in the community and you will continue to be creating undue and needless anxiety in the judged in the same way that you were judged Australian community. In 1990, when we had on 2 March. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 279

The thrust of this MPI was probably raised (ii) the evidence given by ABC management in a question to Senator Hill from Senator that funding for the ABC has not been Kernot in question time yesterday. Having maintained in real terms; and heard her today, I think she is probably (b) reaffirms the committee’s conclusions that: Senator two-bob-each-way Kernot. Senator (i) the committee supports the maintenance Kernot believes that we cannot get it right of ABC funding at least at its current and you cannot get it right: only the Demo- level and the continuation of the triennial funding arrangements, crats can get it right. Of course, they will never get the chance to get it right. It is going (ii) the continued exemption from the effi- ciency dividend helps provide greater to be left to us to right the wrongs fronting planning certainty for the ABC’s capital the Australian economy today. works program and is therefore supported The thrust of the MPI was probably raised by the committee, and because of that question. Senator Hill suggest- (iii) the committee supports the maintenance ed that it was an offensive question. The fact of current funding levels in real terms and that the opposition has put forward an MPI would support favourable consideration of makes it even more offensive because the $8 any application for the provision of addi- tional funds to ensure the viability of new billion debt that is mentioned in this MPI is parliamentary and ABC approved charter the Labor Party’s own debt, one which they activities. are totally responsible for. As we say repeat- edly, it is the intention of this government to The ABC is one of the strongest and most do everything in its power to make sure that relevant organisations in Australia today. You it rights the economic wrongs of the previous need not take my word for that. Earlier this government. year a Sun-Herald article showed that about 85 per cent of all Australians believed that the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ABC has a more positive effect on Australian (Senator Colston)—Order! The time having life than any of the other categories listed. reached 4.30 p.m., the Senate will now pro- There were a great many other categories ceed to consideration of general business. listed. I regret to say that politicians came in DOCUMENTS third from the bottom of all categories listed. Journalists probably came in lower than that. Commonwealth Grants Commission The ABC as a body came in right at the very Debate resumed from 1 May 1996, on top. I am not the only person who thinks that motion by Senator Ian Macdonald: in this chamber. All members of the 1995 That the Senate take note of the document. Senate Select Committee on ABC Manage- ment and Operations agreed with that in our Senator MARGETTS (Western Austral- report. ia)—I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The ABC is one of the strongest and most relevant organisations in Australia today. It is Leave granted; debate adjourned. an essential part of Australian life. It consis- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING tently and overwhelmingly puts high quality CORPORATION Australian product on our televisions and Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) through our radios. It is our greatest source of (4.32 p.m.)—I move: high quality innovative product in broadcast media today. That the Senate— Quite recently a long list from the ABC (a) notes: came around to all senators setting out the (i) the strong support for the Australian awards that it won in 1994 and 1995. I will Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and all just read out a couple. They won an Emmy its charter activities shown by all mem- bers of the former Senate Select Commit- award for outstanding news and documentary tee on ABC Management and Operations, achievement. That was for Wolves of the Sea, chaired in the previous Parliament by produced and directed by David Parer and Senator Alston, and Elizabeth Parer-Cook. They won Australian 280 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

Film Institute awards in the television section I was the Deputy Chair of the 1995 Senate and an award from the Australian Cinematog- Select Committee on ABC Management and raphers Society. In the industry voted cate- Operations, a committee which examined the gories of the Logies, Janus came in very high, operations and management of the ABC in as did The Damnation of Harvey McHugh, considerable detail. We saw an ABC which is Four Corners and Frontline. For radio they sound and which provides a diverse and won the Gold Medal at the New York Inter- vibrant service, but one where commercial national Radio Festival in 1995. In 1994 they influences had just started to compromise the won the Prix Italia award. The 1994 gold editorial integrity right at the margins. Why Walkley award for radio went to Background was that? The answer is that the ABC was not Briefing and silver awards also went to adequately funded, even for its charter obliga- Background Briefing. It won an United tions. Nations Association of Australia media peace Over the last few years the ABC has been award. Radio National’s South Africa Week given extra charter obligations and then given won a major award for radio. I was one of the one-off grants to fulfil those obligations, after judges on that, but there were a lot of other which the service was to be self-funding. judges as well, so I am not saying that be- Obviously, on a limited budget that is a very cause it was only me. tall order. The ABC has since rectified the Where the ABC leads, Australian and problems which we identified except for one international commercial channels will often essential one. That is a problem which the follow. Where did we first see Mother and ABC cannot rectify itself—federal govern- Son? What commercial channel would have ment funding. touched that before the ABC? None of them. Over the years, ABC funding has not been In fact, the ABC was a bit nervous about it at maintained in real terms. Because of that it first, but it has become one of our most has been forced past the point of efficiency. popular and highest rating television programs It is no use saying that we will trim some and we are selling it overseas. How many more fat off. There is no more fat; muscle has American children are now singing ‘bananas started to be trimmed. If the ABC is forced to in pyjamas are coming down the stairs’? An cut programs because of a two per cent awful lot of them! That is a real achievement, funding cut—have no doubt about it, if it has particularly with American television. to make such a cut after all the cuts it has had to make over the years, which nobody else The ABC provides leading news and cur- has had to make, it will be programs or entire rent affairs coverage, which cannot be ma- networks which will have to go—we will see nipulated by any powerful media baron. For a few amputations that will undoubtedly make instance, Radio National’s breakfast program Australia the poorer. is essential listening for those like myself who want to know what the day’s political agenda A study was done a while ago by the then is likely to be. How many times have we in director of Radio National which looked at this place ordered a copy of Lateline or the the relative efficiencies of its programs as 7.30 Report from the library because we against comparable overseas broadcasters. The missed the detail of a story that had signifi- study showed that in comparison with the cant impact on public and informed opinion? Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the ABC makes similar programs for about half the Apart from the ABC, it is probably only the cost. In comparison with the BBC’s Radio Sunday program that does that on television Four it was about one third of the cost. In and it is really only the ABC that I can think relation to US public radio it was about one of that has as large an effect on radio. These half of the cost. So in relation to comparable are essential parts of our daily lives. The corporations around the world, Radio National ABC is an essential and immensely important is an immensely efficient broadcaster. And part of our daily lives. The ABC is under there is no reason to suppose that the same threat yet again. does not apply to the rest of the ABC. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 281

The coalition’s election policy included a We also have to remember that the ABC is few very interesting and very good policies in its third year of triennial funding. It would on the ABC. In particular, the coalition said be too outrageous to contemplate anything it would maintain existing levels of Common- happening at such a time but we have to wealth funding for the ABC and SBS, would contemplate the likelihood of something ensure that Australia TV had a long-term happening in the next period of triennial future in Asia, and would make sure that funding. That is something we must watch there was no advertising or sponsorship on the carefully. ABC. I have to agree absolutely with those As a member of this Senate, a former policies. They are excellent and I was very member of this committee and the Australian pleased to see the coalition put them up. Democrats’ communications spokesperson, I I expect that Senator Alston will promote reaffirm the committee’s conclusion that it those policies and that there will be no cuts unanimously supported: the maintenance of to ABC funding in the next budget. He has ABC funding, at least at its current level; the promised in his published policy that there continuation of triennial funding arrange- will be no cuts. I expect that the ABC will ments; and the continued exemption from the continue to be exempted from the efficiency efficiency dividend, which helps provide dividend because that is what was promised. greater planning certainty for the ABC’s It is also one of the recommendations made capital works program—I certainly hope that in the Our ABC report of the committee will not be a question that comes up when we looking into the ABC. learn what is happening to ABC funding. Maintenance of current funding levels in Strong across-the-board support for the real terms is very important. That does not ABC and all its charter activities was shown allow for a two per cent, one per cent or even by members of the committee. One member, half a per cent cut. The committee was also Senator Carr, is sitting over there waiting to unanimous in support of favourable consider- speak. There were other then government ation of any application for the provision of members, then opposition members, Senator additional funds to ensure the viability of new Chamarette and me. While there was a dis- parliamentary and ABC-approved charter senting report, there was no dissent to any of activities. the things mentioned in this motion. Every- body agreed that the real problem was that At the moment there are only four speakers, charter activities had to be funded properly. including myself, on the list for this debate today. Not one is a member of the govern- The motion to establish the Senate commit- ment. I hope someone from the government tee inquiry listed funding as one of the main will speak on this matter. Perhaps they just do issues to be examined. I thought it was one of not have their act together. It is very import- the most important things we had to look at ant that we hear the government’s side of this in relation to the ABC. The Senate, pretty question. I look forward to hearing the well unanimously, agreed. It was found that opposition’s views when we hear from Sena- the ABC has been under-funded. tor Schacht and Senator Carr and I also look The evidence given by ABC management forward to hearing from Senator Chamarette. that funding has not been maintained in real I hope that the government will think again terms was irrefutable. When you look at and find somebody who can speak today on bureaucracies around the country where funding for the ABC. funding has been maintained in real terms you Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) have to accept that if the ABC is to continue (4.44 p.m.)—I rise to support the motion to carry out all its charter obligations it needs moved by Senator Bourne, the Australian to be funded at an adequate level. I do not Democrats’ communications spokesperson and think it is being funded to an adequate level a member of the Senate Select Committee on now, let alone if its funding is cut by any- ABC Management and Operations, the report where near two per cent. of which, Our ABC, was presented today. 282 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

That committee was chaired by the now he fell at the first fence. He would not reissue Minister for Communications and the Arts, that commitment. Now he speaks glowingly Senator Alston. After reading the report’s about the need to apply the two per cent recommendations, I see that Senator Alston’s efficiency dividend across the board—to the position is analogous to that in which Jim ABC, to Telstra and to others. He says that Hacker found himself in a classic episode of they are inefficient. He does not say that in Yes, Minister. the committee report. The recommendations Senator Bourne—An ABC program. which he signed off on are quite to the con- trary. He says that the ABC deserves certainty Senator SCHACHT—It is a BBC program in funding. The opposition certainly supports shown on the ABC. The episode I refer to that view. was one of the most famous and most funny episodes of that program. Unfortunately, what We established in government over the last happened in that episode looks like it is going 13 years the policy of triennium funding for to come true here in relation to the ABC. organisations like the ABC. We established it When Mr Hacker, the new Minister for for organisations like the CSIRO, the SBS Administrative Services, had been in opposi- and other major institutions that provide a tion he had circulated and organised a gigan- broad service to the Australian community. tic petition to arrange for freedom of informa- We did that to ensure that those organisations tion amendments, et cetera, to open up the had guarantees over three years, so that they government to more transparent arrangements. could better plan the management and provi- He then became the minister responsible for sion of their services to the Australian public. dealing with his own petition. Sir Humphrey At the first chance when those opposite get Appleby classically convinced him very into government it appears that the triennium rapidly that he should dump his own petition funding arrangements will be undermined due and speak against it, which he did. to an efficiency dividend arbitrarily put on the What do we have here? The committee ABC. The ABC will be told, ‘You cut where chaired by Senator Alston made all the won- you like but there is going to be a two per derful motherhood recommendations about cent cut in the efficiency dividend.’ That is funding for the ABC and the independence of what we know at the moment. We do not the ABC. But what did Senator Alston say know whether anything further is coming. We yesterday in the Senate? He would not give do not know whether the ABC is being a commitment to maintain the funding as picked off somewhere else for bigger cuts. outlined not only in this report but also in the We know the triennium funding has another coalition’s policy statement ‘Better Broad- year to run from this coming budget. But by casting’, as announced on 18 January. He the time of the next budget, when the ABC is would not give a commitment to reaffirm that due to negotiate a new triennium of funding, funding. Further, today he spoke about the it will be doing so in the full glare of a need to provide a two per cent efficiency cut government trying to achieve $8 billion worth across the board, including the ABC, which of cuts. The ABC cannot be confident in my is completely contrary to the recommendation view that it will not have its base funding in this report. That recommendation is that the slashed to provide the cuts to achieve this ABC should be exempt from such an efficien- figure of $8 billion, this holy grail figure that cy dividend, that it should be guaranteed it has become. funding, that it should be guaranteed the Today I pay tribute to Senator Kernot who triennium funding. Here we have Senator pointed out, with the release of the Treasury Alston aping Jim Hacker in his first two figures today, that it is now revising changing months as a minister in the new government. the growth figures in GDP. We all know that In opposition, Senator Alston chaired this if there is about a one per cent change in committee for two years; he stood up in this GDP in the Australian economy, it could parliament demanding extra funds for the mean an increase in revenue of well over $1 ABC. When I asked him a question yesterday billion to $1½ billion dollars. Other savings Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 283 will come: extra growth means increased ten, we’re taking $10 million, $20 million or employment, therefore there will be less $50 million a year out of your triennium demand for unemployment benefits. funding under the efficiency divided scam, The figure $8 billion that the Treasurer, Mr but you can make it up by sponsorship. You Costello, and the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, can make it up by limited advertising. That is and all the other ministers are treating as the way you will make up the shortfall.’ some holy grail figure is an excuse to achieve Therefore, we would have the most significant a political and ideological objective of the change in the style and operation of the ABC government. It is an excuse to reduce those since it was formed in the 1930s. organisations that they think do not follow the This is a great threat to the ABC by the coalition’s ideological line. new government, and it is why I think it is From time to time we all hear the conserva- very appropriate that this motion is being tives whingeing that some of the programs debated in the first week of the new parlia- aired on the ABC put a different social, ment with a new government. The opposition political and economic viewpoint. The coali- is certainly very keen to be associated with tion whinges about anything it does not like. the motion as moved by Senator Bourne and I have to say that the Labor Party and even I must say that, as the new shadow spokes- the Democrats sometimes probably do not like person for communications, I am very keen to everything screened on the ABC. But that is be associated with the motion and to be the idea of a national broadcaster—to portray debating these issues. the full range of views. Senator Alston has I can tell Senator Alston and the govern- fallen at the first opportunity. He has become ment that on these issues of funding for the Jim Hacker by rejecting his own report of a ABC—not that I am not critical at times of its committee which he was so keen to chair. performance—there has to be a review of Not only is Senator Alston creating great management from time to time to make sure uncertainty about funding, but in remarks the best efficiencies are there, but it cannot be made a week or so ago he said that the ABC used as an excuse for ideological reasons to could perhaps look at raising extra funds try to inhibit the programming of the ABC. I through sponsorship or some limited advertis- often think that is the motivation of some of ing. When he was the shadow minister for the forces in the coalition. communications, I never heard a more dedi- We will always defend editorial independ- cated opponent than him of advertising or ence and the way to guarantee that editorial sponsorship in relation to the ABC. But with independence is to guarantee stability in the first pressure from the economic dries like funding. That is why when we were in Mr Costello and Mr Howard, he caves in. He government we introduced triennium funding says, ‘Maybe it’s a way to get extra money because the funding cannot be got at budget for the ABC. Maybe it’s not too bad to have by budget. But under the excuse of an effi- a bit of sponsorship, a bit of advertising.’ I ciency dividend it will be got at in this think he said that it has not done much budget, and in the following year when the damage to the SBS, that they seem to have triennium is up for negotiation it will be got handled it. He misunderstands the complete at again. difference between the national broadcaster, The opposition will campaign to stop this the ABC, and its charter—a charter which this apparently ideologically driven government committee report is about upholding, expand- from trying to reduce the performance of the ing and improving—and the SBS and what it ABC. I am sure that we will be joined by the has to do under its charter. Democrats, by various organisations and, Nevertheless, Senator Alston has let it out above all, by the millions of Australians who that he can think of ways in which the rely on the ABC for the diversity of its sponsorship or the advertising can be put programs: news and information, entertain- quietly into the ABC. He might even do it ment, current events, sport—all of it. I am more brutally in other ways by saying, ‘Lis- sure they will be with the opposition and 284 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 other parties in the Senate. I therefore com- the Australian people and before this parlia- mend Senator Bourne’s motion to the Senate ment in respect of the operations of the and look forward to its being carried. Senate select committee into the ABC. Senator CARR (Victoria) (4.51 p.m.)—I On 30 March 1995 in this chamber, Senator rise to support Senator Bourne’s motion Alston said: which is in the Notice Paper today. I wel- The coalition has a very strong commitment to come the opportunity to say a few things the ABC as one of Australia’s vital national about the ABC, an ABC which I personally cultural institutions . . . and it is vitally important value very highly. As a result of the Senate that the ABC remains as an independent quality inquiry which I participated in, I am able to alternative to the commercial radio and television say I know a great deal more about the ABC networks in the decade ahead. Australia certainly needs a fearlessly fair, impartial and independent than I did before the commencement of this ABC. inquiry. Senator Alston then referred to the forces of What I would particularly like to emphasise darkness. One could not agree more. The to the Senate is the fact that the Senate Select question is: what are the forces of darkness Committee on ABC Management and Oper- that we are talking about? I contend that the ations—which was established under the most forces of darkness reside on the other side of dubious of circumstances, with a whole series this chamber. of quite vicious allegations made within the terms of reference itself—was not able to The Darth Vaders of Tory philistinism, of come up with the goods to demonstrate that course, have captured the Treasury bench. the ABC was in any way weak or not fulfil- They have enriched the public debate for ling its functions as an effective public broad- many years with their diatribes of hostility to caster in this country. the ABC. How many times have we been told that the ABC has a left-wing bias, that it is This parliament is not yet a week old and run by the Labor Party, and that it is full of the deafening hollowness of the coalition’s all sorts of people with doubtful sexual election commitments are resounding through- preferences? How many times have we been out its walls. Despite the coalition’s promise told that the ABC is somehow or other not up to maintain existing funding to the Australian to it? That was the whole basis, was it not, of Broadcasting Corporation, as announced in this Senate inquiry? Remember the terms of their policy brought down on 18 February reference, or have you forgotten so soon? 1996, the ABC has been informed by the government that it will be subject to a fund- There were utterly scandalous terms of ing cut of at least two per cent. That informa- reference which stated that the ABC is tion was reported in the Australian Financial marked by ‘failure’, by ‘controversy’ and by Review of 23 April. It was also indicated that ‘conflict’, that it was ‘dysfunctional’, had much larger cuts had not been ruled out. A ‘some deep-seated problems that had caused cut of two per cent would approximate $10 universal concern’. That is why the members million. of the now government, when in opposition, Adding to this funding assault, the Minister behaved outrageously in flouting the standing for Communications and the Arts (Senator orders. That is why the chairman of that Alston) has refused to rule out the possibility committee sought, without the authority of the of advertising or sponsorship on the ABC to committee, a whole series of matters from the cover funding shortfalls. What should the ABC which were right outside the terms of electorate make of this apparent new turn in reference. He careered around like a lose policy that this government and this minister cannon, acting without the committee’s have presided over? At the very least we can authority. say that there has been a maximum degree of As I saw it, that Senate inquiry was the evasiveness. It would seem to me that there inquisitional equivalent of the gutter crawl. has been quite a fundamental shift and breach They were trying to solicit a submission from of promise in regard to what was put before anyone who had an axe to grind against the Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 285

ABC, anybody who had a prejudice to peddle Senator Bourne would recall the findings of about the ABC. That is why there was a the report itself. On page 155, it states: whole series of time wasting activities and Both the ABC and the CPSU argued that the why there was concentration on peripheral ABC’s funding base was permanently reduced in matters such as the dismissal of Pamela 1988/89 when the ABC did not receive supplemen- Bornhorst, whose affair was probably more tation for the full movement in the non-farm GDP fitting to the letter pages of TV Week than in deflator. Both organisations estimate that the ABC a Senate inquiry. has lost $35m from its funding base. However, the Government’s efficiency dividend has It does not end there. Yesterday, again, the not been applied to the ABC since the first trien- government indicated that it saw a need for ‘a nium of funding (1988/89—1990/91). The exemp- major shake up in the ABC’, that ‘the ABC tion from the efficiency dividend represents a significant saving to the organisation and is sup- was running a deficit’ and ‘its character was ported by the Committee. Overall, the ABC has nebulous’. It made it clear to us all yesterday fared as well as any public sector organisation in that the ABC was going to be subject to its budget funding in recent years. major change. It was stated yesterday in the I put it to the Senate that there has been a Senate that ‘the ABC itself is in need of a quite deliberate campaign of denigration significant shake-up’. That is completely in against the ABC for some years by conserva- contrast with what we were told through the tive forces in this country. There have been Senate committee. the tactics of slander, abuse and trivialisation, I repeat that the Senate committee was set characterised in particular by the lead-up to up in the most dubious of circumstances, yet the establishment of this particular Senate its findings were not able to demonstrate that inquiry. As far as I could tell, there seemed the claims made in the terms of reference to be quite a determined effort to undermine were valid in any way. It was demonstrated, the confidence in the ABC board by constant though, that the case was the complete oppos- reference to the members’ past and present ite, that the ABC was operating in a much political affiliations. Part of the inquiry’s stronger way, was serving more people than findings went to the issue of board member- it ever had and its performance and public ship. satisfaction levels were much higher than they It would be very interesting to see what the ever had been. government’s position is on another matter— As far as we are concerned, and as far as that is, the board being appointed after thor- the Labor senators who were involved in that ough parliamentary scrutiny of nominees’ committee were concerned, our faith in the credentials. Let us hear more about that. ABC was demonstrated by our commitment When this government comes to appointing to give the ABC triennial funding, which has new members to that board, I wonder how been in place since 1988. The commitment much notice it will take of the commitments was demonstrated in real terms—and this is it made in this report through the chairman, where I perhaps disagree with the sentiments Senator Alston, agreeing to that proposition. expressed in the proposition before us to- Senator Sandy Macdonald—ALP member- day—by an increase in funding since 1988- ship will not be essential. 89. That was done by earmarking $1.5 billion Senator CARR—How many members of for ABC activities over the three-year period the Liberal Party are on the current board? to June 1997 and providing additional funds You keep saying this, but how many? You where required for special initiatives such as might ask yourselves whether or not it is the Australian Television International and, of possible for Labor to appoint members who course, pay TV. are in fact active and involved in the Liberal The proposition before us today indicates Party. That did occur. I wonder how often it that the ABC management and the ABC will occur with you. union felt that there had been a cut in fund- The real issue here is what is at stake. It ing. That was not borne out by the figures. strikes me that it is the Fightback agenda 286 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 being implemented by stealth. You will recall Extensive surveys of public opinion on the that under Fightback the proposal was for a ABC in the late 1980s indicated that the slashing of some $50 million from the overwhelming majority of Australians want corporation’s budget. It seems that that is the ABC to be commercial free and that they where we are going with this matter as well, are prepared to keep paying their 8c a day for despite the commitments that have been made the privilege. Eighty-one per cent of respond- to the public and this Senate through this ents opposed advertising on the ABC. inquiry. As the former head of the corporation There is abundantly clear evidence of the recently stated, ‘The dirty work of the com- hypocrisy of this government on this matter. mercialisation of the ABC will be left to a It is quite clear that it is an ideologically cash-strapped board.’ David Hill made that driven agenda of the current government for comment in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 the corporation to be wound back. You have April 1996. ABC chairmen and media com- to ask yourself why that is the case. One of mentators have warned of the inevitable the reasons is not the failure of the ABC but dilution of the corporation’s unique products its success. Because it is so widely accepted which will result from commercial pressures. by Australians and because it so effectively The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) competes with commercial interests, it has to has described the prospect of advertising on be wound back, doesn’t it? That is very much the ABC as a major tragedy, a sentiment with at the heart of the problem here. We cannot which I fully agree. have an independent news organisation, can Even Australia’s commercial television we, that puts a different view? That is bad networks have opposed the introduction of news, according to the ideological precepts of advertising. You could ask yourself why. It those opposite. does indicate that there is, I think, broad We are really talking about the Fightback opposition to the introduction of advertising agenda being introduced by stealth. We are on the ABC. They have warned that there will looking at the commercialisation at any cost be a dramatic drop in the overall quality of through this new government regime. What a Australian television programming, and they terrible cost that would be. The ABC is, in cite the SBS television model as being inef- my judgment, more than a mere broadcaster; fective. Of course there is commercial interest it has a very important role to play in both in that, but there is also, I think, sound reason the national political debate and the develop- in terms of the product that would result, that ment of a national culture in this country. The is, with drama and all the other entertainment ABC is a very important institution in the services provided by the ABC, not just the protection of Australia’s culture, and a very news itself. important protection in Australian society in Should an Australian cultural icon be that regard. That is why the debate about defiled because the government has set itself advertising on the ABC is much more than an unrealistic and irresponsible target of just a question of economics. budget cuts totalling some $8 billion over two There are two pillars of independence for years? The diversity of Australia’s broadcast- the corporation, that is, its separation from ing system has worked well for the nation political and commercial influences. Such with its strong and complementary commer- independence could well be compromised cial and public arms. The Labor government’s were the ABC to become even partly depend- stable funding regime and policy environment ent on income from advertisers and sponsors. provided the ABC with the necessary certain- Wasn’t that the point that you constantly ty to maintain and develop the service, experi- made throughout the inquiry? You said that ment with new formats and pioneer new any off-budget revenue raises the issue of techniques. It should not be undermined by a seepage and the question of the independence major shake-up, as this minister has promised. of the ABC. What now do we see so quickly If I recall correctly, H.G. Wells described after there is a change of government? advertising as ‘legalised lying’, a process the Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 287 government should not be seen in the same at this time. I want to express serious con- light as. It is time for the minister to squash demnation of the failure of the Minister for the rumours and to spell out exactly what the Communications and the Arts (Senator government is intending to do on this issue. Alston) and his party to even have the You cannot rely on half-truths and evasive minister and his views represented. answers. These in themselves destabilise and We have heard much about the Senate demoralise the corporation, and are of great inquiry into the ABC. It has been referred to concern to the electorate at large. in various ways. As I was an instigator of that The public broadcaster has served the inquiry, and as one who certainly supported public well for some 60 years. The ABC is it and participated in the committee, I would much stronger as a result of Labor in govern- like to recount some incidents in the life of ment. In terms of the resources that have been that committee which I believe can support delivered and the policy regime in which it Senator Bourne’s motion and the need for this operated, it has been able to extend its ser- chamber to consider very seriously aspects of vices to quite extraordinary levels. The ABC the ABC’s operation. has increased its radio audience by some 62 I instigated that inquiry as a wholehearted per cent and its television audience by 26 per supporter of the ABC in its role as Australia’s cent since the late 1980s, and it has done so, independent national public broadcaster. I in my judgment, largely as a result of quality presented the Senate inquiry as a positive step programming and more Australian content to clear the air on a series of issues relating than ever. to the management and operation of the ABC. The ABC cannot afford to be undermined I did not believe that support of the ABC by the sorts of ideological obsessions that we should involve any glossing over of problems are witnessing here and that we have wit- that were clearly apparent in the operation of nessed for some time from the Liberal Party. the ABC at that time. I will refer to some of We all understand that the ABC is a great those concerns which I believe had been in Australian institution. I have no doubt it will some cases dealt with, in some cases exacer- survive. The issue is, however, at what cost bated, and in some cases are still in suspen- it will survive. The ABC has survived war, sion because of this new government’s failure depression and, of course, the worst excesses to declare its full position on the matters. of tory philistinism. I believe it will also Basically, I felt that the ABC needed a survive Richard Alston. visible mechanism to get over the problems Senator CHAMARETTE (Western Aus- and criticisms that had occurred and that the tralia) (5.12 p.m.)—I rise in support of Sena- purpose of the inquiry was not to emphasise tor Bourne’s motion relating to the ABC. I any one of the particular issues of concern but recall giving a ‘hear, hear!’ to the motion to allow a number of people to air their views yesterday when she gave notice of it in the and to be part of the problem solving process. chamber. I am extremely disappointed at the In my view, this would ensure that nothing failure of the government to be here to pres- would hold back the ABC from continuing its ent a position and to listen to the views that vital role in the community into the next are being expressed and to the questions that century. They were the words that I used at are implied from the views that are being the time of supporting the inquiry. expressed. It is not an auspicious start in this I think there were dire predictions, even at new government’s first week of program. that time, held by the former government It is actually the comments of the new regarding my motives and the motives of the government that have generated concern opposition in supporting the motion for a regarding the future of the ABC. Yet it is not committee into the ABC. I think aspersions here to clarify and elaborate on the position were also cast on the Australian Democrats it intends to take, or to even present an for being prepared to look at the terms of interim position. There is no justification for reference and to also support them, after they its failure to be present and to express a view had included some aspects that met their 288 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 concerns, which were that it should not be a even need to be debating today if they had destructive inquiry but a constructive one to added their presence in a constructive way to uphold the importance of our national broad- the committee public hearings. Instead, they caster. simply argued with the chairman and made I can recall a conversation at the time of aspersions on the motivations, and not only those allegations. I am sure that Senator on members of the committee but also on Bourne remembers it as well. Senator Alston, people who gave evidence. Senator Bourne and I were engaged in a I believe that the previous comments of three-way discussion in another part of the Senator Carr need to be balanced by a state- chamber. I asked Senator Alston to repeat the ment from me. As a member of that commit- comments that he had made to me in response tee, I think there were opportunities for the to my concerns that, in the lead-up to the two senators, Senator Forshaw and Senator previous federal election, it had been quite Carr, to have been very constructive in work- clearly stated by the former leader of the ing with Senator Bourne and me to make the Liberal Party, John Hewson, that de-funding, recommendations of the committee even or reducing the funding, or not continuing in stronger than they eventually turned out to be. the same volume the funding of the ABC, The concerns that were raised—some have would be considered. been addressed; some have been proven Senator Alston quite specifically repudiated true—and that I want to mention here are that previous stance of the coalition. He said concerns about the role of ATV, ATV Inter- that there was no question of lowering the national, the proposed abolition of ABC level of funding, that it had put those trouble- regional television news, program sponsorship some policies behind it, that it wanted to have rules, continuing levels of resignations and nothing to do with them, and that he would departures of ABC staff, appointments to the guarantee to Senator Bourne and me personal- board, relationships between the board and ly that the only interest the then government management and the increase in commercial had was in a constructive support, a continu- activities. ing support, of the ABC. I am sure Senator In particular, we were concerned about the Bourne can bear out that conversation that centralisation of operations towards Sydney, occurred between the three of us, and the the proposal to amalgamate Radio Australia motivation that led us to double check before and ATV and the increasing commerciali- we agreed altogether on passing that motion sation of the broadcaster. Western Australia in the Senate: it was in the interests of fur- is only too aware that some of these moves thering the operations of the ABC and not have unfortunately already taken place. I doing anything to curtail it. believe that regional Australia has been In relation to some of the concerns that severely penalised by the kinds of budget were addressed, I believe that the then constraints and centralisation that have operat- government and the ALP senators who were ed in the ABC and which need to be counter- on the committee took a less than helpful role acted by a strong stand from government and in what they no doubt considered was a from all parties that says, ‘The ABC should defence of the ABC. ‘Defence’ is probably have the funding. It should not penalise the right term because they became so defen- regional and decentralised public broadcast- sive and abusive that their main concern ing—radio or television—to the detriment of seemed to be to defend the ABC by under- the people of Australia.’ mining the inquiry. While the committee hearings made it In retrospect, and even at that time, I think perfectly clear that there was a danger of that that their role could have been far more if there was not an increase in and an in- powerful. They could have ensured that the creased security of the funding of the ABC, committee’s report was unanimous and that it we have been able to see that that centralisa- tied the coalition well and truly to the kinds tion, that holding down and lessening of the of supports for the ABC that we would not broadening aspect of this ABC, has occurred. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 289

Central to the kinds of changes that have about the commercial involvement, so that occurred is concern regarding funding. During was not a uniform committee position. How- the committee’s deliberations, we discovered ever, we were totally united in relation to the that the ABC had operated extremely well, maintenance of the present level of funding as considering the low base of funding from a minimum and additional revenue that should which it was operating. be provided by the government, rather than When we received a comparison of the forcing it into commercial activities or into ABC’s funding with that of other national downscaling the very worthwhile activities it broadcasters around the world, we were has been conducting for so long. appalled to see that, just for example, the The case for additional funding was put ABC’s total television budget is greater than very clearly in the report on page 97. While the budgets of the national broadcasters of it did state that the ABC’s annual report of only New Zealand and the United States. If 1993-94 advised that current funding levels we want to emulate the United States and let would enable it to maintain current activities, our national broadcaster drop to that degree one of the major concerns was that other in terms of its commercial competition and activities wouldn’t be able to be engaged in. sway, we have to think very seriously about Some of the activities that had actually been the implications of that. I think we should raised, for example ATV, which was experi- seriously question it if we feel we are only encing revenue shortfalls, and also other the same size as New Zealand and we can aspects of ABC services, would eventually be afford to have a budget that is just barely a drain on the limited appropriation funds bigger than that of New Zealand when we are allocated to the ABC. The report quotes the such a vast continent. People are spread out Friends of the ABC as saying: right throughout the states and we cannot The root of the ABC’s current problems is undoub- afford the kind of centralisation that may well tedly a general shortage of funds and management’s be possible in New Zealand. entrepreneurial attempts to address this problem. The ABC’s budget ranks behind those of The report continued: the national broadcasters of Japan, Italy, The Friends claimed that the shortage of funds has Germany, the UK, France and Canada. It is been exacerbated by the expansion of the ABC into really a disgrace and I think this government such areas as ATV and 24 hour radio news on the needs to be looking at that—looking at its parliamentary channel. international reputation and the kind of image I believe that the statements in Senator it is going to present by the priority it gives Bourne’s motion are worthy of total support. to its national broadcaster. We really need to put on the record where the I think I said in a previous speech that one coalition stood in relation to these matters. of the intelligence test items is: what is the Certainly, the maintenance of ABC funding, importance of a free press? I leave that as an at least at its current level, and the continu- open question to test the intelligence of my ation of the triennial funding arrangements listeners here. I will just say that the import- was a unanimous recommendation. The ance of a free press must not be overlooked coalition supported the continued exemption by this new government and must not be from the efficiency dividend because it helped overlooked in relation to the issues we are provide greater planning certainty for the discussing right now. It has very serious ABC’s capital works program. The committee ramifications. also supported the maintenance of current As part of the committee report, all parties funding levels in real terms and would sup- supported the triennial funding initiative. We port favourable consideration of any applica- have supported it because it provides the tion for the provision of additional funds to ABC with the ability to plan over a longer ensure the viability of new parliamentary and period while at the same time allows it to ABC approved charter activities. retain any profits arising from its commercial I think nothing could be more clear than the activities. Senator Bourne and I had concern committee’s findings and I think there can be 290 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 nothing more clear, by the absence of a the alleged increase in use of sponsorship representative of the government speaking on through what are known as ‘infotainment this matter, than that the government is in programs’ to supplement ABC funding. There danger of grave hypocrisy or of really letting was also the specific matter that Senator down its responsibilities in relation to this Chamarette took an interest in, namely the very important portfolio area. dismissal of an ABC reporter named Pamela I conclude by saying that we cannot stress Bornhorst. Despite all of those rather import- enough how important it is to maintain the ant and serious matters, what we ended up role and functions of the ABC—and not just with was a committee, chaired by Senator in the way that we have taken for granted for Alston, which sought—in our view—to attack so long, because we are about to see an the ABC wherever it could for political enormous technological leap in this country. purposes. We do not need a public broadcaster that slips We had this inquiry which went into the further and further behind the kind of compe- membership of the board and allegations of tition that will come from other innovations stacking. We had allegations directed at staff and which people should be seriously con- of the ABC. In some cases quite serious and cerned about, because of the impact that will malicious allegations were allowed to be have on Australian content and on the general made against staff of the ABC who were then objectivity of media coverage. When we placed in a difficult position of having to established the committee, I knew that the defend themselves. When you went through ABC was not immune to justifiable criticisms. the specific terms of reference of that inquiry, I believe that its funding should be not only it became very clear that each of the allega- supported but increased. I support, in the tions and issues raised were either erroneous strongest possible terms, the motion that is or were matters which were being adequately before the chamber at the present moment. handled within the structure of the ABC, Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) particularly through the Palmer report. (5.29 pm)—I was a member of the select The reason why the government senators at committee which considered the issues which the time came down with a dissenting report have been debated this afternoon. I must was that we believed that the ABC was under firstly respond to the comments directed by surreptitious attack here by the then opposi- Senator Chamarette at me and Senator Carr. tion. I do not level that charge at Senators The accusation was that we really were not Bourne or Chamarette, because I believe they interested in the issue and sought to somehow have—and had at that time and through that derail the committee. I refute that completely. inquiry—a genuine desire to examine some I think I am pretty safe in saying that I was issues of concern to them and to do so in the probably one of the few members of the course of defending and promoting the inter- committee that attended every single session ests of the ABC as a public broadcaster. I of the hearings. Not only that, I also took a have had the opportunity to talk particularly keen interest, as did Senator Carr, in the with Senator Bourne on a number of occa- issues before the committee and we sought to sions and I think we both agree that we are obtain as much evidence as we could from the great fans of the ABC, as many of us are. I witnesses regarding the matters. refute those comments of Senator Chamarette But, of course, we do not resile from the with respect to our activities on the commit- fact that, from the very outset of that commit- tee. tee, it was fatally flawed because we had a I also want to touch very quickly on a series of conclusions that were looking for an couple of matters that arose out of the com- argument to be sustained. Whilst I would mittee and that have been covered here this acknowledge that there were at the time some afternoon by the various speakers. I note that general issues of concern regarding funding the now government—those who when oppos- for the ABC, there were also some specific ite were so intent upon chasing down every matters that were in the public arena, such as burrow any rabbit they could find to get stuck Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 291 into the ABC only a year or so ago in the only way you can ever shut Jeff Kennett up, inquiry—have not even bothered to participate because he will not talk to them. This is the in this debate. Senator Alston has said that attitude. This is this great support that you they believe that the ABC is a great public have, and your leader has, for the independ- institution. On many occasions, Senator ence and the integrity and the maintenance of Alston, then as opposition spokesman, asked an unbiased and fair public broadcaster like questions in the chamber and made speeches the ABC. You will not even come along into attacking the government—attacks which the chamber and debate the very important were unwarranted. He was always holding up issues. Of course, it is an important issue—a this mantle that he stood for an independent very critical issue in terms of the future of ABC and one that needed to be adequately public broadcasting in this country. funded and open to public scrutiny. As Senator Carr so rightly pointed out, the Today we have one of the first debates in real agenda was in Fightback. That was to rip this chamber since the election, and where are $50 million out of the budget of the ABC. the government? They have gone home. They The ABC is probably one of only two remain- are not here. The minister is not here to even ing national public broadcasters in the world participate in the debate. that relies essentially on public funds through The precedent was set during the election the budgetary process and does not rely upon campaign. What happened during the election direct commercial revenue through television campaign? There was going to be a debate commercials, radio commercials and so on. between the Prime Minister of the day, Paul There are other public broadcasters through- Keating, and the then Leader of the Opposi- out the world that have a mix of funding. tion, John Howard—just as there had been a There are broadcasters like the BBC that rely debate in the previous election in 1993 and in on a licence fee system, where the level of preceding elections. But what was the view of funding can go up just by putting the licence the opposition leader? The view was, ‘We fee up. Of course, the ABC has always been can’t have the debate on the ABC.’ John subject to budgetary allocation. The introduc- Howard would not accept Kerry O’Brien as tion of the triennial funding arrangements by the moderator of that debate. He attacked the the Labor government brought a lot of stabili- integrity of one of Australia’s leading and ty to that funding process and enabled that fairest and unbiased political commentators— broadcaster, the Broadcasting Corporation, to Kerry O’Brien. He was not going to actually be able to plan well in advance for its needs. come out and say it publicly. No. What did What we have now is a direct threat to the he do? He said, ‘I refuse to have the debate continuation of public funding at current on the ABC with Kerry O’Brien.’ levels for the ABC. As Senator Carr so It was a matter of fundamental importance rightly points out, the agenda is ultimately to in terms of the independence and the integrity slash public funding for the ABC and, no of the ABC that, as our only true national doubt, probably open it up to another form of public broadcaster, it should have the oppor- privatisation. tunity to carry that debate, to do so in a We stand committed to maintaining that totally commercial-free environment and to be total support. I will be very interested, as I am able to choose the compere or the moderator sure we all will be, when the minister in this of the debate. But the now Prime Minister place, Senator Alston, finally finds the time said, ‘I’m not going to turn up.’ to come along and participate in the debate, Of course, the precedent was set then. You to see how he addresses this issue without would not participate in the debate on the hypocrisy. He is now on the record, as he said ABC. Now that we are debating the ABC and in the past, saying that he would maintain the the critical question of funding for the ABC, level of funding. Clearly, within a matter of you will not participate in this debate either. a few weeks, that promise has been broken You have gone quiet. You have done a Jeff like so many others. So we are very suppor- Kennett. When it comes to the ABC, it is the tive of the continuation of public funding for 292 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 the ABC, and I endorse wholeheartedly the Let me finish by going through the remarks of earlier speakers, particularly those coalition’s election promises in relation to the of Senator Carr. ABC. It will maintain existing levels of The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Commonwealth funding and triennial funding (Senator Teague)—Senator Bourne will now for the ABC and the SBS. It will support the close the debate. ongoing extension of Triple J into regional Australia. It will ensure Australia Television, Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) ATV, has a long-term future in the Asia- (5.41 p.m.)—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Pacific region. It will fund the ABC and the President. SBS directly for their transmission costs. It Senator Crane—Go, Vicki, go! will provide $6 million for the captioning of Senator Bob Collins—Hear, hear! ABC and SBS television news services. It will implement a coherent media policy which Senator BOURNE—I thank honourable puts the national interest first. I am really senators for their support. Let me make the pleased to hear that one. point that editorial independence can only be guaranteed by adequate independent funding. The coalition will maintain the current The courage to produce a significant amount prohibition on advertising and sponsorship on of innovative, high quality programming, as ABC television and radio. ABC Radio, which the ABC constantly does, can only be guaran- includes Metropolitan Radio, Regional Radio, teed by adequate independent funding. Radio National, ABC Classic-FM, Triple J and NewsRadio, is one of Australia’s most Let me make just one more point about the influential and listened to radio networks. I efficiency of the ABC. Another comparison absolutely agree. The policy reads: between Radio National and the BBC’s Radio The Coalition is committed to maintaining the 4 showed that similar programming from the ABC’s comprehensive radio network. two networks was provided with a global budget for Radio National that was about one- That is in bold. I am very pleased to see that. third of what was provided for BBC’s Radio It goes on: 4. The ABC is as efficient as it is going to For many people in rural and remote areas, ABC become. Chopping budgets by one or two per Radio is their most important link with the outside cent every year does not necessarily lead to world. greater efficiency. In fact, lower funding will How true. Again, in bold: very quickly lead to lower efficiency. When We will encourage and support the ongoing does the appallingly named efficiency divi- expansion of ABC Radio, including the extension dend—‘efficiency dividend’, who made that of the highly successful Triple J network into up?—become nominally inefficient? When regional Australia. does it become the inefficiency dividend? What can I say? I absolutely agree—very, How close to zero does the budget have to be very good policy. The coalition has promised before we start questioning the basis of this to put these policies before parliament where ridiculous concept? appropriate and attempt to get them through. Any government which reduces independent I can guarantee that the Democrats will funding for an independent broadcaster is in support them and it seems to me that we can fact at the same time increasing the power of count on the support of the opposition and a few media barons, and that is particularly so Senator Chamarette. So we are looking in Australia. The absolute stupidity and short- forward in the very near future to seeing more sightedness of doing such a thing is that any funding for the ABC, not less. government which increases the power of any Senator Bob Collins—Don’t hold your media baron increases that power over itself. breath. That is a very dangerous procedure indeed. Australia needs every single program on every Senator BOURNE—I won’t hold my single network which is currently produced by breath. the ABC. Question resolved in the affirmative. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 293

ORDER OF BUSINESS that particular aspect of the scheme. I believe it should be done this way. It could be done General Business in conjunction with a sales tax exemption. A Motion (by Senator Herron) agreed to: sales tax exemption certificate operates in That general business be not further proceeded those industries where the diesel fuel rebate with this day. scheme applies. DOCUMENTS It is about removing taxes from the inputs into export industries. Under the sales tax Auditor-General’s Reports exemption scheme you have a registered Report No. 20 of 1995-96 number and only authorised individuals can The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT operate from that number. Customs should be (Senator Teague)—In accordance with the looking at introducing a similar type of provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present scheme. In fact, you could have a sales tax the following report of the Auditor-General: exemption certificate that applied to both Report No. 20 of 1995-96—Performance sales tax and the diesel fuel rebate scheme. audit—Diesel fuel rebate scheme— I believe it could be done under a Medicare Australian Customs Service. type card with a number on it which has to be Senator CRANE (Western Australia) (5.45 stamped on each invoice. That in itself would p.m.)—by leave—I move: be an enormous improvement in the scheme That the Senate take note of the document. in terms of efficiency and would significantly I would like to make some comments about reduce the compliance costs for both the users this audit report as far as the scheme itself is of the scheme and the department, because concerned. I am sure everybody in this cham- there are enormous resources tied up in ber would be well and truly aware of my manpower and facilities in administering the interest in this particular area of policy. In scheme. doing so I note that the auditor has identified Nonetheless, it is be acknowledged that a number of aspects of the scheme that were Customs have addressed a number of aspects of concern. This has been a consistent aspect that are raised here. I also want to point out of audit reports into the diesel fuel rebate why people from my state take such an scheme for a number of years. It is worth interest in this scheme. I refer particularly to noting that Customs have responded in what page 7. It is well known that Western Austral- I believe is a very positive way to dealing ia provides some 25 per cent of the export with those particular aspects that have been income of this nation. It has also been esti- identified by the auditor. mated that by the year 2010—or between I particularly want to draw to the attention 2010 and 2015—mainly out of the Pilbara of the Senate the response by the Australian region of Western Australia, and other areas Customs Service on the handout brochure that in the goldfields as well, particularly the goes with the report. Customs has identified electorates of Kalgoorlie and to a lesser extent and is implementing a more cost-effective O’Connor, that percentage of Australia’s total means of data capture which recognises the export earnings will rise to about 40 per cent. diversity in business sophistication among Western Australia receives about 38 per claimants under the scheme. The brochure cent of the total value of rebates, yet has only goes on to list a half a dozen points. There is 10 per cent of the claimants. That is a reflec- no need for me to read those out because they tion of two things: the total export operations are there in writing. in mining and agriculture in Western Australia I do want to raise one particular aspect and the distances involved in transportation. which would improve the scheme enormously. I want to make it clear that, when I mention Back in 1981 or 1982, because of certain transport, I am not talking about transport on misuses of the scheme, it became a rebate public roads. It is paid on public roads. I am scheme rather than being an exemption sche- talking about transport on private roads out in me. I think it is time to have another look at the bush. I believe that it is important that we 294 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 continue to highlight those aspects of the diesel fuel rebate scheme allows us to address scheme. It would be detrimental to those some important issues today. I want to point industries if their costs increased, particularly out to the Senate the absolute and fundamen- the infrastructure costs involved in the expan- tal importance of this scheme to the mining sion of some operations. industry. I particularly want to mention the oper- Senator Bob Collins—Point that out to ations of Marandoo and Tom Price and what John Anderson. are commonly known as transport networks. Senator BOSWELL—I see the former A private railway line has been built between minister sees where I am coming from. There the two operations. By linking Marandoo and is some speculation in the press that there Tom Price, it increases the life of that particu- may be some attack on this diesel fuel rebate. lar operation by some 40 years. It is anticipat- It is, as I said, fundamentally important to ed that if Tom Price is not expanded by the Australia’s fishing, farming and mining increase in the high-grade ore from Maran- industries. They are the big earners, the big doo, it will cease to be an export operation by job providers in Australia. The scheme has the year 2009. The extension of the railway been effective since 1957, providing some system to Marandoo will increase its life to relief from the excise on diesel fuel. about 40 years, between the years 2040 and 2050. So we need to take a long-term view of It is also absolutely important to the inter- the diesel fuel rebate when we are considering national competitiveness of our export earning the structural requirements for the develop- industries. It is calculated that its removal ment and continued expansion of mining in would result in an increase in direct farm Western Australia. I wanted to draw the costs of $90 a week on average, and more for Senate’s attention to that aspect. heavy users of diesel fuel, such as grain growers. I think there was a letter from the Another aspect which is of interest—no mining industry, which came only yesterday, doubt Customs is looking at it—is the discre- or maybe today, which says that the loss of pancies in the average cost of processing a the diesel fuel rebate to the mining industry claim. This is dealt with on page 34 of the would increase the cost of coal by, I think, $1 report. I suggest that we should develop a per tonne. type of card system which could operate in conjunction with the sales tax exemption. It The trebling of the diesel fuel rebate over would significantly lower the administration the past decade has been a result of the cost of the diesel fuel rebate scheme. For automatic increase of the fuel excise going some reason or other—I have not been able from 10.437c a litre in 1986 to 34.183c a litre to identify it at this stage—the cost of pro- in today’s dollars. Most of that money was cessing in the Northern Territory is signifi- initially spent on the development of roads. cantly higher than it is in the other states. During the last 13 years the money was New South Wales has the lowest processing syphoned off into general revenue, but that is cost. There is probably a very good reason for a matter for another debate. that, and no doubt we can pursue that in the In its 1993 budget the previous government estimates committee hearings. attempted to impose an administration charge Having made those comments regarding the of one per cent. We on this side of parliament diesel fuel rebate scheme, I reiterate that the knew that that would have been the thin edge responses by Customs to this and other audit of the wedge driven in. It would have been reports have been very positive and construc- one per cent this year and it would have been tive. I look forward to seeing in the audit cranked up to a greater amount once it was report next year how these recommendations established. I am very pleased that the then have been implemented. opposition, the government at the moment, Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leader led a charge— of the National Party of Australia in the Senator Ferguson—Not at the moment; for Senate) (5.55 p.m.)—The audit report on the a long time to come. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 295

Senator BOSWELL—At the moment and put forward some suggestions for revamping for a long time to come. They led the charge the diesel fuel rebate scheme. The Auditor- on that. With the support of the Democrats, General’s report which is before the chamber that was defeated in the parliament. When this gives us the opportunity to say a few words matter of the diesel fuel rebate was debated about the scheme. It also gives us Western just before the last parliament rose, a number Australian senators the opportunity to stand in of things happened with the support of the solidarity on behalf of the constituents in Democrats that they can take no credit for. Western Australia that we are elected to Senator Bob Collins—That’s a contradic- represent in this parliament of Australia. tion. As the Leader of the National Party, Sena- Senator BOSWELL—On the one hand tor Boswell, said, the diesel fuel rebate they giveth and on the other hand they taketh scheme is under some attack at the moment. away. The Democrats supported the govern- In fact, the eyes of the razor gang are very ment, which resulted in a loss of the diesel firmly focused upon this scheme. If they are rebate to some aspects of the mining industry successful it will cost the miners from West- and the primary industry. When they removed ern Australia that we represent in this place the diesel rebate from the extraction of lime- dearly. It is not only the farmers in the great stone, which was used to help defeat the state of Western Australia that we speak acidity in the soil, that amounted to a loss of about; it will cost the farmers throughout the about $600,000 to farmers. The cane trains nation. In the words of Senator Boswell, it that bring the sugar cane into the mills also will cost them some $90 per week. lost their maintenance rebate for diesel fuel. Senator Cooney—How much? I have taken this matter up with the Senator McKIERNAN—It will cost them minister and Senator Crane has taken up some $90 per week if the scheme is done away aspects of this legislation with respect to his with or is gutted in the way that has been home state with the minister. We hope that suggested in some of the media outlets. when an amending bill comes through the subjects that we raised with the minister in Senator Ferguson—You didn’t buy a farm, relation to the building of roads on properties, did you, Jim? the reinstatement of the diesel fuel rebate on Senator McKIERNAN—That is a good cane trains and the maintenance of the lines interjection. I have nothing personally to gain will meet with the minister’s approval and he from supporting the retention of the diesel will re-establish the diesel fuel rebate on those fuel rebate scheme. The only gain that I get issues. from defending such a scheme in the parlia- The Auditor-General’s report allows me to ment of the Commonwealth of Australia is the address those issues on the diesel fuel rebate fact that I would be truly representing the and gives us an opportunity to say how views and wishes of the constituents in important it is to farmers, miners and the Western Australia who elected me to repre- fishing and forestry industries. The farmers sent their views in this place. I am very have not had a great deal of joy, particularly pleased to stand here and represent those the wheat farmers in the eastern states. They views. It is easy to do that from opposition, have faced five years of drought. Any loss of as we are finding out in this place. I thought diesel fuel rebate would be very significant to being in opposition was going to be a very them. lonely task, but I am finding that it is not Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia) quite so lonely at all. There are some govern- (6.02 p.m.)—I am grateful for the opportunity ment backbenchers who from time to time to stand here and support most of the com- will be prepared to stand up and speak out ments made by the Leader of the National against the actions of the government. Party in the Senate (Senator Boswell) and also We have seen a very brave act here this to join my Liberal Party colleague from afternoon. I note and commend Senator Crane Western Australia, Senator Crane, who has for doing what he has done previously. We 296 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 have already seen the very brave act here this Senator McKiernan expanded on that and said afternoon by the Leader of the National Party that I was running a different line from that in the Senate, Senator Boswell, who effective- of the Minister for Primary Industries and ly got up and spoke against his ministerial Energy, John Anderson. colleague, Mr Anderson, the Minister for At no time has John Anderson come out Primary Industries and Energy, who is a and said that there should be a downsizing of member of the razor gang— the diesel fuel rebate. On the contrary, the Senator Cooney—Courageous. minister said that he would fight to retain the Senator McKIERNAN—He is very coura- diesel fuel rebate. You cannot extend that geous actually. argument because there is speculation in the press that it is supported by John Anderson. Senator Boswell—I raise a point of order. It is not. I claim to have been misrepresented. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Order! You are starting to debate the issue. (Senator Reynolds)—Senator Boswell, I Could you please continue only in relation to accept what you are saying but it is normal to where you claim to have been misrepresented. raise that at the end of the speech. Senator BOSWELL—I think the previous Senator Boswell—But it is an important speaker was being devious. He was trying to matter. drive a wedge where there is no gap. He has The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I said that he will apologise. I accept his am sure it is— apology. Senator Boswell—I don’t think it can go Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia) unchallenged. (6.08 p.m.)—I cannot allow the opportunity The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— to pass to make some comment on the diesel No, but it is normal procedure to do it at the fuel rebate scheme in its entirety and also on end. Senator McKiernan’s newfound interest in Senator McKIERNAN—If I have misrep- some sections of his constituency in our state resented Senator Boswell and an apology is of Western Australia. Senator McKiernan and necessary, I am prepared to give it. But, as I I have been here about 11½ years now and I heard him, and I listened very carefully to do not think I have heard him talk on any- what he had to say, I thought he was defend- thing to do with this scheme before or heard ing the diesel fuel rebate scheme. If he was, him raise any concern he might share with I was getting up here to support him in people on this side about such a scheme. defence of that scheme because it is under I think it is very significant that he will attack from the razor gang—the Expenditure now support us and the farming, mining and Review Committee of the cabinet—which fishing communities of Western Australia. I includes his colleague, Mr Anderson, the hope that extends across the board to all the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. initiatives we will take in government to If I have misrepresented you, Senator ensure that those people in the mining, fishing Boswell, I will repent—no question about it— and farming industries in Western Australia but I believe I heard you properly. get a far better deal than was extended to Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leader them under the previous 13 years of Labor of the National Party of Australia in the administration. Senate)—by leave—Madam Acting Deputy It has been of some concern that those President, I claim to have been misrep- communities in rural Western Australia have resented. The previous speaker, Senator been very hard hit over the previous 13 years. McKiernan, said that I was defending the The Liberal and National government must diesel fuel rebate scheme, and he was perfect- now ensure that they get a far better deal. It ly right in saying that. I made no attempt to is for that reason that my colleagues and I disguise that fact, nor did Senator Crane. But insist upon the maintenance of the diesel fuel Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 297 rebate scheme because it is an essential part Economics Legislation Committee of their wellbeing into the next century. Senators Cook, Sherry and Spindler. I, too, guarantee that I will fight to the Participating members: Senators Burns, Chamarette, death to ensure that people have access to the Mackay, Margetts, Neal and Schacht. scheme they have enjoyed in the past. It is Economics References Committee one small way in which their contribution to Senators Chapman, Childs, J. Collins, Ferguson, valuable export dollars can be measured. I Mackay, Panizza, Spindler and Wheelwright. will make sure that I continue to support the Participating members: Senators Burns, Chamarette, scheme. Margetts, Neal and Sherry. I can see Senator McKiernan about to leap Employment, Education and Training Legislation to his feet. I sincerely hope that I have not Committee misrepresented him in any way. I have not Senators Bell, Carr, Crowley, intended to misrepresent him. I am just Participating members: Senators Bolkus, Chama- delighted to know that we will now have rette, B. Collins and Margetts. some support from the opposition benches for Employment, Education and Training References giving people in the mining, farming and Committee fishing communities of Western Australia a Senators Bell, Carr, Colston, Crowley, Ferris from better deal. 1 July 1996, Forshaw, Patterson to 30 June 1996, Question resolved in the affirmative. Tierney and Troeth. Participating members: Senators B. Collins, Bolkus, COMMITTEES Chamarette and Margetts. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Legislation Committee Arts Legislation Committee Senators Lees, Schacht and Wheelwright. Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral- Participating members: Senators Bolkus, B. Collins, ia)—Madam Acting Deputy President, I Chamarette, Faulkner, and Margetts. present the transcript of evidence of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legisla- Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee tion Committee’s 1995-96 budget estimates hearings together with additional information Senators Baume, Lees, Ray, Reynolds, Schacht, received by the committee. Tierney, Troeth and Wheelwright. Participating members: Senators Bolkus, Boswell, Membership Chamarette, B. Collins, Coonan from 1 July 1996, Eggleston from 1 July 1996, Faulkner and Motion (by Senator Brownhill)—by Margetts. leave—agreed to: Finance and Public Administration Legislation That senators be appointed to committees as Committee follows: Senators Bell, Coates and Lundy. Appropriations and Staffing—Standing Committee Participating members: Senators Bolkus, Chama- Senators Baume to 30 June 1996, Boswell, Bourne, rette, B. Collins, Faulkner, Lundy, Margetts, Ferris from 1 July 1996, I. Macdonald, Ray and Schacht and Sherry. Sherry. Finance and Public Administration References Community Affairs Legislation Committee Committee Senators Denman, Lees and Neal. Senators Bell, Coates, Lundy, I. Macdonald, Participating members: Senators Chamarette, B. McGauran, Murphy, Sherry and Watson. Collins, Faulkner, Margetts and Woodley. Participating members: Senators Bolkus, Chama- Community Affairs References Committee rette, B. Collins, Faulkner and Margetts. Senators Denman, Ferris from 1 July 1996, Kemp, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Knowles, Lees, Neal, Reynolds, West and Woods Committee to 30 June 1996. Senators Evans and Jones. Participating members: Senators Chamarette, B. Participating members: Senators Bolkus, Burns, Collins, Faulkner and Margetts. Chamarette, Cook, Faulkner, Margetts and Schacht. 298 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Senators Bell, Colston, Cooney and Forshaw. Committee Selection of Bills—Standing Committee Senators Eggleston from 1 July 1996, Ellison, Senators Calvert, Conroy, Foreman and Kemp. Evans, Forshaw, Jones, S. Macdonald, Teague to 30 June 1996 and West. Senators’ Interests—Standing Committee Participating members: Senators Bolkus, Burns, Senators Abetz, Bolkus, Bourne, Brownhill, Den- Chamarette, Cook, Faulkner, Margetts, Schacht and man, I. Macdonald, Mackay and Sherry. Woodley. Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (6.13 p.m.)—I House—Standing Committee have just been provided with this list. There Senators Brownhill, Coates, Colston, Knowles, do not seem to be any government nominees Panizza and West. on this list in relation to the legislation com- Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee mittees. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary Senators Bolkus, McKiernan and Spindler. can assist me here. Undoubtedly there is an Participating members: Senators Chamarette, B. explanation for this. Collins, Margetts and Neal. Senator BROWNHILL (New South Legal and Constitutional References Committee Wales—Parliamentary Secretary to the Senators Abetz, Bolkus, Cook, Cooney, Ellison, Minister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre- McKiernan, O’Chee and Spindler. tary to the Minister for Primary Industries and Participating members: Senators Chamarette, B. Energy) (6.13 p.m.)—They will be announced Collins, Coonan from 1 July 1996, Margetts and next week. Neal. Senator McKiernan—The Parliamentary Library—Standing Committee Secretary is floundering. He is not on top of Senators Boswell, Denman, Gibson, Foreman, his job. Lundy and Tambling. Senator BROWNHILL—I am afraid I Privileges—Standing Committee have to respond to that interjection. Senator Senators Childs, Coates, Coonan from 1 July 1996, McKiernan is on the wrong track when he Eggleston from 1 July 1996, Ellison, Knowles, Panizza to 30 June 1996, Ray and Teague to 30 says that. We are making sure that the right June 1996. people get on to the committees. Those names Procedure Standing Committee will be announced next week. Senators Bourne, Carr, Ferguson, McGauran, Ray Question resolved in the affirmative. and Teague. Senator TEAGUE (South Australia)—by Publications—Standing Committee leave—I imagine that the answer Senator Senators Calvert, Chapman, J. Collins, Colston, S. Brownhill gave just now also covers senators Macdonald, McKiernan and Neal. to be nominated for joint committees. I Regulations and Ordinances—Legislative Scrutiny presume that on Monday we will have those Standing Committee nominations as well. Senators Carr, Colston and Mackay. Senator Brownhill—Senator Teague Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legisla- assumes correctly. tion Committee Senators B. Collins, Conroy and Woodley. Community Affairs References Participating members: Senators Chamarette, Cook, Committee Margetts and Schacht. Report Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Refer- Debate resumed from 1 May, on motion by ences Committee Senator Herron: Senators Burns, Calvert, B. Collins, Conroy, Crane, That the Senate take note of the report. Foreman, I. Macdonald and Woodley. Participating members: Senators Chamarette, Cook, Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.16 p.m.)— Eggleston from 1 July 1996, Ferris from 1 July I have looked through this report on the 1996, and Margetts. tobacco industry and the costs of tobacco Scrutiny of Bills—Legislative Scrutiny Standing related illnesses; it is another outstanding Committee report from the Senate. As I look around the Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 299

Senate chamber, I see that everybody here has you making fun of an issue of what resources participated over the years in a great number are available to the most important institution of reports on various issues that have come in this nation is a matter of some sadness. before this chamber. That work has been done Under the constitution, parliament is the in the discharge of our functions as parlia- supreme body. I feel a speech coming on in mentarians and in the interests of the Austral- respect of this when I get up on the address- ian people. The chairman of the community in-reply to the Governor-General’s speech. affairs committee was Senator John Herron, Senator Abetz—I wish to raise a point of who has now gone on to become a minister order. What Senator Cooney is addressing is of the Crown, and I congratulate him on that. undoubtedly of interest to this chamber. It is This committee held public hearings at a matter of moment and a matter that ought Canberra, Melbourne, again at Canberra, be considered in due course, but aren’t we Sydney and Cairns on various dates. I under- discussing a Community Affairs References stand that the facilities of Hansard would Committee report dealing with the tobacco have been made available to the committee at industry and the costs of tobacco-related those hearings. This parliament and the illnesses? Whilst we might have some concern various committees of this parliament need about the ailments of the government, I am resources to enable them to carry out their not really sure that Senator Cooney can draw proper functions under the constitution in the link that this is somehow related to respect of their duties to the people of Aus- tobacco illnesses. tralia. Senator COONEY—On the point of order, It would be a disaster if this—I use this it is quite clear that what I am talking about word advisedly—august parliament were has everything to do with this report, and, treated as if it were another department of indeed, with every report. This very report, as state, a department run by the government. It with all other reports, is made possible only is in that respect that I rise to express my by people, as I have already indicated, travel- concern about an insert in the Daily Hansard ling around the country calling a number of of 1 May 1996 which came to my room this witnesses—and I will go through those—and morning. That insert reads: having the resources to bring forward certain In the light of anticipated funding reductions, the propositions that are of vital importance to distribution of the printed Daily Hansard is under this country. I would have thought that how review, with the expectation that there will be that is done—the wherewithal by which this significant reductions in print runs. report is made available—is central to the When a final decision is made, users will be issue that we have to address today. advised. Both the Daily Hansard and the Weekly Hansard are available on the Internet. The home The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT page address for Hansard is: (Senator Reynolds)—There is no point of order. Please continue, Senator Cooney. The address is given. Senator Crane, whom I respect, laughs about this. This is not a Senator COONEY—What I say is this. laughing matter. It is a matter of what re- There are three arms of government. One of sources are made available to parliament. those arms is the executive, and it does not Parliament is superior to and stands above the matter whether it is an executive from the ministry and it should not be subject to cuts. party that is now on this side of the chamber or an executive, as it in fact is, from the Senator MacGibbon interjecting— parties on the other side. The executive is one Senator COONEY—Senator MacGibbon, arm, and one arm of government alone. If it I am surprised that you should be making a is in a position to exercise, in effect, restraint joke of this. You have been one of the great upon the parliament and upon the judiciary so parliamentarians over the years. You have not as to make their work less efficient—less been a person who has sought ministerial off- efficient is the degree to which I put it—than ice. You are a person who I have always tho- it otherwise would be, then we as parliamen- ught has a great respect for parliament. To see tarians fail. 300 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

Through you, Madam Acting Deputy I will finish on a lighter note. When I was President, Senator Abetz has got up, and talking about this with Marcia O’Hara, who properly so, to defend, as he sees it, his guides me in these things, she said that government. I am not having a go—if I can Hansard is now only available—(Time ex- put it that way—in specific terms about his pired) government or specifically about his govern- Senator MacGIBBON (Queensland)— ment. What I am having a go about is this: Madam Acting Deputy President, I claim to that parliament, which is supposed to be the have been misrepresented. I seek leave to supreme body and from which the executive make a personal explanation. is selected, should not play to the tune set by government. If there are resources to be Leave granted. reduced, then they should be reduced by the Senator MacGIBBON—I thank the Senate. parliament. If the parliament agrees, pursuant Senator Cooney implied that there had been to a proposition brought before it, that it a lapse from my traditional respect for the should take part in general funding cuts, so be institution of parliament. I can assure him that it. It should not be subject to a proposition that is not so. I was very pleased at the put forward in an inset or in a Hansard that general tenor of his address, but it did strike says, ‘Well, look, there are anticipated fund- me as somewhat surprising that he com- ing reductions and the resources available to mented that the executive was answerable to you are going to be less.’ That is not how we the parliament. That is a belief I have always as parliamentarians should go forward. inflexibly held. I passed an observation, and he probably did not hear me clearly. All I According to the governments’s proposition, said was, ‘I can’t remember when I have there is a need for funding cuts. That is a heard that coming from you when you were political issue. That is a matter we are going in government.’ to discuss in the chamber. It is very legiti- mate—more than legitimate—for those oppos- Senator COONEY (Victoria)—by leave—I ite, who now have a mandate to govern, to accept what Senator MacGibbon says about put forward propositions that will result in his respect for parliament. In answer to that, funding cuts if accepted by this chamber. It Senator MacGibbon, you might look at one of is not proper, it is not in accordance with the reports that we introduced to this chamber constitutional history and it is not in accord- on the cost of justice. You will see that, as ance with parliamentary history in this coun- chairman of the committee involved, I said try or in England—from which we, in large very much that sort of thing in print. I will part, take our precedents—that parliament get you a copy and get it sent to you. should be subject to the dictates of a lesser Senator MacGIBBON (Queensland)—by body. leave—I will graciously, fully and unreserved- ly apologise to you, Senator Cooney. When the present government was in opposition, it called for, as it was entitled to Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia) do, documents from the executive. There was (6.27 p.m.)—I have almost hyperventilated great dispute about that. Parliament was with the exercise that I got jumping for the exercising its power over the executive— call. Madam Acting Deputy President, seeing making the executive responsible to the that you have allowed the latitude you have legislature, to the parliament. It is proper that on the consideration of the tobacco industry we as parliamentarians continue what was and the cost of related illness report of the suggested by those applications and which Senate Standing Committee on Community came as a result of a long and glorious history Affairs, I just cannot allow some of Senator of parliamentary rule. It is only proper that, Cooney’s comments to go without a response. if there is to be this reduction in the funds I find it fascinating, Senator Cooney, that made available to this parliament to carry out your comments are from a person who be- its functions, we as a parliament should have longs to a party which has been in govern- a say in it. ment for 13 years and which has sought in Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 301 every way, shape and form to grind down the We thought that, while this product is legal, facilities of this parliament lock, stock and snatching it out of the stores—as is literally barrel. Also, you come from a party which proposed by the majority report—was not until recently saw fit to have the Daily Hans- only unfair but would certainly impact very ards printed on archive paper that lasts 100 seriously on the viability of many businesses. years when the Daily Hansards are pelted out The report details the number of businesses the door the moment the Weekly Hansards are that would be affected by such a move. It also printed. Also, you come from a party that highlights the types of businesses that would should be sufficiently informed about technol- be affected. The minority report was very ogy to know that the Hansards are on the seriously considered by Senator Minchin and database, which is a far better and more me in those terms to make sure that the economical use. You also come from a party business community was not going to be that has trumpeted long and loud about seriously and detrimentally affected overnight. conservation issues and preserving the forests. The part that I wish to raise tonight is the You cannot have it both ways. role one of the cigarette companies played in We need to get a reasonable response the misinformation and the distribution of that across the board about the requirement of misinformation. Senator West actually re- facilities by senators, members and people ferred to it briefly last night as well in her who use the Hansard as to what is the most comments about this report. Given the fact practical position to take on the Hansards and that the report had made a number of recom- the distribution of the daily, weekly and mendations that I felt had great significance electronic Hansards because, quite frankly, I for the health of the Australian population, I do not know too many people who go to bed was very disturbed that Philip Morris in every night and read their daily copy of the particular decided to not only distort the Hansard cover to cover. I have to say that I report but also not even mention the dissent- do not read mine every night. ing report. I will now get back to the issue before the Senate—that is, the tobacco industry and the I have not been keen to agitate this sensi- cost of tobacco related illness report handed tive issue, particularly in a public sense. I in down by the Senate Community Affairs no way wish my dissenting report to be References Committee just before Christmas. interpreted as an endorsement of smoking, I, as I say, was a member of that committee under-age smoking or in fact any type of and I agree wholeheartedly with the majority smoking in general by any age. Rather, I am of the recommendations put down by the maj- keen to see that whatever regulations are put ority of the committee. I agree that smoking into place are fair and reasonable. is addictive. I agree that everything that is Philip Morris actually sent a so-called humanly possible should be done not only to information sheet to retailers around Australia, get people to stop smoking but also to stop including retailers in Western Australia. I call them from smoking in the first instance. it a misinformation sheet because it told However, Senator Minchin, who spoke on business owners that the Senate’s plan to ban this report yesterday, and I did see fit to put the sale of cigarettes in their stores would in a minority report on some of the issues that dramatically impact upon their business. They were canvassed by the committee which we inferred that this was legislation. In fact, the felt had a very serious and potentially delet- inference went one step further: they inferred erious impact on small business. We proposed that it was law. It went on to say that such a something much stronger in our general ban would threaten the income and livelihood recommendations about making the sale of of their business and that of their employees. cigarettes to minors illegal. I think that shows It urged them to write to a named member of our bona fides in terms of the attitude that we parliament raising a number of points, which took to the question of smoking in general they provided on a separate page, and to let and the desire that we had to see fewer and Philip Morris know what action they had fewer people in the community smoking. taken. 302 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

In the letters sent to Western Australian It is the responsibility of any business to retailers my name and contact details were ensure that the proceedings of this parliament provided, albeit the provision of the details are reported accurately—if that is what a was partially incorrect as well. But in doing business wishes to do. But to report them this it remains my view that it was implied inaccurately, as Philip Morris did, is very sad. that I had supported the committee’s recom- It is very sad given the fact that in relation to mendations that businesses be seriously the business aspect and the impact on busi- affected and that I should be lobbied to nesses, I was right behind them. I am not reverse that point of view. Of course, the right behind them in terms of encouraging company argued the contrary. In fact, I found people to smoke. It is very sad that this event it rather amusing in some sense, had it not took place. I certainly hope that Philip Morris been so wrong, that in the end they tried to and other companies will be more careful in imply that they had done this for my benefit, the future. that I was somehow going to be made the Senator TEAGUE (South Australia) (6.36 hero of small business when the correction p.m.)—The Senate has been very interested to was made. Nothing could be further from the see such an important report brought before truth. They were not trying to do it for my it. Today and yesterday we heard speeches benefit; they were trying to do it for theirs. from the Chairman of the Community Affairs I think it is very sad, given the fact that we References Committee, Senator Herron, and had heard the arguments of Philip Morris and from other colleagues of mine—from Senator a lot of the other cigarette companies through- Minchin, Senator Knowles, and Senator out the year in the preparation of this report, Cooney, and from Senator West, who spoke that they then sought to go and distort the yesterday. I am sure that we will give every report and not even talk about the dissenting consideration to the arguments set out in the report at all in such a public fashion. No majority report and in the minority report. mention of that dissenting report was made in For the record, I am entirely convinced by any letter in the first state, and it was not the position that Senator Herron has put to the until I performed and questioned very serious- committee in the majority report: tobacco is ly their motive and the way in which they had addictive; tobacco is poisonous to the human done this that they then offered to give me a system; and it is our responsibility to curb list of the people to whom they had sent the every possible use of tobacco, consistent with original misinformation sheet. But then they the human rights and freedoms of citizens to retracted on that guarantee and said that they choose. The day is fast coming when tobacco would in the end put out a sheet on my will be described accurately as a poison and behalf. when it will no longer be fully available for My office was flooded with calls, faxes and sale in the community in the way that it is letters from retailers who were angry at me now. for making recommendations on cigarette sales which stood to harm their businesses The other matter that leads me to rise and at my party for doing so. But in reality concerns the general remarks in this debate nothing could be further from the truth. In the from Senator Cooney, my good friend. I course of my negotiations with Philip Morris quarrel not with Senator Cooney’s point that about sending the second letter, a representa- parliament should have appropriate and ample tive of the company had the gall to tell me resources to do its work—of course, I support that the letter to retailers would work in my that; and from the clarification of Senator favour by providing me with a perfect oppor- MacGibbon’s remarks, I can see that he tunity to communicate with small business stands by that as well, as do we all—but I owners. That is absolute rot. They did not quarrel with my good friend Senator Cooney write such a letter to open up the paths of fearing an outcome. He is anticipating what communication between retailers and mem- might be in the budget. bers of parliament; they wrote it, plain as day, I do not believe, even with the restricted to further their own interests. and measured amount that was announced in Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 303 the election campaign, that there will be a cut the reports. We have all allowed a great deal in the expenditure in the upcoming budget of latitude, but I think a number of senators which will affect all areas of government and wish to speak to particular reports. The debate all areas of the parliament. But let me assert we are having could be said to have strayed to Senator Cooney, and indeed to all senators, a bit from the actual report. that, if there are any measures put in the Senator CRANE (Western Australia) (6.42 budget that relate to parliamentary appropri- p.m.)—My contribution will be very short. I ation which are judged by a majority in this fully endorse the report, and I wish to take up Senate to be seriously affecting the ability of the matter of the two points of order that have the parliament to do its work, then the parlia- been raised. I happened to make a comment ment must say so. Then, through the estimates across the chamber to which Senator Cooney process and legislation committees, it must replied, ‘This is no laughing matter, Senator examine the detail of the provision with Crane.’ I was not laughing at this report. I did regard to the Senate, Hansard, the library, the make an interjection when Senator Cooney, Joint House Department and, if necessary, the I believe quite incorrectly, introduced the House of Representatives to ensure that the matter of Hansard reports and the likelihood parliament does have the resources to fulfil its of us not having them. I said, ‘Do you smoke responsibilities—as we do in so many ways— them, Barney?’ He turned that around to say not least in the committee system, which was that I was laughing at this particular report. the focus of Senator Cooney’s remarks. I want to make it quite clear to this cham- My colleagues and I said this when Senator ber that I was not laughing at this particular Walsh was Minister for Finance and when at report. Had Senator Cooney stuck to the one stage there was a tussle about whether subject matter, as has been raised by Senator there was adequate provision for the parlia- Abetz and now Senator Evans, he would not ment. The appropriate way for that to take have done that. If we are going to get through place is for the Leader of the Government in these reports, it is important that we stick to the Senate (Senator Hill), after proper consul- the subject matter. I reiterate: I was not tations with colleagues, and for the Leader of laughing at this particular report. I was having the Opposition in the Senate (Mr Faulkner) a little bit of fun with regard to the misuse, I and other representative senators to have believe, of this particular report. meetings with the Minister for Finance (Mr Fahey) to ensure that there are appropriate The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT moneys. If there are not appropriate moneys, (Senator Reynolds)—I thank you for your they should make the appropriate resolutions contribution. In relation to the points of order, when the budget is before us. I think the debate did range too widely for the nature of the report under consideration. I My quarrel with Senator Cooney is that he accept that a great deal of latitude was given has set up a scarecrow. I understand solidly on this occasion, but I agree that we must his principle that the parliament must have its stick to the detail of the report in question. resources. The parliament has control of the budget, even if it is initiated, as with all Question resolved in the affirmative. money bills, in the House of Representatives. Economics References Committee We all—opposition and government members Report and minority party senators alike—must stand when the time appropriately comes. We must Senator FERGUSON (South Australia) not stand in any anxious anticipation of the (6.45 p.m.)—I move: budget. But, when the time appropriately That the Senate take note of the report. comes, we must stand to ensure that the I can promise that I will stick to the subject parliament is able to fulfil its duties. matter and content of this report because it Senator Chris Evans—Madam Chair, on was a very important committee inquiry into a point of order: I rise to indicate that perhaps what became known as Eastlink. On 30 it would be appropriate to stick a bit closer to March last year, the Senate referred to the 304 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

Senate Economics References Committee for Energy, suggesting that we were conducting inquiry and report the matter of the proposed a kangaroo court, that because I as a South interconnection of New South Wales and Australian was chairing it perhaps I didn’t Queensland electricity grids with a high have any knowledge of what was going on in voltage powerline. Queensland anyway. The matter arose following public question- Senator Abetz—Is he still the minister? ing of the viability of the link and other Senator FERGUSON—He is not minister. matters, the imposition of its construction on He is a colleague of Senator Burns, but I private lands and the possible health risks would say that, judging by the paper com- emanating from high voltage powerlines. ments the next morning, not a close colleague Because the committee’s report was com- of Senator Burns. It is the first time I have pleted after the Senate rose at the end of last ever been on a Senate inquiry where senators year, it was presented to the President of the have actually been welcomed with the enthu- Senate out of session on 18 December 1995. siasm they were on this inquiry. I think that Although the Eastlink inquiry stemmed is a sign that the people in the general com- from a proposal which forms part of a much munity welcomed the opportunity and the broader plan, that of interconnecting the activity of Senate committees. electricity utilities of the eastern states to in- One of the photos in the report distinctly crease national competitiveness and efficien- shows a photograph of a truck going down cy, the committee’s work for the most part the street. All it has on it is a banner saying, particularly related to the concerns of those ‘We thank the senators just for coming’. I people living along the proposed Eastlink think that highlighted the effectiveness of route; that is, the regions flowing along a line Senate committees and the work they do. It from Gatton, near Toowoomba, in Queensland gave people who felt they had been deprived to Armidale in northern New South Wales. of any opportunity, any public hearing or any The link was to have been a 330 kilovolt consultation to have a chance to talk to the double circuit steel trowel transmission line, Senate and to publicly state what their feel- having a length of about 380 kilometres to ings really were. 400 kilometres, capable of carrying 500 megawatts in either direction. To me, one of the highlights of this particu- During the course of this inquiry, the lar inquiry was the fact that people who felt committee received 274 submissions, 1,266 they had been deprived of any opportunity to form letters and surveys, and petitions carry- state their case now felt that there was a ing some 2,658 signatures. Public hearings venue and an opportunity, through the Senate were held in Toowoomba and Armidale and committee system, for them to do so. I think detailed inspections were conducted along it is a case of taking the parliament to the parts of the route. people when normally we expect the people to come to the parliament. So I think that was During these hearings and inspections it most important. became clear to the committee that the com- munities affected by Eastlink were very The committee’s inquiry covered a lot of strongly against the proposal. Demonstrations aspects, particularly the potential health were held outside public hearing venues and effects of EMFs. I think that far outweighed the community of Allora organised a street any of the other considerations we were parade to show the committee just how lobbied on or given evidence on, excepting strongly people felt about Eastlink passing perhaps some of the environmental concerns. through the Allora region. I well remember The committee found that many people held that street demonstration because it was early genuine reservations about the impact that a in the course of our inquiry. I do remember high voltage powerline may have on their that when the committee first went to Queens- health and the health of their families. land to hear evidence we were welcomed by In attempting to resolve this issue from a the then Queensland Minister for Mines and scientific point of view, it became clear that Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 305 reputable scientists have taken strong stands The committee concluded that, while the both in support of and against the proposition power authorities put a large effort into public that high voltage powerlines may cause health consultation, the methods used were not effects in people living near them. In the light acceptable to and were not accepted by many of such conflicting evidence, and because it of those people affected by the proposed is not possible to scientifically prove a nega- powerline. The committee also concluded that tive, the committee was unable to totally the effect on the community of the public dismiss the possibility that there may be consultation process—as inadequate as it adverse effects. Similarly, we were unable to was—was, ironically, ‘considerable social conclude that a definite link exists between disquiet and distress’. high voltage powerlines and adverse effects Throughout the inquiry the committee was on human health and thus that any new policy impressed by the knowledge and the enthusi- recommendations need to be made. asm the community groups and individuals However, the one thing that we were able held for alternative renewable forms of elec- to agree on and conclude was that simply the tricity generation. This view paralleled the fear of detrimental health effects—whether opinion expressed in the report of this real or imaginary—was itself having an committee’s predecessor, the Standing Com- impact on the lives of some individuals who mittee on Industry, Science and Technology, were affected by the Eastlink proposal. In when it tabled a report in the Senate in 1992 acknowledging those concerns the committee entitled Gas and electricity: combining effi- took a similar stand to that of the Gibbs ciency and greenhouse. The report also said report and agreed that, as a minimum policy that Queensland would be an ideal place for or until evidence is proved otherwise, the increased research and development of renew- concept of prudent avoidance should continue able energy options. to be practised by government and power I want to pay a special tribute to the secre- authorities. tariat. The economic references committee In the case of Eastlink, we particularly secretariat has had a number of inquiries over concluded that prudent avoidance should the past 12 months and the dedication of the mean siting the line as far as possible away staff is outstanding. In this particular case from houses, outbuildings and other farm there were 274 written submissions, and the facilities. Of course, history has moved on work that the secretariat put into the in- since then and we know that decisions have quiry—particularly the secretary, Rob Dia- been taken which are possibly not in the light mond, and Dr Pippa Carron—was quite of the committee’s report. But I am quite sure outstanding. I certainly pay tribute to them. that some of the evidence that we took and As the former chairman of that committee, the recommendations we made had an influ- I also pay tribute to the members of the ence on a decision that was made by the now committee, particularly my deputy chairman, Queensland government to revisit the issue of Senator Bruce Childs. This committee has a both the power connection and the Eastlink history of providing unanimous reports to the proposal itself. Senate. Although this was not a totally unani- With regard to the community consultation mous report—we thought we had one until process used, there was much evidence given Senator Woodley put in a two-page minority to the committee that, while authorities made report at the end—there was general agree- an effort to consult people directly affected by ment and we worked towards a unanimous the proposal, both those individuals and the report. The functions of the committee in this broader community rejected the consultation particular case were designed to represent the process as completely inadequate. People views of people in the area and I felt that we believed that they were never given a chance had a responsibility to come to as unanimous or choice on Eastlink in the consultation a report as possible. process and that because of that it was intrin- I thank the committee members—Senator sically flawed. Burns and Senator Woodley are here—and 306 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 those people involved in the Eastlink inquiry. involved in this particular measure took the I appreciate the way we worked together. I Big Brother approach. They really were say- hope that when the new references committee ing to people, ‘We’ll consult with you,’ but has met and its chairman is elected, the same all they wanted to do was tell people what spirit of cooperation will exist when reporting they were going to do, how they were going to the Senate on matters of vital importance to do it and how it should not worry anyone. which have been referred to it. To me that is not real consultation. I hope Senator BURNS (Queensland) (6.55 that in the future, if this matter does proceed, p.m.)—I was most impressed during the there is good consultation. I hope that they do committee hearings by the way in which take notice of the suggestions by the commit- people came along to make a contribution and tee about siting within particular properties to express their concerns for the future, not and across that area generally when the link only about themselves in any commercial is put in in the years ahead. operation they may have had in terms of rural Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (6.57 activity, but also about their children and their p.m.)—I would like to welcome the tabling of children’s future. this report of the Economics References I do not think there is any doubt that Committee. The Senate may remember that in Eastlink will proceed at some stage because March last year I actually initiated this in- there is no nation on this planet that stops any quiry with the support of coalition members. transmission line for electricity at a state or I, too, would like to add to what Senator provincial border; it is done within a nation. Ferguson said. My congratulations and thanks Economically, I believe the imperatives are go to the staff of the committee. They did a there for it to occur at a later stage. marvellous job. Not only were there over 200 As Senator Ferguson said, once again the submissions but some of those submissions Senate committee system gave an opportunity were very substantial indeed. to people to have a platform to voice their On behalf of the committee, I would also concerns about what they saw as a real like to thank the chair, Senator Ferguson. He problem for them and the people in their did an admirable job, a remarkable job. It was community. very well done. I have had discussions with eminent people in the electricity industry and with those who Senator Minchin—He is an admirable oppose transmission lines and have concerns fellow. about EMFs. One thing emerges clearly: no- Senator WOODLEY—He is. With Senator one can show that they are detrimental and Ferguson, I would also like to thank the no-one can show that they are not. The jury people who made submissions, particularly is still out on that particular matter. There is the people of Allora. It was quite a remark- one thing it is certain the jury is not out on: able experience to have half the town turn out the visual pollution is damned horrible. It is to welcome a Senate committee. I guess that a pity some other way could not be found this is one of the great and often undervalued through alternative energy. roles of the Senate—that is, to provide an People in the community voiced their opportunity for people to have their voices opposition to Eastlink, but it was also very heard. enlightening and very good to hear them Since the report was tabled last December, suggesting alternative energy. I was a little there has been a change of government in surprised, because I have never heard people Queensland. In this respect, at least I con- do so in such a consistent way as those gratulate the new coalition government on people did who appeared before the commit- their decision to heed the views and advice of tee. I for one support those sorts of proposi- many people and of this Senate committee, tions. and to cancel the Eastlink project. I hear what The consultation question was a real prob- Senator Burns says. In the future there may lem. I guess like all quangos the people be a connection of some sort but certainly Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 307 now is not the time for that connection to be the Queensland government may go down made. that track. I would like to draw the Senate’s attention I believe it is ridiculous that governments to a few parts of the report, particularly my consider spending hundreds of millions of additional minority report. It was not a dis- taxpayers’ dollars on unnecessarily generating senting report in the sense that it disagreed and transmitting electricity. It appears very with the report which was made, which I much that this is being driven by electricity endorsed; rather, it emphasised a number of companies. We have seen evidence of that in points which I believe needed more emphasis recent weeks in the media in Queensland. We and underlined a need for much better scru- saw a scandalous example of an electricity tiny of the real economic, environmental and corporation trying to hoodwink the state health costs of Eastlink. government into believing that there was an In terms of the minority report, I would just impending power crisis, with blackouts and like to put on the record the broader environ- brownouts supposedly likely to be widespread mental concerns which I believe need to be this summer. addressed. The report states: It has now come to light, in a statement to The Democrats believe the evidence provided to the the Queensland government in recent days, Inquiry shows that this scenario is totally false and was . a continuing lack of support by governments or based on false information given to the the electricity industry for encouraging the government by one of the power generating reduction of electricity consumption throughout the community, and authorities. It is clear to me that electricity companies will do all they can to further their . an ongoing failure to provide serious support or encouragement to alternative energy options, own commercial interests, regardless of the and— overall economic, environmental, social and although, as Senator Burns says, that is what health costs to the community. the community is asking for— I agree with what Don Maisch said in a . little or no consideration given to the potential right-of-reply which he made to the Electricity impact of Eastlink on greenhouse gas emissions. Supply Association of Australia’s criticism of Those are the things that I wanted to under- his original report entitled Fields of Conflict. line, and that was really the reason for the He says this: minority report. It is perhaps understandable why the ESAA— The final paragraph of the report reiterates Electricity Supply Association of Australia— once again that Queensland would be an ideal place for increased research and development consistently denies that there is a possible EMF- of renewable energy options. It is obvious to health hazard. Their role is not to be a public health "watch dog", but to be an advocate for the me that this potential, underlined by two power industries interests, and talk of health Senate reports, is not being addressed. That hazards is, quite frankly, bad for business. costs us all environmentally, but it means also If this whole debate were about the hazards from that Queensland is missing out on consider- tobacco smoking, and not about EMF’s, could we able economic benefits in being able to rely on the tobacco institute to give expert advice establish renewable energy industries, with the on the health risk from smoking? likelihood of many jobs being generated in The ESAA should be concerned about the legal that area. implications of their attempts to suppress the I believe it is good that Eastlink will now evidence of an EMF health hazard. In both the be scrapped, but it is crucial that in the light asbestos and tobacco industry, similar attempts to of that scrapping the Queensland government suppress hazard information eventually resulted in multi million dollar litigation cases. Specifically does not just replace it with other powerlines because their attempts to suppress information or, even worse, build more coal fired or indicated the industries knew of the risk, and still hydro-electric power stations. Unfortunately, knowingly exposed workers and the public to their it appears that this is still a possibility—that products. 308 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

I just want to say that it is a risky strategy for certainly I as a coalition member am happy to the ESAA to be involved in. I hope the encourage the government to adopt them. If Queensland government is able to stand up to they are adopted, the redistribution process this sort of strategy used by the ESAA and will be considerably improved. make decisions for the future benefit of all The major problem with the redistribution Queenslanders. process at the moment is the requirement on Question resolved in the affirmative. the redistribution committee to ensure that 3½ years after the redistribution is made no Electoral Matters Committee division will deviate by over two per cent Report from the average divisional enrolment for that Senator MINCHIN (South Australia— state. That was actually a relaxation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) original Labor rule which said that after 3½ (7.06 p.m.)—I move: years there had to be exact equality, which That the Senate take note of the report. was an impossible requirement. There was a relaxation brought in to make it two per cent I note that the only good thing the lost but but even that has proved to be extremely not lamented Frank Walker ever did was ask difficult. the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into the redistribution Labor and Liberal members alike regard process. I think it was timely and necessary that requirement on distribution committees in that the redistribution mechanisms be re- drawing electoral boundaries as an impossible viewed. mathematical requirement which is subjugat- ing all other criteria in relation to community Probably the only other good thing that interest, et cetera, to the mathematical require- occurred under the Labor administration was ment, which for those of us who have been that it finally got the right chairman for this actively involved in redistributions is guess- committee. Laurie Ferguson was the third work anyway. It is based on population Labor chairman of this committee in as many projections which often prove wildly inaccu- months. No offence to my friend and col- rate. It is resulting in rural electorates, which league Senator Foreman, Laurie Ferguson did have relatively low growth, being placed well a tremendous job of chairing the committee above quota and therefore even bigger than at the time of this redistribution. I congratu- they would otherwise be. Our rural members late him on his appointment to the shadow are having an impossible task placed before ministry. Laurie did a great job in ensuring them as a result of this section. that we approach this job in a bipartisan fashion. One of the most important recommenda- tions is that we allow for a variation in the Senator McKiernan—He should be a rules relating to the 3½ years and the two per minister. cent. I think the two per cent the committee Senator MINCHIN—Shadow minister will recommended should be allowed out to 3½ do for the moment. We produced a unani- per cent. The National Party submitted that it mous report, which I always think is a healthy should be five per cent. I think the govern- sign in what is otherwise a very partisan ment should move to a 3½ per cent tolerance, parliament. The committee secretary, Kieran if not more, in order that we can have a Schneemann, and the secretariat did a first sensible approach to the business of redist- class job in supporting the committee on this ributions and take account of other criteria. I occasion. I am delighted that Kieran has also note the recommendation that the period moved on to greener pastures by joining the of 3½ years probably should be reduced. It is staff of a coalition minister. very difficult to project 3½ years out. That As I said, it was a unanimous report. There probably should come back to two years. are 24 individual recommendations which the There is also a very important recommenda- new government will now need to consider. tion, No. 4, in relation to large electorates. I Because the recommendations are unanimous, think we all accept now the 10 per cent rule, Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 309 although it was very contentious back in 1974 constitutional change in that state, the only when it was introduced. We have recommend- state that provides for politically fair boundar- ed that the Minister for Administrative Ser- ies. We now have in South Australia the vices consult with the six largest House of fairest boundaries of any state in Australia— Representatives seats to discuss ways in or indeed of the nation—in that they provide which we can improve the members’ capacity that the party that wins a majority of the votes to represent their constituents. I think that is shall have a majority of the seats. a very important recommendation and one I I, as an architect of that South Australian encourage our new Minister for Administra- scheme, was wanting the committee to look tive Services (Mr Jull) to take up. Some of at that issue from a federal point of view. I our electorates are impossibly huge, some as concede, and I do so in the report, that it is large as western Europe, and very difficult for extremely difficult to apply such a mechanism anyone to service. at a federal level. It would have to be done on We also recommended that the criteria in a state by state basis. You are dealing in some relation to existing boundaries be subservient states with relatively few seats. It is very to the other qualitative criteria—that is, difficult to apply the very good South Aus- community interests, means of communication tralian system at a federal level. and travel, physical features—because the I also concede that, at the moment, there is boundaries commissioners find themselves no obvious call for such a system. We do not having to constrain themselves to existing have a situation nationally where governments boundaries for no reason. There is no reason win office with less than 50 per cent of the at all why undue regard should be paid to vote. The only recent experience was in 1990 existing boundaries when drawing seats. where the coalition got just over 50 per cent Community interest is the most important of the vote but did not win. I do not think it qualitative criteria and should override exist- was so dramatic a deviation that it would call ing boundaries. They are among the most for a review of this issue at a federal level but significant recommendations which, again, I do think it is an issue that the parliament were supported unanimously and which I should monitor. It should constantly keep hope the government will look seriously at. under watch the question of the political We discussed the issue of electoral boun- fairness of federal boundaries. If we find daries and political fairness to some degree. significant deviations occurring—one way or That is dealt with in chapter five of this very the other—then the matter should be looked good report. It is an issue of considerable at to see whether something like the South importance. We have seen in a number of Australian model should be brought in nation- state elections in particular governments of ally. both colours winning office with less than 50 In conclusion, I think this is a very good per cent of the two-party preferred vote, review of the nation’s system for drawing which is not one vote one value at all. It of electoral boundaries, the system that does necessity means that voters for the party that determine who wins office. It is the nature of is achieving government with less than 50 per the seats; it is the nature of government. We cent has a vote worth more than the party that do have to ensure one vote, one value but we is gaining the majority of the vote but a also have to ensure politically fair boundaries. minority of the seats. Therefore they need to be monitored. This It is a complete denial of one vote, one report will now go to the new government value to have such a situation occur. We have and I hope it will adopt what are unanimous had that situation in Queensland and New recommendations. I therefore commend the South Wales recently. It occurred in South report to the Senate. Australia in 1989, where the Labor Party, The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT with 48 per cent of the vote, was able to (Senator Calvert)—Order! It being approxi- govern. I was privileged to be part of a group mately 7.15 p.m., the time for this debate is of people who brought about a tremendous concluded. 310 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

ADJOURNMENT way because ATSIC is not able to provide Motion (by Senator Brownhill) proposed: any substantiation that it has been accountable on Strelley. That the Senate do now adjourn. The response to the concerns raised since Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 1993, when a task force review was con- Commission ducted, has been piecemeal to say the least. Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia) The outcome has been questionable at best. (7.15 p.m.)—Tonight I wish to speak on the Certainly, it would appear that the former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commis- minister, Mr Tickner, had little interest in the sion because of my concern for the way in allegations raised. Equally, it appears that which it appears to lack accountability. It certain staff in ATSIC Perth have had to go receives about $854 million each financial it alone in terms of trying to sort out the year, not counting funds for things like the mess, by commissioning a special task force Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres review and an independent audit report of its Strait Islander Studies or Aboriginal Hostels. grants to the Strelley and Nomads entities. The total Commonwealth expenditure on the The most recently released audit report is an indigenous population is about $1.3 billion inspection of funds granted by ATSIC to and the latest census data indicates that the Strelley and Nomads. That was conducted by population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Duesburys Chartered Accountants. The report, Islander people is 265,000 or 1.6 per cent of I have to say, is damning. I seek leave of the the total population. Senate to table both these documents. I would have to say that what I am going Leave granted. to outline tonight I would outline if it came Senator KNOWLES—The report arises from any possible department that you could from a recommendation made by the Strelley wish to think of. And I want to dispute up task force review team back in March 1994. front any claim of any degree of racism, It indicates that the former Department of because I believe very firmly—as my record Aboriginal Affairs and its successor, ATSIC, will show throughout my time in the Senate, planned a number of reviews of the Strelley in the chamber and in estimates and other organisation over the past 20 years. These did committee hearings—that I have had a long not eventuate until the regional council of interest in and concern about the welfare of ATSIC made a once and for all decision in Aboriginal communities, and particularly April 1993 to suspend ongoing funding for about health, employment prospects and 1993-94 to Strelley and Nomads until a major housing. But accountability must be an review was undertaken. CDEP funding was across-the-board phenomenon. It must not be suspended in July of the same year by dependent upon race, colour, religion, nation- ATSIC. ality, gender or anything else. Nor should it The task force report explains that the be exempted by any of these things. reason for this is that the administrator of the The Strelley station in the Pilbara, the companies, Mr Don McLeod, whose office is north-west region of my home state of West- located in South Guildford some 1,800 kilo- ern Australia, and related entities such as the metres away from the site of Strelley station, Nomads Charitable and Educational Founda- constantly denied ATSIC access to the Abo- tion, have been intermittently under the riginal communities there. The report says microscope in the Senate since 1993. I have that Mr McLeod required ATSIC staff or staff raised my concerns about it regularly, as have from other agencies to seek his permission my colleagues Senator Panizza and Senator before they visited the Aboriginal communi- Tambling. There have been speeches, ques- ties. Approval was not usually forthcoming tions on notice and questions asked at many and, when it was, administrative staff from Senate estimates committee hearings. There the South Guildford office accompanied the has been print media and television coverage. ATSIC staff on their visits. They were not Now an ombudsman investigation is under permitted to contact the communities directly Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 311 to arrange visits. Due to this arrangement and house building, two generator sheds, two fuel the alleged lack of cooperation by Mr tanks and three water tanks. It is alleged that, McLeod, the investigation took many years to despite this state of abandon, ATSIC had eventuate. When it did, according to the poured another $1.6 million into Strelley. This report, it ‘was not able to satisfactorily ad- is despite the insistence of a former caretaker, dress a number of the terms of reference’. Mr Ric Livingstone, who stated in his Februa- Additionally, recommendation 10 on page ry 1993 report to the state government that 70 of the report indicates: the money was going to waste or, worse still, that it had been syphoned away from the ATSIC staff conducted their tasks working under the threat of being arrested and charged if they Aboriginal communities. stepped foot onto any of the Strelley properties . . . The task force report in 1994 and the Actually, the concern about Mr McLeod’s subsequent Duesburys report of this year paint ability to run the stations in the best interests a very bleak picture in terms of gross of Aboriginal people goes as far back as misappropriation of funds and the question- 1977. I seek leave to table a copy of an able existence or use of assets. Alarmingly, in assessment made by the Chief Pastoral In- my mind many of these assets were in Perth, spector, dated 12 January 1977, to the chair- not in the Pilbara where the communities man of the Pastoral Appraisement Board. reside. It stands as obvious that they could Leave granted. have been of no benefit to the Aboriginal communities for where they were intended. Senator KNOWLES—I thank the Senate. These assets included a $33,000 Cessna 150, In that assessment the inspector stated: five motor vehicles to a total value in excess Apart from this, it is pointed out that Strelley of $70,000, a mobile septic tank valued at Pastoral Pty Ltd also "manage" Coongan and about $3,500 and an $11,000 trailer-mounted Warralong, held by the Aboriginal Land Fund solar plant that is in Perth. The finding on the Commission. It should also be noted that this same group, headed by Mr Don McLeod, were in earlier CDEP outcome is that not a single time sheet years responsible for the virtual extinction of could be found. There was no proof of the Riverdale, Meentheena, Yandeeyarra and White operation of the program. Springs as operational station units and it is a foregone conclusion that such will be the fate of In the summary of the findings Duesburys Strelley, Coongan, Warralong and any other indicate that, despite their best efforts, they pastoral properties which come under their control. were unable to prove and identify the exist- The inspector then concluded: ence of assets purchased with grant funding, nor were they able to physically inspect these I have no hesitation recommending that the request assets to determine their operational status or to transfer Lalla Rookh to Strelley Pastoral Pty Ltd be refused until such time as the company has their current market values. demonstrated its real intent and ability to efficiently Some of the things that need to be high- develop, stock and operate stations in a husband- lighted include the failure to provide financial like manner as required under Section 103(3)(4)(c) of the Land Act. reports to ATSIC within the reporting periods specified, failure to have financial reports Maybe if that advice and warning had been certified as having been ordered and failure to heeded, we would not be seeing the gross have financial reports audited by an appropri- waste that is evident today. Nonetheless, the ate person. The list goes on. Then we have evidence that has been produced subsequent specific examples of apparent impropriety, to that since 1993 has been damning and the which include $10,000 paid to Nomads former minister should have taken it on board. Management Pty Ltd for accounting and The task force report showed that Strelley auditing, although the relevant invoices for had been abandoned, but considerable infra- the related party did not detail the nature or structure remained in place. This included 40 the extent of the services provided. We have houses, 10 shelters, two single-men’s quarters, amounts totalling $55,000 which were paid to an ablution block, a solar pack, two school Nomads for airfares and charters, but Nomads buildings, a mechanical workshop, a power- were unable to provide Duesburys with 312 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 documentary evidence as to the nature and I got to know Rob pretty well when he extent of the services provided by Nomads. worked as a senior adviser for the then Minis- Then we have repairs and maintenance of ter for Aboriginal Affairs, Gerry Hand, in the vehicles. late 1980s. I suppose we had a few things in An amount of $6,500 was paid to Watts common. He reminded me on one occasion Western Rubber, Bayswater, Perth, to pur- that there was a bit of Irishness in both of us, chase 58 tyres and 188 tubes. The invoice which lent for a bit of rebellion. He attributed was made out to Strelley Pastoral Pty Ltd but that in part to his name, which was reflective was charged to Nomads. I might add that the of at least part of his ancestry. 58 tyres and 188 tubes were for seven vehi- Rob came from a minority and, as a cles, as were sixty-five 12-volt heavy duty migrant, I was also part of a minority. He also batteries to the value of $3,997. The invoice cared very deeply about people. We had was made out to the Moolyella Society but another thing in common, which I only very was charged to Nomads. Once again, the 65 recently found out, and that was that both of batteries were for seven vehicles. Amounts us had been apprentice fitters and turners. I totalling $12,122 were paid to Nomads Man- stuck with my apprenticeship and he, fortu- agement during 1991-92 for the services of a nately or unfortunately—certainly fortunately part-time bookkeeper, but they were not able for his people—went on to do other things. to ascertain which employee these charges Firstly, he served in the Beaufort Street related to. Magistrates Court as a clerk with the Crown My time is almost ready to expire. The Law Department in Western Australia. He problem is vast and it needs to be addressed. then joined the army and spent three years The minister is very much aware of it. I think there before he returned to Western Australia the Senate should show grave concern for the to study psychology at the WA Institute of way that this has been administered over the Technology, or WAIT, as we called it. From last 13 years. there he went on to work for the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia. Condolences: Mr Rob Riley Then he started on a path that was to bring Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia) him to national and, some would say, interna- (7.25 p.m.)—Tonight in the Senate chamber tional prominence when in 1981, at the tender I rise to mourn, firstly, but also, more import- age of 26, he won an election to serve on the antly, to pay tribute to a great Australian, a then National Aboriginal Council. At 27 he great Western Australian, a great Aboriginal was chairman of the WA branch, and at 28 he and a great bloke. I am talking about Rob was the deputy national chairman. In June Riley. The sad news came through to this 1984 he became the youngest national chair- place yesterday that Rob had been found dead man elected by the national conference of the in a suburban hotel in Perth. It came as a NAC. tremendous shock to me personally. To those around this place who have known Rob and He had very strong views, as did the NAC. who have known him for a number of years, They were perhaps so strong that in the it was a tremendous shock. I imagine that it middle of 1985 the then Hawke government must have been a devastating blow to his decided to abolish the NAC, which put Rob family. I have not been able to talk with out of a job. But he was not out of a job for them. It is probably something that they as very long. He moved himself up to Darwin in family members and intimate friends will not the Northern Territory to work for the North- be able to recover from for a long period. I ern Lands Council. It was when he came to think all of Australia is saddened by Rob’s work for the then Minister for Aboriginal passing and all of Australia is deprived of a Affairs, Gerry Hand, that I actually got to very important individual in the area of know him. From there he continued on his Aboriginal reconciliation and also in the area path to national prominence. of the representation of the views and aspira- Last year he was again very much in the tions of the Aboriginal people of this country. news in Western Australia after a couple of Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 313 unfortunate incidents where he was caught in as a tribute to Rob Riley, this inquiry will be charge of a motor vehicle while under the separated from those cuts and that the influence of alcohol. Obviously, for a person minister will ensure that it will be fully of his prominence and in his position it was funded to its proper conclusion. That would not something to boast about. But he met that be a tribute to this great Western Australian, challenge front on, so much so that the West this great Aboriginal, this great bloke. Australian newspaper saw fit to write an editorial about him on Thursday, 3 August Credit Unions 1995. I want to quote part of that editorial Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (7.34 because it says an enormous amount about the p.m.)—I address the Senate once again on the man: issue of what I believe is failed financial . . . he has salvaged dignity and pride from his supervision in Queensland. Senators might nightmare with his straightforward courage and recall that in 1995 I advised the Senate that honesty in accepting responsibility and punishment the Queensland Office of Financial Supervi- for his wrongdoing. From the depths of his humili- sion and the Queensland Treasurer had failed ation he has set an example of strength of character to competently supervise credit unions in that that others can look up to. state. Queenslanders, quite properly, are asked His resignation from his job of executive director to have confidence in the credit union super- of the ALS is widely regretted—especially in the visor, but I believe that the Queensland Office Aboriginal community—but it was the only honour- of Financial Supervision has failed to act on able course he could take. serious complaints made to it against the Later in the editorial it says: Queensland Professional Credit Union Ltd. Although his offences are serious, they took place I want to explain tonight the extent of the at a time of high emotion for Mr Riley. National failure of the Queensland Office of Financial Aboriginal and Islander Week this year focused on the tragedy of Aboriginal children separated from Supervision. A number of my Queensland the families and only days before his offences Mr constituents have tried to extract answers from Riley had publicly told of his own emotionally QOFS but to no avail. They have been told wrenching experience. To his credit, he made no that the matters with respect to the 57th report attempt to use this to avoid the consequences of his of the Senate Committee of Privileges are ‘at actions. an end’. Yet I believe that no proper investi- The reason I quote those comments is to draw gation was undertaken by QOFS. There attention to the Human Rights and Equal should have been an investigation into the Opportunity Commission’s national inquiry conversion of long service and holiday pay to into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres employer superannuation. If independent Strait Islander children. That is a much inquiries had been made, the QOFS would no needed inquiry. I hope—as, I suspect, do doubt have responded differently to my those other senators who had cause to make constituents. representation to the then government to get With respect to the Senate Privileges Com- this inquiry under way and ensure it had mittee report, the issue is that the Queensland funding—that the inquiry will be a memorial Professional Credit Union took reprisal action to Rob Riley, a person who has done so much against a member when he tried to question to support the cause of Aboriginals in this management of the QPCU. That person’s country. membership in the credit union was terminat- I do not want to make this a partisan ed without giving that member his rights political issue but, as we have talked about in according to the credit union’s own rules. other debates in this place, attempts have been Three members of the credit union then made by government to cut funding in various complained to the QOFS claiming that the program areas under its administration. I credit union had broken its rules and, in turn, suspect that the Human Rights and Equal was in breach of the financial institution’s Opportunity Commission will have to endure code. some funding cuts just as other government The QOFS responded to the members’ com- bodies and departments will. But I hope that, plaint that they had considered the Senate 314 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996

Privileges Committee report and found that no that the ATO was accepting the transfer as a further action was warranted. However, they bona fide transaction. In a newsletter from did not bother to give reasons. Was it perhaps KPMG to clients and in the media, KPMG that they did not consider that there may have states: been a breach? Perhaps they may have thou- ght that there was a breach but that it was not It should be noted that industrial relations legisla- tion may limit the extent to which some employee worth pursuing. Or is it that the relationship entitlements (for example, unused annual leave and between the credit union and the industry long service leave entitlements) may be the subject regulator—the QOFS—is such that it is in the of such arrangements... best interests of QOFS not to bite the hand that feeds it? The QOFS is funded by levies This newsletter is referring to arrangements from the credit unions and building societies. which I have described above. KPMG is telling clients in February 1996 that this type Clearly, the Senate Privileges Committee of transfer should not be attempted. But at the was not satisfied with the board of the credit credit union’s AGM in October 1995 Mr union when it wrote that ‘it considers the Ellwood appeared to be telling the members explanation provided by QPCU was disingen- of the credit union that it was okay. They uous’. At the 1995 AGM of the QPCU the cannot have it both ways. There is a basic managing director, Mr Rutherford, stated that inconsistency in the advice by KPMG. This they were delighted with the report of the raises a serious question: was the credit union Senate Privileges Committee. Also, in corres- meeting in October 1995 misled by KPMG? pondence received by my constituents, QOFS said, ‘It has confidence in the current finan- This is a matter of public interest. With the cial position of the society and the quality of current federal government’s proposal to its prudential management and corporate allow banks, and presumably credit unions, to governance.’ This, I believe, is a matter of partake in a share of the superannuation kinship. Where are credit union members to honey pot, it is imperative that adequate go for a remedy for a blatant disregard of controls are in place to protect the retirement proper processes, as in this case? If the savings of Australian workers. Failure to do regulatory body is not prepared to enforce the so would be inviting disaster. I will ask the code, all we have is window-dressing as Treasurer, in a letter to him, to advise the regulation, and this could have dire conse- Senate of the ATO’s estimate of the legality, quences for the members of all non-bank prevalence and revenue loss as a result of financial institutions. transactions such as the one advised by The second issue which has been the KPMG to the Queensland Professional Credit subject of member complaint arose out of the Union Ltd. 1994 annual report of the QPCU. It was about I ask the Treasurer to assure the Senate that a conversion of long service leave and unused the ATO is recovering the outstanding tax in holiday leave which was transferred to em- the above transactions and to say what steps ployer superannuation. I have raised this it has taken to audit this activity in Australia. matter previously in the House and with the I ask the Treasurer to raise these issues at the previous Treasurer and also with the current next meeting of the council of premiers and Treasurer (Mr Costello). They have advised finance ministers and seek a review of the that such a conversion was not possible. effectiveness of the Australian financial Yet at the 1995 AGM of the Queensland institutions code and whether the exemptions Professional Credit Union Ltd shareholders from the Australian corporations and securi- were assured by Mr Ellwood of KPMG that ties legislation enjoyed by credit unions and the ATO, the Australian Taxation Office, had building societies should be revoked. It is my completed its inquiry into the conversion of view that these organisations have not been long service leave to superannuation. This subjected to an effective watchdog and would assurance was expressed in such a way as to be better supervised at arm’s length through leave most shareholders with the impression the Australian Securities Commission. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 315

Diabetes people, who then have to live with that Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) complaint for the rest of their lives. (7.43 p.m.)—I rise tonight to recognise the Last week I had the opportunity to visit the tremendous work being done in Australia new children’s hospital at Westmead and to towards the treatment of diabetes, particularly see the work being performed by Professor with respect to young children and adoles- Silink and his team first-hand. It is certainly cents. The International Diabetes Federation inspirational to see the dedication of Professor is an international body which conducts Silink and his team—the nurses and all the research around the world into the very other staff at the children’s hospital—giving debilitating disease of diabetes. hope to and giving of their time and their skill for these young children. In Australia, there is a consultative section which focuses particularly on childhood and I also wish to place on the record a par- adolescent diabetes. The co-conveners of that ticular tribute to Mrs Lorna Mellor who has organisation are Mrs Lorna Mellor and Pro- given many years to the International Diabe- fessor Martin Silink. Mrs Mellor is the Vice- tes Federation in this area. She is a woman President of the International Diabetes Feder- who has the ability to get things moving, to ation and Professor Silink is a leading expert get things happening, and to get other people and specialist in this field. moving. She was very much responsible for getting this conference off the ground and for In May last year I became aware of the bringing people from all around the region to need for funding support for the Australian Sydney. I understand that that is the first time consultative section to enable them to conduct that that has occurred. I understand that, an international conference in Sydney in April following the conference, the delegates have of this year. The aim of that conference was returned to their own countries, are putting a workshop to bring together experts from those training programs in place and are Asian and Pacific nations to look at research looking to conduct further workshops which and, in particular, the training needs for health will progress the work in this most important care workers in other less developed countries area. so that they could go back and assist in the treatment and further research of this disease. In conclusion, I believe that this is one of those areas where government funding support The conference was held in April of this is certainly appropriate and it produces real year. It was able to be held because of the results. I only hope that, in the current climate support that came particularly from AusAID that grips the current government, they can through its international seminar support recognise that there are many areas where we program. I particularly want to place on the should not look to reduce the funding but to record thanks to the former minister Gordon improve it. Bilney for his assistance in making that I finally wish to pay tribute to Mr Terry support through that program possible. Sheahan who has been the President of As I said, the workshop took place in Diabetes Australia for a number of years. He Sydney in early April this year. I am advised was also involved in getting this conference that it was a great success. I was privileged to off the ground. Terry retires from his position be able to attend the opening ceremony and as President of Diabetes Australia this year, to meet a large number of distinguished and he has also devoted many years to assist- international experts, all giving selflessly of ing in this very important work. their time towards researching and assisting in trying to find not only a cure but ways of Clarence By-election more appropriately dealing with this com- Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (7.49 plaint; a complaint that many people are p.m.)—I will make this relatively brief be- aware of and that afflicts, in particular, cause the President has indicated he has a adults—quite often without any prior warn- matter he would like to raise. I raise a matter ing—but also new-born children and young which is quite serious in nature in my home 316 SENATE Thursday, 2 May 1996 state of New South Wales. On 25 May there The article then went on to point out that will be a by-election for the seat of Clarence. Geoff had resiled from that position some two Clarence is a very pleasant area on the north weeks later by saying that he had in fact coast of New South Wales. It takes in a resided in a caravan for a very short period number of very pleasant towns such as Lis- though his wife and child had continued to more, Grafton, Casino and Yamba. live at the previous address during the period Up until recently, Harry Woods, whom we of this supposed residence on the block. I all know, the former member for Page, looked must urge the National Party, in the light of after that area as the federal member. In this this being on the public record, to do some- up-coming state by-election Harry Woods will thing in relation to their candidate. be the candidate for the Labor Party. I have Senator Brownhill—Mr President, I very to say, not at any great length, that I wish him reluctantly rise on a point of order about a great deal of luck and thank him for con- people being maligned in the parliament in tinuing to serve the people of that north coast the adjournment debate. I thought the adjourn- area. ment debate was non-controversial and de- I wish to raise a matter about the National signed so we could actually get along with Party candidate in that particular seat, a talking about things that I know you, Mr fellow by the name of Geoff Knight. The President, want to talk about later. things that I wish to say regarding him are not The PRESIDENT—There is no point of quite as pleasant as those I have said about order. There is certainly plenty of precedence. Harry Woods. Geoffrey Leonard Knight was, Senator NEAL—The district returning until the end of last year—in fact, January— officer at Grafton has indicated the matter is living in the state seat of Coffs Harbour at an under investigation and that if found guilty address at Bonville. Mr Knight could incur the penalty of a Some time earlier this year Geoff Knight, $10,000 fine or three years in gaol. That is realising there was shortly going to be a entirely a matter that will be dealt with by the National Party preselection for the seat of DPP and subsequently the courts. Why I raise Clarence, took up enrolment at an address this matter is not to intervene in that investi- known as ‘Bonnyhills’ Orara Way, Glenray. gation but to urge the National Party to take The interesting thing about this particular the appropriate action and supervise their property is that there is no house there, there candidate or, if possible, obtain a further is no water and there is no electricity. Geoff candidate who has not breached the laws of Knight was subsequently preselected by the this land. National Party and he is now the candidate Senate adjourned at 7.54 p.m. for the state seat of Clarence. Understandably, the National Party may not have done any- DOCUMENTS thing about this if they had been unaware but the fact is it is now on the public record. The following documents were tabled by the Clerk: In the Daily Examiner, a local paper, on 23 April 1996 an article ran about the investiga- Child Support (Assessment) Act—Ruling—CSR tion into his having made false statements in 96/4. relation to his electoral enrolment. That article Christmas Island Act—List of applied Western pointed out that Mr Knight had originally told Australian Acts for the period 9 September 1995 them he had never lived on that property, that to 29 April 1996. he had used it for an agistment, that he had Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—List of applied fenced it and that he believed, in accordance Western Australian Acts for the period 9 Septem- with the provisions for the local government ber 1995 to 29 April 1996. electoral roll, that being a property owner was Defence Act—Determination under section 52— entitlement enough for enrolment on the Determination No. 1 of 1996. federal roll. In fact, he relied on that enrol- Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory ment to vote in the last federal election. Rules 1995 No. 409. Thursday, 2 May 1996 SENATE 317

Sales Tax Assessment Act—Determination— Indexed Lists STD 96/6. The following documents were tabled on 2 Social Security Act— May, pursuant to the order of the Senate of Social Security (Qualification for Carer Pen- 28 June 1994, as amended on 10 October and sion—Higher Amounts) Determination (No. 1). 14 November 1994: Indexed lists of departmental files for the period Social Security (Present Value of Unpaid 1 July 1995 to 31 December 1995—Department— Amounts—Interest Rate) Notice (No. 1). Defence. Taxation Administration Act— Environment, Sport and Territories. Human Services and Health. Determination—TD 96/17. Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Ruling—TR 96/13. Treasury.