COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE

Official Hansard No. 8, 2000 19 JUNE 2000

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—SIXTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

CONTENTS

MONDAY, 19 JUNE

Condolences Wilton, Mr Gregory Stuart ...... 15053 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 2000 In Committee...... 15053 Ministerial Arrangements ...... 15068 Questions Without Notice Goods and Services Tax: Caravan Parks ...... 15068 Rural and Regional Australia: Government Support...... 15068 Goods and Services Tax: Rent...... 15069 Economy: Families...... 15070 Environment: Greenhouse Gases...... 15071 Gene Technology: Environment...... 15072 Goods and Services Tax: Black Economy...... 15073 Rural and Regional Australia: Tax Reform ...... 15074 Goods and Services Tax: Food ...... 15075 Economy: Wealth Distribution ...... 15075 Goods and Services Tax: Food ...... 15076 Gene Technology: Environment...... 15077 Goods and Services Tax: Food ...... 15078 Private Health Insurance: Reform ...... 15078 Answers To Questions Without Notice Nursing Homes: Riverside ...... 15080 Goods and Services Tax: Black Economy...... 15080 Gene Technology: Environment...... 15086 Petitions Medicare...... 15087 Asylum Seekers: Political...... 15087 Notices Presentation ...... 15088 Leave of Absence...... 15104 Notices—Postponement...... 15104 Committees Regulations And Ordinances Committee—Private Meeting...... 15104 Documents Auditor-General’s Reports...... 15104 Report No. 46 of 1999-2000...... 15104 Report No. 48 of 1999-2000...... 15105 Committees Privileges Committee ...... 15106 Report ...... 15106 Membership...... 15111 Bills Returned From The House of Representatives...... 15111 Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000 Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 15112 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000 First Reading ...... 15112 Second Reading...... 15112 CONTENTS—continued

Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 Report of Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee...... 15117 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 2000 In Committee...... 15117 Adoption of Report...... 15121 Third Reading...... 15123 Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 Second Reading...... 15123 In Committee...... 15130 Third Reading...... 15138 Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] Second Reading...... 15138 In Committee...... 15162 Adjournment Dairy Industry: Deregulation...... 15169 Regional Forest Agreement: Otway Ranges Hydrology Research...... 15171 Goods and Services Tax: Trucking Industry...... 15173 Wilton, Mr Gregory Stuart ...... 15175 Wilton, Mr Gregory Stuart ...... 15175 Documents Tabling...... 15177 Proclamations...... 15178 Questions On Notice No. 1799—Saw and Veneer Logs: Export...... 15179 No. 1908—Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Major Defect Notices ...... 15179 No. 1939—Qantas and Ansett Australia: Air Operating Certificates...... 15180 No. 1940—Airline Operators: Air Operating Certificates...... 15181 No. 1942—Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Minutes of Meetings...... 15181 No. 1982—Goods And Services Tax: Department of Family and Community Services Research...... 15182 No. 2089—Department of Veterans’ Affairs: Contracts with Ernst and Young...... 15183 No. 2137—Register of Environmental Organisations: Taxation...... 15184 No. 2141—Federation Fund: Applications...... 15185 No. 2164—Perth Community Newspaper Group: Survey Results...... 15186 No. 2166—Telstra: Australia Post Office Telephone Number Listings ...... 15187 No. 2210—Health and Aged Care Portfolio: Agency Boards...... 15188 CONTENTS—continued

Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15053

Monday, 19 June 2000 Party, despite a fairly mischievous press re- ————— lease by this minister, have no intention of blocking this bill whatsoever. We put out a The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. release on the back of the minister’s release Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., which said that we will agree to pass this bill and read prayers. by 30 June 2000. CONDOLENCES The minister has had a number of days to Wilton, Mr Gregory Stuart cogitate on the series of questions that are The PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret currently being pursued by the opposition. I that I inform the Senate of the death, on would like to give the minister the opportu- 14 June 2000, of Gregory Stuart Wilton, a nity to respond to them now. If he requires member of the House of Representatives for some reminder as to what they were, I am the division of Isaacs, Victoria, since 1996. I more than happy to do that in the interests of ask honourable senators to stand in silence in being helpful, as the opposition always is, memory of our late colleague, Greg Wilton. but I doubt whether he does. So there were Honourable senators thereupon stood in the five outstanding questions that we asked their places. the minister. All five questions are in order, on advice from the Clerk. The minister is, LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL therefore, duty bound to make some kind of ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL attempt to respond to them. So I would ask 2000 Senator Macdonald, given the effluxion of In Committee time, to please now answer the five questions Consideration resumed from 8 June. that we have provided. Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (12.31 Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- p.m.)—In revisiting this now fairly lengthy sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- debate on the Local Government (Financial ritories and Local Government) (12.34 Assistance) Amendment Bill 2000, I wish to p.m.)—I must say that, regrettably, I was not clarify some points that were made by the taking a lot of notice of what Senator Mac- minister in his contribution last time. He ex- kay was saying. I assume it is a rehash of horted the opposition to seek some advice what happened before. But if I can just reca- from the Clerk on the questions we were pitulate a little, this bill is about ensuring that pursuing. As ever, we are attempting to be grants to local authorities can continue to be helpful. We did get advice from the Clerk of paid, with the appropriate legislation to look the Senate and I will read the advice we got. at the escalation clause. The previous escala- I will preface my comments by indicating tion clause was no longer relevant because it that we provided the Clerk with a list of was aligned to the escalation of payments questions which we have been pursuing and made by the federal government to state which we intend to keep pursuing in relation governments when the state governments got to this legislation until we get some answers. their financial assistance grants. Under the So the Clerk had before him a series of GST, which the government has proposed questions, some of which the minister has and which the Labor Party now supports, all seen or has been repeatedly reminded of. In of the GST goes to the states, so there will response to that query from the opposition, not be any need for Commonwealth grants to the Clerk provided me with the following: the states in the future. So we had to get an- Your questions on the local government bill are in other formula by which local government order. The only basis on which they could be out could get escalations in the payments each of order is irrelevance to the bill, and they are year of the financial assistance grants from clearly relevant. I see no other problem with the the federal government to local authorities. question. This bill before us deals with that issue: how That is the advice we got from the Clerk the escalation clause will increase. It also of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans. The second deals with some other minor, fairly technical thing I wish to point out is that the Labor amendments to the legislation. 15054 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

In between talking with my leader about By contrast, during the last week I drove much more interesting things, I thought I 500 kilometres west from Townsville out heard Senator Mackay say she had got some into more remote parts of rural and regional advice from someone about what would go Queensland. In the course of that visit, I on in this chamber. I am not quite sure where spoke with four councils: the Flinders Shire she got the advice. I have not seen it, and I Council, based at Hughenden; the Richmond am not quite sure what she is talking about. Shire Council, based at Richmond; the Dal- But even the most elementary understanding rymple Shire Council in the outskirts of of parliamentary processes would provide Charters Towers; and the Charters Towers that consideration of the bill in committee City Council. Would you believe, Madam deals with the clauses before the committee, Chairman, that not one of them raised with and none of the questions Senator Mackay me any problems about the financial assis- has asked in any way deals with the clauses tance grants; not one of them raised the of the bill before the committee. So I venture question of the GST at all. In Flinders Shire to say that, if Senator Mackay has advice to we had a discussion about the GST, but that that effect, I would not think much of the was because I asked some of the councillors advice. I do not know where she got it how the GST was impacting. Two of them from—unfortunately, I did not hear that—but were local businessmen who explained to me it would seem to be quite clearly wrong. The the impact that it may have on them, and by committee stage deals with the clauses of the and large they thought it was a very good bill and matters relevant to it; it is not a gen- system. I guess that is why the government eral fishing expedition for information that proposed it, and I guess that is why the La- you would get at estimates committees. bor Party is now going to keep it. But it is a As part of her contributions to this debate, good program for Australia, and it has major in issues not related to the bill before us, benefits for areas that export like those west- Senator Mackay talked about how councils ern Queensland areas. It is interesting that all around Australia have been approaching no-one raised it with me. All these concerns her because they have particular concerns Senator Mackay talks about do not seem to about the way the financial assistance grants materialise when I am there talking to coun- will impact upon them or how the GST will cils. The question of the financial assistance impact upon them. I have to say that if that is grants was raised at some of those meetings correct, then Senator Mackay has not been but, again, it was raised by me, not by the doing her job because, as I recall, she has not councils. It was raised by me to get some approached me with those questions or con- input into the review the Commonwealth cerns. If you have concerns that are genuine Grants Commission is conducting into the rather than just political point scoring issues, financial assistance grants at the present you refer them to the government minister, time. I am keen to ensure that all councils are even if you do not happen to like him or in- aware of that so that they can get their input dulge in personal political attacks on him all into it, and we can look at ways of doing the time in this chamber. If you want an an- that. swer, you still go ahead and refer those While I was in Richmond, the Richmond questions so that councils that have a con- Shire Council, who do receive quite substan- cern can get appropriate answers from the tial grants from the Financial Assistance government of the day that is responsible. Grants Scheme, were very keen to tell me When I was in opposition that is what I did. how they used those financial assistance Regrettably, if Senator Mackay does have grants. Of course, they are interested to see these concerns, she has raised very few of this bill go through so that their grants will them with me, if any—perhaps she has continue. The Richmond Shire Council do a raised one or two of them with me at various lot of very good things. I was very im- places—and she certainly has not written to pressed, as I always am, by the leadership of me at length about these alleged concerns. local authorities, particularly in country ar- eas, in the way they promote their communi- ties, the way they lead from the front and the Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15055 way they do not sit around and say, ‘We want Senator Lundy—I am sure when they the government to do it. We want a hand-out read this they will be sickened by it. for this; we want a hand-out for that.’ In fact, Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator in Richmond they are about to embark upon Lundy, did you say I am sickening you with a very exciting new industry, the cotton in- this contribution? I am sorry if telling the dustry, and they were very proud to show me chamber that Senator McLucas’s parents are around the cotton industry in Richmond. All delightful people sickens you, but if it does they wanted from government was for gov- sicken you then bad luck for you, Senator ernments to get out of their way. They Lundy. You will just have to put up with it. I wanted a couple of water licences from the will continue to say what delightful people Queensland government, which I believe the Senator McLucas’s parents are. Queensland government will provide—cer- tainly if I can help in the area, I would like Senator McLucas—Madam Chairman, I to. In this area, which until now has been a rise on a point of order. I would request that sheep and cattle pastoral area, they are about Senator Macdonald withdraw that comment to get this tremendously new and exciting about the ability of my parents to parent me. cotton industry, which is being done in an I think that is rather offensive. environmentally sensitive way. So there will Senator IAN MACDONALD—I cer- be no problems with endosulphins running tainly do withdraw that if it does offend into the gulf rivers, and there will not be any Senator McLucas. I said it jokingly. Senator of the other questionable side-effects with McLucas, I said that they failed to teach you this new cotton industry. It will be done in proper political thoughts because you have a such a way as will provide great things for different political viewpoint to them. That that community. That small town of about was all. 600 people—going into a thousand in the The CHAIRMAN—Minister, I think you district—expects that, with the increase in had better stick to the bill. That would be a this cotton industry, the population will in- good idea. crease within the next few years to between Senator IAN MACDONALD—Yes, but 3,000 and 5,000 people, and that is magnifi- I certainly did not want to be offensive to cent. It is these sorts of things that councils either Senator McLucas or her parents, all do with their financial assistance grants that three of whom are delightful people. I do are of particular interest to me, not these de- apologise. bates that some of my colleagues opposite try to have for petty political point scoring The CHAIRMAN—Return to the bill, about matters that are not related to this bill. thank you, Minister. One of the other things that council has Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am done in leadership is take over from a vol- withdrawing with some explanation. I cer- untary group who run what I think—not that tainly did not intend to— I am any expert—is perhaps one of the The CHAIRMAN—I like withdrawals to world’s greatest exhibitions of fossils. I be unconditional, and I would appreciate speak about this very excitedly because these your addressing the bill. are real life fossils. They are 100 million Senator IAN MACDONALD—It is un- years old. They are being picked up in conditional, and I will explain that I certainly Richmond and in Hughenden, where I had meant no offence. I am sorry if Senator the pleasure of meeting Senator McLucas’s McLucas took it that way. I repeat that both parents. They are a delightful couple. The she and her parents are delightful people. I only thing I say about Senator McLucas’s was pleased to be able to meet her parents. parents is that they have failed as parents in I was talking about fossils and things that that they have not been able to teach their this council use their financial assistance daughter the correct political paths to follow. grants for. I was delighted to see Kronosau- But they are a delightful couple and obvi- rus Korner, which is from the museum which ously very committed westerners— the Richmond Shire Council has now taken 15056 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 over. It was established by a voluntary group listening to whom I was quoting in terms of of people, the leader of which actually found the nature of the questions we have been a fossil some years ago on his property. Ap- asking. I was in fact quoting the Clerk of the parently all of that area was an inland sea Senate, Mr Harry Evans, who the minister 100 million years ago and there are a lot of asserts—and I wrote this down—is ‘quite world-class fossils there. It is a delightful clearly wrong’. I will repeat the whole thing. experience to see what that community has We sought advice from the Clerk of the Sen- done. They are matters of relevance to this ate as to whether our questions were in order bill. They are where the councils have used or not. We provided the Clerk with a list of some of their financial assistance grants. questions seeking advice. This was your But I do not want to carry on this particu- suggestion, Minister Macdonald, which we lar debate today. It is an important bill that took up. The response I got from Harry Ev- we must get through. I am gratified that ans, Clerk of the Senate, was this. Perhaps Senator Mackay has indicated by press re- the minister can listen carefully. It states: lease that the opposition will not be holding Senator Mackay, your questions on the local gov- the bill up, that it will pass through the par- ernment bill are in order. The only basis on which liament and that local authorities will be able they could be out of order is irrelevance to the to get their grants by 30 June. The reason I bill, and they are clearly relevant to the bill. I see have taken exception in the past to entering no other problems with the questions. into the debate on questions which Senator I also refer the minister to Odgers’ Aus- Mackay has raised is that all of the questions tralian Senate Practice. I am not sure have been answered. She keeps talking about whether he is familiar with this, but if he is five questions she has raised and says she he should look at the last paragraph of page has another 46 or something to raise, heaven 262, which states: forbid. If any of them are relevant to the bill, As with relevance in debate ... and in relation to I will be very happy to answer them. Senator amendments to the motion for the second reading Forshaw asked a question in committee that ... the requirement of relevance is interpreted lib- was relevant to the bill, and I was very happy erally, so that senators have maximum freedom to to answer it. Senator Forshaw was obviously move amendments. In determining relevance, the satisfied with the response. It answered his question is: “What is the subject matter of the bill, and does this amendment deal with that subject query, and he is no longer taking part in the matter?”. The long title of a bill can be taken as committee stage. If there are questions on the an indication of its subject matter ... bill, please give them to me and I will an- swer them. The minister has been around a bit longer than me, so he ought to know about that. As for the questions that Senator Mackay raised, the reason I do not want to continue Also, I say that the minister cannot have it doing this and continue wasting the cham- both ways. He cannot say on the one hand, ber’s time is that all of these questions have ‘We have not been approached before with previously been answered. In response to these questions and concerns,’ and then read those questions, I simply refer the chamber out a list of estimates hearings at which he to the Senate estimates Hansard of 3 De- allegedly answered the questions. The min- cember 1999, page 197; the Senate Hansard ister cannot have it both ways. Interestingly, of 25 May 2000, page 434; the Senate Han- we had a meander through the parentage of sard of 8 June 2000, page 14,160; and the Senator McLucas and a meander through Senate estimates Hansard of 25 May, page cotton and fossils and so on, so the minister 429. All of Senator Mackay’s questions have clearly regards all these matters as germane been answered previously, and I refuse to to the bill but he does not regard questions waste the time of the Senate reanswering about the impact of the GST on local gov- questions that have already been answered. ernment as relevant. Minister, I am sorry, the Senate does. The Senate regards them as Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (12.50 relevant, Odgers regards them as relevant, p.m.)—The minister is obviously so inter- the Clerk of the Senate regards them as rele- ested in his own legislation that he was not vant. Everybody—your government—would Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15057 regard them as relevant but, if they do not, what you will and will not do. The Senate that is something we will take up in another has decided that these questions are in order. forum. So everybody except you, Minister, is If you do not think they are, I suggest you saying these are relevant. Minister, I say this seek advice from the Clerk of the Senate as to you: yes, we have guaranteed the passage to why they are not in order. But they are in of this bill by 30 June 2000. We will do that, order. I also direct you to Odgers—and I re- but we will not do it in such a way as to let peat the page, page 262, for you—which you and your government off the hook with makes it very clear. Also, Chair, I can say regard to what is happening with local gov- that a previous chair, Senator Watson—not ernment and the GST or local government from my party—in fact ruled that those and financial assistance grants. We will sit questions were in order. Senator Bartlett here until we get answers. This is the view of ruled similarly when he was in the chair. I the opposition and of the Leader of the Op- have heard no demurral from you, Chair, but position, so I suggest you start answering it is so clear that I will not seek a ruling. some questions, otherwise we will be here So here we have a series of questions that for a very long time. are extremely vital to local government. This While we are talking about meanderings minister regards them—and he used some around local government and councils, I fairly basic alliteration—as petty political might take this opportunity to report on some point scoring. They are not. The impact of meetings I had in the seats of Richmond, the GST on local government is not petty Page and Cowper in northern New South political point scoring. It is not petty, politi- Wales, all of which are held at the moment cal point scoring to local government and it by the National Party. I had meetings there certainly is not to the communities that local with a number of councils, as I always do. At government serve. The impact of the GST on this point I must say I have not yet attended a local government is of extreme importance meeting of a council where the GST has not to them, particularly where you have a situa- been raised. I do not simply attend only La- tion whereby Mr Costello and this minister bor Party councils. I am eclectic; I view the have said that, as a result of the GST, rates sector as one. I do not use question time to will go down or services will go up. The persecute individual councils based on their minister has made that contention but he has political proclivities as this minister does. In not put forward one single piece of evidence fact, the opposition, throughout the course of to show that this is in fact the case. The a number of local government elections in minister alleges that at every single council Victoria, in New South Wales and in Queen- meeting that he has been to the issue of the sland, did not once seek to misuse question GST has not been raised once. I find that time to push a political barrow, and nor will extraordinary and that is obviously some- we. I will go through the questions those thing we will be pointing out to local gov- councils raised at those meetings about the ernment. I know for a fact that is not true but GST. The councils in those three seats—and if you, Minister, seek to mislead the Senate let me repeat them in case people missed in this way that is fine. them: Richmond, Page and Cowper—all I will restate the questions—and they will raised varying concerns with the GST. Some be restated and restated. If you wish to re- were in relation to the implementation costs, hash the answers you gave to me at esti- some were in relation to the potential for mates, that is fine: you can do that. You can rates to go up, some were in relation to the stand up in this chamber and give me the potential for services to increase in price be- same answers that you gave me in estimates. cause of the GST imposition—which is a I might point out, though, in terms of the first broken promise by this government that the of the five questions—will the government sector would be GST free, might I say. undertake an analysis of the impact of the So that is the story. We are in order. The GST on local government?—you know the questions are in order. It is not up to you, answer to that one so you should just get up Minister, to determine and tell the Senate here and say it, unless you have changed 15058 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 your mind. I understand that the government you going to send the ACCC off to investi- is under significant pressure here from peo- gate every council that alleges it may have to ple living in caravan parks and so on. There increase its rates or charges as a result of the is a chance that the government may have GST?’ He answered me: ‘Only the Labor altered its position on this with the calls from ones.’ Unfortunately, that was not picked up National Party members for exemptions for by Hansard, so I am here to say it now. I see regional Australia in relation to the goods Minister Macdonald laughing; he thinks it is and services tax. In estimates you indicated funny that Senator Richard Alston said ‘Only that, firstly, you had not conducted any as- the Labor ones.’ If he thinks that is funny, he sessment as to the implications of the GST should get out of the portfolio. It is not on regional Australia, nor did you intend to. funny. It is extremely serious. It is serious You may be revisiting that. If the govern- that the government chooses to use question ment’s position remains the same in relation time in this blatantly political manner when to the first question, just say so. The second dealing with elections in a sector that has one is this: will the government be monitor- nothing to do with federal or state politics. ing or determining what impact the GST has We did not get an answer to that question, on local government and on communities? so you are wrong there again. You did not That was not asked in estimates so you can answer the question of why there was an try that one, Minister. underspend in the LGIP, so you can have a The third question we asked them—this is go at it now. In this fairly lengthy contribu- on the record now—was: what will you do tion, we have traversed the issue of why about the $15 million you took out in terms these questions are in order. If the minister is of the freezing of the escalation factor? If quite clearly disagreeing with the Clerk of that is not germane to this bill, I do not know the Senate, Odgers and Uncle Tom Cob- what is. Will you be putting the money back? bleigh and all, that is something we will be What will you be doing? That was not an- seeking further advice on. If we need to, we swered at estimates either. The only thing will take the minister through the humiliating that was answered at estimates occurred in a process we took him through at estimates quite interesting interchange between the again. I restate those five questions. They are minister and his officials, in which he dis- not that difficult. If the minister could have a agreed with his officials as to the freezing of go at them, I could move on to my next five the escalation factor. Presumably, we now questions. have some commonality between them. Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- I asked the minister whether he would sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- seek advice as to whether the ACCC has ritories and Local Government) (1.02 p.m.)— jurisdiction over local government. The As I said at the conclusion of my previous minister has raised this twice now in ques- contribution, all of the questions that Senator tion time in relation to two Labor councils. Mackay now asks have previously been an- The minister has said that he regards the al- swered either in this chamber or in the Sen- legations made by these councils to be so ate estimates committee. I have given her the serious that the ACCC should investigate references to the pages. Madam Chairman, if them. This question was not raised at esti- you intend to allow people to waffle on for- mates, it has not been raised before and I ever and to waste the time of the committee, want the minister to undertake to seek advice that is a matter for the chairman for the time as to whether the ACCC has jurisdiction over being. But I am certainly not going to be a local government. Certainly, he is not be- party to wasting the chamber’s time by rean- yond directing Professor Fels off to Labor swering questions that have already been councils. answered a number of times. I have given I might illuminate the committee at this Senator Mackay the references to the ques- point to an interchange between me and tions she has asked previously. I have given Senator Alston when he was standing in for her references to the answers that have been Senator Hill. I asked Senator Alston: ‘Are given. Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15059

I want to respond to a couple of things the word of the Treasurer of New South Senator Mackay just raised in her speech to Wales, Mr Egan, a Labor Party man. He has the committee. I laughed then—as anyone written to councils in his state, and I do not with the misfortune of listening to this part have the exact quote but it was along the of the debate would be laughing—at the lines that the new tax system will be very honourable senator telling the chamber, good for local authorities. As I said, do not ‘Senator Alston said this, but regrettably it believe me but believe Mr Egan. If you want was not picked up in the Hansard.’ We rely to go further afield, I mention quite regularly on the Hansard as a reasonably accurate rec- the report from Arthur Andersen done for the ord of what happens in Senate committees. Victorian government in relation to— Hansard happened to miss it, but Senator Senator Mackay—The Kennett govern- Mackay picked it up. The fact that she has ment. now said it here means that it must be true. I was not there, so I cannot comment on its Senator IAN MACDONALD—I take veracity or otherwise. But Senator Mackay from the implication of that interjection that giving self-serving evidence to this chamber the honourable senator opposite is saying is hardly a substitute for Hansard. I think I that Arthur Andersen, a respected worldwide will rely on Hansard. If they did not pick it accountancy firm, manipulates its advice up, perhaps it did not occur. because of whoever gives it instructions. I reject that entirely. Arthur Andersen is a very Then Senator Mackay said that the ACCC professional organisation, and its advice and the government say that rates cannot go would have been given honestly and profes- up. What we have said, and what I repeat, is sionally. I think it is appalling of a senator in that rates do not have to increase because of this chamber to accuse a national account- the GST. If councils want to put up their ancy firm with a very good reputation of this rates and blame, maliciously and untruth- sort of malpractice. I would almost think that fully, the GST—as the South Sydney City is something that the chamber should ask the Council has done or as the Brisbane City senator who interjected to withdraw. Council has done—then they should be brought to account. But those councils, like Arthur Andersen did a report for the Vic- every other council, are able to put up their torian government on four Victorian coun- rates as they like. All they cannot do is cils, and they came up with assessments that, blame it on the GST. As everybody in Aus- if councils considered this matter carefully, tralia would know, there is no GST on rates. there were big savings to be made for them. There was never intended to be, never has They actually put some figures in their report been and never will be as long as this gov- in the order of $200,000 for small councils ernment is in control. and up to $1.9 million for large councils. That is not my report and it is not a report There is no GST on rates, but there are big that our government has done; it is a report savings for councils. Some $70 million in that someone else, a professional organisa- embedded taxes is removed. Some $70 mil- tion, has done for another government. lion of indirect taxes that councils currently pay will disappear as a result of the new tax Senator Mackay also indicated that she system. So all councils will save there. With had been to the Richmond council, and I all fuel for councils at least 7c or 8c a litre want to make a distinction that that is not the cheaper—and, for councils in regional areas, Richmond council I was talking about. My with trucks between four and 20 tonnes and Richmond council is up in north-west over 20 tonnes as well getting fuel 25c a litre Queensland. I think I know the council that cheaper—you do not have to be Einstein to Senator Mackay was talking about—that is, work out that there are big savings for coun- the one in the Richmond area of the Northern cils. Rivers of New South Wales. If those councils have problems, I invite them to write to me I would not expect the honourable senator with their specific problems and I will try to sitting opposite me to accept my word on address them. But what I suspect those coun- these things, but I would ask that she accept cils may have raised with Senator Mackay 15060 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 was the fact that the New South Wales gov- plemented. The Queensland and Victorian ernment refuses to share with local authori- state governments have recognised that and ties in New South Wales a part of the na- made some of their, if I might say, windfall tional competition policy payments. gains from the NCP available to councils. In Queensland under a Labor government But in New South Wales: nothing. I can only and in Victoria under a Liberal government, ask Senator Mackay, if she is interested in those state governments receive substantial the welfare of local authorities in New South payments as a result of the national competi- Wales, to please use her influence with the tion policy and the efficiencies made by the New South Wales Labor government to share implementation of that policy, and the states those national competition policy payments did very well out of it. But the Queensland with local authorities in New South Wales. and Victorian governments—just to name The other issue that I wanted to comment two, but I suspect there are others—shared a upon briefly is that Senator Mackay made part of those savings and a part of that pay- reference to caravan parks in the Northern ment from the efficiencies gained under the Rivers area of New South Wales. The policy national competition policy with their local that the government has adopted is a very authorities. So Queensland councils have got fair one: five per cent and inputs to caravan some benefit from that and Victorian coun- park operators’ expenses refunded in full. cils have got some benefit from that, but the The caravan park residents will be treated New South Wales government continues to fairly, as will every other Australian, with refuse to make these payments available to big tax savings coming up in just 12 days councils in New South Wales. time. The biggest tax cuts that have ever I suspect that is the issue that these coun- been given to the Australian public will all cils may have raised with Senator Mackay, arrive in 12 days time. For people on pen- because I tell you what: there are a lot of sions or welfare payments, those pensions councils in New South Wales who, either and payments will increase by four per cent. directly to me or through their local mem- It will be a massive increase. This will be bers—but, regrettably, I have to say, it is money going into the pockets of ordinary only their coalition members, although I am Australians. It is the biggest tax cut ever in sure Labor members in New South Wales are history. Unlike the Labor Party, which used also getting submissions from their coun- to promise tax cuts before an election—it cils—plead with me to try to get them some used to actually legislate for tax cuts before of their national competition policy pay- an election to come into effect after an elec- ments, as do councils in Queensland and tion—win the election and then cancel the Victoria. I have written to the New South tax cuts, these are real live tax cuts. In 12 Wales minister but not with a great deal of days every Australian in the work force will success. get these tax cuts and every Australian on benefits will get an increase in their benefits. I appreciate that these are issues for the So it is a fair system and one that is very, various state governments. In a cooperative very good for Australia. sense, the Commonwealth and the state gov- ernments made the arrangements back in the But Senator Mackay raises the caravan Labor Party federal government days for the park issue. What did Mr Beazley say when distribution of payments from the national he was asked about it? What did Labor competition policy efficiencies. That was an spokesman Mr Swan say about it? If I can arrangement that the previous government paraphrase, there has been a pretty deathly put into effect and which we have abided by, silence. I suspect that Senator Mackay could as I recall. Two state governments that I use the next two weeks of debate—which know of have shared those payments, and she is threatening the Senate with—on this they shared them very fairly because a lot of bill that everybody agrees with. Perhaps she the efficiencies and the savings from the na- could use that time in the next two weeks to tional competition policy have come from tell us what the Labor Party would do about efficiencies that local authorities have im- caravan park fees. Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15061

For all the froth and bubble and the huff tions was going to lead to the government and puff about the GST, we know that the pulling this bill and dealing with other legis- Labor Party hate the GST so much that they lation. The minister took umbrage at that are going to keep it. That is how much they comment and said that I was some sort of hate it. They hate it so much they are going bullyboy for threatening that his own party to keep it; they are going to adopt it. There is would pull the rug out from under him in going to be a roll-back, which we are all in- relation to dealing with his own legislation. I terested to hear about. But Senator Mackay did not have an opportunity to respond; he could use the next 20 minutes and the next talked the time out, as I recall it. But the re- two weeks of debate—which she is threat- ality was that I was telling him the facts of ening this Senate with—to tell us how they life: the government were not prepared to see will roll this back in relation to caravan park that legislative time—legislative time that I operators. understand they consider is insufficient to We think our system, our proposal of the deal with the legislative package they wish way to treat it, is fair and equitable. We sus- dealt with—used up whilst this debate went pect that Mr Beazley also thinks it is fair and on. equitable by the very light way that he has Essentially, we have a situation where a dealt with it—if I can put it politely in saying number of questions have been asked, and ‘light way’. But, if Senator Mackay has the there are a number of other questions that numbers in her faction in the Labor Party Senator Mackay wishes to ask which, con- and has a policy on how this will happen, sistent with the advice received, as I under- how it will be rolled back, let us hear about it stand it, would be proper questions to ask. in the next 20 minutes. I am sure that cara- The minister may take a view that he simply van park dwellers, the media and, indeed, does not want to answer questions. I suppose those of us on this side—and I suspect many that if he persists with that bill at some stage, on your side as well, Senator Mackay— the opposition will say, ‘Well, the minister would be just fascinated to find out how you has nailed his colours to the mast.’ The min- will roll it back. ister has decided, for reasons which I am Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (1.18 entitled to speculate about—as all people are p.m.)—I was interested to hear the responses entitled to speculate about—that he is not today from the minister which purported to prepared to answer questions. be answers to questions which originally the Some people have suggested to me that minister said were not relevant to the bill. the minister is frightened about answering Clearly he has now been forced to amend his these questions in that he might put his foot view, given the very clear advice from the in it and he might get the government into Clerk of the Senate that the questions are in further trouble on the GST. Recently a num- order. I am not so sure that he was really ber of comments about outcomes have been aware of what he was referring to. He made leading to interventions by the Treas- seemed to flick through some photocopied or urer. Effectively, he has said that other min- printed out references to Hansard where he isters do not know what they are talking suggested the answers exist. I have not had about when they talk about consequences of an opportunity to check all of those, but my the GST. I suppose it is reasonable to as- initial inquiries indicate that we do not be- sume—in the absence of answers from lieve that the answers exist in Hansard. I Senator Macdonald to questions which are in wonder whether the minister would refer us order—that he too is frightened of copping to the particular passages in those Hansards an earful from Mr Costello if he does not get which he alleges answer the questions which it right. Obviously, in those circumstances, have been asked. If indeed they do answer he is not confident about getting it right. He the questions, then this debate can move on. may not be confident that his views of the As I indicated in a contribution when last implications of the GST will accord with the committee was considering this legisla- those of the Treasurer. The alternative is that tion, the minister’s refusal to answer ques- perhaps he just does not know. 15062 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

The bottom line is that the opposition are to leading up to the implementation of the entitled to ask questions in the committee GST, people have a lot of questions, many of stage of this bill. A number have been asked which are yet to be answered. We are talking and, as I said, the minister suggests that about legislation which has a direct relation- those answers exist in the Hansard. I stress ship to the effect of the implementation of that we do not believe that is the case. But the GST on local government. Many local we can move on if the minister is prepared to government bodies have gone on the public refer us to the particular passages, not gen- record to express their concerns about the eral pages, and to give us the detail of the implications of the effect of the implementa- answers that he relies upon in saying that he tion of the GST on their operations, particu- has answered those questions. That will as- larly financially. This legislation deals with sist the progress of this debate rather than the financial arrangements between the fed- allow it to bog down on the first of a number eral government and local government. of questions which the opposition intend to I suggest that the minister follow the ask, which the opposition are entitled to ask course that I propose, and this bill can then and which, I believe, would be ruled in order. move forward. The alternative is that we will If there are particular questions in that proc- pursue the questions that we want answered, ess which the minister can demonstrate are and there are a couple of possible outcomes not in order, then that is his right. He pre- from that: we could take a significant part of tends that answers exist elsewhere that we the legislative time that is available to the can rely upon but, as I say, we are not con- government in attempting to have these vinced they exist. The minister has an op- questions answered and fail, and Senator portunity to present to the Senate and put on Mackay will obviously have something to the record exactly what has been said in the say about what happens to this legislation at Hansard. He has the pages there; he waved that point; or, before we get to that point, the them in front of us when he was making his government might say, ‘We have other leg- contribution earlier. He can draw those pas- islation which is also of significant priority, sages to our attention. He can put them on and we cannot allow this matter to stand in the record again, and those people in local the way of that,’ and we would then see this government who have been waiting for those bill pulled. That will have ramifications for answers can be assured that the minister has everyone. Perhaps the minister is prepared to properly dealt with them. Alternatively, if he try to play that game of Russian roulette and cannot do that, I think everyone is entitled to say, ‘We’ll see who gets shot when the bill the view that the answers do not really exist. doesn’t pass.’ That is potentially the game Let us face facts: most of the population we could end up playing. of Australia does not have ready access to I stress again: if the minister has the an- every aspect of the Hansard relating to this swers there in the Hansard to the questions debate. It is not reasonable to require local which have been asked, all he has to do is governments around Australia to chase every stand up and read them out and we will see contribution the minister has made in the whether they answer the questions. It may be Hansard. I am sure that, if there is a point that they raise questions, in which case, quite that the minister wanted to emphasise with properly, the opposition might want to raise any particular council or a question that any those particular matters. That is quite a particular council has raised, the minister has proper process in the committee stage of a the resources of his office and the depart- bill. Senator Macdonald will have seen it ment to deal with those questions. He is not occur on many occasions both when he was underresourced. He does not have, I would in opposition and since he has been in gov- suggest, a difficulty physically in dealing ernment. That is quite a proper process. That with the questions. The question is: is there a is the only way this bill can properly move difficulty intellectually in dealing with these forward—that is, by a meaningful contribu- questions? I say that in this sense: the GST is tion to the process of answering questions a very sensitive subject for this government. legitimately asked by the opposition. The In the 10 or 12 days that the minister referred Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15063 minister can simply stand up, deal with the there has been a deleterious effect, what will questions and we can move on. As I say, the the government do? That was not asked in alternative is that we could be here for some estimates. Will the $15 million—the money time seeking to elucidate answers which are which resulted from the freezing of escala- keenly awaited by the local government tion factors in 1997-98—be put back? That sector in this country. I really do suggest that question was not asked in estimates. Will the the time is now for the minister to get on minister seek advice on the jurisdictional with answering questions which have been aspects of the ACCC and the local govern- properly asked. ment sector? That question also was not If the minister needs time, if he needs to asked in estimates. Will the minister explain see the Clerk of the Senate because he does why the LGIP was underspent by $1 million not accept the position that has been put by this financial year? This was alluded to but Senator Mackay about whether the questions not explicitly asked in estimates. I think it are in order, then perhaps he should say so might actually assist the process if the min- and seek to report progress on this bill and ister himself were able to apprise the Senate go and get that advice, and the Senate can of it. deal with other material while he is properly I was there—as was Senator O’Brien— advised. Maybe he needs to go and check when Senator Forshaw asked these with the Treasurer so that he can give an- questions, and I well remember them. The swers that will not offend the Treasurer. The quality of the answers was such that we in government is in charge of the timetable of fact took the decision at that point that this processing legislation. If he needs time to do would be an appropriate juncture to pursue that, all he needs to do is stand up and seek the matter. Let us see if the minister can to report progress and we will move on to the answer these questions. We will put those next bill and come back to this when he does previous questions aside for a minute. Let us have the answers—answers which he is con- try these: in relation to the population fident the Treasurer will be satisfied with. estimates, what are the key differences Those are the courses which, it seems to me, between this amendment and the previous are available to the government. Perhaps bill?Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- now is the time for the minister to consider sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- those options. But, firstly, I ask that he refer ritories and Local Government) (1.32 p.m.)— us to the particular passages that he relies In the previous bill, there was a requirement upon as having answered the five questions that the Statistician be consulted—I will just which Senator Mackay has asked. get the exact words. This is a question rele- Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (1.30 vant to the bill. Subsection 9(1) of the act p.m.)—I think we have finally got there, ha- prescribes the formula to be used in estimat- ven’t we, Senator O’Brien? The minister has ing the entitlement to the local government finally decided to run up the white flag. He is financial assistance grants for each state. just going to sit there and not answer any This includes the use of a preliminary esti- questions at all. Senator O’Brien and I had a mate of the population of each state as at 31 private discussion of how long it would take December of the previous year. The act cur- before he decided to just sit there and not rently requires the minister and the Statisti- answer any questions, and I think it has hap- cian to agree on the assumptions to be used. pened now. I will assist Senator O’Brien in However, at the time such estimates are his questions, and I will reiterate to the min- made each year, the Statistician does not ister the questions that were asked in esti- have the data available on which he bases his mates. Will the government undertake an formal published population estimate. He analysis of the impact of the GST on local believes that the responsibility for assump- government? At that point, the government tions underpinning the estimated population said no. Has the government changed its predictions should therefore lie with the mind in relation to this issue? If the govern- minister and that he should not be required to ment does the analysis and it shows that agree. He is happy to continue producing the 15064 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 estimate on that basis and for there to be a has these concerns, what other factors will legislative requirement for the minister to you take into consideration until the final consult with him on the assumptions. This figures are out? new clause puts into effect the request of the Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- Statistician. His reasoning, I think, is logical sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- and understandable, and for that reason ac- ritories and Local Government) (1.38 p.m.)— ceptable to the government. The legislation This is the Statistician, whose job it is to ac- requires that I consult with him on the as- curately count whatever he happens to be sumptions, but he does not have to agree counting at the time, and in this instance it is with the assumptions. He thinks that is a the population. He does not have the data matter for the government of the day, and we available on which he bases his formal pub- accept his view. lished population estimates. As a public offi- It is an interim assessment. When the ac- cial whose job it is to accurately count, in tual population figures become available at a this instance, the population, he does not later time, then adjustments can be made. So really want to be seen as agreeing to an esti- nobody really misses out—it means pay- mate when he is the one who should give the ments can get out. We use population data at formal population figures. So he has said— an early time before the actual population and these are not his words, but perhaps I numbers are accurately ascertained. Under can impute them to him—that he feels that it the new bill the government, after consulting would not be professional for him to agree with the Statistician, makes an assumption. If with me on a set of projections on which he that assumption turns out to be incorrect, does not have the formal data. It is some- then the real figures, when they become thing I can do, because we can make an as- available, will be used, and the exact amount sumption—knowing full well that, when the will be paid at that time. accurate figures come out in the not too dis- Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (1.36 tant future, they will be adjusted and so no- p.m.)—What factors will the government be one really misses out. It is a reasonable re- using to determine its response in the in- quest from the Statistician, and one with terim? which the government is prepared to comply. Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (1.39 sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- p.m.)—Minister, it appears that there is the ritories and Local Government) (1.36 p.m.)— capacity here—and you have in fact alluded The government will be relying very heavily to it yourself—for the Treasurer to override on the work of the Statistician. It is the Stat- the interim figures provided by the Statisti- istician’s role, of course, to produce those cian. You have not really elucidated or set figures. The government has, as far as I am out the process which the minister of the day aware, no other sources of real information. and the Treasurer will be using to determine So I, while I am the minister, rely—and al- population estimates, other than to say that though I cannot speak for future ministers it you will be relying very heavily on the Stat- stands to reason that any minister in the fu- istician. In what circumstances would you ture would rely—very heavily on what is see a situation whereby the Treasurer may in suggested by the Statistician in getting to fact change the population estimates? What those population figures. estimates are you using? It is not clear. Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (1.37 Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- p.m.)—It does not make sense to me, Minis- sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- ter. The Statistician has asked for the ritories and Local Government) (1.40 p.m.)— changes, presumably predicated on some Senator, that is a slightly different question. concerns that he or she has in relation to the It is again relevant to the bill before the Sen- veracity of these figures. You say that you ate and is one which I am happy to answer. It will be consulting heavily with the Statisti- is really not a question of the Treasurer over- cian in determining the interim position. riding the population figures. That is not al- What will you be doing? If the Statistician lowed. The population assumptions are, in Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15065 the end result, mine and mine alone—or straints were not present under the previous those of whoever holds this position in the act introduced by the former government, but future—after consultation with the Statisti- they are in this proposal. cian. So that is that issue. The Treasurer does Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (1.44 not have power himself to alter the popula- p.m.)—The difference being, of course, that tion figures. The current act that was in the change in the role of the Statistician is vogue in 1995, an act that was passed by the inherent in this act in relation to the figures. previous government—with our support, if I What are the special circumstances, Minis- recall correctly—provides that the Treasurer ter? then has a very wide discretion to alter the escalation figure. Under the current act, I Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- think it is fair to say, there is very little con- sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- straint upon the Treasurer. Subsection (2) of ritories and Local Government) (1.45 p.m.)— section 8 of the current act talks about de- Again, your comment about the population is termining the final factor. Subsection (2) not relevant. Under the previous act it was says: still an estimate of population. It cannot be anything else but an estimate because the In making a decision ... whether to increase or formal figures are not done—nobody in the decrease a sum, the Treasurer is to have regard to world has the data, and an estimate had to be the following matters: made previously. What the Statistician said (a) underlying movements in general purpose he would prefer—not ‘objected to’; I think Commonwealth payments to the States ... that is putting it too strongly—is that he Of course, that is no longer relevant be- should not be required, as a professional, cause we will not be paying money to the independent public servant, to agree with an states anymore. They will be getting all the estimation of formal figures which he is GST moneys, and so they will not be getting charged with providing. He said he is quite general purpose grants from the Common- happy to continue discussing it with the wealth in future. It continues: minister of the day, he is quite happy to put (b) changes to the classification of any relevant his ideas forward, and, as I say, the minister Commonwealth payments to the States; of the day will obviously draw on those to (c) changes to the distribution of the financial get the estimate of population variations. responsibilities as between the Commonwealth That estimate, whether it be right or whether and the States; it be wrong, is only for a short period of time (d) any other matters that the Treasurer thinks because, when the true figures are made relevant. available, an adjustment is made to bring in That is the current bill introduced by the the true figures and the money that follows former government. We are proposing in this from the true figures. So that, with respect, is bill to retain the provisions which give the not relevant. Treasurer discretion to increase or decrease Under the current act the Treasurer has the escalation factor in special circum- unfettered discretion. As you will see from stances. But the bill inserts new provisions the existing act, Senator, the amount has to specifying that there must be special circum- be agreed upon by the Treasurer, and it is stances before the Treasurer can adjust the actually the Treasurer that causes the factor escalation factor and that, in doing so, he in relation to the current year to be worked must have regard to the objects of the act. out by the formula, a quite complicated for- Senator, as you would well appreciate from mula, that is set out in the current act. Hav- that, there is no such specification in the cur- ing got to that factor, he can then alter it— rent legislation. Under the current act, the and I quote the current act—‘taking into ac- discretion of the Treasurer is unfettered. count any other matters that he thinks are Now we are imposing upon the Treasurer the relevant’. I am sure you have got the bill, requirement that there have to be special cir- Senator, but I will point out the actual words cumstances and that he must have regard to that we are using in the amending bill. It says the actual objects of the act. Those con- now that if the Treasurer considers there are 15066 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 special circumstances for doing so, the factor The Treasurer might then say, ‘Well, we calculated under paragraph (a) is increased can’t allow a full range of government under paragraph (b) by such amount as the spending; not just this one but a full range of Treasurer considers appropriate. But then it government spending. We cannot provide goes on to say that in doing so the Treasurer more money.’ That, I suspect, might be con- must take heed of the objects of parliament sidered to be a special circumstance. in enacting this act as set out in section 3. So Under the current act the Treasurer did not that does provide a constraint over and above need special circumstances. Under the pres- what it was under the previous legislation, ent act—the act of the previous govern- and it is, we think, in those circumstances ment—the Treasurer only had to take into appropriate. account any other matters that he thought Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (1.49 relevant. Under our bill there has to be spe- p.m.)—I just want to repeat my question: cial circumstances, and he has to exercise what are the special circumstances? that discretion taking account of and com- Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- plying with the objects of the act as it will sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- then stand upon the passing of this amend- ritories and Local Government) (1.49 p.m.)— ment. English usage as we know in interpretation Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (1.52 of statutes relies on what the words actually p.m.)—That is extremely interesting, I have say, and ‘special circumstances’ means what to say. The reason it is interesting is that it says—special circumstances. The Treas- about 10 minutes ago the minister said the urer has to demonstrate what special circum- adjustments are minor until the formal fig- stances are. It is not for me to pre-empt or ures in fact come in. Now we have a situa- guess or conceptualise what might happen in tion—which is of course what happened in the future; in fact, that is contrary to standing 1997-98—where the escalation figures could orders. But one might imagine a new gov- be varied or frozen, depending on exigencies ernment coming to power when an older in relation to policy. So, Minister, are you government that had been there for 13 years saying that the Treasurer will exercise this had been going around saying to everyone, discretion in the way that you have indi- ‘Look, we’ve got a big surplus in our budget. cated—for example, if there is a potential We’ve got a lot of cash money in the till. blow-out in government spending? What is Things are going swimmingly.’ If that gov- the certainty that between the decision being ernment had gone around saying that, and made and the final figures coming in there then there was an election and a different will not be changes? That is the point. The government came into power and that new way you did it before was you froze it. This government had a look at the books, sent time—I know it is a difficult concept for you them out to the best auditors in the world, to get your head around, Senator Mac- and suddenly found out that the previous donald—what has happened is the Statisti- government was telling little porkies—in cian is saying, ‘I’m not prepared to sign up fact, not just little porkies but very big lies— to preliminary figures.’ That is fair enough. if that occasioned and the government sud- But we want to know, given the Statistician denly found that it had $10 billion less in the does not want to sign up to preliminary fig- kitty than the previous government had been ures—which is fair enough—under what promising everyone it did have, and the in- special circumstances the Treasurer may in coming government, having based its elec- fact vary the escalation factors. You have tion policies on the published data, that is, cited one, which is a political one, I have to that things were going swimmingly and that say. You may regard that as fair enough, but I there was a lot of money around in the coun- do not think local government regards it as try, comes in and finds out that the previous fair enough. government had deliberately lied to the Aus- What I would like you, Minister, to do is tralian public, one might then think that they come back to us with a list of the special might be classed as ‘special circumstances’. circumstances. I understand you cannot talk Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15067 on behalf of the Treasurer about what those Senator MACKAY—That is good. Can special circumstances may be, but we would the minister answer those questions that I like a list of the special circumstances so we just gave him and also the other questions can relay them to local government. Also, that we talked about before in relation to the can you, as the minister who will be in fact Local Government Incentive Program, the undertaking this process, provide the precise jurisdictional aspect of the ACCC, and process you will undertake for the population whether the government will ever consider estimate in relation to discussions with the putting back in the $15 million that it took Statistician? Will you go beyond discussions out in 1997-98, which has now reached a with the Statistician, or will you adhere to total of $61.4 million. If you can answer the preliminary estimates of the Statistician those in the next 2½ minutes I can move on in relation to this, bearing in mind that he has to my second set of questions. not formally signed up to that? The other Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- issue is what capacity there is for the Treas- sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- urer to consult with other groups when de- ritories and Local Government) (1.57 p.m.)— termining what the escalation factor may In relation to the only two questions that are well be. This comes back to the issue of spe- relevant to the bill—which are the only ones cial circumstances—for example, ministers I am answering—Senator Mackay, with re- or whatever. Also, are there any realistic spect, cannot understand— limitations on the use of the escalation factor in this fashion? Senator Mackay—Madam Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. Chair—I These are all appropriate questions. So if know you have been in the chair, and I ap- you can come back and provide us with an- preciate this—we have been through this swers to all of those, then we will ask an- several times. We have received advice from other series of questions in relation to this the Clerk of the Senate. We have quoted the legislation. After that, we will go back to our section of Odgers which provides that the in order questions and we will go through the minister has to answer questions. The ques- second set of questions we had. We still have tions we are asking are not out of order— not had a response from you in relation to the they are in order—and it is out of order for jurisdiction over the ACCC. We still have the minister to continue to assert that these not had a response from you as to why the questions are not in order. They are. If he LGIP was underspent by $1 million this fi- asserts they are not in order, then he should nancial year, and we still have not had a re- seek his own advice from the Clerk of the sponse from the government as to whether it Senate and find out for himself whether they intends to put back in the $15 million that it are in order. We have got written advice from took out in 1997-98. So I would like the the Clerk of the Senate, and we have a sec- minister to take all of those questions away tion of Odgers. If the minister wishes to in and come back. The minister in his re- fact get his own advice I would appreciate it, sponse— because it would expedite this debate im- Senator Ian Macdonald—Madam Tem- mensely. But our advice is every single porary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I question we have asked and we intend to ask do not need to take away the questions on the is in order. bill. I can answer them straightaway, if The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Senator Mackay is interested in answers to There is no point of order. I have not been the questions on the bill. If she sits down asked to rule on the relevance of the now, in the three minutes available to me I question. However, as it is now 2 p.m., I can answer those questions about the Treas- propose that the committee report progress. urer. Progress reported. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—There is no point of MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS order. Senator HILL (South Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate) (2.00 15068 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 p.m.)—by leave—I inform the Senate that able senator on the other side does not un- Senator Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Jus- derstand. tice and Customs, Minister representing the Senator HOGG—I have a supplementary Attorney-General and Minister representing question, Madam President. The minister, in the Minister for Immigration and Multicul- answering my question, failed to address part tural Affairs, will be absent from the Senate of the question. Maybe he can have a shot at for question time this week. Senator it this time. Is it true that the government Vanstone is attending the first meeting of the promised prior to the election that there executive committee of the World Anti- would be no GST on residential rent? That Doping Agency in Lausanne. During Senator was the first part of the question that he did Vanstone’s absence Senator Ellison will take not answer. Is it also true that the govern- questions relating to the justice and Customs ment is applying a 5.5 per cent GST to resi- portfolio, the Attorney-General’s portfolio dential rent which is paid for mobile homes and the Immigration and Multicultural Af- and caravans? Isn’t this a cut and dried bro- fairs portfolio. ken promise? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Senator HILL—Of course not. This gov- Goods and Services Tax: Caravan Parks ernment is not in the business of breaking Senator HOGG (2.00 p.m.)—My ques- promises. This government is in the business tion is to Senator Hill, representing the Prime of reforming the taxation system to the bene- Minister. Isn’t Garry Nehl, the member for fit of all Australians, whether they live in Cowper, correct in claiming— short-term or long-term accommodation. It has made considerable efforts to ensure that The PRESIDENT—‘Mr Nehl’, Senator. equity is retained between such renters. Senator HOGG—Isn’t Mr Garry Nehl, When you look at the benefit to all Austra- the member for Cowper, correct in claiming lians from this tax reform and the large range that his integrity and that of the coalition of taxes that are reduced to enable its imple- parties have been impugned by the govern- mentation, the bottom line is that all Austra- ment’s decision to apply a 5.5 per cent GST lians are better off. Contrast this with the to mobile home and long-term caravan park position of the Australian Labor Party. What rentals? Given that the government had does it say in relation to caravan parks? promised prior to the election that there Mr Beazley said, ‘We might roll it back.’ Did would be no GST on residential rent, why is Mr Beazley come out and say, ‘No, we will the government persisting in discriminating change the policy’? Of course not—another against the approximately 160,000 long-term demonstration of Labor: no policies, no al- residents of caravan and mobile home parks? ternatives, just miserable, negative nonsense. Senator HILL—Obviously the honour- Rural and Regional Australia: Govern- able senator on the other side is mistaken. ment Support The position of long-term renters, whether Senator TIERNEY (2.05 p.m.)—My they be in mobile homes or whether they be question is to the Minister for Regional in flats or houses, is approximately the same. Services, Local Government and Territories, In relation to caravan parks, certainly be- Senator Ian Macdonald. Will the minister cause such parks include a mixture of short- advise the Senate on the new federal gov- term and long-term renters, a different for- ernment initiatives that will further boost mula has been applied. But equity has re- communities in regional and rural Australia mained. So the position of long-term renters and help them enhance their economic base? in caravan parks is not, in terms of cost to the renters, different from that of those living in Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator long-term housing accommodation. That is a Tierney and all government senators, par- fair situation that has been developed to meet ticularly those from regional areas, will be the requirement of caravan parks which are a delighted in the weekend announcement of mixture of long-term and short-term. It is fair the government’s new four-year, $90 million to the residents. I am sorry that the honour- federal government grants program, the Re- Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15069 gional Solutions Program. The Regional Street—one click straight to Sussex Street. I Solutions Program is designed to help com- understand that Country Labor put out a munities build up their economic bases. newsletter and are currently embarking on a Senator Tierney, as he travels around re- competition to name the newsletter. Cur- gional New South Wales, will be well aware rently it is just called Country Labor: other of the need of many communities to build news. I want to enter the competition, and their economic bases. Grants will be avail- my contribution is going to be Pulling the able for community planning, for imple- wool over our eyes. How about that one? Or menting local projects, for community ad- how about Mutton dressed as lamb or per- justment initiatives, for regionally based en- haps A wolf in sheep’s clothing? Now that terprises and infrastructure projects and to would be good. I am particularly encouraged employ community based development of- by the support I am getting from my people fices. This new program will be a flexible because I want to win the prize. Do you one. It will allow communities to identify know what the prize is, Madam President? and implement development opportunities The prize, if I get this right, is an inspira- which meet their particular needs and over- tional video of Paul Keating’s thoughts. If I come their specific problems. Small and win it, I will get an inspirational video by large scale projects will be catered for and Paul Keating, and I just cannot wait to get the grants will be from $1,000 up to that! There are my suggestions. All jokes $500,000. aside, why don’t you do something positive I want to pay particular credit to Mr An- like our regional solutions fund, rather than derson, the Minister for Transport and Re- mucking around with the semantics? (Time gional Services, and the Regional Australia expired) Summit held last year for getting this initia- Goods and Services Tax: Rent tive together. It is the sort of thing that was Senator SHERRY (2.09 p.m.)—My asked for at the regional summit. The gov- question is to Senator Newman, the Minister ernment is delighted to have been able to for Family and Community Services. Is it announce this new program. It builds upon true that a report prepared by Mr Chris Mur- many other initiatives by the Howard gov- phy from Econtech shows that people living ernment for rural and regional Australia: the in caravans, mobile homes and boarding Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure houses, who will be forced to pay a 5.5 per Fund, the Natural Heritage Fund, the Rural cent up-front GST, will be worse off than Transaction Centre Program, the $562 mil- every other Australian renter, who will be lion health package, and the $240 million input taxed? Stronger Families and Communities Strat- egy. Senator NEWMAN—I have been asked questions about the Econtech report before. While the government is out there doing Obviously, Senator Sherry cannot have been it, the Labor Party, which had 13 years to do listening at the various times I answered this something for rural and regional Australia, question. The point is that this report was did absolutely nothing. Their major rural and requested by the Treasury, and the Treasury regional policy was called Better Cities. That asked my department to manage the consult- is what the Labor Party could do. They spent ant’s work and to present it to the Treasury. money building up a bureaucracy but doing They managed it instead of the Treasury. As nothing for people on the ground. What else soon as the report was received by my de- do Labor do to try and fool the Australian partment, it was conveyed to the Treasury. I public into thinking they are interested in cannot help him with the contents of it at all. rural and regional Australia? They set up a new element—a new faction, one might Senator SHERRY—Madam President, I say—of the Labor Party and call it Country ask a supplementary question. Aren’t these Labor. As I explained in the Senate some damaging figures actually produced by the time ago, you click on the Country Labor Prime Minister’s preferred economic mod- web site and it takes you straight to Sussex eller, Chris Murphy? Is the minister aware that her department admitted in Senate esti- 15070 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 mates hearings on 24 May that increases to for the March quarter. They confirm the very rent assistance to compensate for the GST strong performance of the Australian econ- would not protect all people living in board- omy. ing houses, as well as other renters? Isn’t this Senator Sherry—We had a wholesale the real reason why the Econtech report has sales tax. been buried away? It should have been re- leased in January, and you announced that it Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry calls would be released in January. When will this out, ‘The wholesale sales tax’. Hasn’t Sena- report be released as the government prom- tor Sherry heard that Mr Beazley is now on ised to do? record as saying that he will not now repeal the GST—that Mr Beazley now supports the Senator NEWMAN—I do not know who GST? Senator Sherry suggests promised it would be released in January. I have no recollection Senator Sherry—But you argued the that anybody has said such a thing. Let me wholesale sales tax was inefficient. make this absolutely clear— The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Senator Sherry—Where is the report? Sherry, you are shouting and behaving in a disorderly fashion. Senator NEWMAN—Ask the Assistant Treasurer or put a question on notice to the Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam Treasurer. It is a report for them. It is not a President, for that protection from the hys- matter that I have had any involvement in. teria of Senator Sherry. The national ac- My department acted as agent for the Treas- counts were very good news for the econ- ury. But it would be remiss of me if I did not omy, and they showed that the GDP in- take the opportunity that this supplementary creased by just over one per cent during the question provides to emphasise that rents for quarter. This exceptionally good result repre- people renting in Australia will increase with sents a through-the-year growth figure of 4.3 the new tax system. Nobody in the govern- per cent. I stress that this is the 12th con- ment has ever pretended otherwise. Whether secutive quarter of through-year growth they are renting a private home or whether above four per cent. It truly is a remarkable they are renting an apartment or whether performance, and it reflects the very sound they are renting a site in a caravan park, the management of the economy by the Howard point is that compensation will be provided government. In addition, the national ac- under the new tax system at the rate of seven counts confirm that this growth is occurring per cent for rent assistance, four per cent for in a low inflation environment. That is an- parents and tax assistance for those who are other example of good news on the economic paying tax. (Time expired) front. Economy: Families Let me turn to some other aspects of good news which have come through. The export Senator WATSON (2.12 p.m.)—My earnings by the minerals and energy sector question is directed to Senator Kemp, the increased by seven per cent in the March Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister inform quarter, and home loan affordability im- the Senate of the benefits which are flowing proved during the March quarter according to Australian families of the Howard gov- to the Real Estate Institute of Australia. By ernment’s sound economic management? Is any benchmark, the Australian economy is the minister aware of any alternative policy one of the world’s best performing econo- approaches? mies, and it is not surprising that the results Senator KEMP—I thank Senator Watson of strong growth and good management of for that very important question. I am happy the economy are flowing through to all Aus- to report to the Senate that, under this gov- tralians. The unemployment rate for May has ernment, Australia has been one of the fallen to 6.7 per cent—well below the figure world’s best performing economies. Just last that we inherited when we came into gov- Wednesday this was confirmed by the ABS ernment. Many senators will remember that when the ABS released the national accounts the unemployment level under the Labor Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15071

Party peaked at some 11 per cent—11 per extremely poorly, Senator Quirke. Although cent versus 6.7 per cent today. Senator Quirke has returned to the table, I Also, real wages are rising under the gov- think he has somewhat misquoted what I said ernment, unlike when Labor was in govern- in the estimates committee. Let us check the ment. Senator George Campbell has pointed Hansard because I do not recall saying that I out the very poor performance of the Keating believed it was essential. What I would have government on real wage growth for those said is that it would have been a useful— 13 years. I suspect, Senator Macdonald, that Senator Carr—What you should have that particular appalling performance will not said! be mentioned on the tape which will be Senator HILL—What I would have said given to the winner of the naming contest. is in all likelihood what I did say. What I The remarkable results being achieved in the would have said is that it would be a useful economy are not an accident; they are a re- tool for the federal government because of sult of the economic policies being pursued course the federal government is the level of by the government. All of us can remember government that has accepted obligations the 13 years of hard Labor under the Hawke under the Kyoto protocol. and Keating governments. We are now con- tinuing the reform program which has deliv- Opposition senators interjecting— ered this strong growth. We are of course The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner! seeking to further improve the flexibility of Senator Bolkus! I draw your attention to the our labour markets and, most importantly of standing orders. all, on 1 July we are providing the largest tax Senator HILL—Under a greenhouse cuts in Australian history. (Time expired) trigger major developments planned, very Environment: Greenhouse Gases high emission developments—I am talking Senator QUIRKE (2.17 p.m.)—My ques- about very large developments, the equiva- tion is to Senator Hill, the Minister for the lent of 10 per cent of total increased emis- Environment and Heritage. Does the minister sions in Australia within each year—would stand by his statement at the last round of come to the Commonwealth government for estimates that a ‘greenhouse trigger’ is es- analysis as to their greenhouse conse- sential if we are to meet our Kyoto target quences. As a result of that, the Common- commitments? Given that government un- wealth government might well provide input dertakings in relation to a greenhouse trigger to the developer, which could lead to modifi- were part of the deal with the Democrats to cations of the project and perhaps a better get the government’s environmental legisla- greenhouse outcome. That is what a Com- tion through the Senate, will the minister monwealth greenhouse trigger would be all deliver on those undertakings and his own about. public statements about a trigger, or will he The government has commenced a proc- bow to pressure from the Deputy Prime ess of consultation with the states pursuant to Minister, Senator Minchin and others and the COAG agreement entered into between abandon this proposal? the Commonwealth and the states that set out Senator HILL—I am glad Senator matters of national environmental signifi- Quirke has time for questions. He has obvi- cance ultimately included under the current ously now pulled the knife out of Senator EPBC Act. That process of consultation is Schacht’s back and he can get back to real taking place. A paper was written by a con- business. sultant and distributed to all interested par- ties. Many submissions were received on it. Senator Bolkus interjecting— As a result of that, a preferred model was Senator HILL—Senator Bolkus inter- developed, which was then distributed to the venes! Of course, it was the pincer move- states for further consultation. That is the ment between the left and the right, with stage the matter has reached. When consul- poor Senator Schacht the victim. We on this tations have been completed, I will take to side think that Senator Schacht was treated cabinet a final preferred model which will 15072 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 best meet the wishes of government if it ment or incorporation of any advice on the seeks to introduce a regulatory greenhouse release of GMOs if offered. Is the minister trigger as a matter of national environmental aware of the comments by the Executive significance. That is the process that is tak- Director of the National Farmers Federation, ing place. Nothing has changed thereunder. Dr Wendy Craik, that the Democrat proposal If Senator Quirke remains patient, he will ‘emphasise(d) environmental issues above find out the final outcome in due course. other issues’? Is this not an appropriate ob- Senator QUIRKE—Madam President, I jective for the proposed office of gene tech- have a supplementary question. Is it true that nology and, of course, in keeping with the the Minister for the Environment and Heri- wishes of the Australian people? So, could tage is eventually to be stripped of responsi- the minister explain if this government back- bility for greenhouse matters and that this down—and also now the Prime Minister’s responsibility will be taken over by Senator intervention in the food labelling issue—is Minchin? Does the minister propose to im- indicative of the disregard that this govern- plement his greenhouse trigger before Sena- ment has not only for public concerns about tor Minchin takes over? How is Mr Brindal’s GMOs but the public consultations con- health, Minister? ducted by the health department about this bill? Senator HILL—How is Mr Brindal’s health? Senator HERRON—I thank Senator Stott Despoja for the question. To respond to Senator Quirke—You in your office, the last one, no, the government has a very knifing Brindal. serious concern about public concern, but I Senator HILL—Don’t you talk about can draw her attention to the fact that the knives, Senator! Look at Senator Schacht. I minister is aware of media criticisms of the could say that Australia’s domestic response Interim Office of the Gene Technology to the greenhouse challenge is as good as, if Regulator in relation to its ability to investi- not better than, that of any country in the gate breaches and take remedial action. I am world. We are proud of what we have done also aware that there has been some specula- since the end of 1997 to modify the Austra- tion that the ability of the environment min- lian economy in different ways so that we ister to provide appropriate advice has been can meet the target we agreed to at Kyoto—a eroded. The minister has received a progress fair target. We are pleased that we have a report on the investigation of breaches in the ministerial council which includes all rele- Mount Gambier region and expects that the vant ministers, including Senator Minchin, final report will be provided to him in the and which is guiding the Australian Green- near future. He is aware that the office has house Office towards the implementation of taken the time to be most thorough in its ex- the best mix of policies to achieve the target amination of the alleged breaches while re- that Australia committed to. That is what this maining cognisant of the need to provide debate is all about—Australia paying a fair natural justice to the company concerned. price for moving towards a better global out- Referring now to the legislation currently come. (Time expired) being developed by the Interim Office of the Gene Technology: Environment Gene Technology Regulator, the minister Senator STOTT DESPOJA (2.22 believes that will strengthen the current p.m.)—My question is addressed to the regulatory framework to prevent breaches Minister representing the Minister for Health like those just mentioned. It will also provide and Aged Care. I am wondering if the min- the environment minister with the ability to ister can explain how the government’s new provide him and the Office of Gene Tech- amendments to the Gene Technology Bill nology Regulator with advice. That Gene 2000 will protect the environment from any Technology Bill 2000, which will be intro- adverse impacts of genetically modified or- duced into parliament shortly, will create a ganisms, given that there is no requirement statutory office holder, to be known as the for advice from the minister for the environ- Gene Technology Regulator, who will have Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15073 the power to enforce stringent safeguards for statement made by Wendy Craik, but I will the research, development, production and refer that to the minister. use of genetically modified organisms for the Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Madam health and environmental safety of Austra- President, I ask a supplementary question. I lians. The bill is the result of an extensive thank the minister for his response, but I do consultation process which commenced in not understand how the minister can argue October last year and involved all relevant that there is an emphasis on environmental Commonwealth portfolios, all state and ter- issues in this bill or claim that he wants to ritory governments and interested see strong protections for the environment stakeholders as well as the general public. when the role of the minister for the envi- The object of the legislation is to protect the ronment under the proposed amendments, health and safety of people and to protect the the new amendments, has been completely environment from any risks posed by geneti- undermined. The role of the environment cally modified organisms. The proposed minister has been completely undermined legislation therefore places very strong em- under the new proposed amendments as op- phasis on environmental issues. The Gene posed to the Democrat amendments. I ask Technology Regulator will be required to once again if this government has complete seek and take account of the environment disregard for public and community concerns minister’s advice in relation to all applica- about GMOs, as well as the adverse impact tions for the intentional release of a geneti- of GMOs on the environment, as well as cally modified organism into the environ- health and safety concerns? ment. No other minister, state or Common- wealth, is afforded such a specific role, and Senator HERRON—Madam President, this provides additional assurance that ap- the answer is no. propriate environmental assessments are Goods and Services Tax: Black Economy made in relation to genetically modified or- Senator COOK (2.28 p.m.)—My question ganisms. Where risks to the environment is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. and/or public health cannot be properly man- Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of the fol- aged, releases will not be permitted. lowing statement by Minister Reith on the The introduction of the bill into parlia- Sunday Sunrise program yesterday: ment is consistent with the government’s aim We are talking about a lot of black economy here. to have the Office of the Gene Technology Treasury’s estimates have been an extra $3.5 bil- Regulator fully operational by January 2001. lion from the black economy. The new legislation will also create a much Can the minister confirm that Treasury of- stronger regulatory regime than exists under ficials have on a number of occasions told the current interim arrangements. It proposes Senate committees that no estimates of the that the regulator or person authorised by the black economy have been undertaken? Who regulator will be able to enter into any is telling the truth on this issue of Treasury premises covered by a licence to deal with estimates—Minister Reith or the Treasury genetically modified organisms in order to officials? monitor compliance with the legislation. And Senator KEMP—Mr Reith was express- the regulator is not required to give prior ing his own personal views. notice or advance warning of spot checks. Inspectors under the bill will have entry and Senator Bolkus—You’d be on his side, search powers akin to the Australian Federal would you? Police. Penalties for criminal offences under Senator KEMP—Let me go through the draft bill are significant: up to $1.1 mil- some of the issues which were raised at Sen- lion for each individual breach of the law ate estimates. I believe Senator Cook was and relevant parts of the criminal code has there. There were discussions about the size been included in the draft Gene Technology of the cash economy. Not surprisingly, the Bill 2000. The proposed regulatory system estimates involved ranged considerably. for genetically modified organisms is rigor- ous and stringent. I am not aware of the 15074 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Senator Bolkus—If you weren’t before, are going to deliver major tax cuts to the you would be now. Australian public against the wishes of the Senator KEMP—Senator Bolkus, if you Australian Labor Party. would like to listen for a change, you might Rural and Regional Australia: Tax Re- actually learn something. form Senator Bolkus—Not from you, I Senator COONAN (2.32 p.m.)—My wouldn’t. question is to the Leader of the Government The PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, in the Senate, Senator Hill. Would the min- cease interjecting. ister inform the Senate how communities in rural and regional Australia will benefit from Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam the new tax system? Is the minister aware of President. The new tax system will make alternative policies? What would be the im- inroads on the cash economy. The estimate pact of these policies? of the increased revenue from the cash econ- omy under the new tax system is some $3.5 Senator HILL—The effect of the new tax billion. There has been no change to this es- system on rural and regional Australia is a timate. very important issue. I can assure you, Madam President, that the new tax system Senator COOK—Madam President, I ask will deliver major benefits to our rural and a supplementary question. Minister, when regional communities. They will share in the you say that Mr Reith was talking for him- $12 billion of personal income tax cuts, self, are you talking about the part where he which will be delivered in full and on time in said that he estimates the black economy just 11 days. What a contrast to Labor’s l-a- would be double that figure—namely, extra w law tax cuts, which disappeared after the GST receipts of $7 billion? Can the Assistant 1993 election. The new tax system will also Treasurer shed light on the embarrassing deliver major cuts in the cost of transport by contradiction of Mr Reith’s statement by the reducing the cost of diesel in rural areas by Treasurer’s spokeswoman, who said that 24c a litre. That will be a major benefit to there was no additional revenue in the fore- our rural exporters, who rely on the transport cast? Or has the Treasurer’s spokeswoman industry to get their produce to Australian not yet been nicked for this blatant manoeu- ports. The new tax system will ensure that all vre in the leadership stakes? exports are GST free. In all, an estimated The PRESIDENT—The second part of $3.5 billion tax burden will be lifted off the the question is quite irrelevant. If there is backs of Australian exporters. It is a simple anything in the first part of the supplemen- equation. More exports mean more jobs, and tary question you wish to comment upon, that is good news for the Australian commu- Senator Kemp, please do so. nity. Even the Labor spokesman, Mr Senator KEMP—The questions get McMullan agrees. He said: worse and worse during the day. That one Well, the GST overall should be good for exports. was a classic Senator Cook non-question. Government senators interjecting— The only people making complete fools of themselves at the moment are the Labor Senator HILL—Yes, I will repeat it, if Party. The Labor Party are in total confusion you like. Mr McMullan said, with a touch of on their tax policy. They go around attempt- honesty, that overall the GST will be good ing to promote scares, but as soon as the for exports. Rural and regional economies question is asked, ‘What do the Labor Party will also benefit from the changes to the propose to do about it?’ the answer is, ‘The business tax system. I quote the President of Labor Party propose to keep the GST.’ But the National Farmers Federation, who said: the really dopey aspect of the Labor Party is It’s worth remembering that the all-up savings for that, because of the very big tax cuts coming the farm sector from the introduction of the indi- through on 1 July, the Labor Party are asked rect tax package including the GST, and conse- to guarantee that their policy will confirm quent reductions in fuel excise, are estimated to be around $900 million—every year—and, of these tax cuts, and do they run for cover. We Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15075 course, there will be flow-on benefits to the urge people and Senator Crowley to obtain a whole community. copy of that if they want to. If Senator He was absolutely right. So the new tax Crowley wants to get into the specifics of system will be good for all Australians but this, there is also a food index. In relation to especially for our farmers and regional your specific question, Senator Crowley, I communities, who were ignored by the La- will take myself to a Japanese restaurant and bor Party for years. In politics there are al- I will be able to provide you with further ways two sides. What is the Labor alterna- information. tive? Labor hate the GST so much that they Senator CROWLEY—I find it some are going to keep it. They are trying to get comment on the GST that the minister says away with scaring the public about individ- he will take himself to a Japanese restaurant ual aspects of the tax package whilst prom- to find out the answer. If that is his way of ising to keep the GST. We have seen it in dealing with the GST, good luck to him. I do relation to caravan parks over the weekend. have a supplementary question. Labor say that it is terrible, but what are they Senator Hill—I suppose all the battlers going to do about it? They say that they will are eating sashimi. look at it as a matter of priority. But we thought books were Labor’s highest prior- Senator CROWLEY—Senator Hill sug- ity—or was it tampons, or education, or beer, gests that this may not be the food for the or clothing or the car industry? Labor’s battlers, but the supplementary question goes problem is that, after the l-a-w law tax cuts to the price of rice, which I do believe is that disappeared, nobody believes Labor on fairly much a staple in most homes. My sup- tax. There is all of this, with no guarantees plementary is: given that rice on its own is that Labor will keep the income tax cuts de- GST free, why is it GSTable when it is livered by the Howard government. It is time wrapped up in fish as sushi? for Labor to get serious about tax reform— Senator KEMP—Madam President— either to put up or to shut up. Honourable senators interjecting— Goods and Services Tax: Food The PRESIDENT—Order! The level of Senator CROWLEY (2.36 p.m.)—My noise in the chamber is absolutely unaccept- question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant able and there are many senators behaving in Treasurer. Just what is the difference be- breach of the standing orders. tween GSTable sushi and GST-free sashimi? Senator KEMP—The answer is that take- Senator KEMP—Madam President, isn’t away food is subject to GST. Basic food it wonderful that we get these sorts of ques- which one can buy at a supermarket, like tions from the Labor Party? The fact of the rice, is not subject to GST. matter is that, under our policy, the cost of Economy: Wealth Distribution many basic foods will fall. I am pointing out a very important fact which I do not think Senator HARRADINE (2.40 p.m.)—My Senator Crowley is fully aware of: the fact of question is directed to Senator Kemp and it the matter is that, under our policy, the cost relates to the NATSEM study which shows of many basic foods will fall. that in Australia the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the gap is Senator Sherry—It’s Democrat policy extending. Would the minister agree that this that you condemned. is a tragic social problem requiring urgent The PRESIDENT—Senator Sherry, I action by all of us, particularly the govern- have drawn attention earlier to the standing ment? What action is the government pro- orders. posing to redress that serious social prob- Senator KEMP—The Labor Party, it lem? should be noted, voted against this particular Senator KEMP—One of the reasons for amendment. We have issued to the public a the gap between the rich and poor in this very useful booklet which contains a discus- country is the comparatively high level of sion on the GST food guide, and I would unemployment which we inherited when we 15076 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 came into government. A lot of the govern- tance that it will prepare a paper for presen- ment’s attention quite rightly is devoted to tation to the parliament? ensuring that we can bring down that level of Senator KEMP—Let me assure Senator unemployment and create sustainable jobs. I Harradine that the government regards issues think our record, Senator Harradine, has of employment and issues of poverty as ones been particularly good in this respect. When of great importance. In fact, as I indicated to you think that the level of unemployment you in my earlier response, Senator Har- under Labor rose as high as 11 per cent and radine, we are addressing these issues across now it is, as I mentioned in my earlier re- a wide range of areas, and I believe that this sponse, 6.7 per cent, that shows that it is just government is showing results on this score. one of the major factors that this government It is absolutely unarguable that the— is focusing on to address the gap between rich and poor in this country. Opposition senators interjecting— Another area which I would suggest Senator KEMP—Well, when you reduce Senator Harradine look very closely at is the unemployment from the 11 per cent peak issue of tax reform. We believe that tax re- under the Labor Party to the 6.7 per cent of form will make a major contribution to es- today, you are doing a great deal to help the tablishing an equitable tax system in this people who are the most deprived in this country. One of the things that you have been community. particularly concerned about, Senator Har- Opposition senators interjecting— radine, as we have, is the sort of assistance The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators which is being provided to families. Of should stop shouting. course under our tax system there is major Senator KEMP—When you are bringing assistance for families; this major tax pack- in a tax reform system which will direct very age which will be of great benefit to families. large benefits to families, which will provide Another area which I think is important is for real rises in pensions and benefits, the the huge effort which is being made to im- fact of the matter is that this government has prove access to jobs by young people. In this a very proud record in this area. We do not area, we would point to the increased flexi- deny, Senator Harradine, that there is more bility that the government’s reforms have work to be done. That is why this govern- brought in in industrial relations. Look at the ment seeks to pursue its major reform pro- sorts of policies that are being pursued in the gram. (Time expired) education area to encourage people to obtain the skills so that they can find jobs. Goods and Services Tax: Food Senator Harradine, if we want to address Senator JACINTA COLLINS (2.45 issues of poverty in this country, one of the p.m.)—My question is addressed to Senator biggest things we can do is provide jobs. Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the min- That was a key thing which the former Labor ister explain why breakfast bars are GST free government failed to provide. This govern- when muesli bars are GSTable? What is the ment, with its policies across a wide range of difference between a breakfast bar and a areas, is doing a great deal to redress the in- muesli bar for GST purposes? equities which Labor left this country. Senator KEMP—In the book that I re- Senator HARRADINE—Madam Presi- ferred to earlier, we have set out those as- dent, I ask a supplementary question. Going pects of food which are subject to GST and to the question of reducing unemployment, those which are GST free. There is a com- why is the gap getting wider as unemploy- prehensive index there. If the senator wishes ment is dropping? In respect of workplace to find out more about it, I refer her to this relations, why is the gap getting wider when particular book. membership of trade unions is dropping? Senator JACINTA COLLINS—Madam Through you, Madam President, could the President, I ask a supplementary question. minister advise the Senate whether or not the Unfortunately the booklet does not provide government is treating this with such impor- answers to these questions, which is why we Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15077 have question time, Minister. As a supple- portunity to ensure that his views are heard. mentary question, can the minister also ex- As the government has already made plain, it plain why muesli sold in a cereal box is GST is important that proper procedures are fol- free yet when sold as a muesli bar it is lowed, that there is integrity in the system, GSTable? that it does not simply become a political Senator KEMP—In the context of ful- football and that decisions are not made for filling our commitment to provide basic food other than proper reasons. There will be an GST free, the fact of the matter is that a opportunity for the environment minister’s boundary line has to be drawn. We believe views to be taken into account at the appro- that the boundary line we have drawn is fair priate stage. and equitable; it was discussed with the gro- That, I think, is what Senator Bartlett cery council. There will always be arguments should be concerned about, rather than sim- between what should be in and what should ply trying to run off the back of scare cam- be out. But we believe that, as a result of paigns that are usually run by the Labor consultation, we have drawn a fair boundary Party and which somehow can be identified line. as showing up a level of public concern in Gene Technology: Environment research. That is not the proper basis for de- cision making. The approach that we have Senator BARTLETT (2.47 p.m.)—My taken is a much more responsible one. question is addressed to Senator Alston as the Minister representing the Minister for Senator BARTLETT—Madam Presi- Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I refer to dent, I ask a supplementary question. Given last week’s decision by cabinet to renege on this display of bad faith by the government a commitment made last year by the gov- in reversing its own commitment it made to ernment to the Senate to amend the Envi- the Australian community, how is the public ronment Protection and Biodiversity Conser- expected to believe anything the government vation Act to require all proposed releases of says? Can the minister explain why cabinet genetically modified organisms to be re- decided to put the wishes and convenience of ferred to the environment minister. Is the large agribusiness interests ahead of the minister aware that, in a recent survey, 55 community’s concern about environmental per cent of Australian farmers expressed protection and ahead of the government’s strong concern at the potential consequences own commitment to the Senate and the Aus- of the release of these organisms? Is he also tralian people? aware of a recent AC Neilsen poll that found Senator ALSTON—I trust that Senator that 68 per cent of Australians would avoid Bartlett’s approach to this issue does not re- genetically modified foods, if given the flect that of the Australian Democrats be- choice? Minister, was the cabinet aware cause it is not only crude populism; it is also when it made its decision that it would be playing to the usual conspiracy theories. I breaking this commitment that it made to the suppose that you were out there in the 1970s, Australian people, including the farming bagging multinationals as hard as you could community? If so, how can the minister jus- go, trying to ensure that somehow you could tify such a flagrant, arrogant and obvious dig up a demon or two to run a policy off. It breach of such a clear-cut and straightfor- probably got you preselection for your ef- ward promise? forts, but that is no substitute for sensible Senator ALSTON—There is no doubt policy making and sensible governmental that the government is always interested in approaches and processes. We are not in the the views of farmers and any other commu- business of pandering to particular interest nity groups, but I do not think it is a suffi- groups. This is not about putting the interests cient basis for sensible policy making to of agribusinesses or anyone else ahead of simply refer to expressed concerns in terms those that you might, on this particular day, of issues. The fact is that these matters will want to advocate the cause for. It is all about be properly considered by the environment putting a system in place that will stand up to minister, who will have the necessary op- proper scrutiny and that will not simply pan- 15078 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 der to the sort of populism and scare cam- and the success of the government’s private paigns that you would like to run. (Time ex- health insurance reforms? pired) Senator HERRON—I thank Senator Goods and Services Tax: Food Knowles for the question because it is a good Senator HUTCHINS (2.52 p.m.)—My question and, once again, it is good news— question is directed to Senator Kemp, the bad news for the Labor Party, but good news Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister explain for the Australian public. During May more why a nacho kit containing corn chips is than 176,000 people took out private health GSTable whilst taco shells and kits are GST insurance. That is the largest ever surge in free? Just what is the difference between a private health insurance membership and corn chip and a taco shell for GST purposes? represents a massive vote of confidence in the government’s reforms of an industry that Senator KEMP—I am intrigued that the was left to decay by the Labor Party. You Labor Party is pursuing this track because will recall, Madam President, the percentage the obvious question that one might ask is: of fallout from private health insurance in- what is the Labor Party’s policy in this area? tentionally engineered by the Labor Party What does the Labor Party propose to do in when they were in office over a 13-year pe- relation to food? This is going to be one of riod. This increase last month is the largest the big issues as we go towards the next monthly increase in membership levels since election—whether there will be a roll-back the introduction of the government’s 30 per in food. As I have pointed out, the govern- cent rebate scheme—the largest monthly ment has worked closely with a wide range increase. This has never happened since pri- of bodies to look at the boundary lines be- vate health participation figures were first tween basic food and food which is taxable. published in quarterly form in 1989. The We have consulted extensively with the largest increase continues to be in the 30 to Australian Food and Grocery Council. There 34 age group. That was the group that was will always be an argument over boundary particularly dropping out and needed to lines but we believe that what we have done come into the pool arrangement so that they is fair and it is based, as I said, on extensive could subsidise people like Senator Crowley consultation. as she retires from the chamber. Senator Senator HUTCHINS—Madam Presi- Crowley’s situation is probably not rare. Per- dent, I ask a supplementary question. Minis- haps Senator Schacht could say to Senator ter, can you also explain why raw nuts are Gibbs—although I do not know who the GST free while salted nuts are GSTable? Caesar was in Queensland—‘Et tu, Brenda?’ Why does the addition of salt make nuts In answering the question about health GSTable? care, the largest increase, as I mentioned, is Senator KEMP—I think the best thing I in the 30- to 34-year-old age group, and the can do for the senator is, first of all, send him best news is that there are now 6.4 million a copy of the book and, secondly, point out Australians privately insured, or 33.5 per that in these issues there is always a question cent of the population. Quite simply, this is a of boundary lines. We believe the ones we fantastic result. I would encourage anyone have drawn are fair and appropriate based on who is considering joining a private health wider consultation. But the big issue is: what fund to do so in order to qualify for the re- do the Labor Party propose to do in this bate by 30 June. We have turned the tide for area? The answer is: they have not got a two reasons: the introduction of the 30 per clue. cent rebate and the imminent introduction of Private Health Insurance: Reform Lifetime Health Cover. The coalition are Senator KNOWLES (2.54 p.m.)—My about giving Australians choice in their question is to the Minister representing the health care needs and we have delivered on Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator choice. The Labor Party cannot say the same. Herron. Will the minister inform the Senate The Labor Party have opposed every initia- of the latest private health insurance figures tive we have introduced to improve choice Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15079 for all Australians. They had no interest in Senator George Campbell—You haven’t private health care, even though a significant asked it. proportion of the people they pretend to rep- Senator KNOWLES—For heaven’s resent have got private health insurance. Im- sake. You are as bright as a blown globe— portantly, our commitment to improving that is your problem. Madam President, I am choice is underpinned by our commitment to keen to know what— Medicare and the public health system. As I said the other day, this government is the Senator Conroy—What’s the question? best friend Medicare has ever had. This gov- Senator George Campbell—That is the ernment spends almost $1 billion a year longest preamble we have heard for weeks. more on Medicare than Labor did. The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on Senator Faulkner interjecting— my left! The senator has asked a question Senator HERRON—Senator Faulkner and is concluding it. did not hear that because he was interjecting Senator KNOWLES—The final part of across the chamber. This government has my question to the minister is: what is the spent almost $1 billion a year more on Medi- benefit to the broader community of broad- care than Labor did. We have expanded ac- ening the access to hospitals for people who cess to Medicare and we have introduced the Labor Party had locked out after 13 years new services which are now provided under of government? Medicare. We have also increased funding to Senator HERRON—If I may editorialise, our public hospitals by 25 per cent. That that was a great supplementary question. The bears repeating too: we have increased one problem with the Labor Party is that they funding to the public hospital system by 25 are locked in ideology. They do not under- per cent. Only the Labor Party could argue stand the dynamic of change that has oc- that this represents some sort of threat to curred in the public hospital systems in Aus- Medicare and our public hospital system. It tralia. For the 13 years they were in govern- should also be added that the whole of the ment they were unaware that a lot of tech- GST is going to the states so that they can nology driven changes had occurred within provide upgraded hospital system care. The the health system—laparoscopic cholecys- simple fact is that the biggest threat to our tectomy, CAT scans, MRI scans, everything health care system is Labor and their ideo- of that nature. They knew how to run on the logically driven hatred of private health care. politics— We are all about choice, giving people the Opposition senators interjecting— choice of two very strong and complimen- tary systems; Labor are about taking it away. Senator HERRON—They shout out They have not announced their policy. We ‘MRI’— are totally unaware of what Labor Party pol- The PRESIDENT—Order! There is far icy is in relation to health. (Time expired) too much shouting. Senator KNOWLES—Madam President, Senator Faulkner—Are you going to I ask a supplementary question. Given that take Wellington? the Labor Party was the party that ran down The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner! I private health insurance participation over so am drawing to the attention of senators the long, could the minister please advise the breaches of standing orders that are going on Senate as to what the broader ramifications at the present time. Some senators are inter- have been of the increases in private health jecting persistently and I think some wilfully. insurance participation to the wider commu- Senator HERRON—MRI was a classic nity who now have access— example because the teaching hospital had Senator George Campbell—What’s the 16 MRIs for the whole of Australia. question? Senator Carr—Scandal! Senator KNOWLES—If you listened to the question, I am asking it. 15080 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

The PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I have reporting poor care in our nursing homes? When just drawn attention to the behaviour of the will the government provide some justice to those Senate. former employees? Senator Chris Evans—Now we have 80, SENATOR EVANS - Madam President, I ask a and we are still paying for them. supplementary question. I appreciate the minister saying he will get me an answer. I would appreci- The PRESIDENT—Senator Evans, stop ate it if he could do that as soon as possible, but shouting. he did not address the question as to why some Senator HERRON—What did we do? action has not occurred and why the minister has We expanded it into the private sector so that not even bothered to respond to three letters from the Nurses Federation asking for assistance with people could have access to it. That is what this matter. I would appreciate it if he could find they did not understand in the whole of out what has occurred and whether or not the this—that it is a dynamic; it is constantly government is going to do anything to help these changing. We need to get the two sectors into former employees who lost a total of $320,000 equilibrium—a dynamic private hospital worth of entitlements when the government system and a dynamic public hospital sys- closed Riverside Nursing Home. tem. That is the answer to the honourable SENATOR HERRON - The Minister for Aged senator’s question. (Time expired) Care has provided the following answer to the Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask honourable senator’s question in accordance with that further questions be placed on the Notice information supplied to her: Paper. A reply was sent to the Australian Nursing Fed- eration (ANF) on 13 June 2000. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE As outlined in the Minister’s response to the ANF, employee entitlements are covered under Nursing Homes: Riverside corporations law and are the responsibility of Senator HERRON (Queensland—Min- providers. Under the Government’s Employee ister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Entitlement Safety Net Scheme, while an em- Affairs) (3.01 p.m.)—Senator Evans asked ployer remains liable for the payment of their employee’s full entitlements, taxpayer funded me a question on 8 June, and I undertook to safety net payments are able to be made from the get an answer from the Minister for Aged scheme up front to eligible employees, with the Care. She has provided me with the follow- scheme then claiming those monies back from the ing answer, which I seek leave to incorporate employer if and when they become available. in Hansard. Goods and Services Tax: Black Econ- Leave granted. omy The answer read as follows— Senator COOK (Western Australia— SENATOR EVANS - My question is directed to Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senator Herron in his capacity representing the Senate) (3.02 p.m.)—I move: Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm That the Senate take note of the answer given that 78 of the former employees of the Riverside by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to a Nursing Home were owed $320,000 when the question without notice asked by Senator Cook facility was closed by the government on 6 March today, relating to taxation. this year? Can he explain why the Minister for Aged Care has not even bothered to respond to Mr Peter Reith is of course in the news three requests from the ANF calling on the Com- again today. Is he in the news this time be- monwealth to take some responsibility for those cause he is beating up on working people? employees’ entitlements? Now that media atten- No. Is he in the news this time because he is tion has shifted from Riverside, is the government intervening in a wage case to cut wages for hoping that the 78 employees will simply go ordinary Australians? No. Is he in the news away? Don’t the former staff of Riverside deserve because he is giving a handout to a textile much better, particularly since some of them were company that has John Howard’s brother, responsible for reporting the poor care and the Stan Howard, as the managing director? No, kerosene bath incident to the appropriate authori- ties? What signal does this shabby treatment of he is not in the news for that. Is Mr Reith in these workers send to other health workers about the news today because he has put guard Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15081 dogs and balaclavas on the Australian water- minister tells the truth. Many people in Aus- front, or because he has been censured by the tralia regard him as loose with the facts. UN’s ILO for contravention of international Many people in Australia believe that, in his conventions? No, that is not the reason he is case, he would never let the facts stand in the in the news today. Is Mr Reith in the news way of a good story. today because he—Penthouse Peter Reith— The Prime Minister nailed him today; the has bought a cheap, for him, penthouse in the Prime Minister joined the majority. The Domain Apartments, the tower of power in Prime Minister expressed a view that what Melbourne, from Liberal Party Treasurer Mr Reith was telling the Australian punters Ron Walker’s construction company, Hudson was not true either. There is a possibility that Conway? No, he is not in the news for that. maybe in all these circumstances we have it Nor is he in the news for the fact that that wrong. There is the possibility that yesterday apartment can be let GST free while Mr Mr Reith might have been—for the first time Reith supports the imposition of GST on in a long time, if ever—actually telling the Australian battlers in caravan parks. No, he truth, and that there is in fact a bigger wind- is not in the news for that. fall than the government is disclosing. There The reason why the Minister for Employ- is possibly truth in the front page we saw in ment, Workplace Relations and Small Busi- the Weekend Australian not last Saturday but ness is in the news today is that the Prime the Saturday before, which said that the gov- Minister has told us, yet again, that Mr Reith ernment is building up a massive war chest is wrong, that Mr Reith has just misunder- by overtaxing Australians, and that it is not stood or does not know. Let me go to the coming clean about how much tax it will actual transcript of the interview with the raise because in the 2001 federal election it Prime Minister. The reporter said: wants to pork-barrel its way to victory, buy Well, Peter Reith on another issue today said that votes, placate the National Party and do a cracking down on the black economy would reap number of other things. That is a possibility. $7 billion estimated windfall for the States, and When I balance the two possibilities—is the Shadow Treasurer Simon Crean said that Mr Reith telling the truth and it is the Prime proves the government’s going to collect more tax Minister, the Treasurer and the Treasury offi- than it ever said. cials who have misled us; or are the Prime The Prime Minister, John Howard—and Minister, the Treasurer and the Treasury offi- this is a classic answer—said: cials telling the truth and is Mr Reith ex- Well, that was Peter’s personal calculation. It’s pressing his personal opinion?—I must say not based on any Treasury estimate. And the that, on the balance of probability, no court Treasury advice is what is in the budget. And we in the land would come down on Mr Reith’s have no evidence before us from Treasury or any side. Every court I know of where credibility other official source to say that the increase col- counts in a witness would be on the other lection will be greater. So there’s no official or indeed semi-official figure of $7 billion. side of the fence, and that is not because they think the Prime Minister is any great shakes Senator Carr—That is a comprehensive in the truth stakes either. They know about put-down. the ‘never ever’ promise; they know that Mr Senator COOK—Yes, it is a comprehen- Costello does not go to the country anymore sive put-down. The Prime Minister went on because he is regarded as the man who has to say: taken away jobs from the bush. They all Mr Reith was expressing a view that he thought know that, but it is a terrible slight that their the new system would be good in cracking down credibility is greater than Mr Reith’s. (Time on tax cheats ... expired) Here is a minister comprehensively de- Senator CHAPMAN (South Australia) molished by the Prime Minister. This is a (3.07 p.m.)—Yet again we have heard from minister—Mr Reith—who has an image the Labor Party in the taking note of answers problem in the Australian electorate. Many debate which we have had for weeks and people in Australia do not believe that this weeks now on issues related to the imple- 15082 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 mentation of the new tax system. Of course, and that the black economy would continue we have had scaremonger after scaremonger unabated. Yet, here today in your debate, you on the part of the opposition in this chamber claim that the government is hiding some- as the weeks have gone by. Today, they have thing and that in fact we are going to raise resorted to personal attack and have more revenue from the new tax system be- launched a personal attack on the Minister cause of its impact on the black economy. for Employment, Workplace Relations and You have directly contradicted the view that Small Business in regard to his comments on you put when we were working on the com- the impact of the new tax system on the mittee hearings last year in relation to the black economy. What has Senator Cook just new tax system. said? He has said that Mr Reith was put Senator Cook has directly contradicted down by the Prime Minister. What the Prime himself in that regard. Of course, there is Minister said was that no detailed calcula- absolutely no doubt that the new tax system tions had been done in relation to the reve- will make an impact with regard to raising nue that might be derived from the black revenue from the black economy, because it economy as a result of the tax changes, fol- is shifting the tax structure to an indirect tax lowing on the registrations that have been system. It is ensuring that those who avoid achieved for the Australian business number. their fair share of income tax because of tax The fact with regard to those registrations avoidance mechanisms will pay at least some is that, as I understand it, it was expected that of that tax when they purchase goods and some 2.3 million businesses would be regis- services, because they will be paying the tered for an Australian business number un- GST to which they were not previously sub- der the new tax system and registered for ject. GST and that, at present, some 2.7 million Senator Cook—It doesn’t work in the businesses have registered. So, on the one other OECD countries. hand, it is accurate for the Prime Minister to say that no detailed calculations have been Senator CHAPMAN—Senator Cook done with regard to the revenue implications should be well aware of that. There is abso- of that; but it is also reasonable for Peter lutely no doubt that that will have an impact Reith to say that, given that the registrations on bringing those businesses previously op- are higher than expected, Senator Cook, erating in the black economy out into the there will be more revenue generated as a open as taxpayers—not only because they result of that. will now be paying tax on goods and serv- ices they purchase, even if they might con- Senator Cook—That is not what he said. tinue to avoid some income tax through vari- Read the Hansard. ous schemes, but because the fact that the Senator CHAPMAN—Of course, this goods and services tax operates as a value revenue is being generated, Senator Cook, added tax means that, if they are operating from the black economy, because those extra businesses and they want to get their refunds 400,000 businesses that are registered are at each point of production, they have to reg- businesses that were unknown prior to this ister to achieve that. That is exactly what has new tax system being introduced. They are happened, I would remind Senator Cook. businesses that were, clearly, operating in the That is exactly what has happened: these black economy and not paying their fair businesses have registered because they need share of tax. As a consequence of them not to be able to reclaim their business input paying their fair share of tax, many other taxes at each stage of production, and so we people in Australia were paying more than now have some 2.7 million businesses apply- their fair share of tax. I remember, Senator ing for registration under the goods and ser- Cook, that in the various committee hearings vices tax structure, as against the 2.3 million we had with regard to the introduction of the businesses that were expected and predicted new tax system, you argued quite strenu- to do so by the tax office. That obviously ously that the new tax system would have will ensure that there is a fairer tax system absolutely no effect on the black economy and that there will be a capacity for the gov- Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15083 ernment to return tax to the community, ei- spokesperson for the Treasurer is cited as ther in the form of additional programs to saying that, this morning. their benefit or in the form of future tax cuts Senator Lightfoot—Madam Deputy if it eventuates that, as a consequence of that, President, I raise a point of order. The sena- more revenue is raised. As the Prime Minis- tor is not quoting what he purported to have ter has said, no analysis of that has yet been read in the paper, and to refer to the minister done, and so we do not know the effect of as a liar is completely out of order. He that yet. (Time expired) should be asked to retract it and apologise. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Senator CARR (Victoria) (3.12 p.m.)— Carr, it is unparliamentary to use those words This morning on AM the Prime Minister whether they are true or not, so I would ask made great claims about his honesty and you to withdraw, please. integrity. Of course, these are very lofty Senator CARR—I withdraw. I notice the ideals which, if true, one should expect from claims are made by others in the press in government. However, it is quite clear that recent times. It seems that Mr Reith comes these lofty ideals are not shared by Mr Reith. from a particular brand of Liberal Party ap- Yesterday Mr Reith made claims about the paratchiks in Victoria. A Brighton Grammar black economy that there were double the clique is operating. We have seen a whole Treasury estimates in terms of returns to the series of them come forward—the ‘Hooray Commonwealth. When questioned about the Harrys’ out of Melbourne. We have seen sources for these claims, Mr Reith muttered Alan Stockdale. We have seen ‘Punchy’ John something about collecting various evidence Rossiter. A whole series of them have moved from his travels through the world of bus- through the ranks of the Liberal Party and iness. It was the Prime Minister who in- sought to establish themselves as the sav- dicated this morning that there was no iours of the country. Mr Reith now sees him- official support for those claims—no statis- self particularly as the saviour of this gov- tics, no evidence for that proposition. In fact, ernment. He has this strange notion that if when we examine the claims, we notice that something is not cooking too well you turn in particular it is now apparent that Mr Reith up the heat. That is essentially what he is simply made it up. He is well practised at seeking to do by his various outlandish fabrication. We have seen this over recent statements, his extraordinary claims and the times. With regard to the Dubai fiasco, he head-kicking techniques that he has sought made claims about his involvement in that to develop. What we have noticed again and matter that he had nothing to do with the again is that Mr Reith is simply out of con- thugs in balaclavas or the guard dogs and trol. This government has a real problem on that the waterfront reform initiative that he its hands. One gaffe after another has been proposed was, of course, a completely made by this minister who seeks to establish innocent exercise. The conspiracy pro- himself as the saviour of the government. He ceedings before the Federal Court demon- clearly has a huge credibility problem, and strated that to be completely untrue. no matter what sort of puff pieces are pre- We saw in other examples that this minis- sented by various journalists in this country ter has made claims before the parliament there will not be any movement away from that simply do not bear scrutiny when it that basic problem. comes to the detailed examination of what he Mr Reith’s role in the waterfront dispute is actually saying. We have seen the repudia- became a national and even an international tion of this minister now by the Prime Min- scandal, and it is well known that his actions ister and by the Treasurer, where he simply were not able to bear the scrutiny of the Fed- stated in the press this morning that Mr Reith eral Court of this country. What is not so was mistaken. We noticed on commercial well known is his activity in a number of radio today claims that in fact Mr Reith is a other affairs; for instance, the minister’s role, liar, according to the statements by the and his constant denial of his role, in the case spokesperson for the Treasurer. A woman of the lockout of meatworkers at O’Connor’s 15084 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 at Packenham. He sought to encourage and back. They are going to get a pay rise of develop support for the owners of that par- between $50 and perhaps $100 a fortnight in ticular enterprise who have slashed the their pay packages. That is why they are not wages and conditions of workers by up to supporting the Labor Party’s position of $200 a week. We have seen a proposition knocking the GST and the new tax system in imposed upon the workers at that site where itself. there is no job security and where they have There is another avenue of support for the been stood down without pay. They can in coalition government’s GST—the Howard- fact be paid for as little as five hours a week. Beazley-Lees GST—and it is coming from This minister has claimed over and over the closest counterpart that the Australian again that he has no knowledge of the devel- Labor Party has in the Southern Hemisphere; opment in that particular case; yet there are it is coming from our cousins in New Zea- 750 files kept by his department relating to land. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, said this dispute. We know that he is deeply in- she likes it. She is never going to take it volved in this particular matter; yet he claims back. It is working. She is quite happy with that he has no knowledge of it. A pattern is it. And why wouldn’t she be happy with it? being established where the minister is quite She is getting more revenue in than she an- prepared to say one thing, when it can be ticipated. She inherited it, of course, from the demonstrated that he is doing another. This is National Party, which is somewhat like a a minister who is quite happy to go through counterpart of the coalition party of Australia his political life and for it to be known that that is currently in power here. Not only that: he has no credibility. But increasingly he the revered intellectual David Lange, for- seems to be able to present himself as the mer—I might say successful—Prime Minis- saviour of the government by seeking to be ter of New Zealand also said, ‘It works.’ Two the head kicker and making outlandish Labour Party prime ministers from New statements. He is quite clearly losing control Zealand said it works. No-one could argue of himself and his political credibility as a rationally New Zealand is not a microcosm consequence. (Time expired) of Australia over there. Both said it works. Senator LIGHTFOOT (Western Austra- They are not going to roll it back. Do you lia) (3.17 p.m.)—I also rise to take note of the know what, Madam Deputy President? I question with respect to Mr Reith. I make the would vouch for the fact that if Mr opening comment that the real purpose of Beazley—God forbid—ever got onto the trying to bring discredit upon Mr Reith— treasury bench he would not roll it back. He which has failed so far—is that Mr Reith knows that if he rolls it back he will have to took on the Maritime Union of Australia and raise income taxes, company taxes and ex- won. Why wouldn’t you do that when you cises. He will have to put everything back had a bottleneck there creating problems for into place that is so bad, so debilitating, for the Australian public? Also, the question has Australia—everything that is so negative to be asked: why, when only 20 per cent of with respect to our exports that we would be people in the work force today are unionised, the poor white trash of Asia again, as Prime do 60 per cent of the people on the other side Minister Lee Kuan Yew once referred to come from the Australian union movement? Australia. I think that is where the scandal is. The We know through our research, particu- scandal is not in a minister being open, larly using New Zealand, that the black transparent, forthright and honest with the economy will bring in far more than the an- Australian people prior to the introduction of ticipated $3 billion. Why wouldn’t Mr Reith, the new tax system on 1 July. We know that being honest, open and forthright with the it is going to work. We know that the propa- Australian public, when he was reasonably ganda is waning at the moment. Do you sure, when he said it was his personal opin- know why it is waning? It is waning because ion, say the $3 billion would extend to $7 even the media, the people that do the door- billion? Of course it will. We know by the stops, know that they are going to get tax rate of the Australian business numbers that reimbursements. They are going to get tax Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15085 are being issued that the black economy out has blown it away out of his own mouth. But there is something that had to be controlled, he has never been very good at making and they are going to get caught. promises to the Australian people that he can We also know that tax cuts are not going keep. to amount to just $12 billion. I anticipate, on Senator Lightfoot—Didn’t do the Mari- the information that I have been given, that time Union of Australia— the tax cuts are going to be closer to $15 bil- Senator O’BRIEN—I am very glad that lion, and that is going to create something of Senator Lightfoot has raised the issue of the a spending boom in Australia. We never, waterfront, because here is one of the prime ever taxed tourists here with respect to a examples of where Mr Reith misled the GST. The $17 billion tourism industry is also Australian people. He disrupted the water- going to attract a $1.7 billion GST if the front, caused a lot of anguish, grief and pain same amount applies across the board there across Australia, disrupted businesses, spent too, and I anticipate that it will. All of these millions of dollars and then got caught out. aggregations add up to good news for Aus- But what did he say? When he finally got a tralia. It is a great new tax. It is great for ex- deal from the waterfront he said, ‘I have got ports. Roll on 1 July: we are going to go these promises in writing from the steve- gang busters. (Time expired) dores about what they are going to achieve, Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (3.22 and they are going to achieve it very p.m.)—I was going to say that in describing quickly.’ Of course he never had one thing in Mr Reith as open, forthright, transparent and writing, and they were quick to repudiate honest Senator Lightfoot was deliberately that comment when they got a chance to on misleading, but of course that would be un- the Hansard. parliamentary, so I will not do that. But the But what did Mr Reith say back in April fact of the matter is that no-one could accept of 1998? He said that by April of the next that as a description of this minister. In fact, year he was going to have a national five- the answer from Senator Kemp to the ques- port average of 25 crane movements per tion that was asked of him today was essen- hour. That is what he was going to achieve. tially that the comments that Mr Reith made All of this was going to be fixed he said. were all his own work. He said: And, of course, that is not the case. In fact, in We are talking about a lot of black economy here. the last quarter the productivity rate—after Treasury’s estimates have been an extra $3.5 bil- spending all of this money and causing all of lion from the black economy. this anguish—went down. It went down from Mr Costello’s spokeswoman was straight 19.6 to 19. And one of the key issues, par- off the blocks to completely repudiate that. If ticularly in the fall in the performance on the you look at the Hansard transcripts of the docks, was a shortage of labour and equip- estimates they show that Treasury has not ment breakdowns at P&O in Melbourne and made any estimates which show any such industrial problems at Patrick in Sydney. Far additional money coming from the black from the problem being solved, it is going economy. These comments—not what he backwards. estimates might be growth on top of the But another one of Mr Reith’s indica- Treasury estimates but in fact the basic tors—and these were all going to be fixed by comments that he made—have been utterly April of 1999; ‘It is all going to be hunky- repudiated by Mr Costello’s spokeswoman. dory. We have spent all this money. It is all They are utterly repudiated if you look at the going to be fixed,’ Mr Reith told us—was Hansard. They are utterly repudiated if you that we were going to have 97 per cent of look at the Prime Minister’s comments. ship calls finding a berth available within These comments were all Mr Reith’s own four hours of the scheduled time. What hap- work and, frankly, quite misleading. But let pened? In the last quarter it went down from us face facts: Mr Reith is not very good at 93 per cent to 88 per cent—far from going doing numbers. He has totally shot his cam- up, it is going down. Mr Reith is telling us paign for leadership of the Liberal Party. He we are going to solve these problems, and 15086 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 the actuality is that the indicators are going government on this pressing environmental in the reverse direction. So the berth avail- and health issue but also, obviously, that ability indicator was wrong; it has gone there is not equal weighting being given to down. The average waiting time for ships— the issue of the health impacts and the envi- and Senator Lightfoot, I am sure, will be ronmental impacts of the release of GMOs keen to know this—unable to obtain a berth into our community. in December was 21 hours. This is the great I draw the Senate’s attention to the re- achievement of Mr Reith. marks by Senator Herron today. He seemed Senator Lightfoot—Because the econ- to think that health and safety concerns and omy is booming. environmental concerns were going to be The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator given equal consideration. He emphasised Lightfoot, you have had your time. the government’s so-called strong concern for including environmental protections but Senator O’BRIEN—This is a great the same time of course had to acknowledge achievement. Mr Reith is seeing all of the that the role of the environment minister has indicators on the waterfront go backwards. I been completely undermined under this new am glad you introduced this issue, Senator proposal—not the original amendments, not Lightfoot, in this debate about Mr Reith, be- the original proposal that the Democrats and cause it clearly demonstrates the point: it is the government agreed to, but these new easy to say things, it is easy to tell the Aus- proposals coming from the government over tralian people what you think they want to this weekend. hear, but the reality in this case is that Mr Reith on the issue of the tax cheats has been I note for the record that Senator Hill proven wrong. (Time expired) outlined his own commitment to the issue of genetically modified organisms in regard to Question resolved in the affirmative. their environmental impact and the environ- Gene Technology: Environment ment minister having a role in the approval Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- of GMOs. This is in the Senate Hansard. He tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian said on 26 June last year: Democrats) (3.28 p.m.)—I move: There are new areas that people are recognising in That the Senate take note of the answers given which the Commonwealth has a particular re- by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait sponsibility. Genetically modified organisms is Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) and the Minis- one such area and, as honourable senators will ter for Communications, Information Technology know, the government is setting up the Office of and the Arts (Senator Alston), to questions with- the Gene Technology Regulator within the De- out notice asked by Senators Stott Despoja and partment of Health to provide approvals. What I Bartlett today, relating to genetically-modified can say to the Senate tonight is that matters that organisms. affect the environment will be referred to the en- vironment minister for assessment and advice by The concerns that the Democrats raised in that independent regulator. That will ultimately be question time today related to the fact that provided for through an amendment to this legis- the new amendments—the amendments be- lation when it passes in conjunction with the law ing proposed by the government to the Gene that is going to be put in place to set up the new Technology Bill 2000—will no longer have a GTR. requirement for advice from the Minister for That is a quote from Senator Robert Hill the Environment and Heritage or any advice confirming, believing, that the environment regarding the release of GMOs if it is vol- minister would have a decisive role in unteered in relation to, say, potential adverse whether or not GMOs were released and effect of the release of genetically modified whether or not they would be responsible for organisms to be incorporated. The Demo- assessing their potential impact on the envi- crats are concerned for two reasons: not only ronment. Of course, he has been rolled in that the government has blatantly and arro- cabinet; we all know that. It is particularly gantly reneged on an agreement, on a deal, unfortunate. But it does go to the heart of the between the Australian Democrats and the matter, and that is this government’s blatant Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15087 disregard for consumer and community con- PETITIONS cerns in relation to the issue of GMOs. The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged We see this emphasised in the last couple for presentation as follows: of weeks yet again by the Prime Minister, Medicare who last year—in December I believe, at the To the Honourable the President and Members of eleventh hour—stepped in and interfered the Senate in Parliament assembled: with the state and territory health ministers’ deliberations concerning a national manda- The Petition of the undersigned shows: tory labelling scheme for GMOs in relation We strongly support Medicare, our universal to food. Now the Prime Minister has put to public health system. Medicare is an efficient, the states and territories, in an extraordinary effective and fair system. Under Medicare, access to care is based on health needs rather than ability fashion, that not only did he see fit to post- to pay. pone the introduction of those labelling laws, but that he has sought to water them down. Access to quality health care for all Australians is Understandably, that has been met with out- a basic human right. rage, not only from the relevant state and Your Petitioners request that the Senate should: territory ministers, but from the community. Do all within its power to ensure the continued viability and strengthening of Medicare by sup- Again it goes to the very heart of the porting a substantial funding increase for the matter, and that is that this government just public health system. Further to this, we strongly is not in touch with what the community is urge you to continue to support adequate funding thinking. This is not about setting back the for public health and oppose all government pol- agenda in relation to scientific or biotechnol- icy initiatives that would undermine the integrity ogy discovery or research. It is not about and ongoing viability of Medicare. clamping down on GMOs that might have by Senator Crowley (from 7,923 citi- future benefit for the community, whether it zens). is in a health, environmental or food sense. It Asylum Seekers: Political is about good public practice, ensuring that the community is not scared off. To the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We know—and certainly it was quoted in Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Dio- question time today by the Democrats—that cese of Melbourne carried without dissent the at least 90 per cent of consumers, if given the following Motion: choice, would reject GM products. That That this Synod regrets the Government’s adop- partly arises from the community’s lack of tion of procedures for certain people seeking po- awareness or understanding of what is avail- litical asylum in Australia which exclude them able at the moment. They, like most Austra- from all public income support while withholding lians, recognise that these products crept in permission to work, thereby creating a group of by stealth in the mid-1990s due to a lack of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities regulation. The government’s response to for food and the necessities of life; that minimal regulation now is to come up and calls upon the Federal government to review with the gene technology bill, which we such procedures immediately and remove all should have been debating in the parliament practices which are manifestly inhumane and in roughly about this time. There are problems some cases in contravention of our national obli- with that bill, however, as we have seen from gations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on the draft legislation and from the public con- Civil and Political Rights. sultation processes, including issues of li- We therefore, the individual, undersigned Mem- ability, commercial-in-confidence and, of bers of St Michael and All Angels’ Anglican course, the role of the environment minister. Church, Burwood, Victoria 3185, petition the (Time expired) Senate in support of the abovementioned Motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. And we, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Patterson (from 55 citizens). Petitions received. 15088 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

NOTICES correspondence by the Australian Electoral Presentation Commission. Senator Allison to move, on the next day Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting: of sitting: That there be laid on the table by the Minister That the Senate— for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator (a) notes that: Minchin), no later than 4 pm on 26 June 2000, (i) the grey headed flying fox colony in any documents, including (but not limited to) the Melbourne Botanical Gardens is internal memos, internal reports, consultants’ the only permanent colony existing in reports, tender documentation, tender submissions Victoria, or appendices to tender submissions, held by the (ii) the Victorian Scientific Advisory Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Committee has made a preliminary Organisation relating to: recommendation in favour of the (a) the nature of the fuel required in the new International Humane Society’s nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights; and nomination to list the grey headed (b) the implications of the fuel specification flying fox as a threatened species, for the type and nature of waste (iii) the grey headed flying fox is produced by the reactor. vulnerable to extinction in Victoria Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the and its numbers have dropped next day of sitting: dramatically due to habitat loss, shooting, disease and lead pollution, That the Senate— (iv) if the Melbourne Botanical Gardens is (a) notes that: not listed as a critical habitat then we (i) Amnesty International Australia has could easily see the demise of the launched its ‘Human Rights are grey headed flying fox in Victoria, Women’s Rights’ campaign, which (v) the Melbourne Botanical Gardens aims to make Australians more aware proposed until recently to exterminate of the violence and other human the grey headed flying foxes in the rights abuses perpetrated against gardens despite the concerns of the women around the globe, and community, and (ii) the capacity of Amnesty International (vi) there are alternative measures to continue advocating on behalf of available to control the grey headed women’s rights is very much flying fox colony in the gardens that dependent on the support of are more humane and ecologically individuals; and responsible; and (b) endorses the campaign and urges the (b) urges the Victorian State Government to: Government and Australians to show similar support. (i) issue an interim conservation order as a matter of urgency declaring the Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (3.33 Melbourne Botanical Gardens critical p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Coonan, on be- habitat for the grey headed flying fox, half of the Standing Committee on Regula- and tions and Ordinances, I give notice that, 15 (ii) ensure the protection and survival of sitting days after today, I shall move: the grey headed flying fox colony in That the Defence (Prohibited Words and Let- the Melbourne Botanical Gardens. ters) Amendment Regulations 2000 (No.1), as Senator Faulkner to move, on the next contained in Statutory Rules 2000 No. 41 and day of sitting: made under the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed. That there be laid on the table by the Assistant I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a Treasurer (Senator Kemp), no later than 11 am on short summary of the matters raised by the 22 June 2000, the correspondence from the committee. Australian Taxation Commissioner to the Australian Electoral Commissioner of 19 April Leave granted. 2000 and any written response to such The summary read as follows— Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15089

Defence (Prohibited Words and Letters) appointment of an independent arbitrator Amendment Regulations 2000 (No.1), Statu- to assess the matter. tory Rules 2000 No.41 Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (3.34 The Regulations include ‘Australian Army’ as a p.m.)—On behalf of the Senate Standing phrase which may not be used in connection with Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I a business or profession without the consent of give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I the Minister, and permit the Minister to impose shall withdraw 12 disallowance motions, the conditions on the grant of consent to a business to use a phrase, word or letters. full terms of which have been circulated in the chamber, and which I now hand to the New subregulation 4(2), which is inserted by item Clerk. 3 of the Schedule to these Regulations, provides the Minister with the discretion to grant permis- The list read as follows— sion to use a phrase, word or letter with or with- Declaration of Persons Taken to be Employed by out conditions. The exercise of this discretion the Commonwealth under subsection 9(5) of the does not appear to be subject to external merits Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth review (or, indeed, any review at all). The exer- Employment) Act 1991. cise of the Minister’s discretion to consent to the Direction No.NPFD 30, made under subsection use of a phrase, word or group of letters, in ex- 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. isting subregulation 4(1), is also not subject to any form of review, and that some form of exter- Exemption Order, made under section 8G of the nal merits review may be appropriate. The Com- Christmas Island Act 1958. mittee wrote to the Minister seeking his advice as Therapeutic Goods Amendment Regulations 1999 to whether review of these discretions would be (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 appropriate. No.324 and made under the Therapeutic Goods In response, the Minister indicated that in light of Act 1989. the Committee’s concerns, fresh consideration Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations was being given to whether external merit review 1999 (No.9), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 was appropriate in the circumstances. Accord- No.337 and made under the Workplace Relations ingly, the Committee gives this notice of notice to Act 1996. disallow in order to allow further correspondence Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb with the Minister. Export to the United States of America) Amend- Senator Brown to move, on Wednesday, ment Order 1999 (No.3), made under section 17 21 June 2000: of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry That the Senate— Act 1997. (a) notes that: National Television Conversion Scheme 1999, made under subclause 19(1) of Schedule 4 to the (i) in 1992, following the sacking of Mr Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Alwyn Johnson from the Tasmania Bank, the Member for Bennelong (Mr Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Howard) wrote to the Tasmanian Regulations 2000 (No.1), as contained in Statu- Government saying that Mr Johnson’s tory Rules 2000 No.5 and made under the Great actions may well have preserved jobs Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. and saved millions of dollars, Marine Orders Part 47 - Mobile Offshore Drilling (ii) the Minister representing the Prime Units - Issue 2, as contained in Marine Order Minister (Senator Hill) informed the No.1 of 2000 made under section 425(1AA) of Senate, on 7 December 1999, that the the Navigation Act 1912. Commonwealth is prepared to take Marine Orders Part 60 - Floating Offshore Facili- the matter up with the Tasmanian ties - Issue 1, as contained in Marine Order No.2 Government and see whether there is of 2000 made under section 425(1AA) of the any avenue open to further assist Navigation Act 1912. Mr Johnson, and Notice No.1(2000) of Declared Rate in respect of (iii) no action has been forthcoming; and Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection (b) calls on the Government to fulfil its 164(5A) of the Customs Act 1901. commitment and write to the Tasmanian Notice No.1(2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Government to see what assistance can Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection be provided to Mr Johnson, including the 78A(5A) of the Excise Act 1901. 15090 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Senator CALVERT—I seek leave to in- CANBERRA ACT 2600 corporate in Hansard the committee’s corre- Dear Senator Coonan spondence concerning these instruments. Thank you for your letter dated 13 April 2000 Leave granted. relating to the concerns of the Senate Standing The correspondence read as follows— Committee on Regulations and Ordinances re- garding the Declaration of Persons Taken to be Declaration of Persons Taken to be Employed by Employed by the Commonwealth under subsec- the Commonwealth under subsection 9(5) of the tion 9(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991 (the Employment) Act 1991 OHS(CE) Act). 13 April 2000 The limitations of the application of the OHS(CE) The Hon Peter Reith MP Act to which I referred in my letter of 6 April Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations 2000 relates to the definition of “employees” (section 9) who are covered by the Act. Similar and Small Business limitations apply to coverage under the Safety, Parliament House Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the CANBERRA ACT 2600 SRC Act) which provides workers’ compensation for Commonwealth employees. Under both Acts, Dear Minister the Minister has the authority to issue a declara- Thank you for your letter of 6 April 2000 relating tion of the type referred to above to overcome to the Committee’s concerns with the Declaration such limitations in respect of coverage where of Persons Taken to be Employed by the Com- deemed appropriate by the Minister. Members of monwealth under subsection 9(5) of the Occupa- the Australian Services Cadet Scheme (ASCS) do tional Health and Safety (Commonwealth Em- not fall within the definition of employees under ployment) Act 1991. both Acts. A declaration providing continued In your response, you referred to ‘the recent acci- workers’ compensation coverage for ASCS mem- dental death of a cadet’ which ‘brought to light bers was made when the SRC Act was introduced problems with the limitations of the application of in 1988, but no such declaration under the the Occupational Health and Safety (Common- OHS(CE) Act was made by the relevant Minister wealth Employment) Act 1991’. The Committee in 1991 when that Act was enacted. would appreciate further information on the na- You also asked whether the cadet killed in the ture of these limitations. accident, or her family, were seriously disadvan- The Committee notes that the circumstances of taged by a lack of coverage. The short answer is the accidental death of the cadet may not have no. I am advised that the Australian Government been covered by the Act and that your Declara- Solicitor recently confirmed that the cadet was tion has prevented such an outcome occurring covered as a third party by the operation of sec- again. However, this raises the further question tion 17 of the OHS(CE) Act. Acting on this ad- whether the cadet and his or her family were seri- vice, Comcare has now carried out an investiga- ously disadvantaged by lack of coverage under tion which has concluded that there has been a the Act. breach of the “third party” provisions of the Act. The results of that investigation have been con- The Committee would appreciate your response veyed to the Department of Defence (the em- as soon as possible as this Declaration is subject ployer for the purposes of the Act) which has to a notice of disallowance that will expire on 26 been asked for a response detailing what action it June 2000. has taken or proposes to take in relation to exer- Yours sincerely cising its duty of care towards members of the Helen Coonan ASCS. In particular, it has been asked how it will Chair structure activities to ensure adequate supervision of cadets. In terms of entitlement to compensation for 23 MAY 2000 ASCS members and their dependents, there is no Senator Helen Coonan financial payment available to dependents or Chair other relatives of deceased employees under the OHS(CE) Act. However, as mentioned, members Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and of the ASCS have coverage under the SRC Act. Ordinances In the event of the death of a person covered un- Parliament House der the SRC Act, there is provision for reim- Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15091 bursement of funeral expenses and, subject to five months between the making of this Direction dependency, there may also be an entitlement to and its commencement is sufficient to allow an death benefits. opportunity for the operators affected by this Di- For completeness, I mention that the Common- rection to comply with it. wealth and its agencies (other than Government Yours sincerely Business Enterprises) have the Shield of the Helen Coonan Crown under the OHS(CE) Act. This is in line with long standing Commonwealth policy. Chair I hope this additional information will be suffi- cient for the Committee to finalise its considera- 12 April 2000 tion of this matter. Senator Helen Coonan Yours sincerely Chair, PETER REITH Senate Committee on Regulations and Ordi- Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations nances and Small Business Australian Senate Parliament House Direction No.NPFD 30, made under subsection CANBERRA ACT 2601 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 Dear Helen 17 February 2000 I refer to your letter of 17 February 2000 The Hon Warren Truss MP (Cttee/23/2000) concerning Northern Prawn Fish- Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ery (NPF) Management Plan 1995 Direction No. Parliament House NPFD 30. This direction, which was made under subsection 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management CANBERRA ACT 2600 Act 1991 requires Turtle Excluder Devices Dear Minister (TEDs) and Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) I refer to Direction No. NPFD 30 made under to be used in the NPF from 15 April 2000. subsection 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management I have sought advice from the Australian Fisher- Act 1991 and subclause 25.1 of the Northern ies Management Authority (AFMA) in respond- Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995. ing to your queries about the commencement date The Committee notes that this Direction imposes on 15 April 2000; and whether the time of five requirements on the gear used by licensees in the months between the making of the Direction and fishery as a means of seeking to reduce the inci- its commencement is sufficient to allow the af- dental catch of species other than prawns and fected operators to comply. those ecologically related to prawns. The Northern Prawn Management Advisory Clause 2 of this Direction provides that it com- Committee (NORMAC) and AFMA agreed, in mences on 15 April 2000. Unfortunately, neither 1998, to the mandatory introduction of TEDs and the Explanatory Statement nor the Regulation BRDs on all vessels in the NPF from the start of Impact Statement indicates the reason for this the fishing season in 2000. However, as a result choice of date. The Explanatory Statement notes of subsequent consultations and analysis of data that there are two fishing seasons in the Northern the requirement will now commence on 15 April Prawn Fishery, and the Regulation Impact State- 2000. ment observes that the fishery is subject to vari- In arriving at the decision to implement TEDs and ous closures, both temporal and spatial, but nei- BRDs, NORMAC and its Research and Environ- ther Statement indicates how the date of com- ment Committee considered a number of factors mencement of this Direction correlates with any affecting turtle bycatch and mortality. For exam- such closure. The Committee would appreciate ple they considered fishing gear, seasonal, shot your advice as to the reason for this commence- duration, target species and spatial influences. On ment date. the basis of logbook data and research programs The Regulation Impact Statement notes, on page NORMAC determined that TEDs and BRDs 8, that compliance with this Direction is likely to would apply to all vessels operating in all areas cost ‘between $400 and $2,000 per boat depend- throughout the season. A particular factor which ing on the type, construction, accessories and any was considered was whether TEDs should be spares decided on by the owner.’ The Committee required while operators are targeting banana would appreciate your advice as to whether the rather than tiger prawns. 15092 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

During the first part of the season commencing on Yours sincerely 1 April 2000, NPF operators mainly target banana WARREN TRUSS prawns and evidence suggests that the average duration of each shot of prawn nets during the early part of the season is 60 minutes but that Exemption Order, made under section 8G of the after the first half of April tends to lengthen to 90 Christmas Island Act 1958 minutes as the targeting of banana prawns dimin- 9 March 2000 ishes and the targeting of tiger prawns begins. Evidence also suggests that turtles caught in a net Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald have a relatively higher chance of survival when Minister for Regional Services, Territories and the duration of the shot is shorter. Local Government NPF operators believe that because of the nature Parliament House of the banana prawn fishery, there is a high prob- CANBERRA ACT 2600 ability of prawn loss with TEDs and further study in this area is needed. At this stage the two week Dear Minister exemption only applies for the 2000 fishing sea- I refer to the Exemption Order made under para- son. The TED/BRD sub-committee established by graph 6(1)(a) of the Travel Agents Act 1985 NORMAC has suggested a process to assess how (WA)(CI) which exempts Skyfern Pty Ltd and turtle bycatch and prawn catch will be affected by Christmas Island Tour & Travel from becoming TED/BRDs while targeting banana prawns, which participants in the Travel Compensation Fund. will be considered by NORMAC on 17 March The Committee notes that there is no unique 2000. identifying number by which this Order may be In summary, the Direction does not require referred to. If it were likely to be the only one TEDs/BRDs to be used in the first two weeks of that will be made under the enabling Act, then the 2000 fishing season because of: numbering would not be necessary. However, if short shot duration; future Orders are made under paragraph 6(1)(a), then the Committee suggests that they should be expected low rates of turtle mortality; given a unique number or other identifying nota- very little trialing of TEDs when targeting ba- tion for ease of future reference and citation. nanas; and It appears that clause (2), which provides that expected high rates of prawn loss. “this exemption order has effect until revoked”, is There has been adequate notice of commence- unnecessary as the exemption order would have ment. Although NPFD 30 was gazetted on 16 that effect, whether clause (2) were included or November 1999, the decision to introduce TEDs not. in the NPF dates back to 1998. Since that decision Paragraph 5(a) requires the Minister to notify an until the gazettal there has been extensive con- applicant of the decision to refuse to approve a sultation with industry, workshops and trials of policy of insurance, but the paragraph does not appropriate TEDs. The NORMAC TED/BRD indicate the period within which this notification sub-committee that considered research under- must take place. It might be thought that para- taken in the development of TED/BRDs and de- graph 5(a) should expressly provide that the veloped appropriate definitions would like to Minister is to provide the notification forthwith, allow for the development of even more effective or as soon as possible. devices by industry. A process by which operators Finally, the Explanatory Statement notes, at the who wish to continue refining TED/BRDs can do conclusion of the fourth paragraph, that this order so is provided through scientific permits being “is a temporary measure to enable the applicants granted for an alternative TED or BRD. Such a to operate lawfully until permanent compensation scientific permit exempts the operator from arrangements are made.” However, on 29 Octo- NPFD 30. The sub-committee also considered an ber 1997 the then Minister for Transport and Re- approach for more extensive testing of gional Development made a similar Exemption TED/BRDs during banana prawn targeting. This Order, on that occasion exempting AustAsia approach was considered by NORMAC on 17 Travel Pty Ltd and Christmas Island Travel Pty March 2000. Operators have been kept informed Ltd from the need to comply with paragraph of the work of the sub-committee and of 9(3)(e) of the Act, and on that occasion also the NORMAC recommendations and AFMA deci- Order was described as being a “temporary meas- sions. ure”. The Committee would therefore appreciate I trust that this response adequately addresses your advice on how long the “temporary” ar- your concerns. Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15093 rangement made in the current Order is likely to Health and Aged Care last. Parliament House Yours sincerely CANBERA ACT 2600 Helen Coonan Dear Parliamentary Secretary Chair I refer to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 3), Statutory Rules 1999 Senator Helen Coonan No. 324. Chair Item 35 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations in- creases the fees charged for an application for Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and approval of an advertisement under regulation 5F. Ordinances However, the Explanatory Statement does not Parliament House indicate the reason for that increase, and does not CANBERRA ACT 2600 point out that for the matters listed in paragraph (a) of that item, the increase is 150 per cent over Dear Senator Coonan the fees charged when regulation 5F was inserted Thank you for your letter of 9 March 2000 con- into the Principal Regulations (Statutory Rules cerning the exemption order made under the 1997 No. 400, with effect from 24 December Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA)(CI) (the Act). I 1997). The Committee would therefore appreci- note that, although the order was made in the ate your advice on the reason for and extent of format agreed with the Committee previously, the that increase. Committee has some further concerns. Yours sincerely I note your comments on a unique identifying Helen Coonan number and I undertake to ensure that any future orders are numbered. Chair As the previous Minister, the Hon Alex Somlyay MP, advised in his letter to the Committee of 21 Senator H. Coonan January 1998, the statement in clause 2 of the Chair order was included because paragraph 6(2)(a) of the Act provides that an order may specify the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and period during which that order shall remain in Ordinances force. Parliament House I have already approved the policies of insurance CANBERRA ACT 2600 for the two organisations named in the order. Dear Senator Coonan Therefore it is not necessary to amend clause 5 of the order to include a period within which I must Thank you for your letter of 17 February 2000 notify an applicant of my decision to refuse to concerning increases to the fees charged for an approve a policy of insurance. I undertake to in- application to approve an advertisement lodged clude appropriate wording in a future order. under regulation 5F of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (the Regulations). I apologise for the A decision on permanent arrangements is being delay in responding. delayed until the outcome of a review of legisla- tion regulating travel agents in Australia by the The functions set out in regulation 5G of the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs is Regulations, for the Secretary to approve appli- known. I understand that the report of the review cations for advertisements published in main- will be released to the public some time in May. stream print media, have been delegated to two peak industry bodies in accordance with Yours sincerely subregulations 5Q(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Ian Macdonald Regulations. The two peak bodies are the Pro- prietary Medicines Association of Australia (PMAA), and the Complementary HealthCare Therapeutic Goods Amendment Regulations 1999 Council of Australia (CHCA). The Secretary’s (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 power to approve applications under regulation No.324 5G has not been delegated to any other person. 17 February 2000 At the time the fees were set in 1997 for the Senator the Hon Grant Tambling function of pre-clearing advertisements intended Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for for publication in mainstream print media, the amounts calculated by industry were based on 15094 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 fees charged by the two industry bodies under a Yours sincerely voluntary self-regulatory system of controls, be- GRANT TAMBLING fore the controls were incorporated into the Regulations. Following the incorporation of the pre-clearance Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations function under the statute, the cost to industry of 1999 (No.9), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 performing statutory functions has risen consid- No.337 erably. Reasons for the additional costs include: 17 February 2000 a much higher level of accountability for deci- The Hon Peter Reith MP sions made, now that these decisions have legal Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations consequences under both the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and Regulations and may be the subject and Small Business of review by both the Administrative Appeals Parliament House Tribunal, and also the Federal Court under the CANBERRA ACT 2600 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act Dear Minister 1977; I refer to the Workplace Relations Amendment new quarterly reporting requirements imposed by Regulations 1999 (Nos. 8 and 9), Statutory Rules the Therapeutic Goods Administration to enable 1999 Nos. 336 and 337 respectively. the latter to monitor the exercise of the Secre- tary’s power and functions under regulations 5G Statutory Rules No. 336 and 5L, requiring additional resources; These Statutory Rules amend the references to the increase in the number of applications for pre- ‘employing authority’ and ‘prescribed person’ as clearance of advertisements published in main- a consequence of changes to legislation in the stream print media, now that pre-clearance is Australian Capital Territory passed in 1994. The legally required under statute whereas before Committee would appreciate your advice as to December 1997 this was not a statutory require- why there was a delay of five years in imple- ment: menting these changes and whether any member of the Australian Capital Territory Public Service the level of complexity and sophistication of ad- was disadvantaged by that delay. vertisements published over time, particularly in relation to increased numbers of lengthy adverto- Statutory Rules 1999 No. 337 rials, as some advertisers seek to find loopholes The Explanatory Statement observes that the pur- or weaknesses in the Therapeutic Goods Adver- pose of these Statutory Rules is to ‘establish a tising Code. This has led to a considerable in- new sunset clause [for regulation 30BD of the crease in the amount of time required to be spent Principal Regulations], expressed to operate until on the pre-clearance function; 31 December 2000.’ But the Explanatory State- involvement in statutory committees established ment does not give the reason for this extension, under the Regulations, such as the Therapeutic nor does it advise that, although regulation 30BD Goods Advertising Code Council (RR 42B and was inserted in 1996 (by Statutory Rules 1996 42C), relevant to the industry’s involvement in No. 307), the sunset provision was not included implementing the Therapeutic Goods Advertising until 7 May 1997, when Statutory Rules 1997 No. Code through the pre-clearance function it per- 101 inserted subregulation 30BD(4), providing forms; and that subregulation 30BD(1) and (2) would cease to have effect on 30 June 1998. The Explanatory the need for industry to fully recover its costs in Statement also fails to observe that this sunset performing statutory functions under the Regula- provision was subsequently extended to 31 De- tions to a high standard. cember 1998 (by Statutory Rules 1998 No. 187), All these factors have contributed to the increase omitted by Statutory Rules 1998 No. 353, and in the fees being charged by the PMAA and then restored and extended to 31 December 1999 CHCA in fully discharging statutory responsibili- by Statutory Rules 1999 No. 43. The Committee ties under the Regulations. The change in the would therefore appreciate your advice on the structure of the fees more accurately reflects the reason for this extension of the sunset clause and actual costs incurred by the delegates when per- whether any further extensions are expected. forming functions under R. 5G of the Regula- Yours sincerely tions. Helen Coonan I hope this information meets with the concerns raised by the Committee. Chair Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15095

9 MAR 2000 It should be noted that regulation 30BD also Senator Helen Coonan contains provisions allowing for waiver of the lodgement fee where the requirement to pay it Chair would cause serious hardship to an applicant, and Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- refund of the fee where a matter is discontinued at nances least 2 days before the day on which it is first Parliament House listed for attention by the Commission. These provisions ensure that a genuine claimant is not CANBERRA ACT 2600 deterred from making an application in respect of Dear Senator Coonan termination of employment because he or she Thank you for your letter of 17 February 2000 cannot afford the lodgement fee. concerning Statutory Rules 1999 Nos. 336 and For your convenience, the history of Regulation 337. 30BD is as follows. Statutory Rules 1999 No. 336 In its original form, subregulation 30BD(1) (in- In your letter, you ask why it took five years for troduced by SR 1996 No. 307) set a lodgement SR 1999 No. 336 to be made, and whether any fee of $50. The lodgement fee was introduced by member of the Australian Capital Territory Public the Government to discourage prospective appli- Service was disadvantaged by the delay. cants from lodging frivolous or vexatious claims My Department was first made aware of the need in respect of termination of employment. to amend the Workplace Relations Regulations Subregulation 30BD(2) conferred a discretion on 1996 in relation to ACT Government employment a Registrar of the Australian Industrial Relations when the Chief Minister’s Department raised the Commission to waive the requirement to pay the matter by facsimile letter of 28 June 1999. Dis- lodgement fee, where he or she was satisfied that cussions ensued between the two Departments, payment would cause serious hardship to the ap- and I received a formal letter of request dated 13 plicant. September 1999 from Chief Minister Carnell. As the result of an agreement between the Gov- Regulations were then drafted and settled in con- ernment and the Australian Democrats, the Gov- sultation with the Chief Minister’s Department. ernment amended regulation 30BD (by SR 1997 The Chief Minister’s Department has advised No. 101) to: that, to the best of their knowledge, no member of provide for the refund of the lodgement fee if the the ACT Public Service was disadvantaged by the applicant discontinues his or her application at delay in these minor amendments. The amend- least 2 days before the day on which the matter ment to the definition of ‘employing authority’ has been first listed for attention by the Australian corrects the regulations as to who may enter into Industrial Relations Commission [subregulation a workplace agreement on behalf of the Territory. 30BD(3)]; and The amendment to the definition of ‘prescribed insert a sunset clause on the operation of the fil- person’ clarifies who is entitled to appear on be- ing fee [subregulation 30BD(4)]. half of the Territory in proceedings in the Austra- In its original form, subregulation 30BD(4) es- lian Industrial Relations Commission or the Fed- tablished a sunset date of 30 June 1998. As part eral Court. of the agreement between the Government and Statutory Rules 1999 No. 337 the Australian Democrats, the Government un- Your letter notes that the Explanatory Statement dertook to review the operation of the lodgement to SR 1999 No. 337 does not set out the full his- fee, as part of a broader review of the unfair dis- tory of the lodgement fee for applications in re- missal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act spect of termination of employment, nor does it 1996 (the broader review was conducted pursuant provide a reason for the extension of the sunset to More Time for Business, the Government’s provision. response to Time for Business, the Report of the In relation to the first point, the history of the Small Business Deregulation Task Force). The regulation is well-known, and can be ascertained sunset period was extended to 31 December 1998 from reading the Explanatory Statements to the (by SR 1998 No. 101) after it became apparent previous Statutory Rules that amended Regulation that the review would not be completed by 30 30BD. As for the reason for extending the sunset June 1998. date, the Explanatory Statement makes clear that In September 1998, the Coalition released its it is to discourage prospective applicants from workplace relations election policy, More Jobs, lodging frivolous or vexatious applications in Better Pay. Among other things, the policy con- respect of termination of employment. tained a commitment to permanently implement 15096 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 the lodgement fee (i.e. remove the sunset clause) The Hon Peter Reith MP and to increase the level of the fee to $100. Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations Similarly, the Coalition Government, in its re- and Small Business sponse to the Twelve Month Review of Federal Unfair Dismissal Provisions (released 17 Decem- Parliament House ber 1998) recommended an increase in the filing CANBERRA ACT 2600 fee from $50 to $100. Dear Minister Accordingly, the Workplace Relations Amend- Thank you for your letter of 9 March 2000 on the ment Regulations 1998 (No. 3) (SR 1998 No. Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 353) were made on 17 December 1998. These (Nos. 8 and 9), Statutory Rules Nos.336 and 337. regulations amended subregulation 30BD(1) to The Committee has considered your advice on increase the amount of the lodgement fee from Statutory Rules No.336 and considers that the $50 to $100 with effect from 1 January 1999, and information has met its concerns. removed subregulation 30BD(4). On 16 February 1999, the regulations were disallowed by the Sen- In relation to Statutory Rules No.337, the Com- ate. As the disallowance had the effect of rein- mittee notes that in your response you state that stating subregulation 30BD(4), subregulations, ‘the Government will make regulations to extend 30BD(1) and 30BD(2) ceased to have effect on the sunset clause as appropriate’. 31 December 1998. The Committee is of the view that to continue to Regulation 30BD was remade by SR 1999 No. extend the sunset clause may be a breach of Par- 42, which came into force on 24 March 1999. liamentary propriety and would therefore appre- This had the effect of reinstating the $50 lodge- ciate your advice as to whether consideration has ment fee, with a new sunset date of 31 December been given to making the application fee a per- 1999. As this regulation was made within 6 manent provision of these Regulations. months of the disallowance of the previous regu- Yours sincerely lation (given the need to reinstate a lodgement fee Helen Coonan as soon as possible) it was necessary to include a sunset clause. Had the sunset clause not been Chair included, the regulation would probably have 9 MAY 2000 been regarded as having been the same in sub- Senator Helen Coonan stance as the disallowed regulation, and therefore would have attracted the operation of section 49 Chair of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The sunset clause was extended to 31 December Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- 2000 by SR 1999 No. 337, which took effect on nances 22 December 1999. Parliament House In your letter, you ask whether further extensions CANBERRA ACT 2600 of the sunset date are expected. The Government considers that the lodgement fee is instrumental Dear Senator Coonan to the discouragement of frivolous and vexatious Thank you for your letter of 16 March 2000 con- claims, in turn helping to ensure that genuine cerning the Workplace Relations Amendment termination of employment applications are dealt Regulations (Nos. 8 and 9), Statutory Rules 1999 with efficiently. Accordingly, the Government Nos. 336 and 337. will make regulations to extend the sunset date as Firstly, I am pleased that the information provided appropriate. in my letter of 9 March 2000 concerning Statu- I trust that this letter answers your queries. Thank tory Rules 1999 No. 336 meets the Committee’s you for taking the time to bring the concerns of concerns. the Committee to my attention. Regarding Statutory Rules No. 337, you ask Yours Sincerely whether consideration has been given to making PETER REITH the lodgement fee for termination of employment claims a permanent feature of the Workplace Re- 16 March 2000 lations Regulations 1996 (the Regulations). I appreciate the Committee’s concern about con- tinued extensions to the sunset clause in subregulation 30BD(4). It has always been the Government’s intention that the lodgement fee for Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15097 termination of employment claims should be a Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb permanent feature of the Regulations. Export to the United States of America) Amend- When the fee was first introduced (in SR 1996 ment Order 1999 (No.3), made under section 17 No. 307), it did not have a sunset provision. of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry However, Senator Sherry moved a motion to dis- Act 1997 allow the regulation, and in order to secure sup- 9 March 2000 port for the fee, I agreed to amend regulation The Hon Warren Truss MP 30BD to, among other matters, insert a sunset clause on the operation of the lodgement fee. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Subregulation 30BD(4) was introduced into the Parliament House Regulations by SR 1997 No. 101. CANBERRA ACT 2600 More Jobs, Better Pay, the Workplace Relations Dear Minister policy that the Coalition took to the 1998 Federal Election, contained a commitment to permanently I refer to the Australian Meat and Live-stock In- dustry (Lamb Export to the United States of implement the lodgement fee. To give effect to America) Amendment Order 1999 (No.3) made this election commitment, the Workplace Rela- tions Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 3) (SR under section 17 of the Australian Meat and Live- stock Industry Act 1997 which permits the export 1998 No. 353) were made on 17 December 1998. of lamb to the United States beyond the amount (As well as repealing the sunset provision con- tained in subregulation 30BD(4), subregulation of the quota on that trade set by the two countries. 30BD(1) was also amended to increase the The Committee was pleased to note that a very amount of the lodgement fee to $100.) On 16 good explanatory statement, which provides the February 1999, the Senate disallowed the reader with a full description of the contents and amending regulations. The disallowance had the effect of the amendment, accompanied this Order. effect of reinstating the previous sunset date (31 However, the Committee would appreciate your December 1998), with the effect that the fee advice on the following matter. New clause 20 ceased to be payable. grants to the Secretary to the Department the dis- Regulation 30BD was remade by SR 1999 No. cretion to grant a “US lamb certificate” to an eli- 42, which came into force on 24 March 1999. As gible exporter who fulfils certain conditions. The I explained in my previous letter to you, the need Explanatory Statement notes that, despite the to reinstate the fee as soon as possible and the grant of this discretion, “the Secretary would in limitation in subsection 49(1) of the Acts Inter- the normal course of events agree to the grant of pretation Act 1901 made it necessary to include a the certificate.” However, the Explanatory sunset clause in the regulation, with the sunset Statement does not indicate what is to happen if date being 31 December 1999. the Secretary does not agree to the grant of the certificate and whether the exercise of that dis- As the Committee is aware, the Government con- cretion is subject to external merits review by the siders that the lodgement fee is important to dis- courage frivolous and vexatious claims in respect Administrative Appeals Tribunal. of termination of employment (in return for Yours sincerely helping to ensure that genuine termination of Helen Coonan employment claims are dealt with efficiently). Chair In the context of considering the approach to take to the expiry of the sunset provision, I considered repealing subregulation 30BD(4). However, in 4 APR 2000 light of what has happened previously, I did not Senator the Hon Helen Coonan consider it desirable to risk disallowance of the Chair, Standing Committee on Regulations and regulation. Ordinances I trust that this information meets the concerns of The Senate the Committee. Parliament House Yours sincerely CANBERRA ACT 2600 PETER REITH Dear Senator Coonan Thank you for your letter dated 9 March 2000 concerning the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 3) (the 15098 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Amending Order) made under section 17 of the Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 2) will 1997. apply to the end of the quota year which finishes Whilst you note that the Amending Order was on 21 July 2000. If there are quota arrangements accompanied by a very good explanatory state- for the year commencing on 22 July 2000, an- ment, you have a specific concern regarding other order will need to be made. The Secretary, clause 20 as inserted into the Australian Meat and in making any such order, will take into account Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United the issues you have raised and any other matters States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. you may wish to submit to me for the Secretary’s 2) by the Amending, Order. attention. The concern of the Committee is that there is no Any discretions in the order (if made) will be indication of what would happen if the Secretary accompanied by explanatory material contained does not agree to the granting of a US lamb cer- in either the order itself or the accompanying tificate and whether the exercise of that discretion explanatory statement. is subject to external merits review by the Ad- Thank you for raising this with me and I trust that ministrative Appeals Tribunal. I have addressed adequately the Committee’s I am advised that the Secretary’s delegate, before concerns. making the Amending Order, considered carefully Yours sincerely the issue of whether to include the discretion. He WARREN TRUSS decided in favour of including it provided that it be exercised in favour of the applicant “in the 13 April 2000 normal course of events”. The normal course of events occurs when the in- The Hon Warren Truss MP formation submitted in the eligible exporter’s US Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry lamb certificate application shows that the size of the consignment is less than or equal to the bal- Parliament House ance in that exporter’s quota entitlement account. CANBERRA ACT 2600 In the event of the amount in the US lamb certifi- Dear Minister cate application not reconciling with the ex- Thank you for your letter of 4 April 2000 relating porter’s quota entitlement account, quota admini- to the Committee’s concerns with the Australian stration staff ordinarily would make inquiries of Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the exporter. It is important for there to be some the United States of America) Amendment Order background sanction, such as a discretion in the 1999 (No.3). Secretary to refuse the issue of a US lamb certifi- You advised the Committee that the Secretary’s cate, to ensure cooperation in resolving a non- discretion to issue a US lamb certificate would be reconciliation issue such as where the amount of exercised favourably when an exporter’s applica- the consignments would overrun the exporter’s tion shows that the size of their consignment is quota entitlement account. The Committee may less than or equal to the balance in that exporter’s be interested to know that, to date, there has not quota entitlement account. It would therefore arisen an occasion when the discretion has been appear that the Secretary’s discretion to refuse exercised (or raised) against an applicant. such a licence would be decided on matters of It is obviously very important that the govern- fact such as that the consignment did not recon- ment, exporters and the US authorities have con- cile with the quota entitlement account. If such fidence in the integrity of the Australian quota were the case, then review by the Administrative administration system. In these circumstances I Appeals Tribunal would not appear to be appro- agree with the Secretary that a discretion of the priate. The Committee would therefore appreciate type in clause 20 of the Australian Meat and your confirmation that any exercise of this dis- Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United cretion is decided on matters of fact. States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 2) is justified without the need for review rights The Committee would appreciate your response as soon as possible as this Order is subject to a to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. notice of disallowance that will expire on 27 June However, I also agree with the Committee’s ob- 2000. vious general position that the government should Yours sincerely maintain high standards of administrative review policy and this should be evident in subordinate Helen Coonan legislation. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Chair Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15099

19 MAY 2000 Division 2 of Part A, which is concerned with the Senator Helen Coonan requirements to be fulfilled by the Australian Broadcasting Authority in preparing and making Chair, a digital channel plan, appears to achieve an ad- Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- mirable level of consultation by all interested nances parties. The Committee notes that paragraph The Senate 10(b) requires the Authority to invite comments on its draft plan, and subsection 12(2) requires it Parliament House to have regard, when making the plan, to any CANBERRA ACT 2600 comments received. However, section 11 permits Dear Helen the Authority to revise a draft digital channel Thank you for your letter dated 13 April 2000 plan, and gives it an unfettered discretion to de- concerning the Australian Meat and Live-stock cide “whether it is appropriate to invite com- Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of ments” thereon. The Committee is concerned that America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 3) (the the Authority appears to be given no guidance Amending Order) made under section 17 of the whatever in the Scheme in coming to a conclu- Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act sion as to the appropriateness (or otherwise) of 1997. inviting comments. The Committee would ap- preciate your advice on this matter. You advise that the review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would not appear to be appro- The Committee also draws your attention to the priate if the Secretary’s discretion to refuse a US Explanatory Paper accompanying this Scheme lamb certificate would be decided on matters of that does not provide a section-by-section expla- fact. I can assure the Committee that the exercise nation of its terms making it difficult to under- of the discretion to refuse a US lamb certificate stand the effect of these individual sections. would be decided only on matters of fact. For Yours sincerely example, the discretion would be exercised Helen Coonan against the applicant if, as a matter of fact, the Chair size of the proposed consignment requiring a certificate would be greater than the applicant’s quota entitlement account. 19 April 2000 I trust that this sufficiently addresses all of the Senator Helen Coonan Committee’s concerns. Chair Yours sincerely Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- WARREN TRUSS nances Parliament House National Television Conversion Scheme 1999, Canberra Australian Capital Territory 2600 made under subclause 19(1) of Schedule 4 to the Dear Senator Coonan Broadcasting Services Act 1992 Thank you for your letter of 9 March 2000 on 9 March 2000 behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations Senator the Hon Richard Alston and Ordinances concerning consultation by the Minister for Communications, Information Tech- Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) when nology revising a draft digital channel plan under section 11 of the National Television Conversion Scheme and the Arts 1999 (the Scheme). I apologise for the delay in Parliament House responding to your letter. CANBERRA ACT 2600 I have referred the Committee’s concerns to the Dear Minister ABA. The ABA has advised that, while the I refer to the National Television Conversion Scheme does not provide guidance regarding the Scheme 1999 made under subclause 19(1) of appropriateness of inviting comments in relation Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to the variation of a draft digital channel plan, the which is the legislative scheme for the conversion Explanatory Paper to the Scheme outlines the of national television broadcasting services from circumstances in which the ABA would consider analog to digital mode. it appropriate to invite comments and initiate a consultation process where it intended to vary a 15100 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 digital channel plan. The Explanatory Paper to the Although the Explanatory Statement notes that Scheme provides (at page 10): the purpose of these Regulations is “to provide The ABA would regard it as appropriate to carry for a register of permissions to be kept by the out a consultation process in all situations in [Great Barrier Reef Marine Park] Authority, and which a variation would materially affect any for members of the public to have access to person. There may, however, be occasions in documents in the register”, new subregulation which the proposed variation is of a minor nature 59A(1) is permissive only, and not mandatory. with no, or little, effect on other broadcasters or The Committee would appreciate advice on the general public. Variations of this nature would whether that subregulation should be mandatory. not benefit from a costly and time consuming New subregulation 59C(2) specifies the fees that consultation process and the ABA may, in these the Authority is to charge for copies of documents circumstances, confine discussions to those peo- on the register. In the absence of a regulation-by- ple who are directly affected. regulation explanation of the amendments, it is The ABA has advised that it would apply these unclear what basis has been used to set these fees. principles to any draft digital channel plan the [Statutory Rules 2000 No.6 still being considered ABA intends to revise. by the Committee] I have noted the absence of a section-by-section Yours sincerely explanation of the terms of the Scheme in the Helen Coonan Explanatory Paper, and your comments have been forwarded to the ABA for its consideration in the Chair context of preparing future Explanatory Papers. Thank you for bringing these matters to my at- 17 APR 2000 tention on the Committee’s behalf. I trust that this Senator Helen Coonan response appropriately addresses the Committee’s concerns with the National Television Conversion Chair Scheme. Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- Yours sincerely nances RICHARD ALSTON Dear Senator Coonan Minister for Communications, Information Tech- Thank you for your letter of 9 March 2000 re- nology and the Arts garding the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2000 (No 1) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2000 Regulations 2000 (No.1), as contained in Statu- Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment tory Rules 2000 No.5 and made under the Great Regulations 2000 (No 1) Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment 9 March 2000 Regulations 2000 (No. 1) (“the Amendment Senator the Hon Robert Hill Regulations”) were gazetted on 23 February Minister for Environment and Heritage 2000. The purpose of these Regulations is to pro- vide for a Register of permissions to be kept by Parliament House the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority CANBERRA ACT 2600 “the Authority”), and for members of the public Dear Minister to have access to the documents in the Register. I refer to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Whilst the Explanatory Statement to these Regu- Amendment Regulations 2000 (No.1), Statutory lations does not include a regulation-by- Rules 2000 No.5 and the Great Barrier Reef Ma- regulation description of the amendments made rine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations 2000, Statu- by them, the Explanatory Memorandum did pro- tory Rules 2000 No.6. vide such details; both documents being approved by, and forwarded to, the Executive Council Sec- Statutory Rules 2000 No.5 retariat. A copy of the Explanatory Memorandum The Committee notes that the Explanatory State- is attached. ment to these Statutory Rules does not include a Regulations 59A(1) and.(2) of the Amendment regulation-by-regulation description of the Regulations allow the Great Barrier Reef Marine amendments made by them. Park Authority to establish and maintain a Reg- ister of permissions. Such a Register will contain Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15101 details of applications for permissions and trans- Marine Order No. 1 of 2000 fers, and variations of applications, details of The Order gives effect to both the 1979 and the permissions granted and copies of any statements 1989 Codes for the Construction and Equipment of reason given for decisions. However, subregu- of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units as adopted by lation (3) provides that the Register must not in- the International Maritime Organisation. Al- clude any confidential information. though the Explanatory Statement asserts that this Although regulation 59A provides the mechanism Order gives effect to these Codes, there does not for the Authority to establish a Register of per- appear to be any provision in the Order which missions, resource implications mean that at pres- expressly makes clear that purported effect. ent, the Register will only contain details of per- Provision 2.2.2 appears to grant to the Chief Ma- missions for moorings in the Cairns Planning rine Surveyor a discretion to determine the extent Area (that is, the areas covered by the Cairns to which compliance with the provisions in Part Area Plan of Management). This is to ensure that 47 is unreasonable or impractical. However, al- any adverse effects on the Marine Park from high though the exercise of all the other discretions in levels of use in the Cairns Planning Area are this Marine Order is subject to review by the minimised by encouraging the sharing of moor- Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the exercise of ings. However, it is envisaged that at a later date, the discretion in provision 2.2.2 is not so review- the Register will extend to all permissions issued able. by the Authority. Provision 4.2 appears to be merely directory, in Regulation 59B requires the Authority to show providing that a decision maker may give written the Register to any person who asks to see it at notice of that decision to a person whose interests the Authority’s office during business hours. are affected thereby. This appears to be in conflict Regulation 59C requires the Authority to provide with the heading to that provision, which sug- a copy of the documents in the Register to per- gests, by using the words “Statements to accom- sons who request such copies and pay the fees set pany decisions” that it is mandatory. The provi- out in that regulation. Subregulation (2) provides sion is also contrary to the spirit, if not to the let- that the fee for access to the Register is $10.00 ter, of subsection 27A(1) of the Administrative plus 50 cents for each page copied. These Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which requires a de- amounts are reflective of the likely staffing costs cision maker to “take such steps as are reasonable associated with the retrieval and photocopying of in the circumstances” to bring a decision to the the documents. The fees being charged by the notice of any person whose interests are affected Authority are less than that currently provided for thereby. These comments also apply to an identi- by the Commonwealth’s Freedom of Information cal provision in Marine Order No.2 of 2000 − Act. provision 4.2. I trust this letter adequately addresses your que- Provision 5.2 provides, among other things, that ries. the failure to comply with provision 7 “consti- Yours sincerely tutes an offence by the owner and person-in- charge.” Provision 7 states merely: “A MODU Robert Hill must be provided with personnel in accordance with Appendix 1.” In Appendix 1, the only provi- Marine Orders Part 47 - Mobile Offshore Drilling sions that appear to impose a duty relating to the Units - Issue 2, as contained in Marine Order manning of a MODU are clauses 3.1 and 3.3, No.1 of 2000 and Marine Orders Part 60 - Float- both of which are expressed to apply only to the ing Offshore Facilities - Issue 1, as contained in owner. Marine Order No.2 of 2000 made under section The Note at the end of provision 8.4.2 states “In 425(1AA) of the Navigation Act 1912 the case of a MODU to which the 1989 MODU 6 April 2000 Code applies, the muster list must comply with that Code.” Since, by virtue of provision 1.8(c), The Hon John Anderson MP “a note included in the text and printed in italics Minister for Transport and Regional Services is not part of the Part”, it is difficult to ascertain Parliament House the basis for the Note at the end of provision 8.4.2. CANBERRA ACT 2600 Clause 3.1 of Schedule 1 requires the owner of a Dear Minister MODU to ensure that the manning of the MODU I refer to Marine Orders Nos. 1 and 2 of 2000 comprises at least “such number of competent made under subsection 425(1AA) of the Naviga- persons determined by the owner to be sufficient tion Act 1912. 15102 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 to undertake” the operations in question. Since It was not intended that Provision 2.2.2 should this clause is, by virtue of provisions 5.1 and 7, a provide a separate, non-reviewable power of ex- penal provision, it may be questioned whether it emption. Rather, it is a specific use of the power could readily be determined, on any particular of exemption. in Provision 3.2. As such, it might occasion, whether the owner was guilty of an be expressed better as a note rather than as a sepa- offence. rate provision and a suitable amendment will be Marine Order No. 2 of 2000 made as soon as practicable. In the meantime, any exemptions given will be under Provision 3.2 and The Order prescribes requirements for the con- will therefore be reviewable. struction and equipment of Floating Production, Storage and Offshore ships and Floating Storage Provision 4.2 Units. Provision 4.2, which is based on section 377M of Provision 8 imposes various obligations on those the Navigation Act 1912, is intended to apply to involved with the transfer of material, appliances decisions in writing. Although most decisions are and personnel and with the arrival and departure conveyed in writing, some are of necessity made of helicopters. However, provision 5 does not list in an operational context and initially conveyed that provision as a penal provision, even though orally. These are followed up where appropriate the identical provisions in Marine Order No. 1 of by confirmation in writing. 2000 – provisions 8.8 and 8.9 – are listed in that The intent of section 27A of the Administrative Order as penal provisions. Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is appreciated by The Committee would appreciate your advice on AMSA; however, it would not be practicable to the above matters. require that all decisions be notified in writing. Yours sincerely With regard to the heading to Provision 4.2, it would be clearer if it read “Statements to accom- Helen Coonan pany written notice of decisions”. The heading Chair will be amended as soon as practicable. A similar amendment will be made to the identical provi- sion in Marine Order No. 2 of 2000. 3 May 2000 Provision 5.2 Senator Helen Coonan You have drawn attention to a deficiency in Pro- Chair vision 7, which should contain a second sentence Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- requiring a person-in-charge to discharge the re- nances sponsibilities specified in Appendix 1. A suitable Parliament House amendment will be made as soon as possible. CANBERRA ACT 2600 Note to Provision 8.4.2 Dear Senator Coonan Provision 9.1.2 requires compliance with the 1989 Code before issue of the MODU Safety Thank you for your letter of 6 April 2000 con- Certificate (1989). Accordingly, the provisions of cerning Marine Orders Nos. 1 and 2 of 2000. the 1989 Code are mandatory in respect of MO- The Australian Maritime Safety Authority DUs to which the 1989 Code applies. Hence the (AMSA) has provided the following advice. footnote to Provision 8.4.2 is merely a reminder MARINE ORDER NO. 1 OF 2000 of an existing requirement. Giving effect to Codes Clause 3.1 of Appendix 1 Section 193 of the Navigation Act 1912 requires a 13.1(e) of Appendix 2 provides that there must be ship to be surveyed at least once during each pe- carried on board a MODU a document specifying riod of 12 months. A Mobile Offshore Drilling the persons who may be appointed person-in- Unit (MODU), being a ship, must be surveyed charge in the various modes of operation, towage, accordingly. Provision 9 of Part 47 provides that a standby or stacked, and the minimum number and MODU will be issued with the appropriate qualifications of persons required aboard the MODU Safety Certificate if it is found to be in MODU in the various modes of operation, in- compliance with the 1979 or 1989 Codes for the cluding towing. Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore MARINE ORDER NO. 2 OF 2000 Drilling Units. Provision 6.1 provides that if the Provision 8 should be identified as a penal provi- MODU does not have a certificate in force, it sion and a suitable amendment will be made as cannot move from its current location. soon as possible. Provision 2.2.2 Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15103

Yours sincerely The purpose of the Notice is to increase the JOHN ANDERSON amount of diesel fuel rebate payable under sub- section 164(1) of the Customs Act 1901. In accordance with longstanding policy, where Notice No.1(2000) of Declared Rate in respect of rates of customs duty are indexed in accordance Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection with the indexation provisions of the Customs 164(5A) of the Customs Act 1901 Tariff Act 1995, complementary increases in the 9 March 2000 rates of diesel duel rebate are also made. Senator the Hon Amanda Vanstone The result of the Notice is that those persons en- Minister for Justice and Customs titled to claim diesel fuel rebate under subsection 164(1) of the Customs Act 1901 are entitled to Parliament House claim the higher rate from 2 February 2000. Any CANBERRA ACT 2600 benefit that actually accrues as a result of an in- Dear Minister crease in rebate payable will take effect for re- bates paid in the period March - August 2000, as I refer to the Notice No.1 (2000) of Declared Rate rebates are calculated on a rolling average of the in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under sub- previous six months’ rebate. Thus the fact that the section 154(5A) of the Customs Act 1901 which Notice takes effect before the date of notification sets the rate of rebate payable in respect of diesel confers a prospective benefit and not a liability on fuel purchased for use for five specific purposes. those persons. This notice (issued under the Customs Act 1901) is stated to have effect “on and after 2 February The retrospective application of the Notice does not prejudicially affect the rights of, or impose 2000”, but the Explanatory Statement observes liabilities on any person other than the Common- that it was not notified in the Gazette until 3 February 2000. It appears from the terms of the wealth. Notice that this retrospectivity would not prejudi- Yours sincerely cially affect any person other than the Common- AMANDA VANSTONE wealth, and that the notice is not rendered inef- fective by subsection 48(2) of the Acts Interpre- tation Act 1901. Notice No.1(2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection The Committee draws this matter to your atten- 78A(5A) of the Excise Act 1901 tion and would appreciate confirmation that the notice does not prejudicially affect any person 9 March 2000 other than the Commonwealth. Senator the Hon Rod Kemp Yours sincerely Assistant Treasurer Helen Coonan Parliament House Chair CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister 12 APR 2000 I refer to the Notice No.1 (2000) of Declared Rate Senator Helen Coonan in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under sub- section 78A(5A) of the Excise Act 1901 which Chair sets the rate of rebate payable in respect of diesel Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and fuel purchased for use for five specific purposes. Ordinances This notice (issued under the Excise Act 1901) is Parliament House stated to have effect “on and after 2 February CANBERRA ACT 2600 2000”, but the Explanatory Statement observes that it was not notified in the Gazette until Dear Senator Coonan 3 February 2000. It appears from the terms of the I refer to your letter of 9 March 2000, in which Notice that this retrospectivity would not prejudi- you seek confirmation that the Notice No. 1 cially affect any person other than the Common- (2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel wealth, and that the notice is not rendered inef- Rebate made under subsection 164(5A) of the fective by subsection 48(2) of the Acts Interpre- Customs Act 1901 does not prejudicially affect tation Act 1901. any person other than the Commonwealth. The Committee draws this matter to your atten- tion and would appreciate confirmation that the 15104 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 notice does not prejudicially affect any person (a) Senator Vanstone for the period 19 to 23 other than the Commonwealth. June 2000, on account of ministerial Yours sincerely business overseas; and Helen Coonan (b) Senators Ferguson and Murray for the period 19 to 30 June 2000, on account of Chair parliamentary business overseas. NOTICES 24 May 2000 Postponement Senator Helen Coonan Items of business were postponed as fol- Chair lows: Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and General business notice of motion no. 489 Ordinances standing in the name of Senator Murray for Parliament House 28 June 2000, proposing an order for the CANBERRA ACT 2600 production of documents relating to lists of departmental and agency contracts, post- Dear Senator Coonan poned till 16 August 2000. Thank you for your personal representations of 9 March 2000, concerning Notice No. 1 (2000) of COMMITTEES Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate. Regulations and Ordinances Committee The notice was notified in the Special Gazette Private Meeting No. S49 on 3 February 2000 and has effect from 2 February 2000. You sought confirmation that it Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the re- does not prejudicially affect any person other than quest of Senator Coonan) agreed to: the Commonwealth. That so much of standing order 36 be sus- The purpose of the Notice is to increase the pended as would prevent the Standing Committee amount of diesel fuel rebate payable under sub- on Regulations and Ordinances holding a private section 78(1) of the Excise Act 1901. deliberative meeting on 22 June 2000 with mem- bers of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations In accordance with long-standing policy, where Committee of the Victorian Parliament in atten- rates of excise duty are indexed in accordance with the indexation provisions of the Excise Tariff dance. Act 1921, complementary increases in the rates of DOCUMENTS diesel fuel rebate are also made. Auditor-General’s Reports The result of the Notice is that those persons en- Report No. 46 of 1999-2000 titled to claim diesel fuel rebate under subsection 78(1) of the Excise Act 1921 are entitled to do so The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant at a higher rate. The rebate payable is calculated to standing order 166, I present report No. 46 on a rolling average of the previous six month’s of the Auditor-General entitled High Wealth Declared Rates and any benefit that accrues as a Individuals Taskforce: Australian Taxation result of an increase in the February 2000 De- Office, which was presented to the Deputy clared Rates will only take effect for rebates paid President on 13 June 2000. In accordance the period 1 March - 31 August 2000. with the terms of the standing order, the The retrospective application of the Notice does publication of the document was authorised. not prejudicially affect the rights of, or impose Report No. 48 of 1999-2000 liabilities on any person other than the Common- wealth. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accor- I trust this information will be of assistance to dance with the provisions of the Auditor- you. General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 48 Yours Sincerely of 1999-2000–Follow-up Performance ROD KEMP Audit–Follow-up Audit of Department of LEAVE OF ABSENCE Education, Training and Youth Affairs Inter- Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by national Services: Department of Education, leave—agreed to: Training and Youth Affairs. That leave of absence be granted to: Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15105

Senator CARR (Victoria) (3.38 p.m.)—by from occurring within the existing legislative leave—I move: framework. That the Senate take note of the document. I am not surprised that it has taken the I have only just received the audited Senate processes to draw the department’s findings on this particular issue, that is, attention to a whole series of quite dramatic Audit Office performance report No. 48. irregularities in regard to the monitoring of While this is a report into the operations of attendance records in international colleges, DETYA International Services, that is, the the tracking of students, abuses of trust ac- consulting and technical assistance service counts, problems in regard to the administra- that is provided to the international education tion of the tuition assurance schemes, industry—it has been in operation since fraudulent use of the confirmation of enrol- 1993—I do note that there are some issues ment forms and serious breaches of the vari- that require the attention of the department. I ous arrangements that are entered into that notice that it is a follow-up audit and I notice allow for the licensing of international col- that the Audit Office has advised the parlia- leges. These have occurred as a result of the ment that some issues have yet to be at- failure of states to administer quality assur- tended to, despite assurances that have been ance mechanisms to ensure that conditions made by DETYA in the past about this par- are maintained. I note that, within the exist- ticular service. ing framework, various sanctions and disci- I note at 2.4 amongst the findings that the plinary decisions are allowed for in theory officers of the department have yet to im- but have not been used to date. plement the proposed project costing meth- The reason I put these matters before the odology as the Joint Committee of Public Senate again is that it is important to high- Accounts and Audit was previously advised light the general question that, while we have and that ‘the proposed methodology will a very substantial international education improve the service’s direct project input and industry in this country which has grown cost estimates we are calculating’. The point from 48,000 students in 1991 to 158,000 in I raise is that, while this appears to be a rela- 1999, all of this is essentially dependent tively minor matter in regard to the general upon our international reputation for quality. scheme of the administrative arrangements— That reputation has been put at risk as a re- the Audit Office draws to our attention that sult of the operations of a few unsavoury only 1.5 staff are actually involved in the characters. These are clearly matters that the service—I find it unfortunate that the Audit department should have paid greater atten- Office has to draw to our attention a problem tion to earlier. It is quite clearly the case that, where the department makes assurances that if it had not been the processes of the Senate are then not followed through. That issue that they had to confront, we may not have requires the attention of the management of seen the announcement of the government DETYA. that there is a rewrite of the international However, the general issue of interna- education services legislation and that that tional education is much more serious than is rewrite is in response to the various concerns implied by this particular report. In the past, that have been expressed. It will not change the opposition has drawn attention to a num- the fact that was an appalling lack of admin- ber of quite serious legislative problems that istrative coherence and cooperation between have arisen within international education as the departments of immigration and educa- a result of the operations of a small group of tion and the departments of foreign affairs unscrupulous and shady operators, which and trade and education and between the have seen a series of what I believe to be federal government and the state govern- very serious problems arising from what in ments. Those are all problems that were normal circumstances would be criminal drawn out through the various processes of acts. Unfortunately, the way the laws of this the Senate. This legislation will not change country currently operate, apparently very that central problem; it is effectively a policy little can be done to prevent these operations 15106 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 matter which the government must undertake ing addressed before they get out of control. to address seriously. I am afraid that suggestions by the Australian However, there has been acknowledgment National Audit Office that we can determine that fraudulent confirmation of enrolment efficiency entirely on the basis of costs and actually is occurring, that quality assurance staffing numbers will not attend to that par- matters require much tighter guidance, that ticular problem. There are in fact a number financial and tuition assurance arrangements of staff needed in any particular operation for overseas students need to be tightened up who have a long-term understanding of an and that there needs to be coordination be- industry and the problems of it so as to allow tween the departments of immigration and public servants to be able to act creatively education. But I say, on top of that, there and to provide advice to government to ad- needs to be coordination between the Com- dress problems in a manner that will be way monwealth and the state governments and out of the reach of any automated computer between the departments of education and program. These programs are the fashion of immigration and the departments of trade the day. and foreign affairs. Of course, there needs to This report is limited and is only a small be a much higher level of understanding of part of the general picture. I note that the the quality assurance problems that have broader questions of the rewriting of the existed for some time in this industry. legislative framework for international edu- Essentially, this ANAO report does not cation will require much closer attention tend to any of those issues because it deals from this parliament. I look forward to the with a very small component of the interna- government actually coming forward with tional education program. I am concerned, their proposed new code of conduct between though, that one of the reasons the ANAO the Commonwealth and the states to ensure states that these issues are not particularly that the legislative package that they are pro- significant is that the number of staff in- posing is available to the parliament with volved in this program is not particularly sufficient time for the matters to be given high. It says it is potentially 1.5 staff. One of proper scrutiny and to ensure that the legis- the reasons the Department of Education, lation does attend to some of the problems Training and Youth Affairs is not able to that I have been speaking of in recent cope with its responsibilities, in my judg- months. ment, is that its staffing numbers have been Question resolved in the affirmative. cut so drastically. The number of people in- COMMITTEES volved in monitoring international education has been reduced by about half. The gov- Privileges Committee ernment’s response is to increase the levies Report and charges on industry, to rely upon a whole Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (3.47 range of technologies and to say that a better p.m.)—I present the 91st report of the Com- eye is being kept on the industry. The fact mittee of Privileges relating to a person re- remains that you will never be able to re- ferred to in the Senate. place humans with machines with regard to Ordered that the report be printed. an understanding of what is actually occur- ring within an industry. Automation in itself Senator ROBERT RAY—I seek leave to is not a solution to the problems of public move a motion in relation to the report. administration. Leave granted. One of the problems we have been faced Senator ROBERT RAY—I move: with in this industry for too long is that there That the report be adopted. have been too few people with a corporate This report is the 35th in a series of re- understanding of what is occurring in the ports recommending that a right of reply be industry such that people have confidence in accorded to persons who claim to be ad- the players and are able to talk to them in a versely affected by being referred to either manner that would lead to the problems be- by name or in such a way as to be readily Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15107 identified in the Senate. On 30 May 2000, letter be referred to the Privileges Committee the President referred a letter from Mr Noel under that resolution. Crichton-Browne to the Committee of Privi- Senator Knowles speech followed the tabling in leges as a submission under privilege resolu- the Senate by the Chairman of the Senate Com- tion 5. The letter responded to remarks made mittee of Privileges, a response by me to an ear- by Senator Knowles in the Senate during the lier speech Senator Knowles had made in which debate on 10 April 2000 on a motion that the she made various untrue and malicious statements Senate adopt the committee’s 88th report. about me. That report had recommended that an earlier In Senator Knowles’ speech of 4 April 2000, she response from Mr Crichton-Browne to re- began by stating that my response as contained in marks made by Senator Knowles in Decem- the Committee’s Report was a “further attempt by Crichton-Browne to abuse me” and later went on ber 1999 be incorporated in Hansard. The to describe my response as “a truck load of President advised the committee that, in abuse” and “continual harassment.” making a decision whether to refer the letter Not only are these statements by Senator to the committee as a further submission, she Knowles wilfully untruthful, she alleges that had concluded that on balance it was for the contrary to the provisions of the Senate’s Resolu- committee to determine whether publication tion, my statement is vexatious and offensive in of a second submission was justified. character. The Senate Resolution states that the At its meeting on 8 June 2000, the com- President shall not refer a matter to the Commit- mittee in turn examined the matter closely on tee if it is vexatious and that the Committee shall two grounds. Firstly, it considered whether not table a document that includes offensive ma- terial. the trading of allegations between a senator and a person who regarded himself as ad- Senator Knowles therefore claims that my state- versely affected by the senator’s comments ment was not in accordance with the Senate Resolution and accordingly both the President should continue indefinitely. Secondly, it and the Committee have breached the terms of the noted that the response contained material same Resolution. which it does not normally recommend for Senator Knowles states in her speech that “I am publication. It has reluctantly concluded that now entering my 13th year of abuse, vilification it should recommend the publication of this and harassment from this man..” present submission in full in the expectation Senator Knowles knows these allegations are that no further submissions will be forth- fabrications and lies concocted by her without a coming. The committee observes that no shred of substance. Senator Knowles has previ- other person has ever attempted a third right ously made these allegations without parliamen- of reply and only twice before has a person tary privilege and was forced to admit to the un- sought, and been given, a second response. truthfulness of her statements and to apologise to The committee emphasises, as it has in other me in the Western Australian Supreme Court. reports relating to this matter, that it does not Senator Knowles also paid me $20,000 in legal endorse the comments made in the submis- fees for making her untruthful allegations. sion and judges neither the truth nor the These earlier allegations by Senator Knowles merits of the response. I commend the report which resulted in her Supreme Court admissions to the Senate. of untruthfulness, included claims that as a result of death threats by me she feared for her life and The response read as follows— was under police protection. Both the Federal APPENDIX ONE Police and the Western Australian Police denied RESPONSE BY MR NOEL CRICHTON- her claims. BROWNE Senator Knowles’ description of my response to PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 5(7)(B) OF her criminal defamation of me under parliamen- THE SENATE tary privilege, as “abuse” is a bizarre attempt to portray herself as the victim, rather than the per- OF 25 FEBRUARY 1988 petrator. I again write to you pursuant to Resolution 5 (7) Senator Knowles apparently takes the view that (B) of the Senate of 25 February 1988. In par- she has a right to criminally defame me with out- ticular I write in response to a speech made by rageous and false allegations. An objective, ra- Senator Knowles on 4 April 2000. I ask that this 15108 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 tional and truthful response from me to those President in his written report as Chairman of the allegations, is to her, “vilification and harass- Appeals and Disciplinary Committee also found ment.” The abusive nature of her speech is clear the case against Senator Knowles overwhelming evidence of that. Senator Knowles seems incapa- and he has stated that but for defects with the ble or unprepared to understand the enormity of hearing, he would have on the evidence, voted for her misconduct and misbehaviour. Senator Knowles’ expulsion from the Liberal The essential elements of my statement to the Party. Senate are a record of the proceedings of the Senator Knowles further states that my account of Western Australian Supreme Court and the corre- the legal proceedings are “the same lies, the same spondence between lawyers acting for Senator dishonesty.” The one unimpeachable truth of the Knowles and myself. Those indisputable facts are Supreme Court proceedings against which Sena- now described by Senator Knowles as “abuse, tor Knowles rails, can be found in a transcript of vilification and harassment.” the court proceedings. I attach a certified copy of Senator Knowles’ attitude and state of mind in the Western Australian Supreme Court proceed- respect to this matter is exposed in her response ings in the matter of Crichton-Browne v Senator to my statement of the facts in defence of myself Knowles which I respectfully request be incorpo- from her untruthful allegations, wherein she de- rated as part of my statement. scribes me as “a particularly vicious, bitter and I draw to your attention the fact that Senator nasty man whose sole motivation in life is to har- Knowles has in response to two earlier state- ass and intimidate anyone who disagrees with ments, deliberately mislead the Senate. Senator him…” A factual response to Senator Knowles’ Knowles’ untrue statements are clearly miscon- untruthfulness and dishonesty to which she ad- duct by a Senator and she is guilty of ‘grave con- mitted in the Western Australian Supreme Court, tempt’ of the Senate. invokes such an outburst. I take it that by any measure, for a Senator to Senator Knowles further states in her response to deliberately and knowingly tell a lie to the Senate my statement that “many thought when the party is considered to be a very serious offence. Senator made its third decision in support of me and Knowles has repeatedly lied to the Senate and in against his malicious, deceitful and dishonest so doing deceived the public by her dishonesty. claims that it would be the end of the matter.” There is no question that on 8 December 1999 Senator Knowles is obviously referring to the and 4 April 2000, Senator Knowles lied to the complaints made against her by constituent bod- Senate in respect to proceedings of which she was ies of the Liberal Party which were heard by the a party in the Western Australian Supreme Court. Liberal Party’s Appeals and Disciplinary Com- On 8 December 1999, Senator Knowles informed mittee. It is self evident that the complaints were the Senate that: not made by me. They were made by the Liberal Party. “It, like so many other articles written by Burns, claims that I have apologised for alleging that Senator Knowles was found guilty and expelled Crichton-Browne has made death threats against from the Liberal Party and was reinstated upon me. I have not.” appeal. Two separate Appeals and Disciplinary Committees of the Liberal Party found her guilty “There is no person I have spoken to or interview of the various charges which included her claim I have done that says anything other than the fact to Mr James McGinty, the then Leader of the that I sought police advice on security matters Western Australian State Parliamentary Labor follow in two unidentified phone calls in the mid- Party that she had received death threats from me dle of the night that contained threats.” and that she was under police protection. On 4 April 2000, Senator Knowles informed the Mr McGinty has subsequently accused Senator Senate that: Knowles of “lying” to him. He has done so out- “I do not care what he [Mincherton] writes about side the parliament and without privilege. Senator the Supreme Court and everything that I specifi- Knowles has not taken action against him. Sena- cally apologised for in the comments I made — I tor Knowles refused to provide sworn evidence to covered all that in December. His affidavit was the Appeals and Disciplinary Committee and absolutely and utterly wrong. I have said that all offered only unsworn evidence to the body which the way along the line, and I will say it and say it reinstated her. again.” Counsel for the Liberal Party found the case “Not only did he constantly repeat these wrong against Senator Knowles very strong and recom- allegations about me at all forums of the Liberal mended that the matter be re-heard. The State Party; he also telephoned around Western Austra- Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15109 lia doing exactly the same. He has constantly lied 1 respectfully request that the Privileges Com- about me...” mittee consider what steps may be taken to ad- “I still stand by what I said in December abso- dress this very serious matter. lutely and unequivocally, except with interest.” Noel Crichton-Browne Senator Knowles’ untruthfulness in her speeches *Not received by Committee of Privileges is further aggravated by her allegations that others COPY have lied in their statements to the Senate, in sworn affidavits to the Supreme Court, in sworn Copyright in this document is reserved to the affidavits to the disciplinary Committee of the crown in right of the state of Western Australia. Liberal Party of Western Australia and to the Reproduction or dissemination of this document public at large. (or part thereof, in any format) except with the The certified copy of the Western Australian Su- consent of the attorney-general is prohibited. preme Court proceedings in which Senator Knowles apologised for claiming to Mr THE SUPREME COURT OF Mincherton that I had made death threats against WESTERN AUSTRALIA her, clearly and unequivocally shows that Senator 2141 of 1996 Knowles statements to the Senate are wilfully untrue. NOEL ASHLEY CRICHTON-BROWNE The Liberal Party of Western Australia has ob- and tained its own legal advice from the law firm of SUSAN CHRISTINE KNOWLES Freehill Hollingdale and Page on the status of WHEELER J Senator Knowles’ admissions in the Supreme Court. The Liberal Party was advised that: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS “The matters, the subject of the defamation action AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 21 OCTOBER by Mr Crichton-Browne against Senator 1998, AT 10.27 AM Knowles, are in the public arena. They have been MR R.W. RICHARDSON appeared for the widely reported, have been stated in open court plaintiff. and have been subject of a public apology. MR E.J. PICTON-WARLOW appeared for the It must be clearly understood that the statements defendant. made by Senator Knowles have been acknowl- 21/10/98 edged by her to be untrue. She unreservedly withdrew and retracted the allegations and unre- (s&c) servedly apologised. In the context of the apology 1-2/2/1p read to the Court and published in newspapers, 2141/96 that is an admission by her that she made the alle- WHEELER J: Mr Richardson? gations and that they were untrue. There is no scope for denial by Senator Knowles of these RICHARDSON, MR: May it please your matters. That being so, it would seem that there is Honour, I appear on behalf of the plaintiff. no need for discussion on the truth or otherwise WHEELER J: Thank you, and Mr Picton- of what was said.” Warlow? I enclose a copy of that advice.* PICTON-WARLOW, MR: May it please your I have not drawn your attention to the various Honour, I appear on behalf of the defendant. other dishonest statements made by Senator WHEELER J: Thank you. Mr Richardson? Knowles to the Senate about this matter, however RICHARDSON, MR: Your Honour, I am they are readily demonstrated. pleased to advise that this matter has been settled, The Western Australian Police have issued a and in fact was settled on 25 September 1998. statement that Senator Knowles did not even re- The reason for the delay in bringing the settle- ceive two phone calls “that contained threats” as ment to the court’s attention was a result of two she alleged in her speech on 8 December. Her conditions imposed in the settlement agreement statement to the police will confirm that. by the defendant, and they were that the apology, The other further statements made by Senator although to be read in open court at a date con- Knowles in the Senate are equally readily proved venient, was not to be read on or before 3 October to be deliberately untruthful. 1998, and my client also gave an undertaking at the request of the defendant not to publish to any 15110 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 person the apology or the details of the settlement Richard Minchinton, and the allegation was that of the action prior to 3 October 1998. the words were as follows - - WHEELER J: All right. WHEELER J: Do we need to go through, RICHARDSON, MR: Your Honour, there actually read out, all of the allegations? has been a minute signed by the parties consent- RICHARDSON, MR: What I propose to do ing to the orders to be made today to dispose of is very briefly identify them. I won’t read it all this action, if I could hand the original of that to out, but the essence of the publication was, “Noel your Honour. Crichton-Browne made life-threatening threats to WHEELER J: Thank you. me by phone, and as a result of that I have sought police protection.” RICHARDSON, MR: You will see from that that the terms of the settlement comprise, WHEELER J: Yes. firstly, in order 2 a publication of an apology in RICHARDSON, MR: The second publica- three newspapers by the defendant, that to be tion was a publication made to Richard Utting, done within 7 days and to be published in The then of ABC Radio 726WF, on the morning of 11 West Australian, The Australian, and The Can- September 1995, so that was a publication of a berra Times. In addition, the defendant is to pay slander plus the libel of the republication on ABC the plaintiff the sum of $20,000 and the defendant Radio. Mr Utting there referred to public allega- has agreed to read an apology in open court by tions that “Senator Crichton-Browne has perhaps her counsel in terms of the annexure to the minute in some way threatened you and then you went to that you have. the police about it. What’s the story behind that?” Prior to the reading of that apology, it is The defendant was asked various questions about important that the causes of action identified in it by Mr Utting, and at the conclusion it was un- the apology are identified in court, for two rea- clear as to who the person was. Mr Utting said, sons: firstly, to ensure that the plaintiff has proper “All right, the ‘him’ that you were referring to vindication for the apology which doesn’t itemise, there is Noel Crichton-Browne,” and the defen- which is the usual course, the articles or the pub- dant replied, “Yeah.” The next publication was to lications complained of, and of course that is also Liana Strutt on Radio 6PR. an important consideration for the defendant that WHEELER J: What page is that one? the apologies granted are identified in open court, RICHARDSON, MR: Page 33, I apologise. because it is to those publications that the apology relates. WHEELER J: Thank you. 21/10/98 RICHARDSON, MR 2 21/10/98 RICHARDSON, MR 3 Spark & Cannon Spark & Cannon 1-2/3/1p 2141/96 1-2/4/1p 2141/96 If your Honour has the substituted of RICHARDSON, MR: That is to similar statement of claim - I am not sure whether you effect, other than Liana Strutt said that the allega- have the papers, but - - - tions had been denied by Mr Crichton-Browne. “He calls it a total fabrication. It was suggested WHEELER J: I have them here, but what is that you find alternative accommodation at that the date of the substituted statement of claim? time.” The defendant then repeated that she had RICHARDSON, MR: As counsel we never taken precautions in updating her security, both in get them dated. It simply says May 98, but it Perth and in Canberra and she hadn’t made a for- should be the last document on the file. mal complaint because she didn’t want any per- WHEELER J: All right, we will see if we can son being interviewed or him being interviewed. find it. As a result of these publications on the RICHARDSON, MR: It’s not that; it is very radio, your Honour, as one would expect, they voluminous. It is in fact 59 pages. received considerable publication in the print media and were published, or the contents of WHEELER J: That looks like it, yes. those allegations were published — this is at page RICHARDSON, MR: The first publication, 38 — in The West Australian on 12 September your Honour, appears at page 2 and that publica- 1995 under the heading Senators Clash on Threat tion is an allegation of slander and it is a publica- Claim, and the start of that article reads, “Liberal tion made to a Richard Minchinton and it was senator Sue Knowles renewed her public rivalry made in or about May of 1995 at the defendant’s with former Liberal senator Noel Crichton- West Perth office. The words were spoken to Browne yesterday by claiming he had once threatened her, a charge he vigorously denied.” Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15111

Basically that was reported on the radio, WHEELER J: Thank you, Mr Picton-Warlow. ABC Radio program. It also received a report in In that case, there will be orders in terms of the The Australian on 12 September 1995 under Lib minute of agreed orders dated 21 October 1998. Tells of Disgraced Senator Fear, and that article RICHARDSON, MR: May it please your commenced, “Liberal senator Sue Knowles re- Honour. vealed yesterday that she was the MP who com- plained to the police about being concerned about WHEELER J: Thank you her safety in relation to disgraced senator, Noel AT 10.37 AM THE MATTER WAS Crichton-Browne.” ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY A further report was contained in The 21/10/98 PICTON-WARLOW, MR 5 Canberra Times on 12 September 1995, and that Spark & Cannon article at page 47 stated inter alia, “Senator Sue Knowles names Senator Crichton-Browne as the Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia) person about whom she had complained to West (3.50 p.m.)—I am pleased that the Committee Australian police this year, she told ABC Radio in of Privileges has, in its wisdom, decided not Perth.” They are the causes of action that the to accept any more information from Crich- plaintiff sued upon to seek vindication of his ton-Browne. I am also pleased that at last reputation. He, during the course of those, as you one method of this convicted criminal’s 13- will have already noted, vigorously denied the year harassment will ultimately be closed allegations that he had made any threats whatso- off. Needless to say, I reject the contents of ever to the defendant, and it is now his opportu- his response, and I am pleased that this con- nity to be vindicated from that allegation, and the victed criminal will have one source closed defendant has agreed to do so by the reading of the apology that has been agreed between the off. parties’ solicitors. I would seek orders in terms of Question resolved in the affirmative. the minute by consent. Membership WHEELER J: Yes, Mr Picton-Warlow? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! PICTON-WARLOW, MR: Your Honour, before The President has received a letter from a reading that there is one point that I should make party leader requesting a change in the mem- to you and that is that the $20,000 contribution to bership of a committee. which my learned friend referred is not an issue and not damages. It is a contribution towards Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald)— costs, and I think that should be clear on the rec- by leave—agreed to: ord. That Senator Stott Despoja be discharged from WHEELER J: Towards costs, yes. and Senator Greig be appointed to the Parlia- RICHARDSON, MR: Yes, I agree. mentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. 21/10/98 RICHARDSON, MR 4 BILLS RETURNED FROM THE Spark & Cannon HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1-2/5/1p 2141/96 Message received from the House of Rep- WHEELER J: Yes, thank you. resentatives agreeing to the amendments PICTON-WARLOW, MR: I will read the agreed made by the Senate to the following bill: statement, may it please your Honour. Product Grants and Benefits Administration WHEELER J: Thank you. Bill 2000 PICTON-WARLOW, MR: HEALTH LEGISLATION Statements that I made to various individuals and AMENDMENT (GAP COVER on the radio during 1995 have been construed by SCHEMES) BILL 2000 some as meaning that Mr Noel Crichton-Browne had made threats upon my physical safety by Consideration of House of Representatives telephone. It was not my intention to convey that Message meaning. I unreservedly withdraw and retract the Message received from the House of Rep- allegation that Mr Crichton-Browne threatened resentatives returning the Health Legislation me on the telephone and unreservedly apologise Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill to him for any damage, distress or embarrassment 2000, and acquainting the Senate that the caused thereby. House has agreed to amendments Nos 1, 2 15112 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 and 4 to 8 and has agreed to amendment No. Leave granted. 3 with an amendment. The speeches read as follows— Ordered that the message be considered in BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT committee of the whole immediately. (DIGITAL TELEVISION AND DATA- House of Representatives amendment— CASTING) BILL 2000 (1) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new para- The introduction of digital television and data- graph 73BDD(5)(d) of the National Health casting services in Australia from 1 January 2001 Act 1953): is a very significant development in the history of television. Consumers will be able to view Omit the paragraph, substitute: clearer, sharper pictures, and choose between ; and (d) an index or method for measuring different types of television viewing - such as the inflationary impact of gap cover wide screen movie quality programs, or multiple schemes on the total cost of treat- camera angles for sporting programs. They will ment and the rise in private health also, through their television set, be able to have insurance premiums. access to new datacasting services which are Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald) likely to include a wide variety of information, proposed: education, advertising, and shopping services. That the committee agrees to the amendment In 1998 the foundations were laid for Australia to made by the House of Representatives to its enter the digital television era when the Parlia- amendment No. 3. ment passed legislation to establish the basic framework for conversion to digital television. Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (3.53 This legislation sets out the broad framework for p.m.)—I can indicate that the opposition will converting free to air commercial and national agree with the amendment of the House in television from analog to digital. The rules gov- this matter. erning the operation of digital television and da- Question resolved in the affirmative. tacasting services were to be determined follow- ing a series of statutory reviews. Resolution reported; report adopted. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital BROADCASTING SERVICES Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 sets out the AMENDMENT (DIGITAL TELEVISION operating rules for digital television and data- AND DATACASTING) BILL 2000 casting services following a review process which included extensive consultation with stakeholders DATACASTING CHARGE and the public about options for appropriate (IMPOSITION) AMENDMENT BILL regulatory solutions for the digital conversion 2000 process. Reports of the eight completed reviews First Reading are to be tabled in Parliament during the current sitting period. One review remains to be com- Bills received from the House of Repre- pleted and will be tabled as soon as the Govern- sentatives. ment’s decisions on the spectrum allocation proc- Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald) ess have been finalised. agreed to: The Bill also sets out a framework relating to That these bills may proceed without formali- HDTV standards and levels, the nature of data- ties, may be taken together and be now read a casting and program enhancements, and on ar- first time. rangements relating to captioning, the provision of new services in underserved areas and ar- Bills read a first time. rangements for the hand-back of analog spectrum. Second Reading Must carry standard definition television (SDTV) Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- and HDTV Quotas sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- A key feature of the Government’s digital televi- ritories and Local Government) (3.54 p.m.)— sion policy has been to minimise the disruption to I move: consumers during the conversion period and to That these bills be now read a second time. minimise the costs of conversion. The Bill requires free to air broadcasters to pro- I seek leave to have the second reading vide a standard definition digital simulcast of speeches incorporated in Hansard. Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15113 their transmission in analog mode at all times in Free to air broadcasters are required to commence addition to meeting HDTV quota requirements. HDTV as soon as practicable after the com- The requirement to provide SDTV provides real mencement of digital services in a licence area. choice for consumers. SDTV receivers will be Within two years of commencement of digital more affordable and are expected to be more transmissions, commercial and national broad- widely available in the initial phase of introduc- casters must provide at least 20 hours per week of tion of digital television. Consumers will be able HDTV programs. to choose whether they want: Commercial broadcasters must meet this target cinema quality pictures with access to datacasting with material originally produced in HDTV. The services through a more expensive HDTV set; HDTV requirements for the national broadcasters access to new services and a higher quality pic- (ABC and SBS) are more flexible to take into ture through a cheaper SDTV set; account their diverse programming sources and may include upconverted SDTV material. access to new services on their existing analog television set through a set top box; or A review will be held in 2003 on HDTV quotas and the provision of HDTV in remote areas. continuing, for the time being, to watch their ex- isting analog programs but without the additional The provisions contained in the Bill impose a services available via digital transmission through modest target, which will ensure that HDTV pro- their existing analog set. gramming is made available to those who choose to purchase HDTV sets. Because SDTV receivers will be more affordable, this measure will encourage more rapid take-up Datacasting of digital television and datacasting. More rapid The 1998 legislation introduced an interim defi- take-up may also lead to a more rapid reduction nition of datacasting. Following a review of the in prices of equipment. In addition, the faster the scope of datacasting services, the Government conversion to digital, the sooner the Government considers that this definition should be modified. will be able to turn off analog services and regain The legislation needs to be clearer about what valuable analog spectrum for re-use. kinds of services can be provided and about the Requiring the simulcast transmission of SDTV at distinction between datacasting and broadcasting all times also means that consumers can buy services. SDTV equipment and know they will always get The Parliament has legislated that no new com- a picture. If this requirement was not included, it mercial television licences can be issued until would mean that when programs were broadcast after 2006. Therefore, the regulatory regime only in HDTV, those with SDTV sets would not needs to prevent this being circumvented by en- receive a picture. suring that datacasters do not become de facto SDTV pictures, while they will not have the “cin- broadcasters. ema” quality clarity of HDTV pictures, will still The Parliament also prohibited multi-channelling provide viewers a very high quality picture free of by broadcasters at least until a scheduled review the “ghosting” and “snow” that characterise the in 2005. Therefore, the legislation needs to reception experienced by some viewers. eliminate the possibility of broadcasters using As part of the requirement to provide SDTV at all their datacasting services to provide multiple times, the Government expects that broadcasters television broadcasting channels and thus contra- will provide an audio stream using the MPEG vening the multi-channelling ban. sound standard. The Government would encour- The regulatory regime for datacasting will be age the industry to reach a common position on implemented through a new schedule 6 to the this issue, but may be willing to consider regu- Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA). The lating a standard, using existing powers in the regulatory approach will focus on the kinds, or legislation, if this appears necessary in the inter- “genres” of programs and services which data- ests of consumers. casters are allowed to provide. Datacasters will The Government remains committed to HDTV as be prevented from providing content in genres a key feature of digital television and is moving regarded as free to air television, for example to implement the mandatory HDTV requirement drama, current affairs, sporting programs and as agreed by Parliament. The spectrum loaned to events, music programs, infotainment and life- television broadcasters will provide sufficient style programs, light entertainment and variety spectrum capacity for HDTV. programs, compilation programs, quiz programs and games shows. The Australian Broadcasting The Bill puts in place the following requirements Authority (ABA) may make written determina- for HDTV. 15114 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 tions concerning whether or not programs fit mercial television services applies to services within a particular genre. delivered by any technological means including Datacasters will be able to provide short extracts the Internet. However, there is currently some of these television program genres, as long as the uncertainty whether services such as streamed extracts are not self-contained, and are not pro- audio and video obtainable on the Internet are, vided in a way that facilitates their combination to legally, broadcasting services. This is a generic form a television program. issue relating to the convergence of broadcasting with other services, and it is therefore proposed to There will be limitations placed on the audio ma- refer the matter to the ABA for their detailed con- terial datacasters can provide. This is primarily sideration over the next twelve months. intended to prevent them from operating as radio broadcasters, and will not prevent them from pro- Rules applying to datacasting services under this viding a wide range of permitted audio material. legislation will apply only to services provided in the broadcasting services bands spectrum, and The ability to provide news, financial, market and will not affect services delivered by other techni- business information is likely to enhance data- cal means. Subject to this limitation, they will casting services and their attraction to audiences. apply in respect of all datacasting services, Therefore, datacasters will be able to provide whether by commercial broadcasters, national short news, business information or weather broadcasters or other datacasters. overview bulletins. In addition, bulletins may be provided on an individual news item, on a topic The ABA will be provided with strong powers to of business or financial information and on enforce the distinction between datacasting and weather information, if they are made available to broadcasting. The ABA will issue datacasting a viewer by selecting from a menu on the screen. content licences and oversee their use. It will be an offence to provide a datacasting service with- Outside the restricted genres, datacasters will be out a datacasting licence, or in breach of the con- able to provide any services. These include (but ditions of a licence. Licences can be suspended are not restricted to): or cancelled. The ABA will have the power to programs providing information on products, apply to the Federal Court for an injunction to services and a range of activities; prevent a datacaster from continuing to provide a educational programs associated with courses of datacasting service without a licence or in breach study; of a licence. The ABA can also issue remedial directions towards ensuring a datacaster complies foreign language news bulletins; with licence conditions. transactions such as home shopping; banking and Datacasters must also, as a group, develop codes bill paying; of practice dealing with, for example, access to any matter which is in the form of text and still undesirable material, and handling of complaints. pictures, including Internet web sites; The Bill also prevents national broadcasters or Internet carriage services which provide individ- commercial broadcasting licensees or those in a ual end users with point to point access to the position to control such licenses from controlling Internet; a datacasting licence. These measures give effect interactive games; and to the Government’s policy that free to air broad- Parliamentary broadcasts, or broadcasts of the casters should not be allowed to purchase or con- proceedings of a court, Royal Commission or trol additional spectrum. similar body. The provisions for the licensing of datacasting Datacasting licensees will be able to provide their content outlined earlier will be separate from customers with individual point-to-point connec- provisions for the licensing of datacasting car- tions to the Internet. This will increase the range riage. The Bill provides for datacasting trans- of business models available to datacasters. For mitter licences to be issued. Until 2007, these example, it will allow a datacaster to function as licences can only be used to transmit services an Internet service provider, providing connec- provided under a datacasting content licence is- tions to the Internet rather than just content. sued by the ABA. Datacasting transmitter li- cences will have a term of 10 years with the ex- In common with all other means of accessing the pectation of a single renewal for 5 years only. Internet, this would allow users of datacasting services to have access to programs such as video The statutory moratorium on the issue of new clips of news stories, or streamed audio and video commercial television broadcasting licences is services, where they are made available on web scheduled to end in 2006. From 1 January 2007 sites. The moratorium in the BSA on new com- therefore, spectrum licensed to datacasters will be Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15115 able to be used for any other service licensed National Broadcasters under the BSA, in addition to licensed datacast- The Government recognises the important role of ing. the ABC and SBS in providing digital television The regulatory arrangements applying to the use services to viewers. With the start up of digital of this spectrum from 1 January 2007 will be the television, the ABC and SBS will be obliged to subject of a statutory review in 2005. The review simulcast their analog programs in digital mode will also examine what charges and other finan- and to meet HDTV format and captioning re- cial arrangements (if any) should apply to this quirements. Under the provisions in this Bill, the spectrum. national broadcasters will be able to televise en- Program enhancements hancements of their analog programming. They will also have the flexibility to provide innovative The ability to provide enhanced services will datacasting services. This will ensure that the make digital television more attractive to con- national broadcasters are able to use digital tech- sumers. nology to enhance their Charter functions, that The Bill provides that free to air broadcasters will they are placed on the same footing as the com- be allowed to provide digital enhancements to mercial television broadcasters in terms of the their main simulcast programs. These enhance- permitted range of digital television programming ments may be in any form (such as text, audio or and that there is a common regulatory regime for video) provided that: all datacasting services. the sole purpose of the transmission is to enhance It is not proposed, however, to amend the Broad- a television program; casting Services Act to lift the current statutory there is a direct and close linkage between the prohibition on national broadcasters providing enhancement and the primary program; and “multi-channel” television programming. There is a legitimate concern that free to air multi- enhancements are transmitted simultaneously channel television programming would unfairly with the primary programs to which they are compete with the developing pay TV sector. It linked. would also be inequitable to lift the ban on ABC / The Bill will also allow enhanced programming SBS multi-channel programming while main- in the form of live coverage of a different sporting taining the current prohibition on commercial free event to that being broadcast as a primary pro- to air multichanneling. This issue is best ad- gram, provided the event is being played at the dressed as part of the statutory review of mul- same venue, is in the same sport and overlaps in tichannelling that is to be conducted in 2005, in time with the primary program. the light of experience with the introduction of This will allow, for example, broadcasters to en- digital technology and further developments in hance a program providing live coverage of a the pay TV industry. tennis match by also providing different camera Captioning angles; each players’ results in past matches; Free to air television plays a major role in pro- video highlights from these past matches and viding entertainment, education and information each player’s ranking and career highlights. They to audiences throughout Australia. The advent of will also be allowed to provide coverage of an- digital television provides the opportunity to sig- other tennis match taking place at the same time nificantly improve access by the deaf and hearing in the same venue. impaired to television services. Broadcasters will also be able to use the flexibil- The BSA requires that standards must be deter- ity provided by digital technology to deal with mined that, as far as practicable, require broad- problems created by program ‘overlaps’. The Bill will allow free to air broadcasters to use their casters to caption programs transmitted during prime viewing hours and all news and current additional channel capacity in dealing with affairs transmitted at any time. The Government ‘overlaps’ where the end of a sporting match, or the telecast of other significant events (designated has carefully considered the advice from broad- casters, the deaf and hearing impaired community by the ABA) runs over time due to circumstances and other stakeholders on the effect of this re- outside the control of the broadcaster, and as a result clashes with another program which com- quirement and whether it should be amended. As a result of these considerations, the Government mences at its scheduled time. This means that has decided to limit exemptions only to programs viewers will have the choice whether to switch to or parts of programs in a language other than the other program or watch the end of the event. English, programs or parts of programs providing music without English words, and incidental or background music. 15116 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

These requirements will bring Australia closer lower rollout costs, and provide the potential for into line with developments in countries such as new services for consumers in these regions. the USA, Canada and the UK. Spectrum Planning Underserved Areas Free to air television broadcasters are to be loaned In regional Australia there are currently a number sufficient additional spectrum, free of charge, to of areas which have fewer than three commercial enable them to simulcast their existing service in television services. There are currently four analog and digital format for at least 8 years. At “solus” markets – markets which have only one the end of this period they will be required to commercial channel. There are ten other markets hand back the spectrum no longer required for which have only two commercial services avail- analog transmission. It is important that at this able. time the ABA has the maximum capacity to plan The Government wishes to encourage the provi- future spectrum efficiently. sion in these underserved regional licence areas The current legislative provisions could limit the of up to the same number of commercial televi- ABA’s flexibility and restrict its ability to take sion broadcasting services as are provided in most advantage of the spectrum efficiencies arising metropolitan areas. from digital technologies. The Bill will amend The Government is mindful of the particular eco- the legislation to ensure that the ABA has the nomics of underserved markets, with small power to allot the channels that will be used by widely dispersed populations requiring extensive the broadcasters for digital services after the end transmission infrastructure, and a low advertising of the simulcast period having regard to the most revenue base. Therefore, the most effective way efficient use of spectrum. to introduce new services in these markets within Conclusion a reasonable timeframe is to allow existing This Bill represents a significant step forward in broadcasters to provide such services. This is the process of implementing digital television in also consistent with the moratorium on new Australia. It puts in place all the major require- commercial licences in other areas. ments for digital television conversion and for the Additional services would be supplied in regional establishment of datacasting and provides a com- solus markets principally through the existing prehensive framework under which broadcasters legislative provisions which allow the granting of can embark on the provision of the new and ex- a second licence to the incumbent in a solus mar- citing digital services. ket if spectrum for a second analog service is It also provides broadcasters and datacasters the available. Incumbents granted a second licence in maximum certainty through legislation. these markets will be allowed, under the Bill, to multi-channel the digital transmission of the ex- There will, of course, be a need for some review isting and new services in SDTV format. This of progress given that we are entering a new envi- will allow these broadcasters, if they wish, to ronment in which technology is constantly minimise their conversion costs by using the changing and developing. The Bill provides for same infrastructure to transmit both digital serv- such reviews, which will facilitate adjustments of ices. These multi-channelled services will be the framework in the light of experience and the exempt from the HDTV requirements, subject to take-up of digital television. review in 2005. Digital transmission of the origi- DATACASTING CHARGE (IMPOSITION) nal and second analog service is required to AMENDMENT BILL 2000 commence by 1 January 2004. The Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment In the case of two station markets, the Bill will Bill 2000 amends the Datacasting Charge (Impo- provide for a third digital-only service to be pro- sition) Act 1998 to reflect the new approach to vided either by one of the existing incumbents or defining datacasting services in the Broadcasting by a joint venture by the two incumbents. If only Services Act, and to clarify that the datacasting one of the incumbents provides the new service charge will not be imposed on a transmitter li- they can elect to do so by multi-channelling in cence for current teletext services as long as they SDTV format – with exemption from HDTV re- remain substantially the same as the services cur- quirements (subject to review in 2005). The new rently provided. service is required to commence by 1 January Some broadcasters currently provide teletext 2004, or any earlier time notified by the ABA. services which provide a number of text-based These changes will provide the opportunity for information services to the viewing public. It is incumbent broadcasters in solus and two-service not appropriate to impose a new charge on these markets to provide new digital services with Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15117 existing services, which have been in place for a plain yet again the way the escalation factors number of years in their analog form. will operate. I will try to explain in a differ- Debate (on motion by Senator O’Brien) ent way the points I have been explaining to adjourned. Senator Mackay for some time. Perhaps I TELECOMMUNICATIONS will use an example. In April, an estimate of (CONSUMER PROTECTION AND the escalation factor is made for the budget SERVICE STANDARDS) AMENDMENT process. That estimate is made on the basis BILL (No. 1) 2000 of the CPI for the next following financial year so it is an estimate of that CPI, and it is Report of Environment, Communications, also an estimate of the population figures for Information Technology and the Arts the end of December of the previous calen- Legislation Committee dar year. The population figures can only be Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (3.55 based at that time, in April, on assumptions, p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I not data. The estimated distribution to the present the report of the Environment, states, as the Senate will know, is based upon Communications, Information Technology the population estimates, so financial assis- and the Arts Legislation Committee on the tance grants to local authorities go to the provisions of the Telecommunications (Con- states per capita. In April, we estimate what sumer Protection and Service Standards) the population would have been at the previ- Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, together with ous December, and we have to do the esti- submissions received by the committee. mation, the assumption, because those fig- Ordered that the report be printed. ures are not available at that time. LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL In June of the same year the revised esti- ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL mate for the CPI for the next financial year 2000 and the revised population estimate for the In Committee end of December of the previous year are to hand, and this revises the budget estimate Consideration resumed. and feeds into the additional estimates proc- Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (3.56 esses. At the end of the following financial p.m.)—Before we adjourned this debate, the year—that is, at the end of June 2001—the Minister for Regional Services, Territories final escalation factor can be determined to and Local Government was going to respond adjust the grants. At that time, we will have to several questions we raised. Now may be the actual CPI for the March quarter 2001 the appropriate juncture for the minister to and the population, as actually determined by do so. the Statistician, as at December 1999. So the Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- final distribution between the states is then sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- determined on the actual Statistician’s de- ritories and Local Government) (3.56 p.m.)— termination of population. Just before question time, Senator Mackay The Treasurer has no impact on the de- made a speech in which there were a couple termination of population, Senator Mackay, of questions relating to the Local Govern- and that is where I think you have misdi- ment (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill rected yourself on the way through. He gets 2000 to which I will respond. I am just the factor by looking at the population and reading the amendment that has come in: it is looking at the grants. He does not alter the trivialising the processes of the Senate. I population. He gets the factor, which is wonder sometimes what the opposition is based on estimated things in the beginning doing here, but that will not distract me from and then actual things in the end, and with my duties. the factor he can then under the current act— With respect, Senator Mackay confuses passed by the previous government—vary two issues in the bill and does not seem to that for any reason that he considers relevant. understand—and I am not being critical in So that is how it works. It is not really being saying that; it is a technical area. I will ex- amended by our amendment, except to com- 15118 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 ply with the request by the Statistician, for the concerns that councils like Penrith have the reasons I mentioned before, and also to expressed is that the introduction of the GST put some inhibitions on the absolute discre- on these private tip costs will lead to an in- tion the Treasurer has under the current act to crease in the illegal dumping of refuse in the make the variation of the factor. Western Sydney area. I wonder if that has Senator HUTCHINS (New South Wales) been taken into account and if there is any (4.02 p.m.)—I would like to ask some ques- other scheme that may be available to coun- tions of the Minister for Regional Services, cils to assist in ensuring that the blight of Territories and Local Government, but first I illegal dumping of waste is not encouraged would like to make some opening comments. as a result of people wishing to avoid addi- When we last dealt with this legislation, in tional costs. the last session of parliament, I made a num- Penrith council does not have a Labor ber of statements concerning one of the areas majority. There are 15 people on the council: I look after, Parramatta. Parramatta council seven from the Labor Party, three Liberals advised me that they believed there would be and five Independents. In fact, one of the an additional cost of $35,640 to their rate- Liberal councillors works for the member for payers for the use of swimming pools, an Lindsay, Jackie Kelly. Once again, through additional $10,908 for sporting fields, an- talking to those on the Penrith council, I am other $5,172 for library fees and services, aware that $7,555,644 in financial assistance $315,000 for parking fees and $74,000 for grants was received by the Penrith council in golf course fees, plus an additional cost to the 1998-99 year, yet a year later it received their ratepayers of $16,000 for the hire of only $7,439,616. That is a reduction of just council halls. They have budgeted only over $100,000 in moneys being made avail- $160,000 to look at the implementation of able to the City of Penrith, which is one of the GST and the compliance costs. I made the growth regions in not only New South the point in my submission at the last sitting Wales but Australia. So, effectively, the as- of parliament that the government has budg- sistance grants to that region have been cut, eted only $2.5 million to assist councils even though we have a marginal seat mem- throughout Australia with the implementa- ber in Miss Kelly. tion of the GST. Have I missed any area I have been advised by the council that, through which councils can claim to assist even though they have been told that they them with the setting-up costs of the GST? will not be liable for GST costs, a number of Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (4.04 other areas that they are required to supply or p.m.)—I think Senator Hutchins is entitled to need to have as services will attract GST an answer to his question, which is: are there components—in particular, their insurance any alternative revenue streams that councils costs, which are not exempted. As I under- can access in relation to start-up costs for the stand it, their insurance on contract works GST? The opposition is due the courtesy of will have to have a GST component, as will an indication as to whether the minister is fidelity guarantee and their property protec- going to answer the question. tion insurance, which has now gone up by an Senator HUTCHINS (New South Wales) additional $8,000. Even though one might (4.05 p.m.)—Another council area that I look not think it, there is an insurance that they after is Penrith council. I did mention them have to apply for called ‘marine hull cover’, in my speech of 7 June. I mentioned that which is for their runabouts and dinghies. I they were also coming to terms with a num- wonder whether or not these sorts of costs ber of areas that they saw would increase as were taken into account when the divvy up a result of the GST. As we are aware, do- occurred of how much money might be mestic garbage services are exempt from the needed to be supplied for local government. GST. However, the tips where people—not Another area which does concern me only councils but private citizens and com- greatly and which I did mention in my June panies—operate, particularly in Western speech is that, even though, as I think we Sydney, will have to charge a GST. One of have been advised, local government has Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15119 been exempted from the GST and will not lot of people will get very angry with the have to pay a GST component, there are a complexity of trying to comply with this new number of areas which will have to fall into tax system. line in relation to complying with the legis- I do not think this system will be the sav- lation. Some Penrith councillors have ad- iour that the government suggests it might vised me that a number of people on the be. Already this afternoon we heard the po- management committees of these halls, sition being put about by Mr Reith and his child-care centres or other council-run facili- claims that there will be all this money col- ties will have to be trained and will be lected in the black economy. He may be obliged to consider keeping records so that right, he may be wrong; who knows. I sup- they are not put in a position where they pose we will find out sooner or later. But have been seen to cheat, I suppose, this new from my understanding, fewer than 100,000 system. That is difficult for people who sites in Australia used to collect the whole- would not see their primary function as being sale sales tax; now, as a result of this legisla- bookkeepers, accountants or anything else tion, we will be asking 1.4 million to like that. These committees are primarily 1.5 million sites in this country to collect this involved with, as I said, making sure the new tax and report on it. So it will be a mas- child-care centre is run correctly, making sive effort, and it is one that is being made sure the hall is cleaned after the 21st on Sat- more and more complicated by the necessity urday night and making sure the garbage is of this compliance that we are being asked to put out and all those things are done that one consider. would associate with social functions like that. As I said earlier, councils are confronting a number of difficulties in looking at how I have spoken to a number of committee they will administer this scheme. As was members who feel that they are not equipped said earlier, if a council like Penrith has to comply with this level of bureaucracy that found its financial assistance from the Com- is now being imposed upon them as a result monwealth reduced in last year’s budget, one of this new taxation system. A number of wonders what will be available to it next these honourable men and women, who es- year. There is now certainly a major push by sentially are volunteers, will now be put in a local communities to expect councils to do position where they feel that, if they make more, and more than they have ever done some sort of mistake, not only will their before. Indeed, I think there is an expectation group be censored, but they may even be on political parties or governments, or any- dismissed or penalised as a result of not body in political authority, to do a lot more keeping the proper records. I am sure that than they ever have been expected to do be- that is not the intention of the government, fore. However, this expectation does not but the fact is that a number of people are seem to lessen the alienation from the system concerned that this will be the net result of that people feel. some of the actions that they believe are re- quired in order to comply with these Particularly in local government—and I schemes. know that the minister himself is a former local government representative, and he Another area that I have been advised of is would know this—I find that there is a much the compliance costs as they relate to setting greater expectation on local councillors to up these new computer systems and the new deliver than there may be on even federal or software that will need to be developed to state members of parliament. Local council- comply with them. I suppose if the tax had lors can get the roads sealed, they can get the been kept simple we would never have hall lit up over the weekend, they can get the known where this may have taken us. But all grass mown on the median strip, and they this money is now being spent on setting up can get a gate opened to assist people in get- a system that is starting to become more and ting from one point to another where previ- more complicated to enforce. I think that is ously that gate has been locked. So there is a where the government will come unstuck: a much greater expectation on local council- 15120 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 lors. By and large, I think they do a very and, of course, it then goes into the river honourable job and are very honest people. system or into the water system in Sydney. I am sure that the minister, when he was This is something that, as a community, we part of a council, had a lot of respect, just as have had to deal with out in the west. One of he has here today. We hope that the minister our difficulties is that we have large vacant will have the opportunity to at least reply to blocks of land that are still semi-rural where some of what I suppose I would call our we have not been able to make sure that ille- criticism of this bill and what this bill will gal dumping has ceased. essentially do to local government in Aus- I would be interested to see whether the tralia. So, as I have said, there is this expec- minister is willing to reply in relation to that. tation from people that those in authority will There may be some other schemes or areas deliver despite the fact that it seems they are of encouragement that the government could becoming more and more alienated. My view offer local authorities so that they can prose- is that local councillors in particular are in a cute people and persuade them not to go much better position than sometimes even down this path. state or federal MPs are to affect that imme- Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (4.20 diate quality of life that people so much want p.m.)—It is pretty clear that the minister is us to affect. not going to answer any questions at all in In my earlier days as a union official, I relation to local government and the GST. I used to deal with a lot of councils, mainly in thank Senator Hutchins for his contribution, connection with their garbage contracts. I but I would say that it is ironic because that knew the pressure that council officers and was, in fact, directly from non-Labor coun- councillors were under to make sure that cils. Of course, the minister is refusing—in there was a reliable, efficient and well-run breach of the advice received from the Clerk, domestic garbage service. As I commented in breach of Odgers, in breach of the stand- earlier, I believe that there is a real fear, par- ing orders—to answer any questions on the ticularly in Western Sydney, that, as a result GST and local government. of the introduction of the GST, the private I want to take this opportunity to read out companies, when they do apply the GST, a letter that I received this morning—in fact, will discourage people from going to them from your home state, Chair—from the and that people will dump their rubbish in Western Australian Municipal Association in the many vacant parts of Sydney. relation to this bill. That letter states: Illegal dumping already is a problem in Dear Sue Sydney. It is something that the New South It is heartening and encouraging for those of us in Wales government and the local government Local Government in Western Australia that the authorities are trying to deal with. This is Federal Labor Party has supported— being done through heavy fines and, in some or will support— cases, for environmental reasons, the impris- onment of people who have done some the passage of the Local Government (Financial pretty horrible environmental destruction Assistance) Amendment Bill 2000. with the dumping of illegal waste, particu- I recognise your role in guaranteeing that the Bill larly liquid waste in parts of the rivers and will go through Parliament before 30 June 2000. streams of Western Sydney. I hope that the WAMA values the continued pressure that the introduction of the GST will not lead to a Opposition is bringing to bear on the Government sort of blossoming of this matter out my way, over the impact of the GST on Local Govern- because it is a problem. If you drive along ment. the streets of a number of the council areas, ... .. you can see where people have just dumped ... their green garbage bags. Then, of course, Yours sincerely cats and dogs get into them and spread the Jamie Edwards contents out in the streets. Then the garbage President goes all over the footpath and into the drains Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15121

We received that today from WAMA, the We do not want to hold up this legislation Western Australian Municipal Association, any further. I understand, through discus- in your home state, Chair. Unfortunately, I sions with Senator Greig, that the Democrats will have to write back to Mr Edwards, with have no major difficulties with this amend- whom I have a good relationship and for ment. So, in the interests of expediting pro- whom I have a lot of respect, and say that the ceedings, I think it is probably appropriate Labor Party asked and asked and asked about now to call an end to this fiasco. If the min- the GST and local government, and this ister responds, I will get up and respond minister refused to answer any questions again. I simply say that it is a disgrace that whatsoever. The other thing that the opposi- there is a minister in this portfolio who is tion unfortunately will be saying to local either incapable of answering or unwilling to government is that, at a time when this gov- answer questions that are totally germane to ernment is spending $440 million on adver- the sector he supposedly represents on a tising the new tax package and the goods and huge issue—not simply the GST but on a services tax, this minister is refusing to use number of issues. This is a pattern that we on the free forum of parliament, the free forum this side are used to in terms of estimates, of this chamber, to answer legitimate ques- and this minister gives a response to dorothy tions in relation to them. dixers in question time only when he has a This fiasco has gone far enough. An prepared answer. Unless the minister wants amendment, which I intend to move to the to respond, in which case I will get up again, motion ‘that the report of the committee be having foreshadowed the amendment that we adopted’, has been circulated in the chamber. intend to move and having advised the It states: chamber of the letter we have received from WAMA—and it is sad for local government (1) At the end of the motion, add: that they have not got the answers that they “and that the Senate notes: want—the opposition will leave it at that. (a) advice from the Clerk of the Senate Bill agreed to. about the relevance of Senator Mac- kay’s questions to the Minister for Bill reported without amendment. Regional Services, Territories and Adoption of Report Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald) during the committee Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald) stage of the bill; proposed: (b) that the Minister persistently failed That the report of the committee be adopted. to answer relevant questions; and Amendment (by Senator Mackay) pro- (c) the inability of the Minister to pro- posed: vide the Opposition with the infor- (1) At the end of the motion, add: mation it sought with regard to the local government sector’s relevant “and that the Senate notes: interest in the bill ”. (a) advice from the Clerk of the Senate We will be moving that amendment at the about the relevance of Senator Mac- kay’s questions to the Minister for appropriate time. We will also be telling Regional Services, Territories and every council in Australia that this minister Local Government (Senator Ian has refused to answer any questions at all in Macdonald) during the committee relation to the GST and local government stage of the bill; and in fact any matters outside a very narrow (b) that the Minister persistently failed definition of this bill that go to GST compli- to answer relevant questions; and ance and that go to the role of the ACCC— (c) the inability of the Minister to pro- all pertinent questions. We will also be vide the Opposition with the infor- telling local government that this minister mation it sought with regard to the alleges that nobody, not one council, has local government sector’s relevant raised any of these matters with him and that interest in the bill”. he has had to raise these matters with them. 15122 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- competition policy. I just mention that as an sland—Minister for Regional Services, Ter- aside. ritories and Local Government) (4.26 p.m.)— On the amendment before the chair, it is a I am pleased that we have reported the bill, bit of political rhetoric. It is something that and I thank those senators who spoke on as- seems to have been adopted by the Labor pects of the bill for their contributions. I Party in recent times—to play the man and must say to Senator Hutchins that his flattery not the ball. I do not intend to prolong the almost elicited a response from me. Senator, debate but I simply say that if it gives some in the interests of consistency, whilst your people some excitement to be able to say comments were very interesting and some- nasty things about me, then so be it. It will thing I would like to take up with you—and I not worry me. I do appreciate the voting ac- encourage you to drop me a note or give me tion of the Labor Party and the Democrats in a call so that I can answer those issues and supporting the amending bill. I particularly try to help a couple of councils which you thank the Democrats for their contribution to are obviously very interested in, and I accept this debate and the confirmation from Sena- your genuine interest in representing them— tor Greig, as a former councillor, as someone you mentioned that a staffer of Miss Kelly is who knows about local authorities, as some- on the Penrith council but you forgot to one who said that he understood— mention that a staffer of yours is trying to get on to the council. Senator Conroy—I am a former coun- cillor. Senator Hutchins—He is on it. Senator IAN MACDONALD—Yes, you Senator IAN MACDONALD—Oh, he is are, Senator Conroy. on the council, trying to run for preselection for the Labor Party. Good luck to him. I do The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Will you not relish his chances against Miss Kelly, but please refrain from responding to interjec- good for him. Senator, you mentioned Pen- tions, particularly when they are coming rith had a reduction in the amount of their from senators who are not in their rightful grant. The Commonwealth gave New South place. Wales an additional $18 million this year. Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator The grants are distributed within New South Conroy was a member of the Melbourne City Wales by the New South Wales state gov- Council, as I understand it, for a very short ernment Grants Commission and they work period of time. Senator Conroy, as a former on a formula that they prepare. I do not know member of a council, would probably agree the particulars of the Penrith— with Senator Greig, who does have some Senator Hutchins—You reduced New intimate knowledge of this and who obvi- South Wales’s money. ously deals with councils a lot, when he said—and I do not want to quote Senator Senator IAN MACDONALD—No. It Greig because I do not have his words in increased by $18 million. front of me—something along the lines that Senator Hutchins—You cut it by he understood that councils did not have a $15 million. particular problem with the GST and cer- Senator IAN MACDONALD—No. I can tainly not with this. With those words, I give you the figures. I do have good news for again thank the Labor Party and the Demo- councils: Mr Costello announced today that crats for supporting the bill. councils that convert some of their busi- Senator GREIG (Western Australia) nesses into private companies under the na- (4.31 p.m.)—With some reluctance, I support tional competition policy arrangements will Senator Mackay’s amendment. I say ‘reluc- be income tax exempt—that is, exempt from tance’ on the grounds that, while this motion the payment of tax on their earnings. That is is critical of the minister’s lack of response something they would be looking for. That is good news and it helps with our national to what I felt were reasonable questions by the opposition, I think the opposition’s be- Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15123 haviour throughout this debate has been less FAMILY AND COMMUNITY than exemplary also. Along with a lot of SERVICES LEGISLATION other people, I found it very frustrating to see AMENDMENT BILL 2000 a largely benign bill—benign because long Second Reading ago the government, the opposition and the Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion Democrats indicated their support for it and by Senator Ian Campbell: stated that—being held up. There has been considerable filibustering and obfuscation, That this bill be now read a second time. which has dragged this relatively benign bill Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Aus- into its third day. I really feel there are plenty tralia) (4.34 p.m.)—The Family and Commu- more important things that we could and nity Services Legislation Amendment Bill should have gotten on with. 2000 seeks to amend the four social security In a general sense, Madam Deputy Presi- acts: the Social Security Act 1991, the A dent, you would be aware that the Democrats New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Austra- have long campaigned and maintained a lians) Act 1999, the Social Security (Ad- stance of accountability on all matters. It is a ministration) Act 1999, and the Social Secu- matter very dear to my colleague Senator rity (Administration and International Murray who, as it happens, is in Zimbabwe Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) at the moment ensuring that accountability Act 1999. The bill also seeks to amend the A takes place in the elections over there. I am New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Austra- sure that, if he were here today, he would lians) Act 1999 to ensure that the disquali- probably want to speak to this motion also. fying period for self-funded retirees bonus In terms of general accountability, I think it ends on 30 June rather than 1 July, thus is not appropriate that any minister, let alone avoiding a one-day overlap of the govern- Minister Macdonald, should be in a position ment’s revised income support provisions. of not giving reasonable and deserving ques- The majority of these changes are techni- tions a reasonable response. I first encoun- cal in nature, seeking to correct errors and to tered the kind of ministerial silence roughly a clean up various provisions. However, some year ago when I was engaged in the very of the areas affected by the bill are currently protracted debate on the RFA. As a new- in the public spotlight. It is thus appropriate comer to the Senate, I was a bit surprised that I flesh out Labor’s concern with the that a minister was able to not answer a government’s limited and limiting approach question. As a senator—let alone as a citizen, to social policy—much more is needed. In a taxpayer—I do not think that is acceptable. particular, I want to focus on two areas: the I think ministers should, to the best of their so-called bonus for older Australians and the ability, always endeavour to answer ques- government’s treatment of pensioners ap- tions. That is, after all, why we are here. So, plying for the pensioner education supple- in terms of general accountability, I support ment. The first issue lies at the centre of the the amendment by Senator Mackay. government’s inadequate GST compensation Amendment agreed to. package. The second is integral to the gov- ernment’s failure to assist people in making Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. the transition from welfare to work. Third Reading There is a widening gap in the living stan- dards of the elderly under the policies of Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Mac- John Howard. The GST is set to make that donald) read a third time. situation even worse. A couple of weeks ago a spokesperson for Senator Newman said that, under this government, pensioners were 15124 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 in a privileged position. I do not think pen- age pensioners on 1 July could possibly sioners feel privileged. This government has compensate for the expected 6.75 per cent failed to meet the promise to keep pensions increase in prices for the September quarter. above 25 per cent of average weekly earn- They cannot make a case because pensioners ings. Under the Howard government the age will have to wait until March 2001 to have these increased prices reflected in their pen- pension has fallen to its lowest level in more sions. This is a full nine months after the than a decade when compared with the level introduction of the GST. The increase in of wages in the broader community. In doing September will not help, because it will only so, the single rate of pension has plunged reflect pre-GST price increases up until 30 below the benchmark of 25 per cent of the June, not the full 6.7 per cent cost of living male total average weekly earnings, the increase predicted in the government’s own MTAWE, breaking a core election promise budget papers. Mr Howard simply cannot be made by John Howard in 1996. trusted to protect the living standards of Australia’s pensioners. You do not need to The failure to meet this commitment has take just my word for it: even the most opti- already cost each age pensioner an average mistic estimates from NATSEM’s most re- of $225. In effect, the government has taken cent modelling show that pensioners and more than a week’s pension from the pockets retirees will suffer. This modelling uses the of our poorest senior citizens. It is a trick that Treasury’s unrealistic assumptions about the Prime Minister has practised before. In inflationary impacts and pass-through of 1978, in one of his first acts as Treasurer in savings. the Fraser government, Mr Howard with- The double taxation of pensioners and drew a scheduled pension increase. This left self-funded retirees means that there is pensioners without any rise in their pensions probably no group more punished by the for over a year. As Treasurer, John Howard government’s tax package. A pensioner with presided over a decline in pensions from 25 savings of $30,000 will see the value of those savings eroded by 5¾ per cent or per cent of MTAWE under the Whitlam La- $1,725 in the coming financial year, because bor government to just 22.6 per cent when of GST induced inflation. A pensioner in this the coalition lost government in 1983. These situation is only entitled to a maximum aged actions of the Howard government stand in persons savings bonus of $1,000, leaving stark contrast to the commitment by Labor, them at least $725 worse off in the first year and achieved in 1990, to ensure that the sin- alone. The government’s own figures show gle rate of age pension remained at all times that just one in 10 aged over 60 will be eligi- at least 25 per cent of MTAWE. ble for an aged persons savings bonus of $500 or more. That means that nine in every Labor ensured that pensioners’ incomes 10 people over the age of 60 will get a bonus kept pace with wage increases in the broader of less than $500 or they will get nothing at community. Now, with the GST just 25 days all—and there will be plenty who get nothing away, pensioners know they will again face a at all. Take the example of someone aged 59 tougher and tighter world at the hands of John Howard. The government’s GST ad- who has just retired. Even if they have enough savings to get the maximum $2,000 vertising campaign guarantees that pensions self-funded bonus, they cannot get it because will remain above any rise in the cost of liv- they may have earned in excess of $1,000 in ing. It is a guarantee that cannot be made, the past financial year. The best they could because the indexation mechanism for pen- expect is the $120 one-off GST assistance sions is retrospective. Put simply, GST price rises will not flow through to higher pensions scheme compensation—little more than $2 until well after the GST is introduced. In the per week. interim, the spending power of age pension- It is becoming increasingly clear that peo- ers will fall. The government is yet to ex- ple under 60 who have recently left work are plain how the four per cent increase for full going to lose under the GST; but the prob- Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15125 lems with the bonuses go further. The aged line with other major education payments. persons savings bonus that is supposed to The answer is that the PES differs from compensate for the GST’s devaluation of payments like Youth Allowance and Austudy pensioners’ savings is not assets test exempt. in important ways, and we do not believe the Under the pensions asset test, a pensioner government have made the case for effec- who receives the $1,000 bonus in full will tively reducing the level of PES that will be have their pension cut by up to $3 per fort- paid to new recipients. Unlike Youth Allow- night. This effectively wipes out one-fifth of ance and Austudy, the PES is a top-up pay- the 1 July pension increase. This truly is a ment and it is not indexed. Indeed, the rate of case of giving with one hand while taking PES—$60 per fortnight for full-time students with the other. This bill provides the gov- and $30 per fortnight for part-time stu- ernment with an opportunity to do the right dents—has not increased since Labor intro- thing by pensioners and self-funded retirees, duced it in 1989. The failure to lift the level yet all we see are technical amendments. All of payment in more than 10 years of opera- this does is strengthen the government’s ex- tion, despite increases in general prices and isting inadequate approach to compensating the cost of education, raises serious questions older Australians for the onset of the GST. about the adequacy of the PES. In 1998-99, These are mean-spirited measures. the department conducted a review of the I want to make some remarks about the pensioner education supplement, which in- pensioner education supplement. The provi- volved statistical work, focus groups with sions relating to this supplement were moved PES recipients and a telephone survey, I be- to the Social Security (Administration) Act lieve, of former and current recipients about 1999 as part of the standardisation and con- their experiences with the payment. I re- solidation exercise undertaken by that act. quested a copy of the evaluation in the esti- During that process, the dates of com- mates hearing on 8 February 2000, only to be mencement of payment of the supplement told that the report has yet to be finalised. So were apparently inadvertently altered. As a what we have is the government proposing to result, persons who successfully apply for wind back the payment period for new re- the pension education supplement after 20 cipients of PES before, it seems, they have March 2000 are entitled to be paid according considered whether the more generous ar- to the semester in which they undertake the rangements that currently apply are them- course: that is, 1 January each year for first selves adequate. The officer did tell me in semester courses, and 1 July each year for the hearing: second semester courses. The government In terms of adequacy of payment, we had some intended that new recipients actually com- mixed reports on whether or not PES actually mence their course of study before the pen- met, or contributed significantly to, the costs of sioner education supplement would become education. payable. There is some precedent for using 1 Labor’s view is that we are not prepared January and 1 July as the starting date for to support the government’s amendment at payments designed to support and facilitate this stage, because we are not convinced of participation in education. It was commonly the need to reduce a supplement designed to part of Labor’s way of doing business. Under facilitate educational opportunity, without Labor, only persons who started a course any information or substantive argument mid-semester were paid from the date of from the government about the adequacy of commencement. Backdating was a more the provisions it recommends. I want to general principle. stress that we would prefer not to be in the When this government introduced the situation of having to vote for a drafting er- common Youth Allowance in 1997, they ap- ror but, if the minister fails in the debate to plied the date of commencement as the assure us that the evaluative work carried out starting date for payments. This raises the more than 12 months ago is available and question as to why Labor is opposing an supports the change, then we believe we are amendment which would bring the PES into left with little choice: we basically do not want to see a reduction in the benefits for 15126 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 these people, when our evidence is that the suring they receive only half the full-time payments are already inadequate to meet the payment. very needs that they are designed to meet. This position we adopt on the PES is one Our only choice would be to place at risk, which we have come to with some reluc- we think, the educational aspirations of the tance. But, given our concerns about the 45,000 sole parents and disability support adequacy of the payment, we have not been pensioners currently in receipt of PES and convinced of the need to effectively reduce the aspirations of those who might access it the total payment being made to those in in the future. According to the department, receipt of PES, and so we will be putting that well over half the participants in the pen- proposition to retain the status quo during the sioner education scheme are studying at ter- debate at the committee stage. Obviously we tiary level, the bulk of whom are undertaking will have further debate about that during the TAFE courses. In the context of the welfare committee stage of the bill. review, I think it is disappointing that the Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (4.47 government is prepared to engage in what is p.m.)—I speak on behalf of the Australian essentially uninformed debate when we are Democrats to this particular piece of legisla- talking about a supplement designed to en- tion, the Family and Community Services hance the life chances of disadvantaged Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. The bill groups. While the minister claims to embrace makes a number of amendments which are the concepts of economic and social partici- not particularly connected with each other. pation, we are concerned about the impact of The particular issue which I expect we will the proposed amendments on participation in look at in a bit more detail relates to the pen- education. We want to know why it is that sioner education supplement, and I will leave this measure will assist this participation any extended remarks on that until we get to when it seems to provide exactly the oppo- the committee stage of the bill. It is worth site. emphasising that, much as we tend to quite I do not believe that the Labor amendment appropriately voice our concerns—and we proposed will somehow generate a standard tend to highlight them—when the govern- education payment system. The govern- ment is putting forward something that we ment’s proposal will mean that the pensioner do not agree with, we should in balance ac- education supplement will not be payable to knowledge also the positives put forward by a new recipient until that person commences the government, and there are a number of their course of study. However, as I under- positives in this legislation. They are not stand it, those currently in receipt of PES monumental, huge changes; nonetheless will continue to receive payment for the se- there are some amendments contained in this mester in which they undertake the course. bill which I think are in response to the real- In effect, therefore, there will be two classes ity of the situations facing people, particu- of recipients, and I am yet to understand why larly in relation to the double orphan pen- newcomers should be asked to endure a rela- sion. This should be of assistance to a num- tive disadvantage. I think what we are pro- ber of people in that regard, and it is appro- posing is fiscally responsible. It is not waste- priate to acknowledge that there is a positive ful. We supported the government proposals change in that area. That is the main area in to pay part-time PES to part-time students terms of financial impact. As I say, it will not but we remain concerned about the ade- have a significant impact on a huge number quacy. It is because of that concern that we of people; nonetheless it will be positive are not prepared to support the amendments where it does have an impact on people who, proposed by the government. Given that as may be guessed by the name ‘double or- more than half the current PES recipients are phan pension’, are not necessarily having the enrolled in courses which run for longer than best time in life at the time when they qualify 12 months, new starts are not likely to ex- for a double orphan pension. ceed 15,000 each year. Further, many new There are other modifications which en- recipients will study part time, thereby en- sure that some of the mechanisms that come Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15127 into play as part of the new bonus system for the reduction in value of the pensioner edu- older Australians under the new tax system cation supplement is a bit curious. Nonethe- are fully available to all people. It is appro- less, we will debate that further at the com- priate, given these amendments relate to the mittee stage. Perhaps Senator Evans can cor- bonuses for older Australians, to mention the rect me in any miscomprehension I have significant improvements in the overall com- about that particular issue. I will not speak pensation package that the Democrats were further on that at the moment. In order to able to achieve as part of the negotiations move the debate along to the point that is with the government about the new tax sys- being raised and which will be debated at the tem. The fact that I as an individual did not committee stage, I will leave further com- support the shift to a new tax system should ments on that until then. not take away from acknowledging the im- Senator WEST (New South Wales) (4.52 provements that were made in the original p.m.)—I wish to address the part of the Fam- package that was put forward by the coali- ily and Community Services Legislation tion, including in the area of bonuses for Amendment Bill 2000 that deals with the older Australians where the Democrats were pension bonus scheme, raise in this place able to have the age where that applied re- questions I asked at estimates and also some duced to 55, which assisted a significant ex- of the answers that I received, and also note tra number of self-funded retirees. It is prob- that today was supposed to be the day we able that a small number of those will be received answers to questions taken on no- positively affected by the amendment that is tice and I have not received an answer to a contained within this bill. question. The specific issue of the pensioner educa- I raised the scenario of a couple who are tion supplement is actually a very small on a pension—one is on a disability pension, component of this overall bill, but it is one the other is on a carers pension. They are that, quite appropriately, some in the Senate 58½ years old. They receive a small amount have chosen to focus on. The pensioner edu- of income from their savings, but they are cation supplement is an important payment not self-funded retirees in any way, shape or as part of encouraging people to undertake form. If they had been 60 years of age on 30 higher education and improve their skills, June, they would be eligible for the pension improve their ability to gain paid employ- bonus scheme, but because they will be only ment or, indeed, improve their ability to un- 58½ they will not be eligible for the pension dertake unpaid employment or other activi- bonus scheme. If they were self-funded retir- ties in the community as well. It is an im- ees they would be eligible on age criteria for portant extra supplement that should be ac- the bonus scheme but, because they are not, knowledged as positive assistance for peo- they are not eligible. This is rather arbitrary. ple. I find it ironic that the ALP is com- It is also somewhat discriminatory and mis- plaining about the lack of increase in the leading. We have actually had some of the value of it when they supported a reduction myths around this exposed. The government in its value for many people through voting have had to come forward and say, ‘Not eve- in support of the government’s changes not rybody will benefit from it,’ and they have too long ago in this place to reduce the put in a clause for hardship cases. That is a amount that is paid to part-time students. The small amount of money, but it is certainly not amount of pensioner education supplement the $1,000. for part-time students has now been halved, and unless my memory is completely failing I also asked what number of people the me the opposition supported that halving of department thought would be eligible, and the pensioner education supplement for part- they said that Centrelink was writing to time students. 1,160,340 pensioners. They also responded in answer to a question that they thought that Senator Chris Evans interjecting— of that group 838,818 would receive less Senator BARTLETT—I think in that than $500 under this scheme. That is not circumstance to be expressing concern about clear in the minds of most pensioners and 15128 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 people in receipt of benefits in the commu- Just imagine if your birthday fell a couple nity. They all think they are going to be eli- of days after the due date and you were in gible for the $1,000. I can now say that the receipt of a benefit. You would not be eligi- forms are appearing in people’s letter boxes ble for the full $1,000, even if you had saved and they are very confusing. We have not that amount of money during the year. What had so many phone calls into our electorate did the minister tell me about this? I think it office in recent times about Centrelink—or is very interesting to see what the minister what used to be called social security—is- told me about this, because it was along the sues as we have about this one. People are lines of: ‘As with all things, there are win- very confused. When they actually look ners and there are losers.’ That comment is closely at the fine print most of the people very sad, to say the least. We need people to who are contacting my office fall into the understand what the impact upon them is category of the 838,000-odd who are not going to be. We need to have compassion. going to get even half of the amount that this But this is not being compassionate. This is government have promised them to alleviate putting up a smokescreen. This is putting up the suffering and the financial burden that publicity that there is this program out here. they are going to be experiencing because of And what is it offering? It is offering nearly the introduction of the GST. This is inher- 840,000 pensioners less than $500. That is ently unfair, like everything this government out of a number, they estimate, of 1,160,000. are touching at present. That is nearly three-quarters of them. My It is very interesting to try to get figures. maths is getting rusty. It is certainly over The department did take on notice—and two-thirds. Nearly three-quarters of them are maybe the minister can actually give me the going to actually have less than $500, when figures here today in her summing up in re- what has been spread around in all of the ply or during the committee stage; they cer- newspapers is the $1,000 pension bonus tainly have not been in the bundle of answers scheme. that have come back, and I would love to Why is it that for self-funded retirees it have some idea of this—the number of peo- kicks in at the age of 55 but for people in ple who will be getting nothing to $50, the receipt of benefits it does not kick in until the number of people will be getting $50 to age of 60? Why is it that you have couples, $100, and the number of people they esti- like the couple I have mentioned—where mate are going to get $100 to $150. It might one is on a disability pension and the other be that this information has been given and has had to give up work to care for that per- the figures are somewhere in the pipeline son—who at the age of 58½ will not be eli- between the department and the minister’s gible for the full $1,000, even if they had office and my office. If they are, that is won- managed to have some sort of income that derful. But I think that it is very important took them up to that level? They will be the that we highlight to people that this scheme sorts of people affected. They will be is misunderstood by most pensioners that I amongst those about whom the minister has have come into contact with. Most people so offhandedly said there are winners and seem to think that they are definitely going losers on each side of the line. That sort of to get a $1,000 bonus. They are not. They comment saddens me greatly, because these will get their four per cent increase, which is are people who have made an invaluable going to be eroded, particularly for those contribution to this country. They still make living in country areas, because the govern- a valuable contribution. We should be valu- ment will not be able to keep petrol prices ing that contribution, but we are not. down. It is also discriminatory, because there I have also had a letter today from some- are groups of people who, by virtue of their body who is concerned because he falls out age, their date of birth, are going to fall in or of the self-funded retirees categories by out of the category which means they will be maybe a couple of months—he is 54½—and eligible. he wants to know why. There are people who are very concerned about this. My office has Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15129 never received so many phone calls as it has acknowledged, there will be an increase in recently. People are asking for this to be ex- inflation. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable plained to them because they are finding the that some people will have larger payments information in the packages, particularly the than others. In fact, I understand from the one from the ATO, very confusing indeed. It material that has been provided from the de- is not designed for elderly people. It is not partment that a very high proportion of peo- designed for people who are finding life a ple will have a substantial amount paid to little tough. I had to explain it to my mother. them under this scheme and very few, rela- I tried to read and make sense of the docu- tively speaking, will have no payment. mentation myself. It was not easy. It was We have heard from Senator West about very confusing. I looked at it as someone her belief that everybody should get a lump who is familiar with the documentation that sum, but the purpose of it was quite different. comes out of departments and I also found it It has been explained in Age Pension News, I confusing and not clear. It is something that think at least a couple of times. The govern- the department and the minister should be ment has never claimed that everybody was very careful about, particularly the minister. going to get $1,000. If that was people’s un- I remain appalled at comments like, derstanding or expectation it is unfortunate. ‘There are winners and there are losers.’ That It means that the material that has been going is a very sad situation. It is very important out to them has not been taken in or has not that we draw the attention of people to the been read. It demonstrates why there is such fact that this pensioner bonus scheme is not a need for an education and information ex- going to benefit very many people. The gov- ercise such as the one the government has ernment said that once the publicity started been funding. they would introduce a hardship clause. The However, going to the bill which is before amount of money available there is almost us, which has nothing to do with whatever laughable. It is not fair—unless the govern- Senator West was talking about, I must say I ment has changed it in the last few hours. It appreciate Senator Bartlett’s comment about would only mean another couple of hundred there being some good things in this bill amendments to this GST that they have al- which need acknowledging. I am particularly ready introduced. It is something that we pleased that we are bringing forward this need to make sure that people are aware of. measure dealing with the circumstances of The general community out there are aware double orphans. It was occasioned by repre- of it. They are aware that they are not going sentations that were made to me by Mrs Fran to benefit as they thought they had. They are Bailey in the other House, who had constitu- aware of what the GST is going to cost them, ents who took over the care of their grand- of what they will have to find more money children after the two parents both over- for. They do not like it and they are waiting dosed. In extremely sad family circum- for this government at the next election. stances a large family, of about five children, Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minis- were left to be taken on by relations. It might ter for Family and Community Services and have been uncle and aunt; I cannot quite re- Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the member now. I was amazed to find that there Status of Women) (5.02 p.m.)—I understand was inadequate ability in our social security that Senator West’s questions were provided system to look after those who are caring in to the committee at 3.30 this afternoon, but this role. As Senator Bartlett said, there will she might let me know if she has not re- not be a lot of people who stand to benefit ceived them. As Senator West would well from that measure, but I am glad to think that understand, the purpose of the pension bonus people who are doing something very im- funding for people who are retired or who portant in caring for other people’s children are on pensions was not to address equity will get the assistance that this bill provides. between older people. Its purpose was to As to the other matters that are going to be make sure that the value of older people’s discussed, it is probably best to leave them to assets was maintained at a time when, it is the committee stage. 15130 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Question resolved in the affirmative. As I said in my contribution to the second Bill read a second time. reading debate, I know the government moved to that system with a range of other In Committee payments. We have been after an evaluation The bill. of the PES, and we are concerned that we are Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Aus- getting a lot of feedback that it is not suffi- tralia) (5.07 p.m.)—I am not sure whether cient to allow recipients to meet the costs of you are too fast for me in terms of treating it study, that it does not provide enough incen- as a whole, but we obviously want to oppose tive for them to further themselves by schedule 4, items 2 and 3. studying and that it is a savings measure for The CHAIRMAN—I have not put any- the government. We are not convinced that, thing yet. on balance, these people should not receive greater assistance. It is the case that that is Senator CHRIS EVANS—I want to op- probably more appropriately done by pose that section. If you put that as a separate changing the rate. I am the first to concede section, I will formally speak against that. that the logic of the position is probably to The CHAIRMAN—Thank you, that is argue about the rate, and we have been keen fine. The question is that schedule 4, items 2 to get the proper assessment of the supple- and 3, page 15, lines 11 to 16, stand as ment and the work that has been done by the printed. department to have that debate. This is our Senator CHRIS EVANS—I outlined in opportunity to look at this question. The my second reading contribution the basis for government is looking to reduce the total the Labor opposition’s opposition to this payment of the PES to recipients by not pro- section of the Family and Community Serv- viding it for those other weeks. On balance, ices Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. we remain unconvinced that that is a good Senator Bartlett was right in a factual thing to do. sense—I perhaps do not agree with his inter- We are inclined to support the measure pretation—that when we last debated the that provides for 1 January and 1 July as the pension education supplement Labor did starting dates and not to support the govern- support the government inserting a part-time ment’s measure to move it to the date of the provision which provided that those people start of the course. The government’s meas- who were studying part time received half ure only applies to new starters. In fact, the the rate, and I made no apology for that. I system that we are proposing will continue to think this is part of a consistent approach. apply to those currently enrolled, as I under- Obviously, we think you have to be respon- stand it. So we think it is not an unreasonable sible about these payments, and our view is proposition, and we prefer that approach to that on this occasion the government’s the one proposed by the government. proposition is effectively to reduce the total Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (5.11 payment of the pensioner education supple- p.m.)—I would like to ask a couple of ques- ment going to new applicants. By changing tions in relation to this issue, firstly, to the date at which they become eligible from Senator Evans, given the assumption behind 1 January or 1 July to the date they start the his argument that the PES is inadequate, course, the government effectively reduces which I think is probably a reasonable as- the number of weeks for which someone is sumption. I am not sure you need a govern- eligible for the supplement. Therefore, the ment to report to tell you that the PES is in- total payment of PES is reduced by the num- adequate to meet educational expenses. Any ber of weeks that are excluded. So, if some- extra assistance that can be provided as part one starts their course in the middle of Feb- of an increase in the rate would obviously be ruary, they effectively lose six weeks of the beneficial, and I ask whether the opposition supplement if it had been effective from 1 will commit to raising the rate of PES if they January. gained government, which is the logical ex- tension of what they are trying to do here. As Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15131

Senator Evans himself said, that is the better for students returning to study in the second way to go, so it would be good to get a spe- semester. A concession will apply in the case cific commitment from the opposition that of students whose break from study was that is the way they would go if they were in caused by illness or other circumstances be- government and able to do it. yond their control. I would also like the minister to say if and It was Labor which recognised that there when the department is likely to release the was a need for payments not to be backdated assessment to the public. I would also like to to 1 January, but that is what they are trying query, in relation to the part of the bill we are to do now. I find it very strange that this is debating, what the explanatory memorandum something which Labor recognised. Labor says: that the remainder of the bill, that is, had a system in place that allowed for people apart from the part to do with double orphan to be paid right back to 1 January rather than pension, has no financial impact. As I under- from when people started their course. In stand it, the opposition are suggesting that 1993, the Labor Party changed the arrange- the course they are now proposing we go ments so that people were paid from the time down would have a cost—I do not know if it of their course. There was a concession for is something you have provided to me be- students who had circumstances beyond their fore, or I heard you say—of about $4 million control so that they could be picked up, and dollars. In any case, it is obviously going to that has been a continuing feature of the PES have some extra cost—a significant number system. of people will get payment for an extra num- We have here a government amendment ber of weeks. I would therefore have thought which needs to be made because of a techni- the flip side of that would be that, by making cal error which was introduced into the pas- this change, there would be a saving to gov- sage of the Social Security (Administration) ernment and that that would be reflected in Act. The government are trying to put back the financial impact statement in the ex- what we inherited, essentially, and what we planatory memorandum. I would like the inherited we inherited from the Labor Party. minister to either point out the error in my We inherited, as I have just described, a sys- logic or outline how much the Labor tem that said payments should be made to amendment is going to cost or, put the other students from the beginning of their course. way, indicate how much the bill as it If you do not do that, you have a position stands—the change that is proposed in the where somebody could be working right up bill—will save. to the date that they start a course. They may Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minis- not even be on any social security payment ter for Family and Community Services and at all. The Labor Party’s position would ac- Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the tually allow people in that circumstance to Status of Women) (5.13 p.m.)—I am a bit have PES paid to them from 1 January. surprised at Senator Evans’s comments. I Somebody could be in the workforce, go on thought he understood that in 1993 his gov- to parenting payment (single), for example, ernment introduced the ‘Statutory rules No. and have their payment backdated to 1 Janu- 367, explanatory statement’, which I have ary when they were in full-time work. before me now. Regulation 5 states when I cannot believe that the Labor Party, Austudy is payable from. Subregulation 5.1 which saw the rationale for not having that inserts new subregulation 7(1A) in the Aus- back in 1993, would now turn around and tudy regulations. Subregulation reverse their position. It was an eminently 7(1A)provides that students returning to sensible position that they took in 1993. The study after a break in study of more than one position they are taking now does not seem semester, not counting the normal vacation to make sense at all. In 1993, the Labor Party periods, will be paid only from the com- recognised the imbalance of back paying mencement of their courses without back- assistance to 1 January to students who were dating to 1 January for students returning to in those circumstances, particularly of course study at the beginning of the year or 1 July for people moving to study from employ- 15132 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 ment, and Labor amended the former Aus- ACOSS came to me early on and said that tudy scheme to correct the imbalance. one of the most important things that could Without our technical amendment, PES be done in this portfolio was to improve will be back paid to 1 January 2000 for any simplification. They put a real emphasis on student claiming PES by 31 March or to 1 that, and I have done that to the best of my July for any student claiming PES between 1 ability. But here we are being pushed to re- July and 31 July. Without our technical duce the simplicity of the system. The Labor amendment, some customers will be back amendments that seek to add unnecessary paid PES for up to 10 weeks when they have complexity— not been studying during that period. They Senator Chris Evans—There are no La- can be paid PES if they were not receiving bor amendments. social security payments at all for that pe- Senator NEWMAN—Labor’s approach, riod. They could have been working at the I beg your pardon, through anomalous treat- time, as I said. Without our amendment, a ment of different student payments. Senator significant policy anomaly will be introduced Bartlett did challenge the Labor Party to say between the treatment of those students re- what their commitment would be on this ceiving PES and those receiving other stu- matter when in government, and I did not dent payments, such as youth allowance and notice Senator Evans jumping up to explain Austudy. Receipt of these payments is not to Senator Bartlett. backdated to 1 January or 1 July in similar circumstances, and I wonder whether the Senator Chris Evans—Ladies first. Labor Party is thinking of moving some Senator NEWMAN—You are still going amendments to backdate those to those dates. to have a go, are you? Senator Chris Evans—When did that Senator Chris Evans—Yes. apply from? Senator NEWMAN—Good. We wait Senator NEWMAN—Which? with enthusiasm to see whether you can Senator Chris Evans—Those changes. really make a commitment on anything. Senator Bartlett also referred to the question Senator NEWMAN—Your changes? of financial impact. It is difficult to assess Senator Chris Evans—The youth allow- that, but I have received some advice as fol- ance— lows. The cost of not amending the legisla- Senator NEWMAN—But I am talking tion is difficult to quantify, but it could be about these people who— around $8 million annually. That has come to me from the department, but they emphasise Senator Chris Evans—Up until that time that it is difficult to quantify. I do not know they were back paid. how the $4 million figure is arrived at, but Senator NEWMAN—No, Austudy— the $8 million is what has been suggested to Senator Chris Evans—Austudy is the me by my department. I wait to see what one example but there is— Senator Evans has to say about his commit- Senator NEWMAN—Youth allowance ment. and Austudy are in a similar position. They Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Aus- are not backdated and PES has not been tralia) (5.21 p.m.)—As you would well un- backdated, and you were the ones who put derstand, Senator Newman, I am not going to that down in regulation. I am just surprised at be announcing Labor Party election policy Labor. Are they doing this clumsily or doing on the run. it just to be bloody-minded? I am not quite Senator Newman—I do not think you are sure what it can be. I would have thought ever announcing any Labor Party policy. that we all believed in simplifying, wherever Senator CHRIS EVANS—I certainly possible, social security rules and payments. will not be announcing the social security It has been emphasised to me ever since I got policy. I will leave that to the appropriate the job of Minister for Social Security back spokesperson, and that is my message to in 1996. The Welfare Rights people and Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15133

Senator Bartlett in answer to his question. I parliament passed earlier this year at the think it is fair to say, Senator Bartlett, that government’s initiation ought to stay as is. that is a recognition that Labor accepts that We are not convinced that the change is war- there are concerns about the adequacy of the ranted. PES. I said in my introductory remarks that As I understand it, the minister seized on we would rather be having a debate about the the question of the Austudy and some regu- adequacy of the PES. We would rather be lation from 1983 or 1993, which I must ad- having a debate about the department’s re- mit did not immediately come to mind. As I port. I notice that the minister did not give us understand it, the history of these pay- any further information about that. She is ments—and the supplements in particular— happy to debate changes to the entitlement of has involved a mixture of treatment over the the PES for recipients and floats a figure of years by governments of both persuasions. $8 million but then says she cannot stand by There is an argument about whether a sup- that figure because it is hard to estimate. I plement is treated the same as a primary concede that it may well be. In effect, the payment. Putting all that to one side, at the minister is saying she is going to take the $8 end of the day you have to decide what posi- million from pensioners that is currently be- tion you want to adopt with the PES today. ing paid to them. If that is the saving, it is a Our view is that it is better that the payment saving taken from those persons. be made for the whole of the period under Senator Newman—No. which people are required, if you like, to be Senator CHRIS EVANS—If it is not, I available for or commit themselves to study would be happy for you to explain. Senator and that that is a preferable position. It is one Bartlett asked you that question. You clearly that existed in the past. I accept that when did not answer it in the sense that, if you are the Youth Allowance changes were made saying there is a saving of $8 million, I as- you went to the alternative approach. I guess sume it is because you are going to spend $8 I would argue that as a supplement you million less, and I assume that means you are might be able to argue for different treat- going to spend $8 million less in supporting ment, but we think that as a top-up payment pensioners’ education costs. That is the obvi- on this occasion it is preferable that we start ous conclusion to draw, but if that is wrong from 1 January or 1 July. As I say, the gov- no doubt you will re-enter the debate. ernment’s measure is about whether or not we vote today to reduce the total payment The point I want to make is that the Labor paid to those persons. There are probably Party is suggesting that we oppose a gov- better, more thorough approaches in terms of ernment attempt to change its own legisla- debating the adequacy of the payment but, tion to reduce entitlements. We say that we when asked today to vote on a proposition are not convinced that the government’s at- from the government to reduce that payment, tempts to reduce those entitlements are war- our view is that it ought not be supported and ranted, given what we understand to be the we will not be supporting it. That obviously general concern about the adequacy of the says something about the direction Labor PES. The better way to do that, obviously, is takes in terms of the PES and our views to have a debate about the department’s about that, Senator Bartlett, but obviously I analysis of the PES, its adequacy and what will not be making specific commitments might be done to better improve that educa- about Labor policy for the next election in tion supplement and assist people to make relation to that today, as I am sure you will the transition to work through improving not be about the Democrats’ position. But the their qualifications. That is obviously the issue today is whether or not we support the preferable approach. From opposition you government’s attempt to reduce those pay- have to take opportunities as they arise. ments and what seems now like an attempt to What we are saying is that the government make a reduction in payments of $8 million. amended the legislation to provide this pro- I am not sure whether the minister stands by vision. We are not moving any amendments. that but our view is that, on balance, we will We are saying that the legislation that the not support that. 15134 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minis- Senator NEWMAN—There will be a ter for Family and Community Services and new cost if it is not amended. That is what Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the we are saying in response to Senator Bartlett Status of Women) (5.26 p.m.)—I think about the question of the $8 million. We are Senator Evans needs to go back to the trying to assess what the $8 million cost will shadow minister, Mr Swan, and ask why it be if we do not revert to the existing situa- was that he was not properly briefed on this tion. Your approach will mean that the tax- matter. My department has advised me that payer will be up for something of the order his office was briefed and given a copy of of $8 million if we do not go back to the the Austudy regulation changes that I re- original situation. People will not have a re- ferred to earlier which I read from. I have duction in payment. This is not a question of here a copy of a facsimile to Michael Lye reducing payments to people. They have not dated 16 June which says, ‘A copy of the been previously entitled to them: they have explanatory statement which accompanied become entitled for a short period because of Austudy regulation changes brought in to the drafting changes. So we are not reducing stop back paying Austudy and Austudy entitlements, therefore there are no saving PES.’ It is signed by Jenny Myers from my but, if the amendment does not go through to department. fix up the drafting failure, then there will be Senator Chris Evans—That is not in dis- a cost. I think that is pretty clear; I hope you pute, Minister. find it clear. Senator NEWMAN—You were asking Senator Chris Evans—It is logically about the regulations and saying you nonsense! doubted— Senator NEWMAN—It is absolutely Senator Chris Evans—I am just saying truthful and logical. Senator Bartlett appears that is one example of regulations. There has to understand this a bit better than you, been a range of regulations. Senator Evans. But I want to put this on the record because I am responding to some of Senator NEWMAN—I understood from the comments that you have made in the what you said that Mr Swan had not briefed committee stage. I am afraid you do not have you on that. It seems pretty unfair that you too many wings to fly with on this one. It are sent in here to battle for the opposition was your government that recognised the when you have not been given sufficient problem back in 1993. It was accidentally background. Let me go back to the guts of amended in recent legislation. We are trying what Senator Evans has just been saying. We to put it back to what you put in, and if you are not reducing entitlements; we are fixing do not support it and if we lose this then you up a technical problem in a new bill that will be causing the taxpayer to foot the bill came in a little while ago. Therefore, there for people who may be in the work force up are no savings. We are not in fact changing to the time that they go on to study. That is or were we ever intending to change the an unintended consequence that nobody situation. It was changed accidentally tempo- would think was appropriate. If there is any rarily. So we are not reducing entitlements, spare money to spend on income support for therefore there are no savings, therefore the people, it should be on those who really need financial impact of this was not included in it, not people in those circumstances. the explanatory memorandum because it is a technical amendment reverting to the origi- Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (5.30 nal intention of the act. p.m.)—I would like the Minister for Family and Community Services to respond to my Senator Chris Evans—I would like you and Senator Evans’s question about whether to read the Hansard of that. the departmental assessment would be re- Senator NEWMAN—Can’t you under- leased and, if so, when. stand it? Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minis- Senator Chris Evans—I know what you ter for Family and Community Services and are trying to say but I suspect— Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15135

Status of Women) (5.31 p.m.)—I am sorry, year—which was a fairly finetuned cost- Senator Bartlett, I did not mean to ignore ing—I do not think it would hurt to indicate your comments on this. The advice that I what the costs or savings may be for other have here on a handwritten note is that it is measures, even if they are not spot-on to the correct to say that the PES evaluation is be- last cent. ing reconsidered in the context of welfare I realise the impact statements and such reform. I cannot give you any further advice. are not drafted personally by the minister, Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (5.31 but I would make an appeal that, for future p.m.)—I will outline the conclusion I have legislation and future drafting of explanatory come to in listening to the various positions memorandums, a re-examination of the defi- put forward. I can point to some inconsisten- nition of what is a cost and a saving be con- cies in the positions of both the government ducted by the department. One could suggest and the opposition. But I am sure that, if I sat that it is quite misleading to say that this down, they would point to some inconsisten- section has no financial impact. It does not cies in my argument if they wanted to look at help, when trying to form an opinion, that it. That is the situation you get when there is the government is being up-front about eve- an argument from both sides. rything if you get parts of bills that you as- I understand the point the Minister for sume have no financial impact, because the Family and Community Services is making financial impact statement says so, and then about there being no savings and therefore you find out that $8 million, $6 million or no need to note it in the financial impact whatever would be the cost if we were not to statement. I am not quite sure that the dis- pass the particular bit in this bill. It is im- tinction between a new cost and there being portant to re-examine that for future legisla- no savings measure in the Family and Com- tion. munity Services Legislation Amendment Bill I recognise Senator Evans’s statement 2000 is something that I understand. I under- about not being able to give commitments on stand the argument the minister has put for- the Labor Party’s policy for the next election. ward, but it is a fine, if not artificial, distinc- I could spout at length about Democrat tion. As someone that tries to examine all the commitments and what we would do if we legislation that comes before us in the social won government at the next election. I sus- security area—and all senators would agree pect it would not be taken too seriously, so I that it is a very complex act—one of the will not go down that path, but it is appropri- things you do look at is the financial impact ate to point out that, if an area is perceived to statement. A lot of bills tend to have clauses be inadequate, there should be something that say, ‘These are just technical amend- fairly solid on the record from the opposition ments, minor modifications, clarifications about what they are going to do about it. I do and the like.’ You are more likely to assume think it would be desirable to have the de- that is the case if it also says that there is no partmental assessment of the program financial impact. sooner, despite the ongoing welfare reform Clearly, there is a financial impact in process. But you do not necessarily need a passing this particular item in the bill. It is $8 comprehensive departmental assessment to million—or whatever the figure is—that the recognise the supplement would not be ade- government would otherwise have had to quate on its own to meet all the extra educa- spend that it is not spending. In that circum- tional costs of a pensioner, and the fact that it stance, it is appropriate to list that as a saving has not been increased since 1989 would in or as a cost that would otherwise have to be itself make one assume that that is the case. met were the amendment not to be made so There is still—and I think Senator Evans that we can see up-front the estimated cost. I concedes this himself—an issue in terms of accept that sometimes you cannot be precise what is being proposed here by the Labor about these things, but given that you have Party, which is that it is not the best mecha- detailed the cost of the double orphan pen- nism for trying to address inadequacies in the sion measure down to $200,000 in one pensioner education supplement. We would 15136 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 basically end up with a situation where peo- that bill originally? We have to look at what ple would be getting a supplement to their the situation is now rather than just try to pension when they were not actually eligible automatically fall back on the excuse that we for the pension in some of the period when have to follow the original intent. No-one they are getting the supplement, which seems can say for sure what the intent of the Senate like a misnomer and an anomaly. I am one of was when it passed that bill, and we really those people who tend to go on quite fre- should stick to the act as it stands now. quently about the need to reduce anomalies Nonetheless, I do think in this situation it where possible in the Social Security Act to would introduce a significant anomaly. To provide simplification, and this is a mecha- try to provide people with a supplement to a nism which would not only generate an pension when they are not actually eligible to anomaly between this payment and others receive the pension itself is not the best way but also, in my view, be a bit of an absurd- forward in terms of trying to address inade- ity—where you are getting a supplement for quacies with an existing payment. In that a pension that you are not actually receiving. circumstance, whilst one naturally is tempted It is not the best way to do it and, as some- to support changes that may provide extra one who speaks frequently about the need to payments for particular people, it would be avoid anomalies where possible, I think it is bad policy and bad law making. As Senator difficult to justify making that change. Evans himself said, we have to take a con- I want to say something about the minis- sistent approach on these issues and be re- ter’s statements about this correcting an in- sponsible with these payments. In this par- advertent change when we passed the Social ticular circumstance, I think it is responsible Security (Administration) Act last year and and consistent to support the bill as it stands. did not realise that this change was in here or I think it is important that the government that this bit was not being addressed so we takes on board the inadequacies and the have to now make this change to reflect the overall support for students across the board original intent of what was passed. It is an —not just pensioners, I might add—and ex- understandable argument, I suppose, but I do amines ways to provide more assistance than recall that we debated a bill in this place not it has. Trying to redress that failure in a small too long ago about the new family tax pay- way by introducing an anomaly such as this ment where a very significant change was is not the best way to do that. It does leave made to shared care arrangements. I think it the Democrats open to cheap shots from the is fair to say that that was done without our opposition that we have opposed an attempt being aware—certainly the Democrats were to increase the pensioner education supple- not, and I think the opposition conceded it— ment. I am sure that Senator Evans is not one that it was part of the changes that were for cheap shots, but there are always a few being made, that it was one change amongst others out there who would do that. As I said many, many changes. before, whilst Senator Evans outlined the If you are going to use the argument here rationale behind the Labor Party’s support of that, if we pass something inadvertently, we the part-time rate for PES, nonetheless the should go back to the original intent of what impact of the act was a reduction in payment. was put forward, then I would not mind try- He stands by his reasons which he outlined, ing to use that argument as well in terms of and I accept that. But at the end of the day, if the family tax payment, because that change you are simply going to look at total dollars was made without the parliament being in people’s pockets and nothing else, we can aware of it. It would have been nice to have both do that. been able to revisit it, but unfortunately we Nonetheless, at this stage, in the absence were not able to do so. I think it is fair of any other arguments put forward by the enough for Senator Evans to say that we are government or the opposition, the Democrats dealing with the act as it was passed by the believe that this is not an appropriate way to parliament. Who is to say what the intent of go. It would create a significant and in many the Senate as a whole was when it passed ways nonsensical anomaly within the act, Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15137 and we believe that the change in the bill as about lowbrow, wedge politics and attacking put forward should stand. those people on pensions. Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Aus- However, I just want to make one point. I tralia) (5.42 p.m.)—I do not want to delay the am disappointed that in this debate Senator chamber unnecessarily, but I do want to re- Bartlett somehow took the minister’s sug- spond to a couple of things that have been gestion hook, line and sinker. That one or put in the debate. I understood that we were two people who might have been in work not likely to get Democrat support, and I might have come onto the pension and might appreciate now that we are not going to get get the PES for those four or five weeks they it. I can count and, as I said, I do not want to were not actually on the pension is reason to delay the debate by labouring the point. defeat the measure is, I think, very disap- Senator Bartlett seems to have strongly pointing. The point is that, if there were a taken the line from the government that this problem with that, we could address it and was a great anomaly and that there was con- fix it up as a parliament. So I think that is a cern that people who were not eligible for false debate. The majority of these people, the pension would be able to receive the 75 per cent, are on the sole parent pension, supplement, and the minister also laboured with most of the remainder on the disability that point as being the main argument. I support pension, the DSP. So we are not think, quite frankly, it is a furphy but, in any talking about people who are resigning from event, if the legislative will of the chamber is well-paid jobs to take advantage of this to make this work and that we need to have windfall in the PES; it is a complete non- some further amendment which makes it sense. I just want to put that on the record clear that it applies only to those in receipt of because I think the debate has been shifted a the pension, I think we are more than capable little from what should have been its main of doing that. I always find that Senator focus by the use of that example and with the Newman’s approach to these things is to ar- Democrats regurgitating it as a reason for gue some sort of minor technical thing to try defeating the amendment. to blow out of the water the whole argument The other thing I want to say, Senator rather than to get to the heart of the matter. Bartlett, is that I will not be taking cheap We have had that debate before about maybe shots. Unlike the same sex debate where I getting a more constructive approach. think the Democrats could be accused of The department made it clear to us at the having done so, I always resist that tempta- estimates hearing that, of the 45,000 people tion as much as I can. This is a difficult is- currently on the PES, 75 per cent came off sue. I accept that the Democrats have come the sole parent pension and the vast majority to a different view. We thought, on balance, of the remainder are on the DSP. So this sug- that opposing this amendment by the gov- gestion that somehow we are dealing with all ernment was the preferred way to proceed. these people who quit work and quit well- I make the point to the minister that I paying jobs to get on to benefits in order to think what she said about the effect of this then claim this windfall on the PES is a gross amendment was complete nonsense. The fact misrepresentation of the situation. We are is that the law of the land currently provides talking about a program designed to assist an entitlement to people to have that benefit, sole parents to further their education and to the PES, paid from 1 January to 1 July. She assist them to make the transition from wel- seeks to get the parliament to change it to- fare to work. We are talking about allowing day. In the absence of that change, they are people on the disability support pension to entitled to it. What we are doing today will have access to further study. The minister remove that entitlement. You cannot get any has once again espoused the dole bludger, clearer than that. I accept the minister’s ex- welfare fraud line. People talk now about the planation when she says that it was inadver- welfare review; it is the welfare dependency tent, et cetera, and that it was not the gov- review. It is not about a welfare review; it is ernment’s intention. That is fine. But what about a welfare dependency review. It is all we are voting on today is a proposition from 15138 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 the government to remove the current legal ister made a commitment in respect of this entitlement of people who are on the sole land—a commitment that after the election parent pension and the DSP. By supporting he did not meet. In the budget, just a few the government amendment, we remove their weeks ago, a further commitment was made. entitlement or we reduce their entitlement to Once we read the fine print, we found then PES. That is the point we have made. That is also that the government was trying to con the reason why the Labor Party sought to interested parties on this issue. oppose that today. With that, I will end my It was only last week that we were able to comments. get our amendments to the government and The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN only on Friday afternoon that the govern- (Senator Knowles)—The question is that ment was able to come back to us with its schedule 4, items 2 and 3 stand as printed. amendments on this particularly important Question resolved in the affirmative. legislation. These are amendments which reflect, on our part at least, a public consul- Bill agreed to. tation process which was embarked upon by Bill reported without amendment; report the Senate committee on environment and adopted. heritage, a consultative process which gave Third Reading interested parties the opportunity to make a Bill (on motion by Senator Newman) contribution and a consultative process read a third time. which drew out quite a number of issues from a whole range of interested parties— SYDNEY HARBOUR FEDERATION issues that the government had chosen to ig- TRUST BILL 1999 [2000] nore, issues that the government had chosen Second Reading to ride roughshod over, issues which the Debate resumed from 8 December 1999, government did not take into account be- on motion by Senator Tambling: cause it did not suit an immediate political That this bill be now read a second time. agenda. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (5.49 As I have said, it is not often in this place p.m.)—I rise to speak on the Sydney Harbour that we get an opportunity to decide the fate Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] and I do so of significant tracts of land that have been without much notice at all. In saying that, preserved more by good luck, I suppose, than perhaps I can indicate that this has been very by good management. We have before us this much the process over recent months in rela- historic opportunity to convert these old De- tion to this legislation. It is legislation which fence lands. In the Prime Minister’s own the government has tried to drive through words—words spoken before the 1998 elec- this parliament, without adequate public dis- tion—he said that the foreshores we are cussion and debate and, in doing so, it has talking about here are: missed a historic opportunity to get it right, ... one of Sydney’s prized assets indeed one of the and to get it right in consultation and coop- nation’s prized assets ... a jewel in the Australian eration with interested parties to these lands. crown—the Harbour foreshores of Sydney—a real jewel in the crown. We are not talking here of just any par- ticular area of land; we are talking of land He would know because this is the Prime which is of both historic and ongoing signifi- Minister who shifted his residence lock, cance. We are talking about having before stock and barrel from Canberra to the fore- this parliament on this occasion a historic shores of Sydney—the Prime Minister who opportunity to convert old Defence lands in indulges himself and his family at the ex- prime positions around Sydney Harbour for pense of Australian taxpayers. They were his long-term public ownership and public use. words and they follow a long history of de- As I say, this has been a shoddy process. We bate and discussion on this issue. come to this debate at this particular time as In 1979 the then Prime Minister, Malcolm probably the third phase of recent chicanery Fraser, and the then Premier of New South by the government. In 1998 the Prime Min- Wales, Neville Wran, agreed to a transfer of Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15139

Commonwealth land to New South Wales site will be decided. Yet this bill does not including the North Head foreshore, Do- ensure that this will happen. The bill has no broyd Point, Middle Head foreshore from sunset clause. It has no transfer mechanism. HMAS Penguin around to Charter Bay and It does not mention the transfer of the land to part of South Head. It was also agreed that New South Wales. It does not guarantee on- when the Commonwealth no longer needed going public ownership. As I say, it is hollow the remaining Defence land it would be in nature and fundamentally flawed. The bill handed over to New South Wales for inclu- fails to reflect and incorporate the intention sion in the Sydney Harbour National Park. In of either the 1979 Fraser-Wran agreement or September 1998, Prime Minister Howard the election promise made by the Prime announced that the government would estab- Minister. In doing so, once again, the Prime lish the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to Minister is misleading the Australian com- assume responsibility for the remediation munity and failing to deliver on his stated and management of five foreshore sites be- intent on this issue. ing vacated by Defence. This bill was referred to a committee and We are concerned that this legislation does through that committee process we had the not do a number of things. It does not recog- opportunity to hear submissions from quite a nise the importance and ongoing significance number of interested parties, including the of these lands to not just the people of the New South Wales government and a whole North Shore, not just the people of Sydney raft of councils who are involved in the areas but also the nation of Australia. It does not that are subject to this legislation. At this provide any additional protection to the lands particular stage, we have seen reflected in than they currently have. It does not guaran- and around that committee process a pretty tee delivery of the Prime Minister’s promise broad and highly sophisticated level of pub- of inclusion of the lands in the Sydney Har- lic debate. That debate was reflected in the bour National Park. This is fundamentally submissions put to the committee. That de- flawed legislation. It does not do what the bate was reflected by the personnel putting government set out to do and promised the those submissions. That debate, after hours people it would do and, in not doing so, has and hours of community application time quite a number of gaps that need to be ad- devoted to this issue, is continuing to be re- dressed by amendment. flected in parts of Sydney by the community So the government’s response, the gov- interests surrounding this issue. I think the ernment’s attempt to protect this ‘jewel’, as overwhelming view of all those communities the Prime Minister called it, is faulty. For is that this bill is, as we say, fundamentally instance, the trust allows the minister to by- flawed. They have said to us—and we did pass due process. This bill removes parlia- not have to wait for them to tell us this—that mentary accountability for financial man- this parliament should not adopt this legisla- agement of the trust. It provides exemptions tion pending some wholesale amendment to from state planning and environmental laws. it. It allows for sole ministerial discretion in the As I said, in 1998 the Prime Minister— sale of these lands. So a commitment to pre-election, seeking votes—announced that remediate, protect and hand over is not re- the government would establish the Sydney flected in this faulty and flawed legislation. Harbour Federation Trust to assume respon- We set up a trust. The trust is meant to be sibility for remediation and management of a transitional management arrangement. Af- five foreshore sites being vacated by the De- ter a period of 10 years the Prime Minister partment of Defence with the intention of has indicated that North Head, Middle Head transferring the sites for inclusion in the and Georges Heights will be transferred to Sydney Harbour National Park. All those the New South Wales government for inclu- community groups relied on that commit- sion in the Sydney Harbour National Park. ment. But the Senate process made it obvi- At that time, future management arrange- ously clear that they felt they had been mis- ments for Cockatoo Island and the Woolwich led and they also felt that quite wholesale 15140 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 amendment needed to take place before this believe the government should clearly state bill could even meet the commitment made in this legislation that the trust is being es- by the Prime Minister. tablished to transfer ownership of the sites to Let us start listing some of the flaws in the New South Wales, and it should provide a legislation. The bill does not identify what timetable and a process for doing so. As the key object of the land is. The bill does promised, all land should be transferred to not identify the importance of the land. The the Sydney Harbour National Park and no bill does not do the land justice in that it does land should be retained for Commonwealth not reflect, either by way of preamble or by ownership—that was a commitment that was way of objects, a recognition of the impor- made. One of the more worrying concerns is tance of this land in Australia’s history and that this piece of legislation, which imple- the importance of this land as an ongoing ments a pre-election commitment, does not environmental and historic concern. The bill even clearly define the area of the land, nor does not do this, as I said, in its key objects, its tenure status. We believe that each site nor does it have any preamble that may re- should be mapped and specified, with the flect the importance of the land we are talk- ability to add additional sites by regulation. ing about. The government’s intentions are very un- clear. The land should be defined on a map When you come to this debate, as we do accompanying the bill, and it should be here, rushed at this last moment, we may be clearly defined which areas are intended to tempted to ignore the historical importance be transferred to the Sydney Harbour Na- of what we are talking about, and we may be tional Park. tempted to ignore the reality of how other nations handle their historic sites and their Another issue is whether ownership tran- historic parks. One has only to go to the sition needs to wait for 10 years. Once con- United States of America to see how a sense tamination has been remediated and disused of history has developed in that nation buildings removed, there is no reason that a through recognition, preservation and pro- site could not be immediately transferred to motion of not just monuments but also his- the Sydney Harbour National Park. Transfer- torical areas. We in Australia have not built ral of ownership to New South Wales, we up that sense of history. We tend to treat believe, should be undertaken as soon as quite dismissively areas such as this and do remediation of each site is complete. Legis- not accord them the same degree of recogni- lation should provide for handover in a tion, respect and promotion that other nations staged manner following remediation. No do. It is not just this particular spot and this rationale, for instance, has been given for a particular location that misses out. By not 10-year life for transitional management ar- giving sufficient recognition to the important rangements. Once decontamination has taken historic aspects of these sites, we deny our- place and disused buildings removed, there is selves and our children the sense of history no reason why there cannot be a transfer. that we should be building up around our Also, the legislation does not identify that nation. We are a lot more hollow, for in- the function of the trust is to remediate the stance, in recognising and respecting our land and prepare it for handover to New history than the United States of America are South Wales. This is the Prime Minister’s in respect of theirs. commitment, and it is not delivered in this This is one lost opportunity out of so legislation. Under the draft bill the land is many in that we do not have significant rec- exempted from state planning and environ- ognition of the significance of this land, even mental protection legislation. We are con- in this legislation. The commitment was for cerned as to what the government really the ownership of the land to be transferred to wants to happen with this land as it has not the Sydney Harbour National Park, but the already worked out what regime should be bill does not do that. Nor—and this is an- able to operate in respect of it. We are con- other fundamental flaw—does it define cerned that there should be management which areas of land will be transferred. We plans, and they should be consistent with Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15141 state regimes with SEPP 56, which states tinued protection. The government’s com- that regional planning and Sydney Harbour mitment of $96 million to remediate and pre- National Park management practices should serve the land has gone, in major part, to ensure a smooth transition of its ownership decontamination of the defence department’s to the New South Wales government. sites. We do not have an ongoing budget— Let me say at this particular stage that we apart from the attempt just a few weeks ago will be going through all of these concerns in in the budget to confuse the community the committee stage. We have a bundle of when the government claimed that it was amendments to be moved co-jointly with the putting extra money into this area—to do the Australian Democrats, and the government sorts of things in this area that really, if we has its amendments. Another concern is that were serious about preserving and promoting this legislation proposes that the Minister for the historical significance of the site, we the Environment and Heritage have sole dis- should be doing. The community feels that it cretion on the sale of land and is able to has been short-changed by the government make commercial leasing arrangements be- because, although the government yond the 10-year existence of the trust. Talk announced a $96 million commitment to about demanding and keeping for itself a remediate, promote and preserve, it is not blank cheque in respect of this particular area putting anywhere near that amount of money of land. We believe that management plans towards those functions. for each area of land should be subject to So we have legislation which is flawed parliamentary approval. The fate of such and which does not reflect the commitment significant areas as the Sydney Harbour fore- made by the Prime Minister. We have legis- shore should not be decided at the discretion lation which is in need of quite substantial of Minister Hill at the behest of Minister amendment. We have legislation which has Minchin, as so often happens, with no op- been identified by council after council after portunity for public discussion, public debate council with direct interests in this area of or appeal. Sale of land was not to be for land as being flawed. We have legislation commercial use. We believe that that com- which has been criticised by just about every mitment should be reflected in this legisla- community group that made a submission tion. Management plans for each area of land before the Senate committee. I must say that should be subject to parliamentary approval, I do not think there was one group that actu- and the fate of these areas should not be at ally defended the legislation. We have legis- the whim of a minister. lation which is a missed opportunity, legisla- The prime ministerial commitment and tion which could be quite useful in defining this legislation, which pretends to reflect it, and promoting the historical and environ- are basically an attempt by the Common- mental issues that relate to this land. We wealth to preserve their control over this have legislation which in no part recognises area. If they are serious about this being a the particular significance this land has in transitional arrangement, they should in fact terms of indigenous Australian history. This be more serious about ensuring that the trust is one of those issues that the government responsible for the management of this area always tends to ignore and to forget. Indige- has a more balanced composition. We will nous issues are quite important here, and one move amendments to ensure that the compo- of the amendments that we will be moving sition of the trust is more balanced. will reflect our concern that indigenous is- sues be taken into account. I will not go on for too much longer, but there are issues such as conflict of interest This is legislation which is fundamentally arising in trust membership, the role trust flawed, legislation which the Senate would members play and so on that need to be dis- have needed more time to get to. If the gov- cussed. Also, there needs to be another ob- ernment were serious, we would have had servation made in respect of the govern- more time for them to assess our amend- ment’s commitment to the decontamination ments and us to assess theirs—but obviously and remediation of this area and to its con- they are not. Having said that we think this 15142 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 legislation is fundamentally flawed and in Senator HUTCHINS—It did; they never need of major amendment, I indicate now came. They had that constructed to keep the that there are copious amendments that will Russians out, and the guns were placed there be moved by the opposition in the committee appropriately to make sure that they did not stage. invade, and they never did. In the history of Senator HUTCHINS (New South Wales) Sydney’s defence, we have had mini subma- (6.08 p.m.)—It is my pleasure to rise after rines come in there. During the American Senator Bolkus and make a contribution here Civil War—this is not necessarily in Sydney, this evening in the debate on the Sydney but in Melbourne, a Confederate ship went Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999. Senator down there. Maybe we had some German Bolkus has outlined—but not in detail yet, ship during World War I— because we will come to that at the commit- Senator Forshaw interjecting— tee stage—a number of our significant ob- Senator HUTCHINS—Some might say jections to the proposed legislation. I am that they deserved it, but we would not say fortunate that I am going to be succeeded in that from New South Wales. Sydney has al- speaking by Senator Forshaw, another New ways been a significant defence establish- South Welshman, in that we feel uniquely ment and as, over the years, both parties placed to comment on the natural beauty and have seen fit to move our defence capabili- history of our city of Sydney. I see Senator ties closer to where the points of conflict Coonan here tonight, another New South might be, naturally those former defence Wales person. I am sure Senator Coonan sites needed to revert back to the community. would agree with me about our city and that The Prime Minister made certain undertak- many of its natural heritages should be pre- ings before the 1998 election and, as has served for generations to come. been mentioned by Senator Bolkus, the I will come later specifically to the bill, Prime Minister is ideally placed to comment but I do not know that any other nation in the on the scenery and topography of the city of world that has had any respect for its history Sydney, considering that he now resides in would take a gamble, in the way we see that one of the most beautiful spots that one proposed parts of this legislation do, with its could reside in. I have never actually been natural and national heritage. I was at the there. I have been around it on a boat once or bicentenary celebrations at the Opera House twice and had a look at it. I am told that in 1988 and I remember how proud I was to years ago a former journalist, Wendy Bacon, be not only an Australian but a Sydneysider tried to make some sort of protest and swam and to see our achievements paraded before over there—not while Prime Minister How- the world that after 200 years of continuous ard was Prime Minister. She thought that she European occupation we were able to make and her friend would be able to get there, significant contributions. We have made a lot make their protest—I think this was during of mistakes but we have made significant the Vietnam War—and then walk up and be contributions in and around our city. Of collected by their mates up the road. Well, course, the city of Sydney itself has been, the security staff did not think so and made until only recently, for almost its entire his- Ms Bacon jump back into the water and tory, a defence base. Anybody who goes swim away, and so she did not get her way around Sydney Harbour will see a number of then. This is an area about which the Labor defence sites, as have been mentioned here, Party is very concerned: this is special not and a number that have become tourist at- only for indigenous people, as Senator tractions, such as Fort Denison. You may not Bolkus has said, but also for the descendants be aware that it was constructed to keep the of the early European settlers, who also Russians out. Even back in those days we feel—and rightly so—that there are areas of were concerned about— this part of Australia that should be pre- Senator Quirke—It worked: they never served. came! I did not have much time this evening to go into the history of the two particular sites Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15143 that probably will be available for redevel- million—$50 million has been given to the opment; that is, Woolwich and Cockatoo Department of Defence to relocate from Island. Over the years I have seen a lot of the those sites and remove surplus buildings. A ships and the work forces at Cockatoo Is- further $40 million has been allocated to land, so I am pretty familiar with where that support the clean up of what might be con- is, as I am with Woolwich. I am sure our taminated areas of Cockatoo Island. Forty New South Wales senators would know that million dollars is a lot of money. I hope that the port of Sydney was—and still is, to a there is not too much contamination there. I degree—a major terminal for oil and petro- remember the old Union Carbide site out at leum products to be dropped. There were a Rhodes. That company, along with a number number of sites. I remember that there were of other companies that were located in that some at Balmain and further along at Hunt- area, decided to relocate their premises from ers Hill there were the ones operated by Am- those areas, obviously so they could capital- pol and Caltex, as it was at the time. So we ise on their ability to redevelop the sites. If I have these areas around Sydney that are of remember correctly, Union Carbide and the immense value to Sydneysiders. We are con- other companies—this was either before or cerned that a rush of ‘yuppiedom’ could oc- during the time of the problems they had in cur in these areas if this bill went through in India—were up for a huge amount of money its current state. These areas should be re- to redevelop those sites and remove the con- turned to the people of Sydney. They should tamination. It was nothing that that genera- not be redeveloped because what would hap- tion of senior management had contributed pen is what is happening on the foreshores of to; it was just the way things were done in Sydney now: particularly in the eastern sub- those days. So I am not sure that $40 million, urbs of Sydney, units are built almost on the if it is done in those terms, will be enough to sand. They are fairly ugly sorts of buildings clean up the contamination that might be and fairly ugly contributions to the ambience there. People in bygone days did not pay as of those areas. I think that that is what will much attention to what they were pouring on inevitably happen if Cockatoo and Woolwich the ground or into the water, so we may find, are able to be redeveloped. We will lose an particularly on a defence related site which area that could be returned to its natural has had a lot of heavy industry involved with state, and we will lose the ability to preserve it, that it has a lot more contamination that a number of the sandstone buildings which, can be dealt with, given the money that has as I recall, are there on Cockatoo Island. I been put forward for it. We have concerns may be wrong about that, but I think there about that. are a number of sandstone buildings that date Equally, I understand from the legislation from British and Australian naval occupa- that there is no money available for the trust tion. We are concerned that this bill may lead to clean up any of the other sites. I am not, to these sites being redeveloped. like the speaker to follow me, from that part The bill, as it is drafted, ensures that the of Sydney—I am originally from the south- committees have to work out how to finance ern parts—but I did have an opportunity the rehabilitation of those two sites, and they during my childhood when my family was are encouraged to think of commercial ac- going to Luna Park or somewhere like that to tivities and redevelopment of parts of the look at some of these places. It would appear sites. There is a direct reference in the legis- to me, knowing something about some of lation to this occurring. As I say, it is of ex- these sites, that there is a possibility of even treme concern to us on this side, particularly more contamination there than has been out- to me and my colleagues who are Sydney- lined. As I said, these are former defence siders, that the ability to redevelop these ar- sites. Unless we delved into the records we eas is well and truly entrenched in this leg- would not have an idea of what has been islation. based on these sites since their occupation as We also have concerns that of the original military or naval buildings. We would not federation funding that was allocated—$90 have known at the time, nor should we have known, what they were being used for. Given 15144 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 my experience of defence sites, I very much known and loved abroad and universally. We doubt that when it has been an active site—I will have an opportunity here when we con- am not sure what the actual military term sider the Labor amendments to allow for this is—there would not be any number of little plea by the New South Wales government to bugs there that need to be cleaned up. I am be entertained, when we are able to put these concerned that as a result of this legislation forward to the parliament. the trust does not have any money to clean You could not imagine any of the other up any of these other sites. great cities of the world allowing what might I mentioned earlier that we have concerns be seen to be natural and historical regions of about the commercial activities in the rede- their cities or their states to be redeveloped velopment of the sites. In fact, the New or used for commercial activities. These are South Wales government has been making important sites. Whether they were important responses to this draft bill. If the Senate to the indigenous people or to the European would indulge me for a moment, I will quote settlers and their descendants, they are im- the Sydney Harbour Foreshores Authority, portant sites. We should not in this legisla- which has been set up by the New South tion allow those sites to be handed over for Wales government under the direction of the what might be commercial activities or rede- Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. velopment. They are important, and we It said in its submission: should keep them in our hands. That is why I ... the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (the am disturbed at this. As I said earlier, you Trust), seems to contradict the positive steps could not imagine that occurring in similar taken recently by the NSW State Government to sites in Washington, London or Rio de Ja- provide greater coordination in the planning and neiro, or in places where there has been management of Sydney’s harbour foreshores, colonisation and conflict and then ameliora- including a decrease in the number of authorities. tion. You could not imagine that occurring in It goes on: any other parts of the world. The lack of compliance with NSW laws will have I have seen in my own lifetime the degra- a major impact on the ability of the State to con- dation of lots of the city area and city build- trol future use and management, access, public ings and the foreshore. My uncle used to be a alienation, built form and site development. There tip truck driver, and I remember when I are inherent problems in setting up alternative worked with him sometimes in the early six- planning systems to the NSW system and in ex- cluding NSW laws from applying to the sites. ties. We would go to Mosman or to places like Cremorne or Balmain. We would go to The creation of the Trust at Commonwealth Gov- all of those beautiful parts of Sydney, and we ernment level does not assist in the integration of good urban design and planning decisions for the would be involved in the carting away after Harbour, but continues the ad-hoc management of beautiful old houses had been destroyed. I neighbouring pieces of land. This is not in the know that if we went 20 years forward we best interests of the people of NSW. would not allow those beautiful houses to be It concludes: destroyed. We would preserve them. In the space of my lifetime I have seen so many It is hoped that the management of the land under historic homes and parks, gardens and Commonwealth legislation will not continue the segregation of the land from the rest of the Har- monuments being discarded, destroyed or bour foreshore. This currently occurs with De- not preserved. We have an opportunity in the fence land, which is why it is raised in this in- legislation here this evening and in the stance. amendments that we will be putting forward That is a very important point, which to ensure that that does not occur. It is in our should not be lost on you, Mr Acting Deputy hands now. Once this passes out of our hands President—that is, as I mentioned earlier, if we do not believe that the opportunity will you have an opportunity to cruise around exist for us to reclaim it. I want to make sure Sydney Harbour you will see the legacy of that my children have an opportunity to see generations of misplanning on one beautiful these fine monuments—whether to indige- part of our country, part of our country that is nous continuous occupation or to the Euro- Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15145 pean settlers and their descendants. We, as that noble objective! Maybe the first flaw is people, are entitled to demand that our gov- the spelling of the word ‘foreshore’ in the ernment do that. explanatory memorandum and in the second I thought that the Prime Minister had a bit reading speech. But let me move on from more of a historical contribution to make that to indicate that this is a very serious than to allow this to occur. If you read the piece of legislation. It has as its objective the Prime Minister’s speeches and hear his establishment of a management plan and a statements he is very proud of his own fam- management regime for rehabilitating the ily’s contributions not only to Australia’s defence land around Sydney Harbour that is military history but, obviously, in the way no longer of use to our defence forces. that they have risen in this country. I would In the past, as we all acknowledge, deci- be surprised if the Prime Minister has not sions were made that would never be made seen—like I have and like my colleagues today. It is doubtful whether some of the who live in Sydney and in New South Wales most beautiful land around Sydney Harbour have seen—the destruction of so many his- would today be allocated to the purposes, toric homes and gardens and monuments. At such as defence and heavy industry, that it this late stage we have a perfect opportunity was many years ago. Of course, we live in for these harbour foreshore lands to be re- different times—not necessarily more en- claimed by the citizens of New South Wales lightened times—in which there is a recog- and Sydney for our country, to make sure nition that we have a duty to current and fu- that they are preserved not only for this gen- ture generations to preserve as far as possible eration but for generations to come as a real our environmental heritage. It would be very testimony to the integration of this country difficult to find many other areas in metro- through colonisation and, subsequently, the politan parts of Australia that are deserving building up of these monuments to make of attention in that regard. sure that they are available for the future. Senator Sherry—What about Hobart? Sitting suspended from 6.28 p.m. to Senator FORSHAW—My friend and 7.30 p.m. colleague Senator Sherry interjects and men- Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) tions Hobart. We will get an opportunity in a (7.30 p.m.)—I rise to speak on the Sydney few weeks time, Senator Sherry, to once Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000]. again attend the ALP national conference at In doing so, I would like to acknowledge, Hobart. That historic occasion will also see like the previous speakers, Senator Bolkus many of the broad policy parameters enunci- and Senator Hutchins, that this is a very im- ated that will set us up for government. For portant piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it those of us who have visited Hobart—you do is flawed in many respects, and we therefore not need long to do it—it is a city that has look forward to the committee stage, when carried out very well the task of protecting we will be able to debate in more detail the both the environmental heritage of the area specific provisions of the bill. Hopefully, the and also the significant historic cultural amendments that will be moved by the oppo- heritage. That is what we wish for Sydney. I sition and have been circulated will find fa- had the opportunity last Saturday night to vour with the Senate. attend a function at Darling Harbour. It was a I am quite pleased to be able to speak on fundraising ball for Boys’ Town, which is this legislation, firstly, because I am a sena- located in my home suburb of Engadine. tor from New South Wales and, living in Senator Hutchins—Your old school! Sydney, I understand and appreciate the im- Senator FORSHAW—It is not my old portance of Sydney Harbour to the cultural school. Boys’ Town, as I think people and environmental heritage and future of our know—and I do not want to digress too nation. Secondly, I would obviously be par- much—is an establishment that has been in ticularly interested in ensuring that any leg- operation for many years providing support islation that has as its objective ‘protecting to homeless youth or youth in difficulties. foreshores’ is most thorough in carrying out 15146 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

The function was held at Darling Harbour. It the Daily Mirror and the other papers at the was a wonderful Sydney night, and the vista time. So there was one person who actually from the Convention Centre at Darling Har- managed to get past Fort Denison and land in bour as you look back across the water to the Australia and has since become a rather fa- city is truly fantastic. As is noted here in this mous personality in Sydney. second reading speech, the focus of the I should also mention that one of the in- world will be on Sydney in a couple of teresting features of Cockatoo Island is that, months time for the 2000 Olympics, and it whilst the docks there were used for many will be specifically focused upon our har- years as a ship repair and shipbuilding facil- bour—we can all envisage the television ity amongst other things, there was a re- images going out to the rest of the world. quirement that I understand was instituted My first memory of Darling Harbour is many years ago, probably the century before when I was a young child. My uncle was last, that there always had to be sheep graz- working on the railways, and my father used ing on Cockatoo Island. It was a feature I to take us into Sydney to go out to the cricket remember from when I was an official of the ground to watch the football. We would often Australian Workers Union. Each year, some- meet of a Saturday morning either at Central body—one of the officials, usually—would railway or at Darling Harbour. Darling Har- go across to Cockatoo Island and shear the bour was an old railway goods yard right on sheep. Historically, that requirement re- the edge of an expanse of water in Sydney mained in place. I hope that continues. I am Harbour. As Senator Hutchins pointed out, not sure whether it still exists today. there are a range of other sites around Syd- Let me turn to this legislation. As I said, it ney that in years gone by were centres of has a very noble purpose. The second read- industrial activity, whether it be the railway ing speech states: goods yards such as at Darling Harbour, the As the cradle of European settlement and the shipbuilding industry at Cockatoo Island, the focus of Australia’s most populous city, the Har- oil industry terminals at a range of sites bour is the quintessential image of our nation around the Balmain region or any number of abroad. It will be the centre of international at- other activities. tention during the 2000 Olympic Games. What we have seen in more recent years is For the people of Sydney, the Harbour pro- those areas being rehabilitated and diverted vides an avenue for commerce and the transport to public use. In the case of Darling Harbour, of people. The Harbour and its foreshores are a it is not pristine parkland, but it is a focal focus of city living and of recreational pursuits. point for community social activity in Syd- For these reasons the Government is commit- ney. I was particularly struck by how well ted to preserving the Harbour and its foreshore for that facility is now operating and is utilised future generations. by the people of Sydney. Before I turn par- They are very noble sentiments indeed. It ticularly to the legislation, I should also is a pity, therefore, that this legislation, when comment on some remarks made by Senator examined closely, has a number of flaws. In Hutchins on the now historic site of Fort particular, it has quite a number of omis- Denison, which was built to keep out the sions, which would suggest that there is a Russians. He said we successfully ensured significant gap between the spirit or the in- that there was never a Russian naval invasion tent of those objectives as outlined in the of Sydney Harbour. I have to correct the rec- second reading speech and outlined in the ord. There was one Russian who actually Prime Minister’s policy speech in 1998 and managed to get through the net. I cannot re- the letter of the legislation that we are con- member her name, and I have not had a sidering and will be considering in more de- chance to check with the Parliamentary Li- tail in committee. The speech goes on to in- brary—I am sure they would know. I am sure dicate what the objectives of the trust will be. many of us will remember the girl in the red It will be established to manage the land over bikini who jumped off a Russian ship. It was the course of the next 10 years. a bit hard to forget. It was in the headlines in Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15147

One really has to question many of the redneck state governments in the past from provisions of this bill. As Senator Bolkus has destroying some of those valuable assets, already pointed out, one primary concern that valuable heritage, the fact remains that that the opposition has is that this legislation the proposal in this legislation is for that land does not specify in any detail one of the to go back and become part of the Sydney prime objectives of this whole proposal, and Harbour National Park. One then has to ask that is to facilitate the transfer of ownership the question: why is it that this trust ar- and management of this land to the Sydney rangement will last for 10 years? Surely in a Harbour National Park. Nor does the legisla- transitional arrangement you do not have a tion have in its objects clause the very spe- transitional arrangement that lasts for 10 cific and primary purpose, which is the reha- years. That land can be rehabilitated and in bilitation of this land, because much of it is some cases very quickly returned to the re- Defence land and other land which needs to sponsibility of the New South Wales gov- be properly cleared and rehabilitated before ernment and the local governments that are it can be safely used by the public. Those involved around the harbour. That could be objectives are not spelt out in any detail in done in a much quicker time than 10 years. the legislation. We are very concerned about But no, this proposal is to vest the continuing that. Not only does this legislation not reflect control with the Commonwealth through that those key objectives but at the same time it trust and through the minister for up to 10 also vests in the minister substantial, if not years. almost absolute, discretion in the manage- As I said earlier, the representation from ment of this land. Sure, there is a trust put in the New South Wales government and also, place, but of the six members of that trust we would say, from local government needs four are to be appointed from the Common- to be increased to more properly reflect the wealth and only two from the state of New important role that the New South Wales South Wales. I see Senator Lightfoot shrugs government and local governments in those his shoulders. areas will play. We apprehend that, despite Senator Lightfoot—Maybe six will come the noble objectives outlined, as I said, in the from the state of New South Wales. second reading speech, what we have here is Senator FORSHAW—Two are to be ap- a proposal to promise to hand the land back pointed by the New South Wales govern- as part of the Sydney Harbour National Park ment. We will be moving an amendment in but at the same time to try to retain as much due course which will seek to change that as possible and for as long as possible Com- balance. The ultimate objective of this whole monwealth control of these assets. That is proposal is, firstly, to rehabilitate the land also borne out by the fact that the manage- and, secondly, to hand it over as part of the ment of this land during these next 10 years Sydney Harbour National Park. at least, and thereon potentially into the fu- ture after that 10-year period, is exempted Senator Lightfoot—You did say it was a from state planning and environmental pro- national asset. tection legislation. We see no good purpose Senator FORSHAW—The management for that—certainly we see no good public of national assets, as Senator Lightfoot well purpose for that. Why should that power be knows, ultimately remains with the state retained within the Commonwealth and ulti- governments in the areas with those facili- mately within the control of the Common- ties. Whether they be national parks, part of wealth minister? the national forest estate, areas such as Jervis Ultimately this land, if it is to be used for Bay or other parts of Australia, the manage- public purposes as part of the Sydney Har- ment ultimately rests with the state govern- bour National Park and if it is land that is ments. being managed and handed over under the While we do not in any way walk away principles of the Federation Trust—recog- from the national responsibilities and we nising heritage, cultural and environmental have at times had to act to prevent backward, benefits—why is it that state planning and 15148 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 environmental laws are exempted? I would foreshores and that land can be sold off from venture to say that in New South Wales the this area which should be protected. The environmental and planning laws for the word ‘significant’ comes into determining protection of culture and heritage are among which lands might be sold in the future be- the best in this country, and certainly they are cause, if they do not have what is called adequate ultimately for the purposes of pro- ‘significant heritage’ or ‘natural values’, they tecting this land. But we have a situation become vulnerable. One does not have to here where some of that land could be sold have a long experience in politics to know off for private purposes or leased under cer- how that word can be used to mean anything, tain arrangements for periods well in excess and so everything becomes vulnerable. of this initial 10-year supposed ‘transitional’ I note also that, of the $96 million allo- period. In that case, state planning and envi- cated to fund this transition to the protection ronmental laws might well not operate even of these great lands, more than 50 per cent beyond the 10 years or be ineffective. goes to the relocation of Defence facilities. So a whole range of concerns have been After so many years with a clean-up on identified. There is of course the issue of Cockatoo Island, for example, assessed by inadequate parliamentary scrutiny—the ex- some to be requiring of some $80 million, tensive level of ministerial discretion. We not the $40 million that is listed here, if full will certainly be taking the opportunity in the decontamination and so on is to be brought committee stage to examine in detail the about, I would have thought that meant that provisions relating to that and to move Defence should be dipping into the funding amendments accordingly. As I said at the of the future of these lands rather than taking outset, we in the opposition are vitally inter- from them. By the way, the Friends of ested in ensuring that any legislation going Cockatoo Island include Robin Copeland, through this parliament that protects the Elizabeth Kirkby, Wendy McCarthy, George great foreshores of our island continent is McGoogan and Jack Mundey, as well as Tom world’s best practice and that it will carry out Uren. That is just some indication of the that noble task properly. eminence of people who are concerned about Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.50 the future of the Sydney Harbour precinct. p.m.)—I oppose this legislation as it stands I want to take from the very words of Tom and I will continue to do so unless the Uren, who I think is one of the most mag- amendments coming from the opposition and nificent living beings on the face of the the Democrats are passed so that this legisla- planet, of not just Australian but global citi- tion does indeed become a matter of ensuring zens, and one who has certainly inspired me, the long-term protection and viability of this right back to the days of Lake Pedder. He is unparalleled opportunity for one of the great quite remarkable in that he has gone through cities of the world to have a living, breath- a long life of service to Australia, to the peo- ing, fantastic natural and historic precinct in ple, including a long life of politics and is, at its centre. Many prominent people, as well as the end of that, such a remarkably wonderful many ordinary citizens like me, who have human being. It is as if he was not tainted in had a passing, long-term or life-term asso- the way that so many of us who end up in ciation with Sydney want to see that all of politics can be. I will not go further than that, the lands involved in this legislation are except to say that it is an honour for me to be protected into the future for all future gen- able to read from his submission to the Sen- erations of both the citizens of Sydney and ate environment legislative committee look- the visitors to this great first city of Australia ing into this matter. He sums up the case so that they can enjoy this amenity. There are against this bill and certainly for its compre- a number of concerns of course with the hensive amendment in that submission. Tom legislation, not least, as earlier speakers have Uren thanked the committee for hearing him said, that the environmental legislation of and went on to say: New South Wales can be overwritten in the Your Committee’s report could be historic. Let management of the future of the harbour me explain my position. I do not believe party Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15149 politics should play a part. The future of the De- the Quarantine Station, all the Middle Head fence lands on the shores of Sydney Harbour, if shores from HMAS Penguin around to Chowder retained in totality, could create one of the great- Bay, and the shores and land which are part of est urban national parks on our planet. South Head to the NSW Government. A part of Although my political position is well known, the Agreement was that when the Commonwealth many, including some of your Committee mem- no longer needed remaining Harbour Defence bers, may not be aware that I was the Minister lands, it would also be transferred to NSW. responsible for the creation and introduction of I am not trying to isolate the Howard Government the Australian Heritage Commission, which in- because the Hawke and Keating Governments cludes the National Register, into the Australian also failed to proceed with the 1979 Agreement. Parliament. These foreshore lands are part of the The economic drys in Treasury and the Depart- National Register. ment of Finance together with the Defence bu- On the issue of the Defence lands, I have stood on reaucrats, believed the land was theirs and did not a platform with Bronwyn Bishop in 1988 to op- belong to the people. pose the Hawke Government’s sale of land on Let me now turn to when the present crisis be- Georges Heights. I have also shared a platform gan—October 1996. The Howard Government with Tony Abbott in the early 1990s against cer- announced an outcome, as proposed by a Steering tain aspects of the disposal of land at North Head. Committee that 120 residential sites would be I have had a love affair with Sydney Harbour and sold to private developers. In fairness to the its shores since I was a boy of 13. I commenced Howard Government this Committee was set up employment at that age and travelled daily from during the period of the Keating Government. our home on the Manly ferry until I was 18. I then The Committee included two NSW Government joined the Army at 18 and for approximately the public servants, a representative of the National next two years served in the Royal Australian Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Artillery of North Head. The deafness in my left Urban Affairs and Planning. ear is due to recording gun elevation of the Mark I was appalled with the proposal and wrote a let- VII on Middle Heads. From North Head I saw the ter to The Sydney Morning Herald, published on great troop ships of World War II—the Queen 5 November 1996 and I include it with my state- Mary, Queen Elizabeth and Aquitania—sail out ment. There was an avalanche of protest. Groups through the Heads taking with them the cream of around the Harbour which were functioning inde- our nationhood to war. So, my friends, the seed of pendently of one another came together and cre- love was sown early in my life for our Harbour ated an organisation, the Defenders of Sydney and its shores. Harbour Foreshores and they asked me to be their The visionary who inspired me most was Niel Patron. They had an influence on the NSW Gov- Nielsen, Minister for Lands in the McGowen ernment and Premier Carr made an important Government from 1910-11. He was able to ac- statement at Woolwich on 19 August 1997 relat- quire, with a land acquisition fund of 150,000 ing to his Government’s policy on Harbour shore pounds, the park that now carries his name, land where he dealt with public lands owned by Strickland House and the Hermitage Reserve. His the Commonwealth and State Governments. He vision was that progressively we should try to also dealt with future use of private land devel- create a green belt around the shores of Sydney opments on the Harbour and the Parramatta River Harbour. shores. There are others. A public servant when issuing a Mr Uren says: land grant around Cremorne Point in 1833, stipu- I wrote to the Prime Minister, John Howard, on lated that 100 feet above the high tide water mark 28 March 1997 seeking an interview which took should be retained for public access. Balls Head place on 23 May 1997. I include a copy of a letter and Berry’s Island were publicly acquired by the handed to the Prime Minister on that occasion. Lang Government in 1926. The open space on the You will note that I concentrated mainly on Mid- Harbour shores around Castlecrag was created by dle Head/Georges Heights which is the epicentre the intelligent and visionary planning of Walter of Sydney Harbour. My request was that the Burley Griffin. Howard Government rehabilitate Middle In my view the greatest vision for the creation of Head/Georges Heights land and transfer it to the a Sydney Harbour National Park was the 1979 Sydney Harbour National Park. It could be a gift Agreement of Prime Minister Fraser and Premier to the nation as a part of the 2001 centenary cele- Wran when the Commonwealth transferred Do- bration of our federation. broyd Point and the North Head shores, including 15150 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Post World War II the Army have not been sensi- . Does ‘commercial activities’ mean the tive or good tenants of the Middle Head land. sale of some of the Defence lands to private de- They have scarred the landscape with buildings, velopers? many of which will have to be removed in its . After decontamination, what is the fu- rehabilitation. I recommend to the committee— ture of Cockatoo Island? that is, of course, to the Senate committee . What is to happen to the Defence lands before which he was making this state- at Woolwich? ment— . Why should the Army be paid to vacate as I did to the Prime Minister—that if you want to the sites? examine the grandeur of this land which is the . Why create a Trust when the NSW epicentre of the Harbour, as a group you should Parks and Wildlife Service already administer the visit it. Do not take the Middle Head Road but existing National Park areas on Sydney Harbour? follow the Taronga Park Road, turn left at Cross Street, park near the Army Drill Hall and walk . Why 10 years before handing over the across to the eastern side of Rawson Park. The Defence lands? panoramic view spreading from Manly in the These questions were not answered before the north, over North Head, through the Heads, South 1998 Federal Election. Head, Nielsen Park, Bradley’s Head and towards At that time, when Mr Howard announced the Sydney’s CBD, is a breathtaking experience. I am formation of the Federal Trust, supporters of the sure it will captivate you as it has me. Howard Government, some of whom were also The Commonwealth Government have a respon- members of the Defenders Committee, argued sibility to rehabilitate Middle Head and Georges that no land would be sold and that extra Federal Heights. If it is good enough for the Common- revenue would be supplied in future Federal wealth and State Governments to make mining budgets to carry out rehabilitation work. companies rehabilitate their land, the Defence I questioned their argument, stating that it will Department, ie the Commonwealth, should meet take many millions of dollars—some estimate their responsibilities. well over $100 million—to rehabilitate the De- In May 1997, I left with the Prime Minister pho- fence lands. If their contentions were sound, why tographs of the panoramic views, the early heri- didn’t the Cabinet Decision cover such a pro- tage buildings which were constructed with sen- posal. Our fear was, and remains, that a substan- sitivity to the landscape and the post World War II tial amount of land would be sold off to private structures that scar the landscape. I leave copies developers to pay for any rehabilitation that is of these photos with the Committee. carried out. Mr Uren then went on to say: In August 1999 a Draft Sydney Harbour Federa- tion Trust Bill 1999, an Explanatory Memoran- On 5 September 1998 the Prime Minister, John dum and a document, ‘Facts about the Sydney Howard, announced the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The Howard Harbour Federation Trust Bill’ were circulated for public comment, requesting that comments be Government’s Cabinet Decision allocated made by the end of September and advising that $96 million from the Federation Fund to the Syd- ney Harbour Federation Trust to be distributed as the Bill would be introduced before Parliament adjourned. It was introduced into the Senate be- follows: fore the Christmas adjournment. On 8 Decem- . $40 million for cleaning up contami- ber 1999 it was referred to the Senate Environ- nated areas on Cockatoo Island; mental Legislative Committee the same day. . $6 million for establishing permanent The Draft Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill public access to parts of Garden Island; and 1999 is from many aspects a devious and decep- . $50 million for assisting Defence relo- tive document because: cation costs. . the purpose of the Trust’s establishment The Prime Minister went on to say: is not stated; ... the Trust will finance ... from commercial ac- . it does not specify the nomination of the tivities and the redevelopment of parts of the Trust land; sites. . the Trust can sell land; Many were concerned with the proposed Trust, . it exempts the Trust, Trust lands, any raising the following questions: sale or leases, or anything undertaken by the Trust from State laws; Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15151

. there is no proviso to preserve our Syd- I strongly believe the Bill should be rejected by ney Harbour foreshore lands; and the Senate. If it is not rejected and amended, do . it also gives excessive power to the not give the Trust the power to sell land nor the Minister for the Environment. authority to bypass NSW State laws. The Bill should also limit the powers of the Federal Min- If I may give an example of why an amendment ister over the Trust. would be required as a consequence of the Bill being accepted as legislation. I conclude my contribution by requesting that party politics be set aside. We need Prime Minis- During the period of drafting the Australian ter Howard and Premier Carr to work in a spirit of Heritage Commission Bill 1975 the bureaucrats in cooperation in the interests of the Australian peo- the Department of Urban and Regional Develop- ple in a visionary way and the 1979 Fraser/Wran ment were advocating strong Ministerial control Agreement could be a basis for such an arrange- over the Commission. David Yenchen, who was ment. If the Commonwealth are not happy with interim Chairperson of the National Estate and how the lands are administered by the State Gov- played an important role in drafting the Bill, ar- ernment they have the ability and the authority to gued that the Commission should not be con- set financial guidelines. trolled or directed by the Minister. At the time I had the National Capital Development Commis- My vision for the future is that the NSW Gov- sion under my administration with a similar ernment should create a special authority to ad- power that Yenchen was advocating. I came down minister all publicly-owned lands on Sydney against my Department’s bureaucrats and in fa- Harbour shores and create one of the great urban vour of David Yenchen, who became the first national parks in the world which would encom- Chairperson of the Commission. pass a living heritage, maritime support activities, urban waterfront life and recreational/passive I make it quite clear that the overwhelming sup- parklands. port among the Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores in protection of the Defence lands on What a great vision. What a great Austra- Sydney Harbour supported the implementation of lian. What a great lead for us in the Senate to the Fraser/Wran 1979 Agreement. Sadly, certain follow. I note that some of Mr Uren’s pro- people who are members or supporters of the posals were taken up by the overall recom- Liberal Party continue to denigrate the NSW mendations of that committee; some were Parks and Wildlife Service. They continue to not. But I have spoken to Tom Uren and oth- claim that if the Federal Trust is agreed to by ers on this matter and I am convinced that he Parliament no land will be sold and Federal reve- is right. His is the sort of vision which will nue grants will be given to the Trust in future budgets. ensure that in the centuries to come Sydney has one of the greatest urban central national They don’t, or will not, acknowledge the Howard parks of any city on the face of this planet. It Government’s 1999/2000 Budget which states that $96 million would be allocated from the Fed- is a vision I totally endorse. That is why I eration Fund. To facilitate the establishment of cannot support this bill. the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, a loan of Senator WEST (New South Wales) (8.09 $770,000 in 1999/2000 and $45,000 in 2000/2001 p.m.)—I rise today to support the opposi- is to be made available through the Department of tion’s position on the Sydney Harbour Fed- the Environment. According to the Budget pa- eration Trust Bill 1999 [2000] and to oppose pers: what the government is planning to do—and The loan will be used to provide for the costs I certainly support the opposition’s foreshad- associated with the development of legislation, owed committee stage amendments. Sydney financial plans, community consultation and other Harbour is undoubtedly one of the world’s operational arrangements. Once the Sydney Har- bour Federation Trust has been established it most beautiful natural wonders. It stands out should be able to finance its activities through in my mind as probably one of the most limited commercial activities including property spectacular harbours you could ever wish to trading, etc. see. It is there with San Francisco and it is There is no doubt in my mind, that the majority of there with—and a hell of a lot cleaner than— the Howard Cabinet want ‘commercial activities’ Hong Kong. It is truly beautiful. On a cool to pay for the rehabilitation and decontamination winter’s day when there is no fog, no smog, of Middle Head, Georges Heights and other Har- with the sun shining through the blue sky, bour sites with the sale of ‘surplus’ lands. reflecting off the crystal clear water, there is 15152 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 no more beautiful sight than that foreshore of contaminated land.’ The government and that harbour. It is said that a thousand of therefore intends, presumably—it has done a the line could rest at safe anchor there. Last survey—to leave the remainder of the clean- year we saw Alex the whale—I think they up costs to whoever has it. But it is of grave called the whale Alex—come into that har- concern to people that this land will now, for bour and spend a fortnight there, providing 10 years, be exempt from state environ- joy and enlightenment to many people as mental planning and tenancy laws. This is they saw nature in their midst at its best. totally contradictory to what the New South It is a very important waterway, especially Wales legislation is for, in that it incorporates to the west, and many parts of it are bordered the concept of ‘polluter pays’ in relation to by parkland. Certainly one of the main de- contaminated lands. sires of Neville Wran was to make sure that A lot of work has been done by the New all of the land on the foreshore of the harbour South Wales government to actually over- was accessible to the public. Access to the come contamination, to remove pollution foreshore was regarded, and still is regarded and to reduce pollution—to actually make by many people who live in Sydney and this area even more beautiful, cleaner and elsewhere, as the right of everybody. freer of pollution than it is at present. The But what we have here is the Common- New South Wales government wants to see wealth government selling off remaining more whales visit Sydney Harbour and it tracts of its land. Whether it actually needs to wants to see more fish in the Parramatta put legislation through is debatable because River. of the agreement that Mr Fraser and Neville We are also talking about the land around Wran reached in 1979. But the government is these areas. There is a concern that people taking credit for this. When did it start to leasing the trust land will not be answerable take credit for it? Prior to the general elec- to state laws and that the land will still be tion of 1998. The federal government had the considered to be Commonwealth land. There Federation Fund that it used to pork-barrel its is the high likelihood that they can sell off way through the election campaign, and this parts of this land to other people and allow proposal comes 10 years down the track. them to build whatever they want to build. When you read the Bills Digest, it becomes There are certainly significant pushes in quite clear that the government probably parts of Sydney in the real estate area to does need to put this money from the Fed- build very prestigious, expensive accommo- eration Fund aside, because there is probably dation running right down to the foreshore. no other way that it can undertake the clean- You can see it in other areas. The last thing up that would be required in a number of that these parkland areas need is more high- these areas. density or medium-density accommodation An amount of $90 million was allocated going right down to the water’s edge. to it: $50 million to the Department of De- Sydney is pretty close to being full in fence to meet costs associated with reloca- terms of its population density. It is highly tion from sites and to remove surplus build- and heavily populated. Parkland areas are ings, and the remaining $40 million to be needed and need to be maintained to be the allocated to the trust to support the clean-up lungs of that great city. I have grave concerns of contaminated areas on Cockatoo Island— that the New South Wales legislation has the and I think the word ‘support’ is of great im- capacity to be totally overrun and overruled. portance. The Department of Defence was The explanatory memorandum states that also to receive an additional $6 million to while much of the land will ultimately be establish public access to parts of the Garden transferred, ‘some land may be identified in Island Naval Base. the management planning process as unsuit- I am of the understanding that there is no able for park or community use and sold’. If legal requirement for the government to it is unsuitable for park and community use, clean up Defence land; it can just leave it if it who would want to buy it? What big plans wishes to. But it says, ‘Support the clean-up does the government have for the land? The Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15153 outline of the management planning process There are some other very interesting in the legislation is obviously quite sketchy things in the bill. The trust may borrow because the Democrats and the Labor Party money from the Commonwealth or private feel that it is necessary to move a consider- sources using trust land as collateral. This able number of amendments. As I look may result in the trust land being exposed to through the pieces of paper, the fallen trees, possible court action to recover any default that are deposited upon my desk, I see one by the trust. The bill does not specify what bundle containing 99 amendments—sheet land is covered—what is up for grabs—or is 1778—to be moved by the opposition and it a case of ‘you name it and we will ensure the Democrats in the committee stage. The you do not have to deal with nasty state Democrats have a further two amendments planning laws’? One is very suspicious about and the opposition have a further two this. This all started pre the 1998 federal amendments and, after a quick perusal, they election. From my understanding, all of the look fairly similar as well. The government land is in Liberal Party held seats. So one has obviously found a couple of mistakes to could become a bit suspicious if one were fix because it will be moving 41 amend- into conspiracy theories. ments. So we are talking about a bill here The ministerial directions are to be pub- tonight to which there are currently, circu- lished in the trust’s annual report, which will lated in the chamber, close to 145 amend- result in considerable delay in the directions ments to be moved in the committee stage of being publicly known. This may cause the bill. I can only presume that someone is problems due to a large amount of public doing a running sheet for us because we are interest in the issues. Am I being suspicious certainly going to need it. and paranoid here in saying that the govern- When I look at the amendments, I become ment does not really want the general public very concerned because the amendments are to know? That is very much what it looks to clarify what the objects of the trust will like to me, and it is of grave concern. I rec- be, what the functions of the trust will be— ommend that government members read the and this is the body that is going to look after Bills Digest because it outlines many areas of the land—and what the powers of the trust concern in relation to this bill. I certainly will be. It is of great concern that it is felt recommend that people look at page 10 and necessary to move amendments to include the concluding comments, which state: what one would consider elementary mate- One of the Trusts more challenging tasks will be rial in a bill that is to set up a trust to look to reconcile possible perceptions of competition after something. Some of these amendments between ‘preserving the amenity’ and ‘maximis- should have been automatic. If it were good ing public access’ objectives on the one hand and governance, if there were transparency, this establishing a ‘sustainable financial base’ on the would have been done automatically. It other. As indicated, the Government has said that, would not have required amendments. It is in relation to Woolwich and Cockatoo Island, ‘the also interesting to note that the sale of the ultimate ownership of these sites will be deter- mined on the basis of the best outcome in main- land is solely at the discretion of the minister. taining these sites as community assets’. It is in- The trust will manage the land and make teresting to note that, in relation to the power to recommendations to the minister, but the dispose of trust land, the explanatory memoran- minister has the sole responsibility for the dum contains the rather cryptic comment that sale of it. The New South Wales government [w]hile much of the land will [ultimately] be has already brought in new bodies to regulate transferred to NSW, some land may be identified Sydney Harbour foreshore land. The estab- in the management planning process as unsuitable lishment of yet another entity in the form of for park and community use, and sold. this trust seems contradictory to the positive It should be noted that the sale of Trust land can steps taken by the New South Wales gov- only occur with the approval of the Minister. Ap- ernment to provide greater coordination and proval could only be granted if a sale was in ac- planning for the Sydney Harbour foreshore cordance with the relevant Management Plan— in New South Wales. But we now have an- which in turn must accord with the objects of the other entity which is on its own. Trust—although it may be technically possible 15154 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 for the Minister to approve the sale of land prior It really strikes me that, when it has three to the development of a Management Plan. options in the way it can do this, the gov- It goes on to say: ernment chooses to go the way that leads to The Bill also provides that the Trust may borrow the least public scrutiny, or certainly the least money from either the Commonwealth or other public scrutiny at an immediate time. There sources and, in doing so, it may put Trust land up can be public scrutiny after the fact, but that for collateral. Presumably this is to provide the is too late—that would be after the land was Trust with greater flexibility in managing its fi- sold, after the event, and there would be nancial affairs. This has a precedent in section 50 of the Federal Airports Corporations Act 1986. nothing that anybody could do. If you were However, it is unclear how this provision will to carefully time the sale of the land and the operate in practice as presumably Trust land publication of the annual report, you could would only be attractive as collateral to a private be looking at almost 18 months before this sector financier if the land could be built upon or became public. This is not good governance; otherwise redeveloped to provide a commercial this is not transparency. I am critical of who- return. Given this, it may be questionable whether ever is responsible for this. a loan contract that exposed Trust land to a possi- ble court action to recover any default by the The other area that I have grave concerns Trust would be consistent with the objectives of about—and we are moving a number of the Trust. amendments in regard to this—relates to a This is pretty damning sort of stuff. It is conflict of interest of trust members’ provi- not me saying this; it is the Bills Digest say- sions, and they are not clearly defined. There is a need to include in the legislation, as well ing this. I have a great deal of respect for the people who write this. as the objects of the trust, the functions and the powers of the trust and the terms of of- It is also important to look at the operation fice and conditions of appointment. There is of the trust. It says on page 12 of the Bills also a need for the legislation to clearly spell Digest: out that meetings will be public; that notices The Minister may give written directions to the of meetings, the conduct of meetings, the Trust instructing it [to] perform its functions and exercise its powers in a certain manner. The Trust minutes of meetings and other documents is obliged to follow any such direction provided will be made public; and that pecuniary in- they do not conflict with the objects of the Act. terests will be disclosed. I would have Any direction must be published in the Trust’s thought that any government worth its salt Annual Report. The provision for the relevant would not have put legislation up that re- Minister to give directions to a statutory authority quires amendments as elementary as these is relatively common in Commonwealth legisla- types of things. These are the nuts and bolts tion. Depending on the legislation, the public of it all. As I said before, this is about good recording of such directions can be through ta- governance, transparency and doing the right bling in the Parliament, publishing in the Gazette thing. It is not just seeing that the right thing or inclusion in the authority’s annual report. Ob- viously in the last case, there may be considerable is done; it is the perception as well. delay in the directions being publicly known, I am appalled that this government has unless the Minister or relevant authority also introduced legislation that requires amend- chooses to publicise them in [a] more informal ments to tighten up on the disclosure of pe- manner, such as through a press release. No ex- cuniary interests and on making public the planation is given in the Explanatory Memoran- conduct of meetings and the minutes of dum or the second reading speech as to why the meetings and other documents. To me, this Government has chosen the annual report option given the likely level of public interest in the op- just seems like sloppy work. There is also the eration of the Trust. need to spell out more clearly, of course, the transfer of assets and the repeal of this act. There is a very great need in this legislation Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15155 for an amendment that makes sure that New tive outcome not just for themselves but for South Wales laws will apply, particularly the future generations and to ensure that the val- environment and planning laws of that state. ues of these lands are maintained, preserved If you do not do that, you run the risk of and, hopefully, enhanced. loading up the state in the future with con- The Democrats do not support the sale of siderable financial penalties and also possi- public land around the Sydney Harbour fore- bly leaving open that particularly beautiful shores. It should be remediated and returned to the people, wherever possible. One only section of this country to things that should has to look at the totally inadequate provi- not be done. sion of open space in the Pyrmont former There is also concern about membership industrial area to realise what a precious re- of the trust. It is heavily weighted towards source public open space around Sydney Commonwealth government representation. Harbour is becoming. It has been estimated There is no requirement for local govern- that, since the redevelopment of the Pyrmont ment or community representation on the area for residential uses, there will be some- trust. The minimum we would support would thing like just 1.2 square metres of public open space for every resident, when the con- be two positions nominated by the Com- version to residential is complete. monwealth, two by the state, one by local government and one by the community. We have had a number of speeches in this debate from senators representing the state of These are the sorts of elementary things that New South Wales. Not unreasonably, they this government has failed to actually un- have a special interest in speaking in consid- dertake. It has failed to make sure that the ering this issue. As a senator from Queen- legislation it has introduced for this particu- sland, I would probably make a few com- larly beautiful piece of land and wonderful ments in relation to that. Firstly, it is quite harbour is correct and clear. It is not appro- fair and appropriate to note and to recognise priate. This government’s legislation is that Sydney Harbour—whilst it is obviously sloppy and slack. It lacks transparency and it part of New South Wales; and, indeed, the does not indicate good governance. lands in this particular debate here tonight cover some specific local council areas—is a Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (8.28 national asset, something that in many ways p.m.)—I rise to speak on behalf of the Aus- is one of a small number of landmarks of tralian Democrats in relation to this impor- natural features that represent Australia to tant piece of legislation, the Sydney Harbour the world. All of us have a responsibility to Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000]. I would try to ensure that that national landmark and like to begin by giving particular thanks for national asset is maintained and protected in the substantial and ongoing input by many whatever way possible. people from the community surrounding the relevant areas that this bill relates to—such There are lots of aspects of Sydney Har- people as the Defenders of Sydney Harbour bour—which is, of course, a large area—that Foreshores and their member groups; and have been mismanaged over the years. Cer- others such as the local councils from the tainly, many of those have been the respon- area, from Mosman, Hunters Hill and Manly. sibility not of the federal government but of They should be thanked for their representa- the state government: alienation of harbour tions on behalf of the community in ensuring foreshore lands; as I have stated, a lot of that public access to former defence lands is closing off of lands from access to the pub- maximised and that these lands remain, as lic; and obviously a substantial loss of bush- far as is possible, in public ownership for land and other natural and environmental future generations. It has been a good exam- features. There has been a lot of change, not ple of people who share a common interest, a surprisingly, in this area in the 212 years passion and love for this area and the par- since British settlement occurred in the ticular lands that the bill relates to, making place. That makes it all the more important an attempt to work together to ensure a posi- that some of those features that we can still 15156 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 retain, in the environmental sense, are not Island appeared before the committee and lost; and also that some of those heritage put in submissions, and they have been re- features that have been put in place since that ferred to by other speakers in this debate. time are not lost as well. There are some During the course of the inquiry, some of the amazing heritage assets and values in the incredible heritage features of Cockatoo Is- Sydney Harbour area and the particular lands land were pointed out to the committee. It is that we are talking about. Many of them, worth emphasising, or noting with disap- even people in Sydney itself would not be pointment, the lack of resources put in by the aware of; but we really need to make sure Department of Defence as the former tenants that they are not lost. of that area, in preserving, protecting and Another perspective I would give, as a maintaining that island—particularly its person from outside of New South Wales, is heritage values, but not only that. It is an that as a senator for Queensland I often area that does have immense potential for all speak with strong pride of some of the fabu- Australians—and, indeed, for people around lous assets that Queensland has: the Great the world—in terms of some amazing heri- Barrier Reef, Moreton Island, Moreton Bay, tage aspects in that particular area that we Fraser Island—there is quite a large list; a really need to make sure are preserved. It is much larger list than you could get for New at a crunch point with that particular area: we South Wales, actually—which makes it all are at a situation where it is far from guar- the more important that one of those par- anteed that some of the many assets of that ticular assets of New South Wales that is of particular island will be preserved if we do value and particular significance, Sydney not do it properly. In fact, there have already Harbour, is protected. I know that during the been competitions for future uses of sites for Senate committee hearings when we had areas such as Cockatoo Island. some hearings in Sydney, taking representa- The Democrats have their own views tions from councils and others interested in about how best that may be used as part of a this issue, we took a visit—briefer than I working harbour with a range of end uses. It would have liked—around the areas in ques- is an area that provides lots of opportunity tion. Some members of the committee—and for highlighting and showcasing the heritage Senator Eggleston, who, as members will values of that particular island and of the know, is from Western Australia—accompa- harbour more broadly. But it also presents a nied us on that visit around Sydney Harbour lot of difficulties in terms of being able to do and some of the sites. I think I recall Senator that adequately. It is something that will not Eggleston trying to suggest that the Swan be able to be done cheaply and it is certainly River was equal in magnificence to Sydney not something that one could guarantee Harbour. I am not sure that I would go along would be able to be done in a self-funding with that. Despite being a parochial Queen- way. Indeed, it is very hard to see how it slander, I do not think I would say that the could be done in a self-funding way. I should Brisbane River quite matches up, either. I at this stage pay tribute to the former New would say that Sydney does not necessarily South Wales Democrat MLC Liz Kirby, who have a hell of a lot going for it in many as- was a patron of the Friends of Cockatoo Is- pects, but the harbour is one thing that it land for many years and highlighted through does have going for it. Whether you are from the state parliament the importance of trying New South Wales or not, it is crucial that we to preserve the heritage values of that par- do make sure that the values of the harbour ticular area. remain and that the foreshores and the for- Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (8.35 mer Defence Force lands in question under p.m.)—Whilst the Democrats and Labor have this bill are protected, preserved and en- been able to agree on many of the commu- hanced for future generations. nity groups’ concerns in amendments to the One of the areas of significance that I Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 certainly was not particularly aware of is [2000], I have not actually counted them up, Cockatoo Island. The Friends of Cockatoo but I take Senator West at her word that there Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15157 are 99 that we have moved jointly and will cally just a suburban street. Obviously it may deal with in the committee stage. We do have be able to be used to generate money for the a difference on the make-up of the member- trust, whether it is released or rented or ship of the trust and how it should be con- whatever. That is not a foreshore area. It is stituted. We will be moving our preferred not harbour-front housing. It is back away model in the committee stage of the debate. from the harbour itself, but it is part of the I think it is worth emphasising some of the lands that will be managed by the trust. To core aspects of what causes concern about leave open ended the ability of the trust to this particular bill to many people, including choose for itself how the lands will be used those that I have mentioned—the local coun- to derive income is a very dangerous ap- cils and others who have worked to protect proach, particularly when the federal gov- and preserve the foreshores and the former ernment will not guarantee a specific amount Defence Force lands. Certainly I think no- of funding to assist the trust in managing one has objection to—indeed, everyone wel- these lands over the course of the period un- comes—the stated objective of the federal til they are transferred back to state owner- government to preserve these lands, to man- ship. It is fine for the federal government to age them and to transfer them back to the say, ‘Oh well, we’ll provide funds if neces- ownership of the New South Wales state sary.’ But to not actually specify how much government with the aim of future genera- funding will be available unavoidably leaves tions being able to enjoy them and ensuring the trust in a situation where it has an in- that they are not degraded and that some of credible imperative to try to raise as much the benefits they bring to the Sydney Har- money as possible, a commercial imperative bour area are not lost. That is an aim that I to derive funds to the maximum amount, to think everybody shares. What we need to ensure it has got the money to adequately ensure as a parliament at the federal level is manage the lands. that the model that is put forward to try to As previous speakers have pointed out, achieve that goal is as strong and as capable deriving funds and ensuring that the land is as possible of delivering that outcome. The managed to preserve its heritage and natural legislation as it presents itself at the moment values should not be in conflict; there should certainly falls far short of the mark in that be no doubt about which has primacy. The regard. Indeed, the committee examination absolute primacy and the fundamental, in- of, and report into, this particular legislation controvertible aim and purpose of this trust identified a number of problems that needed must be to preserve the heritage and natural rectification, and the government members values of these lands to maximise public ac- of that committee themselves highlighted a cess for future generations. Raising money number of areas that needed modification. must come second to that. There is no doubt The government has circulated some that some parts of these areas could be used amendments which address some of those to raise money and, indeed, should be used areas. I do not think they go all the way to to raise money: if people use docking facili- addressing even the concerns expressed by ties in Cockatoo Island in the future, why not the government members of the committee. charge them to do so? But to leave it open They certainly do not go far enough to ad- for the trust to have to raise the maximum dressing the long held and quite clear, open amount of money inevitably puts it in a po- and well-known concerns of local councils sition where it will have incredible pressure and communities about this issue. on it to compromise what should be its pri- There are fundamental issues like the mary goal of preserving the heritage and proper identification of the sites that the natural values of these lands—preserving Sydney Harbour Trust will manage, a par- them for public access by future generations. ticularly important issue in selling off the That is something that should not be al- land. As some senators would know, there is lowed. That loophole, that gap, should not be an area within the lands in question which maintained in this particular piece of legisla- contains Defence Force housing; it is basi- tion. 15158 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

There is the issue of the application of lands, these particularly precious and im- New South Wales law which this bill seeks portant lands, back it has not guaranteed any to exempt the trust from. All the communi- extra funds to manage them—and this is a ties and councils have been very strong in state which is already, in my view, under- calling for state planning laws to apply. funding its national park areas. It does not There are issues in terms of the amount of have enough funds to adequately manage its control exercised by the minister over the existing national parks, and we are going to trust. There are issues in terms of inadequate put these extra areas into its ownership with mechanisms for ensuring community input. I no guarantee from the New South Wales am sure the government could say the state government that it is going to provide mechanisms are there to enable community extra funds for these areas, which have very input, but there is a difference between hav- special and particular heritage and natural ing a mechanism that enables community values that need special management. In ex- input if the trust happens to operate in that pressing concerns about the federal govern- way and having a mechanism in place which ment I do not want to suggest that the New ensures community input, which ensures South Wales government is taking a better community awareness, knowledge and con- approach to this. sultation about what is planned, what is pro- The state government has not cooperated posed, what is being considered. There are with the operation of the interim trust, and I issues in terms of the overall management think that is a pity. We have a situation now plan for these areas: who decides, how it is where in many ways the future of these areas decided and how much control there is over has become a bit of a political football where the final outcome. Those are all things that both federal and state leaders are wanting to the government has not adequately addressed get the kudos of protecting what are un- in the bill and, in the time I have had to look doubtedly very special areas. I am sure any at them, are not adequately addressed in the person would like to be able to put their per- government amendments either. It is worth sonal seal of approval on them and say, ‘I mentioning that, ironically, at the same time was responsible for saving this,’ or, ‘I was as describing this as a national asset that all responsible for delivering this to future gen- of us in the national parliament have a re- erations.’ Whilst that is an understandable sponsibility to ensure is protected, preserved human feeling, this is an area where we and maintained, in many ways it will be local really need to try to cut through all of that government—not the state government or the state-federal garbage and just try to ensure federal government but local government— we get an outcome that delivers for the that will be closest to these areas and that whole community. I do not think that the will be working at a grassroots level to community really cares, as long as we get an ensure they are properly maintained and outcome that delivers these areas back to the protected. They are the ones at the coalface, people and preserves them and protects them and I think their views on this issue need to for future generations. be taken very strongly into account. In that sense, it is worth re-emphasising I would draw a differentiation between the the constructive role that local government approach and the representations of local has tried to play with this. They have not just government in New South Wales and that of said, ‘We are not cooperating. Get lost. We the state government. While I have criticised do not support you. Just give us the lands the federal government for not guaranteeing back. We know what to do.’ They have tried up-front funds, about adequately managing to engage with the federal government. They this trust, let us remember that this trust is have put forward constructive amendments, being established with an aim, with a pur- constructive suggestions, about how they pose of transferring these lands back to the believe we can best guarantee the protection New South Wales government, to New South of these areas. That is what we are about Wales public ownership; yet the New South with this bill. We are trying to guarantee as Wales government has also not guaranteed far as is humanly possible the protection and any extra funding. When it gets these extra Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15159 the preservation of these important areas, the and provides public open space which will natural and the heritage values. In my view, be there for all time so that the people of they have tried to move outside of that state Perth can enjoy the beauty of the river from versus federal tug of war that unfortunately the heights of Mount Eliza. stained so many things in the political history Kings Park was created in the 1890s by of this country, and they have tried to put the then state Premier John Forrest, who with forward constructive amendments. I think incredible vision saw that preserving 1,000 the government have gone a little way to- acres in the centre of the city would be of wards trying to meet them, but I think they great value to the people of Perth as time have got a long way to go. Certainly the went on. Essentially, what the federal gov- Democrats’ position is strongly influenced ernment is seeking to do with this Sydney by the views of those councils and those Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] is communities that are closest to these areas. to create in Sydney something like Kings The detail of the amendments will obvi- Park. There is a lot of bushland around Syd- ously be debated and discussed in the com- ney Harbour, which comes as something of a mittee stage of this debate, so I will not go surprise to people like me who come from into them in any detail now. But to re- the other side of Australia and assume that emphasise what this bill should be about: it all of the harbour land around Sydney Har- should be about ensuring the trust is estab- bour has been built out. Instead, one finds lished in a way that leaves no loopholes for there is quite a lot of open bushland there. misuse of these areas, no loopholes in terms It turns out, of course, that a lot of that of leaving a risk of these areas being mis- land on the harbour has been owned by the used, mismanaged or degraded in terms of defence forces, and what the federal gov- not having enough funds being made avail- ernment is proposing to do under this bill is able to ensure they are appropriately handled transfer in due course the Defence Force land as part of the process of handing the areas back to the New South Wales government back to the state government. As part of that for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National it is worth re-emphasising when they are Park. That will create a great asset for the handed back to state government, at what- people of Sydney: to have this great national ever time in the future, it is crucial that we park around the shores of the harbour, which have a state government in New South will be there to be used by the public for all Wales—because this is a national asset—that time to come. commits enough funds and enough of a leg- islative framework to protect these areas as During his speech Senator Brown quoted well, not just for the people of New South at length from the submission Mr Tom Uren Wales but for all of Australia. made, and he referred to the Fraser-Wran agreement of 1979, which he said would not Senator EGGLESTON (Western Aus- be honoured. But that really is not the case. tralia) (8.49 p.m.)—As chairman of the Sen- As the report produced by the committee and ate Environment, Communications, Infor- tabled in the Senate said: mation Technology and the Arts Legislation The intention is that the Trust should complete its Committee, which conducted the hearings task within ten years— into this matter, I would like to just make a few remarks before Senator Hill draws the which was one of the requirements of the threads together and closes this debate. As Fraser-Wran agreement— Senator Bartlett said, the Brisbane River is After that time, the Commonwealth intends to not quite as outstandingly beautiful as Syd- transfer suitable lands to the New South Wales ney Harbour. While that may be the case, I government for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour am not sure that I would agree that the Swan National Park. River in Perth does not match it. Although, So the Wran-Fraser agreement will be one has to say that the great thing about honoured—perhaps not in total detail but Perth and the Swan River is that we have certainly in spirit—and a great national park Kings Park, which overlooks the Swan River will be created around the harbour. 15160 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Senator West also referred to the fact that setting up Kings Park overlooking the Swan there was need for community consultation, River in Perth. for the people of Sydney and local govern- Senator HILL (South Australia—Minis- ments in the area to be consulted, which is a ter for the Environment and Heritage) (8.55 point that Senator Bartlett made as well. But, p.m.)—I thank honourable senators who have as the report also states, there is already a participated in the debate on the Sydney strong spirit of cooperation between the local Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000]. I municipal councils, resident and community thank Senator Eggleston and the Senate En- groups, and the interim Sydney Harbour vironment, Communications, Information Federation Trust. Mayor Harvey from the Technology and the Arts Legislation Com- Mosman Council said: mittee for their work on the inquiry into this We do need the Trust. That is why Mosman bill. I thank those who made submissions to Council has made this submission suggesting just that inquiry. A significant number of dedi- how it can be accomplished with this present cated community groups participated in the bill ... inquiry and put their points of view, which So, in other words, there is already con- are points that I respect. In some instances sultation with the community and local gov- we might differ on detail, but I commend ernment. There is a fairly friendly spirit their commitment to this wonderful asset that about the way it is all being done. we are wanting to conserve and present to One of the most interesting submissions the people of Sydney and Australia. Partici- made to the committee was made by Ms pation in the democratic process in this way Bergin of the Headland Preservation Group. is very important. She referred to the Presidio Park in San We as a government are proud of what we Francisco, which is former defence force are doing in this regard. We have identified a land which has been turned into a park that number of pieces of critically important land will be self-funding in 10 to 15 years. The that have both natural and historic values federal government here in Australia wants around Sydney Harbour, land that has been this new park to fund its own development held for defence purposes in the past but will through perhaps the sale or lease of land and no longer be needed for that purpose. We are other commercial activities. That is not an setting up this trust to rehabilitate that land unreasonable thing. The committee found and to ensure that it is then transferred to be through its inspections that not all of the land kept for the people of Australia in perpetuity. involved has unique and beautiful harbour We are doing this through the establishment views. As Senator Bartlett said, a lot of the of the trust itself, a group that will be com- land is really just suburban housing land mitted to the preparation of management which has no unique or special features. plans and identifying the most important There is no reason why that land should not aspects in terms of values of the properties be sold off and the funding used to develop and that will take into account community the park. views through site-specific community plans. My broad view in conclusion is that the The trust will then manage the task of reha- federal government’s intentions in setting up bilitation of the properties—and in some this trust are excellent. In creating the Syd- instances that will be quite a complex task— ney Harbour Trust in association with the so that within a period of 10 years, which is Sydney Harbour National Park the people of the stated period of the legislation, these Sydney will have a wonderful asset which properties will be in a condition suitable for will guarantee public access to harbourside transfer to the parties who will maintain the land for a very long time to come. I am sure ultimate responsibility for their conservation. that future generations will be very grateful We have specified that in relation to three for the foresight of the federal government in of the properties—North Head, Georges proposing that this trust be set up, just as the Heights and Middle Head—the objective is people of Western Australia are grateful to to transfer the properties to be part of the Sir John Forrest for his great foresight in New South Wales parks system. We have not Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15161 specified an ultimate repository in the case of in this project, which is somewhat amazing, Cockatoo Island and Woolwich where it is a seeing as they are going to be the repository little more complicated, but we have said in the end of land that is being rehabilitated. that the commitment would be for conserva- I guess that for at least short-term political tion objectives in perpetuity. It may well be reasons they have not been prepared to coop- that those properties are suitable to be part of erate. We have held two seats open to them the New South Wales parks system, but that on the interim trust. They have been unwill- is something that can be determined over the ing to nominate personnel to hold those next 10 years. seats. In those circumstances to cede a plan- We are not necessarily limiting ourselves ning control and really a veto to New South to the five initial properties that were speci- Wales is, in our view, unwise. We neverthe- fied at the time of the announcement of set- less want to cooperate with the government ting up the trusts. Since then we have nomi- of New South Wales. That is why we have nated two further properties that we intend to offered them the seats on the interim trust, transfer to the trust for similar objectives. and this legislation provides for seats on the One is the Old Lighthouse in The Point on ultimate trust. We want to cooperate with the the southern side of the harbour, and the local councils and community groups be- other is Snapper Island, within the harbour cause we see this as a unique opportunity to on the Parramatta River, as I recall. Senator rehabilitate, to transfer and to properly con- Eggleston will be interested to know that we serve and present some very special assets have got our eye on some other properties as that we are lucky enough to be custodians of well. This is a wonderful opportunity thanks and therefore have a responsibility to con- in particular to Defence but, in the case of serve. the lighthouse, to other government authori- This bill is about setting up a framework ties that have been able to maintain the prop- for this work to enable these properties to be erties in a state in which, with some work, transferred from existing government in- they can be transferred as assets suitable for strumentalities to the trust. With that frame- preservation for the public good. work, the trust will be able to get on with the There have been few areas of controversy job as set out in the objects of the legislation. on issues of substance in this project but lots In the meantime, as I have hinted at, an in- of debate about detail. Of the issues of sub- terim trust has been established. It is operat- stance, the most significant one is that we ing very successfully, a small staff is in have left open in this bill—and we make no place, it is taking advice from some of the secret of it—the possibility of transferring best architects in the country and work has off some land that may not be of significant commenced towards the preparation of the environmental value. Most observers—not management plans, picking up work that had all—realise that some such land is attached previously been done by the Department of to these properties. As far as this government Defence and other Commonwealth agencies. is concerned, if that can be turned into capi- So time has not been lost. We have been get- tal that can be reinvested in the projects, that ting on with the job while this legislation has might be the best usage of those particular been drafted, and we have been going pieces of property that are unnecessary to through the parliamentary process. We have retain for their conservation values. It helps funded the interim trust to meet its responsi- pay for the project and ensure that conserva- bility and, in this last budget, have indicated tion is properly funded for the future. That that funding of $6 million will be available has been the area of major dispute. Secon- to the trust over the course of the next two dary has been the issue of whether the New years for it to meet its responsibilities. I South Wales government should have a thank honourable senators for their partici- planning control over the Commonwealth’s pation in the debate; I look forward to the project. We, of course, say it should not. The passage of the bill and the trust getting on New South Wales government, unfortu- with the job of meeting this most important nately, have not been prepared to cooperate responsibility on behalf of all the Australian people. 15162 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Question resolved in the affirmative. about. We find the government’s alternative Senator Brown—Madam Acting Deputy inadequate. President, would you record my opposition The government’s amendment indicates to that motion? that the trust will transfer the suitable land, The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT but we do not have a 10-year period in this (Senator Crowley)—Yes, Senator. particular preamble, nor do we have any rec- ognition of some of the antecedent state- Bill read a second time. Commonwealth activities that have led us to In Committee the situation we are in now. Broadly, I sup- The bill. pose, we have a concern that the govern- Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (9.09 ment’s amendments do not address the long- p.m.)—Also on behalf of Senator Bartlett, I held concerns of the community and of move amendment No. 1: councils and all the other matters, including the proper identification of the sites. There is 1) Page 2 (after line 2), after clause 2, insert: obviously concern that there be no sales to 2A Purpose of the Act the private sector. We will get to the gov- The purpose of this Act is to estab- ernment’s proposal in that respect later on. lish the Sydney Harbour Federation There is concern that there is an application Trust, for a period not exceeding 10 of New South Wales law. We have a concern years, to: that financial matters, including the trusts, (a) remediate, rehabilitate and conserve are being commercially driven. There is a for present and future generations gap as to who is responsible for the costs of public land in Sydney Harbour, the interim trust. owned or occupied by the Com- monwealth, or Commonwealth Of course, with a minister like Senator bodies, of considerable natural, Hill, insecure as he is in his position, there heritage, historic, indigenous or has to be concern when he tries to claim for cultural significance; himself excessive control. We know full well (b) transfer the right, title and interest in that, when this minister seeks to control or that land to New South Wales, for determine something, it is basically Senator inclusion in Sydney Harbour Na- Minchin who makes the decisions. We are tional Park or retention by New actually thinking of hyphenating the name of South Wales in public ownership, the Minister for the Environment and Heri- for the benefit of the people of Aus- tage, Senator Hill, to call him Senator tralia; Minchin-Hill or Senator Hill-Minchin. That (c) transfer that land as a gift to the might be more appropriate in the circum- nation, and fund the establishment stances. I think you get the point of what we and work of the Trust, in celebration are getting at. We want a greater sense of of the centenary of Federation. security as to the achievement of the objec- The government might argue that their tives of the legislation, and we do not get preamble seeks to do the same sort of thing, that sense of security by allowing for the but there are significant holes in it. It goes discretion of a minister who basically can some way to addressing some of the con- exercise it at whim or, more importantly, at cerns, but, for instance, it does not recognise the whim of someone else. We do not think the considerable and significant natural there are sufficient references in the objects heritage, historic, indigenous or cultural as- clause, as I said earlier, to some of the im- pects of the land we are talking about. The portant considerations of the property at government’s preamble is a bit like a skele- hand, and we do not have appropriate clauses ton—without any real flesh on it. It is very dealing with planning and the like. much in line with preambles that emanate from this government. They do not really Not only are these matters not dealt with reflect much of the soul of this nation or properly or adequately but in some respects what legislation like this should really be all some of the government’s amendments go further than the original bill. This comes Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15163 back to the purpose of the act and the pream- transferred to the Commonwealth or to a ble—and there will be an opportunity for the relevant council. When you look at the pre- government to move their alternative at a amble that the government is proposing as an later stage. For instance, the government’s alternative to our ‘purpose of the act’ provi- amendments give the trust the power to sell sion you can see where a lot of the inade- land to the private sector where such land quacy creeps into the government’s proposal. does not have significant environment and The preamble talks about returning to the heritage value. However, where the land people of Australia ‘suitable land with sig- does have such value, it can be transferred to nificant environmental and heritage values’. the Commonwealth, to a relevant council or It talks about transferring suitable land to to a non-government conservation organisa- New South Wales or to appropriate non- tion. So you have a situation where, through government conservation organisations. The the amendments, none of the land may in commitment was that it go to trust for an fact finish up in the Sydney Harbour Na- interim period to be transferred to New tional Park. That has to be of concern to us South Wales, but what we have in the gov- today. ernment’s second-rate preamble is basically a I think we have one of those pieces of couple of paragraphs full of escape clauses. I legislation here that is used as a trip mecha- do not know why the government seems to nism to avoid the actual object of the legis- be constitutionally incapable of meeting the lation. In this respect one has to be con- commitment made by the Prime Minister cerned that through the mechanism of the before the 1998 election. It was a commit- legislation you end up with a situation where ment made to the people of Sydney and, as I none of the land may finish up in the Sydney said earlier, this has implications for the Harbour National Park. I have a concern that broader community—for the people of Aus- a lot of the amendments are superficial and tralia. As such, there has to be some concern do not address some of the legitimate con- that the government cannot acknowledge, cerns of the community and councils. One even in the preamble to the legislation, concern I have to put on the table right now where this land should finish up in terms of is that we got these amendments on Friday. I the commitment made by the Prime Minister. do not know when communities and coun- I would like to ask the minister what he is cils, the stakeholders, got copies of these actually talking about in terms of ‘non- amendments and I do not know whether in government conservation organisations’— fact the New South Wales government re- which organisations? Have any organisations ceived copies of them. However, I do know already entered into an arrangement and, if that these amendments have not been around so, which ones? Which organisations does long enough for there to have been an ex- the minister anticipate entering into an haustive assessment of them. So in a sense agreement? What is an ‘appropriate’ non- the Senate has been asked to run blind with a government conservation organisation? This set of amendments and we have to use this legislation was written up in a style similar particular committee process to assess them to a ministerial question time brief for one of fully and adequately. Senator Hill’s speeches. It puts in the soft As I said, there are gaps. For instance, words and in doing so conceals what in fact there is no schedule detailing the lands to be may be behind the minister’s motivation and included in the trust, and we will get on to intention. On behalf of Senator Bartlett and that point at some latter stage. As I men- the opposition, I have moved amendment (1) tioned earlier, the amendment that I have and having done so I indicate that we find moved specifies a period not exceeding 10 the government’s alternative, which will years, but under the government’s amend- come up later on, totally inadequate. ments there is no time limit set for the op- Senator HILL (South Australia—Minis- eration of the trust. As I said, there are trip ter for the Environment and Heritage) (9.19 mechanisms that prevent the land being put p.m.)—I will briefly respond to Senator into the trust and that allow the land to be Bolkus. I think Senator Bolkus has reiterated 15164 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 what I have already said to be some of the Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (9.22 areas of significant difference. One of those p.m.)—As the Democrats are cosponsors of areas is the statement of the government that these amendments, we not surprisingly sup- it will transfer three of these properties at the port them and think they are very good end of 10 years, or earlier if they are reha- amendments. It is worth re-emphasising a bilitated before then, to the New South Wales couple of aspects of them. As I said in my state national park system. However, the second reading debate speech, the issue of Prime Minister did not state the ultimate re- transferring title to the New South Wales pository of the other properties. We have said state government has unfortunately become a that we want them to be held in perpetuity little bit of a tug of war between state and for the people of Australia, but we think federal, as happens with so many issues. On there is still a debate to be had as to whether the reasonable assumption that the Demo- the New South Wales government is the ap- crats are not likely to be in federal govern- propriate body to undertake that. In relation ment or state government in that period, we to Woolwich, for example, as I understand it, can be a little bit more removed from it. In- there has been some debate within the com- deed, putting in place this 10-year time munity and within community groups with a frame, in the year 2010—when Premier Chi- particular commitment to that site as to karovski holds an unassailable grip on power whether it might not be better if it were held in New South Wales—it may well be of great by local government. We do not see a reason comfort to the coalition that this is being to close off on that matter at this stage. We transferred to the New South Wales state have given the commitment that it is to be government. held in the public interest for the long term I do not think this issue should be viewed and we do not think it is therefore wise to in the state versus federal framework. I can eliminate options other than the New South understand—in terms of the future use of the Wales government. Woolwich area, for example—that it may Of course in clause (1) that Senator well be one that local councils should have a Bolkus referred to in his amendment the particular role in managing, and it would fit right to transfer is limited to the New South in well with some of the other areas that it Wales government. A cynic would wonder, if adjoins that are already managed by the local Labor were not in power in New South council there, the council for Hunters Hill. It Wales, whether the language of the amend- is worth emphasising that the amendments ment would have come out in quite the same the Democrats and the ALP have put to- terms. Be that as it may, as I have said, we gether have been designed in close consulta- think the purpose as stated in Senator tion with that council, amongst the other Bolkus’s amendment is unduly restrictive in particularly affected councils, the Mosman that regard. There is much in his statement of and Manly councils. It is also important to purpose with which we agree and which is remove the idea of the party political aspect stated in our alternative, which is identified of this. Those areas of the North Shore of as the preamble. But we prefer our language Sydney are not exactly Labor Party heart- for the reason that I have just outlined and land. I do not think it is helpful to put it into also, more particularly, for the reason that we a context of party political advantage. think our language better encompasses what Those councils have worked together, and is intended. Both sides of the parliament they have particularly strongly suggested the have listened to the community groups on need to have a time frame put in place. The this particular issue. They have sought a time frame of 10 years is not contained in the statement of purpose or a preamble and the government amendments. That is an upper language of both does, as I have said, have limit, as the Minister for the Environment some similarity. But in terms of some of the and Heritage has acknowledged. If rehabili- distinctions we think ours is better because tation has occurred and other actions have Labor’s is unduly restrictive. been taken adequately before that time, the land can be transferred. But we do need to Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15165 put in place a time frame to ensure that, if determined that they were not significant as nothing else, this state versus federal tug of far as he was concerned. war aspect cannot be continued in perpetuity. Yet he holds unto himself very big powers There will be a limit, and the transfer will under this legislation to direct the trust to need to be done in that period. That is a par- dispose of sites, for example, amongst those ticularly important aspect of the Democrat- that are listed in this legislation. I would be Labor amendments, as well as the stronger going against my conscience if I were to turn protection of ensuring that the title and the my back on the performance of this minister interest in the land is not moved across to and allow him to do any such thing—or on private interests. That is clearly a strong con- this Prime Minister and give him control of cern of all those who have been fighting for any such thing. I agree with those lobbyists the preservation of these areas and following in Sydney who have a very long record of this with interest for many years. It is another true environmental concern and who have aspect of why the amendment Senator led the world right from the period of the Bolkus has moved, in conjunction with me, green bans through to now when they say should be supported to strengthen the Syd- that the bill must include a clause that the ney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 lands—and they mean all of them—will be [2000] and to ensure that it will go part of handed over to the New South Wales gov- the way to making sure the trust operates in a ernment for inclusion in a Sydney Harbour way which maximises the chances for pre- National Park, that the trust must not be serving this area. permitted to sell any of the sites or any parts Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.26 of them and that the trust must, to a large p.m.)—The Australian Greens oppose the degree, be independent of the minister and Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 the government. [2000] because it is so far short of the mark These are concerned professional and very of doing justice to the potential for a great experienced citizens of Sydney with a par- Sydney Harbour National Park. Not least, it ticular working knowledge of the compo- does—as Senator Bolkus has pointed out— nents of the proposed Sydney Harbour Na- leave quite great powers in the hands of the tional Park—and I agree with them. The pre- Minister for the Environment and Heritage. amble which the opposition and the Demo- One only has to look at the wording in the crats have brought forward is much more government purpose of the bill to see the satisfactory. I note that it does fall short of potential dangers to the whole concept of the saying that everything should be national national park. For example, as Senator park, which is the position that the Greens Bolkus says, it includes the return of suitable would want to see. But it is certainly a great land with significant environmental values as improvement on what the government has to a gift to the nation. I have been in the Senate offer and, therefore, I will support it. for four years now, and I can remember this minister talking about the protection of for- I might say that, if I am to change my ests with significant environmental values. opinion about this piece of legislation, I Under his direction, I have seen in states would want to see all of the amendments by from New South Wales to Western Austra- the opposition and the Democrats passed. As lia—and, in particular, Tasmania—a phe- the bill stands unamended or even with the nomenal destruction. He has handed across, government amendments, it is so far short of under the authority of the Prime Minister, no the mark and the vision of those people in less, forests of phenomenal values, way be- Sydney that it needs to be taken back to the yond significant environmental values. I drawing board and started again. It would be have seen pristine, wild forests, amongst the unconscionable to support it. So I support the grandest in the Southern Hemisphere—in- preamble that has now been brought forward. deed, in the world—full of wildlife being I reject the purpose and the fuzz words in the bulldozed, chainsawed, burnt and poisoned purpose of the act, as outlined by the minis- every day of the week because this minister ter on behalf of the government. I will be 15166 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 speaking on others of these amendments as stituency. But it really does not construc- we move down the line. tively advance this debate at all. Senator HILL (South Australia—Minis- Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (9.34 ter for the Environment and Heritage) (9.31 p.m.)—I rise to ask the minister a few ques- p.m.)—I think there are 101 amendments tions and respond to something he has just from the Australian Democrats and the ALP said. Minister, I think people are just gener- and I am expecting them all to be passed, ally getting sick of your mantra about in- with or without Senator Brown’s support. So, voking this role of those who rehabilitate and whilst his words are always welcome in this those who conserve. We all know that they place, in terms of the outcome of this legis- do a good job. But one thing you cannot do, lation Senator Brown’s vote is totally irrele- and one thing it has not been possible to do, vant. is take the politics out of the issue of the en- Senator Brown’s contribution made no vironment. But your going back to this con- sense. He suggests some ill intent on the part tinual mantra of standing behind those who of the government in transferring this land to might be digging holes or digging ditches or a trust with specific responsibilities to reha- whatever but having no time for those who bilitate it and transfer it for long-term con- might have been leading the debate for gen- servation. Yet, if the government had ill in- erations and who continue to do so and con- tent, it need not transfer the land to the trust tinue to raise awareness and continue to raise at all; it could deal with this land in any way issues in a broader sense is not going to serve it so wishes. I would have thought that, to the environment in a way that it should be most objective observers, the mere fact that served. the government is transferring it to a trust You are letting down your constituency and doing so through a legislative process and you are letting down the environment by would amply demonstrate the government’s dismissing as ineffectual and irrelevant those good faith in this particular instance. It is not who actually do take that leadership issue. its intention to deride the fact that there are Those who dig the holes will not know disputes on detail, and the Senate committee where to dig them or what to do with them, process is the mechanism through which unless there are broader policies. Alterna- those disputes are to be resolved. tively, we get a situation like we have had But I would have thought that the gov- under your Natural Heritage Trust where ernment’s purpose in this, in terms of its ob- they might do so, but the outcomes that we jectives, would be beyond any objective ar- could be buying with the money that we are gument. I therefore interpret Senator spending are not being achieved because of Brown’s piece of theatre as just that: to again this government’s piecemeal ad hoc ap- pander to a remnant constituency that is left proach to funding and to programs. after most genuine conservationists have Your own reports, your own surveys and moved on to the task of genuinely looking to your own reviews have told you that you are improve Australia’s environmental outlook not being as effective as you should be. Why through constructive and positive works— are you not being as effective as you should whether they be in rehabilitating and conserv- be? Because you have tried to take politics ing vitally important land such as this on out of the environment. What you have tried Sydney Harbour, or in on-reserve or to do—and quite cleverly—is neuter the en- off-reserve works across Australia in reha- vironmental movement so that it does not bilitation in removing weeds and ferals and have a strong voice to take you to task for all the inhibiting factors to our passing on the sorts of things that you are pushing. And our natural assets to future generations in the this is one of them. This is one of those is- condition that we would wish. sues where you say, ‘Well, if there was no To come in here and offer a few gratuitous intention, then we wouldn’t transfer it to a slaps against the government might please trust.’ Minister, the people that you are Senator Brown; he might think that it does working with here do not trust you to trans- him good with what remains of a small con- fer it to a trust in the way that you want to Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15167 transfer it. They do not trust you because native title debate your side of politics and they have the words of the Prime Minister in your colleague Senator Minchin—and we 1998, before the election, where he says that know you do not always agree with him— the trust: said that land management issues are the prov- ... will have 10 years to complete the task and ince of the states. How often did we get that after that time the Commonwealth will transfer thrown at us? What the Prime Minister said North Head, Middle Head and Georges Heights before the 1998 election was essentially that for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National there is a regime there, there is a Sydney Park. Harbour National Park and, for the good They are some of the properties. But the management of this land, this land should go minister has come in here today with an into that park after 10 years. We are now amendment that says that they may be in- finding the escape clauses, and that is why cluded in the national park and reserve sys- you are not trusted, Minister. tem or they may go to an appropriate non- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.39 government conservation organisation. This p.m.)—I agree with what Senator Bolkus has is the first time you have raised the concept just said: when the minister starts talking of something other than the national park as about appropriate non-government organisa- the repository for this particular land. That is tions, one begins to wonder whether he is why they do not trust you, because at the last talking about the Forest Protection Society or minute you come in with an amendment some new so-called ecotourism venture. This which to them looks tricky and probably is. is the minister who currently intends to allow We do not know which non-government or- a major tourist resort to be built at Planter ganisations you will deem to be appropriate. Beach in Tasmania in breach of the world We know which ones you will not; you will heritage management plan. So if that is going not deem to be appropriate those sorts of to happen to a world heritage listed prop- organisations or individuals who are coura- erty—and the Senate will remember that he geous enough to stand up to you and argue changed the management plan to remove the about issues of the environment. You will ultimate protection from the Middle Frank- consign them to the political waste bin as lin; that is, he insisted that the road be kept you should not. But what do you mean by open there for a small number of commercial ‘appropriate non-government conservation interests, against the management plan— organisations’? Why have you invoked them what is he going to do with Sydney Harbour? and put them into legislation now when the The minister might say, ‘I’m out on my Prime Minister quite clearly said something own when it comes to environmental mat- different before the election? And of course ters,’ but he is a repeat offender in breaching we know that things change after an election such things as world heritage management with this Prime Minister. Why have you tried plans which have been drawn up by very to now move the final destination of these sober environmental experts after a huge properties from the Sydney Harbour National amount of community consultation. It did not Park? matter to him. Along comes the sectional As I said, we do not assign to you a posi- interest with money in their pockets and he tive intention because we can see the chang- changes the management plan. He is, as I ing of the words at this particular part of the said, a repeat offender, and he will certainly debate. Minister, I do not trust state govern- do it as far as Sydney Harbour is concerned. ments of whatever nature. I could say to you The minister says that there is no ill intent that, if Kerry Chikarovski were Premier to- in this matter, and I would agree with that. I day—and I will not say tomorrow because think the Prime Minister’s concept—and it she may not even be opposition leader to- has huge public support—is that these lands, morrow—I would have the same degree of as a celebration of the centenary of Federa- scepticism about her government as I would tion, should become part of a Sydney Har- about any other state government in this bour National Park. But isn’t he involved country at the moment. So often during the here in wanting to sell off some of these 15168 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 lands? Where is the line going to be drawn? to effect. If the intention is there on the three How big are the commercial interests that properties that the Minister for the Environ- will come into play on this? Why does he ment and Heritage spoke about, it should be want a majority on the trust appointed by spelt out. If I heard correctly, Senator Bolkus him? What are the exact limits of the powers listed five properties. The question immedi- of that trust under his direction? These are ately arises: what about the other two? things that are concerning not just me but the Senator Bolkus—And the three. people who have lobbied me and all other members, including the minister, about this Senator BROWN—And the other matter. As I said earlier, they are very distin- three—that is right. This legislation should guished members of the Sydney community be very specific about all these properties, as and very distinguished environmentalists. if you were establishing a national park, The amendments here have their support and giving the exact parameters of those proper- therefore they have my support. ties—that is, the geographical parameters. The very fact that that is not the case gives Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (9.42 one cause to be concerned. I just wanted to p.m.)—I have a question to ask the minister. I go back to an earlier point. The minister said refer him to the Prime Minister’s speech on 5 that it is irrelevant what my vote is in here. I September 1998 before the election, where might add to that that it is not irrelevant what he said about the trust: I say in here, though, and the minister knows It will have 10 years to complete the task and that. That is why he has responded. He ought after that time the Commonwealth will transfer to do a count. He will find that my vote is North Head, Middle Head and Georges Heights quite relevant on this matter, unless the Inde- for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National pendent or the One Nation senators are on- Park. side—and I would expect that they would Where in the legislation does that actually both be onside with the people of Sydney on take place? this—in which case, yes, these amendments Senator HILL (South Australia—Minis- will all go through anyway. But until we hear ter for the Environment and Heritage) (9.43 that—both honourable gentlemen have not p.m.)—Perhaps in response to earlier contri- shown their hand yet—I feel that it is very butions, I will reaffirm my recognition of the important that the minister take note of what community groups in this instance who have we all have to say. done an excellent job in active conservation Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (9.46 of these properties. They are committed to p.m.)—In noting the minister’s statement that their maintenance and preservation and these undertakings do not need to be in the committed to ensuring the long-term preser- bill because the government has given a vation of these wonderful assets. The New commitment to the Senate and it has been South Wales national park is not specifically stated a number of times and the Prime stated in the legislation but has been reiter- Minister said so and things like that, I think ated by me more than once already tonight. it is worth making the point that, as the min- That is the government’s intention. There is ister would be all too aware—and I am sure no reason for it to be specifically stated in much to his own disappointment as well— the legislation. As Senator Bolkus said, the government commitments, even to the Prime Minister announced that intention be- Senate as a whole, do not necessarily pan out fore the election. I have said it in the inter- in reality, and ongoing apparent reflections vening period and I repeat it again tonight: in of those commitments in public consultation relation to the three properties he mentioned, processes and statements on departmental the intention is that they be transferred to the web sites, et cetera, over a number of months New South Wales national park system. show that. I think it reflects on the integrity Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.44 of this government, and I would not resile p.m.)—Well, if the intention is there, why not from that. But even if the minister wants to say it? That is the rule, isn’t it, with legisla- take issue with that, there is always a possi- tion? You legislate to effect what you mean bility that some other party may come into Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15169 government in the future and it may not feel Heights to New South Wales at the end of the ten bound by statements or commitments given year life of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. by this particular government and may have Progress reported. no obligation to follow through with them. The PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 Given that we are talking about legislation p.m., I propose the question: that is setting up a trust to operate for 10 That the Senate do now adjourn. years—or the aim of this amendment is for 10 years; if the government had its way that ADJOURNMENT would not be locked into the legislation ei- Dairy Industry: Deregulation ther—we cannot sit back and say, ‘The gov- Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (9.50 ernment said so, so we do not have to worry.’ p.m.)—There was a story that popped up on This is partly because of the demonstration the AAP wire service last Friday in the after- that this government has given through deci- noon entitled ‘We’re doing a great job: PM’. sions of cabinet just last week and partly Mr Howard, commenting on economic data because future governments obviously do not showing the Australian economy continued necessarily need to feel bound by pro- to grow in the March quarter, claimed the nouncements, however noble and hand on figures indicated ‘the country is being well- heart they may have been at the time. There managed economically’. There are hundreds is no guarantee, there is no surety, that the of thousands of families living in rural and undertakings will be adhered to by a future regional Australia that would not agree. It is government. As we know, there is no guar- becoming increasingly difficult for them to antee that they will be adhered to by this identify the benefits of an annual growth in government either. I think that reinforces Australia’s gross domestic product of four why we need to ensure that they are clearly per cent, if it was indeed ever possible. There spelt out and put into force in legislation. are certainly 13,500 dairy farming families Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (9.48 throughout the country who are aggressively p.m.)—Is the minister aware of a document of the opposite view—that the GDP numbers put out by the Liberal Party before the last are not providing them with any benefit. All election as a policy statement, titled ‘Envi- they are seeing is a declining milk cheque. ronment: Protecting the Sydney Harbour These families are certainly not enjoying Mr foreshore’? Howard’s economic sunshine and, without Senator HILL (South Australia—Minis- immediate and effective action on the part of ter for the Environment and Heritage) (9.49 the federal government, their lot may dete- p.m.)—This sounds like question time. If riorate further. Senator Bolkus might give me the chance to This government continues to tell us and briefly peruse the document, I could give a the farmers that deregulation of the dairy more confident answer. industry has nothing to do with it. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (9.49 Mr Anderson repeated that line again at the p.m.)—It is a document authorised by Mr L. National Party convention in Tweed Heads. Crosby, Liberal Party of Australia, corner of Mr Anderson and the Minister for Agricul- Blackall and Macquarie Streets, Barton, ture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Truss, say ACT, 2600. It is entitled ‘Protecting the Syd- that the deregulation of the dairy industry is ney Harbour foreshore’. The relevant part I really a matter for the states and for the in- wanted to draw to the attention of the Min- dustry itself. While the regulation of farm ister for the Environment and Heritage is a gate milk prices for market milk is a matter paragraph on page 3 of the document, which for individual states, the reality is that the states: market is already deregulating itself. Mr An- derson also made that point yesterday. He A Coalition government will seek to enter into a told National Party delegates that the Victo- Memorandum of Understanding with the New rian industry had enjoyed unbelievable pro- South Wales government to confirm management arrangements for the sites and conditions of trans- ductivity growth and expansion and now ferral of North Head, Middle Head and Georges accounts for 64 per cent of national produc- 15170 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 tion. He inferred that that was the source of ARMCANZ meeting in Adelaide. He also the problem. We all encourage industries to acknowledged, along with his state col- improve their productivity and grow their leagues, that the time available to address exports. So it is a bit tough to then link Vic- major issues was critical—remember, that torian farmers with the wider industry prob- was in March 1999. The Commonwealth’s lems, as Mr Anderson did in Tweed Heads. role in the dairy adjustment arrangement was Mr Anderson then went on to say that spelt out in the report from the 16th meeting Victorian farmers and successive state gov- of ARMCANZ in August last year. On page ernments had made it plain that they planned 29, the report states: to deregulate. He said that section 92 of the Issues for the Commonwealth in considering the Australian Constitution ensures that trade ADIC proposal include the need to ensure the between states cannot be restricted. So, in the dairy package facilitates adjustment towards in- light of this market reality, it is also a bit rich creased international competitiveness while alle- to blame the state governments of New viating potential for industry dislocation through addressing the adverse impacts of deregulation at South Wales, Queensland and Western Aus- an individual and regional level. tralia for deregulating the dairy industry. That, frankly, is little more than desperate It further states: politics on the part of the federal National An agreed national response will be an essential Party. element in any package of measures that might be facilitated by the Commonwealth. The real issue now is who should be re- sponsible for managing the adjustment pack- So, as at August last year, the Howard age to help dairy farmers cope with this fur- government accepted that it was responsible ther change in their industry. The dairy in- for ensuring that adjustment in the dairy in- dustry is worth around $7 billion a year. It dustry is properly facilitated. I repeat: the employs around 50,000 people, mainly in Howard government accepted that responsi- regional and rural Australia. It exports $2 bility in August last year. And it was the billion worth of product annually. It has de- Howard government’s role to alleviate the livered massive gains in productivity, with potential for industry dislocation by ad- production increasing by 50 per cent over the dressing the adverse impacts of deregulation last decade and with only a marginal increase at both an individual level and a regional in the size of the national herd. Its future, level, and it accepted the job of facilitating however, is very much a matter for Canberra, the whole package. and so is the management of the regional I note that Senator Woodley, who is adjustment that will inevitably flow from the genuinely committed to advancing the inter- end of market milk quotas. Mr Anderson ests of people in the bush, has released a claimed over the weekend that the federal pamphlet which encourages farmers to the government has moved to put in place ‘the view that re-regulation of the Australian biggest restructuring package ever seen in dairy industry is an option available to gov- this country’. That claim is misleading. ernment. He is wrong. Senator Woodley and Firstly, it was the industry and not the fed- I spoke to hundreds of dairy farmers right eral government that came up with the pack- across Australia as part of the Senate’s in- age. The federal government, after all, only quiry into this industry last year. And we endorsed it, finally and reluctantly. Secondly, both reached the same conclusions—as did the government should have been working other senators on that committee. The break- with the dairy industry to get this package in down of state based milk marketing struc- place at least two years earlier, but it did not. tures was not only inevitable but in fact al- Given the position of the Victorian industry ready happening. in the national marketplace, it has been clear This point was made in an article by for some time that a nationally coordinated Cathy Bolt in the Australian Financial Re- approach to dealing with this change would view in November last year. The article was be required. This was acknowledged by the headed ‘Milk deregulation—it is already former minister, Mr Vaile, at the March 1999 here’. It referred to a one-third drop in the Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15171 regulated price paid to Tasmanian farmers Anderson and Mr Truss to ensure that Aus- for milk used in flavoured milks by proces- tralian dairy farmers get the financial assis- sors because of the availability of cheaper tance they need and that dairy regions get the milk from South Australia. It also pointed to financial support they need to enable them to market pressures forcing a cut of 0.3c a litre manage what will be a difficult but inevitable in the farm gate price of milk in New South process. Wales. The article also highlighted the fact Regional Forest Agreement: Otway that Woolworths had put out a tender for the Ranges Hydrology Research supply of milk to all its New South Wales stores. That tender was won by National Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (10.00 Foods. And the article also referred to the p.m.)—I rise tonight to speak about the fact that Coles had linked up with the Dairy Western RFA in Victoria and new research Farmers Group. Cathy Bolt in the article which should establish beyond doubt the concluded that, given all of these manoeu- relationship between clear-fell logging in vrings, deregulation on 1 July was largely Victoria’s Otway Ranges and water supplies academic. The Senate committee, including in the western Victoria region. Current hy- Senator Woodley, came to the same conclu- drology studies have named the practice of clear-fell logging as detrimental to water sion. yield, but it seems that even more research is The Australian dairy industry is a model needed in order to convince the parties to the industry. It has achieved everything that has Western Regional Forest Agreement that been asked of it by governments, and more. they actually have to make a choice between It has dramatically improved its productivity, water and woodchips. I speak, of course, of increasing milk production by 50 per cent the Victorian state government, specifically over the past decade, with only a marginal its environment minister Cheryl Garbutt, and increase in the size of the national herd, as I of the federal government and its forestry said earlier. It has dramatically increased minister, Wilson Tuckey. The regional forest exports over the last decade, and the export agreement covering western Victoria was market is where its future lies, given that the signed in April this year, and a week ago that domestic liquid milk market is now less than agreement was tabled in the Senate. 20 per cent of the total market and is declin- ing. The domestic milk market is expected to On the face of it, it was a compromise—as agreements often are—but I have to say that grow at a rate of only one or two per cent. it was a cheerless compromise for the vast As I said earlier, despite Mr Anderson’s majority of people affected by clear-fell log- claim that the government put the adjustment ging of a very special island of forest south- package in place, it was in fact the industry west of Melbourne. Groups such as the Ot- that developed a package, and it was the in- way Ranges Environment Network and the dustry and the Labor Party that forced the Geelong Community Forum participated in government to meet its responsibilities by discussions leading up to the signing of this establishing a satisfactory process through RFA, knowing that the consultation process which farmers will receive the financial help was flawed but that it would be signed with they will need. It was the Labor Party in the or without their involvement. I applaud the states that forced the Howard government to work of these groups tonight. They have pre- look to assist regions that will be adversely sented consistently powerful and worthy affected by the deregulation of the industry. conservation arguments. Their submissions Now is not the time for the federal govern- have been very strong on science and logic— ment to step back from its responsibilities to an approach that the federal government 13,500 dairy farmers and their families. It is would do well to note in its setting of re- not time for the Deputy Prime Minister to gional forest agreements. step back from his responsibilities to those dairy regions that will be adversely affected As a result of their urging, this coalition of by the changes to the industry that are now environment groups has persuaded the Victo- under way. It is very much a matter for Mr rian governments to conduct hydrology re- search in the Otways. This research will be a 15172 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 welcome follow-on from the study done by cuted in the area. It will also forecast the Melbourne Water, which found that, in differences in water yield, dependent on mountain ash forest, clear-fell logging effec- whether the government continues to log or tively reduces water yield by about half and not. Water quality is, I would argue, a factor that it takes 80 years for these forests to re- that Australians all care very much about. It cover. It also follows on from hydrology re- has always seemed to me a great puzzle that search axed by the Kennett government— federal and state governments rarely put any before it could be used to criticise the sort of emphasis on water quality when it logging regime set up there. From these comes to logging our native forests. studies we can already see that more The research, as I said, will be conducted woodchips means less water, and that is not in the Otways, and it will examine the impact good news for the citizens of towns and that logging operations have on water qual- cities like Geelong, who have faced ongoing ity, particularly after high rainfall events. water restrictions for some 3½ years now. There is precious little data of that sort avail- This new study promised by the Bracks able at present. The Otway Forest Manage- government will be a welcome addition of ment Plan acknowledges that high rainfall scientific evidence to the logging debate— events after logging operations will cause provided, of course, that the state and federal soil erosion and water degradation. Past re- governments do not ignore it. search in the Otways has failed to take into The Otway Ranges Environment Network account the impact that logging operations has now released the terms of reference, have on soil erosion and water quality after which set out a plan for the next stage of high rainfall events; so this is very much hydrology research that is needed. The needed. The concern that logging roads in- OREN document recommends that logging crease environmental hazards will also be within domestic catchment areas should be investigated. The Otways are naturally prone suspended while the hydrology research is to landslides. After heavy rainfall, the inci- being conducted. I would argue very strongly dence of landslides along logging roads is that suspension of logging until the comple- very high indeed. One particular landslip tion of the research would have a great deal made the Barham River run muddy for very of public support. In fact, surveys that I have many months and caused a lot of community done in the area show figures of 85 per cent concern in Apollo Bay. and thereabouts of people who believe that There are 21 water catchments in the Ot- clear-fell logging does affect water quality ways, affecting the regions of Geelong, and who would prefer that the Otways be Warrnambool, Lorne, Apollo Bay, Aireys spared this kind of logging. The main goal of Inlet and Colac, so it makes a great deal of the research is to determine the relationship sense for us to really know what is going on between water run-off yields and the age of in the forests. It will be an efficient research the forest, with a view to determining the project and a worthwhile expenditure of impacts that clear-fell logging has on do- public money. It will use existing data wher- mestic water supplies. It will look at water ever possible and employ powerful and time quality and water quantity and will examine saving computer software. An analysis of the all water catchments in the area. It will be existing data will include catchment forest managed by an independent steering com- characteristics, water yield data from estab- mittee. lished reservoirs and weirs and weather and The advantage of this study over its temperature data. The guidance of an inde- predecessors is that it will examine a variety pendent steering committee is, I think, es- of forest types and compositions. The main sential to ensure the success of the research. forest types include mountain ash, ash mixed In its state policy the ALP said: species, and mountain and foothill forest. For An independent committee comprising represen- each domestic water supply catchment, the tatives of relevant government departments, research will compare the differences in wa- community interests, industry and unions will ter yield as a result of logging already exe- oversee the study. Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15173

I sincerely look forward to the ALP ate is hardly worth the paper it is written on. keeping this pre-election promise. Many (Time expired) Victorian people were disappointed by the Goods and Services Tax: Trucking ALP in that state after they were led to be- Industry lieve the ALP would stop logging in the Ot- ways but saw a continuation of old logging Senator HUTCHINS (New South Wales) levels and logging coupes in very environ- (10.10 p.m.)—I want to speak tonight about a mentally sensitive areas. report that the Australian Trucking Associa- tion released last week. The report, by inde- This is a much needed hydrological study pendent analysts Tasman Asia Pacific, ques- which, I would argue, should have been done tioned the analysis by the Bureau of Trans- before the Commonwealth and the Victorian port Economics of the cost savings that state government signed off on the RFA would flow as a result of the introduction of agreement that was tabled in the Senate a the GST and other measures associated with week or so ago. Before I conclude I want to that. The Australian Trucking Association is make the point that it is important that this a successful and honourable group of com- does not turn out to be a 10- or a 20-year panies in Australia, and I rise tonight be- study. It needs to be completed in one year at cause the Executive Director of the Austra- the most and, until it is complete, there lian Trucking Association, Mr Andrew Hig- should be a moratorium on clear-fell logging ginson, has been subjected to a variety of in catchment areas. I understand that enough threats from the Australian Competition and information can be gathered on what logging Consumer Commission head, Professor Fels, is doing to the catchments within 12 months. in which a number of warnings are given to I very much fear that delays, procrastination truckers in relation to hire charges. I happen and changes of government are often used to to have a copy of the Tasman Asia Pacific kill valuable initiatives such as this. report. It is titled Ups and downs in trucking My office was also informed last week costs: quantifying the impact of tax reform that logging will recommence in the conten- and market price movement and it was re- tious coupe of Rileys Ridge, despite assur- leased in June this year. ances from the Victorian government in The association decided to analyse a num- April this year when it signed the western ber of positions that had been adopted by the region RFA that it would not log that area, Bureau of Transport Economics in advis- this year at least. I would argue that this is a ing—I am assuming the government—what highly provocative step and raises concerns might be seen to be the direct cost benefits of for the biodiversity of that area. Rileys Ridge reducing freight costs as a result of the intro- is a wildlife corridor for the endangered tiger duction of the GST in July this year. One of quoll and connects two rare communities of the first things that this analysis questioned is this marsupial. I visited Rileys Ridge in Feb- the fact that they do not believe that the full ruary this year to see again for myself the tax credit for the GST paid on new trucks impact of logging on the environment. I re- will be available for several years, which is lay this news of the Bracks government’s obvious because, as anybody who has an backflip and campaign of antipathy towards understanding of road transport would know, forest supporters in the Otway Ranges to the most vehicles are not replaced and are kept Senate with some disappointment. Under the for a period of up to seven years. So there RFA, Rileys Ridge is in a special manage- will not be any direct reduction in costs im- ment zone. The Flora and Fauna Act ac- mediately; there may be over the longer knowledges the need to protect wildlife cor- term, but there certainly will not be immedi- ridors and acknowledges logging as a threat ately. The second thing is that no allowance to them. One of the great flaws of the RFA has been made by the Bureau of Transport process is its failure to protect important Economics for the fact that trucking business habitat areas. For this reason the RFA agree- must charge a 10 per cent GST on their costs ment presented a week or so ago in the Sen- and that these costs will need to be passed on to consumers. 15174 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

One of the things on which BTE did make ause of the fact that they are prepared to an assumption was that there would be an question some of the cost models that the expected reduction in costs of about 16 per government has adopted as part of the gov- cent whereas, analysis of the ATA report in ernment strategy. You might recall—and I the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 June sug- am sure Senator Heffernan would recall gests that, with the reduction in diesel and this—his actions before the next last federal other accompanying GST situations, the cost election, when he went and raided some ATA of the journey between Melbourne and Syd- thingo out in Queanbeyan or Yass and dis- ney would rise by 9.2 per cent. Most of that rupted a Labor Party situation. These people is based on the situation that over the last 12 are not necessarily Labor supporters, but I months—and it continues—diesel has risen think they need to be supported, because one 28 per cent. So I very much doubt that the of the things that I see may occur as a result inflation strategy adopted by the govern- of this pressure that Fels and Co. may be ment, and undoubtedly to a degree based on wishing to put on this industry is that in the information supplied to them by the Bureau end the only thing to suffer will be safety, of Transport Economics, will be successful because the companies will not be able to because, as is obvious from these reports and draw any more blood out of what they al- a simple analysis, freight costs represent ready are trying to operate on the moment. from 27 to 32 per cent of the cost of an item Madam President, as you may be aware, or good. right at the moment in terms of the diesel So if these expected reductions in freight fuel grant excise we have the definition of rates do not occur—if they in fact increase— what the boundaries are but still we have got then the opportunity that the government has no definition of what a ‘journey’ is. As you been seeking to reduce the cost of an item or may well recall, vehicles that are over 20 good will not be there. That is even more tonne have automatic access to the excise, articulated because of the fact that in the but vehicles between 4½ and 20 tonne do BTE analysis there was no consideration of not. I asked the minister—and I have asked the nature of the journey, the cost structure of on a number of occasions—and the public individual businesses or the pending im- servants if we could get the definition of a pact—on a number of smaller operators in ‘journey’, so that this could be cleared up. At particular—of the termination of the acceler- this stage I do not think that that has been ated depreciation allowances that came in cleared up at all. We will have a situation last year. where there are vehicles under 20 tonne op- So there is a whole jumble of things that erating in metropolitan areas then moving are about to occur in this industry where the out of a metropolitan area. We are not sure at government is hoping there will be signifi- what stage they become eligible for the grant cant cost reductions, as I say, in the goods or and what sort of paperwork there will be. In services. But they will not be there because, particular, items such as food and electrical as I say, there has been a lot of hoo-ha about goods, which are generally carted by small this and people I have spoken to in the in- vehicles, will not be subject to any rebate at dustry believe that this is their opportunity to all, so one cannot expect that their freight recover their costs. They have not been able costs will go down as a result of the intro- to recover their costs over the last 12 months duction of the GST that comes in on 1 July. because of the competitive nature of it. They Another aspect of the analysis is the fact have been putting this to the government that there is no allowance made for the fact and, of course, as people will do, they will that as a result some time later this year—I go on and commission an analysis and, I am not sure of the date—for articulated vehi- suppose, analyse the analysis that has been cles the costs will go up significantly for put forward to them. registration, somewhere between $1,200 to I am very much concerned that this in- $1,500. From my understanding of reading dustry will be singled out by the govern- this report by Tasman Asia Pacific—and I ment—and, particularly, Professor Fels— may be wrong—that is not taken into ac- because of the fact that they are prepared to Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15175 count by the Bureau of Transport Econom- time with people in psychiatric institutions ics. So there is a number of areas that have and with people not in psychiatric institu- not been considered when people are trying tions but who have had psychiatric illnesses. to articulate a view that there will be these I worked as a young medical graduate for significant freight cost reductions. I do not some months in a psychiatric ward. What I believe that they will be there. learnt from some of those patients who Senator Lightfoot—If that were true, talked to me was that I cannot really know— that’s a state cost. Registration is a state cost. and I think most of us cannot really know— what is the state of the mind, the soul or the Senator HUTCHINS—No, it is not. That heart of those people at such times when was some years ago. Before they were state they confront some black despair in their costs. They have been handed over to the lives that seems overwhelming for them. I National Road Transport Commission for have certainly had people try to explain to some time. Those costs are there, as I have me—I cannot get the message—and have said, from talking to people in the industry. heard them say, ‘I can’t tell you what it is, This report here says that they believe it may but I would do anything to have it stop.’ One rise by nine per cent; other people more con- man once told me that, if the bars were not servative in the industry believe that the cost on the windows, he would have flung him- for carting goods will not go down on 1 July self straight out just to try to finish the hide- but that in fact over the next 12 months it ous, terrible feeling inside of him. will rise by four per cent. That is not by way of offering any expla- Wilton, Mr Gregory Stuart nation of what might have been the last mo- Senator CROWLEY (South Australia) ments of Greg Wilton’s life; it is merely for (10.20 p.m.)—I just rise this evening for a us to know that we do not know. And if we few moments to join my colleagues in the do not know, it is more that we offer sympa- other place in their condolence motion for thy and support than sit in judgment. I think Greg Wilton. Firstly, I would like to offer my Greg’s death is a great sadness and a great deepest sympathy to Greg’s family—his wife loss. I join with others in that message of and children and the family he grew up in. I sympathy. was quite taken aback to read some of the Wilton, Mr Gregory Stuart media accounts of Greg Wilton. They did not describe the man I knew. I had over the last Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) four years or so a number of opportunities to (10.23 p.m.)—I want to make a few brief catch up with Greg, and I enjoyed many remarks about the death of our colleague warm and friendly conversations with him. Greg Wilton. I did not know Greg Wilton Around this place warm and friendly conver- well, but I did know him through being in sations are something of an exception, but the Labor Party together in this place and that was the man I knew. I learned too of meeting with him on many occasions—at some of the things—which he was very caucus meetings, in the parliamentary dining pleased to tell me about—that he was doing room and generally around the corridors. I, by way of his electoral responsibilities in his like everybody, I suspect, was shocked to seat. In particular, I remember—and I be- hear of his mental illness, the incident that lieve this has been reported—his interest in took place a few weeks ago and then, of talking with children in schools and provid- course, his death last week when he took his ing bikes for raffles in many of the schools, own life. his commitment to safety, and so on. I re- In the House of Representatives today— member also joining him on the campaign in, I suspect, what might well be one of the trail some four years ago in the lead-up to the longest condolence motions for any person— 1996 election. members from both sides spoke eloquently I just want to make a few comments. I do about Greg, his contribution to the parlia- not wish to take long tonight. I have in the ment and his commitment to his electorate, course of my medical experience spent some his friends and his family. I can only endorse those remarks. I believe that, in the years 15176 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000 ahead, as his children grow older, they will his children in the national park down near be able to refer to those many speeches in the Geelong. No charges were laid up until the House of Representatives and find that their time of his death, but clearly there was a father was a man of high calibre, a genuine problem with Greg and his relationship with Australian and a person who had many his family—his marriage had just broken up. friends and had the respect of many on both In the two or three weeks leading up to his sides parliament. That is something which in death, in Melbourne apparently there were a their present anguish they would not find number of stories in the press—I did not see relevant, but in the years ahead I am sure it them all—giving more details about his de- will be a comfort to them, as it should be. mise and about his state of health. In par- The episode of the demise of Greg Wilton ticular there was speculation about whether and his suicide is a sad one. Earlier today I he would lose his preselection in the Labor asked the Parliamentary Library whether Party. Last Tuesday there was a story in the they had any information on other members Herald Sun. I have to say that I do not think of parliament in our 100 years of history who the newspaper in any way covered itself in have committed suicide. They could find glory in the way it ran a story promoting the only one other example—Senator Elliott, fact that Greg Wilton was politically dead who committed suicide in 1931. Senator and suggesting it was only a matter of sort- Elliott was a member of the then Nationalist ing out who would be his successor and he Party. He was a war hero who fought at The would be disendorsed. There were various Neck at Gallipoli and fought at the Somme. names mentioned and speculation about He was mentioned in dispatches on many whom his successor in that seat would be. occasions and rose to be a commander of a It was bad enough that the newspaper ran brigade, if not a division. Certainly his mili- those stories; I think it was in poor taste, to tary exploits were absolutely meritorious. say the least. Those stories would certainly Yet, despite having such a meritorious career, not be encouraging to Greg Wilton to make a the demons that the First World War let loose recovery from the mental depression he was meant that for some reason in 1931 he took clearly suffering. There is another aspect that his own life. has to be acknowledged, and some of my Senator Lightfoot—Adam Lindsay colleagues in the other House mentioned it Gordon also committed suicide. He was in today: in that story of a week ago, unnamed the Victorian parliament. figures and sources in the Labor Party openly speculated that Greg would clearly be suc- Senator SCHACHT—Yes. I can go only ceeded by someone else in the preselection on the basis of what information is available for his seat. I find it disappointing and have for federal members of parliament. There- to express disappointment that, despite the fore, it may well be that Mr Wilton is the fact that everybody knew that Greg had an first member of the Labor Party who, while illness, some members of my party—un- being a member of this parliament, has taken named—clearly gave the newspaper an ex- his own life. For the parliament, particularly cuse to run a story about the speculation. I for the Labor Party, it is unbelievably sad only hope, for the sake of those who made that, in our 100th year, one of our members, that speculation and gave the Herald Sun an for reasons which we can only speculate opportunity to run that story, that it was not a about, has felt the need to take his own life. contributing factor in Greg taking his life The impact on all of us in the Labor Party within a matter of 24 hours. has been profound. You can see that for many members of the Liberal Party who We in politics like to think we are pretty knew him it was just as profound. tough and rugged. We play it rough and we play it tough in our own party over such is- The only other aspect I want to mention is sues as preselection and getting the numbers. the press coverage that occurred in the lead- But I think this went beyond the bounds of up to his death. When the first incident oc- what was reasonable, in that we all knew that curred three or four weeks ago there was Greg Wilton had a mental illness and we all massive press coverage of that incident with Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15177 knew that the best way for him to recover Instruments Nos CASA 226/00, CASA was to be left alone to seek appropriate 231/00 and CASA 232/00. treatment and to work the matter out himself Commonwealth Authorities and Compa- without it being given unnecessary publicity. nies Act—Notice pursuant to paragraph That, unfortunately, did not occur. Tomorrow 45(1)(c)—Membership of Ceramic Fuel most of us will go to his funeral in Mel- Cells Limited. bourne—I have to say to celebrate an effec- Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory tive life that was cut short and also to show Rules 2000 No. 97. his children in particular and the rest of his Crimes Act—Regulations—Statutory family that we valued Greg Wilton as a col- Rules 2000 Nos 99 and 100. league and as someone who made a good Dairy Produce Act—Regulations—Statu- contribution to Australia. tory Rules 2000 No. 98. Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m. Defence Act—Determination under section DOCUMENTS 58B—Defence Determinations 2000/15- 2000/18. Tabling Electronic Transactions Act—Regula- The following documents were tabled by tions—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 101. the Clerk: Excise Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules A New Tax System (Goods and Services 2000 No. 116. Tax) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules Federal Magistrates Act—Regulations— 2000 No. 110. Statutory Rules 2000 No. 102. A New Tax System (Goods and Services Higher Education Funding Act—Determi- Tax Transition) Act—Regulations—Statu- nation under section 15—Determination tory Rules 2000 No. 111. No. T23 of 1999. A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—Regu- Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 lations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 117. No. 112. Insurance Act— A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Lloyd’s Security Trust Fund Determi- Tax) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules nation No. 1. 2000 No. 113. Air Navigation Act—Regulations—Statu- Lloyd’s Security Trust Fund Rules No. 1. tory Rules 2000 Nos 95 and 96. Revocation of Lloyd’s Security Trust Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Pro- posal No. 9 of 2000. Fund Determination and Rules of 1998. Insurance Contracts Act—Regulations— Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Statutory Rules 2000 No. 118. Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan— International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act—Regulations—Statutory Amendment No. 37. Rules 2000 No. 94. Approval of Amendment No. 37. Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Australian National University Act—Stat- Rules 2000 No. 108. ute No. 262. National Health Act— Banking Act—Regulations—Statutory Determination under Schedule 1— Rules 2000 Nos 114 and 115. PIB6/2000 and PIB7/2000. Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regu- Health Benefits Reinsurance (Records lations—Civil Aviation Orders— of Organisations) Amendment Determi- Directive—Part— nation 2000 (No. 1). 105, dated 15 [4], 19 [8], 23 [3], 25 Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. [2], 26, 30 [5] and 31 [33] May 106. 2000; and 1 [2], 2 [23], 6, 7 and 9 [2] Private Health Insurance Incentives Act— June 2000. Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 106, dated 31 May 2000; and 2 [3] 107. and 9 June 2000. 15178 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Social Security (International Agreements) Veterans’ Entitlements Act—Instruments Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 under section 196B—Instruments Nos 13 Nos 104 and 105. and 14 of 2000. Superannuation Act 1976— PROCLAMATIONS Declaration—Statutory Rules 2000 No. A proclamation by His Excellency the 120. Governor-General was tabled, notifying that Superannuation (CSS) Deferred Trans- he had proclaimed the following provisions fer Value Payment (Australia Post Su- of an Act to come into operation on the date perannuation Scheme) Determination specified: No. 1. Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Superannuation (CSS) Deferred Trans- Sanctions and Other Measures) Act fer Value Payment (AvSuper) Determi- 2000—Items of Schedules 1, 2 and 3—26 nation No. 1. May 2000 (Gazette No. S 269, 26 May Superannuation (CSS) Return of Sur- 2000). plus (Australia Post Superannuation A proclamation by His Excellency the Scheme) Determination No. 1. Governor-General was tabled, notifying that Superannuation Industry (Supervision) he had proclaimed the following Act to cease Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 to have effect on the date specified: No. 119. Ballast Water Research and Development Taxation Administration Act—Regula- Funding Levy Collection Act 1998—30 tions—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 109. June 2000 (Gazette No. GN 22, 7 June Telstra Corporation Act—Regulations— 2000). Statutory Rules 2000 No. 103. Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15179

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE The following answers to questions were circulated: Saw and Veneer Logs: Export (Question No. 1799) Senator Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conserva- tion, upon notice, on 3 December 1999: (1) Is it a fact that more than 630 000 cubic metres of plantation sawlogs and veneer logs were ex- ported unprocessed from Australia in the 1998-99 financial year. (2) Given the Minister’s well-known concern about the trade deficit in wood products, what will the Minister do to ensure that sawlogs and veneer logs from plantations are processed in Australia. (3) Why can these plantation sawlogs and veneer logs not be used instead of native forest logs, re- ducing the destruction of native forests. Senator Hill—–The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) Over 630 000 cubic metres of roundwood were exported from Australian plantations in 1998-99 (Source: Australian Forest Products Statistics, June quarter 1999). The logs exported are predominantly radiata pine with the vast majority classified as either pulp logs or low quality sawlogs. The export market is providing an opportunity for plantation managers to sell their otherwise unmerchantable small-diameter and residual logs from thinning and clearfelling operations. (2) The maximum possible domestic utilisation of plantation sawlogs and veneer logs is being ad- dressed as a matter of priority through the Forest and Wood Products Action Agenda process. (3) Commercial markets do not exist in Australia for these exported log products, which would oth- erwise remain on the forest floor or lead to the late thinning of plantations. The small diameter sawlogs and pulplogs are generally not found in sufficient amounts within any one region to support an efficient manufacturing process or they are in excess of the regional processor’s requirements. The physical and appearance wood characteristics of these logs means that they would not be a suitable substitute for native forest veneer logs and sawlogs. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Major Defect Notices (Question No. 1908) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 28 January 2000: (1) How many Major Defect Notices were lodged with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, by month, in 1998, 1999 and so far in 2000. (2) What was the average period of time taken to process the notices over the above period. (3) How many notices lodged during the above period have resulted in the issuing of an Air- worthiness Directive. (4) Can the Minister confirm that the time taken to process Major Defect Notices is currently around 2.5 months, if so, why is the period taken to process these notices so long. (5) What are the safety implications for long delays in processing the notices. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following advice: (1) On average, 100 Major Defect Notices per month are lodged with CASA (2) The current Major Defect Report (MDR) system is achieving a 2 month processing period from the time the initial data is entered on the system. However, each MDR is examined on receipt and those that require early action are afforded a priority. In addition, CASA receives verbal reports from industry of defects which have safety implications and these are investigated with minimum delay. (3) Since 1997, CASA has issued 43 Airworthiness Directives resulting from investigation of MDRs, verbal reports and accidents. 15180 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

(4) and (5) See (2) above. Qantas and Ansett Australia: Air Operating Certificates (Question No. 1939) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 February 2000: (1) Since 1 December 1997, on how many occasions have QANTAS and Ansett Australia ap- plied for a new air operating certificate. (2) On each occasion, did QANTAS and Ansett Australia lodge a compliance statement as re- quired by Annex 1.2.1 of the Air Operator Certification Manual. (3) If a compliance statement was not lodged as required by the manual: (a) why not; and (b) on each occasion, what action was taken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to require the operator to meet all the conditions of its air operating certificate. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has provided the following advice: (1) Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 there is no specific provision for varying the basic authority conferred by an AOC. Accordingly, when an operator requests a change to its AOC (eg adding a new type of aircraft or adding a new route) it is generally necessary to re-issue the AOC. In this con- text, since December 1997, Qantas has applied for, and been issued with 15 AOCs. Since December 1997, Ansett Australia has applied for, and been issued with 8 AOCs. (2) Qantas has not provided, and was not required to provide, a compliance statement (see an- swer 3 below). Ansett Australia has been submitting compliance statements since June 1997. (3) The Air Operator Certification Manual does not, and cannot, legally require an AOC appli- cant to lodge a compliance statement. Compliance Statements for AOC applicants are required in ac- cordance with the “approved forms” issued by the Director of Aviation Safety under section 27AA of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. These forms have changed several times since they were first issued in 1996. In December 1997 the approved form was set out in instrument CASA 82/97. This form was re- voked and replaced by a new form in October 1998 (instrument CASA 413/98). This in turn was re- voked and replaced in February 2000 (instrument CASA 48/00) and again in March 2000 (instrument CASA 112/00). In December 1997 there was some inconsistency in the application of the approved form provisions as it was not clear whether, in the case of an existing AOC holder, a compliance statement was required for minor changes to the AOC. In October 1998, the new approved form made it clear that, in relation to applications lodged before the end of November 1999, by existing AOC holders, a compliance state- ment was only required in relation to major changes to an AOC (eg the inclusion of an RPT authorisa- tion in an existing charter AOC or the inclusion of an authorisation to operate an aircraft type with a maximum take-off weight of more than 5,700 kgs). However, all applications by existing AOC holders lodged after 1 December 1999 would require a compliance statement. No AOC applications involving significant changes for Qantas have occurred between 1 December 1997 and 30 November 1999. Therefore, a compliance statement supporting each application was not required. Since 1 December 1999, Qantas has not applied for an AOC issue. Qantas’ current AOCs, issued prior to 1 December 1999, expire at the end of June 2000. A Qantas compliance statement is required by 30 June 2000. Ansett Australia have had only one AOC issue since 1 December 1999 and this was supported by a compliance statement. Airline Operators: Air Operating Certificates (Question No. 1940) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 February 2000: Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15181

(1) How many airline operators of high performance regular public transport hold current air operating certificates. (2) On what date was each of the above certificates issued (3) Since 1 December 1997, on how many occasions have the above certificates been reissued. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following advice: (1) Civil Aviation Order 82.0 defines “high capacity aircraft” as “an aircraft that is certified as having a maximum seating capacity exceeding 38 seats or a maximum payload exceeding 4,200 kilo- grams”. By that definition, there are 18 operators who hold valid Australian AOCs which authorise RPT operations using high capacity aircraft. (2) and (3) Since 1 December 1997, CASA has issued / reissued 80 AOCs for High Capacity Operators. Details are as follows: OPERATOR ISSUED No OF REVISIONS Air Cargo Australia 22/03/00 3 Aircruising Australia 29/06/99 2 Air Nauru 30/07/99 6 Air Vanuatu 29/06/99 3 Ansett Australia 31/01/00 5 Ansett International 12/10/99 6 Asian Express 27/10/99 4 Flight West 16/02/00 5 Independent Air Freight- 28/06/99 2 ers Kendell Airlines 30/03/006 * National Jet Systems 12/04/00 5 Nordstress 13/03/00 11 Polynesian Airlines 29/06/99 2 Qantas 29/10/99 8 Qantas Ltd (Taiwan) 29/06/99 3 Skywest Airlines 02/09/99 1 Solomon Airlines 29/06/99 1 Southern Australia 19/04/00 7 * Since becoming a high capacity operator in December 1999. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Minutes of Meetings (Question No. 1942) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 February 2000: (1) Are minutes kept of all meetings of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Safety Committee. (2) Do those minutes record all matters discussed by the committee; if so, on how many occa- sions, since 1 December 1997, did the committee discuss breaches by high capacity air operators of the conditions of their air operating certificates; if not, why not. (3) On each occasion that such a breach was discussed: (a) what was the nature of the breach; (b) what action did the committee recommend as a result; and (c) was each recommendation made by the committee carried through by the authority. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 15182 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has provided the following advice: (1) The CASA Board Safety Committee operated until 6 July 1999 and was replaced by an Executive Safety Committee in CASA, which meets bi-monthly. Minutes are kept from the meetings of the Executive Safety Committee and were also kept on meetings of its predecessor. These minutes rec- ord all matters discussed. (2) and (3) The information provided to the Executive Safety Committee and its predecessor include reports prepared by Branches of the Aviation Safety Compliance Division, the Safety Promotion Division and, as appropriate, from the Aviation Safety Standards Division. The reports prepared by the Aviation Safety Compliance Division include details of licence and certificate action taken by CASA as a result of surveillance, special audits, show cause notices and other enforcement and compliance activities. The reports also provide updates on issues previously brought to the Committee’s attention. The information contained in the Board and Executive Safety Committee reports relates to specific operators and individuals and is regarded as operationally sensitive material. It would not be appropriate to release any details of this information. Goods and Services Tax: Department of Family and Community Services Research (Question No. 1982) Senator Faulkner asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 3 March 2000: (1) Has the department, or any agency of the department, commissioned or conducted any quantitative and/or qualitative public opinion research (including tracking research) since 1 October 1998, related to the goods and services tax (GST) and the new tax system; if so: (a) who conducted the research; (b) was the research qualitative, quantitative, or both; (c) what was the purpose of the re- search; and (d) what was the contracted cost of that research. (2) Was there a full, open tender process conducted by each of these departments and/or agen- cies for the public opinion research; if not, what process was used and why. (3) Was the Ministerial Council on Government Communications (MCGC) involved in the selection of the provider and in the development of the public opinion research. (4) (a) What has been the nature of the involvement of the MCGC in each of these activities; and (b) who has been involved in the MCGC process. (5) (a) Which firms were short-listed; (b) which firm was chosen; (c) who was involved in this selection; and (d) what was the reason for this final choice. (6) What was the final cost for the research, if finalised. (7) On what dates were reports (written and verbal) associated with the research provided to the departments and/or agencies. (8) Were any of the reports (written and verbal) provided to any government minister, ministe- rial staff, or to the MCGC; if so, to whom. (9) Did anyone outside the relevant department and/or agency or Minister’s office have access to the results of the research; if so, who and why. (10) (a) What reports remain outstanding; and (b) when are they expected be completed. (11) Are any departments and/or agencies considering undertaking any public opinion research into the GST and the new tax system in the future; if so, what is the nature of that intended research. (12) Will the Government be releasing the full results of this taxpayer-funded research; if so, when; if not, why not. Senator Newman—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) The Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) has commissioned research into the FaCS tax reform communication campaign. (a) Colmar Brunton Social Research (Colmar Brunton). (b) Both. Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15183

(c) The purpose of the research was to assist in the development of a public information cam- paign. (d) The total contracted cost of the research is $235 000. (2) In line with usual practice, FaCS developed a list of six consultants (with the assistance of the Government Communications Unit) which was approved by the Minister for Family and Commu- nity Services and the MCGC. The consultants were invited to submit proposals to FaCS. (3) No. (4) (a) The research tender brief and list of consultants was approved by the MCGC, as is usual practice. (b) This was approved by the MCGC out of session. (5) (a) Worthington Di Marzio, Elliot and Shanahan and Colmar Brunton were short- listed. (b) Colmar Brunton. (c) A panel of representatives from the FaCS, Centrelink, Australian Taxation Office, Health Insurance Commission and the Government Communications Unit. (d) Colmar Brunton was rated higher against a set of selection criteria than the other short- listed agencies, particularly their understanding of the research required and value for money. (6) The research has not been finalised. (7) Creative concept testing results were provided in October 1999, January 2000, February 2000, and March 2000. A report incorporating developmental research was provided to FaCS in No- vember 1999. (8) Topline creative concept testing results were provided to my office and the MCGC. (9) The research was provided to the Government Communications Unit, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. (10) (a)&(b) Benchmark testing results will be available in May. Tracking research results will be reported at intervals leading up to 1 July 2000. Post campaign evaluation results are due by the end of July 2000. (11) No. (12) It has been the practice not to release research results before completion of a public in- formation campaign. Department of Veterans’ Affairs: Contracts with Ernst and Young (Question No. 2089) Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 6 March 2000: (1) What contracts have the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm, Ernst and Young in the 1998-99 financial year. (2) In each instance: (a) what was the purpose of the then work undertaken by Ernst and Young; (b) what has been the cost to the department of the contract; and (c) what selection process was used to select Ernst and Young (open tender, short-list, or some other process). Senator Newman—The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: The Department entered into two contracts with Ernst and Young in 1998-99 as follows: (1) IT Audit Services (2) (a)To assist in the management and operation of DVA’s IT Audit function including assisting with planning, implementing and monitoring the DVA IT Audit Strategic Plan. To provide advice on IT control requirements in relation to systems under development and upgrade of technical support for internal audit functions. (b) The total cost in 1998-99 was $356,229. (c) An open tender process was used. 15184 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

This contract was signed on 2 September 1996. This contract includes a standard clause that provides for other audit tasks to be added. Several tasks were performed under that clause, viz: Telecommunications Costing Model - To develop and report on a telecommunications cost- ing model based on an audit of telephony service delivery costs within DVA at a total cost of $11,153 in 1998/99, and Complaints Handling System - An evaluation of DVA’s complaints handling system specifi- cation, including a report on the suitability of DVA’s existing document management software for the implementation of a department wide Complaints Handling System at a total cost of $48,072 in 1998/99. (1) Agency Banking and Cash Management (2) (a) To provide consultancy support for the implementation of agency banking and cash management in DVA and for post-implementation review. (b) The total cost in 1998-99 was $61,177.20. (c) A select tender process was used. Register of Environmental Organisations: Taxation (Question No. 2137) Senator Brown asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 6 April 2000: (1) Can the Minister confirm that all environmental organisations that are currently on the Register of Environmental Organisations, making gifts to them tax deductible, will automatically retain this status when they apply to the Australian Taxation Office for endorsement of their charitable status. (2) From 1 July 2000, who will be responsible for maintaining the register and deciding on additions and deletions. (3) (a) How does the new tax legislation relate to the register; and (b) will organisations on the register, after 1 July 2000, continue automatically to receive gift-deductible status. Senator Hill—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) Organisations currently on the Register of Environmental Organisations will be automati- cally endorsed as deductible gift recipients when they apply to the Commissioner of Taxation. These organisations would also be expected to be charitable organisations, but separate application is required for them to be endorsed as income tax exempt charities. (2) The Department of the Environment and Heritage will continue to maintain the Register after 1 July 2000. Under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, it is the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Treasurer who enters or removes organisations from the Register. (3) (a) From 1 July 2000, in order to retain gift-deductible status an organisation cur- rently on the Register will need to do two things: 1. Be on the Register, and 2. Be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as a deductible gift recipient. Applications for endorsement should be made to the Commissioner of Taxation as soon as possible. (b) The gift deductible status of organisations on the Register will automatically continue from 1 July 2000 provided they apply to the Commissioner of Taxation for endorsement as a deductible gift recipient. Federation Fund: Applications (Question No. 2141) Senator Faulkner asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 11 April 2000: (1) How many Federation Fund applications have been received in each state and territory un- der either the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program or the Federation Community Projects Program. (2) How many of these applications in each State and Territory have been successful. Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15185

(3) How many of the applications received from each State or Territory for funding under these programs of the Federation Fund: (a) were from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisa- tions; and/or (b) covered indigenous issues within the purposes of the proposed project. (4) (a) How many of the applications received from each State or Territory for funding under the Federation fund, as set out in (3) (a) and (b) above were successful; and (b) what was the dollar value of that funding in each state or territory. Senator Alston—The Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: FEDERATION CULTURAL AND HERITAGE PROJECTS PROGRAM (1) The number of total applications by each State and Territory under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program has been provided in the Auditor-General Audit Report No. 30, Exami- nation of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, under section 3, Equity of the geo- graphic spread of grants, Table 3, p 50. (2) The number of approved projects under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Program by each State and Territory has been provided in the Auditor-General Audit Report No. 30, Examination of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, under section 3, Equity of the geographic spread of grants, Table 3, p 50. (3) I refer to my response to Mr Melham’s question asked upon notice on 8 February 1999 (Question No. 384), which appeared in Hansard of 11 May 1999. This response addresses how many applications received from each state and territory for funding under the Federation Cultural and Heri- tage Projects Program were from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisations and/or covered in- digenous issues within the purposes of the proposed project. (4) (a) I refer to my response to Mr Melham’s question asked upon notice on 8 February 1999 (Question No. 384), which appeared in Hansard of 11 May 1999. This response ad- dresses how many applications received from each State or Territory for funding under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, as set out in (3) above, were successful. (b) The dollar value of that funding in each State or Territory is shown below: ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA - $1.0m $2.3m $2.3m $2.95m - - $1.15m FEDERATION COMMUNITY PROJECTS PROGRAM (1) The total number of applications received under the FCP program was 5406. Applications were registered by electorate rather than state. (2) The total number of FCP grants is 1008. (3) (a)61 applications were received from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisa- tions: NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS ACT NT 14 11 16 3 12 2 0 3 (b)The Department is not able to calculate the total number of applications that cover indigenous issues within the purposes of the proposed project without reviewing each of the 5406 indi- vidual applications. (4) (a)Of the 61 applications from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisations identified under (3)(a), 11 were successful: NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS ACT NT 33120101 (b)The grants to successful Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisations identi- fied under (4)(a) total $314,097: NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS ACT NT $88,710 $77,647 $30,740 $67,500 - $20,000 - $29,500 15186 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Perth Community Newspaper Group: Survey Results (Question No. 2164) Senator Murray asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 11 April 2000: With reference to the Community Newspaper Group survey published in the Perth News Chronicle of 28 March 2000 to 3 April 2000: (1) With reference to question 4 of the survey: since 1996, has the crime rate decreased, in- creased or remained the same in: (a) Australia; and (b) Western Australia. (2) With reference to question 16 of the survey: by and large, is meaningful punishment more effective than rehabilitation programs in achieving lower crime rates. (3) With reference to question 17 of the survey: has the average time served in jail, per of- fence, for each of the violent offences, increased or decreased over the past few decades in: (a) Austra- lia; and (b) Western Australia. Senator Vanstone—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) From 1996 to 1998 the recorded property crime rate per 100,000 population has increased by 6.1% in Australia and 4.7% in Western Australia. From 1996 to 1998 the recorded violent crime rate per 100,000 population increased by 18.6% in Australia and 33.7% in Western Australia. It should be noted that the interpretation of data in relation to crime is not a straightforward matter. The above data is that reported to or detected by, the police, rather than all crimes which actually occurred. A number of criminologists believe that the general rise in police recorded crimes is perhaps more accurately a reflection of increased reporting of crime to police and improved police productivity rather than a reflection of an increasingly violent community. (2) Research data is inconclusive regarding the efficiency of this kind of ‘meaningful punish- ment’ in lowering crime rates, compared to ‘rehabilitation programs’. A large scale evaluation done in the US in 1996 on what works and what does not work in crime prevention found that community residential programs, deterrence programs that increase the punitive impact of the sentence (such as sending juvenile offenders to maximum security prisons, where inmates tell of the horrors of prison life) and very poorly defined rehabilitation programs do not reduce crime. The evaluation also showed that carefully designed and targeted rehabilitation and treatment programs can effectively reduce reoffending. Effective treatment for drug offenders can also have an impact in reducing crime. It is also the case that increased incarceration prevents crime because those who are impris- oned do not have the opportunity to commit crimes. Any comparison of different strategies needs to take account of both reductions in crime and the costs associated with each strategy. (3) Data available for the period 1989 to 1998 does not distinguish between violent and non- violent crime. However, the figures show that in that time the average time served in jail has remained at a fairly constant level of 38 months for Australia in general and just on 30 months for Western Aus- tralia. Telstra: Australia Post Office Telephone Number Listings (Question No. 2166) Senator Bourne asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 13 April 2000: Monday, 19 June 2000 SENATE 15187

(1) Why does Australia Post no longer list individual phone numbers for post offices in the Telstra White Pages. (2) Is the Minister aware that customers must now call a central number and then be diverted to the post office of their choice, a process that is both potentially time consuming and expensive, and that in emergencies, family members will suffer unnecessary and potentially dangerous delays in getting through to relatives working at Australia Post, by virtue of having to go through a call centre first. (3) Was any analysis undertaken on the projected or actual impact of this development on customer service, including: (a) customer waiting times and processing of queries; (b) savings to Aus- tralia Post; (c) staff productivity; (d) development of client relationships; and (e) continuity in complaint handling; if so, can the results of this analysis be provided. (4) (a)Was the issue of staff making excessive personal phone calls among the reasons consid- ered; and (b) were there other reasons; if so, can written documentation be provided. Senator Alston—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: Based on advice received from Australia Post (1) In recent years, Australia Post has been moving progressively to direct customers from post offices and other facilities to dedicated Customer Care Centres (CCCs) in each State, as a first point of contact for inquiries/complaints. This approach ensures that post office staff are not unnecessarily diverted from serving cus- tomers to answer routine telephone calls. CCC staff are able to provide customers with advice direct, or switch their call to an appropriate facility (ie corporate post office, licensed post office, delivery centre etc.), as required. (2) Yes. However, Australia Post has advised that the process of contacting a CCC is no more potentially time consuming or expensive than contacting an individual outlet direct. Prior to the introduction of CCCs around 20 percent of customers calling individual outlets were required to leave recorded messages (ie because staff were busy serving customers or out on de- liveries) which staff would then have to follow up the next day, as time permitted. CCCs are better equipped to handle large numbers of calls promptly and, if required, staff will switch a call to the appropriate facility at no extra cost to the customer. Family members are not required to call a CCC in the first instance if they wish to make con- tact with a relative who works in a postal facility. Most families would know the telephone numbers of the facilities at which their relatives work and could, therefore, call the facilities direct. (3) (a) Yes. Prior to the introduction of dedicated CCCs, a survey of calls to post offices and other outlets revealed that calls were taking up to twice as long to answer on average than could be achieved at a CCC. Furthermore, around 50 percent of calls were not office specific and could be an- swered at any point, while others required network knowledge that was not always available at an indi- vidual facility. (b and c) In addition to service-related reasons for the change, there are also general produc- tivity improvements from the use of trained operators with enhanced information systems who are bet- ter placed to handle calls more quickly. (d and e) CCCs also enable Australia Post to provide an enhanced service to its business cus- tomers through the allocation of dedicated telephone numbers and specially trained staff. Complaints, especially those concerning lost items, are better handled in a centralised manner as more network information and searching capability is available and, in general, systemic problems can be more easily identified and addressed. While there may be some initial delays in answering calls as a new CCC is bedded down, re- sources and systems can be adjusted to meet changing levels of demand in a way that cannot be achieved at individual outlets. (4) No. Australia Post has been progressively introducing CCCs for the service related and other reasons outlined above. Health and Aged Care Portfolio: Agency Boards (Question No. 2210) 15188 SENATE Monday, 19 June 2000

Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 4 May 2000: (1) Do chairpersons of any boards that administer agencies within the Minister’s portfolio re- ceive any payments, or other allowance, in addition to those paid to other board members; if so (a) what is the nature of these additional payments or allowances; and (b) how is the quantum of these additional payments determined. (2) On how many occasions since January 1998 have the above payments been varied, and in each case: (a) what was the reason for the variation; and (b) what was the quantum of the variation. Senator Herron—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following an- swer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) (a)The information is available in the Remuneration Tribunal determinations and in the agency’s Annual Report. (b)The Remuneration Tribunal determines the quantum of the additional payments. (2)The variations are published in the Remuneration Tribunal determinations. (a) The reasons for the variation are subject to the Remuneration Tribunal deliberations. (b) The quantum of the variations can be obtained by comparing the Remuneration Tribunal determinations.