Official Hansard No

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE

Official Hansard No. 9, 2001 THURSDAY, 28 JUNE 2001

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—NINTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE INTERNET The Votes and Proceedings for the House of Representatives are available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votes Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives, the Senate and committee hearings are available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

SITTING DAYS—2001 Month Date February 6, 7, 8, 26, 27, 28 March 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 26, 27, 28, 29 April 2, 3, 4, 5, May 22, 23, 24 June 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28 August 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30 September 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27 October 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23,24, 25 November 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 December 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13

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

CANBERRA 1440 AM SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM BRISBANE 936 AM MELBOURNE 1026 AM ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM HOBART 729 AM DARWIN 102.5 FM CONTENTS

Petitions— International Covenant on Civil Rights ...... 25311 Notices— Presentation ...... 25311 Committees— Selection of Bills Committee— Extension of Time ...... 25312 Report...... 25312 Intelligence Services Committee—Appointment ...... 25312 Business— Government Business...... 25313 Committees— Scrutiny of Bills Committee—Reference...... 25313 President Wahid: Visit...... 25313 Australian Broadcasting Corporation: 69th Birthday ...... 25313 Committees— Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Extension of Time ...... 25314 Papua New Guinea: Student Protests— Suspension of Standing Orders...... 25314 Notices— Postponement ...... 25315 Parliamentary Zone— Approval of Works ...... 25315 Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001— First Reading ...... 25316 Second Reading...... 25316 Business— Consideration of Legislation ...... 25316 Environment: Shark Fishing— Suspension of Standing Orders...... 25316 Procedural Motion...... 25317 Motion ...... 25317 Committees— Intelligence Services Committee—Appointment ...... 25319 Selection of Bills Committee—Report...... 25319 Leonie Green and Associates: Investigation...... 25319 Nuclear Weapons: Mururoa Atoll...... 25320 Committees— Publications Committee—Report...... 25320 Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2001— Report of Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee ...... 25320 Budget 2001-02— Consideration by Legislation Committees...... 25320 Committees— Regulations and Ordinances Committee—Report...... 25320 Senators’ Interests Committee—Report ...... 25321 Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report ...... 25321 Corporate Code of Conduct Bill 2000— Report of Corporations and Securities Committee...... 25323 CONTENTS—continued

Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 2001, and Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill 2001— First Reading ...... 25326 Second Reading...... 25326 Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001— First Reading ...... 25330 Second Reading...... 25330 Business— Hours of Meeting and Routine of Business...... 25332 Interactive Gambling Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25333 In Committee...... 25339 Business— Hours of Meeting and Routine of Business...... 25355 Government Business...... 25358 New Business Tax System (Capital Allowances) Bill 2001 ...... 25358 New Business Tax System (Capital Allowances—Transitional and Consequential) Bill 2001 ...... 25358 New Business Tax System (Simplified Tax System) Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25358 In Committee...... 25358 Third Reading...... 25358 Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001— Second Reading...... 25358 In Committee...... 25362 Third Reading...... 25363 Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25363 Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25366 Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practitioners’ Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25371 Questions Without Notice— Goods and Services Tax: Rulings...... 25375 Taxation: Government Policy...... 25376 TaxPack ...... 25377 Budget 2000-01: Surplus...... 25378 Canberra Airport: Runway ...... 25379 Pensioners: Centrelink Questionnaire ...... 25380 Commercial Nominees Australia Ltd...... 25381 Centenary House ...... 25382 Western Australian Women’s Legal Service...... 25383 Indigenous Australians: Services and Programs...... 25384 Goward, Ms Pru...... 25384 Centrelink: Payments...... 25385 Howard Government: Advertising Expenditure...... 25386 Rural and Regional Australia: Government Initiatives...... 25387 CONTENTS—continued

Answers To Questions Without Notice— Medicare: Prenatal Genetic Screening...... 25388 MRI Scanners: Funding...... 25389 Minister for Health and Aged Care: Interview...... 25389 General Practitioner Training ...... 25390 Australian Hearing Services: Board Appointment ...... 25391 Commercial Nominees Australia Ltd...... 25391 Australian Taxation Office: Form...... 25392 Australian Taxation Office: Rulings...... 25393 Personal Explanations...... 25393 Answers To Questions Without Notice— Goods and Services Tax: Rulings...... 25394 Taxation: Government Policy...... 25394 Committees— Legal and Constitutional References Committee—Report: Government Response...... 25399 Leonie Green and Associates: Investigation...... 25410 G & K O’Connor Meatworks: Departmental Files— Returns to Order ...... 25410 Parliamentarians’ Travel Allowance Payments...... 25415 Department of The Senate— Register of Senior Executive Officers’ Interests...... 25415 Committees— Reports: Government Responses...... 25415 Department of the Parliamentary Library— Advance to the Presiding Officers for 2000-01...... 25422 Parliamentarians’ Travel Allowance Payments...... 25422 Budget 2000-01— Portfolio Budget Statements...... 25422 Documents— Bringing Them Home—Progress Report ...... 25422 Committees— Privileges Committee—Report...... 25422 Membership...... 25423 Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 2001— Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 25424 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Wildlife Protection) Bill 2001— Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 25424 Interactive Gambling Bill 2001— In Committee...... 25424 Committees— Selection of Bills Committee—Reports ...... 25444 Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000— In Committee...... 25445 Third Reading...... 25466 Business— Consideration of Legislation ...... 25466 Suspension of Standing Orders...... 25466 Procedural Motion...... 25469 Motion ...... 25469 CONTENTS—continued

Business— Government Business...... 25469 Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25470 In Committee...... 25477 Adoption of Report...... 25490 Third Reading...... 25491 Bills Returned From The House Of Representatives...... 25492 Committees— Intelligence Services Committee—Membership...... 25492 Trade Marks and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001— First Reading ...... 25492 Second Reading...... 25492 Business— Government Business...... 25493 Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25493 Business— Government Business...... 25493 Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25493 In Committee...... 25494 Third Reading...... 25495 Business— Government Business...... 25495 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999— In Committee...... 25496 Business— Government Business...... 25496 Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practitioners’ Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25496 In Committee...... 25496 Third Reading...... 25504 Business— Government Business...... 25504 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001— Second Reading...... 25505 In Committee...... 25505 Third Reading...... 25509 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999— In Committee...... 25509 Third Reading...... 25510 Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001— Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 25510 Third Reading...... 25517 Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000— Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 25517 Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 2001— Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 25527 CONTENTS—continued

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Wildlife Protection) Bill 2001— Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 25531 Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25537 Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2001— Second Reading...... 25541 In Committee...... 25560 Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions) Bill 2000— Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 25561 Bills Returned From The House Of Representatives...... 25562 Notices— Withdrawal ...... 25562 Leave of Absence...... 25562 Adjournment— Queensland: Government Policies...... 25563 Whistleblowers: Heiner Case ...... 25566 Northern Territory Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Legislation...... 25567 Knowledge Nation...... 25569 Parliamentary Staff...... 25571 Documents— Tabling...... 25571 Questions on Notice— Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio: Market Testing of Corporate Services—(Question No. 2673) ...... 25572 Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio: Market Testing of Functions—(Question No. 2692)...... 25574 Prawns: White Spot Virus—(Question No. 3493)...... 25577 Ansons Bay, Tasmania—(Question No. 3574)...... 25581 Ansons Bay, Tasmania—(Question No. 3575)...... 25581 Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program—(Question No. 3588)...... 25582 Foxes: Threat Abatement Plan—(Question No. 3594)...... 25585 Human Rights: Falun Gong—(Question No. 3595)...... 25586 Department of Veterans’ Affairs: One-off Payments to Senior Australians— (Question No. 3612)...... 25587

Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25311

Thursday, 28 June 2001 (c) notes the concerns of the independent ————— production sector, and the radio, television and film industries generally, The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. about the loss of high quality product- Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m. ions being commissioned at the ABC at and read prayers. the present time; PETITIONS (d) expresses its concern that ratings are used as a measure of success, to the The Clerk—A petition has been lodged detriment of other measures, including for presentation as follows: audience reach, or the other provisions International Covenant on Civil Rights of the Australian Broadcasting Corpor- To the Honourable, The President and members ation Act 1983, which details the of the Senate in Parliament assembled: programs and services the ABC should deliver, which have both general and The petitioner Leonard Joseph Faure is repre- specific appeal; senting his daughter M/S Bernadette Mary Faure of 33 Norman Avenue Hammondville N.S.W. (e) acknowledges the role of independent, Australia on a human rights issue. The respon- investigative news and current affairs dent, Centrelink, is compelling her to undertake programs as central to the role of the the Work for The Dole programme. This matter ABC in educating Australians, no matter has been forwarded to the Human Rights & Equal whey they live, or their levels or sources Opportunity Commission for the purposes of of income; remedy on the basis of an alleged violation of (f) notes the finding of the 1995 select Article Eight paragraph three (a) of the Interna- committee inquiry into the role and tional Covenant on Civil Rights. On previous operations of the ABC which found ‘that occasions on matters relating to the same appli- the need for a quality national broad- cant the HREOC delayed its decision for a num- caster is greater today than it was a ber of months. The petitioner therefore is re- decade ago’, reflecting the importance questing the Australian Parliament, to require said the majority of Australians place on this HREOC to enact a decision re; this matter as most important national and cultural quickly as possible. icon; by Senator Bourne (from one citizen) (g) calls on the Government to immediately restore the operational funding of the Petition received. ABC untied, and not inclusive of special NOTICES grants, capital or infrastructure costs or Presentation transmission funding, to a level commensurate with the levels achieved in Senator Bourne to move, on the next day 1985, in real terms; and of sitting: (h) calls on the ABC board: That the Senate— (i) to take immediate action to arrest the (a) notes, on the occasion of its 69th disruption currently at the ABC, and anniversary, that the Australian (ii) to ensure that the ABC’s relationship Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has with its audiences is immediately traditionally produced outstanding restored. results, despite the fact that its operational budget has declined dramatically in Senator McKiernan to move, on the next recent years and remains well below its day of sitting: highest level of funding following That the Legal and Constitutional References corporatisation in 1983; Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting (b) expresses its concern that the during the sitting of the Senate on 6 August 2001, restructuring of the ABC is at the from 7.30 pm, to take evidence for the expense of high-quality programming, committee’s inquiry into the Human Rights the dismissal of a large number of com- (Mandatory Sentencing for Property Offences) mitted and dedicated staff, the result of Bill 2000. which will be felt in the television and Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) radio schedule over the next 2 to 3 years (9.30 a.m.)—At the request of Senator Stott and longer; 25312 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Despoja, I give notice that, three sitting days (1) a Joint Select Committee to be known as the after today, she will move: Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services be appointed to inquire into and That the following bill be introduced: A Bill report on the proposed legislative reforms for an Act to provide for the electors to be con- in: sulted, at the same time as the general election for the House of Representatives, on whether Austra- (a) the Intelligence Services Bill 2001 and lia should become a republic and on whether they the Intelligence Services (Consequen- should vote again to choose from different repub- tial Provisions) Bill 2001: and lic models. Republic (Consultation of the Peo- (b) the provision in the Cybercrime Bill ple) Bill 2001. 2001 relating to the Australian Secret Madam President, I seek leave to table a Intelligence Service (ASIS) and the draft of the bill for public comment. Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) - Liability for Certain Acts. Leave granted. (2) the committee consist of 15 members: 5 COMMITTEES members of the House of Representatives to Selection of Bills Committee be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 4 members of the House of Repre- Extension of Time sentatives to be nominated by the Opposi- Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by tion Whip or Whips, 3 senators to be nomi- leave—agreed to: nated by the Leader of the Government in That the presentation of the report of the Se- the Senate, 2 senators to be nominated by lection of Bills Committee be postponed till a the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate later hour. and 1 senator to be nominated by any minority party. Report (3) every nomination of a member of the com- Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by mittee be forthwith notified in writing to the leave—proposed: President of the Senate and the Speaker of That the order of the Senate of 20 June 2001 the House of Representatives. adopting the Selection of Bills Committee report (4) the members of the committee hold office as no. 8 of 2001, be varied to provide that the provi- a joint select committee until presentation of sions of the Space Activities Amendment (Bilat- the committee’s report or until the House of eral Agreement) Bill 2001 not be referred to the Representatives is dissolved, whichever is Economics Legislation Committee. the earlier. Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (9.32 (5) the committee report no later than 20 a.m.)—I did not know this was happening. It August 2001. may be that it is all right for this to occur, but (6) the committee elect a Government member I would like to delay this until I get some as its chair. advice. I move: (7) the committee elect a deputy chair who shall That the debate be adjourned. act as chair of the committee at any time Question resolved in the affirmative. when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee. Ordered that the resumption of the debate (8) at any time when the chair and deputy chair be made an order of the day for a later hour. are not present at a meeting of the commit- Intelligence Services Committee tee, the members present shall elect another Appointment member to act as chair at that meeting. The PRESIDENT—A message has been (9) the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a deliberative vote and, in received from the House of Representatives the event of an equality of voting, a casting transmitting for concurrence a resolution pro- vote. posing the formation of a joint select commit- (10) 5 members of the committee constitute a tee. Copies of the message have been circu- quorum of the committee, provided that in a lated in the chamber. deliberative meeting the quorum shall in- The resolution read as follows— clude 3 members of either House of the Government parties and 2 members of either House of the non-government parties. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25313

(11) the committee have power to: No. 12 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (a) send for persons, papers and records; (No. 2) 2001, and (b) move from place to place; No. 14 Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2001. (c) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.34 and the House of Representatives. a.m.)—I do not agree to the Broadcasting (12) the committee may determine the manner of Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 conduct of its proceedings and in so doing and the Higher Education Funding Amend- shall consider whether the procedures pre- ment Bill 2001 being on that list. scribed in s.92F(2) and (3) of the Australian Question resolved in the affirmative. Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (‘the ASIO Act’) should be followed. COMMITTEES (13) the committee shall ensure that any docu- Scrutiny of Bills Committee ments having a national security classifica- Reference tion provided to the committee are, while in Motion (by Senator O’Brien, at the re- the custody of the committee, kept at a place under such terms and conditions as are quest of Senator Cooney) agreed to: agreed between the committee and the Di- That the following matter be referred to the rector-General of ASIS, the Director of Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills for DSD, or the Inspector-General of Intelli- inquiry and report by 28 February 2002: gence and Security, as appropriate. The application of absolute and strict li- (14) the committee shall ensure that the identity ability offences in Commonwealth legis- of staff of ASIS is appropriately protected in lation, with particular reference to: accordance with the provisions of the Intel- (a) the merit of making certain offences ligence Services Bill 2001. ones of absolute or strict liability; (15) the committee has leave to report from time (b) the criteria used to characterise an to time its proceedings and the evidence offence, or an element of an offence, as taken and any recommendations as it may appropriate for absolute or strict liability; deem fit. (c) whether these criteria are applied (16) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting consistently to all existing and proposed it with this resolution and requesting that it Commonwealth offences; and concur and take action accordingly. (d) how these criteria relate to the practice in Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western other Australian jurisdictions, and Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the internationally. Minister for Communications, Information PRESIDENT WAHID: VISIT Technology and the Arts) (9.33 a.m.)—I seek leave to have the message considered immedi- Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to: ately. That the Senate congratulates President Wahid of Indonesia on the success of his visit to Leave not granted. Australia and the friendly and positive impression BUSINESS he has left, which enhances relationships between Government Business our nations. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) pro- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING posed: CORPORATION: 69TH BIRTHDAY That the following government bills be consid- Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: ered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2.00 p.m. That the Senate— this day: (a) notes that: the order of the day relating to the Broad- (i) 1 July 2001 marks the 69th birthday casting Legislation Amendment Bill of the Australian Broadcasting (No. 2) 2001, Corporation (ABC), which commen- No. 11 New Business Tax System (Simpli- ced its first broadcast at 8 pm on 1 fied Tax System) Bill 2000 and 2 re- July 1932, lated bills, 25314 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(ii) the then Prime Minister, Joseph The PRESIDENT—Is there any objec- Lyons, proclaimed that the ABC was tion to this motion being taken as formal? committed to ‘serve all sections and to satisfy the diversified tastes of the Senator O’Brien—Yes. public’, The PRESIDENT—There is objection. (iii) the Australian Broadcasting Corpor- Suspension of Standing Orders ation Act, proclaimed in 1983, Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.38 embodied that statement in section 6 of the Act, the ABC Charter, which is a.m.)—Pursuant to contingent notice, I equally relevant today as it was then, move: and continues to enable the ABC to That so much of the standing orders be sus- provide a range of quality programs pended as would prevent Senator Brown moving and services, which meet the diverse a motion relating to the conduct of the business of range of interests of Australian the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to audiences, and general business notice of motion no. 963. (iv) the ABC’s role and functions have I do that because I do not think anyone in been expanded and extended over the this place could say that this is not an urgent years to include: a national classic matter. Port Moresby has been paralysed by music network (Classic FM); a the protests over the last six days. There has national youth network (Triple J); a been a curfew and three students have been national specialist radio network (Radio National); a parliamentary and shot dead. We need to be aware of what is news network (PNN); a local radio happening in the capital city of this neigh- service in 48 regional centres and in bouring country which very much depends each capital city throughout Australia; on Australia for its wellbeing and which is an international shortwave service now racked by the imposition by interna- (Radio Australia); an online, multi- tional monetary authorities of a program that media Internet service; ABC shops includes broadscale privatisation of assets in and centres; and the national tele- Papua New Guinea. It is quite different to the vision network; and democratic system in Australia where there (b) congratulates the ABC, and its dedicated is redress for this sort of thing. It has to be staff over many years of continued understood that in Papua New Guinea, as in service, for reaching this milestone. so many poorer countries, the imposition is COMMITTEES from outside and it rolls over the top of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport democratic system of that country. Legislation Committee You will note, Madam President, that my Extension of Time motion, besides expressing deep sadness and Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the re- concern at the death of the students—and I quest of Senator Crane) agreed to: understand from news reports that students will be bringing forward evidence today That the time for the presentation of the report about the police involvement in the death of of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the import risk those students—and while recognising the assessment on New Zealand apples be extended right of Papua New Guinea to plan its future to 23 July 2001. without selling its major assets, also puts PAPUA NEW GUINEA: STUDENT forward a positive alternative. Part (c) of the PROTESTS motion calls on the international funding and banking agencies to aid PNG’s debt repay- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.38 ments by requiring foreign logging, mining, a.m.)—I ask that general business notice of fishing and tourism companies, including motion No. 963, standing in my name for BHP, for example, to pay a fair and adequate today, relating to the death of three students royalty for their exploitation of this small, in Papua New Guinea after student protests, but beautiful, nation’s resources. This is the be taken as a formal motion. classic case of a poor country having its resources extracted and the management of its Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25315 affairs being taken over basically by multi- Noes………… 43 national forces, including private corpora- Majority……… 31 tions, beyond its control. What is happening in the logging of Papua AYES New Guinea forests and mangroves by huge Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. corporations, including Chevron from the Bourne, V.W * Brown, B.J. United States, is totally reprehensible. The Greig, B. Harradine, B. return to the Papua New Guinea people is not Harris, L. Lees, M.H. commensurate with the damage being done Murray, A.J.M. Ridgeway, A.D. to their environment. Just two days ago we Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J. had a delegation, including an elected MP NOES from the Fly River district, talking about the Bishop, T.M. Boswell, R.L.D. extraordinary environmental damage caused Brandis, G.H. Buckland, G. by the Ok Tedi mine which, through cyanide Calvert, P.H * Campbell, G. and taling spillage into that river system, has Campbell, I.G. Carr, K.J. caused the death of that system for tens, if Chapman, H.G.P. Collins, J.M.A. not hundreds, of kilometres. Because of the Coonan, H.L. Cooney, B.C. silting of the river, there is flooding of the Crane, A.W. Crossin, P.M. riverside areas where the crops are grown by Crowley, R.A. Denman, K.J. the indigenous people, the loss of those crop Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. lands and the forced migration of those peo- Forshaw, M.G. Gibbs, B. ple. They did not ask for that. They are not Gibson, B.F. Hill, R.M. being compensated for that. They have not Hogg, J.J. Hutchins, S.P. become rich over that. It is deplorable be- Ludwig, J.W. Macdonald, J.A.L. haviour by BHP and other corporations from Mackay, S.M. Mason, B.J. outside. They would not be allowed to prac- McGauran, J.J.J. McKiernan, J.P. McLucas, J.E. Murphy, S.M. tise that sort of environmental and social Newman, J.M. O’Brien, K.W.K. dislocation in this country. But they go to a Payne, M.A. Ray, R.F. Third World country and become a law unto Reid, M.E. Schacht, C.C. themselves—and this motion draws attention Sherry, N.J. Tambling, G.E. to that. Tchen, T.Watson, Troeth, J.M. The motion should be debated. Papua New Guinea is in uproar. The students are * denotes teller representing a different point of view. The Question so resolved in the negative. young people of Papua New Guinea are NOTICES saying, ‘We don’t want everything going into foreign hands, out of our control, under this Postponement international capital system.’ I urge the Sen- Motion (by Senator Carr, at the request ate to vote for this debate, seeing formality of Senator Faulkner)—by leave—agreed has been blocked by the Labor Party. Change to: the motion, if you will, but take notice of the That general business notice of motion no. 871 fact that there are horrific events occurring in standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for to- Papua New Guinea, and we should not ig- day, relating to the benchmark for pension levels, nore them. be postponed till the next day of sitting. Question put: PARLIAMENTARY ZONE That the motion (Senator Brown’s) be agreed Approval of Works to. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the The Senate divided. [9.48 a.m.] request of Senator Tambling) agreed to: (The President—Senator the Hon. Marga- That, in accordance with section 5 of the ret Reid) Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for Ayes………… 12 capital works within the Parliamentary Zone, 25316 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 being the construction of Reconciliation Place in be exported. This breached Australia’s obligation the Parliamentary Zone. under the Basel Convention not to allow the ex- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.52 port of hazardous waste to another country unless a.m.)—by leave—Madam President, this is a that country has given its consent. As required by the Basel Convention, the Commonwealth was monument to reconciliation, and I do not obliged to bring the wastes back and dispose of know of such a monument being built before them in Australia. the event has actually taken place. The police investigation into the export led to the ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION conclusion that the foreign company was in AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2001 breach of the Act but was beyond the reach of First Reading Australian Courts. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) The Commonwealth was unable to prosecute the Australian company because the sale of the waste agreed to: was not an offence under the Act. These amend- That the following bill be introduced: A Bill ments are intended to prevent this situation aris- for an Act to amend legislation relating to the ing again, by making it an offence to sell hazard- environment, and for related purposes. ous waste to a foreign company unless an export Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) permit is in force. agreed to: Other amendments to the Act will allow ministe- That the bill may proceed without formalities rial orders to be made in a more effective and and be now read a first time. appropriate manner in incidents of this kind. They will also deal with administrative matters Bill read a first time. such as clarifying the definition of hazardous Second Reading wastes. Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Ordered that further consideration of the Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the second reading of this bill be adjourned until Minister for Communications, Information the first day of the 2001 spring sittings, in Technology and the Arts) (9.52 a.m.)—I table accordance with standing order 111. the explanatory memorandum and move: BUSINESS That this bill be now read a second time. Consideration of Legislation I seek leave to have the second reading Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) speech incorporated in Hansard. agreed to: Leave granted. That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of The speech read as follows— standing order 111 not apply to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001, The principal purpose of the Environmental Leg- allowing it to be considered during this period of islation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 is to make sittings. amendments to the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989. The Bill also Senator Brown—I would like to record contains amendments of a minor machinery na- my no vote on that. ture to other portfolio legislation including the ENVIRONMENT: SHARK FISHING Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000, the Environ- ment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, and the Senator GREIG (Western Australia) Ozone Protection Act 1989. These amendments (9.53 a.m.)—I ask that general business no- are of a technical nature, and are intended to rec- tice of motion No. 881, standing in my name tify a small number of operational anomalies and for today and relating to shark finning and unintended consequences of drafting. unsustainable shark fishing, be taken as a The main purpose of the amendments to the Haz- formal motion. ardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Im- Leave not granted. ports) Act 1989 is to ensure that Australian companies cannot avoid the Act’s requirements by Suspension of Standing Orders selling hazardous wastes to foreign companies. Senator GREIG (Western Australia) In September 1997, an Australian company sold (9.54 a.m.)—Pursuant to contingent notice hazardous waste to a foreign company and the and at the request of the Leader of the Aus- foreign company then arranged for the waste to Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25317 tralian Democrats, Senator Stott Despoja, I sharks then suffocate and drown. It is repug- move: nant, and I think most Australians find it as That so much of the standing orders be sus- abhorrent as practices such as removing the pended as would prevent Senator Stott Despoja paws from bears. Additionally, while Aus- moving a motion relating to the conduct of the tralia has a reasonably commendable record business of the Senate, namely a motion to give in the management of shark fisheries, there is precedence to general business notice of motion no question to my mind that there is some no. 881. doubt over the sustainability of some species. In doing so, I— While I acknowledge that there is an interim Senator Hill—Madam President, on a ban on shark fishing in some waters— point of order: I want to say that we agree to namely, in tuna fishing areas—I think the the suspension. From our point of view, there time for procrastination on this issue is long is no need to debate the suspension. overdue and we should bring an end to the interim ban and implement a permanent ban. Question resolved in the affirmative. Australia has one of the largest and most Procedural Motion diverse populations of sharks in the world. Motion (by Senator Greig, at the request This motion notes that, while Australia has of Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: banned the practice of shark finning in many That general business notice of motion no. 881 states, it is still happening in the Northern may be moved immediately and have precedence Territory, Tasmania, Queensland and South over all other business today till determined. Australia. Today we call upon both the gov- Motion ernment and the opposition to agree to make Senator GREIG (Western Australia) that ban permanent and upon the Australian (9.56 a.m.)—I move: federal and state and territory governments to cooperate in the development of a strong That the Senate— national plan of action that will end unsus- (a) notes that: tainable shark finning and high levels of (i) whilst Australia has banned the shark catching in Australian fisheries. practice of shark finning in many I note, for example, that most of these fins Australian states, it is still permitted in the Northern Territory, Tasmania, are appearing in shark fin soup. It is one of Queensland and South Australia, and the dishes of the Chinese elite, but it has now become very common and a much preferred (ii) Australia is a world leader in shark management, but despite an interim dish within some Asian communities. As a ban on shark finning in tuna fisheries, consequence, shark fins are much more there are still a number of shark highly sought after. There was a time when species targeted for their highly- fins were taken only from the carcasses of valued fin, and at risk in Australia sharks caught for their meat. That is no from over-fishing and bycatch; and longer the case. They are now being caught (b) calls on the Government to make the ban specifically and deliberately for their fins permanent, and for the Australian only. Sharks are at the top of the food chain federal, state and territory governments in the ocean world, and it is estimated that to cooperate in the development of a some shark populations have declined by an strong national plan of action that will alarming 90 per cent through overfishing. end unsustainable shark fishing and high They are highly vulnerable to exploitation levels of shark in Australian fisheries. due to their longevity, late maturity and slow In doing so, I would argue that it deserves reproduction rates. the support of the Senate on the basis that the Sharks often equate to about 50 per cent practice of shark finning is abhorrent. It is of unintended by-catch—that is, fish not worth noting that we are talking about the necessarily intended to be caught when practice of catching sharks live, slicing their fisherfolk are catching other forms of marine fins from them and, in most cases, returning life. Where some turtle excluder devices, the live carcasses to the water, where the TEDs, have become mandatory, there have 25318 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 been significant drops in the number of refers to the methodology to get to the same sharks caught, but smaller sharks are still objective. This government has put in place being caught in prawn fishing nets. In the an interim ban in relation to tuna. In the in- past, it was a common practice to utilise the terim, our objective is to negotiate what is fins and teeth of sharks caught as by-catch described in this amendment as a strong na- rather than live sharks so that there was no tional plan of action that will end unsustain- waste of shark carcasses but, with the ever able shark fishing. I therefore support the increasing value of shark fins, sharks have amendment. become a targeted species in their own right. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.01 I would argue it is the Australian govern- a.m.)—Here we have the government and the ment’s duty to take an active and strong opposition again calling for a plan of inac- stance on this issue, and I call upon the Sen- tion, not a plan of action. That is what this ate to support the motion. amendment is about. Senator Greig’s motion Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) says, ‘Let’s make the ban permanent.’ If (9.59 a.m.)—I move the amendment that has good evidence comes forward that there is an been circulated: alternative then let it be brought forward and Omit subparagraph (a)(ii) and paragraph we can change that. But this is simply a (b), substitute: move to prevent any action being taken on (ii) that Australia is a world leader in this wasteful and destructive industry, as de- shark management, but despite an scribed by Senator Greig. So I oppose the interim ban on shark finning in tuna amendment and I support the motion. fisheries, there are still a number of Senator GREIG (Western Australia) shark species, targeted for its highly (10.02 a.m.)—I would oppose the amend- valued fin, and that may be at risk in ment, specifically for the reason that Senator Australia from over-fishing and bycatch; and Brown articulated—that is, it is advocating a process of inaction. The amendment would (b) calls on the Government to cooperate seek to do two things. It changes the wording with industry in the development of a strong National Plan of Action that will of the first part of my motion, introducing end unsustainable shark fishing. the word ‘may’, suggesting that there may be some risk to Australia from overfishing and The amendment is self-explanatory. It by-catch. For goodness sake, we know well amends the motion by removing the call to enough already that there is a strong risk, and make the ban permanent, because we believe to now suggest that there may be a risk is, at that move is premature at this stage. We un- best, disingenuous. derstand that the industry in this country is developing a code of conduct, addressing I take the strongest objection to the notion concerns such as those raised by Senator in point 3 of the amendment, calling on the Greig. We believe the appropriate approach government to cooperate with industry in the at this stage is to support our amendment, development of a strong national plan of ac- which calls on the government—and we un- tion that will end unsustainable shark fishing. derstand the government agree with this—to There is no notion or suggestion that the ban cooperate with industry in developing a should be introduced and maintained, and strong national plan of action that will end that is what I believe most strongly should unsustainable shark fishing. happen. I note with some bemusement and confusion that, while Senator Hill began his Senator HILL (South Australia—Minis- discussion in the debate on this issue by ter for the Environment and Heritage) (10.00 saying that if Labor had not moved this a.m.)—That is the position of the govern- amendment then he and the government ment. If the opposition had not moved this would have, that certainly has not been the amendment, I would have moved an government’s position over the last approxi- amendment in similar terms. It is not incon- mately five weeks while my motion has been sistent with the sentiment of the Australian on the Notice Paper. Until yesterday, my Democrats’ argument. The difference rather motion had unqualified government support. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25319

Question put: That the Senate concurs with the resolution of That the amendment (Senator Forshaw’s) be the House of Representatives contained in mes- agreed to. sage No. 739 relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Serv- The Senate divided. [10.07 ices. a.m.] Senator Brown—Obviously, the opposi- (The President—Senator the Hon. Marga- tion and government have been talking about ret Reid) this matter, but I think the haste with which Ayes………… 47 this is being put through is not proper, and Noes………… 9 the matter should have been properly debated. Majority……… 38 Selection of Bills Committee AYES Report Abetz, E. Alston, R.K.R. Debate resumed, on motion by Senator Bishop, T.M. Boswell, R.L.D. Calvert: Brandis, G.H. Buckland, G. Calvert, P.H. * Campbell, G. That the order of the Senate of 20 June 2001 adopting Selection of Bills Committee report Carr, K.J. Chapman, H.G.P. no. 8 of 2001, be varied to provide that the provi- Collins, J.M.A. Coonan, H.L. sions of the Space Activities Amendment (Bilat- Cooney, B.C. Crane, A.W. eral Agreement) Bill 2001 not be referred to the Crossin, P.M. Crowley, R.A. Economics Legislation Committee. Denman, K.J. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ferris, J.M. Forshaw, M.G. LEONIE GREEN AND ASSOCIATES: Gibbs, B. Gibson, B.F. INVESTIGATION Harris, L. Herron, J.J. Motion (by Senator Jacinta Collins) Hill, R.M. Hogg, J.J. agreed to: Hutchins, S.P. Kemp, C.R. Knowles, S.C. Ludwig, J.W. That there be laid on the table, by the Minister Macdonald, J.A.L. Mackay, S.M. representing the Minister for Employment Services, no later than immediately after motions Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. to take note of answers on 28 June 2001, a copy McKiernan, J.P. McLucas, J.E. of the following documents: Murphy, S.M. Newman, J.M. O’Brien, K.W.K. Reid, M.E. (a) a full copy of the interim report of the Sherry, N.J. Tambling, G.E. investigation undertaken by the Tchen, T. Troeth, J.M. Department of Employment, Workplace Watson, J.O.W. Relations and Small Business into allegations of impropriety by Leonie NOES Green and Associates, as raised in the Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. Employment, Workplace Relations, Bourne, V.W. * Brown, B.J. Small Business and Education Commit- Greig, B. Lees, M.H. tee’s hearing of 4 June 2001, which the Murray, A.J.M. Ridgeway, A.D. Minister for Employment Services has Woodley, J. undertaken to provide to the Parliament; * denotes teller (b) all documents provided to the Minister for Employment Services on his visit to Question so resolved in the affirmative. the offices of Leonie Green and Original question, as amended, resolved in Associates on 10 April 2001; and the affirmative. (c) all notes, diary entries or file notes in COMMITTEES relation to the visit by the Minister for Employment Services to the offices of Intelligence Services Committee Leonie Green and Associates on 10 April Appointment 2001. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to: 25320 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: MURUROA Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport ATOLL Legislation Committee, I present the report Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: of the committee in respect of the 2001-02 budget estimates, together with the Hansard That the Senate— record of the committee’s proceedings. (a) notes that: Ordered that the report be printed. (i) 2 July 2001 is the 35th anniversary of French nuclear weapons testing at the Senator CALVERT—I move: Mururoa Atoll, and That the Senate take note of the report. (ii) 5 years ago all members and senators I seek leave to continue my remarks later. from all parties joined in condemning the French tests at Mururoa; and Leave granted; debate adjourned. (b) urges the Government to: COMMITTEES (i) renew its opposition to nuclear Regulations and Ordinances Committee weapons testing and proliferation in Report the international arena, and Senator COONAN (New South Wales) (ii) exercise the greatest diligence in (10.16 a.m.)—I present the report of the repairing the damage to land and Standing Committee on Regulations and Or- people caused by exposure to the dinances on ministerial correspondence re- British nuclear weapons testing in Australia in the 1950’s. lating to the scrutiny of delegated legislation. I move: COMMITTEES That the Senate take note of the document. Publications Committee Senators will be aware that the Regulations Report and Ordinances Committee has been re- Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (10.14 viewing its practices and procedures with the a.m.)—On behalf of Senator Lightfoot, I pre- objectives of increasing awareness of its sent the 26th report of the Standing Com- work, making delegated legislation more mittee on Publications. accessible and adopting procedures that are Ordered that the report be adopted. open and transparent. In relation to this third INNOVATION AND EDUCATION objective, the committee agreed in March LEGISLATION AMENDMENT this year, and informed all ministers and par- BILL 2001 liamentary secretaries, that it will table in the Senate correspondence with ministers relat- Report of Employment, Workplace ing to its scrutiny of delegated legislation. Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee For 69 years, this has not been the usual practice of the committee. However, it Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (10.14 should be recognised that most ministerial a.m.)—On behalf of Senator Tierney and the responses to concerns raised by the commit- Employment, Workplace Relations, Small tee are informative and instructive, providing Business and Education Legislation Com- detailed advice on committee concerns. The mittee, I present the report of the committee committee is of the view that these responses on the provisions of the Innovation and Edu- should be placed on the public record unless cation Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, a request is made and the committee agrees together with the Hansard record of the that the response should be treated confiden- committee’s proceedings, and documents tially. Today, I have tabled the first volume received by the committee. of this correspondence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senators will be aware that correspon- BUDGET 2001-02 dence relating to instruments on which the Consideration by Legislation Committees committee gives a notice of motion to disallow is incorporated in Hansard. The com- Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (10.15 mittee intends to continue this practice. I a.m.)—On behalf of Senator Crane and the thank the Senate. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25321

Question resolved in the affirmative. hearing on 7 February this year that all sub- Senators’ Interests Committee missions received by the review had been returned to submitters and that no copies had Report been taken of the originals for retention as Senator DENMAN (Tasmania) (10.17 records. Based on legal advice, Mr Humphry a.m.)—In accordance with the Senate resolu- was under the impression that submissions tion of 17 March 1994 on the declaration of did not form part of the Commonwealth’s senators’ interests, I present declarations of records and therefore were not covered by interests and notifications of alterations of the Archives Act and that they remained the interests in the Register of Senators’ Interests property of those who had prepared them. At lodged between 5 December 2000 and 25 this stage, however, the committee assumed June 2001. that submissions made to a Commonwealth Finance and Public Administration funded review would be Commonwealth References Committee records so it sought information on the status Report of the submissions. The committee wanted to Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (New satisfy itself that indeed Mr Humphry was South Wales) (10.18 a.m.)—I present the re- correct in assuming that the submissions port of the Finance and Public Administra- should be returned to their authors. tion References Committee on the inquiry Since pursuing this line of inquiry, the into the government’s information technol- committee has received nothing but con- ogy outsourcing initiative, entitled Account- flicting and broken evidence about the sub- ability issues: two case studies. missions. After all the questioning and Ordered that the report be printed. probing, the committee believes that it still has not got a full and accurate account of the Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL—I matter. Apparently, Mr Humphry and his move: secretariat of DOFA staff sought legal advice That the Senate take note of the report. on a number of occasions to establish the On 29 November 2000, the Senate referred status of the submissions. The initial legal the matter of the government’s information opinion upon which Mr Humphry acted sug- technology outsourcing initiative to the Fi- gested that the submissions were not Com- nance and Public Administration References monwealth records because they would be Committee. The committee tabled an interim regarded as owned by the persons who pre- report last April which detailed a number of pared them. In seeking three pieces of legal instances where it had experienced difficul- advice on this matter, however, it would ap- ties in obtaining relevant documents. pear that none provided key documents, such The committee continues to experience as Mr Humphry’s contract or letter of ac- difficulties in obtaining full, clear and accu- ceptance, to those giving the advice. rate information on matters associated with Over a period of three months, the com- the government’s IT outsourcing initiative. In mittee tried to establish exactly what docu- light of these continuing problems, the comments formed the basis for the legal opinion mittee agreed to produce a second report that that the submissions were not Common- further underlines the difficulties it has had, wealth records. Eventually, DOFA provided and continues to have, in gaining access to the committee with a copy of Mr Humphry’s material it considers necessary to fulfil its letter of acceptance. It seems as though this reporting obligations to the parliament. This copy had gone missing in the secretariat and report comprises two case studies that high- in DOFA for a period of six months. An im- light these problems. portant provision in this letter states: One of the first significant obstacles to the All material created, derived or provided to you inquiry started with a simple request from for the purpose of your review shall be and re- the committee for access to the submissions main the property of the Commonwealth. to the Humphry review. Mr Richard Hum- On obtaining this letter, which contains this phry informed the committee at the first very clear statement on the status of the 25322 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 submissions, the committee sought further mittee, because of the utmost importance of clarification on who actually sought the legal this matter, believed that it should persist advice, who had access to information about with its request for the evaluation reports the terms of Mr Humphry’s appointment and without deletions. The committee did not ask whether the letter of acceptance was taken for these documents lightly and believes that into consideration when formulating the ad- this issue goes to the very heart of govern- vice. ment accountability. It carefully considered In essence, the committee was seeking in- the government’s obligation to protect confi- formation that would reconcile the terms of dentiality with the committee’s responsibility Mr Humphry’s appointment with the dis- to scrutinise government activities. After posal of the submissions. But despite re- weighing up the merits of both arguments the peated attempts, the committee still cannot committee was convinced that the public obtain a straight answer from the department. interest would be best served by clarifying The committee therefore calls on the De- what happened during the tendering process. partment of Finance and Administration to Accordingly, the committee wrote the provide all the relevant information by Fri- minister on 8 June outlining its reasons for day, 13 July 2001 so that this matter can be the request. It explained that during the settled once and for all. course of inquiry serious questions had been The second part of the report looks at the raised about the integrity of the Health Health Group tendering process. Again, the Group tendering process which it had been committee found itself thwarted in its at- unable to resolve. It explained further that tempts to piece together an accurate picture the information contained in the evaluation of this process, particularly the events sur- reports could be fundamental to its investi- rounding an unauthorised disclosure and the gation. The committee stated clearly that it receipt of a late tender. The interim report was aware of the need to protect the confi- detailed the sequence of events which even- dentiality of this material, that it would re- tually led to two Senate orders for the pro- ceive the documents in camera and that it duction of documents, one passed on 26 had no intention to release information that March and the other on 3 April 2001. The would disadvantage the tenderers. On 15 evaluation reports for the Health Group were June the minister advised the committee that among documents included in the order. Al- he was awaiting further advice and would though the documents were provided to the respond as soon as he was in a position to do committee, they had substantial sections so. More than one month has passed since blanked out, which meant they were of lim- the order was issued. ited value to the committee. The committee reports to the Senate the By this time, however, the committee had minister’s failure to comply with its order to become aware of an unauthorised disclosure produce the evaluation reports for the Health of information during the tendering process Group tender process. However, the com- for the Health Group and believed that ac- mittee has taken a decision not to pursue the cess to the evaluation reports would be nec- documents through the Senate due to the essary for the committee to effectively con- extreme sensitivity of some of the informa- duct its inquiry. On 24 May, under standing tion they contain. It is hoping that the minis- order 25(15) the committee ordered OASITO ter’s last letter informing the committee that to provide the full and complete evaluation he is seeking further advice will result in reports for the Health Group. But on the di- some effort being made to meet the commit- rection of the Minister for Finance and Ad- tee’s needs. ministration, it provided the committee with The report also deals with the irregulari- a set of incomplete documents identical to ties that occurred during the tendering proc- those already provided under the Senate’s ess. On 28 July 2000 one of the three tender- order for the production of documents. ers received a disk which contained informa- Despite the minister’s refusal to produce tion relating to the other two bidders. Mr the requested documents in full, the com- Smith, CEO of OASITO, has acknowledged Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25323 that this unauthorised disclosure of informa- mittee’s needs. I seek leave to continue my tion was a ‘very serious issue’. The commit- remarks later. tee shares his view but became even more Leave granted; debate adjourned. concerned when it learned that the tenderer that had received the unauthorised informa- CORPORATE CODE OF CONDUCT tion had failed to submit its bid by the clos- BILL 2000 ing time for tenders and had been accepted as Report of Corporations and Securities a late tender. The committee wanted to clar- Committee ify the events surrounding these two irregu- Senator CHAPMAN (South Australia) larities and to establish whether they had (10.28 a.m.)—I present the report of the Par- been managed properly. The committee be- liamentary Joint Committee on Corporations lieved that it was important to establish and Securities on the provisions of the Cor- whether the integrity of the process had been porate Code of Conduct Bill 2000, together compromised. with the Hansard record of the committee’s Again the committee encountered diffi- proceedings and documents presented to the culties in accessing documents relevant to committee. I move: this matter. Not only has it been denied ac- That the Senate take note of the report. cess to the legal advice obtained by OASITO In moving the motion, I briefly state that, and to the complete correspondence associ- while the committee in no way endorses in- ated with the probity auditor’s advice about appropriate behaviour on the part of Austra- the unauthorised disclosure but in evidence lian corporations, the evidence before the before the committee OASITO officers have committee in relation to alleged inappropri- had trouble recalling accurately and in detail ate corporate behaviour invariably concerned the events that took place on the day the ten- only a couple of incidents and there was no ders closed. evidence of systemic failure. Therefore, the The committee is concerned that the lim- committee concludes that there is no demon- ited or incomplete documentation made strated need for the bill and, indeed, the bill available to it and the fragmented and some- could well do more harm than good. On that times vague information given by officers basis, we have recommended that the bill not from both the Department of Finance and be passed. I thank my committee staff, David Administration and OASITO during public Creed and his staff, for their work on this hearings may mislead it and thus undermine inquiry and in relation to our report on the the accountability process. The committee bill, and I seek leave to incorporate my ta- has no way of knowing whether it is in pos- bling statement. session of all the necessary facts. It has Leave granted. therefore agreed to, and has requested, the Auditor-General to consider examining these The tabling statement read as follows— matters. On 6 September 2000 Senator Vicki Bourne introduced the Corporate Code of Conduct Bill Based on its experiences so far in this in- 2000 into the Senate. On 5 October 2000 the quiry, the committee believes that it has not Senate referred the provisions of the Bill to the had adequate access to key documents and Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on Cor- has not received clear, full and accurate in- porations and Securities for inquiry and report by formation during its hearings that would en- 31 March 2001. able it to come to an informed conclusion on The Committee resolved that the reporting date be these numerous important issues. The com- extended so that the Committee could have addi- mittee is now preparing a final report to pre- tional public hearings and thus as many persons sent to the Senate later this year. On the dif- as possible would have the opportunity of testi- ficult matters such as obtaining access to fying before the Committee. The Senate agreed material including evaluation reports and to this course of action, and therefore it is today related legal and probity advice, the com- that I am tabling the Committee’s report. mittee hopes that the minister and his de- The Committee received 43 submissions in rela- partments will endeavour to meet the com- tion to the inquiry, many from major stakeholders. 25324 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Industry bodies that made submissions included being subject to the provisions of the Bill that, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Indus- given our scepticism about the benefits of the try, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of West- Bill, it would constitute an unacceptable “burden” ern Australia and the Victorian Chamber of for regulators. The Committee therefore con- Mines. Individual companies, such as BHP Lim- cludes that the regulatory regime the Bill would ited, also made submissions. Submittors, whose create would be unworkable. primary concern was human rights, included Am- With regard to the Bill’s requirement that corpo- nesty International Australia, the FairWear Cam- rations “take all reasonable measures to prevent paign, the Minerals Policy Institute and World any serious threat to public health”, the Commit- Vision Australia. Submittors whose focus was tee noted that the Bill does not apply to all Aus- primarily on the rights of employees included the tralian corporations operating overseas, but only Australian Council of Trade Unions. to those with more than 100 employees. The In addition to these submissions, submissions Committee finds it unacceptable that any legisla- were also received from other key organisations tion should imply that only certain corporations and individuals. The Committee is very grateful should refrain from threatening public health. to those who took the time and trouble to make Moreover, the Committee believes that this part very detailed and helpful submissions. The of the Bill is unnecessary as Common Law rights Committee, without detracting from other sub- relating to negligence would already allow for- missions, endorses a comment made by Senator eign litigants in most circumstances to sue in Murray during the public hearings on the Bill, to Australian courts for damage suffered from negli- the effect that the submissions from the Austra- gent behaviour. The Committee considers it un- lian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and wise to interfere with these Common Law rights. Community Aid Abroad were of particular assistance to the Committee because they contained The Bill, as has been said, would regulate Aus- “detailed commentary” on shortcomings in the tralian corporations with over 100 employees Bill. overseas. It would also seek to regulate a holding company of such a corporation even though such The Committee also endorses Senator Murray’s a holding company may not be an Australian cor- statement regarding the usefulness of the “posi- porate entity. The Bill would therefore seek to tive” criticisms of a submitter such as Mr Sean regulate, for example, as one witness noted, Cooney. Positive criticisms are always helpful in America’s General Motors. This would simply be devising ways to remedy deficiencies in proposed unworkable. legislation. The Bill would impose “environmental, employ- The Committee held three day of public hearings. ment, health and safety and human rights stan- Forty individuals representing a wide variety of dards” on Australian corporations with 100 em- groups and organisations appeared before the ployees overseas. The Committee notes that the Committee during these hearings. The Commit- Parliament has enacted legislation with extrater- tee is very grateful to these persons who so gen- ritorial application but the Committee also notes erously made themselves available to testify be- that such legislation was very focused while the fore the Committee. These witnesses represented current Bill is general and extremely broad. a wide variety of views and I therefore believe that the hearings were not only very comprehen- The Committee concludes that the Bill is so ge- sive, but they also presented to the Committee a neric as to be vague to the point of being unen- range of views on the Bill which the Committee forceable. One example is the requirement that found most useful in drafting its report. corporations provide their employees with, and I quote from subclause 8(2) of the Bill, “satisfac- The first issue on which the Report makes a con- tory sanitary conditions”. The Committee is clusion is the 100 employee threshold. The Bill aware that regulations may be made under would apply only to “Australian corporations or clause 18 of the Bill, which may define what is related corporations which employ more than 100 meant by “satisfactory”. Nevertheless, the Com- persons in a foreign country”. Several submitters mittee finds itself unable to recommend a Bill, the and witnesses suggested lowering this 100 em- provisions of which are so vague as to cause con- ployee threshold, thus increasing the number of siderable uncertainty to industry. corporate entities that would be subject to regulation by the Bill. The Bill would require an Australian corporation to pay its workers a “living wage”. The difficul- The Committee disagrees with those who sug- ties in determining what constitutes a “living gested lowering the employee threshold. Indeed wage” in all the countries in which an Australian the Committee found that even the 100 employee may operate would involve that corporation in threshold would result in so many companies Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25325 considerable expense and there would be no cer- improvement”. The Committee concludes, how- tainty, despite a corporation’s best efforts, that, in ever, that the reporting requirements required by the event of litigation, an Australian court would the Bill would be both onerous and expensive. find that it had been paying its workers a “living The Committee concludes that the reporting re- wage”. Australian corporations would therefore quirements of the Bill are unwieldy to the point of always operate under the threat of litigation. being impossible to implement without significant The Committee therefore concludes that the Bill’s costs being incurred by both corporations and the requirement that a corporation determine a “living regulator. The Committee finds that any benefits wage” in all of the jurisdictions in which it oper- to be derived from the reporting regime would not ates is unreasonable and impractical. compensate for the loss suffered due to the impo- The Bill, at clause 10, would require Australian sition of associated costs. corporations operating overseas to avoid dis- The Bill would allow civil penalties to be im- criminating in its employment practices on the posed for non-compliance with the Bill. These basis of race, colour, sex, sexuality, religion, po- penalties differ from those specified in the Envi- litical opinion, national extraction or social origin. ronment Protection and Biodiversity Conserva- The Committee in no way endorses discrimination Act 1999 (Cth), even where the offences are tion, but clearly this section of the Bill could similar. The Committee is unable to discern any force Australian corporations to choose between rationale for this and concludes that enacting the hiring persons belonging to organisations deemed Bill would lead to unwarranted confusion in the illegal in the jurisdictions in which they operate, corporate world. or else face litigation in Australian courts. The Various submitters and witnesses stated that the Committee finds itself unable to recommend a status quo was unacceptable because it was tan- Bill that would force such an unenviable choice tamount to allowing Australian corporations over- on Australian companies. seas to degrade the environment and abuse the Clause 11 of the Bill requires Australian corpora- rights of foreign workers. tions to obey the tax laws of the jurisdictions in The Committee in no way endorses inappropriate which they operate. The Committee in no way behaviour on the part on Australian corporations. condones tax evasion. However, the Committee The Committee notes, however, that the evidence considers it inappropriate for the Australian Par- of inappropriate corporate behaviour that was liament to enact laws requiring Australian corpo- presented to it almost invariably concerned the rations to obey the laws of foreign jurisdictions. same couple of incidents. No evidence was pre- Clause 12 of the Bill requires Australian corpora- sented of systemic failure and thus the Committee tions, producing goods and services overseas, to concludes that there is no demonstrated need for simultaneously satisfy both Australian health and the current Bill. Indeed, the Committee con- safety standards, and the health and safety stan- cludes that enacting the current Bill may be seen dards of the jurisdiction in which they operate. In abroad as a suggestion that the laws of other na- practice, the standards of Australian and the for- tions are deficient. Any such suggestion may eign jurisdiction may be mutually exclusive and harm Australia’s reputation. thus this section may be unworkable. The Committee therefore concludes that the Bill Subclause 13 of the Bill requires that Australian is not only largely superfluous from the viewpoint corporations operating overseas refrain from of protecting the environment and enhancing the “misleading or deceptive” conduct. Considering conditions of foreign workers, but also has a very the vast amount of litigation that a similar section real potential for offending foreign nations. The in the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) has inspired Committee therefore recommends that the Bill in Australia, the Committee is concerned that not be passed because it is unnecessary and un- Australian courts may be swamped by corpora- workable. tions bringing actions against each other. The I commend the Report to all honourable Senators. Committee is not convinced that such litigation Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) would be productive. (10.30 a.m.)—I have some brief remarks to With regard to the Bill’s reporting requirements, make on this report. However, if the Senate the Committee acknowledges that reporting may so wished, I would seek to incorporate my be an essential part of ensuring compliance with remarks and save time. some laws. The Committee notes advice from the Australian Institute of Corporate Citizenship that Leave granted. reports produced by corporations should be publi- The speech read as follows— cised, since publicity “encourages continuous 25326 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Evidence gathered during the Committee’s in- some definitional problems where the effect could quiry into the Corporate Code of Conduct Bill have unforseen impacts. 2000 indicated that there were both strong sup- However the overall aim of the Bill should not be porters and strong opponents of the Bill. lost in technical difficulties. This legislation is While some rejected the Bill outright others sug- setting a standard of governance that all Austra- gested improvements to the Bill. lian companies should be expected to incorporate This Bill was always going to be controversial into their activities. The presence of drafting because it introduces a concept that is not univer- problems does not detract from its value. sally accepted as requiring legislation. In her sec- As my minority report sets out in detail I disagree ond reading speech Senator Vicki Bourne referred with the conclusion of the majority of the Com- to other instances of similar attempts to introduce mittee and I think there is a demonstrated need for such legislation, which while seen as inevitable this Bill. by some, is still being developed. In that respect Senator MURRAY—I seek leave to con- this Bill was novel and technical difficulties could tinue my remarks later. be expected. The inquiry into the Bill allowed valuable discus- Leave granted; debate adjourned. sion of these issues. COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT The majority of the Committee concluded that the (PARALLEL IMPORTATION) Bill was unwarranted and unworkable. I agree BILL 2001 that amendments are needed, however I reject the PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY notion of abandoning the Bill altogether. SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT This Bill is about balancing the drive by Austra- BILL 2001 lian Corporations to support globalisation in other economic areas such as copyright laws, capital First Reading movements and international tax harmonisation Bills received from the House of Repre- with human rights, environmental safeguards and sentatives. other measures. Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western The majority of the Committee also found that Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the this Bill may be perceived as being paternalistic Minister for Communications, Information or arrogant, certainly many presented that point of Technology and the Arts) (10.31 a.m.)—I view in evidence, however I disagree with this judgement as a sweeping generalisation and indicate to the Senate that those bills which predicating a uniform viewpoint by foreigners. have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion As is the case here in Australia where opinions vary widely, foreigners have as many differing for the second reading has been adjourned, I opinions, and many can be expected to view the will be moving a motion to have the bills Bill positively based on its pursuit of universal listed separately on the Notice Paper. I values. move: Indeed evidence from PNG indicated that some That these bills may proceed without formali- Australian companies are perceived to operate ties, may be taken together and be now read a first with double standards. They employ techniques time. overseas that they would never use in Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ms Koma from the NGO Environment Watch Bills read a first time. Group in PNG told the committee that Second Reading “It would be very good if a corporate code of conduct was encouraged so that Australian com- Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western panies working in Papua New Guinea were able Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the to do what they practice overseas in their own Minister for Communications, Information country if our legislation is weaker than theirs.” Technology and the Arts) (10.32 a.m.)—I Greater clarity is required to define the scope of move: the Bill to ensure that only Australian companies That these bills be now read a second time. are affected. There are some instances where changes are required to ensure consistency with I seek leave to have the second reading existing domestic requirements. There are also speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25327

The speeches read as follows— The term ‘parallel importation’ refers to the im- PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY SUPER- portation for commercial purposes of copyright ANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 2001 material lawfully produced overseas, without the authority of the Australian rights holder. Local This Bill amends the Parliamentary Contributory rights holders currently have the ability under the Superannuation Act 1948 which provides super- Copyright Act to limit access to the Australian annuation pensions for former Senators and market for commercial distribution of software Members. products, books, periodical publications and The Prime Minister promised changes to the par- printed music. liamentary superannuation scheme to bring it The price and availability of much of this material more into line with community standards. The is therefore not subject to open and genuine com- Bill proposes these changes and they are being petition. put into effect before the next election. And unlike some other products, there is not nec- This Bill will defer the payment of parliamentary essarily a natural substitute for these goods. pensions for new MPs who join the Parliament at or after the next general election until they reach The central aim of the Bill is to improve access to age 55, become invalids or die. a wide range of software products, books, periodical publications and printed music on a fair, In doing this, the Bill imposes a higher standard competitive basis. of preservation on MPs than applies to other Australians who receive pensions. However, it The Bill does this by allowing the importation for will closely align the superannuation for MPs commercial purposes of non-pirate copyright with the majority of Australians who receive goods without the permission of the Australian lump sum benefits, which must be preserved until rightsholder. at least age 55 in most circumstances. The Bill offers the prospect of cheaper prices and MPs whose pensions are deferred will receive no increased availability of products for all Austra- superannuation payments between leaving Par- lians, but especially for small businesses, parents liament and age 55. This loss of superannuation and the education sector. will mean that the cost to the taxpayer of their Retailers, particularly large retailers, are likely to benefits will reduce. support the reforms due to the beneficial impact There will be provision for the payment of part of the changes will have for them in competing and the deferred benefit in circumstances where the potentially extracting better terms of trade. retired MP finds themselves in financial hardship. Small businesses will benefit from increased ac- ————— cess to popular applications for word processing, database management, accounting, desktop pub- COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT (PARALLEL lishing and graphical analysis. IMPORTATION) BILL 2001 The Government has carefully assessed the im- The Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) pact of parallel importation provisions in the Bill 2001 is another demonstration of the Coali- Copyright Act by examining each affected indus- tion Government’s willingness to act in the best try separately. interests of consumers, the education sector and The introduction of this Bill follows a rigorous business. assessment of the potential impacts of parallel In 1998 the Copyright Act was amended to allow importation on the Australian book publishing the lawful parallel importation and sale of sound and printing industry, and on the local software recordings (CDs). There has been strong con- industry. sumer support for this move as it has resulted in Despite claims to the contrary from the Labor lower prices, particularly for top 40 CDs. Party and large multinational publishing and This Bill will extend the application of that policy software interests, only the complete removal of to key sectors of the information economy, and copyright importation restrictions for printed ma- will enhance competition in price, availability and terial and software products will enable competi- choice. tive access to these products, provide consumer Australia is a net importer of copyright material. benefit and promote the overall effective func- It is therefore in Australia’s interest that printed tioning of the economy. material and software products are widely avail- Unlike the Labor party’s ‘Use it or Lose it’ policy, able on a competitive basis. the Government’s policy is not about benefiting foreign rights holders by reimposing restrictions on CDs, and maintaining import restrictions and 25328 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 monopoly distributions on books, software, com- Claims were also made that piracy rates would puter games at the expense of Australian busi- soar as a result of the CD reforms, and no doubt nesses and consumers. similar claims will be made in relation to books As with the CD reforms, no doubt we will see and particularly software. Whilst copyright pi- spirited resistance to this Bill from opponents of racy is a serious and real problem in many coun- liberalisation. tries it is primarily a problem in countries where the enforcement of intellectual property laws is This time around, however we have the benefit of weak, and there are large informal retail sectors. experience to date, as well as developments in foreign markets, such as New Zealand, to address By contrast, Australia provides a strong intellec- many of the concerns and debunk many of the tual property regime backed by an effective court claims. and general legal system, and has a very strong formal retail sector comprising large retailers, Many argued in 1998 that the relaxation of paral- chains and independent outlets. lel importation restrictions for sound recordings would devastate the Australian music industry. The Australian Institute of Criminology recently reported that since the 1998 amendments there is Dire predictions made during the CD debate that “little or no evidence of the increase in CD piracy 50,000 jobs would be lost, and that the Australian predicted by opponents of liberalisation”. record industry would have to close up shop have proved groundless. Australia is also recognised by the International Intellectual Property Alliance as having one of the The industry is in good shape and no evidence of lowest piracy rates in the world. job losses has materialised. Evidence on the impact of the CD reforms proves Indeed the recording industry has grown since the the Government’s position that this is not an at- 1998 reforms with recent reports of around 2.9% tack on copyright as an appropriate means of growth in 1999 alone. compensating, rewarding and encouraging crea- In the Australian Record Industry Association tors and owners. End of Year charts in 1997 (prior to the Govern- Copyright owners will continue to be remuner- ment’s reforms) there were 23 Australian albums ated through their contractual arrangements re- in the top 100 albums sold; in 2000, by contrast, gardless of where their product is published or there were 28 Australian albums in the end of manufactured, or how it is imported. year top 100. Books The ARIA singles charts tell a similar story: in 1997, there were 14 Australian singles in the end Turning specifically to the reforms as they apply of year top 100; by 2000, that number had to books, a 1999 review by the Australian Com- climbed to 19. petition and Consumer Commission found that for best selling paperback fiction, the price differ- These figures hardly paint a picture of an industry ence with the USA had exceeded 30% on average in decline, where the production of local talent over the previous 4 years. has been stymied or destroyed. Five reports to Government have dealt with the In fact, the Australian music industry appears to book industry: those by the Copyright Law Re- be in better shape now than prior to parallel im- view Committee (CLRC), the Prices Surveillance portation. Authority, the Industry Commission (now the The parallel importation restrictions in the Copy- Productivity Commission), the ACCC, and most right Act are of course not the only factors that recently, the Intellectual Property and Competi- affect the retail price of products. tion Review Committee, or “Ergas Committee”. Nevertheless, in 1998, prior to parallel importa- The earliest report, by the CLRC, recommended a tion of music, CD prices were around $31.00 for relaxation of some of the importation controls new releases and rising. exercisable by copyright owners in relation to In January this year, Big W and Target were sell- books. ing top 30 CDs for around $21.43. All subsequent reports have recommended the Clearly it is now possible for consumers to access complete removal of copyright owners’ control top selling CDs that are over 30 percent cheaper over book importation on the basis that current than prior to parallel importation. restrictions are inappropriate and their removal would deliver lower prices and a more efficient And this is despite the impact of the GST and industry. Importantly, the majority in the Ergas unfavourable exchange rates relative to the US, a Committee concluded that the removal of impor- major source of popular music. tation restrictions in the publishing industry was Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25329 unlikely to lead to any wider losses in the Austra- for cutting edge products, such as publishing lian economy. products QuarkXPress and Adobe PageMill 3.0. To enable maximum community access to com- A report to Government by the ACCC showed petitively priced products, the Bill provides that that over the past ten years, Australian businesses parallel importation is to encompass all major have had to pay an average of 27% more for forms of printed material. packaged business software than their US coun- In accordance with the June 2000 recommenda- terparts. tion of a majority of the Ergas Committee, the The Ergas Committee recognised that the benefits implementation of the printed material provisions from these higher prices flow primarily to foreign in Schedule 2 to the Bill will be delayed for 12 rightsholders while the corresponding costs are months to allow for contractual adjustments. borne in Australia, by Australian consumers and This recognises the fact that the book industry is by industries – such as the domestic software more reliant on contract than other copyright- industry – that use protected imports as inputs. based industries. Of the top selling computer games analysed, The Government is confident that the extra time Australian purchasers of popular PC computer will allow the industry to adjust effectively and games paid on average 33% more during 1998 positively to the changes. than those in the US. The Government is well aware of concerns, par- Other reports to Government dealing with the ticularly in the printing industry, that a change software industry have been made by the same from the current law, to remove the so-called ‘30 bodies that considered the issue of book importa- day rule’, might reduce growth in the printing tion, namely, the Copyright Law Review Com- industry in areas such as Maryborough in Victoria mittee, the Prices Surveillance Authority, and the and Netley in South Australia. Ergas Committee. Under the 30 day rule the right to control impor- To enable maximum community access to com- tation of books is lost if the book is not published petitively priced products, all types of software in Australia within 30 days of publication any- products are included within the coverage of the where. Bill, whether used in business, education or the home, or in home computer games and pay-per- However, such concerns are misplaced and play video arcade machines. largely unsubstantiated. Removing parallel importation restrictions will The Ergas Committee noted that it had not been enable local distributors to choose suppliers on provided with any evidence to substantiate claims the basis of price, availability, service and reli- in relation to the beneficial effects of keeping the ability and to pass these benefits on to consumers. 30/90 day rule restrictions. The Committee que- ried whether changes in the level of printing ac- The parallel importation of software will not in- tivity in Australia in recent years were due to the terfere with the rights of copyright owners to be ‘30 day rule’ or to changes in competitiveness, compensated according to their contracts. As the including as a result of exchange rate movements. Ergas Committee indicated, “supporters of retaining restrictions assert that prices in Australia Further, the removal of restrictions should be seen are as low as they are elsewhere, so there is no within the context of special Commonwealth ad- basis for opposing a change which will make it justment assistance through the Book Industry clearer and more certain that market forces are at Assistance Plan (BIAP). work.” This program, which also provides assistance for The removal of these parallel importation restric- indirect tax reform, will provide up to $240 mil- tions is expected to reduce some prices and re- lion over 4 years, including up to $48 million move the potential for price discrimination specifically for the printing industry. against Australian consumers. Software products Coverage In January 1999 the Australian Consumers’ Asso- Technology convergence allows different types of ciation published the results of a survey of current works and subject matter to be included on the retail prices of a range of overseas manufactured same article. packaged software products across six countries. It found that while Australian household consum- Multimedia CD ROMs are one example. ers and businesses were paying competitive prices By their very nature such products contain a for home/office crossover software like Microsoft mixture of copyright materials, and each may Windows 98 and Word 97, this was not the case have a different status in relation to parallel importation. 25330 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

In many cases, such materials are secondary to It will open up new business opportunities, in the product. However, some Australian rights particular for consumers, small businesses , the holders have attempted to prevent parallel im- education sector, parents, professional associa- portation of sound recordings by relying on the tions and community groups satisfying their spe- copyright in material used to ‘enhance’ CDs. cialist needs. Provisions in this Bill will close this loophole It will also enable Australian retailers and dis- resulting from the CD reforms by allowing the tributors to enter new markets and better compete parallel importation of these ‘secondary’ materials with overseas-based e-tailers in the emerging which will be defined as ‘accessories’. An acces- Internet market for directly downloaded software, sory, in this limited context, includes any copy- including e-books. right work or subject matter other than ‘feature’ Copyright owners will continue to be fairly remu- films irrespective of how it is incorporated into nerated, but in the context of a global market- the product. place. The Government has not fully assessed the im- Australian consumers and businesses will be able pacts of allowing the full parallel importation of to get the best deal on legitimate copyright mate- ‘cinematograph film’ on the Australian film and rial. television industry. For this reason, feature films, as defined by the Bill, are excluded from this Ordered that further consideration of this extended operation. bill be adjourned to the first day of the 2001 The Government considers that it would not be spring sittings, in accordance with standing appropriate to alter the arrangements for imported order 111. film products without a cost benefit analysis spe- Ordered that the bills be listed on the No- cific to the industry, along with careful analysis of tice Paper as separate orders of the day. the likely effects on consumers. BROADCASTING LEGISLATION The Bill therefore does not lift restrictions on the AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2001 importation of that class of film that is the industry’s most economically significant product, First Reading namely entire movies intended for cinema release, Bill received from the House of Repre- film intended for broadcast on television in com- sentatives. mercial half hour format or longer (for the mass market including free-to-air or pay television). Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) Importation of the main products derived from agreed to: these types of film, such as DVDs, will also re- That this bill may proceed without formalities main restricted. and be now read a first time. Enforcement Provisions Bill read a first time. Allowing parallel importation does not mean that Second Reading it will be legal to import pirate product. Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western On the contrary, this Bill gives very substantial Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the procedural assistance to copyright owners in civil actions by shifting to the defendant the onus of Minister for Communications, Information establishing that a parallel imported copy is not Technology and the Arts) (10.32 a.m.)—I an infringing copy. table a revised explanatory memorandum In addition, where a criminal action is brought for relating to the bill and move: copyright piracy, the penalties for infringement of That this bill be now read a second time. copyright are severe: the maximum liability for I seek leave to have the second reading importation and sale of pirate goods is $60,500 speech incorporated in Hansard. and/or imprisonment of five years for each offence, while the maximum liability for a corpora- Leave granted. tion is $302,500. The speech read as follows— Any infringing articles are also subject to forfei- The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill ture and destruction. (No. 2) 2001 makes a number of relatively minor Conclusion but important amendments to the Broadcasting This Bill will remove an impediment to accessing Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications competitively priced non-pirate printed material Act 1992. and software products. These amendments relate to: Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25331

• High Definition Television (HDTV) pro- provides that the broadcasters may, within a gramming; specified period: • the allocation of additional commercial tele- • jointly seek the licence; vision licences in underserved remote or re- • apply alone if the other declines to seek the gional markets; and licence; or • anti-siphoning arrangements to facilitate the • in the absence of an agreement, bid for the coverage of certain sporting events on pay licence at auction. television. The current provisions require both broadcasters There are also some technical amendments to to indicate their intention in a joint statement to certain provisions relating to datacasting services. the ABA. If either broadcaster refuses to respond, Currently the Broadcasting Services Act requires the other is unable to proceed to allocation of the that any HDTV programming must be exactly the licence. This means that individual broadcasters same as Standard Definition Television (SDTV) are in a position to prevent the allocation of a programming. There is no flexibility to allow licence for a third service in these underserved some limited differences between HDTV and areas through non-participation in the joint elec- SDTV programs, as there is between SDTV and tion process for a third licence. analog programs. The bill amends the Act to ensure that a third The bill will enable the Australian Broadcasting licence can be allocated under section 38B, by Authority (the ABA) to grant an exemption enabling the existing licensees to apply either authorising broadcasters to transmit HDTV dem- jointly or separately. onstration programs produced solely for the pur- In addition, section 73A provides an exemption pose of allowing the benefits of HDTV to be from the normal control provisions, which limit a demonstrated on the HDTV version of a televi- broadcaster to owning only one licence in a li- sion service. Those programs can be up to 60 cence area, where the broadcaster has been allo- minutes in duration, and can be repeated. This cated a section 38B licence to provide a third amendment will enable HDTV demonstration digital service in the same licence area. How- material to be demonstrated during the day. Re- ever, in a limited number of cases involving tailers can use this material to show consumers overlapping licence areas, section 73A does not the benefits of HDTV receivers at point of pur- provide an exemption from the control provisions chase. for all licensees. The exemption will be able to be provided for up The bill amends section 73A of the Act to ensure to one year with the ability to apply for renewal. that an incumbent broadcaster allocated an addi- The ABA will be able to specify the period and tional licence under section 38B would not be in the broadcasters to which the exemption applies breach of the control provisions in these situa- and specify conditions, such as the hours in which tions. the demonstration programs may be shown or the number of times the program can be repeated in a The bill also provides for the introduction of given period. automatic 6 week de-listing of events under the anti-siphoning regime. The objective of the Par- The bill will also allow broadcasters to provide liament in establishing the anti-siphoning regime different advertising in the HDTV version of a was to prevent subscription broadcasting licen- television service in the first two years of digital sees from acquiring the exclusive rights to broad- television broadcasting. This will provide time for cast important events that should be freely avail- broadcasters to make the necessary investment able to the public. and put in place the necessary equipment to provide the same range of HDTV local advertising as The Broadcasting Services Act does, however, they provide in SDTV. give the Minister discretion to remove an event from the anti-siphoning list. The Minister is able These changes increase the flexibility of the digi- to ‘de-list’ events where, for example, where free- tal television framework with respect to HDTV to-air broadcasters have had an opportunity to without undermining the integrity of the simulcast acquire the right to televise an event, but none of and HDTV quota rules. them has acquired the right within a reasonable Section 38B of the Broadcasting Services Act time. provides a mechanism for the incumbent broad- In practice, events on the anti-siphoning list are casters in licence areas where there are only two unlikely to be de-listed until it can be demon- commercial services, to seek a licence to provide strated that free-to-air broadcasters have declined a third service in digital mode. The Act currently offers to obtain the rights. It follows that pay TV 25332 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 operators cannot finalise their own program ar- make informed choices about digital television rangements until the outcome of negotiations for products during the simulcast period. free-to-air rights is known and the subsequent de- The implementation of automatic de-listing of listing has been authorised. This can limit the ability of pay TV operators to schedule and pro- events 6 weeks before they are to occur will streamline the administration of the anti- mote forthcoming events. siphoning regime. It directly addresses the prob- Under the current anti-siphoning provisions, lems identified by pay TV operators with the cur- events are automatically de-listed one week after rent de-listing scheme, while protecting access by the event has been held. This ensures that pay TV free-to-air broadcasters to broadcasting rights for operators may provide secondary coverage of listed events and, thus, does not diminish oppor- listed events without restriction. tunities for the public to enjoy free-to-air coverage of listed events. The Government’s public policy objective of making available certain major sporting events Debate (on motion by Senator Ludwig) free to the general public would not be served by adjourned. removal of the anti-siphoning provisions of the Act at this time. Currently, there are a total of 1.2 Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) pro- million subscribers to Australia’s major pay TV posed: services. This compares with 6 million homes That the resumption of the debate be made an that are reached by free-to-air television. order of the day for a later hour. However, there is scope for amendment to the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.33 existing anti-siphoning regime to assist pay TV operators to gain prompt access to broadcasting a.m.)—I oppose the motion. I believe that rights, where free-to-air broadcasters have had a this is quite important legislation. We should reasonable opportunity to acquire rights. This is not be debating it later today. We should be not intended to affect the availability of major debating it after further consideration and, on sporting events to the general public. this occasion, that means when we return The bill, therefore, provides for listed events to be after the winter sittings. The bill has quite automatically de-listed 6 weeks before com- important ramifications. I want to look more mencement. Automatic de-listing 6 weeks before carefully at them and I want them debated the event will maximise the time free-to-air more carefully, including the provision about broadcasters have to negotiate rights, while pro- sporting events. I would like a list from the viding an adequate time prior to the event for government of sporting events that it thinks subscription services to acquire and promote the should be able to go to pay TV and taken off event. the general broadcasting television network If free-to-air broadcasters oppose the de-listing of to which most people have access. I would an event, and can successfully demonstrate to the like to know what the government has in Minister that they have not had a reasonable op- mind on that. For example, are we going to portunity to acquire the free-to-air broadcasting see Wimbledon and other events, as a result rights before that date, the Minister may override of this bill, taken off the general screens and the automatic de-listing by publishing a declara- into the pay TV domain without the possi- tion that the event continues to be listed. bility of public discussion about that. I am This bill provides for enhancements to the simul- concerned about that and that is why I raised cast regime for HDTV in Australia in the light of the objection. experience, for improvements to the arrangements for the provision of a third commercial television Question resolved in the affirmative. service in currently underserved regional and BUSINESS remote areas, and for the introduction of more streamlined de-listing procedures under the anti- Hours of Meeting and Routine of Business siphoning regime. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) The Government remains committed to ensuring agreed to: the transition from analog to digital broadcasting That government business notice of motion is as smooth as possible for viewers. This bill No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Ian Camp- allows broadcasters sufficient scope to demon- bell for today, relating to the hours of meeting and strate the appeal of HDTV, and allows viewers to routine of business, be postponed to a later hour. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25333

INTERACTIVE GAMBLING BILL 2001 (ii) ensuring a quality gambling Second Reading product through financial probity checks on providers and their Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion staff; by Senator Ian Campbell: (iii) maintaining the integrity of That this bill be now read a second time. games and the proper working of upon which Senator Mark Bishop had gaming equipment; moved by way of an amendment: (iv) providing mechanisms to exclude those not eligible to gamble un- At the end of the motion, add: der Australian law; “but the Senate: (v) implementing problem gambling (a) condemns the Government for in- controls, such as exclusion from troducing an unworkable, internally facilities, expenditure thresholds, inconsistent and hypocritical bill no credit betting, and the regular which: provision of transaction records; (i) does not provide strong regula- (vi) introducing measures to mini- tion of interactive gambling as mise any criminal activity linked the most practical and effective to interactive gambling; way of reducing social harm (vii) providing effective privacy pro- arising from gambling; tection for on-line gamblers; (ii) may exacerbate problem gam- (viii) containing social costs by ensur- bling in Australia by barring ac- ing that adequate ongoing funds cess to regulated on-line gam- are available to assist those with bling services with in-built safeguards but allows access to un- gambling problems; regulated offshore on-line gam- (ix) addressing revenue issues that bling sites that do not offer con- impact upon state government sumer protection or probity; decisions relating to interactive (iii) does not extend current regula- gambling; tory and consumer protection re- (x) establishing consistent standards quirements applying to off-line for all interactive gambling op- and land-based casinos, clubs or erators; wagering venues to on-line casi- (xi) examining international protocols nos and on-line wagering facili- with the aim of achieving multi- ties; lateral agreements on sports bet- (iv) damages Australia’s international ting and other forms of interac- reputation for effective consumer tive gambling; protection laws and strong, (xii) ensuring appropriate standards in workable gambling regulations; advertising, in particular, to pre- (v) singles out one form of gambling vent advertising from targeting in an attempt to create the im- minors; pression of placating community (xiii) investigating mechanisms to en- concern about the adverse social sure that some of the benefits of consequences of gambling but on-line gambling accrue more di- does not address more prevalent rectly to the local community; forms of gambling in Australian (xiv) working with State and Territory society; and governments to ensure that on- (vi) is not technology neutral or tech- line and interactive gambling op- nically feasible; erators meet the highest standards (b) calls on the Government to show of probity and auditing through national leadership on this issue by: licensing agreements; (i) addressing harm minimisation (xv) seeking co-regulation of interac- and consumer protection as well tive gambling by establishing a as criminal issues that may arise national regulatory framework from on-line gambling; that provides consumer safe- 25334 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

guards and industry Codes of and months there has been enormous public Practice; and discussion about the ramifications of the (xvi) coordinating the development of government’s approach and about precisely a co-regulatory regime through what constitutes serious forms of gambling, the Ministerial Council compris- to what extent they are repetitive and addic- ing of relevant State and Federal tive, and to what extent they will exacerbate Ministers”. social misery. We already know from the Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister Productivity Commission that, on average, for Communications, Information Technol- problem gamblers lose about $12,000 a year. ogy and the Arts) (10.35 a.m.)—I rise to con- Anyone who saw the 7.30 Report would clude the second reading debate on a very have seen the devastating tale told by two important piece of legislation. With the In- homeless men who estimated that they had teractive Gambling Bill 2001, the govern- both lost hundreds of thousand of dollars ment is taking a stand to prevent the escala- from gambling activities, and they had lost tion of the harmful effects of gambling on their families as well. There is no doubt that the Australian community. Australia is al- we are looking at not just a quantum increase ready a world leader in the problem gam- in accessibility but also a quantum increase bling stakes and, of course, among the num- in social misery. ber of serious problem gamblers are many of We have made some modifications that the states of Australia. In 1999, the Produc- have recognised that there are degrees of tivity Commission found that there were social seriousness in what can occur through some 290,000 problem gamblers in Australia interactive technology. Certainly, sports bet- with 130,000 classified as severe and the ting or wagering comes into the category of likelihood of the introduction of interactive activities in which a lot of people might kid services was regarded as constituting a themselves that they have more skill than is quantum increase in accessibility. demonstrated in the real world—nonetheless, Other statistics suggest that interactive we all live in hope. Many sporting activities gambling is the fastest growing web based do not fall into the mindlessly repetitive business in the world. US investment firm category. Similarly, one can draw a signifi- Beare-Stern reports in March 2001 that the cant distinction between products like instant number of Internet gambling web sites has scratchies and keno type activities in which doubled in the past year from 600 to 700 there is a very high turnover and in which sites operating last year, to 1,200 to 1,400 in you are able sometimes to win but, more March. This represents two new sites coming often, lose a lot of money in a very short online every day. They also estimate that time. Accordingly, the government is pre- online gambling revenue could grow from pared to draw those distinctions and to focus $US1.5 billion to $US5 billion over the next on the serious area of social misery, where two to three years. In fact, I have seen statis- there are very few redeeming features and tics that suggest that 4.5 million Americans where people are almost certain to lose their have already gambled online and, on any money. They might win in the short term—I day, over one million Americans already suppose that everyone has had the experience have the habit. of cracking a jackpot—but, if you stay The government is very concerned about around for a bit longer, you will normally the potential for interactive gambling serv- give it all back. There is no doubt at all that ices to increase problem gambling in Austra- the billions of dollars that are lost from that lia. While it is a matter for individual coun- sort of activity are lost because of the prolif- tries to decide how they will approach inter- eration of mindless and repetitive activity. active gambling, Australia’s status as one of That highlights the deathly silence on the the world’s leading problem gambling na- part of the Labor Party. We know that Mr tions demands that we take decisive action to Beazley has been soft on drugs. We know protect the most vulnerable in the commu- that he has not been willing to do anything nity. It is fair to say that over recent weeks about pornography and paedophilia on the Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25335

Internet. And now we have this extraordinary ternative blueprint, let alone policy, because and callous indifference to what is a very we do not get policy from the Labor Party. serious social problem. In other words, we That is a classic example of dereliction of have weak leadership from the leader of the duty. People can talk about Mr Beazley being major opposition party in this country—a prolix, which is really just a euphemism for pusillanimous performance, one might say. It ‘waffle’. In many ways, the more appropriate is because he is too lazy, because the IT term is ‘euphuism’, which involves the use nerds have rolled him in the caucus, because of high-flown language, in this case to dis- basically he does not bother, or because he is guise the policy vacuum—the simple refusal simply being opportunistic and he thinks that to tackle issues that are of concern to the there might be a few votes out there from Australian public. standing up for technology. But in the proc- Mr Beazley needs to understand that good ess he is totally ignoring the misery of ordi- government is about values and doing what nary Australian families. you can to address serious social problems, I looked at what might be the most appro- not just finding cute technical, peripheral priate way of characterising Mr Beazley’s reasons why you will not address the main behaviour, and I agonised long and hard over game. That is what the debate is about. Eve- whether it really constituted sophistry or ryone in the chamber understands that things casuistry. ‘Sophistry’ is the use of false ar- need to be done and that there may need to guments intended to deceive. When we hear be compromises, but the central issue is: why Mr Beazley interviewed on this matter, he on earth do you want to allow an explosion always avoids the central issue, which is: of social misery in the homes of ordinary why on earth do you want to simply sit back Australians? That is the issue that the Labor and allow an electronic poker machine in Party has consistently ducked from the out- every home and every lounge room in the set. country? He skates around all that and says, We acknowledge that the states and terri- ‘There are inconsistencies, because you are tories have been dragging the chain for a not treating Australians the same way as you long time. They have not been able to pro- are treating the rest of the world,’ or, ‘You duce a nationally accepted code for regulat- are drawing distinctions between this and ing online gambling. The AUS model pro- that.’ But he always avoids the central issue: moted by the Northern Territory has not been what redeeming features are there in allow- endorsed by all states—in fact, we had great ing electronic gaming activities, given what difficulty in even getting a copy of certain we have seen from the enormous explosion material—so it is necessary for the Com- of activity in poker machines in some of the monwealth to provide strong leadership on states? The states are now very embarrassed the issue. by that and I hope that they start to do something about it, either through a uniform There have been a number of people on national code or through some of the propos- our side who have made very sensible con- als that they are talking about. But Mr tributions and refinements, and I pay tribute Beazley uses these things as an excuse for to Senator Tambling for his willingness to not addressing the real issue. address this issue in a way that I think does achieve the central outcomes. We are not in The proper term is probably ‘casuistry’, the business of simply protecting people be- because that involves resolving problems of cause of the pressure that is brought to bear; conscience or duty with clever but false rea- we are in the business of trying to identify soning. In other words, Mr Beazley pretends what the social problems are and what gov- that he is concerned. We get a bit of hand- ernments can do about them. I would also wringing—‘Yeah, it’s a big social problem, say that people like Senator Boswell and but we are concerned about this, that and the Cameron Thompson, the member for Blair, other; we think that the states should do more have also been very active in taking a very harm minimisation; and we would like to see close look at the difference between general this, that and the other.’ We never see an al- lottery activities and things like scratch-its. 25336 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Whilst there might be a benefit to some from Senator Tambling has also mentioned state the decision to exempt those products from and territory activities in relation to devel- the exemption, the fact remains that there is a oping a national uniform set of regulatory very significant qualitative difference. standards. The only initiative of which I am The bill will make it an offence for gam- aware in this respect is the AUS model being bling operators to provide their services to sponsored by the Northern Territory but, persons located in Australia, and fines of given that it does not have the support of all over $1 million a day will apply to bodies the states and territories, it is simply not a corporate. The bill will also establish a com- viable alternative to the government’s bill. In plaints scheme for interactive gambling any case, the regulatory approach only serves services hosted offshore. Australians will be to provide a stimulus to interactive gambling. able to make complaints to the Broadcasting There is no reason to think the AUS model Authority about offshore gambling services could control the growth of interactive gam- on the Internet and have these services added bling any more than the states have been able to approved Internet content filtering de- to control the growth of poker machines. In vices. The ban will apply to online casino fact, it might simply provide an incentive for gaming and similar services, and these in- people to bypass those regimes altogether clude current and future services such as because they judge them to be too tight in Internet casinos, Internet poker machines, not meeting their addictive needs, so this bill ball by ball wagering on sporting events via a focuses on the providers of gambling serv- digital broadcast and online instant lotteries. ices rather than the users. An approach that All of these services have repetitive and po- applies an offence to gamblers themselves tentially addictive qualities which are associ- may force problem gamblers underground, ated with problem gambling. Interactive bet- which would lessen the likelihood of them or ting after a sporting event has commenced their families seeking assistance. will be within the prohibition. This means, The bill also has a low impact on third for example, that customers will not be able parties such as financial institutions and to place bets on a football, tennis or cricket Internet service providers. It does not man- match after the match has commenced. We date any blocking by ISPs or banks to pre- are all familiar with spread betting and ball vent access to interactive gambling services. by ball activities, which I think are just a The government considers that these meas- manifestation of antisocial behaviour. ures impose too great a regulatory burden Senator Tambling has expressed concern and would be very likely to be subject to that people will not be able to place bets on circumvention. The bill applies only to the football matches after the season has started provision of interactive gambling services to or on a cricket series after the series has people in Australia. It is designed to address commenced. That is not correct. People will the specific problem gambling issues that be able to place bets on the result of a foot- exist in Australia. Other countries must leg- ball season, tennis tournament or cricket se- islate to address problem gambling as it ex- ries after the season, tournament or series has ists in their own jurisdictions. commenced. These are not individual sport- I am aware of criticisms that the bill will ing events but series of events. People can force Australians to use offshore Internet also place bets on the results of a football gambling services. The government has ad- match after the season has started and before dressed these concerns in the following man- the match has started. This is made clear in ner. An amendment will be moved to ban the the supplementary explanatory memoran- advertising of interactive gambling services, dum. Online scratch tickets and other types which will limit the access of offshore proof rapid, repetitive online lotteries will also viders to the Australian market. An amend- fall within the ban. These services provide ment will be moved to extend the offence in rapid, instant returns and are very close in the bill to offshore operators, which will de- concept and design to poker machines and ter them from signing up Australian custom- casino games. ers. Australian customers will be cautious Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25337 about using offshore services, in any case, world these days. People know there are ex- because these services are often unregulated cesses from any new technology and that and there is no guarantee of payouts being governments have an obligation to do what honoured. If the local industry is not allowed they can. We are not in the business of clos- to develop, it is unlikely there will be a sig- ing down the Internet. We are not in the nificant uptake of interactive gambling by business of stifling legitimate activities. Australians in any case. A survey on attitudes Our ban on pornography and paedophilia to a ban commissioned by the Department of on the Internet, to the extent that it applies to Family and Community Services found that Australian web sites, has been totally effec- only one per cent of people would play a tive. Where complaints have been made, gambling site on the Internet if they knew a take-down notices have been issued. I have ban was in place. forgotten the precise number, but it is well The government does not support an ap- over 100. The sites have been largely on proach that seeks uniform national regulation paedophilia, not just on pornography, and we of interactive gambling. The regulatory ap- have been able to take those down. Surely proach provides, in effect, a stimulus to the that is a major social advance. Who wants to growth of this form of activity. Efforts by stand up and argue in favour of allowing that states and territories to reach agreement on sort of activity to go unchecked? There is new national standards for regulating Inter- only one party that does, and that is the La- net gambling have not succeeded, despite the bor Party. Having made that horrific mistake Prime Minister’s announcement of the on Internet content regulation, why com- Commonwealth’s concerns in December pound the felony this time around? At least 1999, and there is no reason to think that the get up and tell us where you stand, and why states and territories can restrict the growth on earth you cannot support that part of the of new forms of gambling any more than bill that attempts to do something about they have been able to do with poker ma- stopping the spread of interactive gaming chines. activities into the homes of ordinary Austra- I simply conclude by saying that this de- lians. The answer is that it is all too hard. bate provides the last opportunity for the This will be the major problem the Labor Labor Party—Mr Beazley, no doubt, will be Party will have in the lead-up to the next hiding under a desk somewhere, but Senator election. They are not prepared to take a Bishop has the opportunity to get up now— stance on issues because it might offend to explain, once and for all, why it is not pre- someone. They would much prefer to roll pared to do what can be done to stop the themselves up into a little ball and let the proliferation of electronic poker machines government take the flak. They might be into the homes of ordinary Australians. And behind the scenes, quietly cheering and say- don’t just give us all the other reasons that ing that in their heart of hearts they agree there are inconsistencies, there might be a and, when they go to church on Sunday and few problems and technology keeps mov- are told how bad this is, they say, ‘Don’t ing—we know all of those. In fact, the bill worry; the government is going to fix it up.’ has a number of discretions contained within But, of course, they will not say anything. it which will enable us to at least keep up They will just sit on their hands and look at with new technological developments. But all the flak the government will cop from the central issue is: why won’t you take a various interest groups, whether it be the stand on principle? Why won’t you come out gambling proprietors, whether it be the and say that you do regard this as a social horseracing industry or whether it be news- evil—a social issue and not an IT issue? agents. Every time there is a bit of a break- Don’t be hijacked by the Senator Lundys of out, they will say, ‘Isn’t that good. This gov- this world who have been running around for ernment is getting problems of its own.’ And years saying, ‘The Internet’s sacrosanct. You what will they do? They will just keep quiet. can’t touch it. Don’t do anything about it.’ They do not have the gumption to stand up That is not the approach adopted around the 25338 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 and say why they do not think this is a major Greig, B. Harradine, B. social issue for Australians. Harris, L. Herron, J.J. Kemp, C.R. Knowles, S.C. The Labor Party are a value-free zone. Lees, M.H. Lightfoot, P.R. They are not in the business of trying to Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. control activities, irrespective of whether Murray, A.J.M. Newman, J.M. they think they are socially deleterious and Payne, M.A. Reid, M.E. irrespective of whether they think some Ridgeway, A.D. Tambling, G.E. technological solutions can be applied. What Tchen, T. Tierney, J.W. will really concern Australians in six months Troeth, J.M. Woodley, J. time is Labor’s abdication of responsibil- PAIRS ity—this leadership from the rear, and this willingness to sit on the fence whenever pos- Bolkus, N. Hill, R.M. sible. That is why I say that Mr Beazley de- Carr, K.J. Macdonald, I. Conroy, S.M. Watson, J.O.W. serves an award for world’s best practice in Cook, P.F.S. Minchin, N.H. pusillanimous performance. I suspect that Cooney, B.C. Chapman, H.G.P. today will simply reinforce that position. But Evans, C.V. Eggleston, A. I am confident that, despite the Labor Party’s Faulkner, J.P. McGauran, J.J.J. craven capitulation, we will be able to Lundy, K.A. Patterson, K.C. achieve some real progress to protect the Murphy, S.M. Vanstone, A.E. families of Australia. West, S.M. Stott Despoja, N. Question put: * denotes teller Question so resolved in the negative. That the amendment (Senator Mark Bishop’s) be agreed to. Senator GREIG (Western Australia) (11.02 a.m.)—I move the second reading The Senate divided. [10.59 a.m.] amendment standing in my name on behalf (The President—Senator the Hon. Marga- of all Democrat senators and which I fore- ret Reid) shadowed in my second reading contribu- Ayes………… 19 tion: Noes………… 36 At the end of the motion, add: “but the Senate: Majority……… 17 (a) calls on the Government to use all AYES means available to it, including Bishop, T.M. Buckland, G. Commonwealth constitutional pow- Campbell, G. Collins, J.M.A. ers, to reverse the proliferation of electronic gaming machines (EGMs) Crossin, P.M. Crowley, R.A. or “pokies” by: Denman, K.J. Forshaw, M.G. Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.J. (i) significantly reducing the number Hutchins, S.P. Ludwig, J.W * of EGMs in Australia; and Mackay, S.M. McKiernan, J.P. (ii) placing caps on EGM numbers McLucas, J.E. O’Brien, K.W.K. for all establishments licensed to Ray, R.F. Schacht, C.C. carry them; and Sherry, N.J. (b) congratulates the Western Australian NOES and Tasmanian governments on having the lowest number of EGMs Abetz, E. Allison, L.F. per capita; and Alston, R.K.R. Bartlett, A.J.J. (c) urges Western Australia not to relax Boswell, R.L.D. Bourne, V.W. its present restrictive policy on the Brandis, G.H. Brown, B.J. availability of EGMs”. Calvert, P.H. Campbell, I.G. Coonan, H.L * Crane, A.W. Question resolved in the negative. Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. The PRESIDENT—The question is that Ferris, J.M. Gibson, B.F. the bill be now read a second time. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25339

The Senate divided. [11.04 a.m.] In Committee (The President—Senator the Hon. Marga- The bill. ret Reid) Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister Ayes………… 36 for Communications, Information Technol- Noes………… 19 ogy and the Arts) (11.08 a.m.)—by leave—I move government amendments (2), (4), (5), Majority……… 17 (11) to (15), (17), (28) to (31) on sheet AYES ER279: Abetz, E. Allison, L.F. (2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 18), omit “Austra- Alston, R.K.R. Bartlett, A.J.J. lian-based”. Boswell, R.L.D. Bourne, V.W. (4) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 25 to 27), omit the Brandis, G.H. Brown, B.J. definition of Australian-based interactive Calvert, P.H. Campbell, I.G. gambling service. Coonan, H.L. * Crane, A.W. (5) Clause 4, page 4 (line 4), omit the definition Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. of Australian-provider link. Ferris, J.M. Gibson, B.F. (11) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 32), after the Greig, B. Harradine, B. definition of industry standard, insert: Harris, L. Heffernan, W. interactive gambling service has the Herron, J.J. Kemp, C.R. meaning given by section 5. Knowles, S.C. Lees, M.H. Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, J.A.L. Note: This definition relates to the of- Mason, B.J. Murray, A.J.M. fences created by section 15 and Newman, J.M. Payne, M.A. Part 7A. Reid, M.E. Ridgeway, A.D. (12) Heading to clause 5, page 7 (line 15), omit Tambling, G.E. Tierney, J.W. “Australian-based interactive”, substitute Troeth, J.M. Woodley, J. “Interactive”. NOES (13) Clause 5, page 7 (line 16), omit “Austra- lian-based”. Bishop, T.M. Buckland, G. Campbell, G. Collins, J.M.A. (14) Clause 5, page 7 (line 26), omit “service; and”, substitute “service.”. Crossin, P.M. Crowley, R.A. Denman, K.J. Forshaw, M.G. (15) Clause 5, page 7 (line 27), omit para- Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.J. graph (c). Hutchins, S.P. Ludwig, J.W. * (17) Clause 5, page 8 (line 3), omit “Austra- Mackay, S.M. McKiernan, J.P. lian-based”. McLucas, J.E. O’Brien, K.W.K. (28) Heading to Part 2, page 11 (line 2), omit Ray, R.F. Schacht, C.C. “Australian-based”. Sherry, N.J. (29) Heading to clause 15, page 11 (line 6), omit PAIRS “Australian-based”. Chapman, H.G.P. Cooney, B.C. (30) Clause 15, page 11 (line 9), omit “Austra- Eggleston, A. Evans, C.V. lian-based”. Hill, R.M. Bolkus, N. (31) Clause 15, page 11 (after line 22), at the end Macdonald, I. Carr, K.J. of the clause, add: McGauran, J.J.J. Faulkner, J.P. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), in Minchin, N.H. Cook, P.F.S. determining whether the person could, Patterson, K.C. Lundy, K.A. with reasonable diligence, have ascer- Stott Despoja, N. West, S.M. tained that the service had an Austra- Vanstone, A.E. Murphy, S.M. lian-customer link, the following mat- Watson, J.O.W. Conroy, S.M. ters are to be taken into account: * denotes teller (a) whether prospective customers were Question so resolved in the affirmative. informed that Australian law pro- Bill read a second time. hibits the provision of the service to customers who are physically present in Australia; 25340 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(b) whether customers were required to memorandum was circulated in the chamber enter into contracts that were subject on 26 June 2001. to an express condition that the customer was not to use the service The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN if the customer was physically pres- (Senator Calvert)—I believe Senator Brown ent in Australia; has an amendment to move to those amend- (c) whether the person required cus- ments. tomers to provide personal details Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.11 and, if so, whether those details a.m.)—I move amendment (1) on sheet 2281: suggested that the customer was not (1) Government amendment (31), after para- physically present in Australia; graph 15(4)(d), insert: (d) whether the person has network data (da) whether the person has a system in that indicates that customers were place to block credit or debit cards physically present outside Australia: issued by: (i) when the relevant customer ac- (i) an Australian bank; or count was opened; and (ii) a person otherwise authorised to (ii) throughout the period when the issue credit or debit cards in service was provided to the cus- Australia. tomer; This amendment amends government (e) any other relevant matters. amendment (31) by inserting after paragraph (5) Section 15.4 of the Criminal Code 15(4)(d): (extended geographical jurisdiction— category D) applies to an offence (da) whether the person has a system in place to against subsection (1). block credit or debit cards issued by: These amendments relate to the offence of (i) an Australian bank; or providing an interactive gambling service (ii) a person otherwise authorised to issue and remove the words ‘Australian-provider credit or debt cards in Australia. link’ from the original bill. This has the ef- Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister fect of extending the offence to offshore op- for Communications, Information Technol- erators who are providing an interactive ogy and the Arts) (11.12 a.m.)—The gov- gambling service to persons in Australia, in ernment opposes this amendment. I have not recognition of the fact that it is technically had a chance to absorb the detail—I think it very difficult and jurisdictionally very diffi- was foreshadowed only this morning—but I cult to try to regulate the conduct of those suspect it is quite similar to the bunch of who are beyond our shores. Nonetheless, if amendments to be moved by Senator Har- they set foot in Australia, they can be prose- radine, which we will also be opposing on cuted, as has occurred in the US under the the grounds of impracticality as much as Wire Act, where persons have provided anything. I will go into detail on that later. gambling services from the Caribbean into Suffice to say at this stage that the govern- the United States. In one particularly famous ment does not accept Senator Brown’s case, a person went to jail as a result of a amendment. prosecution. It seems to us that that is a sen- Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- sible way of not only punishing any person tralia) (11.13 a.m.)—I thought it might be in particular but also drawing attention to the appropriate at the commencement of the fact that these sorts of activities are pro- committee stage to make some comments of foundly discouraged at the very least and is a a relatively brief nature as to the position of sensible way of minimising the impact of the opposition on this issue and how we will those persons who might be tempted to gam- be conducting our business as this debate ble offshore. progresses so that all senators are aware of I table a supplementary explanatory what the opposition will be doing and also, memorandum relating to the government’s in part, to accept the invitation extended by amendments to be moved to this bill. The the minister in his concluding remarks in his second reading speech when he invited the Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25341 opposition to take a stand on principle and government’s entire policy approach—the address the interactive gambling debate as a entire premise for its legislation—is flawed. social issue, not as an issue that might be During the Senate inquiry into the bill, characterised by some as an IT issue or Labor senators pointed out the fundamental something of that nature. The opposition is flaws in the bill. We showed that not only more than pleased to accept that invitation was the government’s policy approach from the government. flawed but also the bill contained a host of At the outset, I would like to make several inconsistencies, specific flaws and over- points. Firstly, we are of the view that the sights. The range of amendments before us flaws in this bill are persuasive—so persua- today suggests that the government has taken sive that the government is having to sub- that advice on board. With this bill, we be- stantially amend its own bill. We believe the lieve that the government is intent on making government’s entire policy approach, the a mockery of Australia’s capacity to sensibly entire premise for its legislation, is funda- deal with the challenges that new technolo- mentally and irreparably flawed. It is irrepa- gies present, and a great deal of the world rably flawed because the government’s will be watching this legislation and perhaps amendments to the original bill do not make will move to replicate some parts of it in due the legislation any more effective today than course. In fact, a number of progressive it might have been a week ago. countries are seriously looking into Austra- I will go through the various reasons why lia’s existing regulatory arrangements with a the opposition opposes the bill and its vari- view to adopting them in their own countries. ous flaws. I will also outline the opposition’s There are a number of reasons why the planned approach to the committee stage opposition considers the position taken in debate on this bill in the Senate, which is this bill to be inappropriate. I made a number based upon our fundamental opposition to of points in my second reading contribution. this bill’s approach, the futility of amending I will not discuss them in detail but I will the bill and the unpragmatic consideration again put several points on the record as to given to time for this debate. I will outline why the bill is flawed. Firstly, Australians again, for the record, the opposition’s ap- will still be able to access Internet gambling proach to interactive gambling, which we services. The bill does not achieve, prevent profoundly believe is the only policy that or discourage access, which surely is a criti- will protect Australians from the harms of cal step in achieving a ban. In fact, the bill problem gambling—our primary concern. does not even prohibit Australians from ac- Finally, I will make a few comments on the cessing domestic or foreign Internet gam- government’s conduct during the debate to bling sites. Secondly, the easiest sites for date on this issue. Australians to access will be overseas sites— We have publicly stated for some time that some of dubious probity. It is nearly impos- we are opposed to this bill. We say that the sible to distinguish reputable sites from those flaws in this bill are so persuasive that the of dubious probity. So Australians will easily government is having to substantially amend access some of the most dangerous gambling its own bill. This is evidenced by the gov- sites on the Internet. Thirdly, problem gam- ernment’s undue haste, lack of proper con- blers are likely to be the ones who will be sideration, foresight and consultation on this desperate enough to circumvent restrictions issue. We say that the bill is ineffective in its on accessing Australian and foreign sites and present form. It is obvious from the extent of will most likely fall prey to unscrupulous the government’s amendments to its bill that operators who will not limit expenditure. the government, too, has accepted the criti- This bill, if passed in its current form, could cism made in the Labor senators’ report to result in worse gambling problems than if the legislation committee that its original bill Australians were able to access strictly was flawed. Unfortunately, however, the regulated Australian sites. government’s amendments just tinker around Fourthly, Australia is looking backwards the edges of the real issue, which is that the while the rest of the world is trying to come 25342 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 up with constructive solutions. A number of problems with this bill; it is the underlying countries are looking to adopt Australia’s rationale that is flawed: it is still not techni- regulatory model for Internet gambling. cally feasible to ban interactive gambling. Meanwhile, the Australian government is The government can make any number of looking to copy a 1961 US act which has amendments to this bill, and it still will not clearly failed to prevent Americans from achieve that purpose. The bill is beyond be- gambling on the Internet. Australia is seeking rescued. ing to adopt an approach that has proven fu- The opposition moved a second reading tile in preventing interactive gambling access amendment a few months ago. We did not in the United States, as evidenced by the receive the support of the Senate. We op- minister’s comments that a million persons a posed the second reading of the bill. We will day in the United States access and use inter- oppose the bill on its third reading when we active gambling services in that country. have the opportunity. If the Senate finds this Fifthly, we repeat our criticism that it is bill acceptable, in spite of our warnings that hypocritical to allow Australian Internet it will not work, the opposition are not in a gambling service providers to receive reve- position to do anything more than to offer nue from services they offer to overseas constructive criticism of the bill and the pol- countries when those countries will be left icy it implements and to point out the many with the attendant social problems and no flaws and reasons that it will not succeed. I funds to deal with them. That criticism wanted to make these comments at the outset stands, notwithstanding the agreement that of the committee stage because those princi- has been reached between the government ples will guide the opposition’s conduct and Senator Brown with respect to overseas during the debate. countries. Sixthly, the bill will have a nega- Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister tive impact on the Australian Internet gam- for Communications, Information Technol- bling service providers. Their claims of be- ogy and the Arts) (11.21 a.m.)—I will re- ing ‘well regulated’ will not be credible if spond briefly to that because I think it goes their own government will not allow its citi- to the heart of the debate that we are having. zens to access their services. Seventhly, the What we have done is recognise that in an bill still permits Australians access to Inter- imperfect world and a fast moving technol- net wagering—and, clearly, wagering is ogy environment you cannot cover the field; hardly immune from gambling problems. On you cannot actually stop everything that you the contrary, wagering contributes consid- want to stop any more than passing a law erably to the gambling problems of Austra- against murder will magically eliminate lians. The Productivity Commission made murders in the community—sadly. You can this point clearly in its report on Australian pass a law against drugs, but people still traf- gambling industries. fic in drugs. You can pass a law against road In addition, the minority report by Labor traffic conduct that is out of order, but people senators to the Senate committee inquiry said still infringe. It is no excuse to say that be- that this bill identified a number of specific cause something will not be 100 per cent concerns about the drafting of certain provi- effective we will therefore do nothing about sions in the bill which would render the bill’s it. impact uncertain and unjust. The government I want to highlight the fact that I invited has taken a number of those concerns on Senator Bishop to explain the opposition’s board. The critical point is that the opposi- alternative approach—in other words, to do tion will not oppose the government’s the hard yards and tell us what he would do amendments to its own bill. Our position is to address a serious social issue. There was that the government has introduced a defi- not even one word of sympathy about prob- cient bill and is now trying to fix it up in an lem gambling for the families that suffer ad hoc way, without addressing the underly- from it or one word about what might be ing policy flaws. We say that it does not done about it. At one stage, he said some- matter how the government tries to fix up the thing in passing about a regulated regime, Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25343 but do the opposition in the federal parlia- ‘We would support that; this is our policy.’ ment have any alternative to a regulated re- You do not get any of that; you just get these gime? Of course they do not. They mean, opportunistic criticisms. You say, ‘We could ‘We want to wash our hands of all of this. point to a few logical inconsistencies.’ In We’ll do nothing; we’ll leave it to others.’ other words, if we were having the ultimate The states have actually been playing dialectic, you would be able to demonstrate around with a draft interactive gambling in a logical fashion that somehow we should code since 1996. It still has not gone any- have covered each and every aspect, no where. It is a bit like Internet content regula- matter how difficult it might have been, and tion. The industry were playing around with that to be absolutely perfect you would have it for years. The Internet Industry Associa- tried to cover all the bases. That is the impli- tion were again wringing their hands and cation, but that is not the opposition’s ap- saying, ‘Yes, we’re on the case. Leave it to proach. Their approach is, ‘We’re going to us.’ It will take forever. Nothing ever hap- do nothing.’ pens. Similarly, you now find that the states That is why I say there is weakness of and territories are, reluctantly and eventually, leadership at the very top. It is not Senator upping the ante a bit, but they still have not Bishop—he is just the messenger boy in got anywhere. They still have not agreed. here. The fact is that it is all Mr Beazley. The New South Wales and, to a lesser extent, WA buck stops there. This guy does not have the want to go a lot further than the rest of the intestinal fortitude to take a policy position states, and of course some territories are and give Senator Bishop some decent riding quite feral on the subject. instructions to come in here and wring his Leaving it to others is an absolute policy hands for five minutes and say, ‘Isn’t this cop-out. We have had criticisms from Sena- shocking? We’ve really got to do something tor Bishop. His speech in the second reading about it. We don’t like your approach, but debate was all carping and criticisms. We what we will do is the following.’ We did not had ‘flaws are persuasive’, ‘undue haste’ and get any of that. Senator Lundy would not ‘lack of foresight’. These are mantras. You have a bar of it for a moment. She does not just press button A and you throw these want to do anything that will in any way in- things in every debate. If you do not like terfere with the spread of technology, irre- something, you say, ‘We have not had spective of the social consequences. I can enough time to consult,’ as if to say, ‘If you understand you are under a bit of pressure had just given us a bit more time, we might from the far Left. But, if Mr Beazley re- have come on board.’ That is where I want to garded himself as a moderate with some highlight the hypocrisy of this. One of the concerns about the impact on families, you things Senator Bishop said is: would think he would at least say something. ... the bill still permits Australians access to Inter- Ignore Senator Lundy, but look at Mr net wagering, and wagering is hardly immune Smith. Instead of just sitting in his room, from gambling problems. rehearsing those one-liners, polishing the Why not try to do something about it? But, fake microphone, getting it all right and get- no, they will not. ting the hair in shape, Mr Smith should actually do the hard yards, work out an alterna- Senator Mark Bishop interjecting— tive strategy and tell us what approach he Senator ALSTON—You could pose it. would adopt. If you were in government, You could get up there and say, ‘We demand what would you do? What do you propose in that you do something about sports betting six months time if you happen to fall over on the Internet.’ But you are not going to do the line? What would you do about this ma- that. Similarly, you wring your hands and say jor social problem? We do not hear any of that problem gamblers can circumvent this that. We just get told, ‘The flaws are persua- approach. You say that it does not prohibit sive. The government’s entire policy ap- Australians from accessing overseas sites, as proach is flawed. It makes a mockery of though it should. We do not hear you say, technology challenges. Problem gamblers 25344 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 might be able to circumvent a negative im- Senator ALSTON—There probably pact on interactive service providers. It is not ought to be a summit on this one too. This technologically feasible to ban Internet gam- would be summit 23, wouldn’t it? bling.’ Then there is the ultimate cop-out. Senator Kemp interjecting— Senator Bishop says that, if this bill passes, the opposition will not be in a position to do Senator ALSTON—Yes. We know where anything other than offer criticism. that went back in 1993. If you have the charisma, like Bob Hawke did at the time, then This is what we are going to have in the maybe you can get across the line and no-one lead-up to the next election. The Labor will notice you have no policies, but you Party’s position will be: ‘I’m terribly sorry. cannot do it this time. You can say a lot of It’s a major social policy challenge, but un- things about your bloke, but he certainly fortunately we’re not in a position to do does not have much charisma. His problem is anything other than offer criticism.’ That will not only that he is a waffler but also that he not get you there; it is just not good enough. is a very weak leader. If you are a weak The punters will not wear that. They know leader and you do not have policies, that is a what has happened in the states. They know very bad basis on which to go into an elec- the states have done nothing for years and tion. So thank you for confirming that you do years. It is policy lazy. This is terminal stuff. not have any alternative policy approach. You cannot just lie there on a life support You did not even take the opportunity to say system, hoping that enough people are going how serious the problem was. All you could to keep you alive for the election and hoping bring yourself to do was engage in a bit of that you can surf in on the criticisms that negative, carping criticism. If that is to be the might be made of any government from time strategy over the next six months, let us get to time. No government is perfect. We all on with it. make mistakes, but we would perhaps all like to go further than we could. Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (11.29 a.m.)—I listened very carefully to the Senator Ian Campbell—If you do not minister. We really need to truncate this de- have a ticker, you cannot have life support. bate a bit, Minister, and I wonder whether Senator ALSTON—That is true. We you might not be extending it a little. We could probably save a bit of money there at need to hear from you a little more on the least. There is no point in offering the serv- meaning of your amendment. We are debat- ice, is there? At the end of the day, Senator ing the provision of gambling services out- Bishop has done us a service, in a sense, be- side Australia and to other countries. Most cause it means we will not have to engage in people agree that that is a very hard position long and protracted debates. It is basically to defend if you are going to say that those our policy position against no policy posi- countries will not deliver the same services tion. That is the stark choice leading up to to Australians. We all acknowledge the il- the election. For the next six months, we will logicality of that. have Labor saying, ‘Sorry, it’s all too hard. The government is trying to limit the Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do availability of those services in overseas anything other than offer criticism.’ I hope, countries. However, a number of amend- and I am sure Senator Kemp hopes, that we ments deal with that, and the problem is to will get similar policy responses in a whole sort them out. I am looking at Senator range of other areas. All we have had to date Brown’s amendment. It parallels the amend- is the Labor Party saying, ‘We’ve got some ments to be moved by Senator Harradine, policy directions. We’ve got some statements and I expect we will have a larger and longer of intent.’ debate then, because Senator Harradine’s Senator Kemp—Why don’t they propose amendments are much more detailed. At this an inquiry after the election? point, I indicate that I and some of my colleagues will be supporting the government amendments and that we will not be sup- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25345 porting Senator Brown’s amendment to those the market. He has given me that assurance amendments. and I see him nodding his head now. If any Senator BOSWELL (Queensland— new product is developed through state gov- Leader of the National Party of Australia in ernment lotteries to go on the Internet, the the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary to the minister will have the right of veto on it. Minister for Transport and Regional Serv- Keno games, for example, come up every ices) (11.31 a.m.)—Because of the impor- five minutes, so you do not have to wait long tance of time today, I did not make a speech for a result. They are available on the Inter- in the second reading debate on this bill. But net in some states. I would argue that that is Senator Bishop’s response provokes me to interactive: a result is continually coming up stand up. Of course this is a hard issue. It is a and people can sit in front of their television desperate issue. It is an issue that affects sets with their bankcards and can punt on this 290,000 people who are problem gamblers. It interactive gambling. It is totally wrong and I is probably one of the greatest social issues am appalled by the decision by the Labor affecting Australia. It results in divorce and it Party that it is all too hard. Everything is too results in bankruptcies and broken homes hard in this place. It is a very hard place to and all the other social values that we hold work in. You always encounter unintended very dear. consequences, but it does not stop us trying I am proud of the government for taking to do something. Apparently, it stops the on a hard issue like this. It is something that ALP trying to do anything, because it is too you are never going to get your hands right hard. around. To take it on and to send a message I congratulate the minister. He took on an out that gambling is a social problem that area that has a lot of consequences and a lot affects very many Australians is something of social issues. We have done our best to the government deserves credit for. I also remove a casino from every lounge room in want to consider some of the things that have Australia. I am glad that we do have the sup- been brought up and to which the govern- port of some Democrats and some Independ- ment has responded. I am thinking of a parents. ticular country horseracing centre, just out of Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.36 Richmond. I went to a horseracing meeting a.m.)—I support what Senator Boswell just there. There were six events. They get about had to say. There is a very important point $3,000 each from the TAB. If the TAB were about the way in which this legislation has not allowed to collect some revenue that way been amended. I want to explain my Greens then we would lose country horseracing. Ru- amendment. It adds to the government list of ral Australians are missing many facilities, provisions for gaming houses in Australia but they like to go and have a social Saturday which are providing Internet services. As we afternoon out at Richmond or other little all know, they are not allowed to provide country centres. The government did respond those to Australians, but they can provide to that. them overseas. There is a concern that some Some forms of gambling have been the Australians nevertheless will find ways of province of small businesses, such as news- placing bets on these gaming houses set up agents and chemists. When it was pointed here. The government provisions say, if the out to the minister that the changes could gaming house is not going to be prosecuted have detrimental effects on small business, it on that, it has to show that it went to some was responded to by keeping scratchie lot- length to ascertain that the better was not teries—which are really interactive gam- physically in Australia—that is, they were bling—off the Internet. The government will not geographically here. The Greens amend- receive welcome thanks from small business ment adds to that that you should also make for including that. I understand the minister sure that an Australian credit card was not is going to make some catch-all amendment used. It is a very simple but important where he will have the right to continue to strengthening of the government’s provi- investigate any new product that comes onto sions, and I commend it to the committee. 25346 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- who lose $10 billion or $11 billion a year.’ tralia) (11.37 a.m.)—I want to respond to The solution of the government is not to sit some of the comments made by the minister the four or five states down through the on behalf of the opposition. I had been under Ministerial Council on Gambling and offer to the impression that time was fairly scarce in come up with some sort of alternative to this debate, and all matters were going to be needing these funds, and to come up with treated with some expedition. The minister some sort of constructive regulations. having engaged in 10 or 12 minutes of ritu- The straw man that is being played out in alistic abuse for no apparent purpose, they this debate—articulated clearly by Senator are apparently not the rules that have been Alston on behalf of the government—is to agreed to and accepted in this debate, and manufacture a real concern in the nether- time is not of the essence. On that basis, it is world, in Internet gambling, in cyberspace, probably appropriate to address in some de- where there are no apparent or real problems tail the problems or the issues raised by the at this stage. If there are such problems, they minister and the position of the opposition in are of such magnitude that they are incapable this debate. of being statistically recorded in this country In this debate there is both a real problem or in any other country, yet down the street and a straw man being erected. Every person you have hundreds of thousands of Austra- in this chamber knows what the real problem lians, if not millions, affected. So the oppo- is. The figures are bandied about of 200,000 sition say—based on the hundreds and thou- or 300,000 Australians who have significant sands of letters we have received, our discus- gambling addiction problems. The multiplier sions at various committees and lobbying by effect is that that applies to about another one the social welfare groups—what is the prob- in eight or one in 10, so the real problems lem here? Is the problem Internet gambling affect something in the order of three million per se? Is the problem land based gambling Australians. Senator Allison yesterday in her per se? The answer is that the problems are speech in the second reading debate referred the social problems attached to land based to those persons in terms of their enterprises, gambling. That is what we say it is appropri- their businesses, their family relationships, ate to address, diagnose, analyse and come their friends and the consequent social prob- up with solutions for. lems that attach to those 3 million Austra- All of the states for the last 10 years, lians. I do not think anyone in this chamber whether they be conservative or Labor does not say that that is not an existing states—conservative states in the late eight- problem, a real problem and a growing ies and early nineties and now Labor states— problem. If the trend line related to land have chosen to abdicate their responsibilities based facilities continues on its current dy- to attend to the social problems in their namic, that problem is going to get larger communities, based almost solely on land and larger. based gambling. The states have chosen to The straw man erected in this debate is not abdicate that responsibility, so we say it is to attend to the social problems in the four appropriate for the Commonwealth to be eastern states and South Australia, not to involved. It is a necessity for the Common- show Commonwealth leadership, not to wealth to show leadership. The Common- show Commonwealth coordination, not to sit wealth should be coordinating an approach the states down and say, ‘Listen, you blokes that tries to address the social problems at- are dependent on gambling revenue from the tached to gambling. They should be pulled working class, social welfare recipients and into line. We say that is the responsibility of low income areas to the tune of something in the Commonwealth government, represented the order of $11 billion a year, and all of the in this chamber by Senator Alston. Yet we social programs, all the welfare benefits you have in exchange a series of cliches: ‘a gam- pay and all the incentives you offer to busi- bling room in every home’ and ‘problems on nesses to come to your states are based upon the Internet’. None of those issues are being the income you receive from these people addressed. The solution to that is to support Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25347 federal coordination of consistent state based understands the issues: the social issues, the regulatory regimes. That is the only way the technology issues and the feasibility issues. opposition believes those social problems It is pointless to continue engaging in ritual- attached to gambling are going to be solved. istic debate setting out positions. Our posi- Not only does the government not action is on the record. It has been detailed in a knowledge the problem or any significant policy sense for at least two or three years role for the Commonwealth and not only through numerous committee reports. It has does it erect a straw man; it also makes it been out there in the public domain. For the worse. It tries to distinguish between those government to erect this straw man and say unfortunate souls who might be addicted to that the opposition does not have a position casino type gambling and those unfortunate or is ignoring the reality of the problems souls who have been addicted for many years really is a nonsense. to gambling on wagering, sports betting or The problem is out there in land based racecourses. For God’s sake, what is the dif- gambling; it is out there in casinos; it is out ference? It is like saying an alcoholic who is there in the many forms of gambling that are addicted to gin is different from an alcoholic part and parcel of our society. And the gov- who is addicted to whisky. There is no dif- ernment for its own reasons, which are still ference at all. not clear to me, chooses to do nothing about Senator McGauran—Whisky tastes bet- it. It is completely inappropriate, verging on ter. the improper, to try and shift responsibility or allocate blame to the opposition. You are Senator MARK BISHOP—‘Whisky the government of the day, you are elected, tastes better’—that is the level of comment you can show Commonwealth leadership, you would expect. There is no difference at you can show Commonwealth coordination all. Gambling problems are persuasive and and you can pull the states into line—or at pervasive in this society. We have the argu- least offer them some incentive or ability to ment put by Senator Brown, the government achieve what should be a common purpose. and Senator Boswell on behalf of their parties that, because there is social utility in the Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) maintenance of the racing industry in re- (11.47 a.m.)—Can the minister explain to the gional Australia, we should not attend to committee how the amendments that are cur- gambling problems. rently before us will work? There is a provision in those amendments which makes it an Frankly, that just puts the whole lie to this offence for an overseas site to offer gaming debate. We are not going to do anything to Australian customers. It is one thing to about land based gambling problems; we are make it an offence: how is that going to be not going to do anything about casinos; we enforced? There is no point having an of- are not going to do anything about sports fence unless there is a stricture applied. How betting; we are not going to do anything are those international operators to be (a) about wagering—so there are 17 ways to hell identified and (b) brought to justice? you can gamble—and we manufacture this nonsense that out there in the Internet there is Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister a real problem and we are going to do for Communications, Information Technol- something about it. Frankly, Minister, that is ogy and the Arts) (11.48 a.m.)—Under the just a disgrace. That is the ‘no solution’ op- proposed amendments, gaming operators, tion. That is what you have paraded here either within or outside Australia, who pro- today—no solution to existing problems; a vide gaming services to customers within potential solution to a potential problem. Australia will be liable for the offence of providing a prohibited interactive gaming We have had now something in the order service. While the amendment will not im- of three Senate inquiries—which I have sat pose technological blocking measures on the through and written most of the reports for— Internet industry, we anticipate that the wider numerous debates and much discussion in impact of the offence provision will serve as the community. Everyone in this chamber a deterrent to foreign operators, especially 25348 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 those within the region, such as those from ticular outfits when this legislation goes New Zealand and Vanuatu. through. I am not sure whether Senate Harradine This legislation is seriously defective un- was here but I did give the example of the less there are very firm provisions which Interstate Wire Act in the US, which would ensure that access to overseas sites is, in ef- apply with particular force here because fect, prohibited. The government is not going there are many people offering services from to do that—and I will just tone down and ask New Zealand and Vanuatu who would be the minister a couple of questions. Does the regular visitors to Australia and who would minister know about the site in Canada run therefore be at risk if they were to set foot on by the Canadian indigenous people which is our shores. The impact of the Interstate Wire able to be accessed now from Australia? Act in the US has been quite profound. You That is a reputable organisation. Could the can talk to Australian proprietors, for exam- minister tell the committee how many inter- ple, who tell you they are very worried about active gaming sites there are overseas that even going to the US for fear that they might are accessible to Australians? Could the have transgressed by providing services to minister advise how many of those will be the US. I think Ladbrokes have a statement accessible after this legislation is carried— on their web site that says that they will not that is, if it is carried? Is the minister aware accept bets from residents of the United of the membership of the IGC, the States. Interactive Gaming Council, an international In other words, the gambling service pro- body which has the seal of approval? Is the viders in whom people would be most likely minister suggesting that those who have to have confidence because of their interna- those international gaming sites that have tional reputation are the ones who are most that seal of approval are, in fact, going to concerned to protect that reputation by doing take any notice of this legislation? what they can to avoid taking bets from those Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister people. We think it will have a significant for Communications, Information Technol- deterrent effect and, in conjunction with the ogy and the Arts) (11.54 a.m.)—As I said ban on advertising—which I think will make earlier, there are some technological limita- it a lot less of an option for people—we are tions. We do not think it is feasible— doing what we can. We do not have full ex- Senator Mark Bishop—You have said traterritorial powers: we cannot go off and that once or twice already. try and prosecute them in other jurisdictions or have them extradited to Australia. But the Senator ALSTON—It is a fact. You reality is that they are on notice that if they could close down the Internet if you wanted come here they are liable to prosecution. In to, and some countries have tried to do that. those circumstances, we think that will pro- It would involve draconian legislation. You vide a significant deterrent. could have a policeman in every home if you wanted to and, if you wanted to stop all the Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) accidents on the road, you could ban the use (11.51 a.m.)—I know we all have to be loyal of motor vehicles. You have to have a practi- to our country and think that this is the best cal approach, and it is our judgment that it place in the whole world and that the only simply is not feasible to require the block- thing that these international interactive ing—on the latest statistics I have—of gambling outfits want is to come to Austra- something like 1,400 Internet gambling web lia. For crying out loud! It is unbelievable sites as of March this year. that the minister should say that the only method of enforcing this particular provision I have seen studies which show that Aus- is the threat that these people might be ar- tralians are much less inclined to gamble or rested when they set foot on Australian soil, invest offshore. They would much prefer to when 99.9 per cent could not care less about deal with local organisations in whom they Australia except to get money out of the poor have confidence. If you have a ban on gam- people who are going to bet on these par- bling, I think that does make a very signifi- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25349 cant difference to people who might other- shore gambling providers—a number, none- wise see a billboard and be inclined to think, theless, in the low thousands as compared to Well, I’ll give it a go.’ They have actually got millions of web sites these days offering to actively search and for the vast majority of pornography in all shapes and sizes, some of the population that simply will not result in it free of charge—does make it more feasible them accessing offshore sites. In fact, I think to monitor what occurs offshore. To the ex- there was a study conducted by the Depart- tent that there are services catering for Aus- ment of Family and Community Services tralians, one would expect that to be subject which showed that, if a ban were in place, to surveillance both within the department only one per cent of people would play on a and by the Broadcasting Authority. gambling site on the Internet. That is about Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) as much as you can do to try to judge in ad- (11.59 a.m.)—You mentioned the ABA and vance what people’s reactions might be. the department—and I will leave the com- I know that Senator Harradine would say ment I was going to make about the ABA for that some people will never come to Austra- a later stage. Who is to be in charge of iden- lia. But if they are in the business of trying to tifying the potential 1,400 sites that are cater for Australian citizens and trying to coming into Australia? Who is identifying build a business in Australia, the likelihood their executive or boards, if they have is that they will need to come to Australia at boards? And are you then going to advise the some stage, particularly if they are offering Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that those services in places like Vanuatu where, I those persons will not be able to enter Aus- suspect, a number of those operators are of tralia? If they do so, will they be arrested? Australian origin. They certainly have exten- What is the machinery? It is very important sive Australian connections and they need to that we know what the machinery is. It is no come here, as the nearest port of call, to ac- good passing this without knowing what the quire equipment and the like. It could result machinery is to achieve the objective of the in a very significant disincentive. amendment. But there is also the other good corporate Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister citizenship aspect, which I mentioned, that for Communications, Information Technol- is, you do find that even the world’s largest ogy and the Arts) (Midday)—The Australian gaming houses like Ladbrokes have a dis- Broadcasting Authority will have a general claimer—and I think that William Hill has monitoring role, but it will also act on com- some disclaimer as well—which shows that plaints. Where something of concern is they will not want to be caught up in bans of brought to its attention, it will be able to in- this sort and be seen to be flouting them. We vestigate the matter and provide information are doing what we think is feasible. We ac- to the police, who would then be in a posi- knowledge that it is still possible for people tion to launch a prosecution. In the way that to go offshore but we think we can very sig- most activities progress through a chain, nificantly reduce the opportunities and the people normally bring certain matters to the incentives by putting in place measures such attention of the police, but they do not pro- as these. vide them with a hand up brief; they provide Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) them with a basis on which they then put (11.57 a.m.)—I would ask the minister to together the necessary ingredients of a prose- respond to the question I asked him. Which cution. Presumably, that would involve iden- organisation is going to identify these inter- tifying the persons involved in a particular active overseas gambling sites offering their gambling activity. It may involve coopera- services to Australian customers? Who is tion with other police organisations and gen- going to identify these? erally they will have a responsibility to do what they can to ensure the successful prose- Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister cution of persons who might be involved in for Communications, Information Technol- those activities. As I say, the numbers are ogy and the Arts) (11.58 a.m.)—A situation relatively finite. If there is community con- where you have a significant number of off- 25350 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 cern and complaints are made, and that amendment, I have dealt with that as far as I would include the ability for Senator Har- can. radine to draw matters to the attention of the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.04 Australian Broadcasting Authority, there will p.m.)—Would the government like me to be a chain of events that could certainly lead suspend the amendment until later in the to prosecutions if those people visit Austra- proceedings so they have time to look at it? lia. Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) for Communications, Information Technol- (12.02 p.m.)—Frankly, Minister, I have more ogy and the Arts) (12.04 p.m.)—It would things to do with my time. To be quite frank, have to be considered at the same time that through Senator Brown, you have been given Senator Harradine’s amendment is dealt with an opportunity to tighten up your amend- and we could have that global discussion. ment. I have not heard your reason for rejecting that amendment which is currently Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.04 p.m.)—I just want to follow this up. before us. Am I to understand from what the minister is Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister saying that, in obtaining a visa to enter Aus- for Communications, Information Technol- tralia, the visa would require that gambling ogy and the Arts) (12.02 p.m.)—Perhaps I merchants must be licensed to operate legally can clarify the situation. Senator Brown has in Australia? In future, would the visa re- an amendment that relates to credit card quirements of the Department of Foreign transactions which is quite different from my Affairs and Trade mean that an applicant amendment which deals, in certain circum- would not get a visa if the applicant has been stances, with making people liable for of- engaged in providing services to Australia? fences that have been committed offshore. I Obviously, if there is a law in this country said in respect of Senator Brown’s amend- that it is an offence, as this legislation pro- ment, which we received only a very short poses, for an offshore interactive gambling time ago and which has some consequences organisation to provide services to Australia, that need to be more carefully thought surely anyone who has been engaging in that through, that I would address the issue in illegal activity would not be provided with a more detail when we came to Senator Har- visa. radine’s amendments, of which we did have more notice and to which we have been able Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister to devote a bit more attention. I can deal with for Communications, Information Technol- those now, if you like, but in responding to ogy and the Arts) (12.06 p.m.)—This raises them, I will talk about the role of the Minis- fairly complex issues. It is one thing for per- terial Council on Gambling and the approach sons applying for a visa to be required to being adopted by the Department of Family disclose whether they have criminal convic- and Community Services. I am not sure tions. As we know, even that can be much whether Senator Harradine has a copy of the more complicated than it appears to be at letter that Senator Vanstone provided in the face value when you have spent convictions chamber yesterday to Senator Woodley, but which you are not obliged to disclose, while in a number of respects it addresses issues of certain authorities, like the US, take the view concern to the Commonwealth that we would that you have to disclose even situations like to see further explored in the Ministerial where a charge has been adjourned and then Council on Gambling. All I can say in re- subsequently dismissed, as that can be respect of Senator Brown’s amendment is that garded as a conviction. we have not had the time to consider it care- Even at that level, complex issues can fully and it seems to be quite similar to arise. But to require applicants for visas to Senator Harradine’s amendment, about disclose the nature of activities that may or which I will talk in detail. Insofar as the may not be subject to prosecution in Austra- chamber is also now dealing with our lia seems to me to put the cart before the horse. I would be very surprised if you could Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25351 draft it in such a way that would even begin would apply, and you would protect as many to provide helpful information. It would in- people as you could reasonably hope to pro- volve enormous complexity. People talk tect. about red tape. It would mean that every ap- Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- plicant for a visa would presumably have to tralia) (12.10 p.m.)—This discussion goes to go to great lengths to explain the nature of the heart of whether, in practice, the amend- their business activities. What would you do? ment will be effective. I have been given a Would you say, ‘Are you involved in any document that was downloaded today. It activity that might infringe the law of Aus- makes the point that combined revenues tralia in relation to interactive gambling ac- from both the US and Europe are predicted tivities?’ Would an applicant say, ‘I have no to grow from an estimated $US6.7 billion in idea; I have never seen the bill; I do not 2001 to $US21 billion in 2005 and that the know what the consequences are’? Even number of online gamblers in Europe and the though it might affect a minuscule propor- US will increase from 2.9 million this year to tion, every applicant for a visa would some- 7.5 million in 2005. how have to identify the nature of his activities. Even then, he would be asked to make a My understanding of what the government self-assessment of whether he was likely to seeks to achieve with this amendment is that have committed an offence. It is not some- offshore IGSPs who provide Australians thing that we can address on the run in this with their services will be liable to prosecu- way. tion if they land in this country. The root source of the government’s amendment is the Clearly, as the legislation is proposed to United States federal wire communications be reviewed on an ongoing basis, one can act of 1961, which the Americans have at- look at some of those possible additional tempted to use to regulate and, possibly, to approaches when people have had the op- make illegal interactive gambling in that portunity to think them through. It seems to country. On 2 April, the minister put out a me at first glance that you would impose press headed ‘Devastating impact of Internet enormous bureaucratic obligations on those gambling revealed’, and he quoted American who apply for visas and those who process studies and made the point that every day them, with probably very little reason to about one million Americans use Internet think that you would throw up any useful gambling and that up to 4.5 million Ameri- information. You would be much better off to cans use it regularly. If one million Ameri- look at web sites that offer services to Aus- cans use Internet gambling in the United tralia and then try to track down those peo- States every day and about 4.5 million ple. As I have said, the numbers are not in Americans have from time to time gambled the millions. It therefore should be a matter on the Internet, and the wire act applies in of reasonable possibility. the United States, is it not clear that it has As we have said before, you cannot hope patently had no effect on restricting, banning, to close down every form of illegal activity, ceasing or limiting the growth of Internet no matter how insignificant it might be, but gambling in that country? That being the if there are mainstream offerings, you will case, what utility does it have as a model in probably find that there are only half a dozen this country, when it has patently failed in or so really heavy hitters in this business the United States to have any impact at all on worldwide. If that is the case, it will not take gambling? too long to track them down, see whether Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister they are offering services to Australia and do for Communications, Information Technol- something about it. Given the experience of ogy and the Arts) (12.13 p.m.)—The short the wire act, they are the very ones who answer is that the wire act applies only to would least want to get around our legisla- services provided from offshore. Given that tion or turn a blind eye to it. They would be there is no ban on these sorts of activities in the ones who were most likely to cooperate, the US, those people would overwhelmingly and in those circumstances the 80-20 rule be accessing domestic sites. 25352 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- tralia approach to block everything coming tralia) (12.13 p.m.)—That is not correct. The into the country. You cannot do that, but you wire act applies to domestic activity. It was can up the ante in a way that I think will passed in 1961 by the Kennedy administra- make it very difficult for a number of people tion as one of the tools to restrict the growth to take those risks. of Mafia and criminal activity in illegal Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (12.16 gambling in the various states and cities of p.m.)—I seek some clarification from the the United States. It was intended to have a minister regarding the purpose of the gov- domestic purpose, by making illegal the use ernment’s amendments being to prosecute of communications facilities—hence the any person who enters Australia for having name ‘wire act’—for the passing of bets provided a service. The minister’s comments between cities and states. It was directed at to this point in the debate have only been the heart of organised criminal activity in the directed at the actual provider. But if that United States. Its purpose was to restrict do- provider were a public company, would the mestic gambling activity. That being the case offence travel to the directors and also the in the United States, your own press release shareholders of the company? says that there are 4.5 million regular users and a million users every day. Again: what is If that is the case, then there is a way for the utility of importing that principle in the the government to make that reasonably ef- wire act into this bill? fective, because each publicly listed company has a shareholders list and it would not Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister be too difficult, if a provider were providing for Communications, Information Technol- a service in Australia and if the government ogy and the Arts) (12.14 p.m.)—The wire act, wished to bring pressure on them to remove as you quite rightly say, is 40 years old. It that service, to do that by excluding every was not designed to address this problem. It shareholder of that company. That would has simply been invoked because of, I think, really have some effect. I can understand the inability of legislators in that country to that, if the targeting was just of the directors have an approach that results in effective or the individuals providing the service, it legislation. It applies only across state bor- may have a limited effect. But if it is the in- ders, so one assumes that it would not be all tention of the government’s bill to have that that difficult for a national operator to effec- effect actually register on not only the di- tively operate out of each state and cater for rectors of the company but the sharehold- the residents of each state. In that very sim- ers—because the shareholders would derive ple way, you circumvent the problem—you a profit—then the government would have a are not offering services across state borders. quite effective way of bringing pressure on That being the case, we are not trying to that public company not to provide those address the problem simply by using the wire services. I seek a comment from the minister. act; we have a comprehensive body of meas- Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister ures, one of which is based on a very high for Communications, Information Technol- profile experience of a prosecution under the ogy and the Arts) (12.18 p.m.)—I do not wire act which did see a Caribbean service think anyone would ever argue that share- provider go to jail for this type of offence. If holders are responsible for the running of the it can be used in that way to deal with people company. They do not make the investment providing services from offshore in the US, it decisions. If you do not want to be involved can be used here. So don’t worry yourself in the activities of the company, you do not too much about whether the Americans are buy shares in it. It is a fundamental tenet of being derelict in their duty in not having a the Corporations Law that those responsible comprehensive approach to Internet gam- for the running of a company are the direc- bling; there is one measure there we can use tors and management, and they would be the as part of our armoury which we think can only ones that you could realistically target. go some way. We accept the technological To the extent that they incurred a substantial limitations of trying to have a fortress Aus- penalty and the company ended up paying Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25353 that, I suppose that has an adverse effect on reading debate, is that there is evidence that the shareholders in the sense that it impacts it cannot work. He says: on their bottom line. But I really think it The IIA’s— would be an absolute nightmare to try to im- the Internet Industry of Australia’s— pose an obligation on every shareholder for activities that are clearly beyond their control position is that using internet protocol addresses and responsibility and overwhelmingly, I (the addresses used to identify a computer’s physical and virtual location in cyberspace) as the would have thought, probably beyond their key to blocking access is flawed. Why? Because knowledge. IP addresses aren’t passports, and can’t be relied Senator GREIG (Western Australia) on to locate someone in cyberspace. Some ISPs— (12.19 p.m.)—Some of what I would argue is Internet service providers— the nonsensical debate that we have heard will issue IP addresses that indicate the computer thus far reinforces for me what I firmly be- is located in the US when in fact it’s in Australia, lieve is the nonsense of the bill itself. For while some corporations find it expedient, par- that reason I am opposed to this collection of ticularly if they’re a multinational, to do the same. amendments—and I am not sure whether at There’s nothing sinister about it. The internet just this point in time Senator Brown has offi- works that way. cially removed his amendment from the gov- Encapsulated there in part is an argument to ernment. He has indicated that he might be which I would adhere: the conflict between prepared to do that. trying to pin something firmly on cyberspace Senator Brown—No, I am not. and trying to pin something firmly on geog- Senator GREIG—So he is not prepared raphy is a nonsense. Senator Harradine to do that. In essence, where I am coming raised another good point, and there has been from personally, in terms of my philosophi- some media on this: American indigenous cal approach to the bill, and from a techno- peoples, in a zone colloquially known as logical point of view, is that, even if I were to Mohawk Nation, provide an enormous range support the notion that online gambling of online services, including online gam- ought to be banned—and I do not support bling. They are perfectly entitled and em- that—then I could not argue in any credible powered to do that. Nothing can prevent way that it was technologically possible. those people from providing that service Senator Harradine has been arguing this af- anywhere in cyberspace. Therefore, it can be ternoon about the possibilities and probabili- accessed anywhere from within cyberspace, ties of physically arresting somebody who including here in Australia. So, even if we might be coming to Australia if they were were to succeed in prohibiting and banning involved in providing an online gaming online gaming services being produced from service to Australians here within our shores. within Australia, we cannot ban them from But the point is: they need not set foot in the being produced within Mohawk Nation. Any country to do any of this. The Internet chal- problem gambler—and the theory is that this lenges, probably for the first time in any real bill is targeted at problem gamblers—can get sense, our notion of geography, in that cyber- online and find those services readily. space does not have a physical location. You There has been an unspoken agenda here cannot pin it down. that somehow online gaming services are One of the fundamental flaws in the bill being foisted or advocated or promoted to for me is the notion that, whereas the gov- Australians, and there is certainly truth in ernment is arguing that we ought to censor— that. But, even if you were able to com- we ought to prohibit—online gambling, that pletely prevent that, and I do not believe it is fundamentally misses the first in-principle technically possible, anyone with a com- question which is: can you do it? The most puter—including Senator Allison, sitting damning indictment of the proposed legisla- next to me with her laptop—could go into tion, as argued by Mr Josh Gliddon, an IT Yahoo, Google, Dogpile or any other agents writer with the Bulletin magazine and to that can be accessed to surf the net and sim- whom I referred in my speech in the second ply type in ‘online gaming’. A vast range of 25354 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 addresses would appear, and the gambler, minister raised the suggestion earlier in his simply with the click of a mouse, could ac- contribution that the online services bill had cess that site and be whisked off to cyber- been a success but went on to say, in com- space to play to their heart’s content. You plete contradiction to that claim, that of the cannot prevent a search engine from list- millions of pornography sites available on ing—much like a library—an online gaming the world wide web, only a tiny percent- service. That is not advertising. age—I think he named 10 of many hundreds It is also a fact that there is an unspoken of thousands, if not millions—have been agenda in part of this debate which suggests frustrated by the online services ban. that you can readily identify an online casino Interestingly, the American Express com- and that, once you have identified it, you can pany—the credit card firm—tried recently to attempt to prohibit it or to frustrate it. The ban payments to online pornography sites in reality is that online casinos can easily America. Again, that was frustrated and change their banking identity; in fact, many completely overridden by the brown paper already use third-party online financial set- bag account process, which could be and tlement services. I would argue, therefore, would be used for online gaming. There is a that online casinos can and will open up serious problem gambling issue here in Aus- seemingly unconnected financial identities to tralia—I acknowledge that; I have been process the financial transactions of gam- aware of it for some years and I do have a blers if that idea were to gain momentum in very real concern with it—but, as Senator Australia or elsewhere. The process is known Bishop has articulated, the problem is over- as brown paper bagging, where you simply whelmingly related to poker machines at situ launder your processes through a third party. sites and at casinos. How we can address that I am speaking hypothetically, but you may is unclear, but clearly the government is un- have an online gambling service in Vanuatu. willing to even think about it. At the same If, in the very unlikely event the Vanuatu time it purports to have a sophisticated way government banned online gaming from of addressing the issue of online gaming, within its jurisdiction, the online gaming which I accept at this stage is played by very service would simply remain in Vanuatu, few people. It is something which may grow calling itself, say, Acme Consulting Services. exponentially, but I believe strongly that the It could process its administrative and finan- only way you can address that is through cial arrangements through Acme Consulting education and regulation, not prohibition. Services, and we in Australia would be none Principally and philosophically, I am say- the wiser. ing that, while I oppose the notion of prohib- It has been suggested by some people that iting online gambling per se, I also strongly the catch in that would be that the banks that believe that technically it is impossible. It administer credit cards would be able to ac- could only work as suggested by the gov- knowledge or in some way monitor credit ernment and some other senators if it were to card transactions to gaming services regard- operate similarly to extradition treaty pro- less of what their name might be. I sought posals. For example, following the recent clarification on that point from the Australian case of Mr Konrad Kalejs, we now have an Banking Association. They confirmed unre- extradition treaty with Latvia such that, if servedly that that is not possible, and that it Latvia should seek extradition treaty from is not done. Everybody with whom I have somebody in Australia for a criminal matter, sought consultation on the technical possi- we can extradite them, and vice versa. We bilities of this bill—whether it be the Internet cannot do that with Cambodia. We have no Industry Association, Electronic Frontiers, extradition treaty with Cambodia. some colleagues who work in Internet serv- So it is with online gaming. Theoretically, ice providing agencies, Reynolds Technol- if Australia were to ban online gaming and, ogy or Harvest Road—have all said to me theoretically, if Canada were to ban online that the bill is fundamentally flawed on tech- gaming, then there might be an opportunity nical grounds, if not other grounds. The to prohibit online gaming between those two Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25355 places. There would be a spirit of coopera- meeting yesterday—that is, that the Senate tion. Having said that, Canada have made it sit tonight to finish this list of programs. This very clear that they will do no such thing; motion is to give it precedence so that, if the they have a much more sensible approach to clock gets to 12.45 p.m. and we have not the Internet. But, under that theory, it still finished dealing with government business means that if it were possible for an Austra- notice of motion No. 3, we will continue to lian gambler to be prevented from gambling do so until it is resolved. online in Canada, they could still do so in Question resolved in the affirmative. Vanuatu, in the Canary Islands, in any number of the states in the USA—name the Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western country. To that end, the bill itself is funda- Australia—Manager of Government Busi- (12.33 p.m.)—I move mentally shallow and tokenistic. ness in the Senate) government business notice of motion No. 3: So these two amendments that have popped up early in the debate in this com- That on Thursday, 28 June 2001: mittee stage—one that purports to prohibit (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 a.m. online gambling, in essence, and, subsequent to 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to adjournment; to that, one that proposes a method of doing (b) consideration of general business and that through credit card facilities and banking consideration of committee reports, arrangements—are both, in my view, funda- government responses and Auditor- General’s reports under standing order mentally flawed for technical reasons. That 62(1) and (2) not be proceeded with; will be my consistent argument throughout this debate as a whole, so I do not propose to (c) the routine of business from 7.30 p.m. till the adjournment shall be government repeatedly go over that as each amendment is business only; raised. Having put my position on record, I indicate and state strongly that that is my (d) divisions may take place after 7.30 p.m.; position on the bill as a whole. Later on I and will be supportive of further amendments (e) the question for the adjournment of the that do aim to seriously address the issue of Senate shall not be proposed till a motion for the adjournment is moved by poker machines in Australia which, I argue, a minister. is the key fundamental issue of problem gaming in the nation. I would like to very briefly address this motion and make some undertakings in relation Progress reported. to it. The government has a number of bills BUSINESS that it wants to complete prior to the ad- Hours of Meeting and Routine of Business journment of the Senate for the winter recess. Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western They are: the bill that is currently before the Australia—Manager of Government Busi- Senate in the committee of the whole—that ness in the Senate) (12.31 p.m.)—I move: is, the Interactive Gambling Bill 2001; the new business tax system package of bills, That government business notice of motion upon which there has been agreement among No. 3 have precedence over all government busi- all senators that it will be dealt with at the ness orders of the day from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2 p.m. today. 12.45 p.m. timeslot; the migration legislation amendment bill; the Health Legislation Senator Brown—Would the Clerk be so Amendment (Medical Practitioners’ Qualifi- good as to read out that notice of motion, cations and Other Measures) Bill 2001; the please? Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Senator IAN CAMPBELL—Senator Bill 2001; the Taxation Laws Amendment Brown, I will give you a short explanation. Bill (No. 2) 2001; the Broadcasting Legisla- The motion is that government business notion Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001, which I tice of motion No. 3, which is the motion believe is now supported by all senators as a that refers to the government’s proposal for non-controversial piece of legislation to be sitting hours tonight, take precedence. This dealt with at 12.45 p.m; the Innovation and was discussed at the leaders and whips Education Legislation Amendment Bill 25356 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

2001; the Higher Education Funding this evening, we indicate that we would sus- Amendment Bill 2001; the Taxation Laws pend the sittings and resume tomorrow after- Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999; and there are noon after the Senate has completed its role some messages from the House of Repre- in the swearing in of Australia’s new Gover- sentatives in relation to child support, dairy nor-General. I indicate and commit to that produce, the ANZFA Amendment Bill, the being the way the government would like to environment protection bill, and superannu- proceed with its program between now and ation contributions. We are also looking for the adjournment of these sittings. I commend agreement in relation to the Alcohol Educa- this motion to the Senate. tion and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001. Senator CARR (Victoria) (12.37 p.m.)—I Has that one gone to a committee? move: Senator O’Brien—It is going to a com- Omit paragraph (e), substitute: mittee. (e) the question for the adjournment of Senator IAN CAMPBELL—Right, so the Senate shall be proposed at we will not be seeking to deal with that to- 12 midnight. day. That sounds like a long list of bills, but a The government has just outlined its view as number of them are non-controversial and to what the legislative program shall be for there has been agreement, particularly in the day. From my reading of the govern- relation to some of the messages, to handle ment’s motion, the government has effec- them in an expeditious fashion. For example, tively suggested to us that we need to con- I have it from Senator Robert Hill, the Min- sider 16 bills today. ister for the Environment and Heritage, that I suppose you could argue that this inevi- the environment bill, in particular—which I tably happens on the last day of a parlia- understand Senator Brown has an interest mentary session; that is, that we are asked to in—would be brought on only if there were consider a very heavy workload in so far as broad agreement that it would be dealt with the legislative program—in this case, 16 in a non-controversial style. Senator Brown separate pieces of legislation to be consid- is indicating that that is highly unlikely ered in one day. But, on top of that, we have which is, of course, a huge surprise. a situation where a considerable amount of Therefore, the situation is that the gov- the day’s business is to be allocated to con- ernment would like to see these bills com- sideration of the government’s legislation on pleted by no later than midnight tonight. broadcasting and the proposition that was However, government business notice of before the Senate chamber with regard to motion No. 3 standing in my name ensures Internet gaming. We have to ask ourselves that the Senate would only come to adjourn- why it is that we find ourselves in this situa- ment on the motion of a minister. Our un- tion. This is in the context whereby this op- dertaking to the Senate, and the commitment position has agreed to an additional 150 we have given to all honourable senators in hours of government business time over the discussions on this issue, is that if we com- course of the parliament. I again draw to plete the list of bills I have just read out we your attention that, if we assume that is 15 would adjourn at that time. If that is prior to hours a week, that it is the equivalent of 10 midnight, it would make everybody in the parliamentary sitting weeks to consider gov- chamber and everyone else happy, I am sure. ernment business. That is an extraordinary But if, for example, we were near to the con- amount of time in anyone’s language. clusion of the final piece of business as the This matter comes up every time we come clock neared midnight, we would seek dis- to this period, and it was addressed by the cussions with leaders and whips of all the opposition in discussions with the govern- parties and the Independent senators to look ment earlier this week. We actually asked at extending the sitting of the Senate to a how we were going with the legislative pro- reasonable hour beyond midnight. If it were gram and, in particular, what was happening clear that the program is such that it simply to the money bills and other bills that have would not be concluded at a reasonable hour start-up dates at the beginning of the finan- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25357 cial year. The opposition has been mindful of opposition has to give and give in terms of the responsibilities of an opposition and we additional hours, but the government does have been particularly mindful of the respon- not seem to be able to discipline its own sibilities of the government to ensure that members as to their responsibilities in being there is reasonable consideration of the leg- mindful of the limited hours that are avail- islative program in such a way that money able. We in this place know that there is a bills with this particular starting date are not capacity for the Senate to fill whatever time held up. I think the opposition has been ex- is available if discipline is not imposed. And traordinarily generous in the way in which it year after year we see this government get has approached this. It has been very reason- worse in its capacity to manage the pro- able and very responsible. But now we are gram—that the more time you give the gov- asked to agree to a proposition to essentially ernment the more time it takes. sit, as the government suggests, to all hours We put to the Democrats—and I under- tonight. We are told that the government un- stand that they may well be committed to derstands this to mean that, come 12 o‘clock support the government on this issue—that tonight, we will have a bit of a discussion there has to be consideration at some point about whether or not we extend, and it was about how much time is actually given to the then said that, if that does not meet the government. My view is that if at 12 o’clock agreement of the chamber, we will sit again the government still needs more time, then it tomorrow and presumably next week. is reasonable to consider it at that stage. But One presumes that, at some point, there there has to be a limit. I think you will find has to be consideration of when we finish, that there is a great deal more attention paid but the point I am trying to raise is: is it not to the clock if there is a limit imposed now. appropriate that the disciplines of the cham- The problem we have is that the government ber be applied to all senators? Is it not rea- says, ‘Trust us’— sonable that all senators be mindful of their Senator O’Brien—What did they do last responsibilities with regard to consideration time? of government business and opportunities being made available to express your views Senator CARR—In the last parliamen- on pieces of legislation? I take the view that tary session we sat around until 4 o’clock in it is a principle that applies on both sides of the morning cooling our heels because the the chamber. That is why I am suggesting government was wanting to get messages that there needs to be a definite cut-off point backwards and forwards between the cham- for consideration of the legislative program, bers and did not have the wit and wisdom to and that 12 o’clock tonight is not an unrea- organise its program in such a manner that sonable point at which to say that enough is the legislative program was dealt with in a enough. We all understand that, within that reasonable way. My proposition to the Sen- context, if a majority is available on the floor ate is this: the opposition has bent over of this chamber, then of course the hours can backwards to facilitate a reasonable consid- be extended. No-one is denying that basic eration of government business. What we are fact of legislative life. now saying is that there has to be a measure put on this government to enforce discipline What I am suggesting is that, if Senator on both sides of the chamber. To date, that Alston feels it necessary to attack opposition has been lacking. senators and, in the most provocative manner, seeks to ridicule and abuse members of Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) the opposition, those disciplines that apply to (12.44 p.m.)—The Democrats have consid- me or any other senator should apply to ered the proposal put forward by the gov- Senator Alston. We have seen a quite ex- ernment and that put forward by the opposi- traordinary lack of discipline by this gov- tion. While we are in agreement that we ernment when it comes to consideration of would like to see as much of the govern- its own legislation. I think there are double ment’s program go through in the time al- standards here. We have been told that the lowed—except possibly the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill 25358 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

2001, but we understand that that will not go the order of the day relating to the Broadcasting very far—we also take the point of the oppo- Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001, sition that Senator Alston—certainly from and second reading speeches only on the follow- every comment I have heard from the Demo- ing bills: crats sitting in the chamber—has not been No. 4Migration Legislation Amendment (Immi- particularly helpful. We would recommend gration Detainees) Bill 2001, to him that he becomes helpful. While we No. 3Passenger Movement Charge Amendment will be supporting the government, I think I Bill 2001, am right in pointing out that contingent no- No. 5Health Legislation Amendment (Medical tice of motion No. 3 would actually allow us Practitioners’ Qualifications and Other Measures) to consider the adjournment at any point. I Bill 2001, and would be interested in hearing whether or not No. 12 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) that is correct. If Senator Alston takes notice 2001. of the advice that he is getting from senators NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM around the chamber and if we start this off (CAPITAL ALLOWANCES) BILL 2001 after lunch in a very cooperative manner, we ought to get through it an awful lot faster. As NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM it stands, we will be agreeing with the gov- (CAPITAL ALLOWANCES— ernment. TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL) BILL 2001 Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.46 p.m.)—In that cooperative mood, I NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM look forward to Senator Alston supporting (SIMPLIFIED TAX SYSTEM) BILL 2001 my amendments. I raise the point that, if we Second Reading adjourn at midnight but further legislation Consideration resumed from 26 June, on still needs to be dealt with tomorrow, why motion by Senator Ian Macdonald: can’t the Senate utilise the hour and a half before the swearing-in takes place tomorrow That these bills be now read a second time. morning? Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Robert Ray—We have to set the Bills read a second time. chamber up. It is going to take three or four In Committee hours, apparently. The bills. Senator Faulkner—We thought about it. Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Senator HARRADINE—So the Senate (12.49 p.m.)—The Australian Democrats has to be set up? support these bills. Senator Robert Ray—Apparently. Bills agreed to. Senator Faulkner—We are always being Bills reported without amendment; report set up in here. adopted. Senator HARRADINE—I think we are Third Reading being set up. Bills (on motion by Senator Ian Camp- Amendment not agreed to. bell) read a third time. Original question resolved in the affirma- BROADCASTING LEGISLATION tive. AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2001 Government Business Second Reading Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) Debate resumed. agreed to: Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- That the following government bills be consid- tralia) (12.51 p.m.)—The Broadcasting Leg- ered from 12.45 pm till not later than 2.00 pm islation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 today: amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 No. 11 New Business Tax System (Simplified and the Radiocommunications Act 1992. The Tax System) Bill 2000 and 2 related bills, opposition does not oppose the bill, although Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25359

I would like to make a few comments with to-air stations from effectively multichannel- respect to various parts of the bill. The bill ling. was referred to the Senate Environment, The pay television industry had no objec- Communications, Information Technology tions to the use of demonstration loop tapes and the Arts Legislation Committee last in these circumstances, and they have a month. The Labor senators’ report to the vested interest in preventing multichannel- committee noted one area of deficiency in ling. The industry, however, did express con- the bill that we thought required amendment, cerns about the existing provisions of the and so recommended. It is satisfying that the bill. In our minority report, Labor senators minister has circulated an amendment to that indicated that the opposition would support effect and that it has been picked up in the amendment of the bill to allow the free-to-air House. There are four different areas that the commercial networks to seek an exemption bill amends in the Broadcasting Services from the HDTV simulcast provisions to al- Act: firstly, time shifting, high definition TV low the broadcast of a 30- to 60-minute broadcasts; secondly, the content of HDTV demonstration loop tape only. The govern- advertising; thirdly, allocation of additional ment has decided to move an amendment to commercial television licences in under- remedy that deficiency, and it went through serviced remote or regional markets; and, the House last night with opposition support. fourthly, antisiphoning arrangements. One final point I would like to raise is the The bill also corrects some anomalies cre- government’s failure to take the opportunity ated by amendments made by the Broad- of including in this bill an amendment to the casting Services Amendment (Digital Televi- Broadcasting Services Act to remedy the sion and Datacasting) Act 2000 and amends datacasting regime. The government’s can- the Radiocommunications Act 1992 in rela- cellation of the datacasting spectrum auction tion to the issue of apparatus licences. The last month was a humiliating admission that main area of contention that we identified in no-one wants to buy spectrum to offer the our minority report to the inquiry is the time datacasting services that the government cre- shifting arrangements. The proposed ated and defined in last year’s Broadcasting amendments are intended to allow the broad- Services Amendment (Digital Television and cast of suitable demonstration HDTV content Datacasting) Act. The government’s regime during the trading hours of HDTV retail was so restrictive that it was unworkable, and outlets. As discussed in our minority report, no-one in the industry wanted to offer data- these amendments do not meet the needs of casting. their principal intended beneficiaries, the commercial free-to-air television networks. I have a couple of questions for Senator Alston on this point, which my colleague Mr The act presently allows the networks to Smith foreshadowed in the House. Firstly, engage in limited time shifted programming does the government still regard datacasting in relation to promotional SDTV content, but as being part of the 1998 digital TV frame- there is no similar provision for HDTV. All work, and is the government still committed HDTV material is required to be simultane- to the 1998 parliamentary framework? Sec- ously broadcast in both the SDTV and ana- ondly, if so, what does the government pro- log formats. The commercial television net- pose to do in terms of amending the data- works sought an amendment from the gov- casting regime to make datacasting viable? If ernment to allow the broadcast of a 30- to the government is no longer committed to 60-minute HDTV demonstration loop tape. the parliamentary framework then the oppo- The bill only allows the broadcast of a sition seeks the government’s assurance that HDTV demo loop tape if the commercial it will immediately undertake a public proc- free-to-air networks rebroadcast that tape in ess to ascertain industry views on the future full in the SDTV and analog formats within of digital television and datacasting. The seven days. The reason for requiring the re- implications of these questions are important. broadcast is to prevent the commercial free- Rumours abound that the government has plans for datacasting to become a subscrip- 25360 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 tion based industry. The opposition says that While we understand that there has not been a the parliament is entitled to know what the situation where one licensee wants an additional government’s plans are for the framework licence and the second does not, it is considered that the parliament agreed to in 1998. I ask necessary to remove the anomaly to prevent this the minister to respond to those questions. situation arising in the future. Perhaps licences will be considered more valuable when full digital Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) conversion takes place. The amendment, remov- (12.55 p.m.)—In the interests of speed—and ing the requirement for a joint application for a while I am sure that if I spoke to the chamber second licence, will allow a sole service provide I would immediately sway everybody’s to apply for a licence in their own right. opinion—I seek leave to incorporate my sec- In supporting this amendment, the Democrats ond reading remarks. certainly hope the outcome contributes to addi- Leave granted. tional services being provide to regional, and remote or solus market, and contribute to the di- The speech read as follows— versity of content currently experienced by audi- As we have heard, the Broadcasting Services ences in these areas. Amendment Bill is a bill to amend several sec- Anti-Siphoning Provisions tions of the Broadcasting Services Act. The purpose of the anti-siphoning list is to ensure There is no central theme to the bill, and so I will that the rights to broadcast major and significant discuss the Democrats position with respect to the sporting events, which have traditionally been various measures within the bill. broadcast on free-to-air television, are not ac- The bill amends the BSA to quired exclusively by the pay television sector. • firstly, allow the allocation of additional At the time the anti-siphoning list came into commercial television licences in two-station force, the parliament was of the view that audi- markets; ences should continue to receive the programming for free that they had always had access to. I • secondly, to permit the automatic de-listing am sure the parliament is still unified in this posi- of events from the anti-siphoning list; tion today. Following the debate which led to the • thirdly, to amend the simulcast provision for list’s construction in 1994, the list ended up being high definition television broadcasts, under comprised exclusively of sporting events and are certain circumstances, and those deemed to be the most important and most • lastly, to make minor changes to datacasting. significant, to audiences. Commercial Television Licences Certainly to the free-to-air broadcasters, the rights The Australian Broadcasting Authority allocates to broadcast these events also means to ensure a commercial television broadcasting licences. loyal following of audiences (and that means high Each licence is allocated in a given licence area ratings) and therefore higher advertising revenue. and no more than three licences are allocated for The anti-siphoning list is attached as a schedule to any given area. Licences are also allocated in the BSA and includes events such as the Mel- accordance with the rules relating to cross media bourne Cup, selected Australian Rules Football, and foreign ownership. Rugby League, Rugby Union, Cricket, Soccer, No one licensee is permitted to own more than Tennis, Netball, Basketball, Golf and Motor one licence ion a single licence area. In remote or Sports. regional licence areas, the rules may be relaxed in A pay television operator wishing to televise an order that people in these areas may receive addi- event on the antisiphoning list must wait until a tional service, in order that they may at least be free-to-air network acquires the rights. As there is similar to the services receive in metropolitan no dual rights system, the pay television sector areas. cannot broadcast that event live, unless the free- In solus markets - areas where there is only one to-air network gives its permission. commercial television licence, the licensee may Pay television operators may acquire the rights to apply for an additional licence. In areas where an event if the event is removed from the anti- there are two commercial television licences, the siphoning list. existing licensees must submit a joint application However, events are automatically de-listed one in order for the ABA to grant an additional li- week after the event has occurred. cence. It should also be noted that there is no obligation on the free-to-air television sector to broadcast Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25361 events that they acquire the rights to. There are The amendments before the Senate will mean that also provisions within the Act which relate to events can be removed from the list 6 weeks be- antihoarding. fore the start of an event, unless the minister de- The Australian Broadcasting Authority is cur- clares otherwise. Naturally, at least one of the rently undertaking a review of the anti-siphoning free-to-air broadcasters will have to have been list and is due to report to the Minister on 30 offered the rights to the events before the process June. The Democrats understand that the ABA’s of delisting commences. review does not impact on the amendments to this The Democrats believe this provides enough of a bill, as the ABA’s inquiry relates to the composi- safety measure for the free-to-airs networks. As tion of the list, rather than the process of acquir- was pointed out during the Senate committee ing the rights, as these amendments do. inquiry into the Bill a couple of weeks ago, that While the list currently contains only sporting commercial realities would dictate that the rights events - and most of these male sporting events - to all these events would be negotiated far in ad- it would be nice to see recommendations to in- vance of the six week cut off period. From the clude a greater number of women’s sporting rights-holders point of view, they too would want events, and even events of national significance - the certainty that their event was to be broadcast like the opening of parliament, for example. I’m and that a commercial return would be maxi- sure that is an event everyone in this chamber mised. would think suitably significant. It would even be Certainly from the evidence provided to the encouraging to think that theatrical or cultural committee, I am firmly of the view that no right events were deemed important enough drawcards holders would hold out negotiations, but would by the commercial free-to-air broadcasters to want their event scheduled well in advance, and, have these included on the list too. as I say, to have their commercial returns maxi- The Productivity Commission’s inquiry into mised. Broadcasting, tabled last year, also discusses the Finally, I wish to turn my attention to the amend- anti-siphoning list and related issues. The Pro- ments dealing with high definition television si- ductivity Commission’s report - to which we are mulcasts. The bill allows the free-to-air broad- awaiting the Government’s response - states that casters to broadcast high definition programming, several submissions to it about the operation of which is on a 30 to 60 minutes loop tape” to be the anti-siphoning regime found it cumbersome exempt from the simulcast provisions. and lengthy. The idea behind this motion is to encourage con- The Productivity Commission found that the anti- sumer take-up of digital television by allowing siphoning provisions were anti-competitive and the broadcast of segments of high definition pro- that there were costs across the industry which grams compiled into a loop-tape in order that outweighed the benefits of the list. I’m not sure I consumers can see and compare high definition necessarily agree with this assessment, so I am television with standard digital or analogue tele- pleased to see that at the end of its assessment, the vision. Obviously, such material would not be Productivity Commission agreed that at least suited to broadcast for ordinary programming and some form of regulation is required. therefore the simulcast exemption is required. The Democrats certainly agree with this assess- We have assurances as I will be asking the min- ment. We do not think this is something the in- ister additional questions about this in the com- dustry can, at this point in time, self regulate. We mittee stage, that these amendments will not per- are strongly of the view that regulation is re- mit de-facto multichannelling. The Democrats quired. sought clarification of this issue in our additional I think it is fair to sat in this instance that the comments to the Senate Committee report. The amendments to the BSA in this bill are the Gov- changes the Government has made to the bill in ernment’s response to at least this section of the this regard, making the broadcast of the demon- Productivity Commission report. stration material more clearly defined, so I’m pretty sure that they will not result in any de-facto We should further note, however, that the multichannelling. amendments presented in this Bill relate to only to the de-listing, or removal, of events from the Perhaps this is something the reviews into digital anti-siphoning list. The amendments do not chal- television will examine when the time comes in lenge the existence of the list itself, nor do they three years time. propose any change to the composition of the list. Finally, there is a small amendment changing the Rightfully, these matters are subject to inquiry in definition of foreign language news services in 2003. the datacasting regime to include foreign news 25362 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 and current affairs programming. This means that Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister datacasting service providers, when they eventu- for Communications, Information Technol- ally begin services in Australia, will be able to ogy and the Arts) (12.58 p.m.)—A statutory provide news and current affairs bulletins in for- review of the automatic delisting provisions eign languages. I think this amendment will most is unnecessary because there are several ave- obviously suit the SBS in the immediate term, and possibly other service providers in the longer nues by which any problems with the new term, and therefore the Democrats will support provisions can be brought to the attention of this small change. the ABA or the minister and be fully as- In closing, the Democrats view these amendments sessed. The clear advantage of these avenues as being favourable to Australian audiences and is that they may be employed at any time will monitor closely, the changes to both the anti- rather than be determined by a statutory siphoning list and the HDTV amendments to en- framework that may not be useful or appro- sure that Australian audiences truly benefit. priate. Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister There are two avenues which might be for Communications, Information Technol- called self-help options for affected parties to ogy and the Arts) (12.55 p.m.)—It is a very bring their concerns regarding the operation powerful example set by Senator Bourne, of automatic delisting promptly to the atten- and I find it irresistibly attractive. I will go tion of the minister. Firstly, provisions within one step further. I will not respond in detail the government’s current bill provide for the other than to say that I adopt what Senator free-to-air broadcasters to alert the minister Bishop said in relation to the amendments to any instance where they have not had a for the demonstration loop tapes. I think all reasonable opportunity to obtain broadcast- the other provisions are well understood, and ing rights to a listed event. Proposed subsec- we have obviously considered the Senate tions 115(1AA) and 115(1AB) of the new committee report. As far as Senator Bishop’s provisions allow the minister to override questions are concerned, the government still automatic delisting if satisfied that one or regard datacasting as part of the 1999 legis- more free-to-air broadcasters have been de- lative framework. We are considering op- nied this reasonable opportunity. Affected tions that might be available in the light of parties can also bring any concerns regarding the cancellation of the datacasting option, the operation of the antisiphoning regime to which of course was based on a legislative the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which framework supported by the Labor Party. We is required to monitor and report to the min- will make an announcement in due course, ister on the operation of the BSA under sec- once we have fully considered the way tion 158(n) of the act. ahead. However, the ABA’s functions in relation Question resolved in the affirmative. to the antisiphoning provisions go further. Bill read a second time. The ABA is charged specifically with monitoring the operation of the antisiphoning pro- In Committee visions under a ministerial direction issued in The bill. 1996 under section 162 of the act. This di- Senator BOURNE (New South Wales) rection requires the ABA to report to the (12.57 p.m.)—I have one question for the minister in a timely and comprehensive minister: could he let us know about any re- manner if it considers that the minister view processes? He will have noted that, should be made aware of matters pertaining when the committee considered this bill, I to the operation of the antisiphoning rules. was particularly interested in possible sce- This can include advising the minister of any narios where the new antisiphoning provi- problems arising with the new automatic sions might fall down. I hope they never delisting provisions, including matters would, but they might. If that were to be the brought to the attention of the ABA by the case, could the minister let us know what affected parties. review processes could be undertaken? In addition to these self-help avenues, the ABA’s reporting functions in respect of the Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25363 anti-siphoning provisions mean that the ABA Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (1.02 itself may initiate a report for the minister p.m.)—Whilst the Migration Legislation where it identifies a problem. It should be Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill noted that the ABA is well placed to monitor 2001 is being debated in a so-called non- the provisions in the course of enforcing controversial part of the day, it is anything compliance with the anti-siphoning regime. but non-controversial. I think that point Of course, the minister has discretion to or- needs to be made. As I think would be fairly der a review of the anti-siphoning provisions obvious, anything to do with immigration at any time if it is considered that there may detention in this country at the moment be problems with their operation. For exam- would be clearly labelled as controversial. ple, recently I responded to concerns that Indeed, the fact that it is being debated at this some events on the anti-siphoning list were time should not be seen as an indication that not being shown consistently by free-to-air the Democrats are supportive of the bill be- broadcasters by directing the ABA under cause we are not supportive of the bill. I section 171 of the act to conduct a review of think that point needs to be made clearly as the events on the anti-siphoning list. That well. It is unfortunate in a way that a bill of report is due by 30 June this year. such significance in terms of the principle As I have said, the advantages of these behind it is being rushed through in amongst approaches is that their timing is flexible so many other bills on the final day of the sit- we can respond to any problems as they ting of this session, but that, of course, un- arise. A statutory review of the automatic fortunately, is not unusual either in relation delisting provisions within two years would to bills significant and not so significant. be inflexible and unlikely to prove helpful. The bill as it originally stood sought to The broadcasting rights for many of the introduce a number of provisions with a popular events on the anti-siphoning list are number of new offences. It seeks to intro- held by broadcasters on long-term deals over duce a new criminal offence for detainees many years. For example, broadcasting who manufacture, possess, use or distribute rights for the AFL were recently sold on a weapons or who are found to be in posses- five-year deal. It is also notable that these sion of anything that may reasonably be sus- rights were negotiated more than a year be- pected of being able to be used or intended to fore they actually became available. The be used for the purposes of being a weapon. rights to major sporting events are offered So anything that is perceived as being able to for sale infrequently, and it is unlikely that a be used as a weapon is able to be confis- review within the short span of two years cated, and it is an offence for the detainee to could adequately assess the operation of the possess it. provisions or make useful conclusions about The bill also seeks to increase the maxi- their effectiveness. mum penalty for the offence of escaping Bill agreed to. from detention from two years imprisonment Bill reported without amendment; report to five years imprisonment, bringing that adopted. penalty into line with that outlined for the same offence in the Crimes Act. It also seeks Third Reading to provide extra powers for screening and Bill (on motion by Senator Alston) read a searching people who are visiting detention third time. centres. In its original form it also provided MIGRATION LEGISLATION powers for delegates of the minister to strip AMENDMENT (IMMIGRATION search detainees and people in detention DETAINEES) BILL 2001 centres. I note that that provision of the bill Second Reading has now been removed by amendment in the lower house and introduced separately as a Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion new bill. I think it was introduced in the by Senator Minchin: House of Representatives yesterday. So we That this bill be now read a second time. are not dealing with powers for guards to be 25364 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 able to strip search detainees, and that at and are able to be located, and the system least is a welcome thing. It removes probably functions well. Clearly, detaining asylum the most objectionable part of the legislation. seekers who arrive unauthorised is a punitive Nonetheless, the legislation as it stands is approach. It is deliberately punitive and the still unacceptable to the Democrats for two minister has said many times that it is a pu- key reasons. Firstly, as most Australians are nitive measure to detain people indefinitely, now clearly aware, the operation and running despite the fact that they are not convicted of of our detention centres and the level of or charged with anything and that many of scrutiny and accountability for what happens them are seeking asylum and protection from in our detention centres are clearly inade- persecution. Many of them are recognised as quate, and to pass any legislation which in- such by our legal system and then released. creases the powers in any way of people run- The Democrats oppose the practice of ning detention centres or increases penalties compulsory, mandatory, indefinite, ongoing for detainees is completely inappropriate at a detention of unauthorised arrivals. Therefore, time when our whole system of mandatory we oppose any measures that seek to extend detention, in the Democrats’ view, is being those offences with which people are shown to be clearly not functioning. charged. Despite the Democrats’ opposition The second reason why the Democrats are to detention centres, they exist and will con- opposed to the bill is that it reinforces the tinue to exist in the foreseeable future be- fiction, and unfortunately the widespread cause the policy of mandatory, indefinite, perception, that people who are in immigra- compulsory detention is supported not just tion detention are criminals. By bringing in by the coalition but by the Labor opposition. offences and bringing them into line with Unfortunately, we will have detention centres offences in the criminal code, in the Crimes in their current form until sufficient commu- Act, it reinforces and equates detainees with nity pressure can be built to change that pol- convicted criminals. They are not only not icy. In that circumstance, people who are in convicted criminals; they are not even people detention should be charged with offences if charged with a crime. Unfortunately, a num- they break the law, in the same way as eve- ber of people in the community—indeed, a ryone else in the community should be number of politicians—are now willing to charged, but they should not be equivalent to use the false label of ‘criminals’ to apply to criminals, as the Migration Legislation asylum seekers who are in detention. Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill 2001 seeks to do. We think that is a poor Some asylum seekers are not in detention principle which compounds the poor princi- and some are. Those who arrive on an ple of mandatory detention. authorised visa—perhaps on a student visa, a visitor visa or any other type of visa—and We believe that asylum seekers are not a then seek asylum are able to have their claim threat to be held at bay. They are a group of assessed while they are in the general com- people who should be assessed properly and munity, even after the time frame of their in many cases should not be in detention, and original visa has expired. That occurs fre- the criminal code type provisions should not quently with many people on a day-to-day be applied to people who have not been con- basis without any threat to the community victed of anything. It is worth reminding the and without any general problem. Yet, if Senate that the Human Rights and Equal Op- people arrive without authorisation, they are portunity Commission found in reviewing a detained indefinitely—sometimes for ex- previous case that a detainee had been held tremely long periods, stretching into years— in a remand centre or prison without trial, in part because, supposedly, they are a threat after attempting an escape. That has occurred to the community and will abscond and disin the past and it is on the record and docu- appear into the general community if they mented by the Human Rights and Equal Op- are not locked away. The falsehood of that is portunity Commission. Again, that is an ex- shown by the fact that many asylum seekers ample of how the overall approach to detain- who are in the community do not disappear ees is already overly harsh and punitive. We Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25365 should not be extending penalties even fur- the bill has been put through the Senate rea- ther when the adequacy of our system is sonably quickly. While we are opposed to the clearly not up to scratch. bill, we recognise that both Labor and the There have been any number of allega- coalition support it. We are not seeking to tions of inappropriate treatment of detainees frustrate the will of the parliament by hold- by centre staff and guards. Indeed, there are ing up debate on the bill but, on behalf of the allegations of physical abuse at Villawood Democrats, I indicate our support for Detention Centre in April, which are cur- amendments such as those moved by Mr rently under investigation by the New South Theophanous and that, if there had been Wales police. The government and the oppo- longer debate and the bill had laid on the sition say that there is adequate opportunity table a bit longer, I probably would have cir- for complaints to be investigated by the Om- culated similar amendments. budsman or the Human Rights and Equal The Democrats oppose the bill for the rea- Opportunity Commission. The Democrats sons I have outlined. We welcome the fact believe that there is not an adequate opportu- that the government has taken out the spe- nity, that it is not sufficiently transparent and cific provisions to do with empowering dele- that they are not sufficiently empowered or gates to strip search detainees, although, as I resourced to perform that type of role. said earlier, those provisions are now the In the specific case of people who have subject of a separate bill in the House of made allegations of assault at Villawood, Representatives. If it does come to the Sen- despite the fact that police investigations are ate, the Democrats will oppose that as well at ongoing, there has been application by the a time when we have people across the po- government to deport a couple of those peo- litical spectrum in Australia from human ple before police investigations are complete rights groups, refugee groups and people and the allegations have been fully tested. such as Malcolm Fraser, the Democrats and The government is saying that, if the police even the Labor opposition calling for an in- need the people to stay, they can apply for dependent inquiry into what happens in our criminal justice visas, but they are not the detention centres. It seems incongruous to only ones. My advice is that the Attorney- the Democrats that on the one hand there is General can also apply for those visas. The call for an inquiry into detention centres in Democrats believe that the Attorney-General recognition of the fact that they are not being should do that to ensure that people are in the run adequately and that there is not adequate country until the investigation is complete. It transparency, yet on the other hand we are is not a matter of judging the adequacy of passing legislation to increase penalties their asylum claims; it is a matter of ensuring against detainees. That seems incongruous to that people who allege they have been as- me and is not a desirable approach. In the saulted have the opportunity to have their circumstances, I will leave it at that and put allegations properly investigated and not be on the record again our opposition to the bill. involved in some sort of lottery where it de- Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— pends on whether or not they are able to re- Minister for Justice and Customs) (1.15 main in the country while those investiga- p.m.)—At the outset, I thank all senators who tions are under way, particularly where such have contributed to the debate on this matter. assaults are alleged to have happened when The Migration Legislation Amendment (Im- people are being deprived of their liberty. migration Detainees) Bill 2001 is an integral The Democrats do not support the general part of a range of strategies being introduced principle of the bill. I note the amendments by the government to promote safety and moved in the House of Representatives by security at immigration detention centres. Mr Theophanous, an Independent. Those The measures in this bill will introduce new amendments were supported by the Demo- offences and penalties relating to the behav- crats. I could have moved similar amend- iour of immigration detainees in immigration ments in this chamber and was of a mind to detention centres. It also will provide for do so but, as in the House of Representatives, additional security measures for visitors 25366 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 seeking to enter immigration detention cen- argument. The Migration Act and migration tres. The new offence of ‘manufacturing, regulations are applied fairly and without possessing, using or distributing a weapon’ discrimination as to race or national origin. will address the increasing problem of de- The Kosovars were brought to Australia in tainees fashioning weapons from materials response to a call by the United Nations High obtained within immigration detention cen- Commissioner for Refugees to help alleviate tres. These objects represent a serious danger the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. Australia to detainees, staff and other persons in de- also responded in a similar way for persons tention centres—and some recent examples who were in a similar situation in East Timor of this have given rise to these measures. The in late 1999. increased penalty for escaping from immi- Senator Schacht also referred to the gration detention seeks to provide a more unanimous report of the Human Rights Sub- effective deterrent against escape. Finally, committee of the Joint Standing Committee the security measures for visitors entering on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. A immigration detention centres will seek to great deal has been said about this report and ensure that items that could disrupt the good I will not repeat it here. But what I will say is order, safety and security of those facilities that the Senate should remember that there are not brought in. has been criticism of aspects of this report I would also like to comment briefly on from a wide sector, including members of the several matters raised by senators during the opposition. In fact, I think it was Senator debate. Firstly, there has been some aspect of McKiernan, who has had a longstanding in- mandatory detention of unlawful non-citiz- terest in immigration matters, who expressed ens being raised in this debate—and, al- concerns about some elements of that report. though this is a tough measure, it is a fair I believe that what we have in relation to that one. It has bipartisan support and was first report is certainly not a unanimous view introduced by the Labor government in 1992. across the community. Opposition senators have called for a judicial This is a bill that is needed. It is a fair bill. inquiry into immigration detention and dis- It deals with people who are held in deten- turbances that have been occurring recently. tion for necessary reasons. As I have said, Australia’s immigration detention facilities this has been a longstanding policy and has are already subject to high levels of scrutiny had bipartisan support. It is not possible to and have been the subject of numerous re- equate this sort of detention with the criminal ports. In fact, these reports and inquiries jurisdiction, and I appreciate the comments have included parliamentary committees, the that Senator Cooney made during the course Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Human of this debate. But here we have a situation Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. where people are alleged to have entered Also, there is the Immigration Detention Ad- Australia unlawfully and it is necessary for visory Group, which was established in Feb- them to be detained until their status can be ruary this year and which has unfettered ac- determined—and that is something, as I say, cess to all detention centres in monitoring the which has been the policy of the Australian adequacy and appropriateness of facilities, government for some time. I commend this services and accommodation. Given this high bill to the Senate, and I seek leave to con- level of scrutiny, the government believes tinue my remarks later. that there is no need for a judicial inquiry. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Schacht, during the debate, made some remarks implying that not all persons PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE were treated equally by immigration law and AMENDMENT BILL 2001 policy. He claimed that the only reason the Second Reading Kosovars were granted temporary safe haven Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion in Australia was that they were white, Cau- by Senator Tambling: casian and from Europe. This is not the case, That this bill be now read a second time. and the government emphatically rejects this Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25367

Senator RIDGEWAY (New South day destination. The handful of countries, Wales—Deputy Leader of the Australian mostly in Europe and North America, will Democrats) (1.23 p.m.)—I will be tabling a essentially be the backbone of the tourism number of amendments to the Passenger industry market over the next few years. We Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2001 will all just have to pray that other emerging which we believe are in the best interests of and fledgling markets will continue to grow the Australian tourism industry. The Austra- of their own accord or as a result of the very lian Democrats have worked closely with the hard work of individual operators in the tourism industry, especially the export side tourism industry who continue to promote of the industry, for a number of years. We themselves overseas. appreciate that tourism is our fourth largest I see this as a simply massive opportunity export earning industry, contributing 4½ per that was missed. In September last year, the cent of GDP annually. I think what is often eyes of three billion people were on Austra- forgotten in this debate is that the tourism lia for two weeks during the Sydney Olym- industry directly employs about six per cent pic Games; the value of that international of the Australian work force. In that sense, it attention is virtually incalculable. It was a provides many jobs for young people and once in a lifetime opportunity to build on the particularly for people living in regional ar- momentum brought about by good planning eas. It delivers nearly $13 billion in foreign leading up to the Olympics and what has exchange earnings each year, and of course happened since that time. Yet only a matter that sum is still growing. In fact, the indus- of weeks ago in the 2001-02 budget, the try’s current five million visitors annually is Tourist Commission lost $3 million in sup- set to increase to 10 million by the year plementary funding and is due to lose a fur- 2010, and 20 million by the year 2020. ther $10 million per annum in the 2002-03 This is a phenomenal growth, and it has budget, according to the Tourism Task Force. come about with modest amounts of gov- Perhaps this is something that the minister ernment investment—which is why I want to may consider responding to. talk about this legislation. In fact, the gov- On top of this, the tourism industry learnt ernment has been winding back the amount that it would single-handedly generate the of money it allocates to the international pool of funds to prevent the entry of foot- promotional and marketing side of the in- and-mouth disease into Australia and that dustry, particularly that which is undertaken this would be achieved by the government by the Australian Tourist Commission. increasing the cost of the passenger move- Whilst the ATC’s budget was boosted in the ment charge by nearly 30 per cent to $38 per lead-up to the Olympics last year in Sydney, person. The initiative as proposed by the the commission saw its funding base decline government fails to reflect the impact that as a result of funding cutbacks and, of would have on the tourism industry itself. course, the steep decline in the buying power The rise will reduce Australia’s price com- of the Australian dollar overseas. petitiveness, add additional recovery costs Whilst the government has continued to for airlines and cruise companies and provide claim that the ATC is currently receiving no assistance for the industry to promote record funding, in actual fact when you look Australia’s clean and green image on the at inflation and the value of the Australian back of the initiative. dollar, the buying power itself is actually Whilst the tourism industry is the first to $22 million lower than it was five years ago. acknowledge that it would suffer enormously In effect, it means that the Australian Tourist if Australia’s clean and green image were Commission finds itself in a position of smeared or indeed destroyed by an outbreak having to look at which overseas markets it of foot-and-mouth disease, it does not be- will cease to run promotional campaigns in. lieve it should be the only industry tackling It has had to determine what its absolute core what is essentially an agricultural issue as markets are and where it simply cannot af- much as it is a potential tourism issue. Per- ford to stop advertising Australia as a holi- haps if the government had softened the 25368 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 blow of this tax hike on the industry and al- ure. I think it would also, in the opinion of located a portion of the funds generated from the industry, offset the disadvantages to the the foot-and-mouth prevention scheme to the industry as a result of an increase in the pas- ATC, the Australian Democrats would not be senger movement charge. The Australian seeking to move any amendment, nor would Democrats appreciate that we are not able to we have difficulties in supporting what the amend a bill imposing a tax, as provided by government proposes. section 53 of the Constitution, but we are not However, we know that the Tourist Com- prevented from seeking to move some of our mission currently receives no direct benefit amendments to this bill as a request of the from the passenger movement charge. In government. Perhaps it is something that the fact, a report from the Australian National minister may wish to consider. This is Audit Office states on page 13 that the pas- wholly in accordance with precedents of the senger movement charge is now applied Senate, and our other amendments are there- partly as a general revenue raising source fore in the form of a second reading amend- and is no longer solely linked to cost recov- ment. ery or Customs, immigration and quarantine The Tourism Task Force and the Austra- services. This has been confirmed by the lian Tourism Export Council have both Attorney-General in his answer to a question called on the Democrats to recommend to the on notice, and indeed the Attorney-General government that $15 million of the passenger stated that he is not considering any proposal movement charge be allocated to the Tourist to change these arrangements. Furthermore, Commission to fund its promotional and the Board of Airline Representatives recently marketing budget. That would allow the es- went on the public record with the accusation timated $72 million generated by the gov- that about $20 million in revenue from the ernment’s $8 increase in the PMC to be allo- PMC is not being spent on border control cated to the Australian Customs Service, the services. This is an accusation that does war- Department of Immigration and Multicul- rant further detailed investigation and is a tural Affairs and the Australian Quarantine matter that the Australian Democrats want to and Inspection Service to increase their in- see resolved to the satisfaction of the tourism spections of passengers and their luggage, industry itself. mail and cargo at airports as part of the gov- As I stated earlier, the Australian Demo- ernment’s foot-and-mouth disease prevention crats have been working closely with the measures. peak organisations of the Australian tourism The Australian Democrats will move a industry, and it is their advice to us that un- second reading amendment calling on the derpins the amendments that we seek to Senate to make the collection of the passen- move today. So we call on the Senate to sup- ger movement charge commissionable to port our amendment to schedule 1, section 6 travel agents. The Australian Federation of of the bill, which in essence proposes an in- Travel Agents, the Tourism Task Force and crease in the cost of the PMC from $38 to the Tourism Export Council have all advo- $40. We are advocating this because it will cated this reform measure on the basis that generate an estimated annual revenue of the current regime is overly complex and $16 million which would enable some direct costly. Some overseas travel agents do not financial returns to flow back to the tourism always apply the charge to tickets sold, and industry and the ATC. we believe that efficiency improvements are I am well aware that this is a matter that possible in other areas. Faced with a similar has to be dealt with as a request from the situation, the Singaporean government re- Senate to the House of Representatives, but it cently made the collection of their departure is an amendment that would ensure there was tax commissionable to travel agents. They no watering down of the government’s pro- are already seeing the benefits in a much posed foot-and-mouth program, as the tour- more efficient and effective system. They ism industry appreciates the importance of have also noted an improvement in compli- being able to retain the integrity of the meas- ance figures. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25369

The measures that are addressed in the and-mouth outbreak passes. The minister amendments that the Australian Democrats may wish also to respond to that. The Aus- will move today should have all been ad- tralian Democrats will continue to call for a dressed by the government as part of a long- solution that will make the collection of the term strategy to ensure that we have the most passenger movement charge commissionable efficient and competitive tourism industry to Australian travel agents and will deal with possible. Instead, the government has made a the current inefficiencies in this area. I com- half-hearted attempt to address one issue— mend the Democrats amendments to the foot-and-mouth disease—in isolation of the Senate. I move: needs of the tourism industry itself. Further- At the end of the motion, add: more, the government has sought to address “but the Senate calls on the Government: it a matter of weeks out from the budget being handed down, missing the opportunity to (a) to make the charge commissionable and thereby encourage overseas deal with what I regard as a range of out- travel agents to comply with the standing matters concerning the Australian charge regime; and tourism industry, let alone the question of (b) to introduce legislation allocating a jobs and particularly jobs in regional Austra- further M$15 per year to the Aus- lia. This kind of policy making on the run is tralian Tourist Commission over the not in the best interests of our tourism in- life of the foot and mouth disease dustry and therefore not in the best interests prevention program for the purpose of our economy, let alone the country itself. of marketing measures designed to In tabling these amendments, I put the boost Australia’s image as a “clean government and the opposition on notice that and green destination”. we will be using every opportunity in future Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— to ensure that these outstanding matters are Minister for Justice and Customs) (1.36 addressed. The levels of government funding p.m.)—I thank senators for their contribution to the ATC must be significantly increased in to this debate and also remind the Senate that the immediate future to ensure that we take the purpose of this Passenger Movement full advantage of the amazing opportunity Charge Amendment Bill 2001 is to amend that our tourism industry has before it. The the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to type of coverage that we got during the increase the rate of passenger movement Olympic Games is the type of advertising charge by $8 to $38 with effect from 1 July and marketing that you cannot pay for and this year. This increase was announced by yet we are missing an opportunity to capital- the Treasurer in this year’s budget. It will ise on the way that the image of Australia fund increased passenger processing costs as has been projected abroad. part of Australia’s response to the increased Similarly, the issue of how the govern- threat of the introduction of exotic pests and ment spends moneys in relation to the pas- diseases, particularly foot-and-mouth dis- senger movement charge has been raised ease. again today for that very reason. Transpar- The passenger movement charge, which is ency and accountability as to how these imposed on the departure of a person from funds are spent must be assured. We believe Australia, is collected by airlines and ship- that the Australian tourism industry, which ping companies at the time of ticket sales and generates the money, should reap a signifi- then remitted to the Commonwealth in ac- cant portion of the rewards. These funds cordance with arrangements entered into should not be disappearing into consolidated under section 10 of the Passenger Movement revenue. The tourism industry should be Charge Collection Act 1978. It is worth given some kind of idea about how long the while remembering that this fee is collected government intends to collect tax to fund a by the airlines and shipping companies. Be- foot-and-mouth prevention strategy as well cause of the nature of the airline industry, as some indication of how these funds will where tickets for travel are sold up to 12 be allocated once the possibility of a foot- 25370 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 months in advance the increase will only sociation that cover the rules for the sale of apply to tickets sold on or after 1 July 2001. airline tickets. Under the IATA rules, charges Senators Schacht and McLucas raised and taxes are not commissionable. The Aus- questions about whether all of the $8 in- tralian government does not have the juris- crease in the passenger movement charge diction to require a foreign airline to pay will be spent on increased screening for foot- commission to a foreign travel agent. We and-mouth disease and other exotic pests and would have to rely on the foreign airline’s diseases. The $8 increase is expected to raise cooperation to achieve that and, as has been $279 million over four years. Over that pe- said earlier, that is a matter between the air- riod, the costs of Customs and the Australian line and the travel agent. As an example, in a Quarantine and Inspection Service increasing transaction between a travel agent in Italy quarantine inspections for air passengers who is selling a ticket on Lauda Air, a com- only will be $283 million. So the money pany based in Austria, for travel to and from raised from this will fall some $4 million Australia we would not have the jurisdiction short of matching the cost of quarantine for but would have to rely on the cooperation of airline passengers. All of the increased reve- the travel agent and the airline. That is the nue will be used to offset the costs of Cus- reason why there are international agree- toms and AQIS for increased inspections for ments covering the sale of tickets. No single these airline passengers. It will not be used jurisdiction would be able to cover the de- for mail and cargo inspections—I make that tails of these transactions. clear. There is a high level of compliance by Senator Ridgeway on behalf of the Demo- travel agents under the charge regime. A re- crats raised a number of issues. He raised the cent report by the Australian National Audit question: what will we do with this when the Office indicated the Australian Customs threat of foot-and-mouth has passed? We Service collected 98 per cent of the expected have a program in place for four years and I revenue from the passenger movement believe that is an appropriate period of time charge. There is no evidence that any extra to look at this. We will make a decision as to encouragement is required to increase com- what to do with this measure. The govern- pliance. At that level, you would have to ment, from the information we have from the agree that there is no reason for this. A com- overseas experience and the great threat that mission rate of, say, 10 per cent would cost foot-and-mouth poses to Australia, believe the Australian community around $30 mil- that the course of action that has been taken lion a year. That is $30 million that could not is entirely appropriate. We would reject any be spent on fighting foot-and-mouth disease. assertion that this is a half-hearted attempt at Why would the Australian taxpayer want to dealing with foot-and-mouth. It is the most pay a commission to foreign travel agents comprehensive action taken by any govern- when they do no additional work to collect ment in relation to quarantine at the border. the charge, which is just built into the price As a result of that increased inspection and of the ticket? We would be forgoing that 10 scrutiny there will of course be other effects, per cent which could equate to $30 million including increased rate of detection of illicit that could be spent in Australia on fighting drugs and other prohibited substances. foot-and-mouth. I now turn to the second reading amend- With respect to point (b) of the second ment proposed by Senator Ridgeway on be- reading amendment, I make the point that half of the Democrats. Paragraph (a) of that foot-and-mouth measures will also benefit amendment calls for the charge to be com- the tourism industry. One only has to look at missionable, thereby encouraging overseas the examples overseas, particularly the travel agents to comply with the charge re- United Kingdom. Tourism has suffered gime. The issue of commission is a matter greatly as a result of the crisis with foot-and- between the airline and the agent who sells mouth in that country. The tourism industry the ticket. There are international agreements in Australia has more than a vested interest through the International Air Transport As- in Australia remaining clean and green, and Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25371 in particular free from foot-and-mouth dis- allocation of $361 million over four years, to bol- ease. Foot-and-mouth disease would be ab- ster Australia’s position in the international mar- solutely catastrophic for a country like Aus- ket place. tralia. One can only imagine the nightmare These record levels of Government funding that would develop if foot-and-mouth gained and the ATC marketing performance have deliv- a hold in Australia. In this particular in- ered unprecedented inbound tourism growth. stance, these measures are entirely appropri- A record 4.9 million overseas visitors arrived ate. in Australia in 2000. This is an increase of 11% In bringing about these measures, the gov- over 1999. ernment does not want to make any increase The ATC’s global 2001 strategy includes the any greater than is needed. What was as- launch of over 90 tactical advertising campaigns, worth more than $45 million involving 200 in- sessed as needed was what we have put in dustry partners, promoting holiday packages to place. It was worked out that an $8 increase potential visitors and an aggressive $6 million was appropriate. I believe that there is no direct marketing campaign. reason to increase the amount of $8. That With the appointment of Mr Ken Boundy as increase in the passenger movement charge the new Managing Director of the ATC, the or- will be sufficient for us to maintain an ap- ganisation is very well placed to convert the un- propriate— precedented interest in Australia, after the Olym- Senator Sherry—Can’t you incorporate pics, into visitor arrivals and expenditure. this? We’ve got two bills to go and we want As I said before, and for all of these reasons, to get home tonight. the Government will oppose the Democrats second reading amendment. Senator ELLISON—If the Democrats are agreeable to incorporation, I will seek I commend the Bill to the Senate. leave to incorporate the rest of my speech, Senator ELLISON—I seek leave to con- but I thought Senator Ridgeway wanted to tinue my remarks later. hear from the government on the reasons for Leave granted; debate adjourned. opposing the amendment. I will abide by the HEALTH LEGISLATION chamber’s wishes. I seek leave to have the AMENDMENT (MEDICAL rest of my speech incorporated in Hansard. PRACTITIONERS’ QUALIFICATIONS Leave granted. AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2001 The speech read as follows— Second Reading An outbreak of FMD would be an unprece- Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion dented tragedy for the tourism industry. British by Senator Ian Macdonald: Tourism Authorities estimate foreign tourism revenue losses as high as 3 billion pounds. That this bill be now read a second time. It is only fair that the tourism industry, along Senator LEES (South Australia (1.45 with other sectors, contributes to funding FMD p.m.)—Given the short time remaining and measures which will help keep Australia’s image the need to finish the second reading of this as a “clean and green destination”. bill, I will be brief, but I want to make some Indeed, the total costs of FMD measures well points, particularly about the first item in the and truly exceed what the industry will contribute Health Legislation Amendment (Medical through the PMC increase. Practitioners’ Qualifications and Other The Government is very conscious of main- Measures) Bill 2001. It is really the main taining Australia’s image and reputation as a wel- item dealt with in this legislation, and that is coming and healthy destination for tourists to the sunset clause. I can deal more fully with visit, and this funding measure will contribute to pathology collection centres in the commit- that. tee stage. Let me also say that the Government is fund- I put the sunset clause into this legislation ing the Australian Tourist Commission at record in 1996 to make sure that we could monitor levels. the impact of the new requirement, which The Government has just delivered the fourth was for general practitioners to train as gen- instalment of $91.9 million of the record ATC 25372 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 eral practitioners. All other medical special- although, as I will say later, and certainly at ties have a period of training after basic the committee stage, they are not completely medical school requirements have been met. happy with removing the sunset clause. The In 1996 the government’s wish was to bring Australian Medical Students Association GP training in line with that, and we sup- have lined up with them. The Royal Austra- ported that. Now I would argue it is time to lian College of General Practitioners, the ensure that general practice stays in line with Australian Divisions of General Practice, the that requirement. It is time to ensure that Confederation of Postgraduate Medical Edu- general practice will be in the future treated cation Councils, the GP Registrars Associa- as a specialty in its own right—treated as a tion and the General Practice Partnership specific and important area of medical prac- Advisory Council basically want us to have tice that does need dedicated training. it over and done with and make our decision From the ALP speech in the second read- now. ing debate last night and from their amend- The Democrats’ 1996 amendments en- ments, I understand that the Labor Party sured that today’s debate could actually take want to avoid fully debating this issue at this place—and take place on the basis of an in- time. Their proposed amendments would see formed level of decision making, on the basis the sunset clause extended for yet another of real information being provided. What I year. Basically, they would delay all of this put in that legislation was a medical training and keep everybody happy—keep the AMA review panel. We are very pleased to say that happy—until a convenient time after the next the government has now changed its original election. But I am not quite sure, looking at intent in this new bill and is going to fully what they plan to do, whether people will be support the retention of the Medical Training terribly happy. As I will say in a minute, we Review Panel. From my years as Democrat have been through the various organisations health spokesperson, I think this is one of my interested in this legislation, and most of key achievements. It is essential that we them do want us to make a decision, and know who is being trained, which colleges make a decision now. they are being trained in, how many women Let us go back for a moment to 1996 and are getting opportunities and how many peo- the doomsday predictions that were about ple are training part time. I am not saying it then on the legislative changes. They really is all solved, by any means: there are still did scare many of the young medical stu- problems, and I will deal with those in the dents who were at that stage studying. It was committee stage. Who is training, or who is a scare campaign run by the AMA, and it getting into the colleges, and who is actually very much involved the Labor Party. They passing are issues we still have to deal with. talked of hundreds of unemployed student But I am very pleased to see the way in doctors, of student doctors and doctors hav- which the Medical Training Review Panel ing to work as taxidrivers and of a shortage has worked. of training places. Fortunately, the scare In stark contrast to Labor’s opposition campaign did not work, because the legisla- back then, and now their delaying tactics, the tion got through, but also very fortunately it Democrats have spent the past three years was proved to be nothing more than that—a working with government and industry to scare campaign. None of that has come to encourage proposals which would assist in fruition. Those scare campaigns were com- alleviating problems related to medical work pletely unfounded. force issues. Even more important now is that many of In terms of opportunities for medical those who lobbied us and said to us, ‘Don’t trainees and new graduates to experience pass this legislation’ now have come back to general practice before they make the deci- us and said, ‘We don’t want to go back to the sion as to whether or not they are going to pre-1996 days. We actually want general train in that area, there are opportunities now. practice to be treated as a specialty in its own This is the major stumbling block for the right.’ These organisations include the AMA, AMA. I understand their concerns. We are Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25373 not walking away from this issue; it stays restrictions. These services must already alive under our amendments. But there is a provide close supervision of these doctors; range of opportunities now for new doctors they must offer them support. That is another to experience this. They can go out into the area we will need to come back to in the Rural and Remote Area Placement Program. committee stage. There has also been signifi- That now has 100 places and provides an cant progress on addressing the staffing pres- avenue through which they can have three sures experienced by private hospitals’ acci- months and get GP experience while on ro- dent and emergency units. In negotiations tation from hospitals. This program got $3 with the College of Accident and Emergency million for its implementation and over three Medicine and the Australian Private Hospi- years will involve 20 pilot sites across Aus- tals Association, the government has devel- tralia. It is a link to either rural general prac- oped guidelines for an approved private tice or rural hospitals. emergency department program, and that Secondly, there is the Rural Locum Relief will hopefully be released very shortly. and the Approved Medical Deputising Serv- All of these initiatives contribute signifi- ices programs. These also provide avenues cantly to improving the quality of GP train- through which experience can be gained by ing and reducing doctor shortages. We have new doctors in a rural environment. While tried at all times to work cooperatively with not specifically focusing on providing a sub- government, while keeping a very close eye stitute for postgraduate training, these pro- on what they are doing and the outcomes. grams do allow junior doctors to gain a better We have had some discussions with the gov- understanding of general practice. Concerns ernment regarding this particular piece of have been raised regarding the level of su- legislation and we will be moving a batch of pervision in these programs, and we can ad- amendments. In particular, I am keen to see dress that in the committee stage later. that the Medical Training Review Panel is General work experience placements are formally retained and, with this in mind, that also available, as they are for teachers and is one of the key amendments we propose. for nurses. There are some issues relating to We want to continue a two-year independ- this, and again we can go through this in the ent review of the provider number restric- committee stage, to look at how voluntary tions and require the holding of a junior work can be linked in with the clinics and the doctors summit within three months of the doctors’ practices that are prepared to pro- tabling of the independent review in parlia- vide that. Indeed, I am confident that many ment. This is to be hosted by the panel, and I community health services, small general have amendments dealing with that—pre- practices and community general practices sumably later this afternoon or tonight we will be keen to share their knowledge and will get to those. The Democrats believe that experience with young, or indeed older, it is important to retain oversight mecha- graduates—any new graduates. There is a nisms relating to the provider number re- need to better coordinate this. strictions so as to ensure that there is contin- I am also very pleased to see the govern- ual improvement in the system. We also be- ment’s commitment to the AMWAC longitu- lieve quite strongly that students need to be dinal study of medical graduates’ attitudes to more actively involved in the actual process training and career choices, and that work of planning their futures as fully qualified has also been undertaken on the shortage of doctors. I believe that a junior doctors sum- doctors in 24-hour clinics and deputising mit will alleviate some of the pressure and services. The government has provided $20 the problems that junior doctors are experi- million for reforming general practice with a encing, particularly as many of them feel at view to encouraging practice amalgamations, the moment that they are unheard. That will and we must see this funding continue. be an opportunity for them to have their voices heard. Some flexibility has also been provided in the recruitment by deputising services of We have also gained from the government doctors who are subject to provider number a commitment to actively monitor some of 25374 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 the concerns raised by those in the medical for the pathology sections of this bill, I will industry during the course of the debate over deal with all of that in the committee stage of the provider number legislation. These in- the debate. clude better monitoring of the demand for I just finish my comments by saying that places in the rural and remote area placement we are very pleased to have been vindicated program. I think there could well be an op- in relation to our initial decision to support portunity to expand this. I understand that it this legislation. We are not saying, however, is already facing some vacancies that are that there are not some problems. We still unfilled, but there needs to be better moni- have some way to go before we have any- toring. As well, we are keen for the govern- thing like sufficient doctors in rural areas ment to be actively monitoring the adequacy and, indeed, quite a way to go before we of the supervision arrangements in the Rural have sufficient doctors in many of our outer Locum Relief and Approved Medical Depu- metropolitan general practices. I think we tising Services programs and we will need to should be having a debate as to how the discuss in detail the Labor amendments in minister’s figures are arrived at in terms of this area. We believe, in brief, that a strict actually how many doctors we need in this legislative regime could actually see fewer— country. I suspect the way in which the gov- indeed, in some cases no—doctors available ernment is counting doctors leaves a lot to be and we believe an oversight approach would desired, and I will continue my remarks as achieve a lot more. We are very keen to fa- we get into the committee stage. cilitate better work experience outcomes for junior doctors, as I said, and this will again Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- be dealt with later. tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- ter for Health and Aged Care) (1.58 p.m.)—I The government has agreed to examine seek leave to incorporate my response to with state and territory governments the fea- Senator Evans and Senator Lees and I will sibility of establishing formal structures circulate it to them. which would link those general practices offering to support voluntary work experi- Leave granted. ence placements with the junior doctors The response read as follows— wanting to undertake them. We also would Qualification requirements and the sunset clause support further investigation of the possibil- This bill has two main parts and I will address the ity of direct grants to supervising GP prac- sunset clause to begin with. tices to compensate them for the costs of In debating this bill in the House of Representa- taking on a junior trainee as part of a hospital tives the member for Jagajaga said: rotation. Also I think we need to look at “it is not appropriate for young doctors who are some funding for the hospitals to ensure that not fully registered to have unrestricted Medicare they can release junior doctors—in other provider numbers, as they are still going through words, some compensation—but this will paid training to acquire the full range of skills that need to be negotiated with the states and ter- they need as a specialist or general practitioner. ritories. I take this to mean that the opposition agrees that In summary, we will be supporting the full the provider number restrictions have improved removal of the sunset clause—not delaying the quality of general practice in Australia. The this debate again, but making it clear that we removal of the sunset clause will support this do not want to risk at all going back to the improvement. pre-1996 days of general practice basically The negative impacts that were anticipated to being a situation where you could go and arise from the provider number restrictions have hang up a shingle without any specialist not been realised. However, this government will continue to rely upon the medical training review training. Given the timing of a potential panel to monitor and report on postgraduate election, to see this legislation not dealt with training. The panel’s operation will continue to be in this sitting was also a considerable risk—a funded and it will continue to publish its reports. risk that we may never have got to the sunset One of the most significant fears that doctors had clause before we actually had it lapsing. As at the time that legislation was introduced was Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25375 that they would not be able to get access to post- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE graduate training places. Goods and Services Tax: Rulings The reports of the Medical Training Review Panel and the independent midterm review of the legis- Senator MURPHY (2.00 p.m.)—My lation have provided much needed data about the question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Sena- structure of the medical workforce and have tor Kemp. Can the minister inform the Sen- shown that for the past few years, growth in the ate when vital GST rulings on long-term number of available training places has meant that leases, exporting services and the importa- more places than ever are available. tion of intangibles will be made public by the In 2000 a number of specialties, including reha- tax office? bilitation medicine, geriatric medicine and inten- Senator KEMP—I thank Senator Mur- sive care, were unable to fill all available training phy for this question. Senator Murphy al- positions. These figures undoubtedly demonstrate ways shows a great interest in tax office that there are more postgraduate training places than there are medical graduates. matters. Sometimes he gets it right and sometimes he gets it wrong. The reality is that some specialities are more attractive than others but the Australian community Senator Robert Ray—You’ll be able to needs access to appropriate numbers of graduates say when you find your brief. from all specialities. Senator KEMP—I have now found my Long term projects such as the bonded scholar- brief, Senator Ray. ships, new clinical schools and the rural and re- Senator Robert Ray—I was trying to mote general practice program will give doctors incentives to become familiar with rural practice. help you. The qualification requirements are a key part of Senator KEMP—Thank you very much. this package. This incentive to new graduates to That would be the first time you have ever seek postgraduate general practice or specialist tried to help, Senator Ray. That is certainly training will encourage them to acquire the skills welcome. I do not know whether one can to work independently. The government believes interpret from that that goodwill is breaking that this package of incentives creates the envi- out all over. I rather doubt that, to be quite ronment for more Australian doctors to voluntarily take up the challenge of rural general practice. frank. Pathology Senator Murphy’s question touches on a number of articles which have appeared in To sum up the amendments relating to pathology in this bill, the new arrangements will introduce a the newspaper. There seem to be four areas national system of approvals of specimen collec- of concern: sale of businesses, long-term tion centres under the MBS arrangements that leases, importation of intangibles and ex- applies to both the public and private sectors and: porting services. The commissioner has is- is fair and open and encourages competition; sued private binding rulings to entities who have sought clarification on how the GST allows for controlled growth; law applies to arrangements in this area. introduces requirements around quality collection Senator Murphy, you are looking puzzled. It services and facilities that have been developed is all right. The commission has issued a by the pathology profession and will be overseen by the health insurance commission; number of major rulings clarifying issues in this area. I want you to listen very carefully, offers a three for one incentive to APAS that Senator, because I am worried about your choose to set up collection centres in rural and remote areas; and supplementary question. It may be covered in this answer. does not affect collection services operated by recognised hospitals on their premises. Nor does After extensive consultation with industry, it affect community based collection centres for the final version of draft ruling GSTR public pathology services 2001/D2, issued on 28 February 2001, con- I commend this bill to the Senate. cerning when supply of a going concern is Senator TAMBLING—I also seek leave GST free, will be issued in July 2001. An- to continue my remarks later. other ruling, GSTR 2000/16, issued on 7 June 2000, addressing transitional arrange- Leave granted; debate adjourned. 25376 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 ments for GST-free supplies under existing Senator KEMP—I was worried that arrangements, included leases. GSTR Senator Murphy would not listen to the po- 2000/31, issued on 30 June 2000, dealt with lite, courteous and very detailed response I supplies connected with Australia and ad- gave to his question. Let me make it clear. dressed issues related to imports and exports. The tax office and the government wish to Honourable senators interjecting— make sure that, in every possible circumstance, we provide certainty to business. Senator KEMP—Madam President, I Where there are particular issues, the ATO is thought the question from Senator Murphy addressing these as a matter of priority. was an important question. I would appreciate a bit of silence so that I can provide that Taxation: Government Policy answer to him. Senator GIBSON (2.06 p.m.)—My ques- The PRESIDENT—There is a lot of tion is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator background noise in the chamber. Rod Kemp. Will the minister inform the Senate of the taxes that the government has Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam reduced or abolished? Is the minister aware President. I am not surprised that the Labor of any alternative policies? Party does not show much interest in Senator Murphy’s question, but I get a bit worried Senator KEMP—I thank my colleague when my own side loses interest! The ATO Senator Gibson for that very important ques- has established a number of industry partner- tion. Senator Gibson has established a repu- ships to address priority issues identified by tation in this chamber, and quite correctly, as peak bodies. In particular, the work through one of the harder working senators and one the property and import-export industries has who takes a particular interest in these mat- identified a number of complex issues to be ters. I appreciate the question from him. To addressed. The ATO is currently working on go through the full list would take up much a draft ruling, expected to be issued in of question time. As there are two parts to August, on the export of goods. The com- this question, I will highlight a number of missioner also proposes to issue a draft rul- issues and then return to alternative policies. ing in September which will address a num- One of the more important measures that I ber of issues related to ‘supply of things would highlight is the largest income tax cuts other than goods or real property for con- in Australian history. sumption outside Australia’. Senator Hill—$12 billion. This government is very conscious, as is Senator KEMP—Some $12 billion. the tax office, of the need to provide cer- Opposition senators interjecting— tainty. The transition to a new tax system always poses particular challenges. I hope Senator KEMP—The Labor Party of that the answer I have provided to Senator course jeers and carries on. We would like a Murphy assists him. I am not sure it does, guarantee from the Labor Party that those tax cuts will be protected if, by some mischance because he looks a bit confused. of history, the Labor Party gets elected at the Senator MURPHY—Madam President, I next election. Of course, we are all aware of ask a supplementary question. I note the the very big assistance that has been given to minister’s response. Minister, can you con- self-funded retirees, particularly the meas- firm that many business tax changes, in- ures in the last budget, such as the aged per- cluding the simplified tax system, the unified sons bonuses. Another area of great impor- capital allowances system, the thin capitali- tance has been the cutting of the tax rate on sation rules and a new test to distinguish debt companies, which would be particularly wel- from equity are due to commence in a few comed by small business. The cut was from days? Why is it that, with the GST about to the 36 per cent we inherited from Labor to celebrate its first birthday, consumers and 30 per cent under this government. businesses are still having to cope with complex administrative changes and delayed We would like, and small business would rulings from the tax office? like, assurances from the Labor Party— again, if by some mischance of history they are elected to government—that those tax Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25377 elected to government—that those tax cuts TaxPack would be protected. The abolition of the fi- Senator HOGG (2.11 p.m.)—My ques- nancial institutions duty is also particularly tion is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treas- welcomed. The tax cuts that have been deliv- urer. Can the minister confirm that the tax ered by this government mean more money office has been forced to have a one-page in the pockets of Australian workers and double-sided flyer inserted in the 2001 Tax- pensioners. In fact, since 1996 Australia’s Pack, in order to correct errors in the printed lowest paid workers have enjoyed an 8.8 per version? Is it also true that two flyers distrib- cent increase in real wages. Contrast that uted widely at tax time for retirees and veter- with the previous government! This is a great ans pension recipients have had to be pulped achievement. and reprinted at a cost of $143,674? Can the Recently, Mr Chris Murphy, the producer minister responsible for tax administration of the famous Murphy model, has produced guarantee that there are no further mistakes some very interesting data on this issue. He in the 2001 TaxPack? has shown that, taking the GST into account, Senator KEMP—We always get a ques- the consumer price index has increased by tion from the Labor Party on the TaxPack. six per cent since July 2000, but people’s Sometimes it is asked by Senator Schacht average take-home pay has increased by 8.2 and sometimes it is asked by you, Senator per cent. So it is 8.2 per cent in contrast to Hogg. Let me share with you some informa- six per cent. Unfortunately for the Australian tion on this matter. First of all, surveys show public, there is a mixed bag of alternative that TaxPack users are quite confident of the policies that are putting at risk these gains for information and the way the TaxPack is Australian taxpayers. As the time is running structured, and they find it easy to use. Tax- out, I wonder whether I could have a sup- Pack 2000 continued the success of the pre- plementary to deal with some of these issues, vious TaxPacks, and the following results Senator Gibson. from the post-implementation surveys of Senator GIBSON—Minister, I would be TaxPack 2000 confirm the continued accep- pleased if you would keep elaborating on the tance of the TaxPacks. taxes that have been reduced or abolished, Senator Hogg—I asked about 2001. and the alternative policies which I referred to in my original question. Senator KEMP—You are critical of the TaxPack, Senator Hogg, but it is relevant to Senator KEMP—I am very pleased to note— announce to the Senate that there is a new member of the smallest faction, the truth in Senator Faulkner—No, you’re talking policy faction, of the Labor Party. We were about a different TaxPack. Answer the ques- very interested to hear last night Senator tion. Schacht’s speech where he described the de- Senator KEMP—One is trying to answer mise of death duties—Senator Schacht, you questions. With the Labor Party, you are might be interested in this—as ‘a dreadful subjected to relentless sledging from Senator outcome’ for all governments, who ‘deserve Faulkner. I am trying to provide the informa- to be condemned.’ Hello, the Labor Party has tion that is required. raised the issue of death duties. Senator Opposition senators interjecting— Schacht, a frontbencher, is now a fully paid- The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators up member of the truth in policy faction of know how they should behave in question the Labor Party. It is a small faction but time. nonetheless an important faction. There are other members of the faction: Mr Joel Fitz- Senator Robert Ray interjecting— gibbon has flagged a Labor attack on small Senator KEMP—The goodwill lasted business by promising a shake-up of the un- only a brief time, Senator Ray. It lasted, al- fair dismissal laws and refusing to rule out beit a brief time. As a result of community increases in super contributions. (Time ex- consultations, the Australian Tax Office has pired) continued to make improvements to the lay- 25378 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 out and so-called navigational aspects of Minister, will you inform the Senate why the TaxPack, and the improvements made in the Howard government has placed such a high previous years are continued in TaxPack priority on maintaining the federal budget 2001. The ATO, as a result of its surveys and surplus? What benefits have been delivered as a result of the information it sends out to Australian families in this regard? with the TaxPack, is confident that users will Senator HILL—I am happy to remind be able to understand their entitlements, but the Senate of the contrast between the Labor in cases of residual doubt— Party and the Howard government on this Senator Faulkner—What a joke! particular issue. Labor left us with $80 bil- Senator KEMP—Senator Faulkner’s be- lion of debt from its last five years in office. haviour right through this session has been By contrast, the Howard government has appalling, and it continues to be appalling. produced budget surpluses for five years in a row. Senator Faulkner—Really? Answer the question. It is important to again underline why we have chosen to make sure that we only spend Senator KEMP—Well, I am. I am actu- within our means. Under this government, ally trying to answer the question, but you home loan interest rates are at their lowest are talking all the time. Although I am one levels for almost 30 years. Families with a who is slow to anger—I think that is well home loan of $150,000 are paying $1,000 known in this place—it does make it diffi- less each month under the Howard govern- cult. As I was saying to Senator Hogg, in ment compared to what they were paying cases of residual doubt there are telephone when interest rates hit their peak under La- help lines listed on the inside back cover of bor. This is the contrast: big budget deficits TaxPack, and they will also be of important under Labor meant high interest rates and assistance to taxpayers who may have further bigger monthly repayments for Australian questions and who may not be sure how to families; budget surpluses under the Howard fill out various pages of the TaxPack. government mean lower interest rates, lower Senator HOGG—Madam President, I ask repayments and more money in the pockets a supplementary question. The minister of Australian families. We have shown that failed to answer any of my questions. In par- you can run an economy responsibly and still ticular, can the minister responsible for tax be able to make the investments needed in administration guarantee that there are no areas like health, housing, education, the further mistakes in the 2001 TaxPack? Given environment, defence and so on. But as soon that the minister will not give the guarantee I as you go back into debt, up go interest rates seek, am I entitled to assume that there are again. yet more mistakes in the TaxPack this year? You would have thought that by now La- Senator KEMP—That is an absolutely bor would have learnt its lesson. Next week drippy question, you would have to say. I am is the test: next week—finally—we are going not advised that there are any further errors to see Labor’s first policy, called Knowledge in the TaxPack. Frankly, if I am so advised, I Nation. Labor has been saying that our fully will ask the tax office to give you a personal funded $2.9 billion innovation package is not phone call, Senator, so that you are informed, enough. What we will learn next week from because of your interest in this matter. I have Mr Beazley is how much more money he always regarded you as one of the more po- intends that Labor will spend on Knowledge lite senators and therefore my well-known Nation and, just as importantly, where that restraint has kept me from attacking you but, money will come from. Mr Beazley says he if you continue to behave in that manner, do is not going to spend less; he is going to not count on it in the future. spend more. Where is the money going to Budget 2000-01: Surplus come from? Senator SANDY MACDONALD (2.16 We know from Senator Conroy that Labor p.m.)—My question is to the Leader of the is leaving open the door to bumping up taxes Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. in the old Labor way—a rare moment of Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25379 honesty. We now know that Senator Schacht, facility? Has this project been undertaken a frontbencher on the Labor Party side, wants without proper environmental or noise as- to bring back death duties. We know that Dr sessments, without any cost-benefit analysis Carmen Lawrence is prepared to see the at all, without any financial input from the country go into debt again through savings airport operators or the ACT government, on bonds to fund education—Labor’s latest a strict 10-week timeframe to complete the ‘funny money’ solution. Unless Mr Beazley job and in the knowledge that only four or comes up with some straight answers next five four-engine wide-bodied aircraft a year week, there is only one alternative the Aus- will use Canberra airport? Can the minister tralian people can assume, and that is the old confirm that the reason for this work being way of Labor: higher debt and higher taxes. fast-tracked without proper assessment—the What does that mean for the Australian reason that the Howard government has laid family? It means higher home loan interest out $8.8 million of taxpayers’ money—is so rates, higher monthly repayments, increased the aircraft for the Queen’s royal flight can unemployment— land in Canberra during her visit to Australia for the CHOGM meeting in October? (Time Honourable senators interjecting— expired) The PRESIDENT—Order! The level of Senator IAN MACDONALD—Madam conversation in the chamber is making it President, I am very pleased to be able to very hard to hear. confirm that the airport at the national capi- Senator HILL—I was saying that the tal, the capital of our nation, is being ex- age-old recipe of Labor—high debt and high tended to allow for larger aircraft to land and taxes—leads to higher home loan interest use it. It is an extension which, in the full- rates, higher monthly repayments and in- ness of time, will be of very great benefit to creased unemployment. We will see it all Canberra, the national capital, and to tourism again. After nearly six years in opposition, in this area. It will enhance the standing of all Labor can offer as an alternative to the Canberra, as you would proudly know, coalition is a return to the sort of economic Madam President, as our nation’s capital. management that gave Australia 17 per cent The reason for it being done now is that for a home loan interest rates, one million unem- long time—I think when President Clinton ployed and more broken promises on taxa- came here and when other leaders have been tion. here—it has been a little embarrassing that Senator Schacht interjecting— we have not been able to have the heads of The PRESIDENT—You do not have the state from other governments land at our call, Senator. national capital. Senator Schacht interjecting— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT—You are out of order, The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on and you know it. my left are being disorderly. Canberra Airport: Runway Senator IAN MACDONALD—It is a plan that has been around for some time and Senator FORSHAW (2.20 p.m.)—My I am pleased that the government is pro- question is directed to Senator Ian Mac- ceeding with it. As I say, it will enhance donald, representing the Minister for Trans- Canberra’s standing as the national capital port and Regional Services. and allow foreign heads of state to fly in. In Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— the future it will be of great benefit in bring- Senator FORSHAW—Listen to the ing leaders from other countries directly into question, Minister. You might actually iden- our national capital. tify with it. Can the minister confirm that the Senator Forshaw, you have asked some Howard government is undertaking an $8.8 technical questions. As I recall, either you or million project to widen the runway at the Senator O’Brien raised these questions at privately operated Canberra airport to enable estimates two weeks ago. I am sure that this four-engine wide-bodied aircraft to use this 25380 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 was gone into in some detail. I suspect that at Pensioners: Centrelink Questionnaire the time you were told that there would be Senator BARTLETT (2.27 p.m.)—My some questions taken on notice and that the question is to the Minister for Family and answers would be given to you. I will follow Community Services. Is it the case that over them up for you and if there is anything else 140,000 lengthy Centrelink questionnaires that I can add or that Mr Anderson, the were sent to pensioners three months ago transport minister, can add, we will happily requiring them to disclose their interests in do that. But, Senator, I am sure that you will trusts and private companies? Is it also the be aware that CHOGM is being held in the case that between 40,000 and 50,000 of those capital of my state of Queensland and, of forms are still to be returned, a nonreturn rate course, the Queen and other leaders will be of more than one-third of all forms issued? converging on Brisbane for CHOGM. Did your department include a reply paid Senator FORSHAW—Madam President, envelope for people to send those forms I ask a supplementary question. Can the back? Is it true that people are finding it sim- minister also confirm that during her most ply too complex and difficult a task to an- recent visit to Australia, the Queen’s aircraft swer the up to 90 questions on the forms? Is landed at Sydney airport and the Queen trav- it the case that up to 50,000 Australian pen- elled to Canberra in a RAAF VIP aircraft sioners now face having their pensions can- which can use the Canberra airport without celled because difficulty in completing these any widening works being required at all? If forms has prevented them from completing these travel arrangements were suitable for them correctly and on time? the Queen in March last year, why have they Senator VANSTONE—I thank the sena- suddenly been deemed unsuitable by the tor for his question. It is true that Centrelink government for the Queen’s visit later this sent out a significant number of question- year? You point out, Minister, that she is ac- naires asking people who were receiving tually coming for CHOGM in Brisbane. Why benefits about the control and influence they couldn’t the taxpayer had been saved the might have in the distribution of assets from $8.8 million of wasted expenditure, Minis- trusts and companies. It is a very sad reflec- ter? tion on the Australian community that some Senator IAN MACDONALD—If we are people—not most, but some—will take ad- talking about wasting money, as my col- vice from very good lawyers and accountants leagues point out, you should look at Cen- and will so arrange their affairs in trusts and tenary House and give back some of the companies as to maximise the opportunities money that the Labor Party is stealing from for their family to get welfare benefits, the Australian taxpayer. money that should be going to people who really need it, not to people who can afford Senator Forshaw will know as well as I lawyers and accountants to rearrange their what the Queen’s travel arrangements were assets in such a way as to get welfare bene- last time she visited here and I do not know fits. So, yes, we did send out the question- that that is particularly relevant to the future naires. of Canberra airport. For the future Canberra I have had numerous points raised with does need a better airport. It is the nation’s me about the questionnaires, including the capital and we need to get those bigger air- complexity of them. But the nature of trusts craft in here so that people like the American and companies is that you do not walk into a President and the Indonesian President can delicatessen, as you might when you buy a come into this town. This announcement was Kit Kat, and say, ‘I will have a trust or a made in the context of this year’s budget but company that will allow me to hide my as- relates to money in the current financial year. sets so that I can get welfare.’ Necessarily It has been well publicised by both Mr An- you need some complex advice, and neces- derson and by me, as territories minister, and sarily to find out whether that is the case I know that all Canberra politicians will wel- there is a series of questions that some peo- come the extension. (Time expired) ple might not find easy. Many of these people were able to find the money to go to a Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25381 lawyer or an accountant to set up the trust or rights of those non-Centrelink trustees and company in order to maximise their welfare private company directors whose full trust or payments. private company asset details will now be There would be some people who are held by Centrelink, and with regard to the beneficiaries under a trust—perhaps because information on the forms, in respect of those of a will or something like that—and the ad- trusts and companies, that relates to other vice that I have is that, for people in that po- people who are not Centrelink clients? sition, the forms were relatively simple to fill Senator VANSTONE—As I said, Sena- in. But as in any other area of life, when you tor, I will take the rest of your question on find people who are prepared to cheat—and notice. As for the additional part of your there is no point pretending that there are not question about privacy, this government has some; there are—everyone else who is inno- an excellent record in terms of the protection cent, somewhere along the line, has to pay a of the information that it holds, in stark con- price. That is what compliance is about— trast to the situation under the previous gov- making sure that there is not someone who is ernment. I hope you are not raising the spec- cheating. If we lived in an ideal world where tre of saying that people on welfare should no-one cheated, it would be a lot nicer place not have to fill out these forms because they and a lot easier to administer welfare bene- will invade the privacy of someone else and fits. But we spend billions of dollars of hard- thereby they will get welfare to which they earned taxpayers’ money and they want us to would otherwise not be entitled. You surely make sure that that money is not going to cannot be saying that the principle of pro- people who should not be entitled to it. tecting someone’s privacy should be used for I do not think there is a senator or member people to get more welfare. I only made that in this place who has not been approached by proposition because you did put out a press someone with a story about a family which release saying that the Liberal-National gov- has some sort of welfare, but they know that ernment was going to require children to be family is really well off. I can guarantee you left at home unattended. that that will involve the situation of a trust Commercial Nominees Australia Ltd or a company. We are determined to crack down on this. It means that some people will Senator SHERRY (2.33 p.m.)—My have to fill in forms that they might other- question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant wise not have had to fill in. I will take the Treasurer. When will the Assistant Treasurer rest of the question on notice and get answers respond to requests for assistance under sec- with respect to the reply paid envelope, how tion 229 of the Superannuation Industry (Su- many replies we have had and the conse- pervision) Act 1993 by superannuation fund quences of that. However, if anybody has members who have lost retirement moneys in been cut off from a pension because they had the Commercial Nominees superannuation access to funds through a trust or company, fund scandal which has hurt hundreds of then I am not worried about that. If someone Australian retirees, with estimated losses of has been improperly cut off, then of course I over $20 million? would be worried. Senator KEMP—Let me make it clear Senator BARTLETT—Madam Presi- that this government follows the arrange- dent, I ask a supplementary question. Is the ments which I think are very similar to the minister implying that if the nonreturn rate is arrangements followed by the previous gov- close to one in three, the majority of those ernment. people are people who are cheating the sys- Senator Conroy—You are undermining tem? If not, when she gets the figures, can it. she reconfirm that those many thousands of Senator KEMP—No. You will be aware, pensioners face having their pensions can- Madam President, that the policy we follow celled because the forms have not been re- in this regard is, as I said, similar to what has turned? Can the minister also say what the happened under previous governments. department is doing to protect the privacy Where it is clear that superannuation funds 25382 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 have not been paid into accounts or have Senator ABETZ—I thank Senator Bran- been lost, this government takes that ex- dis for his ongoing interest in ensuring that tremely seriously. In the light of Senator taxpayers’ money is appropriately used. The Sherry’s question, I do not know whether I first thing that struck me about the Australian will be able to provide him with a detailed National Audit Office report was the update today. If I can, I certainly will. ANAO’s failure to investigate the single Senator SHERRY—Madam President, a most outrageous leasing rort in either the supplementary question: given that the min- private or public sector of this nation. I refer, ister is directly responsible for superannua- of course, to the Labor owned Centenary tion and he says he takes the request so seri- House, which is currently being leased to the ously, can he confirm that requests were Commonwealth, courtesy of the previous made in March and April for him to act un- Labor government, for between two and der his statutory powers? Why has he taken three times— no action to give assistance provided for un- Senator Conroy interjecting— der the SI(S) Act, and is this not just a fur- The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Con- ther example of a dithering and incompetent roy, cease interjecting. government failing to act decisively to protect investors and pandering to the top end of Senator ABETZ—It is being leased for town? between two and three times the market rates in Canberra. The irony, which I am sure is Senator KEMP—With regard to pander- not lost on Senator Brandis, is that the Audit ing to the top end of town, Senator Sherry Office is the hapless tenant. Undoubtedly, has conducted— due to random selection, that particular lease Senator Sherry—The letters have been escaped the audit. If it had been audited, the sitting on your desk for two months. following things would have been revealed: Senator KEMP—If you stand up and firstly, taxpayers are currently paying $693 start shouting at me, Senator Sherry, you per square metre, when average market rates must expect to get something back. in that area of Canberra are less than half that amount—about $320 per square metre. That The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator means that, for this year alone, the taxpayers Kemp and Senator Sherry! of Australia are paying $2.2 million more Senator KEMP—I do not think Senator than they should. Over the life of the lease, Sherry would expect us to just sit here and be an extra $36 million will be ripped out of attacked and abused by him without re- taxpayers’ pockets and put straight into the sponding. Senator Sherry asked a question coffers of the Australian Labor Party. Sec- and I courteously took it on notice and said ondly, as honourable senators will know, the that I would get back to the chamber as soon Centenary House contract was for 15 years— as possible to advise him on it. Senator far longer than the normal contract for a gov- Sherry stands up and, as he does, he loses his ernment lease. Thirdly, the worst part of this temper. He gets abusive. Senator Sherry, de- Labor rort was the nine per cent ratchet spite your lack of courtesy, I will still get clause. A ratchet clause is one which ensures back to the chamber, but I would certainly that, irrespective of the market, the rental watch it if I were you. You want to lower that increases by a fixed rate each year. In the blood pressure a bit. ANAO report, at page 71, the Auditor- Centenary House General said this about ratchet clauses: Senator BRANDIS (2.35 p.m.)—My Agencies should seek to avoid ratchet clauses ... question is to Senator Abetz representing the to ensure that they are only exposed to normal Minister for Finance and Administration. market rentals. If agencies are paying in excess of Given the findings of the ANAO report on market rentals due to the existence of ratchet clauses, this may indicate inefficient use of Commonwealth leasing arrangements, what Commonwealth funds. further actions could be taken to ensure that the Commonwealth receives value for money That is fancy language by the Auditor- from the premises it leases? General for saying that the Australian tax- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25383 payer is being ripped off. At page 72, the funding for any particular legal service with- Auditor-General is particularly critical of the out an end. In fact, we were looking at use of ratchet clauses in Canberra, which is funding a range of legal service groups exactly where the Australian Labor Party across the community and assessing on an used the ratchet clauses. ongoing basis whether funding would con- My challenge to Mr Beazley and Labor is tinue. Of course, it is only appropriate that all this: do you agree with the Auditor-General those legal services come under review, and, that agencies should avoid rental ratchet like all others, this one has come under re- clauses in their lease agreements? Our view and been assessed by the Attorney- friends in the media need to apply the blow- General’s Department in relation to the torch and ask Mr Beazley: what is Labor’s services it provides. As I understand it from response to the report? Does Labor agree the estimates hearing, which was only a short with the report’s conclusions? Above all, while ago, questions were asked about this what will Labor do about this scandalous and some questions were taken on notice. I Labor rip-off? Would a Beazley Labor gov- will pursue them with the Attorney-General. ernment commit itself to not allowing ratchet Funding for these legal service groups was clauses? never done on the basis that ‘here is the Mr Beazley constantly professes concern funding; you have it for life’—it was on the for justice, equity and fairness when it does basis of ongoing assessment. It is an excel- not cost himself. He has an opportunity now lent initiative by the Attorney-General to to show that he believes in justice, fairness make sure that government funding is spread and equality when it is going to cost the La- as far as possible to meet the needs of the bor Party, by telling the Labor Party that the community in relation to diverse interests, ratchet clause in the Centenary House lease whether they be women’s legal services, en- is unacceptable and immoral. It is time for vironmental services or ethnic groups who Mr Beazley to show some leadership and are seeking funding for legal services. I will some moral courage and tell the Labor Party take it up with the Attorney-General and see to give the money back to the Australian tax- where we are at. payers. Senator McLUCAS—I would appreciate Western Australian Women’s Legal that, Senator. It would be useful to the serv- Service ice to at least get some information about why they are going to be defunded. Madam Senator McLUCAS (2.40 p.m.)—My President, I ask a supplementary question. question is to Senator Ellison, representing What confidence does the government’s ac- the Attorney-General. Why has the Howard tion in this case give other community legal government threatened to remove the ongo- centres and other service providers, when the ing funding of the Western Australian government does not honour the terms of its Women’s Legal Service when the Attorney- service agreements and does not observe the General’s Department has acknowledged that principles of natural justice? the organisation is meeting its obligations under the service agreement with the Com- Senator ELLISON—As I understood it, monwealth? Why was the service notified of there were discussions in relation to this. I do the Commonwealth’s intention to withdraw not accept the question of denial of natural its funding only three weeks prior to the end justice. I reiterate what I said earlier: the of the financial year? When will the service funding of these legal service groups is not be given the opportunity to respond to all the on the basis that they get the funding forever. information on which the Commonwealth is It has always been on the basis that the relying as a basis for closing the service? funding would be assessed and reviewed. Of course, the legal service groups across the Senator ELLISON—The funding of community have to have the outcomes that community legal services, which was a great are expected of them. It would be inappro- initiative by the Attorney-General, was on priate for the government to give funding the basis that you would not guarantee willy-nilly in this area, as it would be in any 25384 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 other area. Community legal service groups Senator RIDGEWAY—Madam Presi- do a great job, but that does not mean that dent, I ask a supplementary question. I thank funding is given on the basis that it is unlim- Senator Abetz. I was wondering whether the ited. minister might also consider making a com- Indigenous Australians: Services and mitment to release that report publicly as Programs soon as possible so that everyone has the opportunity to respond to its recommenda- Senator RIDGEWAY (2.43 p.m.)—My tions. question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator ABETZ—When governments Senator Ellison. Minister, you may recall get reports of this nature they like to consider that, in September 1999, the Commonwealth them. I will take your request to the minister, Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999 but you can be assured that this govern- was passed to enable the commission to un- ment’s record financially has been an excep- dertake an ‘independent’ assessment of in- tional one in relation to the indigenous com- digenous people’s needs for services and munity. It just goes to show what can be programs, and to deliver on the government’s done when you have good, sound economic 1998 election promise of ensuring that in- management—that benefits in fact do flow to digenous spending would be on a strictly the less privileged within our community. needs basis. Minister, the inquiry provided Goward, Ms Pru the Acting Minister for Finance and Admini- Senator CARR (2.46 p.m.)—My question stration and the minister for indigenous af- is directed to Senator Hill, representing the fairs with a draft report on 28 March. It is my Prime Minister. When will the Howard gov- understanding from the commission that the ernment announce its decision to appoint Ms report is still in the finance minister’s office. Pru Goward as the next Sex Discrimination Can the minister tell me when the final report Commissioner with a contract of five years? is likely to be released and why the govern- Was there any selection process put in place ment has been sitting on the draft for some for this appointment? Can the minister con- three months? firm that this appointment has been tren- Senator Ellison—Madam President, I no chantly opposed by senior public servants, longer represent the minister for finance. the human rights commission and numerous Senator Abetz does, and I think it is appro- ministers? Can the minister further confirm priate that Senator Abetz answer that ques- that the announcement of this appointment tion. has been deliberately delayed until after par- Senator ABETZ—I thank Senator liament rises tonight? Ridgeway for the question. I do not have the Senator HILL—Consistent with what I details that he seeks, and I will take that on have said in relation to similar questions in notice. But just in case there is any sugges- the past, the government will make an- tion that this government is not committing nouncements of appointments at a time that itself to increased expenditure for our in- suits itself. I have to say, however, if it were digenous community, I would simply draw to be Ms Pru Goward, I would— Senator Ridgeway’s attention to the budget Senator O’Brien—So it’s true? papers, which show our absolute commitment in that area. I would also draw his at- Senator HILL—If it was, I would just tention to the wonderful work of Senator like to say personally that I think she has John Herron whilst he was the custodian of been a fine officer when she served the peo- that ministry and also to the ongoing work of ple of Australia in other positions and would Minister Ruddock following on from Senator be a well-qualified candidate for this par- Herron’s excellent work. But as to the details ticular position. that you seek, I will take that on notice and Senator CARR—Madam President, I ask pass it on to Minister Fahey and when I have a supplementary question. Given that evi- the details I will respond. dence before the Senate estimates committee confirmed that it was Mr Max Moore-Wilton Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25385 who intervened to secure Ms Goward’s last frankly just typical—more complexity for sinecure, can we be assured that he did not ordinary Australians who need help and intervene in this case? more complexity for the public servants who Senator HILL—I do not recall that evi- have the difficulty of administering these dence, and I would be confident it certainly changes. would not have been the case. As I said in Since we have come to government, we relation to her last appointment, I thought she have managed to reduce those 22 down to did an excellent job, and she would be well 19, and we will continue with that. On top of qualified to serve the Australian people in that simplification, as a part of tax reform, as another capacity. I mentioned yesterday, we reduced 12 sepa- Centrelink: Payments rate family payments or tax benefits down to three, and we are committed to still further Senator FERRIS (2.48 p.m.)—My ques- simplification. Patrick McClure, in his report tion is to the Minister for Family and Com- on welfare reform, emphasised the need for munity Services, Senator Vanstone. Will the simpler income support, and we have fol- minister please inform the Senate of the lowed that advice. Just to remind you: when measures that the government has taken to Labor came to power in 1983, there were 13 cut red tape for Centrelink customers? How different payments; when they left govern- will the government’s measures to streamline ment, there were 22. So they were all about administrative processes for unemployed making things more complex. people encourage more people to take up work? Today I had the opportunity to announce the first change to come out of a task force I Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator set up to cut red tape in the welfare sector for Ferris for the question. Yesterday we had the Centrelink customers. This initiative will cut opposition spokesperson on this matter con- red tape and simplify processes for about tinuing his form, making some inaccurate 300,000 unemployed customers who go off statements about the design of our family tax payment and then come back on. And that benefits system, and of course we had some happens: there are people out there looking questions in here on that. As usual, Mr Swan for work, they get offered a three-month job is wrong. The system that we have intro- or a six-month job, they go back to Centre- duced in relation to welfare is much simpler link and, under the old system, they had to than the one we inherited from the Labor complete the same old form again in full, Party, and we intend to continue to make it which was a waste of their time, frustrating simpler. It is a fairer system in relation to for them and, frankly, a waste of time from families because families get paid exactly Centrelink’s perspective. So by streamlining what they are entitled to on the basis of their the process for repeat customers—that is, actual income. people who come back on benefits within 12 When you look at how complex the sys- months—we will be able to cut something tem was when Labor came to power, you like five or 10 minutes from the time taken to understand why Mr Swan is so upset. When fill out each of these forms. That might not Labor first came to power in 1983, there sound much but 10 fewer minutes in front of were 13 different income support payments. a counter answering questions makes it a lot After a few years of a Labor government, easier for welfare beneficiaries. when they were finally removed in 1996, there were 22 separate income support pay- When you consider there are 300,000 of ments. There had been a 69 per cent increase them, you get to three million minutes, in the number of payments. That is a 69 per which is actually a 50,000-hour saving in cent increase in the complexity of the sys- time for the Centrelink bureaucracy. What tem, making it 69 per cent harder for people does that mean? It means they can give better who need welfare. You shift from 13 differ- service, be more friendly at the counter— ent income support payments to 22 separate although I have had no complaints about payments, a 69 per cent increase that is them not being friendly—or they can do other work and give other customers better service. So a simple change—10 minutes per 25386 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

So a simple change—10 minutes per appli- they are about to be slugged with a family cation for 300,000 people—gives you 50,000 tax benefit debt and a child care benefit debt? hours of simplification. This measure will Senator HILL—I am sure that the Aus- take place from 1 September. Unemployed tralian people would wish to know the tre- people who reclaim payment within 52 mendous taxation advantages that have oc- weeks will have a simpler opportunity. (Time curred under the Howard government. One expired) that was mentioned by Minister Kemp in Senator FERRIS—Madam President, I answer to a question earlier today is a $12 ask a supplementary question. I am delighted billion reduction in the income tax bill for to hear that further simplification for Centre- Australian taxpayers—the largest single re- link customers has been proposed, as rec- duction in income tax in the history of our ommended by the McClure report. Are there country. They would also wish to be re- any further details the minister can offer? minded of the significant reductions in corporate taxation that came about with the tax Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator reform package. They may well wish to be Ferris. There are a few extra details that I can reminded of the range of other taxes, in- provide. This saving will come about be- cluding the FID, which have been abolished cause people will not have to fill in the same as part of the total tax reform package. form. Centrelink will simply go through with This reform package was long overdue, them the information it already holds. Cus- but no previous Australian government had tomers will not have to provide three forms the political courage to enact it. This gov- of identity; this time they will have to pro- ernment has done so, and the benefits should vide only one. After all, we have already be apparent to all Australians. The economy verified who they are in the past, and all we continues to be in strong economic growth. need to do this time is to confirm that. Be- Interest rates continue to be at record low cause it will take less time, and because it levels. Inflation remains low, and the pros- will be easier for Centrelink customers— pects of unemployment reducing further are putting aside the saving to Centrelink of, say, good. These are the benefits that flow from 50,000 hours—this will make it easier for courageous but sound economic policies. I people to take up a job offer and then shift would expect that the Australian people back to benefits. That will be a simpler sys- would want to be reminded of the detail of tem. We are putting forward simpler oppor- that. It helps them to plan not only their tax tunities for people to get a job and to be more affairs but also their business affairs in gen- inclined to take a job, knowing that it will be eral. easier to go back onto benefit if they lose the job. I believe it is the case that people who In relation to the second part of Senator are offered a job for two or three months Crowley’s question, I think she is referring to sometimes do not take it because it is all too situations where the financial circumstances much of a fuss to reapply. The simplification of particular individuals have changed and will change that. (Time expired) their benefits have been affected, in which case they would expect to be corresponded Howard Government: Advertising with on a one-on-one basis, because the cir- Expenditure cumstances of every individual will vary. Senator CROWLEY (2.55 p.m.)—My That seems to me to be the appropriate way question is to Senator Hill, the Minister rep- in which that matter should be approached. resenting the Prime Minister. Can the minis- Senator CROWLEY—Madam President, ter explain why the government has seen fit I ask a supplementary question. Isn’t it the to spend $5 million of taxpayers’ money ad- case that Senator Hill said in his answer that vertising the fact that the financial institu- we should know the facts, and that the gov- tions duty—a state tax—has been abolished, ernment is keen for us to know the facts of yet it is not spending a single dollar to ex- their tax package? Isn’t it also a fact that, to plain to more than 700,000 Australians why know the facts, you need to know the good news and the bad news? Isn’t it the case that, Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25387 if we get the good news only, this is nothing will be spent in the next financial year on more than a political advertising campaign? this program, and together the three spheres Isn’t it the case that the Howard government of government are expected to commit a total advertising, as just explained by Senator Hill, of $120 million over four years to flood is nothing to do with public interest and eve- mitigation projects. rything to do with the coalition’s political In November last year flooding devastated interests? Central and Northern New South Wales and Senator HILL—As I understood the sec- Southern Queensland, and flooding in Janu- ond part of Senator Crowley’s question, it ary this year affected the North Coast of New related to the personal interests of individu- South Wales. So the government has, in ad- als, not to the interests of the whole. If we dition to that other flood mitigation program, talk about the interests of the whole, I remind provided $120 million in special assistance Senator Crowley that more than 2.2 million to farmers and small business. We are also families with more than four million children providing some $10 million in a flood recov- have benefited from increased benefits under ery fund to provide extra support over and the new family payment system. This is over above the natural disaster relief arrange- 90 per cent of all Australian families with ments—59 grants have been approved and dependent children. So it is another demon- the process is continuing. stration of how all Australians benefit from Senator Crane inquired as well about any the Howard government’s package of taxa- alternative proposals for natural disaster re- tion reforms. I remind Senator Crowley and lief. I am very worried about that because the others on the other side, who tend to forget shadow spokesman for flood matters is so it, that we have been advised by the ANAO uninterested in these major calamities that that access and equity are very important attack parts of Australia that she had to ask elements in the administration of Common- why the flood recovery fund was being tar- wealth programs. This means that depart- geted at Central and Northern New South ments must be proactive in the promotion of Wales and Southern Queensland. That is how Commonwealth programs to ensure that the much she knew about it. I was embarrassed integrity of Commonwealth access and eq- to have to say to Senator Mackay, ‘Senator, uity objectives are consistently achieved over it’s being targeted there because that’s where time. (Time expired) the floods are.’ I just despair for natural dis- Rural and Regional Australia: aster relief in Australia when the alternative Government Initiatives manager for these areas does not even know Senator CRANE (2.59 p.m.)—My ques- why we are spending flood money in a par- tion is to the Minister for Regional Services, ticular area. Territories and Local Government. Will the I am also concerned because we know minister advise the Senate of the recent from the Zimmerman extraction that the La- Howard government initiatives that will sig- bor Party are going to not only up taxes but nificantly reduce the impact of flooding on also cut programs. Which programs will they communities? Is he aware of any alternative be? As the regional services minister, I am in polices? despair that those programs might be to Senator IAN MACDONALD—I thank country areas. I have challenged Mr Beazley Senator Crane for that very important ques- to confirm that our existing programs in rural tion on natural disaster relief. Senator Crane, and regional Australia will remain, but I have coming from Western Australia, would be had no response. So that fills me and all familiar with that. I am delighted to repeat country people with despair, that Senator that the federal government has provided $40 Conroy’s cuts in programs will be cuts in million over four years in the last budget for programs to rural and regional Australia. flood mitigation works to reduce the risk and Opposition senators interjecting— damage caused by floods. The program has The PRESIDENT—Order! The level of now been extended to outer metropolitan noise in the chamber is unacceptable. areas of our capital cities. Some $10 million 25388 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Senator IAN MACDONALD—When Senator HARRADINE - My question is directed you have an opposition spokesman on flood to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The mitigation programs who does not even Bulletin says that Sydney IVF is offering to cou- know why we spend flood money in flood ples pre-implementation genetic testing for sex areas, then this is obviously the sort of pro- selection for personal reasons. What is the government going to do about that? I also draw the gram that Senator Conroy is talking about. It minister’s attention to the Compass program last is these programs that are going to be at- night which documented the concerns of people tacked. Senator Conroy, in honesty, can you with disability about genetic screening and abor- confirm to me that these programs will not tion, and highlighted the importance of under- be— standing disability as different, rather than inher- Honourable senators interjecting— ent tragedy. I ask the minister: what is the government’s policy of prenatal screening and abor- The PRESIDENT—Order! There is so tion on the grounds of disability? How are people much noise I can scarcely hear what is being with disabilities involved in the formulation of said; there are people shouting all round the government policy on this matter? chamber. Senator HARRADINE – Madam President, I ask Senator IAN MACDONALD—I know a supplementary question. I asked specifically in the Labor Party are very embarrassed about an area of competence of the federal government this, but I do give them the opportunity to – on Medicare. Will the minister representing the confirm that this flood mitigation program minister give an absolute guarantee to this chamber that for those procedures of sex selection for will not be cut. You only have to do that, personal reasons – have a look at their website – Senator Conroy. I know you are going to cut Sydney IVF will not be paid by the taxpayer? I other programs but— ask the minister also: why has it been so long in The PRESIDENT—Senator, address filling the vacancy in the Health Ethics Commit- your remarks to the chair. tee of a person with an understanding of the concerns of people with a disability? When will that Senator IAN MACDONALD—Madam position be filled? I ask the minister to assure the President, I ask the opposition to confirm for Senate that the Australian Health Ethics Com- me that it will not be these very worthwhile mittee position will be filled quickly and that an flood mitigation programs that are in line for evidence based approach, bearing in mind the Senator Conroy’s axe. experience, credentials and standing of the nomi- Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask nees for this position, be taken. I ask the minister to assure the Senate on those two points, please. that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Senator VANSTONE – The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following an- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT swers to the Honourable Senator’s questions: NOTICE Responsibility for enacting legislation relating to Medicare: Prenatal Genetic Screening the use of pre-implantation genetic testing lies Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— with each State and Territory Governments. The Minister for Family and Community Serv- NHMRC has recommended that all States and Territories implement consistent legislation to ices and Minister Assisting the Prime Min- regulate assisted reproductive technologies ister for the Status of Women) (3.04 p.m.)— (ART). This will avoid the situation where the On 25 June, Senator Harradine asked me a laws relating to these issues may vary from State question about IVF and Medicare payments. to State. In relation to IVF, three states (Victoria, I seek leave to incorporate the answer in South Australian and Western Australia) have Hansard. legislation and the others have stated their inten- Leave granted. tion of enacting legislation in the area of assisted reproductive technology (ART). The answer read as follows— At the 8 June 2001, meeting of the Council of SENATOR BRIAN HARRADINE – 25 June Australian Governments, the Council agreed that 2001 jurisdictions will work towards nationally con- SYDNEY IVF AND MEDICARE PAYMENTS sistent approaches to regulate assisted reproductive technology and related emerging human technologies. In reaching agreement on this latter Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25389 issue, Heads of Government were acutely aware Senator VANSTONE - The Minister for Health of the need to engage the community on these and Aged Care has provided the following answer very important matters and to ensure that all sec- to the honourable senator's question: tors of the community benefit fully from advances Australians’ access to MRI does not expire at the in medical science while prohibiting unacceptable end of this week. The 1998 Diagnostic Imaging practices. (DI) Agreement was extended for two years in the The matter of whether Medicare benefits are pay- 2000-2001 Budget and now expires at the end of able for genetic testing associated with assisted 2002-2003. Negotiations are currently underway reproductive technologies, is also a very impor- between the Government and the profession re- tant, but separate matter. garding the inclusion of MRI expenditure in the Medicare benefits are only payable for clinically DI Agreement for the final two years. relevant services provided within the laws of the This will not affect patient access to Medicare State/Territory in which the service is provided. A rebates for MRI services. The current Medicare clinically relevant service means a service ren- arrangements will continue despite the negotia- dered by a medical practitioner that is accepted in tions. the medical profession as being clinically neces- No new MRI units have yet been granted Medi- sary for the appropriate treatment of the patient to care eligibility through the tender process for whom it is rendered. additional MRI units, as this process is ongoing. MRI Scanners: Funding The Blandford Review of MRI Services, which reported in March 2000, recommended “that up to Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— an additional seven MRI units are required in the Minister for Family and Community Serv- next year, to ensure access to MRI services.” ices and Minister Assisting the Prime Min- This was on the basis of improving geographic ister for the Status of Women) (3.04 p.m.)— access to MRI and not because there was insuffi- On 26 June Senator Faulkner asked me a cient capacity at existing units for Australia’s question about magnetic resonance imaging population. machines. I seek leave to incorporate the The tender process covers six MRI units, as the answer in Hansard. Health Insurance Commission has now recog- Leave granted. nised an additional eligible unit in Western Aus- tralia. The answer read as follows— Tenders closed on 26 June 2001, and will be as- SENATOR FAULKNER – 26 June 2001 sessed shortly. The date when these units will MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING become eligible for Medicare will depend on the time needed to select successful tenders and con- Senator FAULKNER - My question is directed to clude negotiations with them. Senator Vanstone, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Does the flawed 1998 Minister for Health and Aged Care: funding agreement covering MRI scanners expire Interview at the end of this week? Has a two year extension Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— been negotiated? If not, what action does the Minister for Family and Community Serv- government plan to take to ensure the continued ices and Minister Assisting the Prime Min- availability of MRI scanners? ister for the Status of Women) (3.04 p.m.)— Senator FAULKNER – Madam President, I ask a On 26 June Senator Forshaw asked me a supplementary question. Given the information question about funding for the business es- that the minister has provided in that question sentials audiotape program. I seek leave to time brief, can the minister confirm that no new licenses have been issued for the seven additional incorporate the answer in Hansard. MRI scanners to service underresourced regions Leave granted. that the Blandford report recommended should The answer read as follows— have been operational 12 months ago? Can the minister confirm that the number of additional SENATOR FORSHAW – 26 June 2001 scanners has been cut to six and that the tenders “BUSINESS ESSENTIALS” AUDIOTAPE only close this week? Finally, can the minister PROGRAM FUNDING confirm that that will mean that the first of the Senator FORSHAW - My question is directed to additional scanners will not be operational until Senator Vanstone, representing the Minister for around Christmas? Health and Aged Care. How much was paid by each of Mayne Health and Minister Wooldridge’s 25390 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 department to jointly fund the tape of Dr GP RURAL SECTOR Wooldridge being interviewed by Michael Shild- Senator WEST: - My question is to Senator berger about the 2001 budget which has been Vanstone representing the Minister for Health and mailed to every doctor in Australia? Minister, Aged Care. Is the minister aware that the number why should the department be required to pay for of people applying to undertake training to be- both Dr Wooldridge’s membership of the AMA come a general practitioner has dropped by more and distributing his taped attacks on the same than 125 doctors, or 20 per cent? Does this mean organisation? that, for the first time, there will be a shortfall in Senator FORSHAW – I ask a supplementary the number of applicants for rural places, with question. I remind the Minister that the question I only 225 applicants for 250 rural places? What asked was: how much was paid by each of Mayne are the reasons for this shortfall and what action Health, a private health company, and the De- does the government propose to take to remedy partment? You have not answered that Minister. the situation? Maybe you could have a go at it in your answer to Senator WEST: - Madam President, I ask a sup- the supplementary question or take it on notice. plementary question. Is it true that the Rural Lo- Also, hasn’t this deal between Mayne Health and cum Relief Program has been almost entirely the Department of Health to fund the distribution filled by temporary resident and overseas trained of Dr Wooldridge’s attacks on the AMA got more doctors? How does this meet the scheme’s objec- to do with commercial and political interests than tive of giving newly trained Australian doctors it has to do with the public interest? short-term experience in rural areas? Senator VANSTONE - The Minister for Health Senator VANSTONE – The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: to the honourable senator’s question. The Department’s sponsorship of the Business Applications for the 2002 General Practice Voca- Essentials audiotape programs commenced in tional Training Program closed on 22 June 2001 June 1999 and was renewed in August 2000. and the application assessment process is cur- The sponsorship is for a series of audiotape pro- rently being finalised. To date, a total of 661 grams on which the Department is entitled to applications have been received for the 450 avail- three segments to convey the Government’s gen- able training places. Although at this stage the eral health policy and progress on general practice number of applications has decreased by 115 (15 incentives. percent) from last year, the current response rep- The contract has, from the outset, allowed Busi- resents considerably more applications than the ness Essentials to seek up to four additional spon- available training places. sors for the program. These sponsors are entitled Of the total applications received, an estimated to have their logo on the sleeve of the audiotape. 478 applicants have indicated a first preference The Department is not aware of the financial for the 250 places available in the General Train- contributions of other sponsors. The commercial ing Pathway and an estimated 183 applicants have arrangements between these sponsors and Busi- nominated their first preference for the 200 places ness Essentials do not involve the Department. available in the Rural Training Pathway. It is expected that all places will be filled from second Annual sponsorship for the Department has re- preferences. mained at $300,000 since 1999 plus a GST component since 2000. The number of applications compares very favourably with previous years. General Practitioner Training All Australian permanent resident and citizen Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— medical practitioners, who have not yet obtained Minister for Family and Community Serv- postgraduate qualifications in a speciality or gen- ices and Minister Assisting the Prime Min- eral practice are able to participate in the Rural ister for the Status of Women) (3.04 p.m.)— Locum Relief Program. The Program therefore On 26 June Senator West asked me a ques- does not include temporary resident doctors, but tion about GPs in the rural sector. I seek does include overseas trained doctors. There is leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard. no set quota to discriminate between Australian trained and overseas trained Australian doctors on Leave granted. this Program. It is administered by State-based The answer read as follows— Rural Workforce Agencies who arrange the appropriate placement of locums in locations of SENATOR WEST – 26 June 2001 need. The Program provides a supported envi- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25391 ronment in which medical practitioners can expe- information from Australian Heating Services. rience rural general practice before committing to Can the minister also ask Minister Bishop what a formal training program. other appointments she has made to the hearing The objectives of the Program are to provide: services board and whether she would do us the • courtesy of making public those appointments, an avenue through which doctors who are given they are taxpayer funded paid positions? otherwise unable to provide services which attract a Medicare benefit, to have temporary Senator VANSTONE-The Minister for Aged Care access to Medicare benefits to render general has provided the following answer to the honour- practice services in approved placements as able senator’s question in accordance with infor- rural locums; and mation supplied to her: • to ensure that practices seeking doctors It is not general practice to announce through a placed through this arrangement are aware media release, appointments of Directors to the that locums need to be appropriately se- Boards of statutory authorities, or Commonwealth lected, supervised and supported in their companies. Such appointments are made public placement. by their inclusion in the annual report of a relevant entity or where required their financial The inclusion of overseas trained doctors is in statements filed with the Australian Securities and line with these objectives. Investment Commission. In the case of Australian Australian Hearing Services: Board Hearing Services (AHS) the composition of the Appointment board is detailed each year in its annual report. Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— Ms Harris was appointed to the Board on 29 No- vember 2000. As is normal procedure, her ap- Minister for Family and Community Serv- pointment will be reflected in the 2000-2001 An- ices and Minister Assisting the Prime Min- nual Report. ister for the Status of Women) (3.04 p.m.)— Appointments and re-appointments made by Mrs Yesterday, I had a question from Senator Ev- Bishop to the AHS Board are: ans about appointments to the board of Aus- tralian Hearing Services. I seek leave to in- Ms Mary Archibald corporate the answer in Hansard. Dr Jeanette Rosen Leave granted. Mr Michael Shepherd The answer read as follows— Mr Thomas O’Brien; and Ms Jennifer Harris SENATOR EVANS - 27 JUNE 2001 APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF AUST- Commercial Nominees Australia Ltd RALIAN HEARING SERVICES Senator KEMP (Victoria—Assistant Senator EVANS - My question is directed to Treasurer) (3.05 p.m.)—Today in question Senator Vanstone, in her capacity representing the time Senator Sherry asked me a question Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm about CNAL and the Superannuation Indus- that Ms Jennifer Harris was appointed to the try (Supervision) Act 1993. I have some ad- Board of Australian Hearing Services late last vice from Mr Joe Hockey, who has the car- year? Is that appointment by Minister Bishop the riage of this. Mr Hockey has advised me that same Jennifer Harris who was president of the an application for assistance has been re- Avalon branch of the Liberal Party, state elector- ceived and is being processed but that he ate council president and close friend of Minister Bishop? Can the minister explain what skills an- cannot comment further at this time. I also other North Shore lawyer, Liberal and close seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a time friend of the minister brings to this $18,000 a year line of this issue, which may be of particular honorary job? interest to Senator Sherry. Senator EVANS - Madam President, I ask a sup- Leave granted. plementary question. While the minister is work- The document read as follows— ing on her memory, could she perhaps find out from the minister why this appointment was never SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPER- publicly announced and why the information was VISION) ACT 1993 not publicly available anywhere, until today’s SECT 229 answer to my question? It is not on the website, Application for assistance there is no press release and you cannot get the (1) if 25392 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(a) a fund suffers an eligible loss after the • On 20 March 2001, APRA appointed KPMG commencement of this Part; and to investigate the SAFs that had invested (b) the loss has caused substantial dimi- with the ECMT, in order to gather evidence nution of the fund leading to difficul- to assist APRA in any recovery action that ties in the payment of benefits; APRA may undertake on behalf of fund members. the trustee may apply to the Minister for a grant • of financial assistance for the fund. On 29 March 2001, APRA removed CNA as trustee of two closed public offer superannu- (2) The application must be in writing and be ation funds. accompanied by such information as the Minister • determines. On 10 May 2001, CNA was placed into liq- uidation. CNA (Commercial Nominees) Australian Taxation Office: Form An application has been received – is in the course of being processed, cannot comment fur- Senator KEMP (Victoria—Assistant ther at this time. Treasurer) (3.06 p.m.)—On Wednesday, ————— Senator Natasha Stott Despoja asked me a question about red tape, the personal services • Until recently, CNA was the trustee of approximately 500 Small APRA funds (SAFs), determination and the form that was in- a master trust known as the Confidens In- volved. I want to make a couple of brief vestment Trust (Confidens), two trusts comments on that. Senator Stott Despoja known as Enhanced Equity Fund (EEF) and clearly discussed this with the Courier-Mail, the Enhanced Cash Management Trust resulting in an article that I regret contains a (ECMT), and a number Of public-offer su- number of errors. I will not have time to cor- perannuation funds. rect them all. Firstly, the personal services • APRA commenced investigations of CNA in determination form is not a GST form; I March 2000 in relation to the prospect that think Senator Stott Despoja should be aware three public-offer superannuation funds (of of that. It has nothing to do with the GST or which CNA was the trustee) may suffer sub- GST forms. This is a form that is used only stantial losses as a result of investments by by taxpayers who earn 80 per cent or more of those funds in the ECMT. their personal services income from one • In April 2000, APRA required CNA to en- source and who want to be excluded from the gage an investigator (PricewaterhouseCoop- new alienation of personal services income ers) to undertake an independent review of rules. the financial affairs of the three funds. • The Board of CNA froze all withdrawals Second, while Senator Stott Despoja has from the ECMT on 7 November 2000. not provided me with a copy of the form she has in her possession, from her description it • In December 2000, after receiving the independent review, APRA removed CNA as the would appear to be a draft form circulated to trustee of those three funds, with my consent. a consultative group. It is not a final document, but a working document which may be • ASIC has been working closely with APRA in relation to this matter. subject to further change. The consultative • group has been formed by the Australian On 13 February 2001, ASIC obtained orders Taxation Office, which is working with the to appoint a receiver to control the assets of Confidens, who has since indicated that he is tax profession, relevant industry groups— confident he will recover at least 80 cents in and this touches on a matter that I raised yes- the dollar on behalf of the trust’s investors. terday—and individual taxpayers on the de- • ASIC also facilitated the appointment of a sign of the form. Why? Because this gov- new trustee for the ECMT and the EEF, ernment is a consultative government. I have which will work closely with ASIC to said that many times. Third, this draft form is maximise the recovery of assets to both not a secret document, so it has not been funds. leaked. • On 14 February 2001, APRA revoked CNA’s Fourth, Senator Stott Despoja emphasised approval as an approved trustee and removed a number of questions and sections on the CNA as the trustee of the 500 or so SAFs. form. She emphasised that there are 10 sec- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25393 tions. On the top of page 1, under the head- June showing that the tax office has been unable ing ‘Important’, it states that applicants do to meet this standard in 28 per cent of cases since not need to fill in all sections. In fact, they the introduction of its new provisions in the ad- may need to fill in only three sections—that vice process? is, the three out of the 10 sections. I am also (iii) Why doesn’t the government ensure that the pleased to advise the Senate that the ATO has ATO dedicates sufficient resources to ensuring advised me that they embarked last year on that taxpayers who seek rulings get them in a an extensive education and communication timely way, as required by the taxpayers’ charter? program to inform people affected by the I now seek leave to have this incorporated in alienation measures. Hansard. Finally, I must confess that I am some- The ATO’s Taxpayer Charter provides that the ATO will give a ruling within 28 days of receiv- what surprised at this question coming from ing all the necessary information from the appli- the Democrats. In a minority report of the cant. If the 28 day standard cannot be met, for Senate Economics Legislation Committee on example, because of the complexity of the matter, the alienation of personal services income, the ATO will discuss an alternative arrangement Senator Andrew Murray apparently claimed with the applicant and agree on a reply date. that the Ralph report called for a very com- On 6 June 2001, the National Tax Liaison Group prehensive test on this issue, but they felt was provided with figures indicating a small de- that the legislation applied only very simple crease in the percentage of rulings which met the tests. Further, they recommended that instead standards in the first seven weeks after the intro- of one test being required to be satisfied un- duction of the new Provision of Advice processes der self-assessment, it should be increased to on 1 April 2001. two. Further, the Democrat report said that Following an independent review of the ATO’s the test is loosely drafted and it would be private rulings system, new processes are being easy for a tax avoider to produce a set of cir- introduced to provide greater transparency, integ- cumstances at very low cost which resulted rity and accuracy to the system. The new proc- in them meeting that test. In other words, the esses include tighter controls on the preparation and authorisation of rulings, the giving of a Democrats seemed to be arguing at that time unique authorisation number to each ruling, the that the form would be too easy to fill out. I editing of the ruling to remove identifying or con- think it would be a help if the Leader of the fidential information before publishing, and for- Australian Democrats made herself aware of mal accreditation of authorising officers. what the Democrats had said previously on As with any major change, the ATO anticipates this particular issue. I hope that my answer that there will be a period of time needed to bed will provide some assistance in that regard. down these externally recommended improve- Australian Taxation Office: Rulings ments to the community’s tax system. However, the ATO will continue to monitor and report its Senator KEMP (Victoria—Assistant performance. Treasurer) (3.09 p.m.)—On Wednesday, Senator Murphy asked me a question about PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Australian Taxation Office rulings, and I Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) seek leave to incorporate my answer in Han- (3.09 p.m.)—I seek leave to make a short sard. statement. I claim that I have been misrepre- Leave granted. sented. The answer read as follows— Leave granted. On Wednesday 27 June 2001, (Hansard page: Senator SCHACHT—In the Senate to- 24977) Senator Murphy asked me: day in question time, Senator Kemp and Senator Hill both purported to quote from (i) Can the minister confirm that the ATO’S taxpayers’ charter requires the ATO to give a tax- remarks I made in the Senate last night in payer who requests a ruling a decision within 28 debate on the Internet gambling bill and said days or at an agreed time? that I was supporting the reintroduction of (ii) Can the minister confirm that figures were death duties. I invite any senator or member provided to the National Tax Liaison Group on 6 of the public to read my full speech. What I said was that, when state governments got rid 25394 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 of death duties in the late 1970s and early There could have been no sadder indictment 1980s, led by Bjelke-Petersen, the then Pre- today than what we witnessed after question mier, they rotted their own tax base and, as a time, when Senator Kemp had to give written consequence, when they ran short of money, answers to questions asked over the last they became addicted to gambling taxes in- week which related to matters within his own stead and that the states now rely on gam- portfolio. We saw it yet again today. We bling taxes to find revenue to provide their asked him a simple question about tax ad- services rather than other taxes. I made it ministration and the GST. It may come as a clear that, if you wanted to look at the ad- surprise to many people in this chamber, but verse social impact in the community, you Senator Kemp is in actual fact the minister in would find that the introduction of a range of charge of tax administration. But time and gambling taxes and the spread of poker ma- time again we see Senator Kemp pleading chines have done immeasurably more dam- the fifth, saying that he does not know the age to the community than the modest range answer and asking to take the question on of death duties that states had until the late notice. Today we have seen three more an- 1970s and early 1980s. I pointed out the hy- swers taken on notice and three more dem- pocrisy of state governments. onstrations of the minister’s incompetence The PRESIDENT—Senator, that is not— and refusal to do the hard yards to get over his briefs. Senator SCHACHT—I also point out in my personal explanation that I am not the But this is not surprising, because this is only one who has made some comment the 12-month anniversary, the first birthday, along these lines. of the GST, and this government has still not managed to issue rulings in a variety of very The PRESIDENT—Senator, that is not important areas and this government wants to relevant to your personal explanation. hide from that fact. This government wants Senator SCHACHT—I will just con- to take half a billion dollars and advertise its clude my personal explanation. Senator Hill, way through to the next election—$20 mil- who criticised me, said in his first speech: lion a month to try to distract the Australian Thus those whose wealth is increased by capital community from the fact that the GST has gains rather than by income do not share in the king-hit the economy. It is time to remember taxation burden. all the promises that were made before the The PRESIDENT—Senator, that is not GST was introduced. We had John Howard, related to the matter you have leave to speak in the House of Representatives on 10 April on. 2000, saying: Senator SCHACHT—Senator Hill said: But the great bulk of people are going to be significantly better off. Australians all will be better No other highly developed country has our almost off ... complete absence from some form of taxation of capital gains, net wealth taxes or death duties. And what is the verdict one year on from that Hilly is in favour of death duties. statement? A recent AC Neilsen survey shows that 10 per cent of Australians con- The PRESIDENT—Order! You are de- sider themselves better off. That leaves 90 bating the issue. You have abused the leave per cent who think they are worse off under that was given by extending the debate. the GST. But the Prime Minister said that all ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT Australians would be better off. What was NOTICE the next promise? All older Australians Goods and Services Tax: Rulings would get a $1,000 savings bonus. John Taxation: Government Policy Howard promised that on radio. He said that you get a $1,000 savings bonus— Senator CONROY (Victoria) (3.12 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT p.m.)—I move: (Senator Ferguson)—Order! Senator Con- That the Senate take note of the answers given roy, use the correct name for the Prime Min- by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to ister, please—Mr Howard. questions without notice asked today. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25395

Senator CONROY—Sorry. Mr Howard hotels in New South Wales and the Northern said on radio in the middle of the 1998 elec- Territory, and from 1 July 2001 stamp duties tion campaign: on shares and financial institutions duty. You get the $1,000 savings bonus if you are 60 Where are the other six taxes that were years or over. promised to be abolished? Mean and That is what he told a Perth radio station in tricky—that is the hallmark of this govern- the middle of the 1998 election campaign. So ment. (Time expired) what happened? Forty per cent of Australians Senator EGGLESTON (Western Austra- over the age of 60 were paid nothing, and a lia) (3.17 p.m.)—I think it is quite courageous further 10 per cent were paid less than $50. of Senator Conroy to get up and criticise the Is it not wonder that Shane Stone wrote to economic management of the Howard gov- the Prime Minister and said, ‘Prime Minister, ernment, given the dismal record of the La- ordinary Australians think this government is bor Party in the 13 years that it was in office. mean and tricky’? You always have to watch Senator Conroy, economic management is the fine print, just like in the last budget not something that I think any Labor Party when they said, ‘Self-funded retirees are all politician should dare talk about. The Labor going to get these increases.’ What did we Party during its years in office, if one com- find? Thousands upon thousands of self- pares it with the coalition government, fails funded retirees had to read the budget papers, on almost every criterion. I think interest read the fine print, to find that they got rates under the Labor government hit a high nothing. of 21 per cent around the end of the 1980s. What about promise No. 3, that pensioners Under the coalition, they sit at around six per will get a four per cent rise? That is right, cent. Inflation rates under Labor were very and the government did deliver it. But, again, high indeed compared with inflation rates you had to read the fine print to discover that around the rest of the world. Under the How- within six months they were going to claw ard government’s economic management, back two per cent. Shane Stone was dead inflation sits at two per cent or three per cent right about the Prime Minister being mean in Australia, which is the lowest rate heard and tricky. Remember the big promise: ‘The of— GST will be good for the economy.’ What a Senator George Campbell—Or four, or whopper that was! five, or six, or seven. Senator Sherry—Beer and petrol. Senator EGGLESTON—Seven per cent, Senator CONROY—I will come to beer Senator Campbell, is something that you and petrol, Senator Sherry. Don’t you worry would remember well, because that is the about that! What has the GST done to this sort of low inflation rate that the Labor Party economy? It has king-hit it; it has mugged it. had hoped they might achieve one day but It has halved the growth in this economy. We never got anywhere near. Under the Labor were travelling at four per cent. Now we are government, inflation was high and money struggling to stick at two per cent. Why? was worth nothing. If you waited a week, Because the GST destroyed jobs in this your savings were eroded by inflation. Under economy; it destroyed economic growth. the Howard government, under the coalition’s economic management policies, infla- What about the next promise, that the tion rates have been very low. GST will replace 10 taxes? The government promised that in their pre-election, full ad- When Labor left office, the Common- vertising campaign—just like they are trying wealth had a debt of $96 billion. That is to do to us now. They are trying to con us something that I think Labor must feel very with glossy ads and brochures. They said in ashamed of to this very day. Under the coali- full-page ads, ‘We will get rid of 10 taxes.’ tion government, more than $50 billion of What has happened? In fact, only four taxes that debt has been paid off, because we have have been abolished: the wholesale sales tax, had no less than five consecutive budget sur- a minor bed tax that applied to only some pluses. Under Labor—guess what?—most of the budgets were in great deficit. Senator 25396 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Conroy said recently in his famous Zimmer- who are not aware of it, this section provides man performance that he saw nothing intrin- for compensation in the event of suspected sically wrong with deficit budgeting. In other theft and fraud and possible legal and finan- words, he saw nothing intrinsically wrong in cial assistance where this occurs in respect of going back to the great deficits which char- a superannuation fund. It is a very important acterised the Hawke and Keating Labor gov- provision, because I do not believe any governments and which led Australia down the ernment would want to see people who are pathway of record national debts, record in- heading towards retirement age or are al- terest rates, record inflation, record high un- ready retired having money stolen without employment rates and generally very poor compensation being provided. Under the act, economic management. individuals who are hurt in this way can Let us look at unemployment rates. The write to the minister and request assistance. unemployment rate under the last ALP gov- It is a very important provision and, I might ernment hit nearly 11 per cent. Senator say, it is a provision that provides for 100 per Campbell, that is something that you in par- cent compensation in those eventualities. ticular must be have been very embarrassed Contrast that with the attitude of the Liberal about. There you were, along with your col- government and Senator Kemp, in particular, leagues—leaders of the trade union move- who have sought to reduce the level of pro- ment—and your government had unem- tection from 100 per cent compensation to ployment rates at 11 per cent. What are the some 80 per cent compensation. Fortunately, rates now? They are right down to six and that provision was defeated in the Senate by seven per cent—in fact, 6.9 per cent. The the Labor Party when it was presented last coalition government has created something year. like 800,000 new jobs. Under the Labor ad- Commercial Nominees Australia Ltd is a ministration, jobs were being lost day by day, superannuation fund where some hundreds week by week, year by year, because the of Australians have clearly lost money as a economy was failing under your leadership. result of some theft and fraud. The extent of What about real wages? Under Labor, real the loss of money is not clear yet, but it is wages fell. Under the coalition, they have certain that some theft and fraud has oc- grown by five per cent, which is something I curred and that there are probably losses of am sure Senator Campbell would applaud, over $20 million. Some of the individuals because his trade unionists are better off un- concerned have written to the responsible der the coalition government. Senator Con- minister. Under the SI(S) Act, the Treasurer roy talked about the GST being a failure. Let and, as we understand it, the Assistant Treas- us face the facts: the GST was supported by urer, Senator Kemp, are responsible for the Hawke and Keating, but they were just not supervision of superannuation matters in brave enough to introduce it. Everybody has Australia and would be required to respond, known and understood for a very long time hopefully granting the assistance. Some that this country had to go from a direct to an months have passed. The requests were made indirect taxation model, and the Howard in March and April—I have seen copies of government were brave enough to introduce some of those requests—and still no re- it. They need to be applauded for that great sponses have come from the minister’s of- initiative. They were brave enough to go to fice. It particularly concerned me that, in his the people with a proposal to reform the tax response after question time, the Assistant system. They were returned on that basis, Treasurer, Senator Kemp, notified us that and they have carried out that reform. (Time Minister Hockey is responsible for superan- expired) nuation. But, under his duty statement, Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, is Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (3.22 responsible for superannuation matters. It is p.m.)—One of the questions put to Senator he who should be responding. Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, in question time related to section 229 of the Superannu- We have a situation where a number of ation Industry (Supervision) Act. For those Australian retirees who have put aside Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25397 money in the lead-up to their retirement can- going beyond that to denigrate another min- not access their money. This is a great worry ister in the other place, saying that he could and concern to individual Australians, par- not trust the minister to do the right thing. ticularly when they reach retirement age. It is On what basis does he have the right to make particularly concerning to me. We have to that sort of statement? It is totally scandal- wonder what Senator Kemp does. If he ous. It is a waste of the Senate’s time and a claims he is not responsible in this area when waste of his position. it is clearly a superannuation matter, what is Senator Hill—He has run away, too. Senator Kemp doing? He rarely, if ever, can answer a question in his own portfolio areas Senator TCHEN—Yes. As Senator Hill of responsibility. Here is another issue pointed out, the moment Senator Sherry fin- clearly in his own area of portfolio responsi- ished speaking he made a run for it. That is bility, superannuation, and he cannot give us about all one needs to say about Senator a response. What is even worse is that we Sherry’s contribution today—it was a total have now found out that Mr Hockey, the waste of everyone’s time. Minister for Financial Services and Regula- Perhaps I can go back to Senator Conroy’s tion, is supposedly responsible. I might re- contribution. It is not very often that I will mind the Senate that Minister Hockey was offer a different opinion from that of my the minister responsible for the day-to-day good colleague Senator Eggleston of West- supervision of Australia’s prudential regula- ern Australia, but today I am afraid I have to tory authorities, and of course we have the take very strong exception to what he said issues relating to the HIH collapse. I am very earlier. Referring to Labor’s economic per- worried that the individuals who have made formance when they were in government five applications for assistance have to rely on short years ago, he said that Labor must be Minister Hockey. very ashamed of the $80 billion debt they left The provision for assistance is vital to behind. I am sorry, Senator Eggleston, but I maintain certainty, security and peace of do not think the Labor Party are at all mind for elderly Australians. These provi- ashamed of any debt they left behind. In fact, sions should be activated quickly. They I do not think the Labor Party can understand should not be sitting on Minister Kemp’s the difference between a plus sign and a mi- desk or on Minister Hockey’s desk or travel- nus sign, and they think $80 billion of debt is ling between the two. This is not helping something to be proud of. retired Australians. It is not providing the I am not saying that without a basis for it. assistance which is required under the act. Senator Conroy got up today and read from a Individuals who have been hurt by this col- survey. We have no idea what sort of quality lapse should be given appropriate reassur- control applies to that. Senator Conroy said ance and appropriate compensation as soon that, in that survey, only 10 per cent of re- as possible. spondents said that they were better off un- Senator TCHEN (Victoria) (3.27 p.m.)— der the GST. Senator Conroy then drew the Senator Sherry has a peculiar way of taking marvellous conclusion that 90 per cent of note of answers. He has posed a question to people are therefore worse off under the the Assistant Treasurer, but today he re- GST. Let me point out to Senator Conroy ceived the answer from the Assistant Treas- that, firstly, this is what people think, not urer that another minister is responsible for what they actually experience. Secondly, just that aspect of the portfolio. Instead of di- because 10 per cent say that they are better recting his question to the responsible min- off does not mean that 90 per cent say that ister, Senator Sherry has chosen to come into they are worse off. The 90 per cent could this chamber, using a time which appropri- have had no change, in which case we have a ately should be used for discussing the an- net gain in people’s conditions. swer provided to a question posed in the Senator Conroy, in his marvellous logic— Senate earlier, and waste the Senate’s time which is perhaps typical of a Labor Party unfairly criticising Minister Kemp and then frontbencher—can make this jump from 10 25398 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 per cent saying that they think they are better Those flyers were pulped because of a off to 90 per cent being worse off. Senator change in government direction that was Conroy is also extremely loose with his taken in this year’s budget. That essentially facts, as is also typical of Labor frontbench- went to the issue of pensioners and self- ers. The facts he mentioned are often talked funded retirees, in particular. We could be about in this chamber. Senator Conroy talked cynical and call those the Stone amendments, about the pension clawback. The simple the Stone changes or the Stone variations to history of this issue clearly establishes that the budget. There is no doubt that those this government paid GST compensation up changes were made to government policy in front. It is not a case of clawback. Four per the budget this year as a direct result of the cent was paid in July 2000, when the CPI letter from Shane Stone to the Prime Minis- increase was two per cent. The four per cent ter after the Ryan by-election, pointing out paid then was not all to do with the CPI. how much this government was on the nose Senator Conroy persists in saying that the with ordinary battlers, with pensioners and GST has king-hit the economy. This has been with self-funded retirees because of the a Labor Party mantra. Yet every economic mean, miserable policies this government has indicator shows that the Australian economy introduced. The most prominent of those is booming. In my state of Victoria, which is policies is the GST and the way in which the also Senator Conroy’s state, the state Labor government treats compensation for those government has taken out a full-page adver- various groups as a result of the introduction tisement to tell everyone that Victoria’s ex- of that tax. port is booming, Victoria’s retail trade is Taxpayers have been forced to pay for the booming and Victoria’s building construction pulping of the flyers that were printed to go is booming. Is that an indication of a king out with this year’s TaxPack because of the hit? (Time expired) observations—quite accurate observations, I Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (New might add—of the President of the Liberal South Wales) (3.32 p.m.)—I also wish to take Party, Mr Shane Stone. Let us have a look at note of the answers given by Senator Kemp, the TaxPack. Let us have a look at what the Assistant Treasurer. It is very difficult to Senator Kemp said today in question time take note of answers given by Senator Kemp about how the ATO is continually improving because, while they are long on rhetoric and the TaxPack to make it easier, how taxpayers waffle, they are very short on substance. To- find it easier to use and how it simplifies the day, he did not dispel that analysis of the way process for taxpayers getting their returns in which he treats questions in question time. into the tax office. Let us compare that with an independent analysis of this year’s Tax- Senator Kemp was asked whether the tax Pack which appeared in an article in the office had been forced to pulp flyers associ- Money section of the Sydney Morning Her- ated with the 2001 TaxPack and what the ald under the name Anne Lampe. The head- cost of pulping those flyers had been. He line is ‘TaxPack’s a knock-out punch’, and it deliberately avoided answering that question. says: He talked about the 2000 TaxPack. He talked about surveys conducted by the ATO on the The TaxPack is winging its way into taxpayers’ usage of the TaxPack. He talked about how letterboxes. ‘Ho-hum’ is a common response. They don’t seem to get any smaller or simpler people find it so easy to use in terms of fill- and, according to Ray Regan, president of the ing in their taxation returns. He talked about National Tax & Accountants’ Association, this the ATO continuing to make improvements year’s is a monster. to the TaxPack. But at no time did he ac- The article goes on to set out all the reasons knowledge the fact that leaflets or flyers as- for the changes. It refers specifically to the sociated with this TaxPack this year have Stone amendments, to the reasons those been pulped, and the cost to the taxpayer for changes have been made and to the reason the privilege of pulping those two flyers is for the flyers being pulled. (Time expired) something like $143,000. Question resolved in the affirmative. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25399

COMMITTEES additional $9.9 million over an extra four years Legal and Constitutional References for Link Up services. Committee The federal government has considered the Sen- ate Legal and Constitutional References Com- Report: Government Response mittee’s report on its Inquiry into the govern- Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western ment’s implementation of the Bringing Them Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Home report’s recommendations. The Committee Minister for Communications, Information did not produce a consensus report. The Majority Technology and the Arts) (3.38 p.m.)—I pre- Report of the non-government members of the sent the government’s response to the report Committee contains ten recommendations, of of the Legal and Constitutional References which nine are relevant to the Commonwealth. The government supports, either in full or in part, Committee entitled Healing: a legacy of five of these nine recommendations. We agree generations, a report of the inquiry into the with the Committee’s first majority recommenda- federal government’s implementation of rection that it is timely to evaluate the original re- ommendations made by the Human Rights sponse to Bringing Them Home by all relevant and Equal Opportunity Commission in parties. We agree that it is vital that programmes Bringing them home. I seek leave to incorpo- and services be monitored and coordinated to rate the document in Hansard. ensure that the needs of those still suffering the effects of family separations are being met, and Leave granted. we can point to relevant policies already agreed The response read as follows— or in place. We agree that it is important that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO events of the past and their legacy be acknowl- HEALING: A LEGACY OF GENERATIONS edged. In addition, therefore, we are pleased to advise that in the 2001-02 Budget the government The Report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional allocated funding beyond 30 June 2002 for key References Committee Inquiry into the Federal family reunion and health services at a further Government’s Implementation of Recommenda- cost of $53.9 million over four years to tions Made by the Human Rights and Equal Op- 30 June 2006. portunity Commission in Bringing Them Home The government’s response to each of the Senate The federal government is committed to address- Committee’s individual recommendations fol- ing the traumatic legacy of past practices of in- lows. digenous child separation. There is no doubt that these practices represent a tragic part of Austra- Response to Majority (non-government Sena- lia’s history. The government has recognised that, tors) Report recommendations viewed from a present day perspective, these Recommendation 1 – The Committee recom- practices were misguided and caused great suf- mends that the federal government, in conjunction fering, and has established programmes to assist with state and territory governments, commission those affected to move forward. an independent evaluation of the progress of ini- In responding to the Bringing Them Home report, tiatives implemented by governments in response the government noted that the Human Rights and to the Bringing Them Home report. The inde- Equal Opportunity Commission identified family pendent evaluator should present its report within reunion as “the most significant and urgent need six months of the federal government’s response of separated families”. This is central to the gov- to the report of this inquiry. ernment’s response announced in December Supported, although the timeframe proposed may 1997, which included a $63 million package of be insufficient to allow detailed consultation. measures designed to assist families with the pro- The Ministerial Council for Aboriginal and Torres vision of counselling and parenting programmes Strait Islander Affairs (MCATSIA) currently and family tracing and reunion services. Other monitors progress of all jurisdictions in imple- elements of the package included an oral history menting their responses to the Bringing Them project, improved access to Commonwealth rec- Home report. Although it produces an annual ords for those tracing their past, and language and cross-jurisdictional progress report, MCATSIA culture maintenance programmes. Building on has not commissioned a formal, independent this initial package of initiatives, the government evaluation of progress. will provide ongoing funding of $44 million over a further four years for its parenting programmes, The government will propose to MCATSIA that it counselling services and support and training for sponsor an independent evaluation of all govern- mental health counsellors. It will also provide an ment and non-government responses to Bringing 25400 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Them Home, to be coordinated by the Department trolled Health Organisation, as well as the rele- of Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait vant state/territory governments. Islander Affairs. This will be undertaken in con- Community consultation regarding the archives sultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait project to improve access to Commonwealth rec- Islander Commission (ATSIC), as the govern- ords continues through an Aboriginal Advisory ment’s principal source of advice from an indige- Group made up of community representatives in nous perspective. Darwin. A similar group is being established in Recommendation 2 – The Committee recom- Melbourne. (The relevant Commonwealth rec- mends that the Commonwealth convene a Summit ords are largely confined to the Northern Territory meeting twelve months from the date of the fed- and Victoria, for historical reasons). eral government’s response to this inquiry, to Recommendation 3 – The Committee recom- coordinate and address the issues and recommen- mends that recommendation 5a of Bringing Them dations identified in this report. Home be fulfilled by the Australian Parliament, Supported in part. and that a ‘Motion of National Apology and Rec- The government agrees that it is important that onciliation’ be settled following wide consultation there be a forum for discussion of issues related to with individual members of the Stolen Generation indigenous family separations. There are existing and representatives of stolen generation organi- forums for this, however. sations. ATSIC already holds annual national workshops Supported in principle. for Link Up staff to discuss common issues. In Both Houses of Federal Parliament passed the addition, the second National Stolen Generations government’s Motion of Reconciliation on Conference was held in March 2001 to discuss a 26 August 1999. The motion acknowledged that range of issues relevant to those affected by in- the “mistreatment of many indigenous Australians digenous child separation. Conference delegates over a significant period represents the most included a number of stakeholders such as the blemished chapter in our international history” Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander and expressed the Federal Parliament’s “deep and Child Care, the National Aboriginal Community sincere regret that indigenous Australians suf- Controlled Health Organisation, the National fered injustices under the practices of past gen- Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretar- erations, and for the hurt and trauma that many iat, and individuals with direct experience of indigenous people continue to feel as a conse- family separation. These conferences, hosted by quence of these practices.” indigenous organisations, are planned to be held The motion also reaffirmed a whole-hearted approximately every two years. commitment to the cause of reconciliation be- There is also already a number of other mecha- tween indigenous and non-indigenous Australians nisms in place which serve to coordinate govern- as an important national priority for all Austra- ment responses to the Bringing Them Home re- lians. port and provide opportunities for those affected The period when indigenous family separations by child separation practices to have a voice. For took place represents a lasting and tragic phase in example, MCATSIA has the separated children our nation’s history. The government is very issue as a standing agenda item for consideration aware of the continuing hurt suffered by those at its meetings. It also publishes an annual prog- affected by these past practices, and is committed ress report on Commonwealth and state and ter- to addressing its consequences. ritory government responses to the Bringing Them Home report. A study of best practice Recommendation 4 – The Committee recom- models in relation to contemporary child separa- mends, as a gesture of good faith, as in the case tion practices is also being undertaken in that of the Parliament of the Australian Capital Ter- context. ritory, that the Northern Territory Parliament make a formal apology to members of the Stolen The government has implemented its health ini- Generation. The form of words for such an apol- tiatives in partnership with indigenous communi- ogy should be decided in consultation with repre- ties and the states and territories. The counsel- sentative members of the stolen generation in the ling, counselling support, and parenting initiatives Northern Territory. in response to Bringing Them Home have been implemented under State/Territory Partnership This is a matter for the Northern Territory gov- Forums which include representation from ATSIC ernment. and the National Aboriginal Community Con- Recommendation 5 – The Committee recommends the Commonwealth Government consult Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25401 with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander MCATSIA meetings. MCATSIA publishes an Commission, Reconciliation Australia, members annual report on the progress of government ini- of the Stolen Generation and their representative tiatives in response to Bringing Them Home. In organisations with a view to establishing a na- 2000 it also published a compilation of all juris- tional memorial. dictions’ responses. Supported in principle. Furthermore, the Council of Australian Govern- In May 2000, the Prime Minister announced plans ments (COAG) has undertaken to monitor out- to construct Reconciliation Place in the national comes of all indigenous-specific programmes and capital’s Parliamentary Triangle thereby demon- services, and government responses to the Bring- strating the government’s commitment to the on- ing Them Home report will therefore be incorpo- going process of reconciliation. It is to be an rated in this process. (See response below to rec- interpretative pathway linking the National Li- ommendation 2.5 of the Australian Democrats’ brary with the High Court and National Gallery. Minority Report). As noted by the Prime Minister, Reconciliation Recommendation 7 – The Committee recom- Place will acknowledge the history and signifi- mends the establishment of a ‘Reparations Tribu- cant achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait nal’ to address the need for an effective process of Islander peoples, and incorporate an acknowl- reparation, including the provision of individual edgment of the separation of indigenous children monetary compensation. from their families. Not supported. The design for the project was determined The government’s position on this matter has through an open competition in the first half of been clearly stated in its original submission to 2001. The winning design has been chosen and the HREOC Inquiry and in its submission to this the project is scheduled to be completed by the Inquiry. The government’s $63 million package end of the year. The Steering Committee for the of initiatives (increasing to $117 million after 30 project is co-chaired by Dr Evelyn Scott and June 2002) to assist those affected by past prac- Mr Ian Spicer AM, and includes a majority of tices of removal to, among other things, be re- indigenous members. ATSIC, the Torres Strait united with their families and receive counselling Regional Authority (TSRA), other relevant or- and support for the pain they have suffered, repre- ganisations and the local Ngun(n)awal commu- sents a more practical way to assist in healing the nity are being consulted regarding the project. suffering caused by past practices of family sepa- Recommendation 6 – The Committee recom- ration. The Bringing Them Home report itself mends that the Government take steps to imple- asserted that family reunion, not financial comment an effective and independent coordination pensation, is “the most significant and urgent and monitoring process for all programs which need of separated families”. address the needs of members of the Stolen Gen- The government considers that establishing a eration. This process should take into account tribunal with the comprehensive jurisdiction and the recommendations of Bringing Them Home extensive powers suggested would neither guar- and the recommendations and conclusions of this antee a less stressful consideration of matters nor report. less expense for either party than court proceed- Supported in part. ings. The same complex and costly legal and factual issues would need to be addressed in order The government acknowledges the importance of to assess individual claims and such decisions monitoring and coordinating efforts to address the would still be open to further judicial review. The legacy of past policies and practices of indigenous experience of other administrative tribunals, in- family separation, and of ensuring that these pro- cluding in the field of immigration and refugees, grammes and services are more effective in illustrates that it is not possible to insulate such meeting the needs of indigenous people affected deliberations from legal challenges and proce- by those policies and practices. dures. The Dissenting Report of the Government The Ministerial Council for Aboriginal and Torres Senators on the Committee also highlights the Strait Islander Affairs already undertakes this fundamental practical problems associated with coordination and monitoring role. The Council the operation of a compensation tribunal in this comprises Commonwealth, State and Territory context. This includes the basic question of de- Aboriginal Affairs Ministers, along with the fining what circumstances and which affected Chairs of ATSIC and TSRA, and the Head of the individuals would or would not qualify for com- Australian Local Government Association. The pensation. issue of government responses to the Bringing Them Home report is a standing agenda item for 25402 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Additionally, State governments are responsible lion over an extra four years for Link Up services. for the laws which were in place in their jurisdic- This is a significant boost to the government’s tions during the period that indigenous child re- original response to Bringing Them Home, movals took place. No state government has of- bringing the government’s total contribution to fered to pay monetary compensation or establish $117 million. such a tribunal. It is a matter for the The government does not support a national non-government organisations involved in the summit, although it does recognise that there removal and care of children to respond to com- should be a forum for people to discuss issues pensation claims addressed to their actions. related to indigenous child separation. The gov- Recommendation 8 – The Committee recom- ernment believes such fora already exist - see mends that the Tribunal model put forward by the response to Majority Report recommendation 2. Public Interest Advocacy Centre of NSW be used Recommendation 2.2 – The Australian Demo- as a general template for the recommended tribu- crats recommend that the federal government’s nal. The model should consider the most effective funding package to implement the recommenda- ways to deal with issues of reparation. tions of the BTH Report should be ongoing and See response to recommendation 7. subject to review in terms of its adequacy by the Recommendation 9 – The Committee recom- independent auditing body referred to in Recom- mends that details of the form and operations of mendation 2.6 below. the tribunal be finalised following consultation at Supported. See response to 2.1 above, and note the proposed National Summit. that some of the government’s original initiatives See responses to recommendations 7 and 2. such as the oral history and archiving projects do not require further funding as they are finite proj- Recommendation 10 – The Committee recom- ects. See also response to recommendation 1 of mends that as soon as practicable after the ta- the Majority Report. bling of this report, appropriate consultations should be held with representatives of the Stolen Recommendation 2.3 – The Australian Demo- Generation and their organisations, including crats recommend the establishment of a mediation ATSIC, with a view to finalising an agenda for the process and/or series of conferences by ATSIC to proposed National Summit. resolve a range of outstanding issues between the stolen generations communities, their representa- See response to recommendation 2. tive organisations and Indigenous community Response to Minority Report recommenda- organisations in the Northern Territory. This tions by the Australian Democrats should occur in advance of the Indigenous con- Recommendation 1.1 – The Australian Demo- sultations referred to in Recommendation 10 of crats recommend that all of the recommendations the Majority Report. contained in the Majority Report on the Stolen Supported. Generations be implemented as a matter of ur- Mediation between the competing interests for gency. Link Up funding in the Northern Territory oc- See responses to the Majority Report recommen- curred in July and August 1999 and continued dations. during 2000. ATSIC staff have undertaken me- Recommendation 2.1 – The Australian Demo- diation sessions between the interested parties on crats recommend that the federal government, in a number of occasions and have used an inde- consultation with the stolen generations and their pendent facilitator to assist. The government representative organisations, significantly in- understands that ATSIC was unable to gain repre- crease the funding package to implement the gov- sentation of all interested parties at the mediation ernment’s response to the recommendations of the sessions. BTH Report to ensure that the needs of the stolen ATSIC has continued to attempt to resolve differ- generations are fully addressed. These negotia- ences between the representative organisations tions should be a key element of the National and will continue the mediation process until a Summit on the Stolen Generations, as proposed in satisfactory resolution has been reached. the Majority Report. Recommendation 2.4 – The Australian Demo- Supported in relation to funding. crats recommend that the Churches proceed with The government will provide ongoing funding of their plans to establish their own compensation $44 million over a further four years for its par- fund to facilitate the delivery of reparations, in- enting programmes, counselling services, and cluding compensation, to the stolen generations, support and training for mental health counsel- their families and communities, in accordance lors. It will also provide an additional $9.9 mil- with the recommendations of the BTH Report. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25403

This is a matter for the Churches to consider. stolen generations are being satisfactorily ad- Recommendation 2.5 – The Australian Demo- dressed. crats recommend, in acknowledgment of the Supported in part. enormity of the problems faced by the stolen gen- The government acknowledges the need to ensure erations throughout Australia, that COAG take up that programmes and services targeted to people the responsibility of ensuring the delivery of a separated as children are delivered appropriately coordinated, effective whole-of-government re- and effectively. It is important that the govern- sponse to the recommendations contained in the ment be accountable for its initiatives. BTH Report. Government programmes are already subject to Supported in part. ongoing review and evaluation. Commonwealth On 3 November 2000, COAG agreed to commit and state and territory government programmes to a new approach to addressing indigenous dis- are subject to internal review. In addition, the advantage, based on partnerships and shared re- Australian National Audit Office regularly un- sponsibilities, programme flexibility and coordi- dertakes performance audits of Commonwealth nation amongst agencies. The focus is to be at the government programmes, just as state and terri- community level, to increase community capacity. tory Auditors-General audit programmes in their The Prime Minister has written to Chairs of Min- jurisdictions. isterial Councils and to relevant Commonwealth These ongoing audits of government pro- Ministers asking them to implement COAG’s grammes, in conjunction with MCATSIA’s decisions. Ministerial Councils will develop ac- monitoring and reporting role, provide adequate tion plans and performance monitoring strategies, assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of and report to COAG on progress in late 2001. government initiatives in response to Bringing MCATSIA will coordinate the work of Ministerial Them Home. In addition, the government has Councils in implementing the COAG decision. reported on the progress of its Bringing Them However, the government does not see a role for Home initiatives on a six-monthly basis, and, in COAG specifically in relation to the response to line with Recommendation 1 of the Majority Re- Bringing Them Home. MCATSIA is composed of port, will be arranging for an evaluation of its Aboriginal Affairs Ministers in each state and programmes established in response to Bringing territory, and the ATSIC and TSRA Chairs. It is a Them Home. forum in which members can consider relevant Recommendation 2.8 – The Australian Demo- government activities and discuss issues of mu- crats recommend that Recommendations 44-54 of tual interest. The Council aims to achieve a coor- the BTH Report be actioned as a matter of ur- dinated approach to the planning, funding and gency to ensure that adequate national legislation provision of services to Aboriginal and Torres is implemented which establishes minimum stan- Strait Islander peoples. It is therefore logical that dards of treatment and protection of all Indige- MCATSIA should continue to coordinate and nous children and other children as appropriate monitor the responses of all jurisdictions to the (national standards legislation). Bringing Them Home report, as it has been doing since August 1997. The MCATSIA officials’ Not supported in relation to national legislation, working party is convened and chaired by ATSIC. but the adoption of consistent best practice standards by state and territory governments is en- Recommendation 2.6 – The Australian Demo- couraged. crats support Recommendation 1 of the Majority Report, relating to the need for the federal gov- In 1997, the Commonwealth/State/Territory Min- ernment, in conjunction with state and territory isterial Council on Aboriginal and Torres Strait governments, to commission an independent Islander Affairs agreed that jurisdictions would evaluation of the progress of initiatives imple- implement their own standards as they see fit. In mented by governments in response to the BTH the interests of consistency however, MCATSIA Report. has established a working group to identify best practice models in the juvenile justice and child Supported. welfare systems for jurisdictions to use as bench- See response to Recommendation 1 of the Major- marks. ATSIC is managing this project. ity Report. Recommendation 2.9 – The Australian Demo- Recommendation 2.7 – We further add that peri- crats recommend that the Commonwealth provide odic independent audits of governments’ initia- full and just reparations to the stolen generations, tives are required no less than every three years their families and communities as soon as is to ensure that the needs and aspirations of the practicable. This recommendation should be carried out in conjunction with all other recom- 25404 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 mendations contained in this Minority Report. for tabling in the Australian Parliament on the Collectively, these recommendations constitute appropriate model for a Stolen Generations the minimum acceptable response required to Reparations Tribunal. This report should draw heal the legacy borne by the stolen generations, extensively on the views of the stolen generations, their families and communities. their representative organisations, and the out- The government does not support a reparations comes of the National Summit on the Stolen Gen- tribunal. See response to recommendation 7 of erations. the Majority Report. See responses to recommendations 7 and 2 of the The government considers it most important to Majority Report. allow those affected by past practices to be as- Response to Government Senators’ Dissenting sisted in finding their families, and to receive Report recommendations counselling and support for the trauma they have Recommendation 1 – That family reunion and experienced. It has therefore focused its response associated support services continue to be the on addressing these needs. primary focus of government and non-government Apart from the provision of family reunion and responses to the separated children experience; counselling services, the government has imple- that those services be targeted specifically to mented parenting programmes, language and those separated children. culture maintenance programmes, improved ac- Supported. cess to Commonwealth records, and an oral history project through which people can tell their The government is continuing to focus its re- stories. sponse to Bringing Them Home on family reunion and support services, by extending funding for the The Prime Minister proposed, and the Federal Link Up and health initiatives. This means the Parliament passed, the Motion of Reconciliation government will have contributed $117 million which acknowledged the suffering and trauma towards programmes to address the continuing experienced by indigenous Australians caused by trauma of past policies of indigenous child sepa- the practices of past generations. ration. Recommendation 3.1 – The Australian Demo- It is understandable that some separated children crats recommend that all parties involved in ne- organisations feel they can provide the most ap- gotiations for the establishment of a Stolen Gen- propriate services for those they represent, and erations Tribunal examine the Veterans’ Entitle- that it would be better if the funds were distrib- ment Act 1986 as a successful legal precedent for uted directly to them. However, the government the relaxation of the normal requirements for considers that this would unnecessarily limit the establishing liability. assistance available to those who require it. The Not supported. current organisations which provide Link Up and See response to recommendation 7 of the Major- counselling services have access to an existing ity Report. infrastructure and network which enables them to support their workers and provide related services Recommendation 3.2 – The Australian Demo- to their clients. crats recommend that all parties involved in negotiations for the establishment of a Stolen Gen- It is important that the government’s initiatives erations Tribunal consider the inclusion of a me- are directed towards those who have been af- diation process in the operations of such a Tribu- fected by family separation practices. However, nal. it is very difficult to differentiate between those who are accessing services because they were See response to recommendation 7 of the Major- forcibly separated from their families as children, ity Report. and those who are accessing services who may Recommendation 3.3 – The Australian Demo- have been separated from their families for some crats recommend that all parties involved in the other reason, but with nevertheless a very real negotiations for the establishment of a Stolen need for assistance. In the same way, it is diffi- Generations Tribunal consider the inclusion of an cult to identify the emotional and social issues alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the which may cause someone to need mental health operation of such a Tribunal. counselling, and to distinguish issues caused by See response to recommendation 7 of the Major- past practices of indigenous child separation from ity Report. other life affecting issues. Recommendation 3.4 – The Australian Demo- The government considers that, even if such a crats recommend that the Administrative Review distinction were clinically possible and appropri- Council (or an equivalent body) prepare a report ate, it cannot adequately or reasonably make these Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25405 distinctions in providing its family reunion and ment’s implementation of recommendations counselling services. However, this does not made by the Human Rights and Equal Op- mean that these services are not available to those portunity Commission in the Bringing them affected by past practices of indigenous child home report. However, this response is in- separation. The services are targeted to the dicative of a government who believes that broader group, that is all of those affected by past practices of removal, not necessarily only those these issues will go away. They clearly will who were removed as children. The Human not. All Australians need to be able to hon- Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission itself estly and openly own our shared history. Our stated in Bringing Them Home that separation sense of who we are and what we hope to be affected whole families and communities. can never be securely held if it is based on a Recommendation 2 – That State governments and false and incomplete history. There are responsible non-government organisations, in- things that must be done and said if we are to cluding the churches, be encouraged to give tan- be able to move on. gible as well as symbolic recognition to the needs Those who are today still suffering from of separated children. the direct and indirect consequences of past Supported. policies that saw indigenous families torn It is very important that the state and territory apart have particular rights and needs that governments and non-government organisations, have yet to be met. We must do so for their including churches, which were involved in past own good and for the good of all of us. We practices of indigenous child separation, ac- should never lose sight of the fact that the knowledge the part they played in this tragic part abuse and mistreatment of indigenous Aus- of our history, in substantial ways as well as through symbolic gestures. As revealed in evi- tralians has been the subject of ongoing dence to the Committee, while many governments contemporary debate and informed criticism and churches have made apologies, they have since European settlement. There is no one provided only modest tangible resources towards true history; there is no one truth in these providing reparations. matters. We can no more say that all policy As Chair of MCATSIA, the federal Minister for was motivated by racism and malice than we Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs can say that all the motives were benign. wrote to the heads of the Anglican, Catholic, What we can agree on is that the results of Uniting and Lutheran churches on 20 July 2000, policies of governments and agencies over asking them to provide reports on their responses time were shameful and overwhelmingly to to relevant recommendations of Bringing Them the great disadvantage of most indigenous Home, for inclusion in the MCATSIA report on Australians subject to them. progress for 1999-2000. In asking for this information, the Minister encouraged churches to de- Every Australian legislator should be velop relationships between themselves and Link aware that every aspect of past policies, for Up services to facilitate access to church records which so many now express sorrow and re- by indigenous people trying to trace their fami- gret, was framed in the context of contempo- lies. All of the church leaders have provided in- rary criticism and debate. Legislators of formation for the report. those days were content, relaxed and com- Moreover, the Commonwealth can work with the fortable in moving from majority public states and territories through MCATSIA to en- opinion rather than accepting informed and courage them to respond in a more material way probably less popular advice. But we must to the needs of those separated under their past move on. We must acknowledge past laws. wrongs, guarantee against their repetition Senator McKIERNAN (Western Austra- and express genuine sorrow both for these lia) (3.38 p.m.)—by leave—I move: acts and for the consequences of these acts. I That the Senate take note of the document. have moved in these terms in the parliament It is good to see some acknowledgment by every year since the tabling of the Bringing the federal government of the recommenda- them home report in 1997. tions arising from the majority report of the The government say in their response that Senate Legal and Constitutional References they support in principle recommendation 3, Committee inquiry into the federal govern- which is: 25406 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

... ‘Motion of National Apology and Reconcilia- things that code requires of a government, so tion’ be settled following wide consultation with I will quote from it in part. It says: individual members of the stolen generation and The Commonwealth must act honestly and fairly representatives of stolen generation organisations. in handling claims by: However, they quite clearly do not. The gov- ……… ernment say their motion of reconciliation • paying legitimate claims without litigation, fits this requirement. It quite clearly does including making partial settlements of not. Ultimately, for an apology to have an claims or interim payments, where it is clear effect it must be made in terms acceptable to that liability is at least as much as the amount the parties affected. The government’s mo- to be paid; tion of reconciliation does not do this, there- ……… fore it is not effective. This is unfinished • endeavouring to avoid litigation, wherever business. The government also refuse to con- possible; sider recommendation 7, to establish a repa- • where it is not possible to avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to a minimum, rations tribunal, on the grounds that it is just including by: as complex and as costly as litigation pres- • not requiring the other party to prove a mat- ently proceeding through the courts. This is ter which the Commonwealth knows to be untrue. It is possible to address these matters true; and in non-litigious ways, just as many present • not contesting liability if the Commonwealth statutory schemes do. It is possible to come knows that the dispute is really about quan- to agreed facts through a non-adversarial tum; process which is designed to heal rather than • not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks to blame. the resources to litigate a legitimate claim; We cannot write or interpret our history in ……… the courts. No finding of a contemporary • apologising where the Commonwealth is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrong- court can either vindicate or punish legisla- fully or improperly. tors and administrators of the past. Litigation is a poor interpreter of history and an impre- These words have a hollow and ironic ring to cise instrument of public policy. History anyone in any way familiar with the Com- deals with general patterns, big pictures, monwealth’s conduct in the Cubillo-Gunner causes and consequences. Litigation moves case, currently under appeal in the Federal slowly along, case by case, constrained by Court. This is a case where the Common- rules of evidence that restrict admissibility, wealth has already spent in the order of $11.5 that focus on the particular facts relevant to million. One lawyer alone has been paid $1 the specific action being pleaded and place million. Private investigators have been paid all onus of proof on the plaintiff. Rules of $770,000. evidence and other court rules have an hon- This is a case where the singular lack of ourable intent and an honourable purpose. compassion or cultural sensitivity of the They seek to protect the weak, usually an Commonwealth has astounded those who individual, from the strong, usually the state. have studied it. The court has found that When the roles are reversed, and the state as Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner suffered Goliath enjoys all the protections really in- systematic abuse and trauma over a long pe- tended for David, courts work not nearly as riod when removed from their families and well as they should. placed in institutions. It also found that there Governments are aware of this, and com- is a causative relationship between their ex- mit themselves to a code of practice that periences in these institutions and their con- compels them to act in an exemplary manner. tinued mental and physical suffering. Despite This code is referred to, in the case of the this, they have been subjected to humiliation Commonwealth government, in the docu- and harrowing treatment in the court. ment The Commonwealth as a model liti- There is no doubt that the Commonwealth gant. It is instructive to look at some of the has set out to make an example of them. Any person making a complaint or any legal service thinking of supporting them is to be Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25407 left in no doubt as to the consequences: the time, during the Senate inquiry, was that the matter will be fought out in court; these pro- recommendations are a package of comple- cesses will be long and expensive; no secret, mentary measures that need to be imple- no private matter and no youthful indiscre- mented as a whole. Collectively, it is about tion will go untouched; the Commonwealth those recommendations constituting the will set out to humiliate, discredit and defeat minimum acceptable response required to every claimant; and the highest paid legal pit heal the legacy that is borne by members of bulls will cross examine each claimant and the stolen generations, their families and use all the experience and guile at their dis- their communities. posal to intimidate and confuse the claimant This government has done exactly the op- into inconsistent or uncertain testimony. posite. It has picked out the recommenda- Currently, there is a total of 742 writs tions of the Bringing them home report re- served on the Commonwealth in relation to lating to family reunions and the need for the claims by 2,104 people seeking damages in provision of Link Up services and then de- connection with forced family separations in termined, in defiance of all of the recom- the Northern Territory. There are cases under mendations and evidence put forward in both way around Australia against state govern- the Bringing them home report and the recent ments. The Cubillo-Gunner case makes it inquiry, that that alone is going to address the clear that the greatest likelihood of success in ongoing suffering of the stolen generations, these cases rests with going beyond govern- their families and their communities. ments and joining churches, agencies and This is pertinent when you consider the individuals in these actions—more people debate that has raged—and is raging now— and more pain. in the media in the past two weeks about We cannot afford—not in monetary terms how to address the issues of dysfunctionality nor in terms of the cost to our national repu- within indigenous communities. Much of tation and sense of decency—to deal with what can be seen there can be attributed to these cases in the way the Howard govern- institutional policies that were designed to ment would have us proceed. Although there remove people and that left scars on people’s is acceptance in part of some of the recom- hearts and on their souls. Now the challenge mendations of the report of the Senate Legal to government is how it can help to restore and Constitutional Committee, it is clearly and repair the damage that has been done. not enough. This response is indicative of a The Australian Democrats want to restate government that will not acknowledge the at the outset some observations that were full extent of the problem and hopes that it made by the human rights commission in its can shut its eyes and make the issue go away. submission to the Senate committee. One of It will not go away. the observations was that the adequacy of the Senator RIDGEWAY (New South Commonwealth response is best measured Wales—Deputy Leader of the Australian by assessing the redress provided against the Democrats) (3.48 p.m.)—It has taken the harm done, rather than trying to highlight the government seven months to respond to this paucity of redress from other sources or by report and, given that it has taken that time, I attempting to transfer the responsibility to hope that perhaps in another month’s time other groups, such as states and churches. there might also be a response to the final The government did hear the message of report of the Council for Aboriginal Recon- those members of the stolen generations who ciliation—after 10 years. appeared before the Senate committee, ex- As the Australian Democrats stated in our plained the difficulty in accessing family minority report in Healing: a legacy of gen- Link Up services and gave their stories of erations, the recommendations of the Bring- how overwhelmed and underresourced those ing them home report are not a collection of services are. It has therefore decided to in- options for governments to choose from. crease funds to parenting programs, counsel- What we were essentially saying, and what ling services, mental health counsellors and the human rights commission said at the Link Up services. Whilst that is a welcome 25408 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 step in the right direction, I think that we evidence that is required by the courts, and can, at best, describe it as being good but not the stolen generations, having had their sto- necessarily great. ries put on public display and under scrutiny, The Australian Democrats do not want to have to suffer collectively again. respond in detail on the financial commit- If the government were genuine and sin- ments that the government have made today; cere in its statement in today’s response that rather, we want to revisit that matter in the it wants to acknowledge the events of the future after we have had an opportunity to past and their legacy, we would expect as a examine the adequacy of the measures, speak very minimum to be adopting the main rec- to members of the stolen generations and ommendation of the Senate committee re- look at the question of whether there is in port, that is, committing to the establishment fact the provision of sufficient resources to of a reparations tribunal to provide an alter- address the problems that exist. native to the courts. The stolen generations In particular, we would like to look into community is meeting again in a couple of the matter of whether this really is new months to flesh out the details of how this funding or, as was the case with most of the tribunal would work in practice as there is funding in the government’s initial $63 mil- already community support for the tribunal lion response to the Bringing them home re- model developed by the Public Interest Ad- port, whether it is simply old money that has vocacy Centre in New South Wales. been retagged. I do not think there is any Similarly, the government would not be clear indication about whether we are look- intentionally misunderstanding the intent of ing at the same process having been gone the Senate committee’s second recommen- through again or whether in fact it is new dation and suggesting that we already have money. But what all of the reports, inquiries, sufficient forums to discuss issues of concern conferences and international laws have ad- to the members of the stolen generations. vised this government to do is to deliver a The Senate committee recommended a na- comprehensive package of measures. In- tional summit to progress recommendations stead, this government has ignored the best of its own report. Suggesting, as the govern- advice and results coming forward in those ment has today, that this be done by the contexts. Ministerial Council on Aboriginal and Torres In its response report, the Australian gov- Strait Islander Affairs, as one such forum, ernment decided, against all other advice, after the stinging criticism that it received in that the stolen generations do not need repa- the committee’s report, is nothing short of an ration or guarantees against repetition or a insult to the stolen generations. formal apology or a reparations tribunal or It is simply unrealistic to expect the an- compensation. In the eyes of the government nual link-up meetings to deal with all of the and from my reading of the response, all the business that they already have on their plate measures that the stolen generations have while additionally now taking on this addi- asked for are seen as unnecessary and un- tional responsibility of fleshing out a repara- helpful. Clearly, the government is con- tions tribunal or making recommendations vinced that it is humane and compassionate on appropriate regimes to look at the moni- because it has not removed the ability of the toring and assessment of the adequacy of the stolen generations to take their human rights government’s response. These are enormous violations to the courts. But it has not ac- demands to place on these groups, which are knowledged that the process is prohibitively already underresourced. costly. Each of the handful of cases that has One of the other things that also needs to been heard during the last decade has be mentioned is the somewhat fatigued dragged on for years. Each has cost the sto- question of a formal parliamentary apology len generations and taxpayers millions of to the stolen generations. I have to wonder dollars each time one of these high profile whether the government read the transcripts cases does not succeed because the claimants of the hearings and heard the unanimous cannot deliver the necessary paper trail of voice of the stolen generations that the mo- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25409 tion for the national apology and reconcilia- Senator COONEY (Victoria) (3.57 tion back in 1999 did not go far enough. Eve- p.m.)—I endorse what has been said by ryone agreed that, whilst it was a good first Senator McKiernan and Senator Ridgeway, step, for the government to suggest in its but there are a couple of things I would like response today that has delivered on that call to talk about. Firstly, recommendation 7— is a misrepresentation of the facts. Any fence and Senator Ridgeway and Senator mending that the government might have McKiernan both turned their minds to this— achieved through the motion back then was dealt with the committee’s recommendation destroyed by the then minister for indigenous for the establishment of a reparations tribunal affairs in his comments that there never was to address the need to provide an effective a stolen generation. process of redress, including the provision of One of the key issues is about being able individual monetary compensation. The to monitor and report on these issues. With thinking behind this was that there ought to respect to the government’s response to the be some formal instrument set up by the committee’s recommendation regarding state, which represents the community, to do monitoring and reporting and all of the justice to citizens of this country—in this mechanisms required to look at how to over- case those with indigenous ancestry—who come problems of disfunctionality in com- have been badly dealt with. The idea of the munities, as I stated earlier, the Senate com- tribunal is for decision makers to make an mittee found the ministerial council to be assessment of what has gone on in individual extremely remiss in meeting its own respon- cases and to do justice to them by way of sibilities and the junior ministerial council compensation or some other relief. That is a with no power or influence. As Sir Ronald normal part of the society we live in, that is, Wilson said in his address to the committee, we have people making assessments, judging ‘What does it take? What does it do?’ It between two parties, as it were, and coming waits for a year and then assigns the task to down with a decision to do justice between the Victorian committee, and the Victorian those two entities. The reason the working party meets the best part of 12 government has used to reject that suggestion months later and it has an understanding of is as follows—and I quote from the govern- what these states chose to have done. So I ment’s reply: think the obligation to report in any way that would seek a coordinated response has again The experience of other administrative tribunals been disregarded by the government. There including in the field of immigration and refugees is simply no meaningful or inspiring re- illustrates that it is not possible to insulate such deliberations from legal challenges and proce- sponse coming forward. dures. Again, the Democrats repeat our recom- What is used in this context to reject a rec- mendation in the minority committee report ommendation of the committee is that which that the appropriate procedure for imple- has happened in the area of immigration. The mentation is a four-tiered procedure coordi- area of unauthorised arrivals is used to put nated at the highest level of government, this present proposition down. In respect of namely, the Council of Australian Govern- the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Immi- ments. The Australian Democrats believe gration Review Tribunal, the courts simply that the enormity of the problems faced by decide whether those tribunals have done the stolen generations throughout Australia is their jobs. The courts are not there to decide such that the highest level of government the facts. The courts are there to see whether must step in to ensure a coordinated, effec- the tribunals do their jobs. That is a reason- tive and whole-of-government response. The able process. However, a culture is develop- government’s persistence in relegating this to ing in this society and in the government a junior council, quite frankly, does not instil which, more and more, impugns the courts confidence in members of the stolen genera- and the legal system in this country. Indeed, tions that things will substantially change. it tends to go beyond the legal system. The most recent example of where the government does that is the allegations made under 25410 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 parliamentary privilege here the other night safe. Democracy requires taking a risk. As I against an Aboriginal leader, Mr Terry said last night, some people are going to es- O’Shane. cape their just desserts because the allega- The problem with what happened the tions against them cannot be proven. Even other night is that there is a legal process though those allegations might be true, they which has been set up by the community and cannot be proven. However, we are not a which has been with us for centuries—and if society that would do anything to obtain its we consider England as our predecessor in objectives. We are not a society that goes in this regard, that process has been in opera- for torture. We are not a society which would tion for many centuries—to ensure that peo- write out untrue confessions simply to obtain ple are dealt with fairly when accusations of a result. We are not a society that believes in a most serious nature are made against them. noble corruption. We ought to be a society However, in this chamber the other night a that says, ‘There’s due process to be gone senator chose to ignore those legal processes through.’ In many cases, due process means and instruments of the rule of law to try to that people escape the consequences of the obtain a result which, if it was going to be wrongs that they have done. However, we obtained, should have been obtained through say that we want to be the sort of society that the legal system. The same sort of thing can would prefer that to happen than to become a be said with regard to matters outside this society where a more fearsome injustice is chamber in respect of the approach the media done because proper process is not under- took to Mr Geoff Clark when it used a proc- taken. On this occasion, the government has ess other than the legal system to deny Mr chosen not to use one of those instruments Clark his right to have the allegations made suggested by the committee, which would against him processed through the proper accommodate the demands that there ought institutions of this country. to be proper process to reach justice. I think that is quite a tragedy. I seek leave to con- It is a matter of concern that we are in- tinue my remarks later. creasingly trying to deal with issues that should be dealt with through the processes of Leave granted; debate adjourned. the institutions I have referred to, to try to LEONIE GREEN AND ASSOCIATES: nail a person through allegation and repeti- INVESTIGATION tion of allegation so that the allegation be- G & K O’CONNOR MEATWORKS: comes the issue and not the resolution of that DEPARTMENTAL FILES allegation so that a fair result is obtained. In the reply to the committee report, there is a Returns to Order furtherance of that attitude and culture which Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western is developing, and a furthering of that cli- Australia—Manager of Government Busi- mate which says, ‘Let’s see what we can get ness in the Senate) (4.06 p.m.)—by leave—I away with. Let’s not have a process of deci- have two responses to returns to order to ta- sion making which is done fairly according ble and two statements to make. In response to law. Let’s see if we can so create an at- to Senator Collins’s request for the Minister mosphere in which people lose a case, lose representing the Minister for Employment their reputation or their standing in the com- Services to table certain documents, I advise munity’—through what, in effect, is a very the Senate: first, there is no interim report of nasty, vicious and unrestrained process. the investigations by the Department of Em- Given that context, it is a tragedy to see the ployment, Workplace Relations and Small reply to the committee’s recommendation Business into Leonie Green and Associates. about the setting up of a tribunal. It is my understanding that the minister ad- It is time that we, as a community, started vised on this issue in the other place earlier to think very seriously about how we deter- today. Secondly, I table documents provided mine the great issues that arise in the com- to the minister at the offices of Leonie Green munity. We seem to want to abandon those and Associates on 10 April this year. Thirdly, very instruments of democracy that make us I table the diary entry in relation to the visit Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25411 to Leonie Green and Associates on 10 April advice to ministers. Were the government to 2001. I am informed that this was an infor- disclose such information, it may prejudice mal visit, which included a tour of the LGA the future supply of information from third premises and a brief discussion with key per- parties to the Commonwealth. Such a preju- sonnel in the boardroom over a cup of cof- dice would clearly be detrimental to effective fee. No notes of the meeting were taken. government and contrary to the public inter- Honourable senators interjecting— est. Further, some of the documents sought are drafts prepared for the internal evaluation Senator IAN CAMPBELL—And they and assessment processes within the depart- are not going to auction the coffeepot! I table ment. Disclosure of such drafts may discour- those documents. age the future discussion of such issues Further, in relation to the return to order within departments. made in relation to the G & K O’Connor Pty In making its decision on this matter, the Ltd issues, I respond further to an order government is aware of the importance of the made by the Senate on 24 May 2001. It fol- principles of transparency and accountability, lows a motion moved by Senator Carr that and has balanced those considerations the Minister representing the Minister for against those other factors—as have previous Employment, Workplace Relations and governments. I note, for instance, the com- Small Business table certain documents, and ments made to the Senate on 3 June 1992 by it follows a statement made in the Senate by the former Senator Gareth Evans, while a me on behalf of the minister earlier this minister in the previous Labor government, month. The documents sought are held by when commenting on ministers’ responsi- the Department of Employment, Workplace bilities when responding to orders such as Relations and Small Business and they relate this and why, in similar circumstances, he to an industrial dispute in the meat process- was precluded from acting upon such an or- ing industry involving G & K O’Connor Pty der. Former Senator Evans spoke of ‘wres- Ltd, the operator of an abattoir, and the Aus- tling with the very difficult and sensitive re- tralasian Meat Industry Employees Union. sponsibilities’ he had, on the one hand, to the On 18 June, the Senate was advised that the Senate and to the public interest to disclose minister was unable to respond fully to the as much material as he reasonably could but, Senate’s order until the government had re- on the other hand, the ‘responsibility to the ceived and considered advice on correspon- country and to other individuals and interests dence received on 15 June from the em- that might be prejudiced by unreasonable ployer party to this dispute. disclosure’. I table certain of the documents subject to I should also add that this return to order the order. The remainder of the documents moved by Senator Carr is not made in a vac- identified in the order are not tabled, as it uum. Freedom of information requests on the would be contrary to the public interest to do same subject were made of the relevant de- so. Broadly speaking, the documents that are partment back in 1999 by the Australasian being tabled are those for which no public Meat Industry Employees Union and they interest argument exists for their non- were responded to according to the principles disclosure. Conversely, the documents that laid down by legislation passed by this par- are not being tabled are of a kind that have liament. After an internal review of those long been recognised by governments, irre- decisions, it is noteworthy that the applicant spective of political persuasion, as contrary union did not exercise its further statutory to the public interest to disclose. rights of appeal to access documents now The documents not tabled include confi- sought by Senator Carr. I mention this be- dential advice prepared by departmental offi- cause it is important that the Senate not allow cers and provided to ministers on sensitive itself to become an appeal forum for docu- matters to assist the deliberative processes of ments lawfully withheld through the freedom government. Disclosure of such documents of information process. would discourage the proper provision of 25412 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

There has been and continues to be sub- recall that many others did. The issue of time stantial litigation in the courts and industrial will perhaps be more carefully considered tribunals between G & K O’Connor and the sometime tomorrow. union. It is also noteworthy that, for a num- Quite clearly, the government’s response ber of years, departmental officials have re- to the return to order is totally inadequate. It sponded to questions from Senator Carr and is of course a response that one would ex- others through the Senate committee process pect. It said that some of these documents are and other forums of this parliament on the available. Presumably, the various newspaper role adopted by the department in its advice clippings that are in the government’s file on and monitoring of this dispute. will be provided. Presumably, the copies of In considering this matter, it is apparent the Senate Hansard that are in the govern- that Senator Carr is on a fishing expedition ment’s files will be provided. But I do not for political and industrial purposes. For over anticipate that a great deal more than that two years, he and officials of the AMIEU will be. What I am concerned about is that have been speculating and alleging publicly the government claims that these matters that the government has been improperly or should not be put on the public record be- unlawfully involving itself in this dispute. cause there is no demonstrable public interest This is despite the responses that have been served by doing so. There is no explanation provided on the record by officials and min- given as to what that grand statement means. isters outlining the government’s position in It is said that these are matters that should this dispute. Inconveniently for Senator Carr, remain private. No serious explanation is there is no wrongdoing by the government, provided on that basis, other than it being and there never has been. Senator Carr will suggested that people who would come to no doubt continue to perceive a conspiracy. the government will not necessarily do so if The government’s reasons for tabling some there is a fear that the information provided of the requested documents, but not the re- to government would at a subsequent point mainder, go to matters of good public ad- be made public. ministration and the public interest, as well We have a number of propositions pre- as precedent. pared within the government about the gov- Finally, I inform the Senate that in making ernment’s response to a quite serious situa- this decision to table some but not all of the tion. We are told that we are not to be pro- relevant documents, the government has not vided with documents concerning the gov- provided the assurance sought by G & K ernment’s evaluation of what has been the O’Connor Pty Ltd in their correspondence of longest lockout in Australian history since 15 June, nor provided the company with ad- the 1920s—an action whereby the minister vance notice of this statement. for industrial relations through his solicitors, Senator CARR (Victoria) (4.13 p.m.)—by in common with the company, has clearly leave—I move: acted to coerce a group of 250 of the constituents that I seek to serve into accepting That the Senate take note of the statement. wage cuts of 20 per cent. This same com- Senator Harradine—For how long? pany has engaged a group of industrial thugs Senator CARR—It is normally 10 min- who have been involved in Queensland on utes or so for these sorts of responses. Given previous occasions and in the waterfront dis- that we have no time limits on debate today, pute last year. The notorious scab herder, Senator Harradine, I would not have thought Townsend, has been employed by this com- that the question of time would arise. The pany and, it is my allegation, has been government seems to feel that we have working in concert with this government to plenty of time. I moved a motion earlier this destroy the wages and conditions of 250 day to conclude the proceedings at 12 people at O’Connors in Victoria. o’clock. I do not recall many senators from This is of course a deliberate strategy by the crossbenches supporting that motion. the company working in concert with the Senator Brown did, I believe, but I do not government in contravention of the law to Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25413 de-unionise a plant. I would regard that as a My concern is whether or not this Senate serious matter that ought to concern this has a right to pursue these issues. I will argue Senate. That is a matter that clearly raises that it has and that it has responsibility to do quite profound issues in public policy terms. so, because there are fundamental rights in So when the government says that it is not in this country which I would have thought the public interest that we know about these each and every one of us ought to be de- matters, I think what we have been asked to fending. The right to be in a union just hap- accept is the government’s proposition that it pens to be one of those. The right to actually is not in our interests to know about actions engage in reasonable negotiations about your it has taken which seem to me, on a prima wages and conditions is another. Given that facie basis, to involve breaches of the law. these workers did not engage in one day of In recent times a Channel 9 program, for industrial action, one stop-work meeting in instance, has demonstrated that this group company time or one strike—not one of supplied by Mr Townsend has been engaged those things occurred—but were locked out in actions which are clearly outside the law. for nearly nine months (as I said, the longest We have seen the employment of spies lockout since the 1920s) one would have within the plant to illegally tape-record and thought we would be entitled to ask what coerce other workers into breaches of the law sorts of actions are being pursued by this so that they would be sacked. People that company. We are also entitled to pursue this have chosen to change their view as to the when it can be demonstrated that the gov- rights and wrongs of this dispute have been ernment has been directly involved in using harassed at their homes. Their families have the resources of government against Austra- been harassed and violently intimidated. lian citizens in this way. For the government People who have come across from Tasma- to say, ‘You’re not entitled to know about nia to participate in this dispute have been set this because there is no demonstrable public upon at their houses, and their families have interest in you knowing about the detail’ is been set upon by these paid thugs. complete nonsense. It is my contention that this government If the government wishes to maintain that and this department, through its so-called it is not guilty of any offence, it should pro- workplace reform unit, have been directly duce the documents. The documents are all involved in this dispute from the very begin- quite clearly listed in the FOI application. It ning. I have been asking questions in Senate cost the union $1,000 to make that applica- estimates for two years and I think we can tion and was told for its trouble that, in demonstrate conclusively the government’s document after document, the majority of the complicity in these breaches of the law. That folios fell within the provisions of subsec- is why it is important that these questions are tions 36(1) and 45(1) of the act. That is the raised here and that is why they will continue sole explanation given to the union as to why to be raised. We will hear more, because these documents will not be provided. Of further questions have been placed on notice course, you are advised that you can appeal whereby the government will be obliged to against it, but what good would that do? respond to inquiries as to the involvement of There are some documents that are so ex- a number of officials who have been identi- traordinarily inoffensive that one has to ask fied directly and their cooperation with a on what possible basis a government would certain law firm, which just so happens to be refuse them. Clearly such things as copies of the same law firm—the same personal so- Senate Hansards fall outside the sections of licitor—as that of the former minister, Mr the Freedom of Information Act that I have Reith. So there is no doubt in my mind about just cited. Newspaper clippings fall outside the connections between the owners and op- the provisions of subsections 36(1) and 45(1) erators of the O’Connors plant and members of the act and are marked ‘not to be proof the Senior Executive Service and other vided’. You pay your $1,000, and you are members of the Australian Public Service. told that there is a whole series of files within the department but you cannot have 25414 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 them because they fall outside the Freedom this parliament be advised as to what actions of Information Act. Of course, that was not the government has actually taken—acting all that the files contained, and it would be on our behalf—to assault the living standards nonsense for me to suggest to you that those of these particular Australians. were the only documents that were being It seems to me that this is what this gov- sought. Folios 33 to 36 contain newspaper ernment is trying to hide from us. This is clippings re the G & K O’Connor dispute deliberate policy by this government to hide and are ‘outside the scope, under subpara- the truth. If the claims I have made are graph 22(a)(ii)’. That is the government’s wrong, let it be demonstrated that I am explanation. wrong by putting the documents forward. As There are others. Extracts from Han- I said the other day, there are many issues sard—folios 38 to 41—are ‘outside the here that I wish to pursue, and I expect that I scope of the request’ and marked ‘not to be will pursue them at length. I anticipate that, provided’. An independent weekly newslet- when those answers come back in, other ister on industrial relations—issue 1212, July sues will need to be examined as well. There 1999—is ‘outside the scope of the request’. may well be a need for us to put to this Senate questions cannot be provided under chamber a request for a Senate inquiry to FOI. They are ‘outside the scope of the re- demonstrate—once again, if the government quest’. is right—that its hands are clean, that it has There are other documents that I am more not been involved in a conspiracy to under- interested in than the questions that were mine the wages and conditions of these par- asked in the parliament. They go to the ticular Victorians, that it has not been in- evaluations of this government. They go to volved in any illegal activity involving Mr the actions of public servants spending pub- Townshend or his company, that it has not lic money to prosecute a case of this par- been involved in actions to ensure that wit- ticular employer, at the behest of Minister nesses before courts in this country perjure Reith, in such a way that it does serious in- themselves and that actions have not been jury to that group of workers at Pakenham. I taken by this government to encourage others say that in the context that there were a series to engage in assault against citizens of this of meetings, prior to the actions being taken country. by the company, with officials from the de- It will no doubt be argued by this govern- partment. Ms Leslie Riggs, who has been ment that it knew nothing of these matters. involved in discussions about Leonie Green, Well, produce the files! The officers told us said to a Senate estimates committee: before the estimates committees that they In advance of taking that action, the proprietor of have had quite extensive involvement with that company sought to brief the minister’s office. the company and with the company’s solici- A member of my group was present at that brief- tors, which just so happens to be the same ing. Since that time we have, on one or two occa- solicitors used by a senior minister in this sions, had contact with the proprietor simply for government. I think these questions do re- him to confirm that he is maintaining contact with quire further inquiry. I trust my colleagues the office or with ourselves and to let us know he agree with me. is remaining firm at this stage. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (4.29 The inference from that statement by the p.m.)—I rise very briefly to explain to the officer to the estimates committee is that the Senate the reason why I asked Senator Carr government was seeking to assure itself that how long he sought leave to take note of a the employer was going to remain firm in his statement by the government. assault upon those particular workers. We discovered in further estimates committees The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT that the contact between the firm and the (Senator Murphy)—Are you seeking leave government has been quite extensive. In that to make some comments in that respect? context, it is reasonable for us to ask, given Senator HARRADINE—No, I am the importance of this particular matter, that speaking to the motion. My request was in Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25415 no way related to the subject matter of either PRESIDENT’S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON the statement by the minister or the response GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING by Senator Carr. Honourable senators will TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPO- realise that we are in the middle of a debate RTS AS AT 28 JUNE 2001 that is likely to take considerable time and PREFACE there are a whole lot of people in the back- This document continues the practice of present- ground who would like to know when they ing to the Senate twice each year a list of gov- are needed around the place. So there was no ernment responses to Senate and joint committee reflection. I say to Senator Carr that he reports as well as responses which remain out- should observe that I too was opposed to the standing. extension of time tonight. I have never seen The practice of presenting this list to the Senate is that situation, I do not think I have seen that in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of situation where there was no open— 14 March 1973 and the undertaking by successive governments to respond to parliamentary com- Senator Robert Ray—It happened a cou- mittee reports in timely fashion. On 26 May 1978 ple of months ago. the then Minister for Administrative Services Senator HARRADINE—I stand cor- (Senator Withers) informed the Senate that within rected. But, for my part, I would like to have six months of the tabling of a committee report, knocked off at midnight tonight and come the responsible minister would make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the govern- back tomorrow and, if necessary, next week. ment proposed to take in relation to the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. The period for responses was reduced from six PARLIAMENTARIANS’ TRAVEL months to three months in 1983 by the then in- ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS coming government. The then Leader of the Gov- ernment in the Senate announced this change on The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 24 August 1983. The method of response contin- (Senator Murphy)—I table a document ued to be by way of statement. Subsequently, on providing details of travelling allowance 16 October 1991 the then government advised payments made by the Department of the that responses to committee reports would be Senate to senators and members during the made by letter to a committee chair, with the let- period July to December 2000. ter being tabled in the Senate at the earliest opportunity. The current government in June 1996 DEPARTMENT OF THE SENATE affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant Register of Senior Executive Officers’ parliamentary committee reports within three Interests months of their presentation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID- This list does not usually include reports of the ENT—I present notifications of alterations Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works or the following Senate Standing Com- to the Register of Senate Senior Executive mittees: Appropriations and Staffing, Selection of Officers’ Interests, lodged between 5 De- Bills, Privileges, Procedure, Publications, Regu- cember 2000 and 25 June 2001. lations and Ordinances, Senator’s Interests and COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Bills. However, such reports will be included if they require a response. Government Reports: Government Responses responses to reports of the Public Works Com- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID- mittee are normally reflected in motions for the ENT—In accordance with the usual practice, approval of works after the relevant report has I table a report on parliamentary committee been presented and considered. reports to which the government has not re- Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Ac- sponded within the prescribed period, as at counts and Audit (JCPAA) primarily make ad- 28 June 2001. The report has been circulated ministrative recommendations but may make to honourable senators. With the concurrence policy recommendations. A government response of the Senate, the report will be incorporated is required in respect of such policy recommen- in Hansard. dations made by the committee. However, responses to administrative recommendations are Leave granted. made in the form of an executive minute provided The report read as follows— to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recom- 25416 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 mendations are required to provide an executive consideration of the bill, and therefore require a minute within 6 months of tabling of a report. The response, are listed. The list also does not include committee monitors the provision of such re- reports by legislation committees on estimates or sponses. scrutiny of annual reports, unless recommenda- The entry on this list for a report of the JCPAA tions are made that require a response. containing only administrative recommendations A guide to the legend used in the ‘Date response is annotated to indicate that the response is to be presented/made to the Senate’ column. provided in the form of an executive minute. * See document tabled in the Senate on 27 June 2001, Consequently, any other government response is entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee not required. However, any reports containing Reports–Response to the schedule tabled by the President of policy recommendations are included in this re- the Senate on 7 December 2000, for Government in- port as requiring a government response. terim/final response. Legislation and other committees report on bills ** Report contains administrative recommendations only – and on the provisions of bills. Only those reports response is to be provided direct to the committee in the form in this category that make recommendations of an executive minute. which cannot readily be addressed during the

Title of report Date report tabled Date response Response made presented/ within time made to the specified (3 Senate months) Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Joint) The nature, scope and appropriateness of 4.9.00 *(interim) No ASIO’s public reporting activities

Community Affairs References Report on proposals for changes to the welfare 22.11.99 *(interim) No system A cautionary tale: Fish don’t lay tomatoes — 1.11.00 *(final) No Report on the Gene Technology Bill 2000 Healing our hospitals: Report on public hos- 7.12.00 *(interim) No pital funding

Corporations and Securities (Joint Statutory) Report on matters arising from the Company 21.10.99 6.2.01 (pre- No Law Review Act 1998 sented 15.12.00) Report on the draft Financial Services Reform 14.8.00 29.3.01 No Bill Shadow ledgers and the provision of bank 3.10.00 *(interim) No statements to customers Report on fees on electronic and telephone 8.2.01 - No banking Report on aspects of the regulation of pro- 8.3.01 - No prietary companies Report into the provision of: (a) the Corpora- 22.5.01 (presented 18.5.01) Not required - tions (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2001 (NSW); and (b) the Corporations Bill 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Bill 2001

Economics References Report on the operation of the Australian 9.3.00 *(interim) No Taxation Office Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25417

Title of report Date report tabled Date response Response made presented/ within time made to the specified (3 Senate months) Report on the provisions of the Fair Prices and 8.3.01 - No Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill 1999 and the practice of multi-site franchising by oil companies Inquiry into mass marketed tax effective 25.6.01 - Time not ex- schemes and investor protection —Interim pired Report

Electoral Matters (Joint Standing) The 1998 federal election —Report of the 26.6.00 1.3.01 No inquiry into the conduct of the 1998 federal election and matters related thereto User friendly, not abuser friendly: Report of 18.6.01 - Time not ex- the inquiry into the integrity of the electoral pired roll Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Jobs for the regions: A report on regional 30.9.99 8.2.01 No employment and unemployment Katu Kalpa —Report on the inquiry into the 16.3.00 8.3.01 No effectiveness of education and training programs for indigenous Australians Aspiring to excellence —Report into the qual- 9.11.00 22.5.01 (pre- No ity of vocational education and training in sented 16.5.01) Australia

Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Report on the Postal Services Legislation 5.6.00 *(final) No Amendment Bill 2000

Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Report on the powers of the Commonwealth in 27.5.99 *(interim) No environment protection and ecologically- sustainable development in Australia Report on the development of Hinchinbrook 27.9.99 8.2.01 No Channel Inquiry into Gulf St Vincent 5.6.00 *(interim) No Report on the provisions of the Renewable 15.8.00 *(final) No Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 and a related bill The heat is on: Australia’s greenhouse future 7.11.00 *(interim) No Inquiry into ABC on-line (Final Report) 28.3.01 - Time not expired Inquiry into electromagnetic radiation 22.5.01 (presented 4.5.01) - Time not expired Report on the Environment and Heritage Leg- 22.5.01 (presented 8.5.01) - Time not ex- islation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, the pired Australian Heritage Council Bill 2000 and the Australian Heritage Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000

Finance and Public Administration Legislation 25418 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Title of report Date report tabled Date response Response made presented/ within time made to the specified (3 Senate months) The format of the portfolio budget statements 9.11.00 8.2.01 Yes (3rd Report)

Finance and Public Administration References APS employment matters —First report: Aus- 2.11.00 21.6.01 No tralian workplace agreements Inquiry into the Government’s information 5.4.01 Not required - technology outsourcing initiative: Interim Report: Accountability in a commercial environment —Emerging issues Inquiry into the Government’s information 28.6.01 Not required - technology outsourcing initiative: Progress Report: Accountability issues — Two case studies

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint) Australia and ASEAN: Managing change 6.4.98 1.3.01 No Funding Australia’s defence 13.5.98 (presented 8.5.98) 29.3.01 No Australia’s trade relationship with India 29.6.98 1.3.01 No Military justice procedures in the Australian 21.6.99 5.4.01 No Defence Force From phantom to force – Towards a more 4.9.00 *(interim) No efficient and effective army Building Australia’s trade and investment 4.9.00 24.5.01 No relationship with South America Australian government loan to Papua New 30.10.00 8.3.01 No Guinea Conviction with compassion: A report into 27.11.00 *(interim) No freedom of religion and belief Second Australian government loan to Papua 2.4.01 - Time not ex- New Guinea pired Rough justice: An investigation into allega- 22.5.01 (presented 10.4.01) - Time not ex- tions of brutality in the Army’s Parachute pired Battalion A report on visits to immigration detention 18.6.01 - Time not ex- centres pired Australia’s role in United Nations reform 25.6.01 - Time not expired Second Australian Government loan to Papua 25.6.01 Not required - New Guinea: Variation to loan agreement

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Refer- ences Australia and APEC: A review of Asia Pacific 14.8.00 (presented 21.7.00) 1.3.01 No Economic Cooperation Japan’s economy —Implications for Australia 17.8.00 1.3.01 No Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Refer- ences (continued) East Timor 7.12.00 5.4.01 No Artillery Barracks, Fremantle —Inquiry into 6.2.01 (presented 3.1.01) - No the disposal of defence property – Interim report

Information Technologies (Select) Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25419

Title of report Date report tabled Date response Response made presented/ within time made to the specified (3 Senate months) Netbet: A review of online gambling in Aus- 16.3.00 *(interim) No tralia In the public interest: Monitoring Australia’s 13.4.00 *(interim) No media Cookie monsters? Privacy in the information 9.11.00 *(interim) No society Final Report 7.12.00 *(final) No

Inquiry into the Contract for a New Reactor at Lucas Heights (Select) A new research reactor? 23.5.01 - Time not expired

Legal and Constitutional Legislation Family Law Amendment Bill 1999 6.12.99 *(final) No Inquiry into the provisions of the Privacy 10.10.00 1.3.01 No Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 Freedom of Information Amendment (Open 5.4.01 - Time not ex- Government) Bill 2000 pired Inquiry into the provisions of the Copyright 23.5.01 - Time not ex- Amendment (Parallel Importation) Bill 2001 pired Inquiry into the provisions of the Measures to 27.6.01 - Time not ex- Combat Serious and Organised Crime Bill pired 2001

Legal and Constitutional References Inquiry into the Commonwealth’s actions in 30.4.96 (presented 29.4.96) *(interim) No relation to Ryker (Faulkner) v The Common- wealth and Flint Inquiry into sexuality discrimination 2.12.97 *(interim) No Inquiry into the Australian legal aid system — 25.6.98 *(interim) No 3rd report Legal and Constitutional References (continued) Privacy and the private sector: Inquiry into 25.3.99 24.5.01 (pre- No privacy issues, including the Privacy Amend- sented during ment Bill 1998 estimates consideration 19.2.01) Inquiry into the Human Rights (Mandatory 13.3.00 *(interim) No Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999 A sanctuary under review: An examination of 28.6.00 8.2.01 No Australia’s refugee and humanitarian determination processes Humanity diminished: The crime of genocide 29.6.00 *(interim) No —Inquiry into the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 Healing: A legacy of generations —The report 30.11.00 28.6.01 No of the inquiry into the Federal Government’s implementation of recommendations made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Bringing Them Home

Migration (Joint Standing) 25420 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Title of report Date report tabled Date response Response made presented/ within time made to the specified (3 Senate months) Not the Hilton —Immigration Detention Cen- 4.9.00 *(interim) No tres: Inspection Report Review of Migration Legislation Amendment 9.10.00 *(interim) No Bill (No. 2) 2000 2001 Review of Migration Regulation 4.31B 18.6.01 - Time not expired

National Capital and External Territories (Joint Standing) Island to islands: Communications with Aus- 22.3.99 1.3.01 No tralia’s external territories

National Crime Authority (Joint Statutory) Street legal: The involvement of the National 6.12.99 29.3.01 No Crime Authority in controlled operations Witnesses for the prosecution —Protected 6.9.00 *(final) No witnesses in the National Crime Authority National Crime Authority Legislation 1.3.01 - No Amendment Bill 2000 [2001]

Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund (Joint Statutory) CERD and the Native Title Amendment Act 28.6.00 *(interim) No 1998

Public Accounts and Audit (Joint Statutory) Review of Audit Report No. 34 1997-98, New 9.6.99 8.2.01 No submarine project: Department of Defence (Report No. 368) Corporate governance and accountability 16.2.00 *(interim) No arrangements for Commonwealth government business enterprises, December 1999 (Report No. 372) Contract management in the Australian public 2.11.00 *(interim) No service (Report No. 379) Review of Auditor-General’s Reports, 1999- 29.3.01 ** Not required 2000, Third quarter (Report No. 380) Annual Report 1999-2000 (Report No. 381) 5.4.01 Not required -

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Report on the Albury-Wodonga Development 5.4.00 6.2.01 (pre- No Amendment Bill 1999 sented 8.1.01) An appropriate level of protection? The im- 7.6.00 *(interim) No portation of salmon products: A case study of the administration of Australian quarantine and the impact of international trade arrangements Administration of the Civil Aviation Safety 11.10.00 *(interim) No Authority: Matters related to ARCAS Airways Report on the provisions of the Australian 4.12.00 22.5.01 (pre- No Meat and Live-stock Industry (High Quality sented 17.4.01) Beef Export to the European Union) Order 2000 Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25421

Title of report Date report tabled Date response Response made presented/ within time made to the specified (3 Senate months) Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 5.4.01 - Time not ex- 2001 pired

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Deregulation of the Australian dairy industry 21.10.99 8.2.01 No Report on the development of the Brisbane 29.6.00 *(interim) No Airport Corporation’s master plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway Air safety and cabin air quality in the BAe 146 12.10.00 *(interim) No aircraft Airspace 2000 and related issues 5.4.01 - Time not expired

Scrutiny of Bills (Senate Standing) Fourth report of 2000: Entry and search provi- 6.4.00 *(interim) No sions in Commonwealth legislation

Superannuation and Financial Services (Senate Select) Report on the provisions of the Family Law 6.3.01 - No Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2000 The opportunities and constraints for Australia 26.3.01 (presented 22.3.01) - No to become a centre for the provision of global financial services A ‘Reasonable and Secure’ Retirement? The 5.4.01 - Time not ex- benefit design of Commonwealth public sector pired and defence force unfunded superannuation funds and schemes Enforcement of the superannuation guarantee 22.5.01 (presented 27.4.01) - Time not ex- charge pired Issues arising from the committee’s report on 24.5.01 Not required - Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions) Bill 2000

Treaties (Joint) Treaties tabled on 18 March and 13 May 1997 23.6.97 *(interim) No (8th report) Agreement with Kasakstan, Treaties tabled on 24.11.97 *(interim) No 30 September 1997 and 21 October 1997 (11th report) UN convention on the rights of the child (17th 10.11.98 (presented 28.8.98) *(interim) No report) Treaties (Joint) (continued) Two treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bou- 29.3.99 8.2.01 No gainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and treaties tabled on 11 November 1998 (20th report) Three treaties tabled on 7 March 2000 (31st 10.4.00 8.3.01 No report) Six treaties tabled on 7 March 2000 (32nd 16.5.00 24.5.01 No report) 25422 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Title of report Date report tabled Date response Response made presented/ within time made to the specified (3 Senate months) Two treaties tabled on 6 June 2000 (34th re- 23.8.00 5.4.01 No port) The Kyoto Protocol —Discussion paper (38th 4.4.01 Not required - report) Privileges and immunities of the International 22.5.01 (presented 18.4.01) - Time not ex- Tribunal on the Law of the Sea and the treaties pired tabled on 27 February and 6 March 2001 (39th report)

DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMITTEES PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY Privileges Committee Advance to the Presiding Officers for Report 2000-01 Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (4.33 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID- p.m.)—I present the 97th report of the Com- ENT—I present details of an amount deter- mittee of Privileges, relating to a person re- mined from the advance to the Presiding Of- ferred to in the Senate. ficers for 2000-01 for the Department of the Ordered that the report be printed. Parliamentary Library and an explanatory memorandum relating to the requirement for Senator ROBERT RAY—I seek leave to use of the funds from the advance. move a motion relating to the report. PARLIAMENTARIANS’ TRAVEL Leave granted. ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS Senator ROBERT RAY—I move: Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western That the report be adopted. Australia—Manager of Government Busi- This is the 36th in a series of reports recom- ness in the Senate) (4.32 p.m.)—I table a mending that a right of reply be accorded to document providing details of parliamentari- persons who claim to be adversely affected ans’ travel paid by the Department of Fi- by being referred to, either by name or in nance and Administration during the period such a way as to be readily identified, in the July to December 2000. Senate. Earlier today, on 28 June 2001, the BUDGET 2000-01 President referred a submission dated 27 Portfolio Budget Statements June from Mr Terence O’Shane to the Com- mittee of Privileges, under Privilege Resolu- Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western tion No. 5. The submission responded to re- Australia—Manager of Government Busi- marks made by Senator Heffernan in the ness in the Senate) (4.33 p.m.)—I table a cor- Senate during the adjournment debate on 25 rigendum to the portfolio budget statements June. The committee considered the submis- 2000-01 for the Finance and Administration sion at its meeting this morning and recom- Portfolio. I advise senators that copies are mends that a response in the terms included available from the Senate Table Office. in the report I have just tabled be incorpo- DOCUMENTS rated in Hansard. Bringing Them Home The committee has always reminded the Progress Report Senate that, in matters of this nature, it does Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western not judge the truth or otherwise of statements Australia—Manager of Government Busi- made by honourable senators or persons who ness in the Senate) (4.33 p.m.)—I table a seek redress. I commend the report to the progress report on Commonwealth initiatives Senate. in response to the Bringing them home re- Question resolved in the affirmative. port. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25423

The response read as follows— stroyed under the cloak of parliamentary privilege APPENDIX ONE with no recourse to legal redress. RESPONSE BY MR TERRY O’SHANE 5. I request the Committee grant me the limited redress of incorporating this Submission in Han- PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 5(7)(B) OF sard. THE SENATE (Signed) Terry O’Shane OF 25 FEBRUARY 1988 Terence Joseph O’Shane On Monday evening, 25 June, 2001, Senator Hef- fernan made the following remarks in the Senate Chairperson in the context of a speech on Child Sexual Abuse: Cairns & District ATSIC Regional Council “Recent events have highlighted the sexual, Membership physical and emotional abuse, often in warlike The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT conditions, of women and children in our indige- (Senator Murphy)—The President has re- nous community. The honesty and clarity of the statements by the former chair of the Council for ceived letters from party leaders seeking the Aboriginal Reconciliation, Dr Evelyn Scott, is to appointment of members to committees. be commended. The courage and strength of her Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by family - her daughters and son, Mr Sam Backo - leave—agreed to: is awe-inspiring. Their honesty in breaking the code of silence on the stolen innocence and ulti- That senators be appointed to committees as mate betrayal of their childhood should be both a follows: beacon of light at the end of what has been a very Intelligence Services—Joint Select Com- long and dark tunnel and an inspiration for all mittee— victims of child abuse. In view of the widespread allegations that a high Appointed: Senators Calvert, Coonan, profile indigenous leader, Mr Terry O’Shane, is Faulkner, Greig, Sandy Macdonald and the person who abused members of Evelyn Scott’s Ray family, I find the contradictions and hypocrisy of Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport some male Aboriginal leaders breathtaking - Legislation Committee— none more so than that of the deputy chairman of Participating member: Senator Denman. ATSIC, who was convicted and jailed for rape in the 1960’s and is now seeking the high moral AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOOD ground.” AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 2001 1. Senator Heffernan’s remarks were made in the Consideration of House of Representatives knowledge that the Supreme Court of Queensland Message had made an order on Friday night, 22 June, 2001 prohibiting the publication of any allegation by Message received from the House of Rep- Dr Evelyn Scott to the effect that I sexually resentatives acquainting the Senate that the abused any of her children. House has agreed to the Australia New Zea- 2. These allegations are false and without foun- land Food Authority Amendment Bill 2001 dation. To my knowledge, no complaint has ever with amendments, and desiring the concur- been made to the Police. There has never been a rence of the Senate in the amendments. Police investigation nor have any criminal Ordered that consideration of the message charges ever been laid. in committee of the whole be made an order 3. Senator Heffernan’s unfounded remarks in the of the day for a later hour. Senate have done irreparable harm to my family ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND and I and have immeasurably damaged my reputation and standing in the community. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AMENDMENT (WILDLIFE 4 Under the laws of this nation, every person is PROTECTION) BILL 2001 presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty in a Court of law. By attacking my char- Consideration of House of Representatives acter in this manner, Senator Heffernan has not Message only harmed my family and I but has undermined Message received from the House of Rep- the integrity of our judicial process. It cannot be resentatives acquainting the Senate that the right or fair for a person’s character to be de- House has agreed to the Environment Pro- 25424 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 tection and Biodiversity Conservation us to have jurisdiction over all companies Amendment (Wildlife Protection) Bill 2001 providing services to Australian gamblers with amendments, and desiring the concur- whether or not they have links with Austra- rence of the Senate in the amendments. lia. We took the reference out because, in Ordered that consideration of the message doing so, it gives us a broader power or a in committee of the whole be made an order greater reach and enables us to take action of the day for a later hour. against those providers who come to Austra- lia whether or not they have any other con- INTERACTIVE GAMBLING BILL 2001 nection with Australia. In Committee Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (4.43 Consideration resumed. p.m.)—Again, for clarification, can the min- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ister, for the benefit of the committee, con- (Senator Murphy)—The committee is convey to us whether, in removing the reference sidering the Interactive Gambling Bill 2001 to ‘Australian-based’, that has the effect of and Senator Brown’s amendment (1) to gov- allowing an offshore entity to provide wa- ernment amendment (31). The question is gering in Australia, or is there sufficient state that the amendment moved by Senator legislation that will preclude an offshore Brown be agreed to. (Quorum formed) provider providing wagering facilities within Question resolved in the negative. Australia? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister question now is that government amend- for Communications, Information Technol- ments (2), (4), (5), (11) to (15), (17) and (28) ogy and the Arts) (4.44 p.m.)—The short an- to (31) on sheet ER279 be agreed to. swer is that we would allow the provision of services from offshore in the area of wager- Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (4.40 ing, because we have allowed wagering to be p.m.)—I would like to seek some clarifica- exempt from the provisions of the bill—wa- tion from the minister. The amendments that gering meaning sports betting. we have before us at the moment go to removing from the bill the reference to an The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ‘Australian-based’ organisation. That is (Senator Murphy)—The question now is amendment (2) on sheet ER279. Amendment that the amendments moved by Senator Al- (5) on the same sheet will remove the defini- ston be agreed to. tion of ‘Australian-provider link’. In the Question resolved in the affirmative. same group of amendments that we are The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The looking at, amendment (31) refers to an question now is that clause 7 stand as ‘Australian-customer link’. Could the min- printed. ister clarify whether there are any problems Question resolved in the negative. in this regard? I recognise the difference in wording. Amendment (5) omits the defini- Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (4.45 tion of an ‘Australian-provider link’. Does p.m.)—by leave—I move amendments (1) that create any problems with amendment and (4) on sheet 2225: (31), which has a reference in it to an ‘Aus- (1) Clause 4, page 6 (after line 9), after the defi- tralian-customer link’. nition of lottery, insert: Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister non-Australian-based interactive for Communications, Information Technol- gambling service has the meaning ogy and the Arts) (4.42 p.m.)—The short an- given by section 8B. swer is that, when the bill was originally (4) Page 9 (after line 14), after clause 8A, insert: drafted, it was not anticipated that we might 8B Non-Australian-based interactive be able to invoke the powers that are avail- gambling services able under the Interstate Wire Act to deal (1) For the purposes of this Act, a non- with offshore companies in the way we are Australian-based interactive gambling proposing. The removal of the link enables service is a gambling service, where: Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25425

(a) the service is provided in the course Amendment (4) defines an overseas gam- of carrying on a business; and bling service. It is described as a non- (b) the service is provided to customers Australian based interactive service which using any of the following: provides a service in the course of carrying (i) an Internet carriage service; on a business using the Internet, broadcasting (ii) any other listed carriage service; or datacasting, and does not have an Austra- lian-provider link. You will note that I have (iii) a broadcasting service; dealt with the issue of agents and intermedi- (iv) any other content service; aries in this amendment. I think Senator (v) a datacasting service; and Greig raised this very important matter. I am (c) the service does not have an Austra- aware that the National Office for the Infor- lian-provider link (see section 7). mation Economy, NOIE, at page 25, used the Note: This definition relates to the of- arguments that ‘overseas operators could use fences created by section 15A. an intermediary to avoid financial controls’. (2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to This amendment counteracts that situation. subsection (3). This amendment spells out that any agent or Excluded services intermediary is included in the definition of a non-Australian based interactive gambling (3) For the purposes of this Act, none of the following services is a non- service—an overseas gambling service—and Australian-based interactive gambling would include associated companies such as service: hotels and casinos if they are part of the (a) a telephone betting service; business. I challenge anyone to deny that that ties up those intermediaries which are chosen (b) a service to the extent to which it to avoid financial controls. relates to the entering into of contracts that, under the Corporations The key issue in all of these amendments Law, are exempt from a law relating is that if you go to the question of money and to gambling or wagering (see sec- ensure, by dint of the legislation, that it tion 9); would be imprudent financially for overseas (c) an exempt service (see section 10). gambling services to undertake services to A service under subsection (1) includes any agent Australian customers then that is the answer. or intermediary used by the gambling There have been all sorts of arguments put service for the making or receipt of any forward that generally it is technically very payments within the meaning of sub- difficult because of ISPs and cooperation and section 8A(1) all the rest of it. This has got nothing to do These amendments are the first of a number with that. This is to do with hitting them amendments that I am seeking to move. I am where it hurts, and that is in the back pocket. proposing these amendments so that the leg- Once you start hitting them in the back islation will be effective. Unless these pocket, they will find somewhere else to go. amendments are accepted by the parliament, Later, there will be proposals from me and the government’s legislation will be substan- Senator Brown so that the contracts become tially ineffective. The reason for that is that unenforceable. The banking industry would nothing in this legislation, or in any proposed be required to come into the picture. It is amendments to this legislation of which I am unfortunately necessary for me to explain aware, will prevent the non-Australian based that situation, because to deal with these two interactive gambling sites or services from amendments in isolation makes it very diffi- taking advantage of the government’s legis- cult to explain. lation. In other words, these organisations I will foreshadow for the committee what will in fact be able to conduct gambling I am going to do later when I define, in services from outside Australia to Australian amendment No. 3, what a prohibited pay- citizens. Despite what the minister said, this ment is. All financial transactions are cov- legislation therefore will be next to useless, ered. The term ‘payment’ would be defined unfortunately. inclusively to cover a wide range of payment 25426 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 media, including currency, cheques, credit The banks are saying that. What guarantee card transactions and electronic transfers of has the government got from the banks? If funds such as direct debit and direct credit. the banks are being critical of this approach, So that the minister can understand this, I what are they now saying to the government? will quote from page 35 of the NOIE report. Is the minister aware of what the banks said It states: to the South Australian inquiry? Are they Other payment types such as cheque ... do not saying one thing to the committee—when identify merchants by type of service ... they are under the provisions of the South That may be so, but these amendments intro- Australian legislature and its standing orders duce such an element of uncertainty into in respect of committees—and another thing gambling transactions with overseas opera- to the federal government? The banking in- tors that the amendments will act as a power- dustry are saying that they do have a role to ful deterrent. Overseas operators will be display in this. They have also indicated: suaded when dealing with Australian cus- Visa requires Internet gambling merchants to: tomers if their money is at risk by law. That Identify the transaction as originating from a is the way to fix it all up. I do not know what betting/gambling merchant by using the merchant the government is frightened of. The banking category code ... industry may be yelling in the background, That is all right for the organisations here in but it would be very sad if the government Australia, but under this legislation those were taking notice of the banking industry, organisations are no longer able to conduct because the banking industry itself has ad- gaming operations. That opens it up again to mitted certain things. the internationals. I draw the attention of the chamber to As I have pointed out—and I will deal what the Australian Bankers Association has with it further—the banking industry says it said in answer to questions from the South is quite clear that it is able to respond to Australian Select Interactive Home Gam- situations where transactions have been con- bling Committee about other means of tele- ducted illegally. Just to reinforce that, I will communications. There were certain ques- quote from the transcript of the South Aus- tions asked of the Australian Bankers Asso- tralian inquiry. The Hon. Nick Xenophon ciation, and it made certain things clear. The said: main force behind the South Australian in- Further to what the Chairman said about 90 mil- quiry was the Hon. Nick Xenophon of the lion transactions, you do see a clear distinction South Australian Legislative Assembly. The between a gambler who has lost money taking a answers that were given are very revealing as proactive role to contact the bank, and the banks to what the banking industry itself is able to themselves having to be policemen of the let us know about Visa cards, for example. scheme? This is what the banking industry said to that On behalf of the Australian Bankers Asso- committee: ciation, Mr Gilbert responded: Effective December 2000, Visa Issuers— Absolutely. If the community is given a right that that is, banks— is exercisable in those circumstances, of course we would recognise it and are quite happy to do must inform their cardholders via the cardholder so. That is what the law of the land provides. agreement that a Visa card may not be used for There is no equivocation on that. We would be any illegal purchase. very concerned about transferring the cost of de- Is this committee aware of that? The banking tecting, identifying and policing onto the private industry went on to say: sector, which is simply providing financial serv- This is a reminder of the cardholder’s responsi- ices for a whole range of legitimate consumer bility to ascertain the legality of Internet gam- activities. bling in his country of domicile. Why wouldn’t the government, in the end, Effective December 2000, Visa Issuers may sys- agree to the proposition that a contract be- tematically decline online gambling to meet local tween a punter and an operating overseas site regulations, or for their own reasons. is unenforceable? (Time expired) Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25427

Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister service provider. That cannot be good social for Communications, Information Technol- policy. As we know, there are 290,000 prob- ogy and the Arts) (5.00 p.m.)—I say to lem gamblers. Most of these are not people Senator Harradine that he, Senator Brown who are acting rationally, or they would stop and many of us want to limit as much as pos- gambling. If you have people betting off- sible the ability of people to gamble with shore beyond their means, to make it a offshore service providers. We all operate criminal offence does not seem to be a way against a background of constant changes in to help those people. technology. I do not accept the throw-in-the- I say to Senator Harradine: we have sym- towel, hopeless position of Senator Greig pathy for the general proposition that we that it is all too hard and you just do not do should be doing what we can to limit their anything about it. You have to do your best. I ability to gamble offshore, and to limit finan- do not think it is responsible behaviour on cial transactions as much as possible may the part of the government to essentially well be a way to go. As I have already indi- adopt Senator Harradine’s approach, which cated to Senator Harradine, we have at- is to make a virtue of uncertainty—make it tempted to formulate some words which so uncertain as to who might be hit with would go to the enforceability of illegal what. This is just random fire being sprayed gaming transactions. This is the advice that I around, and you hope that that will be suffi- have received. I have not been sitting down cient to deter. with banks or anyone else, trying to work When I look at Senator Harradine’s through precisely how these things would amendments—and bear in mind that we have operate. It is a very arcane jurisdiction. I had had these for only a day or two—I see that Nick Xenophon explaining charge-back ar- the issue does require considerable careful rangements to me. I have no idea how clear- examination of the implications. For exam- ing house operations work in practice. ple, this amendment talks in terms of cus- All I know is that there are probably many tomers. I presume a customer is meant to be credit provider agreements that you would a gambler or someone who is lodging a bet. have to wade through in great detail because But it does not give me any consolation to they would probably have access to the see a broad term such as ‘customer’ used. world’s best lawyers. You would have to You could have a customer obtaining serv- very carefully and scientifically analyse the ices from someone who happens to be pro- impact of what looks, on the face of it, to be viding interactive gambling services but who a simple proposition: let us ban credit card also runs subsidiary services, whether it is transactions. If I get a statement from Visa operating a pizza service on the side as part because I bought a book overseas, it just tells of the casino operation or whether that per- me that Mark Bishop Pty Ltd sold me the son deals in other equipment that you could book. I say, ‘I’ve never had any dealings argue is for the benefit of an interactive with Mark Bishop Pty Ltd.’ It just happens to gambling service. You may well have a host be the name that that shop uses for its own of unintended consequences. purposes. It could just as easily be called When I look at the offence provision, I see Joint Venture No. 4 Pty Ltd. that a person is guilty of an offence if a per- In all sorts of ways, it needs a great deal son makes or receives a prohibited payment. of careful consideration and analysis. I am Given that we are all aware of the difficulties just not attracted to the idea that we should of taking action against someone on the other make a virtue of confusion by going ahead side of the world who might be providing a and doing something that looks like a good service or receiving a payment, and given idea at the time and that throws up a lot of their relative ease of dealing with someone unintended consequences. Everyone throws who makes a payment in Australia, it seems their hands up in the air and says, ‘This is to me overwhelmingly likely that this would chaos,’ and Senator Harradine says, ‘There make it a criminal offence for everyone who you go, we have achieved our principal ef- makes a bet in Australia with an offshore fect: we have scared a lot of people off.’ A 25428 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 more responsible approach to take is to have mum effect to that statutory intent. It seems this matter carefully examined, and we cer- to me that that is a much safer way to pro- tainly have that in mind. Senator Vanstone ceed. You are much more likely to achieve wrote a letter to Senator Woodley yesterday your end objective and you are much more that gives a commitment to having these likely to not have a whole host of unintended matters carefully examined at the Ministerial consequences. For those reasons, whilst I Council on Gambling. have sympathy for what Senator Harradine is Senator Brown’s amendment commends proposing to do, I think it is too complex to itself to the government. It provides a power put something in in the hope that it will im- to make regulations which would allow for prove the situation when it may well have an agreement to be unenforceable and to the opposite effect. We would rather get it have no effect where it provides for the pay- right. ment of money for the supply of an illegal This puts us under pressure to take action interactive gambling service and that civil and to carefully consider the position. There proceedings do not lie against a person to are a number of things that are being consid- recover money alleged to have been won ered. As we know, Nick Xenophon was do- from or paid in connection with an illegal ing the rounds the other day, and he put for- interactive gambling service. It puts a re- ward a proposal which in the short time quirement on the minister to take all reason- available has been considered. There are a able steps to ensure that regulations are made number of other matters. Presumably, if the for the purpose within nine months. It makes states are serious about harm minimisation it clear what direction the parliament wants approaches, they may well have gone down to go in. It obliges the minister to take all this track to some extent. There is a proposal reasonable steps to provide regulations that to conduct an independent study into current will address that issue. ATM card technology. There are a number of Senator Harradine—Mr Temporary issues that need to be considered in detail. Chairman, I rise on a point of order, because That is why I am foreshadowing that the I do not know what the minister is talking government is attracted to Senator Brown’s about. That is not an amendment that I have approach, because it both gives us time to get been provided with. it right and puts us under an obligation to take the matter further as quickly as we can. Senator Brown—Mr Temporary Chair- man, on the point of order: Senator Har- Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (5.10 radine is quite right. That amendment has not p.m.)—I rise to speak in support of Senator been circulated. I have asked for it to be cir- Harradine’s amendments. What Senator Har- culated, and I apologise that it is not in here. radine is proposing is actually a reality. All I did not know the minister was going to of us know that banks outsource simple make such early reference to it. He has a functions like the processing of cheques. copy. I will see that Senator Harradine gets That is a normal function of banking that is one posthaste. accepted today. In that same process we have companies like E-success—who have a sub- Senator ALSTON—I certainly think that sidiary called Citadel—and Falcon, who also Senator Harradine should see it for the pur- has a subsidiary company. Their function is pose of assessing what we regard as being to vet a card transaction in the time between the better way ahead. My principal point re- it being implemented by the customer and mains that we should not be looking for a the service being delivered by the provider. quick fix on the run. We should put ourselves Why is this already in existence? It is in ex- in a position where we can take considered istence because we have electronic fraud. We action after the matter has been thoroughly already have a process for the step between examined both at the ministerial council the customer paying for the service and the level and at, presumably, various other tech- provider supplying that service to check nical levels. Then you have an obligation on whether that card is legitimate. There is no the minister to take all reasonable steps to reason whatsoever that that function could introduce regulations that will give maxi- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25429 not be extended to check whether it is an could get his money back but a service pro- Australian based card that is paying for an vider could not, so there is not an equality of offshore Internet gambling function. There treatment necessarily. It often depended are two very simple steps that could be put where the loss had fallen as to whether the into a process that already exists. That is why courts would simply let the loss lie where it I favour Senator Harradine’s process, be- fell or intervene and allow action to be taken cause the ability to do that is already there. I to recover it to protect the interests of the commend Senator Harradine’s amendments. party with less bargaining power—that being Senator GREIG (Western Australia) the gambler. (5.13 p.m.)—I just wanted to respond briefly It simply highlights the fact that we are all to some comments the minister made at the wanting to go in the same direction. No-one beginning of his contribution. The minister is for a moment standing here saying, ‘Peo- said, reflecting on my position on this bill, ple want to gamble offshore—away they go,’ that I was saying it was all too difficult and although I think you can probably distin- therefore nothing should be done. That is a guish between people who pay cash and complete misrepresentation of my position people who bet with credit cards, because and I will not allow it to pass. I have never you can say that the person betting with a said that nothing can be done. My position is credit card may well be betting beyond their that it ought not be done. I am not a prohibi- means and ability to pay, whereas a person tionist; I do not support the prohibition of who has cash, presumably, at least has the online gambling. In addition, I argue current wherewithal. But in principle we are strongly—and will continue to do so all trying to do what we can to limit the abil- throughout this debate—that it cannot be ity of Australians to gamble offshore, be- done. Regardless of your moral, philosophi- cause if we are making it illegal to gamble cal or social position or reasoning, I believe here we should therefore be doing our best to strongly that technically it cannot be done. limit their ability to do the same thing else- My position is that it ought not be done and where. cannot be done. Never have I said that it is I am simply concerned to ensure that we too difficult and therefore should not be at- get it right and I feel profoundly uncomfort- tempted. able with going ahead with what might look Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (5.14 like a simple proposition but which may take p.m.)—A transaction between two or more you to all sorts of areas that you do not want persons which involves an illegal act—is that to end up in. That is why the cautious ap- transaction itself not unenforceable? proach is the right one here. It does mean Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister that we are not just walking away from it for Communications, Information Technol- saying that we will have a look at it later ogy and the Arts) (5.15 p.m.)—If you mean when we have a review. The amendment of in terms of civil recovery, then I think it Senator Brown actually does put the onus would be that an agreement is void if against very much on the government to conduct public policy, from my long distant days of inquiries, to look into what is feasible and contract law back in the sixties. In terms of then to take appropriate action. It seems to what other consequences flow, that would be me that is the way we should be going. a function of what is provided in the criminal Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (5.18 law itself. And you often find, for example, p.m.)—Minister, you referred to the letter that there is no penalty imposed on a mere from Senator Vanstone to me in this particu- purchaser; it is only on the provider. You lar debate a few minutes ago. Did you table may well find, for example, that the benefits the letter? If not, I think it should be incorpo- are all one way. rated in Hansard and I seek leave to have I seem to recall there were a range of that happen. cases on this in terms of void if against pub- Leave granted. lic policy and gambling and I think in some The letter read as follows— respects that operated to mean that a gambler 25430 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Senator John Woodley the Advisory Body agreed that it would seek Senator for Queensland public submissions on the best focus for new re- Parliament House search into problem gambling, best practice harm CANBERRA ACT 2600 minimisation and possible areas for Common- 27 June 2001 wealth intervention. Dear Senator Woodley I am convinced that the Ministerial Council’s I would like to assure you that the Common- collaborative approach is essential to achieve wealth is absolutely committed to reducing the sustainable, long-term results, nevertheless, I harm that problem gambling imposes on the share your view that efforts need to expedited in community. We also share your concern over the order to minimise the harm that problem gam- impact that new forms of gambling are having on bling is currently having on individuals, families individuals and families. With this in mind, I am and the community. writing to outline the work being done by the With this urgency in mind, I am proposing that Commonwealth and the Ministerial Council on the information gathered by the Advisory Body Gambling in relation to problem gambling. I also be worked into a draft National Harm Minimisa- hope to underscore the Commonwealth’s deter- tion Strategy on Problem Gambling. I then pro- mination in this area, inform you of the work that pose that this document be presented to the Min- we are planning to undertake in the future and isterial Council on Gambling for their considera- make a commitment that the Commonwealth will tion. proceed with the development of a National Harm Minimisation Strategy on Problem Gambling. While I am sure that the strategy I have mapped out is the only way to achieve effective results in As you may be aware, after a period of inaction our federal framework, I would welcome any by the states, the Commonwealth established the suggestions you may care to offer to strengthen or Ministerial Council on Gambling. At the Coun- expedite this strategy. In particular, I am keen to cil’s meeting in April 2001, as a first step towards hear of your views on harm minimisation and the a common approach, a National Strategic Frame- research that you think needs to be undertaken to work on Problem Gambling was agreed to. The ensure that properly informed policy decisions are Framework aims to provide a platform for the made. sharing of information and good practice between jurisdictions on issues associated with problem Should you wish to arrange a meeting to discuss gambling. It will also build on work already un- these important issues, please contact my office dertaken collaboratively between jurisdictions on 02 6277 7560. and be a vehicle for the development of some Yours sincerely national initiatives. The National Strategic AMANDA VANSTONE Framework has four themes; prevention, early intervention and continuing support, building Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- effective partnerships, and national research and tralia) (5.19 p.m.)—Minister, you have been evaluation. having this discussion with Senator Har- At the same meeting, the Council also agreed to radine and Senator Brown and opposing evaluate the impacts of pre-commitment schemes, Senator Harradine’s amendment, which I the phasing out of note acceptors, breaks in gam- think at first glance most people regard as ing machine operation and linked jackpots. These one that would be completely effective in topics will be added to the work program of the achieving the government’s end purpose of working party on research. The working party restricting growth of interactive gambling. I will report back to the Ministerial Council on the do not pass any comment as to the utility of current research programs and also facilitate new the approach but it certainly reads on first research initiatives. glance to be effective in achieving the stated Other relevant matters that are under active con- purpose of the government that has been sideration by the Ministerial Council include set- spelt out in recent months. ting limits to the further growth in the numbers of poker machines in any area, restricting the hours As I understand it, we have Senator that poker machines might operate and placing Brown’s amendment, which similarly ad- messages on machines about the amounts won dresses this issue. As I understand your re- and lost, and time spent playing. marks, there has been some sort of discus- Only recently, I also announced the membership sion with Senator Brown and perhaps an of the National Advisory Body on Gambling. agreement reached as to process if his This body reports to directly to me. On 5 June, amendment should be passed by this cham- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25431 ber. Does the minister mind putting on the not the problem here; the only people who record—so we can all understand—what has are wanting online gambling are the provid- been the outcome of his negotiations on this ers because they see a lot of money to be issue with Senator Brown and what under- made out of it. We should be making their takings derive from that which are imposed lives as difficult as possible. I agree with upon the government in terms of future ac- Senator Harradine on that. It is then a matter tion in respect of those undertakings? I am a of how you can best achieve that outcome. little bit unsure as to how specific they are. Even on the face of it, the amendment that Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister Senator Harradine has put before the com- for Communications, Information Technol- mittee just needs further work. ogy and the Arts) (5.20 p.m.)—There have Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- been discussions between various senators in tralia) (5.23 p.m.)—I was not asking that my office, many of which I have not been question to take a partisan position as to the privy to. I have essentially been concerned to utility of the amendment moved by Senator try and judge these issues on the merits and Harradine one way or the other. I was more to look at what seems to me to make sense seeking to get an understanding on the public and what does not. I simply say again that record of the nature of any agreement, if it you say it looks like eminent commonsense does exist, between the government and on the face of it but I am very nervous about Senator Brown. You have just informed us something that makes it an offence—I pre- there have been a series of negotiations in sume a criminal offence—for a person to your office—some of those you have partici- make a payment to an offshore gambling pated in, some you haven’t. I have just been provider. That just means an ordinary com- handed an amendment to be moved by mon garden Australian who has a bet on the Senator Brown in due course as to the mak- Internet commits a criminal offence. It does ing of regulations in respect of illegal inter- not seem to me to be what we are on about active gambling services. here. We are trying to make it very difficult What I am trying to establish is: what pro- for offshore service providers to cater for cess has the government undertaken to go Australian gamblers. through now? Are you going to have some Senator Harradine’s notion of maximum sort of review? Who is going to conduct the uncertainty, I am sure, is directed entirely to review? When will it be concluded? Will it those providers to try and discourage them, be made a public document? If the review whereas the mere fact that they are offshore recommends a particular course of action, makes it much less likely that you will be how is the government going to give effect to able to do anything tangible about their beit? What are the regulations seeking to haviour—certainly in terms of it being an achieve? If you are unable or unwilling to offence. I would have thought that again it make us privy to your discussions, I would would only be if they came to Australia that put the same question to Senator Brown, so you could prosecute them because you do that we have an understanding of what the not have an extraterritorial power that is rec- outcome will be of the alternative position if ognised internationally. If these services are Senator Harradine’s amendment is defeated. being provided from the Caribbean, you Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.24 really cannot do anything about it in terms of p.m.)—I would like to know from the oppo- it being an offence. All you are left with is an sition what their position is on Senator Har- offence committed by ordinary Australians radine’s amendment. who have made what might be a very modest bet—it might be someone who can well af- Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- ford to lose substantial sums of money hav- tralia) (5.25 p.m.)—When Senator Har- ing a modest bet on an irregular basis and radine’s amendment comes to a vote we will they commit the offence. That is not where I not be supporting it, Senator Brown. would want to end up in all this. I think what Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.25 we are trying to do is say that consumers are p.m.)—That is quite important. I thank the 25432 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 opposition for that because the government going to stand up? I would have loved to is not supporting that or similar amendments have done that because I think that is a great that I have as well. I would support Senator joke. The punter could run up a lot of win- Harradine’s amendment because I think it is nings and then, if he runs up losings, he dobs the right one. Given that situation where on the overseas site into his bank and says the crossbench we are faced with the gov- ‘Don’t pay.’ Are we being realistic here? I ernment and the opposition both setting was advised, though I did not obtain legal themselves against the unenforceable agree- advice about this, that it could be regarded as ment provisions that Senator Harradine has opening the way for fraud. quite rightly brought forward and a similar Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister amendment I have, my office has been talk- for Communications, Information Technol- ing with the minister’s office. I have not ogy and the Arts) (5.29 p.m.)—I hope Sena- done it directly, but my office has been doing tor Harradine will appreciate that this sort of so to come up with this amendment, which advice is not worth very much. My under- says that the minister must take all reason- standing from first principles of criminal law able steps to have regulations for this pur- is that you can make something an offence in pose within six months. You might note, be- any form you would like. I recall, for exam- cause it is on the record, that it was nine ple, that it was illegal under the Police Of- months. I have insisted that be brought back fences Act to provide services for prostitu- to six months because I want to see it this tion, but it was not illegal for someone to year. No doubt it will be brought in and dealt take advantage of those services. Gutter- with this year. crawling used to be a way of frightening I agree with Senator Harradine and Sena- people off. If you were driving too slowly tor Harris and others that the mechanism is down the street, they would pick you up for there. But it is a big breakthrough to use this guttercrawling even though they really knew mechanism on an industry as big as this one. what you were on about. You had a situation I do not want to see it dropped simply be- where the offence was not on the part of the cause we do not have the numbers in this consumer; it was on the part of the service place. Getting the government committed to provider. I do not think we ever called them this course of action is very important. ‘service providers’ in those days, but that is Therefore, I have brought forward this alter- probably what they were doing. native amendment, but it is effectively a fall- The criminal law can go wherever it wants back situation for me. I will be voting for to. Parliament is the ultimate authority. If it Senator Harradine’s amendment. wants to ignore or modify or have a one- Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (5.27 sided outcome, it can do all of those things. p.m.)—Is the minister suggesting that you That is my understanding. Maybe you could can make it an offence for the provider but get into arguments about whether you are not for the customer, the punter? Is the min- aiding and abetting, and again, I suppose, ister suggesting that that would hold up in you could have a specific provision that said, law? Is the minister aware of the argument ‘No conduct on the part of a gambler should that this could be open to fraud? This is a be construed as aiding and abetting or col- very key point. Quite clearly I would love to luding with’ or whatever else, even though be in a situation of saying let the provider you say you might be happily taking advan- beware, not let the customer beware. I as- tage of the service while you are winning sume now that, because of the other amend- and then dobbing them in when you lose. ments, the overseas site will be an illegal site You can spell it out in any form you like, and they will be acting illegally in accor- essentially. dance with Australian law. You are saying All those issues deserve to be explored. that, on the one hand, one person involved in They are social policy judgments. Some the transaction will be committing an of- people might say that the maximum deterrent fence, whereas the other person will not be effect is to tell all these punters that they are committing an offence. Do you think that is actually at risk of going to jail if they gamble Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25433 offshore and so there is a social purpose to least one major event and all the parties be achieved. On the other hand, people might around the country who are interested will say, ‘Well, they are really quasi-innocent presumably have views on the subject which victims and we should be focusing on the they will direct to us. I am sure that Senator real offenders.’ It is certainly an area of le- Brown, Senator Harradine and Senator gitimate public debate that should be care- Woodley, who has probably lived with this fully considered. I am grateful to Senator issue for longer than most people, will all Brown for the efforts he has made to come have suggestions which, by and large, will up with a workable solution. prove to be very helpful. Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.34 tralia) (5.31 p.m.)—I thank Senator Brown p.m.)—I think that the opposition is pursuing for his response to my previous question, but the point of whether there is going to be a that puts the question back to you, Minister. full-blown public inquiry into this, and I If Senator Brown’s amendment gets up, you cannot see the purpose of that. We have evi- have six months to make some regulations, dence from Senator Harradine and from under section 69, which go to Senator Senator Harris, and I have it as well, having Brown’s purpose. Are you going to be con- spoken to the banking authorities and the ducting an inquiry? Will it be done within other people who are most engaged with this your office? Will it be done by NOIE? Will it issue, that it can be done. This provides the be a public inquiry? Will there be an oppor- opportunity to ensure that there are no tunity for public input into that inquiry? glitches. The government has the ability to Once the inquiry is concluded, is it intended get the expert advice and to come up with the that it be made public or tabled on the floor regulations, and then it is up to us to tackle of either house for inspection? those regulations in here if we think that they Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister are faulty. for Communications, Information Technol- Amendments not agreed to. ogy and the Arts) (5.33 p.m.)—We are put- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.35 ting a framework in place here. We are not p.m.)—by leave—I move Australian Greens endeavouring to spell out, step by step, pre- amendments (1) to (15) on sheet 2216: cisely what will flow from it. However, it (1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 20), after “Australia”, does impose obligations. It requires the min- insert “or overseas”. ister to take all reasonable steps. As I understand it, the ministerial council meeting will (2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 20), after para- occur within that period so that will obvi- graph (a), insert: ously be an important opportunity to explore (aa) prohibiting foreign-based interactive all of these things to see where the states gambling service providers from soliciting, or providing interactive have got to in terms of their harm minimisa- gambling services to, persons resi- tion strategies and what they have already dent in Australia; and discovered in terms of feasibility in going (ab) prohibiting persons resident in Aus- down this path. We will certainly be doing tralia from using, or betting on, an whatever we can to give effect to the obliga- interactive gambling service; and. tion that this provision would place on the (ac) making agreements relating to un- government. lawful gambling unenforceable; and As I have said repeatedly, we are in sym- (3) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 10), after the pathy with the whole approach so there is no definition of Federal Court, insert: question of us somehow saying, ‘Right, we foreign-based interactive gambling can forget about all this.’ We actually want to service has the meaning given by sec- make it work and we will do whatever we tion 5A. can to explore all the possibilities. There is (4) Clause 4, page 6 (after line 6), after the defi- not much point in me trying to be definitive nition of Internet service provider, insert: today. If this amendment is carried, we will legal wagering service provider means: have a statutory obligation. There will be at 25434 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(a) a person who is authorised under the (c) a service relating to betting on the law of a State or Territory to carry outcome of a lottery; or on bookmaking activities; or (d) a service for the conduct of a game, (b) a person who is authorised under the where: law of a State or Territory to con- (i) the game is played for money or duct totalizator betting. anything else of value; and (5) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 4), after para- (ii) the game is a game of chance or graph (a), insert: of mixed chance and skill; and (aa) a service to the extent to which it (iii) a customer of the service gives or relates to betting on, or on a series agrees to give consideration to of, any or all of the following: play or enter the game; or (i) a horse race; (e) a service relating to betting on the (ii) a harness race; outcome of a game of chance or of (iii) a greyhound race; mixed chance and skill. (iv) a sporting event; (7) Page 8 (after line 8), after clause 5, insert: (ab) a service to the extent to which it 5A Foreign-based interactive gambling relates to betting on: services (i) an event; or (1) For the purposes of this Act, a foreign- based interactive gambling service is a (ii) a series of events; or gambling service, where: (iii) a contingency; (a) the service is provided in the course that is not covered by paragraph (aa). of carrying on a business; and (6) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 8), at the end of (b) the service is provided to customers the clause, add: using any of the following: (4) Paragraphs (3)(a), (aa) and (ab) do not (i) an Internet carriage service; apply to a service to the extent to (ii) any other listed carriage service; which: (iii) a broadcasting service; (a) the service relates to betting on a contingency that may or may not (iv) any other content service; happen in the course of a sporting (v) a datacasting service; and event, where the bets are placed, (c) the service does not have an Austra- made, received or accepted after the lian-provider link (see section 7) beginning of the event; or Note: This definition relates to the of- (b) the service relates to betting on a fence created by section 15A. horse race, harness race, or greyhound race that is to be held any- (2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to where in Australia if it is provided subsection (3). by a person who is not a legal wa- Excluded services gering service provider. (3) For the purposes of this Act, none of (5) The regulations may exempt any per- the following services is a foreign- son, or class of persons, from the op- based interactive gambling service: eration of part or all of subsection (4) (a) a telephone betting service; in such circumstances, and subject to (b) a service to the extent to which it such conditions, as may be specified in relates to betting on, or on a series the regulations. of, any or all of the following: (6) Paragraph (3)(ab) does not apply to a (i) a horse race; service to the extent to which the service is: (ii) a harness race; (a) a service for the conduct of a lottery; (iii) a greyhound race; or (iv) a sporting event; (b) a service for the supply of lottery (c) a service to the extent to which it tickets; or relates to betting on: (i) an event; or Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25435

(ii) a series of events; or (9) Clause 6, page 8 (line 25), at the end of sub- (iii) a contingency; clause (3), add: that is not covered by para- ;(c) a gambling service that is excluded graph (aa); from section 5; (d) a service to the extent to which it (d) a gambling service that is excluded relates to the entering into of con- from section 5A. tracts that, under the Corporations (10) Heading to Part 2, page 11 (lines 2 to 4), Law, are exempt from a law relating omit the heading, substitute: to gaming or wagering (see section Part 2—Offences 9); (11) Heading to clause 15, page 11 (line 7), omit (e) an exempt service (see section 10). “to customers in Australia”. (4) Paragraphs (3) (a), (b) and (c) do not (12) Clause 15, page 11 (lines 8 to 12), omit sub- apply to a service to the extent to which clause (1), substitute: (i) the service relates to betting on a (1) A person is guilty of an offence if the contingency that may or may not person intentionally provides an Aus- happen in the course of a sporting tralian-based interactive gambling event, where the bets are placed, service. made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event; or (13) Clause 15, page 11 (lines 17 to 22), omit subclause (3) (and the note). (ii) the service relates to betting on a horse race, harness race, or grey- (14) Page 11 (after line 22), at the end of Part 2, hound race that is to be held add: anywhere in Australia if it is pro- 15A Offence of providing a foreign-based vided by a person who is not a interactive gambling service to customers legal Australian wagering service in Australia provider. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (5) Paragraph (3)(c) does not apply to a (a) the person intentionally provides an service to the extent to which the serv- foreign-based interactive gambling ice is: service; and (a) a service for the conduct of a lottery; (b) the service has an Australian- or customer link (see section 8). (b) a service for the supply of lottery Penalty: 2,000 penalty units. tickets; or (2) A person who contravenes subsection (c) a service relating to betting on the (1) is guilty of a separate offence in re- outcome of a lottery; or spect of each day (including a day of a (d) a service for the conduct of a game, conviction for the offence or any later where: day) during which the contravention (i) the game is played for money or continues. anything else of value; and (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the (ii) the game is a game of chance or person: of mixed chance and skill; and (a) did not know; and (iii) a customer of the service gives or (b) could not, with reasonable diligence, agrees to give consideration to have ascertained; play or enter the game; or that the service had an Australian- (e) a service relating to betting on the customer link. outcome of a game of chance or of Note: The defendant bears an eviden- mixed chance and skill. tial burden in relation to the (6) The exclusion of a service under para- matters in subsection (3) (see graph (3)(a)(b) or (c) does not exclude subsection 13.3(3) of the the service from the operation of Part Criminal Code). 7A. (15) Page 11 (after line 22), at the end of Part 2, (8) Clause 6, page 8 (line 20), omit “neither”, add: substitute “none”. 25436 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

15B Offence of using an interactive gam- (f) an electronic transfer of funds; bling service in Australia (g) a bill of exchange; (1) A person while resident in Australia (h) a promissory note; must not use, or bet on, an interactive gambling service. (i) a loan; Penalty: 50 penalty units. (j) a transfer or allotment of securities; This comprehensive set of amendments deals (k) an agreement or contract conferring on a person a right (whether actual with foreign based interactive gambling or contingent) to receive any valu- services. They are aimed at most appropri- able consideration or the perform- ately defining regulations within the legisla- ance of any service. tion to deal with foreign based interactive Note: This definition relates to of- gambling services. The concern of the ma- fences created by section 15A. jority in the Senate is not to allow foreign based services to ply their trade in Australia. (5) Page 11 (after line 22), after Part 2, insert: This set of amendments is the premium set Part 2A—Prohibited payments of amendments to deal with that. However, I 15A Offences relating to prohibited pay- am aware that they do not have the numbers ments to get through the Senate. I wanted to make (1) A person is guilty of an offence if the the point forcefully, but I will leave the mat- person makes or receives a prohibited ter there. payment. Amendments not agreed to. Penalty: Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (5.37 (a) for a person who is customer of an interactive gambling service—10 p.m.)—by leave—I move my amendments penalty units; or (2), (3) and (5) on sheet 2225: (b) for any other person—200 penalty (2) Clause 4, page 6 (after line 19), after the units. definition of prohibited Internet gambling service, insert: (2) A constitutional corporation is guilty of an offence if the corporation makes or prohibited payment has the meaning receives a prohibited payment. given by section 8A. Penalty: 1,000 penalty units. (3) Page 9 (after line 14), after clause 8, insert: (3) It is a defence to a prosecution of a 8A Prohibited payments person or a corporation for an offence (1) For the purposes of this Act, a prohib- against subsection (1) or (2), as the ited payment is either: case may be, if the person or corpora- (a) a payment made for the benefit of a tion proves that the person or corpora- non-Australian-based interactive tion did not know, and could not with gambling service by, or on behalf of, reasonable diligence have discovered, a customer who is physically present that the person or corporation was in Australia; or making or receiving a prohibited payment. (b) a payment made by, or on behalf of, a non-Australian-based interactive (4) In this section: gambling service for the benefit of a constitutional corporation means: customer who is physically present (a) a foreign corporation; or in Australia. (b) a trading corporation to which para- (2) A payment includes, but is not limited graph 51(xx) of the Constitution ap- to, any or all of the following forms of plies; or payment: (c) a financial corporation to which (a) an amount of Australian currency; paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution (b) an amount of foreign currency; applies; or (c) a cheque; (d) a corporation incorporated in a Ter- (d) a money order; ritory. (e) a credit card transaction; Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25437

(e) a body corporate that carries on, as problems if it is not an offence to gamble on its sole or principal business, the a prohibited site which is an overseas site. I business of: could accept the minister’s advice and thus (i) banking (other than State banking excise any offence being created for an indi- not extending beyond the limits vidual customer—I am open to that. But, as of the State concerned); or the government has indicated that it will vote (ii) insurance (other than State insur- down the amendments—and, of course, the ance not extending beyond the opposition has constantly stated that it has an limits of the State concerned); overall view on all of the proposed amend- (f) a body corporate that is a holding ments, and I understand that—there is no company of a body corporate cov- point in my proceeding further than to ask ered by any of the above paragraphs. that the amendments be put to the vote. 15B Agreements relating to prohibited Under proposed section 15A, which is payments unenforceable headed ‘Offences relating to prohibited pay- Any agreement, whether oral or in ments’, the penalty for a person who is a writing, that relates to a payment that is customer of an interactive gambling service a prohibited payment under this Act is 10 penalty units. I seek leave to excise has no effect, and no action may be brought or maintained in any court to proposed section 15A(1) on the last page of recover any such payment. sheet 2225. It is important that we at least have in the Leave granted. legislation a definition of ‘prohibited pay- Amendments not agreed to. ment’. Irrespective of what the government Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.44 might or might not do, we should deal with p.m.)—I move Greens amendment (17) on this matter so that it is in the legislation, no sheet 2216: matter what happens. ‘Prohibited payment’ is (17) Page 11 (after line 22), after Part 2, insert: defined in proposed section 8A(1) as: Part 2A—Unenforceability of agreements (a) a payment made for the benefit of a relating to unlawful gambling non-Australian-based interactive gambling service by, or on behalf of, 15D Agreements relating to unlawful a customer who is physically present gambling unenforceable in Australia; or (1) Any agreement, whether oral or in (b) a payment made by, or on behalf of, writing, that relates to any form of a non-Australian-based interactive gambling that is prohibited under this gambling service for the benefit of a Act has no effect, and no action may be customer who is physically present brought or maintained in any court to in Australia. recover any money alleged to have been won from, or any money paid in No matter what happens to my other connection with, any such form of amendments, that provision is necessary if gambling. the government is going down the track of (2) Nothing in subsection (1) applies to or regulation. I for one am not very happy about in respect of any form of gambling that leaving major questions to government for is otherwise lawful. its regulatory decisions. Matters should be (3) Any agreement, whether oral or in contained in legislation. Proposed section writing, that relates to funds transfer to, 8A(2) states: or through, an intermediary for the sole A payment includes, but is not limited to, any or or dominate to facilitate transfer of all of the following forms of payment ... cleared funds to a gambling service I will not go through all those forms—you provider who is providing a service that is unlawful under this Act has no effect can see them in front of you. In amendment and no action may be brought or (5) I put forward the offences to be created maintained in any court to recover any by proposed section 15A which apply to four money alleged to have been won from, categories of persons. I put that forward on or any money paid in connection with, the understanding that you may run into any such transfers. 25438 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(4) Nothing in subsection (3) applies to or I have my bookshop with a little blinking in respect of any form of funds transfer sign facing customers which says, ‘If you that is otherwise lawful. want a quick bet with your change, press this This amendment relates to making unlawful button and maybe you will go straight to an gambling agreements unenforceable. We overseas gambling site—who knows?’ It is to have debated that, but I feel as strongly as stop that from happening. I recommend that Senator Harradine and Senator Harris feel strongly to the committee. about it, so I have moved the amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Amendment not agreed to. (Senator Lightfoot)—The question is that Amendments (by Senator Alston)—by the amendment moved by Senator Brown be leave—agreed to: agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; those against say no. (19) Clause 6, page 8 (line 16), omit paragraph (c), substitute: Senator Alston—No. (c) an individual who is physically pre- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.46 sent in Australia is capable of be- p.m.)—Chair, I just wonder what trouble the coming a customer of the service. government has with that one. It seems to me (20) Clause 6, page 8 (after line 17), after sub- it is a good amendment. clause (1), insert: Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister (1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), in for Communications, Information Technol- determining whether an individual who ogy and the Arts) (5.46 p.m.)—I think the is physically present in Australia is ca- shortest answer is that this bill is all about pable of becoming a customer of a prohibiting interactive activities, particularly service, it is to be assumed that the individual will not falsify or conceal the the new and exciting temptations that are individual’s identity or location. likely to be coming online shortly. It is not about correcting the current problems that Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.45 are essentially the responsibility of the states. p.m.)—I move amendment (16) on Austra- We have always taken the view that we have lian Greens sheet 2216: clear constitutional power, under the tele- (16) Page 11 (after line 22), at the end of Part 2, communications power, to deal with interac- add: tive activities in all their manifestations but 15C Offence of providing an electronic that poker machines and their regulation are link to an interactive gambling service a matter for the states. It is true that technol- (1) A person must not provide, by means ogy now allows a number of things to occur of the Internet, subscription broadcast- in terms of linking poker machines—for data ing or narrowcasting or any other on- and monitoring purposes, for example, which line communications system, any can be quite helpful in assessing the activi- service that enables a person to gain ties. But linked jackpots, which I think is access to any form of gambling service prohibited by this Act. what you have in mind as the vice you seek to remedy, are really part and parcel of the Penalty: 50 penalty units. way in which poker machines have evolved. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to, or in It is very much open to the states to deal with respect of, any form of gambling that is the excesses of the poker machine business. otherwise lawful. We would certainly encourage them to do (3) The regulations may exempt any per- that, and we will be doing that through the son, or class of persons, from the op- ministerial council and elsewhere. But we do eration of part or all of subsection (1) not believe that this act, which is essentially in such circumstances, and subject to such conditions, as may be specified in concerned with interactive gambling activi- the regulations. ties, should be used as a means of inciden- tally dealing with the offline old forms of This is the amendment which makes it an gambling. offence to provide an electronic link to an interactive gambling service. It is a bit like if Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25439

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.48 (2) A person who contravenes subsection p.m.)—But it is not. As I said earlier, it is just (1) is guilty of a separate offence in re- about cutting off at the pass people who want spect of each day (including a day of to entice innocents who are using the Internet conviction for the offence or any later for some other purpose to suddenly click day) during which the contravention across and get into a gambling service. That continues. is the point of this amendment. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person: Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (5.48 (a) did not know; and p.m.)—It was the minister who prompted me to ask this question in terms of linked jack- (b) could not, with reasonable diligence, pots. The question I am putting to the minis- have ascertained; ter is to do with data collection in relation to that the service had a designated poker machines. Will the minister commit to country-customer link. press this issue with the ministerial council? Note: The defendant bears an eviden- Do you remember the conversation we had? tial burden in relation to the matters in subsection (3) (see Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister subsection 13.3(3) of the for Communications, Information Technol- Criminal Code). ogy and the Arts) (5.49 p.m.)—Yes, and (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), in thank you, Senator Woodley, for reminding determining whether the person could, me. The government is committed to gath- with reasonable diligence, have ascer- ering comprehensive information on gam- tained that the service had a designated bling so that informed policy making deci- country-customer link, the following sions can be made. Detailed information on matters are to be taken into account: gambling patterns, especially in regard to (a) whether prospective customers were electronic gaming, will be sought from the informed that Australian law pro- states through the Ministerial Council on hibits the provision of the service to Gambling. This information will be espe- customers who are physically pres- cially useful in identifying problem gambling ent in a designated country; behaviour and concentrations of problem (b) whether customers were required to gambling activity. enter into contracts that we subject to an express condition that the Amendment not agreed to. customer was not to use the service Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.49 if the customer was physically pres- p.m.)—by leave—I now draw the commit- ent in a designated country; tee’s attention to Australian Greens amend- (c) whether the person required cus- ments (7) and (1) to (6) on sheet 2285, and I tomers to provide personal details move them: and, if so, whether those details (7) Page 11 (after line 22), after Part 2, insert: suggested that the customer was not physically present in a designated Part 2A—Offence of providing an Aus- country; tralian-based interactive gambling service to customers in designated countries (d) whether the person has network data that indicates that customers were 15A Offence of providing an Australian- physically present outside a desig- based interactive gambling service to cus- nated country: tomers in designated countries (i) when the relevant customer ac- (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: count was opened; and (a) the person intentionally provides an (ii) throughout the period when the Australian-based interactive gam- service was provided to the cus- bling service; and tomer; (b) the service has a designated country- (e) any other relevant matters. customer link (see section 9B). (5) Section 15.4 of the Criminal Code Penalty: 2,000 penalty units. (extended geographical jurisdiction— category D applies to an offence 25440 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

ategory D applies to an offence against designated country for the purposes of subsection (1). this Act. (6) For the purposes of this section, an (2) A declaration under subsection (1) has Australian-based interactive gambling effect accordingly. service is an interactive gambling (3) The Minister must not declare a foreign service, where the service has an Aus- country under subsection (1) unless: tralian-provider link. (a) the government of the country has (7) For the purposes of this section, an requested the Minister to make the interactive gambling service has an declaration; and Australian-provider link if, and only if: (b) there is in force in that country legislation that corresponds to section (a) the service is provided in the course 15. of carrying on a business in Austra- lia; or (4) At least 90 days before making a declaration under subsection (1), the Minis- (b) the central management and control ter must cause to be published a notice: of the service is in Australia; or (a) in the Gazette; and (c) the service is provided through an agent in Australia; or (b) in a newspaper circulating in each State, in the Northern Territory and (d) the service is provided to customers in the Australian Capital Territory; using an Internet carriage service, and any or all of the relevant Inter- setting out the Minister’s intention to net content is hosted in Australia. make the declaration. (8) For the purposes of this section, the (5) In deciding whether to declare a for- relevant Internet content, in relation to eign country under subsection (1), the an interactive gambling service, is Minister must have due regard to: Internet content that is acce4ssed, or (a) any complaints; and available for access, by an end-user in (b) any supporting statements; the capacity of customer of the service. made by the government of that (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 2), after sub- country. clause (2), insert: (6) An instrument under subsection (1) is a (2A) Part 2A commences on the 28th day disallowable instrument for the pur- after the day on which this Act receives poses of section 46A of the Acts Inter- the Royal Assent. pretation Act 1901. (2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 20), after para- (6) Page 9 (before line 27), before clause 10, graph (a), insert: insert: (aa) prohibiting Australian-based inter- 9B Designated country-customer link active gambling services from be- For the purposes of this Act, a gaming provided to customers in des- bling service has a designated country- ignated countries; and customer link if, and only if, any or all of the customers of the service are (3) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 25), after the physically present in a designated definition of datacasting service, insert: country. designated country has the meaning These amendments are to prevent the export given by section 9A. from Australia of Internet gambling to cer- (4) Clause 4, page 4 (before line 26), before the tain designated countries. I am sure all definition of designated Internet gambling senators have read the amendments includ- matter, insert: ing, at the back, the section headed ‘Offence designated country-customer link has of providing an Australian-based interactive the meaning given by section 9B. gambling service to customers in designated (5) Page 9 (after line 26), after clause 9, insert: countries’. In brief, this addresses my con- 9A Designated country cern right from the outset that the majority in (1) The Minister may, by writing, declare this place is wanting to move to prevent that a specified foreign country is a Internet gambling because of the damage it Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25441 causes to Australian society, but the legisla- now. We do not have jurisdiction over other tion ostensibly allows gambling houses in countries and we have no right to presume Australia to export Internet gambling facili- that they do not want certain types of social ties all around the world to other countries. It activity but, where they make it plain is obvious that what is bad for Australian through their parliaments that they do have a households is bad for households elsewhere similar view, we have an obligation to re- around the world. This provision allows an- spond positively. Therefore, I acknowledge other country which does not want Austra- these amendments as being very much in line lian service providers exporting gambling with what we have been advocating. into its domestic situation and which has Senator GREIG (Western Australia) similar legislation in place to say to the Aus- (5.54 p.m.)—The flaw in this argument is the tralian government, ‘Please put us on the list fact that, if we were to succeed in banning as a designated country to make it illegal for online gambling from within Australia to a gambling house in Australia to export to Australians, or from an online gaming pro- us.’ That is a good neighbour policy. I think vider that is Australian to an offshore site, it is somewhat of a breakthrough in terms of they can simply move offshore. Mr Kerry innovative legislation, and I strongly com- Packer has already said that, if his operations mend it to the committee. in online gambling are frustrated in Austra- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (5.52 lia, he will move to Vanuatu—an obvious p.m.)—I too will be supporting these outcome. I do not mean to single him out—it amendments. I think they are important. Ini- could apply to anybody or any organisa- tially my colleague Senator Woodley and I tion—but Australian companies could still were concerned about the prospect of Aus- locate themselves in a country where there tralia’s indicating that there were dangers— was no prohibition, such as Vanuatu, and as indeed there are—associated with a mas- continue their services into those countries sive expansion of interactive gambling on- that would theoretically be banned from re- line. To us it seemed to be untenable to say ceiving those services from within Australia. that this was a danger for our own citizens So the argument to me is a nonsense. For that but we were not prepared to protect other reason, I cannot support the amendments. countries that thought likewise. This is a Amendments agreed to. good compromise to that blanket ban. It still allows Australian companies, which in some Amendments (by Senator Alston)—by states at least are well regulated, to provide a leave—agreed to. service which is welcome in some parts and (24) Page 9 (after line 14), after clause 8, insert: to some people. So this is a good solution 8A Excluded wagering service which does allow other countries to opt in to (1) For the purposes of this Act, an ex- our ban. I hope that it will be an encourage- cluded wagering service is: ment to many countries around the world, (a) a service to the extent to which it when they examine the potential dangers of relates to betting on, or on a series interactive gambling, to take a lead from of, any or all of the following: Australia and that it will be easier for them to (i) a horse race; do so because of our precedent and our (ii) a harness race; willingness to take on board their concerns about operatives in this country working in (iii) a greyhound race; their country. I will vote for these amend- (iv) a sporting event; ments with some enthusiasm. (b) a service to the extent to which it Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister relates to betting on: for Communications, Information Technol- (i) an event; or ogy and the Arts) (5.53 p.m.)—The govern- (ii) a series of events; or ment also accepts the proposition. It is very (iii) a contingency; much in line with what I have been saying that is not covered by paragraph (a). consistently for some weeks and months 25442 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(2) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply 8C Designated broadcasting link and to a service to the extent to which: designated datacasting link (a) the service relates to betting on the Designated broadcasting link outcome of a sporting event, where (1) For the purposes of this Act, a gam- the bets are placed, made, received bling service has a designated broad- or accepted after the beginning of casting link if: the event; or (a) either: (b) the service relates to betting on a contingency that may or may not (i) the service is expressly and ex- happen in the course of a sporting clusively associated with a par- event, where the bets are placed, ticular program, or a particular made, received or accepted after the series of programs, broadcast on beginning of the event. a broadcasting service; or (3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a (ii) the sole purpose of the gambling service to the extent to which the serv- service is to promote goods or ice is: services (other than gambling services) that are the subject of (a) a service for the conduct of a scratch advertisements broadcast on a lottery or other instant lottery; or broadcasting service, and the (b) a service for the supply of tickets in gambling service is associated a scratch lottery or other instant lot- with those advertisements; and tery; or (b) such other conditions (if any) as are (c) a service relating to betting on the specified in the regulations have outcome of a scratch lottery or other been satisfied. instant lottery; or Designated datacasting link (d) a service for the conduct of a game (2) For the purposes of this Act, a gam- covered by paragraph (e) of the bling service has a designated data- definition of gambling service in casting link if: section 4; or (a) either: (e) a service relating to betting on the outcome of a game of chance or of (i) the service is expressly and ex- mixed chance and skill. clusively associated with particular content, or a particular se- (25) Page 9, after clause 8A, insert: ries of content, transmitted on a 8B Excluded gaming service datacasting service; or (1) For the purposes of this Act, an ex- (ii) the sole purpose of the gambling cluded gaming service is a service for service is to promote goods or the conduct of a game covered by services (other than gambling paragraph (e) of the definition of gam- services) that are the subject of bling service in section 4, to the extent advertisements transmitted on a to which the service is provided to datacasting service, and the gam- customers who are in a public place. bling service is associated with (2) In this section: those advertisements; and public place means a place, or a part of (b) such other conditions (if any) as are a place, to which the public, or a sec- specified in the regulations have tion of the public, ordinarily has access, been satisfied. whether or not by payment or by invi- (3) In this section: tation (including, for example, a shop, content, in relation to a datacasting casino, bar or club). service, does not include advertising or section of the public includes the sponsorship material. members of a particular club, society or program has the same meaning as in organisation, but does not include a the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, group consisting only of persons with a but does not include advertising or common workplace or a common em- sponsorship material. ployer. (27) Page 9, after clause 8C, insert: (26) Page 9, after clause 8B, insert: Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25443

8D Excluded lottery service (ab) an excluded gaming service (see (1) For the purposes of this Act, an ex- section 8B); cluded lottery service is: (ac) a service that has a designated (a) a service for the conduct of a lottery; broadcasting link (see section 8C); or (ad) a service that has a designated data- (b) a service for the supply of lottery casting link (see section 8C); tickets. (ae) an excluded lottery service (see sec- (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an tion 8D); electronic form of: Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.56 (a) scratch lottery; or p.m.)—I move amendment (1) on sheet (b) other instant lottery. 2284: (6) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 25), after the (1) Amendment (24), at the end of clause 8A, definition of datacasting service, insert: add: designated broadcasting link has the (4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a meaning given by section 8C. service unless the person who provides the service is authorised under a law of (7) Clause 4, page 4 (before line 26), before the a State or Territory to provide the definition of designated Internet gambling service. matter, insert: The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN designated datacasting link has the meaning given by section 8C. (Senator Lightfoot)—You are amending government amendment (24)? (8) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 8), after the definition of engage in conduct, insert: Senator BROWN—That is correct. excluded gaming service has the Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister meaning given by section 8B. for Communications, Information Technol- (9) Clause 4, page 5, after the definition of ex- ogy and the Arts) (5.57 p.m.)—I would like a cluded gaming service, insert: moment to reflect on what Senator Brown is excluded lottery service has the mean- putting forward, and this might provide a ing given by section 8D. convenient opportunity. (10) Clause 4, page 5 (before line 9), before the Progress reported. definition of exempt service, insert: COMMITTEES excluded wagering service has the Selection of Bills Committee meaning given by section 8A. Reports (18) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 4), after paragraph (a), insert: Senator COONAN (New South Wales) (aa) an excluded wagering service (see (5.58 p.m.)—by leave—On behalf of Senator section 8A); Calvert, I present the 9th and 10th reports of 2001 of the Selection of Bills Committee. (ab) an excluded gaming service (see section 8B); Ordered that the reports be adopted. (ac) a service that has a designated Senator COONAN—I seek leave to have broadcasting link (see section 8C); the reports incorporated in Hansard. (ad) a service that has a designated data- Leave granted. casting link (see section 8C); The reports read as follows— (ae) an excluded lottery service (see section 8D); SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE (21) Clause 6, page 8 (line 20), omit “neither”, REPORT NO. 9 OF 2001 substitute “none”. 1. The committee met on 26 June 2001. (22) Clause 6, page 8 (before line 22), before 2. The committee considered a proposal to paragraph (a), insert: refer the provisions of the Alcohol Educa- (aa) an excluded wagering service (see tion and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001 to section 8A); a committee but was unable to reach agree- 25444 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

ment on whether the provisions of the bill • Vocational Education and Training Funding should be referred. Amendment Bill 2001 3. The committee resolved to recommend that Bill deferred from meeting of 26 June 2001 • the following bills not be referred to com- Superannuation Contributions Taxes and mittees: Termination Payments Tax Legislation • Amendment Bill 2001 Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petro- (Paul Calvert) leum) Bill 2001 Chair Trade Practices Amendment (Representative 27 June 2001 Actions) Bill 2001 ————— Trade Practices Amendment (Mergers in Re- SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE gional Markets) Bill 2001 REPORT NO. 10 OF 2001 Trade Practices Amendment (Unconscion- 1. The committee met on 28 June 2001. able Conduct) Bill 2001 2. The committee resolved to recommend Trade Practices Amendment (Operation of (a) That the following bill be referred to a State and Territory Laws) Bill 2001 committee as follows: • Finance and Administration Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill title Stage at Legislation Reporting Bill (No. 1) 2001 which committee date referred • Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Bill 2001 Alcohol Immedi- Community 9 August Education ately Affairs 2001 Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Con- and Reha- sequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill bilitation 2001 Account • Migration Legislation Amendment (Immi- Bill 2001 gration Detainees) Bill 2001 • (b) That the provisions of the following Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres bill be referred to a committee as fol- Strait Islander Affairs Legislation Amend- lows: ment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 Bill title Stage at Legislation Reporting • Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) which committee date 2001 referred • Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) Cybercrime Immedi- Legal and 21 August 2001 Bill 2001 ately Constitu- 2001 • Trade Marks and Other Legislation Amend- tional ment Bill 2001 (Paul Calvert) • Treasury Legislation Amendment (Applica- tion of Criminal Code) Bill (No. 2) 2001 Chair 4. The committee deferred consideration of the 28 June 2001 following bills to the next meeting: Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to Bill deferred from meeting of 22 May 2001 7.30 p.m. • Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. INTERACTIVE GAMBLING 2) 2001 Bills deferred from meeting of 19 June 2001 (MORATORIUM) BILL 2000 • Financial Services Reform Bill 2001 In Committee Financial Services Reform (Consequential Consideration resumed. Provisions) Bill 2001 Corporations (Compensation Arrangements The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Levies) Bill 2001 (Senator George Campbell)—The com- Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill 2001 mittee is considering the Interactive Gam- Corporations (National Guarantee Fund bling Bill 2001, as amended, and the Levies) Amendment Bill 2001 amendment moved by Senator Brown to • States Grants (Primary and Secondary Edu- government amendment (24) on sheet cation Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001 ER279. The question is that Senator Brown’s amendment be agreed to. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25445

Question resolved in the negative. that we have this review and that it takes Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (7.31 place sooner than was planned. In that period p.m.)—I move Democrat amendment (1): of time there will be an opportunity to see, as I said, how effective the bill has been. I think Clause 68, page 49 (lines 25 and 26), omit subclause (1), substitute: we will also see in that period of time a development of interactive gambling through (1) Before 1 July 2003, the Minister must datacasting, through digital television and cause to be conducted a review of the following matters: the like. Already, as I mentioned in my second reading contribution, there are many (a) the operation of this Act; organisations which have identified those (b) the growth of interactive gambling last two areas I mentioned—interactive tele- services; vision—as being opportunities for exploita- (c) the social and commercial impact of tion and great opportunities for generating interactive gambling services; wealth, very often at other people’s expense. (d) the effect of the following provi- I commend this amendment as being a way sions: in which we can see at a sooner stage how (i) paragraphs 5(3)(aa) and 6(3)(aa) well this ban is being put into effect. and section 8A (excluded wagering services); Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.33 (ii) paragraphs 5(3)(ab) and 6(3)(ab) p.m.)—I will be supporting that amendment. and section 8B (excluded gaming I want to comment on some public response services); to this legislation as it proceeds. Lasseters (iii) paragraphs 5(3)(ac) and 6(3)(ac) say that the legislation and amendments that and section 8C (services that were passed today have set a dangerous have a designated broadcasting precedent for global Internet censorship and link); call the amendment, which is the one to do (iv) paragraphs 5(3)(ad) and 6(3)(ad) with designated countries, ‘totally unneces- and section 8C (services that sary’, but then go on to threaten the minister have a designated datacasting with legal action, although the minister has link); not done anything yet. They also say that (v) paragraphs 5(3)(ae) and 6(3)(ae) they might seek compensation in the High and section 8D (excluded lottery Court. In a very twisted argument, they say, services); ‘We have voluntarily adopted the policy’— (e) the effectiveness of this Act in that is, of stopping players from dealing with the social and commer- registering—‘if they reside in states or cial impact of interactive gambling countries prohibiting online gambling on services; (f) technological developments that are religious or legislative grounds.’ They have a relevant to the regulation of interac- policy that they say is the equivalent to what tive gambling services; the Senate has passed today; but the Senate (g) technological developments that cannot do it, the parliament cannot do it— may assist in dealing with problem Lasseters can. gambling. We have this extraordinary situation of a This amendment brings forward the review big gambling company threatening action which was in the legislation for 2004 to 1 against the parliament moving to prohibit July 2003 and identifies, in terms of refer- online gambling from Australia being ex- ence, the matters to be considered in that ported to a country that says, ‘Please, do not review. They include the effectiveness and send it to us because we have similar laws to operation of the legislation. They look at the you, and we do not want it exported to citi- exemptions which have been agreed to— zens in our country either. You do not allow wagering, lotteries and the like. They also it in Australia; we do not want it exported to look at the technological developments, our country.’ What an extraordinary thing which I think are likely to develop and arise from Lasseters. Yet, after saying that they are over the next two years or so. I think it is looking at the law and what they might do important that we have this review and that it about challenging the minister abusing the 25446 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 powers and questioning in the High Court five minutes would be excluded under clause the constitutional rights to enact the law— 8D? that is, questioning our right in the Senate to Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister amend this legislation as we see fit—they go for Communications, Information Technol- on to bring out the biggest threat of the lot, ogy and the Arts) (7.38 p.m.)—The excluded the daddy of threats. They say that this leg- service provision involves a new definition. islation may be subject to action through the You will find it on sheet XX222, the Austra- World Trade Organisation. Aren’t Austra- lian Democrats amendments. Amendment lians going to be glad to hear Lasseters No. 3 states: threatening us with the World Trade Organi- (1B) Without limiting subsection (1A), a condi- sation because we are trying to regulate tion specified in regulations made for the pur- gambling in this country and, in so doing, poses of that subsection may provide that the say, ‘We want to extend the same sorts of lottery must not be: opportunities to other countries that may be (a)a highly repetitive or frequently drawn form affected by this’? of a keno-type lottery; or I think Lasseters need to take an orange juice, to settle down a little, to think about (b) a similar lottery. their responsibility as a corporate citizen in The scheme of the act is that gaming is the same way that we are considering our banned, and gaming involves casino like responsibility as a parliamentary citizen and activities where you do have frequent and to come up with something more construc- repetitive conduct. Insofar as keno activity is tive than that. I think they may well do them- conducted offline, that is not of concern to selves a service if they think much more this legislation. Insofar as it is conducted about how they can make their services un- online, it would probably be caught by the available to problem gamblers altogether, gaming definition. If it is not and it is occur- whether they be overseas or here. I know ring frequently and repetitively in accor- Lasseters have a big clientele overseas. If dance with that definition, it will be ruled they say that do not operate where it is out. There is a general discretion vested in against religious tenets, then they need to the minister to limit or preclude those types think about whether they should operate in of activities, and that Democrats amendment circumstances which are socially repugnant, will allow us, after the event if necessary, to whether or not they are religious. It is a nice take action in respect of any particular of- try from Lasseters, but it will not wash. fering. Senator BOSWELL (Queensland— As I understand it, these things are not Leader of the National Party of Australia in available now. Obviously, there will be many the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary to modifications and new initiatives, both the Minister for Transport and Regional Serv- home-grown and imported, and we will need ices) (7.37 p.m.)—I would like to direct a to have that general power in order to give question to the minister. I refer to govern- effect to the spirit of the legislation. It is one ment amendment No. 27, which says: thing to allow a lottery which occurs on a (1) For the purposes of this Act, an ex- periodic basis—it is a defined event which cluded lottery service is: ought to be allowed because there is no evi- (a) a service for the conduct of a lottery; dence that it is socially harmful—but it is or another thing to have events which occur (b) a service for the supply of lottery frequently and repetitively, where people tickets. have the opportunity and almost the inevita- bility of losing significant sums of money in (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an electronic form of: a fairly short period of time. They will be caught either under the gaming provision or (a) scratch lottery; or under the general discretionary power vested (b) other instant lottery. in the minister to take action in respect of Could the minister inform me whether a highly repetitive or frequently drawn forms game of keno that throws up results every of keno type lotteries or similar lotteries. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25447

Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (7.41 services other than gambling services that p.m.)—Earlier I spoke about Democrats are the subject of advertisements that are amendment No. 1 on a different running broadcast—in other words, t-commerce. sheet. I realise now where we are at. My These services are not gambling and are not amendment No. 1 relates to the minister set- intended to be covered. However, the gov- ting conditions on the exemptions which will ernment’s amendments do build in a review be disallowable. I just want to clarify that it mechanism to allow a re-examination of the is not about the review; it is about the condi- social impacts of these services before two tions applicable to the exempted matters. years has elapsed. Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (7.41 Some concerns were expressed that the p.m.)—As this is the point at which Internet legislation might also operate to unintention- wagering is debated, I put on the record that ally ban game shows or promotions like I have an interest. I have a computer, I have Video Hits or Classic Catches, where there is been known to bet on horses and I have an some form of entry fee, such as a 1900 interest in thoroughbreds. phone call. Because these services were not Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (7.42 intended to be covered by the legislation, we p.m.)—In light of Senator Boswell’s question are introducing amendments to exempt them to the minister, I would like to seek clarifica- and future services offered in conjunction tion. The third dot point on page 1 of the with material on digital and interactive tele- government’s supplementary explanatory vision but subject to a ministerial power to memorandum says: impose further conditions, with a review of this part of the legislation after two years. The proposed Government Amendments to the Interactive Gambling Bill 2001: Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (7.45 ……… p.m.)—I thank the minister for that clarification. That does clearly put on the record the clarify that television games and trade promotions are exempt from the scope of the Bill ... concerns that I had with the possible exclusion of those services. Could the minister clarify whether such programs as Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and Amendment agreed to. The Weakest Link would be caught by this Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (7.46 legislation, or would they be excluded? p.m.)—by leave—I move Pauline Hanson’s Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister One Nation amendments (2) to (4) on sheet for Communications, Information Technol- 2292: ogy and the Arts) (7.43 p.m.)—There are (2) Government amendment (24), at the end of certain games and promotions that might subclause 8A(1), add: unintentionally be captured by the original ; or (c) a telephone betting service. provisions of the bill, including services run- (3) Government amendment (24), subclause ning in conjunction with television broad- 8A(2), omit “and (b)”, substitute “,(b) and casts such as Big Brother or Who Wants to be (c)”. a Millionaire? Of course, it has not been the (4) Government amendment (24), at the end of intention in the whole scope of this bill to clause 8A, add: limit current activity which precedes interac- (4) Paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) do not tive technology. Therefore, because of the apply to the extent to which the service difficulty of anticipating precisely what relates to betting on a horse race, har- might emerge but recognising that there may ness race or greyhound race that is to well be some relatively harmless categories be held anywhere in Australia, unless of interactive programming run by the televi- the person who provides the service is sion networks, the government’s amend- authorised under a law of a State or ments will exempt such services that are ex- Territory to provide the service. pressly and exclusively associated with a (5) Paragraph (2)(a) does not apply if the particular broadcast program or solely pro- person who provides the service is: vided for the purpose of promoting goods or (a) authorised under a law of a State or Territory to provide the service; and 25448 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(b) is bound by a national Code of Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister Practice prepared by a body that is for Communications, Information Technol- representative of legal Australian ogy and the Arts) (7.51 p.m.)—I will just wagering service providers and ap- indicate why the government opposes these proved by a majority of State and amendments. Insofar as telephone betting is Territory Racing Ministers. concerned, I do not quite understand what (6) The regulations may exempt a person Senator Harris’s desire to extend the ability who is bound by a national Code of for disabled people to use the Internet has to Practice mentioned in paragraph (5)(b) from the operation of paragraph (2)(b) do with telephone betting. Telephone betting in such circumstances, and subject to is a legal activity now and I do not think such conditions, as are prescribed. anyone has proposed to ban it or indeed These amendments are to bring the Com- make it subject for the first time to Austra- monwealth legislation closer in line with the lian licensing requirements. Telephone type- state legislation. Amendment (2) has the writer facilities have been available for quite ability to insert in subsection (1) the ability some time for those who are not able to use for a person to place a bet by telephone as a the telephone for making a voice call. They service to the extension as it relates to a bet can now type in the message that can be then on an event, a series of events or a contin- transmitted via a computer and converted gency in horseracing, harness racing, grey- into a voice call at the other end. It is per- hound racing or a sporting event. fectly possible for disabled people to use the telephone for betting, and I do not therefore One of the primary reasons for moving see why we should be imposing restrictions this amendment is that, in the government’s on telephone betting. original bill, there was an exclusion that would allow those people with a disability to As far as the second proposal is con- be able to use the Internet to place a wager- cerned, I am not clear whether this is only ing bet—only those with a disability. TABs designed to apply to activities in Australia or around Australia now have the ability with whether it is effectively saying that you can- voice recognition to recognise the voice of a not provide wagering services from offshore disabled person. That is why we are asking unless you are licensed by an Australian for this to be inserted in this section of the authority. If it is the latter, given that we are bill. It would allow the disabled to use a allowing sports betting to occur, it does not telephone with voice recognition to place a seem to me to make much sense to say that wagering bet with their TAB. That is the you can bet on Australian events and with purpose of that section of the amendments. Australian providers but you cannot go offshore. You may be a very irregular punter— The purpose of amendment (4) is to bring you may simply want to bet on Ascot once a the Commonwealth legislation closer to the year. You want to check the best odds, so you state requirements. Subsection (4) of go to William Hill or Ladbrokes. They have amendment (4) would have the function of better odds, but because they are not licensed excluding any overseas providers for the in Australia to provide that service somehow purpose of placing a wagering bet in Austra- that becomes illegal. That is illogical. lia, and I believe that should receive the support of the majority of the senators in the If we are providing an exemption for chamber. The intention of the amendment is sports betting, we can obviously address to mirror the state licensing requirements for some of the excesses of that activity by a wagering and, in doing so, it would exclude variety of means, which the states keep a service provider from outside Australia swearing on a stack of bibles they are about providing a service for wagering within to get around to doing. Insofar as the activity Australia. I commend both of the amend- itself is concerned, I do not see why we ments, particularly the amendments that will should suddenly be imposing a licensing re- allow the disabled in Australia to use voice quirement when the Commonwealth’s re- recognition to place their wagering bets. sponsibility is to regulate the activity itself, Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25449 and the states can impose any additional ob- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (7.58 ligations that they choose. p.m.)—I move Democrat amendment No. 2 Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (7.54 on sheet XX222: p.m.)—I thank the minister for his response. (2) Amendment (25), after subclause 8B(1), The clear intention is to exclude a provider insert: of a service from outside of Australia. The (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a majority of punters who are going overseas service unless such other conditions (if normally have arrangements with their own any) as are specified in the regulations Australia based betting services. This have been satisfied. amendment is not intended in any way to This is a similar amendment to our amend- exclude an Australian citizen who is outside ment No. 1. It relates to allowing the minis- of Australia from placing a bet with a service ter to impose conditions on excluded gaming provider from within Australia. Its clear in- services. So the first amendment was on wa- tent is to ensure that nobody from offshore gering; this one relates to gaming. can provide a service unless they have a li- Amendment agreed to. cence to provide that service that is authorised by a state or a territory. As I said in my Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.59 speech in the second reading debate, we al- p.m.)—I move Australian Greens amend- ready have one service provider in Vanuatu ment No. 1 on sheet 2290: who has a turnover of over half a billion (1) Amendment (27), at the end of clause 8D, dollars annually. That does not bring any add: benefits to the Australian people, nor does (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a that person pay any turnover tax to the state service unless the person who provides governments. the service is authorised under a law of a State or Territory to provide the This is the purpose of these amendments: service. to ensure that a wagering facility cannot be If you read the double negatives here, it is an put in place unless that person has a licence amendment to stop overseas lottery operators that is granted by a state or a territory. It is plying their trade in Australia. not intended to exclude a person from being overseas and betting on a service that is pro- Amendment agreed to. vided by an Australian licensed provider; it Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (8.00 is to ensure that we do not end up with a p.m.)—It defies logic that you will exclude proliferation of service providers offshore lottery providers from offshore but the gov- who are actually deriving the benefits from ernment will not exclude wagering services their businesses and not returning anything from offshore. to Australia. Very briefly, I read into the rec- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.00 ord in my speech earlier a section about the p.m.)—I move Democrats amendment (3) on approximate $600 million which the racing sheet XX222: industry pays by way of fees or taxes to the (3) Amendment (27), after subclause 8D(1), state governments. These amendments are insert: distinctly directed towards ensuring that the industry will continue to be Australian based (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a service unless such other conditions (if and not run by a service provider outside of any) as are specified in the regulations Australia. have been satisfied. Amendments not agreed to. (1B) Without limiting subsection (1A), a The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN condition specified in regulations made (Senator George Campbell)—That makes for the purposes of that subsection may your other amendment redundant, Senator provide that the lottery must not be: Harris. (a) a highly repetitive or frequently drawn form of a keno-type lottery; or (b) a similar lottery. 25450 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

This is a similar amendment which allows recognises that this concern needs to be bal- the minister to apply conditions to an ex- anced against the impact of a ban on a bona empted service—in this case, lottery serv- fide and long-established industry in Austra- ices. lia’. Amendment agreed to. I stated in my speech in the second read- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ing debate and again tonight that the bill still (Senator George Campbell)—The question permits Australians access to Internet wa- now is that the government amendments, as gering, and wagering is hardly immune from amended, be agreed to. causing gambling problems. This amendment to exclude interactive wagering and the Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- other exemptions, when wagering is as much tralia) (8.01 p.m.)—I think it is probably ap- a problem in terms of problem gambling as propriate at this time to make a few com- any other form of gambling, demonstrates, as ments. I will address my comments to the I said earlier, the extent of the hypocrisy that issue of wagering but they apply generally to runs rampant through this bill. the list of exemptions that have been moved by the government as amended by the vari- The amendments place beyond a doubt ous crossbench parties. The opposition want everyone’s suspicions that the government’s to make five points at the outset and I will primary concern in the passage of this legis- develop each briefly. lation is not the protection of problem gamblers. The government’s decision to cave in Firstly, the bill still permits Australians to the relatively brief but intensive lobbying access to Internet wagering and we make the by the wagering industry is just further proof obvious point that wagering is hardly im- to the opposition of the government’s ad hoc mune from causing gambling problems. Wa- policy approach in this whole area. It dem- gering is as much of a problem in terms of onstrates to us that its selective approach is problem gambling as any other form of gam- the reason why it cannot come up with a sen- bling and to exclude it seems, to the opposi- sible and effective policy for interactive tion, to demonstrate the extent of the hypoc- gambling that minimises interactive gam- risy that the government displays with this bling to the greatest extent possible. bill. If the bill does become law, Australian gamblers will be able to gamble away all During a recent interview, the minister they have and more on many offshore sites said: that they will still be able to access. Problem There’s a huge difference between picking up gamblers are almost 1½ times more likely to your phone, putting on a few bets at the TAB, and prefer gambling on racing to casino gam- sitting there with a remote control and clicking bling. It is difficult to identify any sensible your head off until you’ve lost all of what you rationale for the government’s exclusion of had, and more ... wagering from this bill. The government also I make the obvious point that if gamblers has chosen to exclude sports betting from the play on Australian Internet gambling sites bill, contradicting its decision to restrict new they could not gamble all of what they had forms of gambling. and more because there are expenditure The series of amendments exclude wa- thresholds imposed by the legitimate opera- gering and the other forms from the scope of tors in this country. If this bill does become the interactive gambling ban, with the ex- law, Australian gamblers will be able to ception of ball by ball or microevent wager- gamble all they have and more on many off- ing, which will continue to be prohibited. It shore sites that they will still be able to ac- is clear that the amendments proposed by the cess. government and the crossbench and minor My second point in this context is that the parties cater to the demands of the racing Productivity Commission found that problem industry and associated industries. The gov- gamblers are almost 1½ times more likely to ernment has stated that it remains ‘concerned prefer gambling on racing to casino gam- about the impact of Internet wagering but bling. The minister undoubtedly knows this—I tried to bring it to his attention be- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25451 fore. We make the obvious point that wa- forms is that they want to prevent the further gering is not any safer than any other form of spread of gambling in this country? gambling. Wagering is not immune to the To prevent the further spread of gambling social effect of problem gambling. It is im- is their whole rationale. But this bill, and the possible for us to identify any consistent or amendments we are currently discussing, sensible policy rationale behind this. send out the clear message that they exclude Furthermore, the government has stated new forms of gambling—Internet wagering repeatedly that it is concerned to prevent any and Internet sports betting—which are de- increase in the accessibility of gambling and veloping and which technology will allow to that is one of the drivers behind this whole spread. So the conclusion we draw is that approach. We ask this question in passing: if this bill and the comments of the government that is one of the drivers that motivates us in are about accommodating new forms of bet- this debate, why has the government chosen ting. They are about accommodating racing to exclude wagering and sporting events industry and sports betting interests in new from the bill? mediums of communication. Sports betting is still a relatively new form Senator Alston—But you are against it, of gambling and is highly suited to Internet are you? and home based gambling. The Productivity Senator MARK BISHOP—You say this Commission report observed that it is likely bill is about preventing further forms of that sports betting: gambling and further access to gambling and ... will grow rapidly via the internet, largely cre- about attending to existing social problems, ating a new market, though there may be some yet in this debate and these amendments you shift away from wagers on racing. expressly provide and allow—and, by impli- Essentially, then, the government’s own cation, encourage—new forms of gambling amendments and the amendments of the mi- in new forms of communication. We just nor parties, catering to the requests of the make the obvious point, which I think is horse racing and other existing industries, are probably understood and accepted in this encouraging the expansion of an entirely chamber, that that is just contrary to your new gambling form in this country. Hypo- stated purpose. critical? We say yes. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (8.09 Finally, the government fails to mention p.m.)—Minister, why has an exemption been that this bill will permit one form of gam- given to wagering on Internet overseas sites bling on the Internet to continue unabated and yet we have just made it illegal to have and essentially unregulated, or at least not Internet gambling on overseas lotteries? I am regulated to the same extent as the existing concerned that there is this difference. If Internet gambling industries that the bill will there is a feeling around the chamber, as ap- prohibit Australians from accessing. parently there is, why don’t we revisit that Bringing that together, we ask the obvious again and see whether we cannot get agree- question that a range of people have been ment about that? I think Senator Harris discussing in this debate and in the press pointed out that it is illogical, and now we over recent times: how is wagering different? have heard Senator Bishop virtually say that How and why are problem gamblers who it is illogical, to have a ban on the lotteries choose to bet in the various forms of the and not a ban on the wagering. racing industry around the country tolerated? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Why is that encouraged? Why does this gov- (Senator George Campbell)—You are per- ernment allow these new products and these ceptive, Senator. new forms of betting to take place in the Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister marketplace when Minister Alston, the for Communications, Information Technol- Prime Minister and the government have ogy and the Arts) (8.10 p.m.)—I do not know said that the ostensible reason for their in- how he does it. I thought, if he was at the tention to ban Internet gambling in various other end of the chamber, he would not be 25452 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 able to hear what is going on down here. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I Senator Harradine clearly has been able to am sorry, Senator. Leave has already been read the discussions because I have just indi- granted. cated to Senator Brown and the chair that I Amendment not agreed to. would seek to have that vote recommitted. There was some confusion; I accept the il- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The logicality of it. I hesitated because it struck question now is that the government me that way but, for one reason or another, I amendments, as amended, be agreed to. do not think we got the right outcome. I was Question resolved in the affirmative. certainly going to seek leave of the chamber Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.14 to do just that. I am grateful for you once p.m.)—I move Australian Greens amend- again being ahead of the game. I am seeking ment (18) on sheet 2216: leave to have Australian Greens amendment (18) Clause 37, page 27 (after line 6), after para- (1) on sheet 2290 to government amendment graph (6)(b), insert: 27 recommitted. (c) an arrangement that involves the use Leave granted. of redirection of URLs of prohibited Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (8.11 Internet gambling services, or pro- p.m.)—This is probably one of the few times hibited Internet gambling content, by a requirement to ensure all Do- in this chamber when I am now wishing that main Name Services in Australia are I had kept my mouth shut because it would ultimately linked to an Australian be preferable to actually have the Lotto ex- Root Server where requests for that cluded from overseas providers being able to service or content are redirected, by provide it. If it is possible, I will request that local reassignment of the IP of the my comments be struck from Hansard. prohibited Internet gambling service The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It is domain, to an information site maintained by the ABA. not possible, Senator. Sometimes it is tempting to block leave for a Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (8.12 recommittal but, of course, the good form p.m.)—I think I misunderstood what the and precedence in this house is such that, if minister said. Are we going to now vote? recommittal is requested because somebody The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I has voted in an unintended way, the house am going to put the amendment moved by should really test the true feeling and that is the Australian Greens, Senator Harradine. what has happened. I might add that I did not You will be able to now vote on it again and, change my vote. Amendment (18) is a tech- hopefully, you will get the correct outcome. nical matter to do with web sites. As the Senator HARRADINE—But that was committee can see, it is self-explanatory. passed before. Amendment not agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—But Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister leave was sought to have the vote recom- for Communications, Information Technol- mitted and leave has been granted. ogy and the Arts) (8.15 p.m.)—by leave—I Senator HARRADINE—Chair, I would move government amendments (32), (1), (3) prefer—and I am sure colleagues round here and (16) on sheet ER279: would prefer—to have both of them banned. (32) Page 45 (after line 6), after Part 7, insert: The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—At PART 7A—PROHIBITION OF this stage only one amendment has been ADVERTISING OF INTERACTIVE raised. The minister has sought leave to have GAMBLING SERVICES that amendment recommitted to the vote and Division 1—Interpretation: definitions leave has been granted by the chamber. I am 61AA Definitions about to put that amendment to a vote of the In this Part, unless the contrary inten- chamber. tion appears: Senator HARRADINE—I refuse leave. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25453

broadcast means transmit by means of interactive gambling service provider a broadcasting service. means a person who provides an inter- broadcasting service means a service active gambling service. that delivers television programs or ra- periodical means an issue (however dio programs to persons having equip- described) of a newspaper, magazine, ment appropriate for receiving that journal, newsletter, or other similar service, whether the delivery uses the publication, issues of which are pub- radiofrequency spectrum, cable, optical lished at regular or irregular intervals. fibre, satellite or any other means or a program has the same meaning as in combination of those means, but does the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. not include: public place means a place, or a part of (a) a datacasting service; or a place, to which the public, or a sec- (b) a service that delivers programs tion of the public, ordinarily has access, using the Internet, where the deliv- whether or not by payment or by invi- ery does not use the broadcasting tation (including, for example, a shop, services bands. restaurant, hotel, cinema or club). broadcasting services bands has the publish: same meaning as in the Broadcasting (a) in relation to an interactive gam- Services Act 1992. bling service advertisement, has the datacast means transmit by means of a meaning given by Division 3; and datacasting service. (b) in relation to something other than display includes continue to display. an interactive gambling service ad- exempt library means: vertisement, has a meaning equally as broad as it has in relation to an (a) a public library; or interactive gambling service adver- (b) a library of a tertiary educational tisement. institution; or section of the public includes: (c) a library of an authority of the (a) the members of a particular club, Commonwealth or of a State or Ter- society or organisation; and ritory. (b) a group consisting only of persons government or political matters means with a common workplace or a government or political matters relating common employer. to any level of government in Austra- lia, and includes any of the following workplace means premises in which matters: employees or contractors work, other than any part of such premises that is (a) participation in, association with and primarily used as a private dwelling. communications in relation to any election or appointment to public of- Division 2—Interpretation: interactive fice; gambling service advertisement (b) political views or public conduct 61BA Basic meaning of interactive gam- relating to activities that have be- bling service advertisement come the subject of political debate; (1) For the purposes of this Part, an inter- (c) the performance, conduct, capacity active gambling service advertisement or fitness for office of a person is any writing, still or moving picture, elected or appointed to, or seeking sign, symbol or other visual image, or election or appointment to, any any audible message, or any combina- public office; tion of 2 or more of those things, that gives publicity to, or otherwise pro- (d) the actions or policies, or proposed motes or is intended to promote: actions or policies, of any government in Australia or any Australian (a) an interactive gambling service; or political party. (b) interactive gambling services in interactive gambling service adver- general; or tisement has the meaning given by Di- vision 2. 25454 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(c) the whole or part of a trade mark in terhead, business card, cheque, respect of an interactive gambling manual, or other document ordinar- service; or ily used in the normal course of the (d) a domain name or URL that relates business of an interactive gambling to an interactive gambling service; service provider (whether or not the or document is in electronic form); (e) any words that are closely associ- do not, when so appearing, constitute ated with an interactive gambling an interactive gambling service ad- service (whether also closely associ- vertisement (but this does not pre- ated with other kinds of services or vent a still or moving screen shot of products). an Internet site or equivalent point of provision referred to in para- (2) This section has effect subject to sec- graph (a), or a still or moving picture tions 61BB, 61BC, 61BD, 61BE, 61BF or other visual image of a document and 61BG. referred to in paragraph (b), from 61BB Exception—political communica- being an interactive gambling service tion advertisement). (1) To avoid doubt, if: 61BD Exception—premises of providers (a) something (the advertisement) does Words, signs or symbols that appear in not promote, and is not intended to or on land or buildings occupied by an promote, any particular interactive interactive gambling service provider gambling service or services; and do not, when so appearing, constitute (b) the advertisement relates solely to an interactive gambling service adver- government or political matters; tisement (but this does not prevent a still or moving picture, or other visual the advertisement is not an interac- image, of words, signs or symbols that tive gambling service advertisement so appear from being an interactive for the purposes of this Part. gambling service advertisement). (2) Without limiting paragraph (1)(a), the 61BE Exceptions—management adver- use in an advertisement of the whole tisements etc. name of an interactive gambling service provider does not, of itself, consti- To avoid doubt, none of the following tute promotion of an interactive gam- constitutes an interactive gambling bling service or interactive gambling service advertisement: services for the purposes of para- (a) the doing of anything that is, or graph (1)(a). apart from this Part would be, re- (3) Subsection (2) does not apply in rela- quired to be done by any other law tion to the use of a name referred to in of the Commonwealth or by any law that subsection in a way prohibited by of a State or Territory; regulations made for the purposes of (b) an advertisement (for example, an this subsection. advertisement for staff or calling for (4) Section 61BA does not apply to the tenders), relating to the internal extent (if any) that it would infringe management of the business of an any doctrine of implied freedom of po- interactive gambling service pro- litical communication. vider, that does not promote an interactive gambling service; 61BC Exception—Internet sites etc. and business documents (c) the taking of any action to prevent persons becoming victims of fraud Words, signs or symbols that appear: or any other dishonest or unethical (a) on the Internet site of an interactive conduct. gambling service that is provided to 61BF Exception—products or services customers using an Internet carriage having the same name as an interactive service, or on or at an equivalent gambling service point of provision of any other interactive gambling service; or (1) If: (b) as part of the standard wording of an (a) apart from this section, something invoice, statement, order form, let- (the advertisement) that relates to a Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25455

product, or a service, that is not an In this Division: interactive gambling service would, words includes abbreviations, initials technically, be an interactive gam- and numbers. bling service advertisement because the name, or part of the name, of the Division 3—Interpretation: publication of product or service is the same as, or interactive gambling service advertise- substantially similar to, the name, or ment part of the name, of: 61CA Basic meaning of publish an inter- (i) an interactive gambling service; active gambling service advertisement or (1) For the purposes of this Part, a person (ii) an interactive gambling service publishes an interactive gambling provider; and service advertisement if the person does any of the following things: (b) the manufacturer, distributor or re- tailer of the product, or the provider (a) the person includes the advertise- of the service, is not associated in ment, or something that contains the any way with the interactive gam- advertisement, on an Internet site; bling service provider concerned; (b) the person includes the advertise- then, despite section 61BA, the ad- ment in a document (including, for vertisement is not an interactive example, a newspaper, magazine, gambling service advertisement for program, leaflet or ticket) that is the purposes of this Part. available, or distributed, to the public or a section of the public; Related bodies corporate taken to be associated with each other (c) the person includes the advertisement in a film, video, television (2) Without limiting the circumstances in program or radio program that is, or which 2 persons would, apart from this is intended to be, seen or heard by subsection, be taken to be associated the public or a section of the public; with each other for the purposes of subsection (1), 2 bodies corporate that (d) the person: are related to each other are taken to be (i) sells, hires or supplies the adver- associated with each other for the pur- tisement, or something contain- poses of that subsection. ing the advertisement, to the (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the public or a section of the public; question whether 2 bodies corporate or are related to each other is to be deter- (ii) offers the advertisement, or mined in the same way as the question something containing the adver- would be determined under the Corpo- tisement, for sale or supply to, or rations Law. hire by, the public or a section of 61BG Exception—anti-gambling adver- the public; tisements (e) the person displays, screens or plays If: the advertisement, or something that contains the advertisement, so that it (a) apart from this section, something can be seen or heard in or from: (the advertisement) would, technically, be an interactive gambling (i) a public place; or service advertisement; and (ii) public transport; or (b) it is clear from the advertisement (iii) a workplace; that its sole or principal purpose is (f) the person otherwise: to discourage the use of gambling (i) brings the advertisement, or services or particular kinds of gam- something that contains the ad- bling services; vertisement, to the notice of; or then, despite section 61BA, the ad- (ii) disseminates the advertisement, vertisement is not an interactive or something that contains the gambling service advertisement for advertisement, to; the purposes of this Part. the public, or a section of the public, 61BH Definition by any means (including, for exam- 25456 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

ple, by means of a film, video, com- of this section that permit the publica- puter disk or electronic medium). tion of such acknowledgments. (2) This section has effect subject to sec- Division 4—Broadcasting or datacasting tions 61CB, 61CC, 61CD, 61CE and of interactive gambling service adver- 61CF. tisements in Australia 61CB Publish does not include broadcast 61DA Interactive gambling service ad- or datacast vertisements not to be broadcast or data- For the purposes of this Part, the cast in Australia broadcasting or datacasting of an inter- (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: active gambling service advertisement (a) the person broadcasts or datacasts an by a person does not amount to the interactive gambling service adver- publication of the advertisement by the tisement in Australia; and person. (b) the broadcast or datacast is not per- 61CC Exception—trade communications mitted by section 61DB; and For the purposes of this Part, the com- (c) the broadcast or datacast is not per- munication of information that is or in- mitted by section 61DC. cludes an interactive gambling service advertisement to a group of people all of whom are involved in the provision Penalty: 120 penalty units. of interactive gambling services, does (2) A person is guilty of an offence if: not, of itself, amount to a publication of (a) the person authorises or causes an the interactive gambling service adver- interactive gambling service advertisement. tisement to be broadcast or datacast 61CD Exception—advertisements in in Australia; and telephone directories (b) the broadcast or datacast is not per- (1) For the purposes of this Part, the publi- mitted by section 61DB; and cation of the name of an interactive (c) the broadcast or datacast is not per- gambling service provider in a tele- mitted by section 61DC. phone directory does not, of itself, amount to the publication of an interactive gambling service advertisement. Penalty for contravention of (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if: this subsection: 120 (a) the publication is on the Internet; penalty units. and 61DB Accidental or incidental broadcast or datacast permitted (b) the entry for the provider contains a link to an Internet site for the pro- (1) A person may broadcast or datacast an vider that relates to an interactive interactive gambling service adver- gambling service. tisement if: 61CE Exception—ordinary activities of (a) the person broadcasts or datacasts exempt libraries the advertisement as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the Nothing that a person does for the pur- broadcasting or datacasting of other poses of the ordinary activities of an matter; and exempt library amounts, for the purposes of this Part, to a publication of an (b) the person does not receive any di- interactive gambling service adver- rect or indirect benefit (whether fi- tisement. nancial or not) for broadcasting or datacasting the advertisement (in 61CF Exception—acknowledgments of addition to any direct or indirect assistance or support benefit that the person receives for For the purposes of this Part, the publi- broadcasting or datacasting the other cation of an acknowledgment of assis- matter). tance or support does not amount to the (2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the publication of an interactive gambling purposes of this Part. service advertisement if it complies with regulations made for the purposes Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25457

61DC Broadcast or datacast of adver- (3) For the purposes of this section, an tisements during flights of aircraft interactive gambling service adver- (1) A person may broadcast or datacast an tisement that is included on an Internet interactive gambling service adver- site is taken to be published in Austra- tisement in an aircraft during a flight of lia if, and only if: the aircraft unless the flight begins at a (a) the site is accessed, or is available place in Australia and is intended to for access, by end-users in Austra- end at another place in Australia. lia; and (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), (b) having regard to: each sector of a flight of an aircraft is (i) the content of the site; and taken to be a separate flight. (ii) the way the site is advertised or (3) Subsection (1) only has effect for the promoted; purposes of this Part. it would be concluded that it is Division 5—Publication of interactive likely that a majority of persons who gambling service advertisements in Aus- access the site are physically present tralia in Australia. 61EA Interactive gambling service adver- 61EB Periodicals distributed outside Aus- tisements not to be published in Australia tralia—acts of publication permitted (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (1) A person may do, with a periodical that (a) the person publishes an interactive contains an interactive gambling serv- gambling service advertisement in ice advertisement, something that Australia; and amounts to publishing the advertise- (b) the publication is not permitted by ment if the periodical is not principally section 61EB; and intended for distribution or use in Aus- tralia. (c) the publication is not permitted by section 61EC; and (2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part. (d) the publication is not permitted by section 61ED; and 61EC Australian sporting and cultural events of international significance—acts (e) the publication is not permitted by of publication permitted section 61EE; and (1) A person may publish an interactive (f) the publication is not permitted by gambling service advertisement if: section 61EF. (a) the advertisement is published in connection with a sporting or cul- Penalty: 120 penalty units. tural event held, or to be held, in (2) A person is guilty of an offence if: Australia; and (a) the person authorises or causes an (b) the event is specified in a notice in interactive gambling service adver- force under subsection (2); and tisement to be published in Austra- (c) the publication of the advertisement lia; and complies with the conditions (if any) (b) the publication is not permitted by specified in the notice in accordance section 61EB; and with subsection (3). (c) the publication is not permitted by (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the section 61EC; and Minister may, by notice published in (d) the publication is not permitted by the Gazette, specify a sporting or cul- section 61ED; and tural event to be held in Australia if, (e) the publication is not permitted by and only if: section 61EE; and (a) the Minister is satisfied that the (f) the publication is not permitted by event will be completed before section 61EF. 1 October 2003; and (b) in a case where the event is to be Penalty: 120 penalty units. held on or after 1 October 2001: 25458 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(i) a similar event held before that stops being in force—on that date (the earlier event) was earlier day. specified in a notice under this (5) The Minister may, by writing, deter- subsection; and mine guidelines for the purposes of (ii) no application to have another subsections (2) and (3). similar event specified in a notice (6) An instrument under subsection (5) under this subsection has been determining guidelines is a disallow- rejected since the earlier event; able instrument for the purposes of and section 46A of the Acts Interpretation (c) the Minister is satisfied, having re- Act 1901. gard to the guidelines in force under (7) Subsection (1) only has effect for the subsection (5), that: purposes of this Part. (i) the event is of international sig- 61ED Accidental or incidental publica- nificance; and tion permitted (ii) failure to specify the event would (1) A person may publish an interactive be likely to result in the event not gambling service advertisement if: being held in Australia. (a) the person publishes the advertise- Note: Section 61FB provides for the ment as an accidental or incidental making of applications to have accompaniment to the publication of events specified in notices un- other matter; and der this subsection. (b) the person does not receive any di- (3) In a notice under subsection (2) speci- rect or indirect benefit (whether fi- fying an event, the Minister may also, nancial or not) for publishing the having regard to the guidelines in force advertisement (in addition to any di- under subsection (5), specify condi- rect or indirect benefit that the per- tions to be complied with in relation to son receives for publishing the other the publication of interactive gambling matter). service advertisements in connection with the event, being conditions related (2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the to: purposes of this Part. (a) the content of the advertisements 61EE Publication by person not receiving that may be published; or any benefit permitted (b) the number of advertisements, or the (1) A person may publish an interactive number of advertisements of a par- gambling service advertisement if: ticular kind, that may be published, (a) the publication is not in the course or that may be published in a par- of the provision of interactive gam- ticular way; or bling services; and (c) the way in which advertisements (b) the person publishes the advertise- may be published. ment on the person’s own initiative; (4) A notice under subsection (2): and (a) comes into force: (c) the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether fi- (i) on the day when it is published in nancial or not) for publishing the the Gazette; or advertisement. (ii) if a later day is specified in the (2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the notice as the day when it is to purposes of this Part. come into force—on that later day; and 61EF Publication of advertisements during flights of aircraft (b) stops being in force (unless it is revoked earlier): (1) A person may publish an interactive gambling service advertisement in an (i) at the end of 3 years after it came aircraft during a flight of the aircraft into force; or unless the flight begins at a place in (ii) if an earlier day is specified in Australia and is intended to end at an- the notice as the day when it other place in Australia. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25459

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), contract or arrangement, engaged each sector of a flight of an aircraft is (whether before or after the com- taken to be a separate flight. mencement of section 1) another (3) Subsection (1) only has effect for the person to do something that purposes of this Part. amounted to publishing the advertisement; and 61EG Defence—advertising under existing contracts or arrangements (b) the other person did that thing and, consequently, published the adver- (1) Subsections 61EA(1) and (2) do not tisement; apply to the publication of an interactive gambling service advertisement if: the other person is taken to have published the advertisement under (a) the publication was under a contract the contract or arrangement. or arrangement that was: 61EH Defence—display of signs before (i) entered into before the com- 1 July 2003 mencement of section 1; and (1) Subsections 61EA(1) and (2) do not (ii) for the sponsorship of an event, apply to the display of an interactive activity or service; and gambling service advertising sign if: (b) if the terms of the contract or ar- (a) the sign was displayed under a con- rangement, in so far as they relate to tract or arrangement entered into be- things other than the period to which fore the commencement of sec- it applies, were varied on or after the tion 1; and commencement of section 1 and before the publication—if the contract (b) if the terms of the contract or ar- or arrangement had not been so rangement were varied on or after varied, the publication could still be the commencement of section 1—if said to have been under the contract the contract or arrangement had not or arrangement; and been so varied, the display of the sign could still be said to have been (c) the advertisement was published under the contract or arrangement; before 1 July 2003; and and (d) before the publication of the adver- (c) the display of the sign was permitted tisement, each of the parties to the by regulations made for the pur- contract or arrangement notified the poses of subsection (2). Minister, in writing, of: Note: The defendant bears an eviden- (i) the date on which the contract or tial burden in relation to the arrangement was entered into; matters in subsection (1). See and subsection 13.3(3) of the (ii) particulars of the contract or ar- Criminal Code. rangement in so far as it relates to (2) The regulations may permit the display, the publication of interactive in specified circumstances, and before gambling service advertisements, a specified date that is earlier than including the circumstances of 1 July 2003, of interactive gambling publication of the advertisements service advertising signs of a specified and the nature of the advertise- size and composition. ments. (3) In this section: Note: The defendant bears an eviden- tial burden in relation to the interactive gambling service advertis- matters in subsection (1). See ing sign means a sign that is or con- subsection 13.3(3) of the tains an interactive gambling service Criminal Code. advertisement. (2) For the purposes of this section, if: sign includes an electronic installation used to display advertisements. (a) a party to a contract or arrangement of a kind referred to in para- Division 6—Miscellaneous graph (1)(a), for the purposes of 61FA Failure to broadcast, datacast or publishing an interactive gambling publish advertisement not actionable if service advertisement under the this Part would be contravened 25460 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Civil proceedings do not lie against a Tribunal Act 2001—the Adminis- person for refusing or failing to broad- trative Appeals Tribunal; and cast, datacast or publish an interactive (b) after the commencement of Parts 4 gambling service advertisement if the to 10 of the Administrative Review broadcast, datacast or publication is Tribunal Act 2001—the Adminis- prohibited by this Part. trative Review Tribunal. 61FB Applications for the purposes of 61FD Additional conditions for licences section 61EC under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (1) A person may apply to the Minister to Commercial television broadcasting li- have a particular event specified in a cence notice under subsection 61EC(2). (1) Each commercial television broad- (2) An application must be in writing and casting licence is subject to the condi- must set out the grounds on which the tion that the licensee will not, in con- applicant thinks the Minister should travention of this Part, broadcast an grant it. interactive gambling service adver- (3) If the Minister needs further informa- tisement. tion to decide an application, the Min- Commercial radio broadcasting licence ister may ask the applicant to provide the information. (2) Each commercial radio broadcasting licence is subject to the condition that (4) The Minister must decide an applica- the licensee will not, in contravention tion within 60 days after receiving it. of this Part, broadcast an interactive This subsection has effect subject to gambling service advertisement. subsections (5) to (7). Community broadcasting licence (5) If the Minister thinks that it will take longer to decide an application, the (3) Each community broadcasting licence Minister may extend, by up to 60 days, is subject to the condition that the li- the period for deciding it. censee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast an interactive gambling (6) An extension must be made by written service advertisement. notice given to the applicant within 60 days after the Minister receives the ap- Subscription television broadcasting li- plication concerned. cence (7) If the Minister makes an extension, the (4) Each subscription television broad- Minister must decide the application casting licence is subject to the condi- concerned within the extended period. tion that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast an (8) If the Minister has not decided an ap- interactive gambling service adver- plication before the end of the day by tisement. which the Minister is required to decide it, the Minister is taken to have de- Provision of a broadcasting service cided, under section 61EC, to refuse under a class licence the application at the end of that day. (5) The provision by a person of a broad- (9) This section does not limit the power of casting service under a class licence is the Minister to make a decision under subject to the condition that the licen- section 61EC otherwise than because see will not, in contravention of this of an application under this section. Part, broadcast an interactive gambling service advertisement. 61FC Review of decisions Datacasting licence (1) An application may be made to the Tribunal for a review of a decision (6) Each datacasting licence is subject to made under subsection 61EC(2) or the condition that the licensee will not, 61EC(3). in contravention of this Part, datacast an interactive gambling service adver- (2) In this section: tisement. Tribunal means: Definitions (a) before the commencement of Parts 4 (7) In this section: to 10 of the Administrative Review Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25461

class licence has the same meaning as audience would be banned. Any Internet ad- in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. vertising by an interactive gambling service commercial radio broadcasting li- with customers in Australia would also be cence has the same meaning as in the banned. The advertising ban would only ap- Broadcasting Services Act 1992. ply to interactive gambling services that are commercial television broadcasting li- banned by the bill. cence has the same meaning as in the Amendments agreed to. Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.16 community broadcasting licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcast- p.m.)—by leave—I move Democrat amending Services Act 1992. ments (1) and (2) on sheet XX225: subscription television broadcasting (1) Clause 68, page 49 (lines 25 and 26), omit licence has same meaning as in the subclause (1), substitute: Broadcasting Services Act 1992. (1) Before 1 July 2003, the Minister must 61FE Reports to Parliament cause to be conducted a review of the following matters: (1) As soon as practicable after each 31 December, the Minister must cause (a) the operation of this Act; to be prepared a report on: (b) the growth of interactive gambling (a) the number and nature of any con- services; traventions of this Part occurring in (c) the social and commercial impact of the preceding 12 months; and interactive gambling services; (b) any action taken by the Minister or a (d) the effect of the following provi- Commonwealth agency in response sions: to each contravention. (i) paragraphs 5(3)(aa) and 6(3)(aa) (2) A person who prepares a report under and section 8A (excluded wa- subsection (1) must give a copy to the gering services); Minister. The Minister must cause copies of the report to be (ii) paragraphs 5(3)(ab) and 6(3)(ab) laid before each House of the Parlia- and section 8B (excluded gaming ment within 15 sitting days of that services); House after its receipt by the Minister. (iii) paragraphs 5(3)(ac) and 6(3)(ac) (1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), omit “Part 2 com- and section 8C (services that mences”, substitute “Parts 2 and 7A com- have a designated broadcasting mence”. link); (3) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 17), at the end of (iv) paragraphs 5(3)(ad) and 6(3)(ad) the clause, add: and section 8C (services that have a designated datacasting link); • This Act prohibits the (v) paragraphs 5(3)(ae) and 6(3)(ae) advertising of interactive and section 8D (excluded lottery gambling services. services); (16)Clause 5, page 7 (line 28), omit “offence (e) the effectiveness of this Act in created by section 15”, substitute “offences dealing with the social and commer- created by section 15 and Part 7A”. cial impact of interactive gambling services; These amendments relate to the proposed (f) technological developments that are ban on advertising which would cover the relevant to the regulation of interac- advertising of interactive gambling services tive gambling services; on radio and television broadcasts, including (g) technological developments that digital broadcasts, datacasts, billboards and may assist in dealing with problem print media. They would also place restric- gambling. tions on Internet advertising as follows: ad- (2) Clause 68, page 50 (after line 3), at the end vertising of interactive gambling services on of clause 68, add: Internet services aimed at an Australian 25462 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), in made unenforceable. In brief, if somebody determining whether a service is an in- bets on their card overseas, the overseas teractive gambling service, subsection gambling house cannot enforce the payment 5(3) is to be disregarded. of the debt that has accrued through that bet. These amendments relate to my remarks a This is the best way of ensuring that overseas little earlier this evening and they are about gambling houses do not take Australian bets. the review which is brought forward one Instead of saying, ‘We can’t prohibit you year from the proposal in the original bill. from setting up in Vanuatu,’ we say, ‘If Aus- They are specific terms of reference that I tralians bet on your service in Vanuatu, you have already outlined. can’t enforce the agreement. It is illegal to Amendments agreed to. enforce the agreement whereby the debtor— Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.17 the person who has placed the bet—has to p.m.)—I move Australian Greens amend- pay you through the credit card.’ ment (1) on sheet DL200: Senator Harradine, Senator Harris and I (1) Page 50 (after line 7), after clause 69, insert: have all tried to have this measure instituted tonight as part of the legislation, but the gov- 69A Regulations about unenforceability ernment and the opposition opposed it. How- of agreements relating to illegal interactive gambling services ever, it is breakthrough legislation. The government wanted nine months to consider it. Agreements We have come to an agreement that it will be (1) The regulations may provide: within six months. The government then has (a) that an agreement has no effect to the opportunity to ensure that there are no the extent to which it provides for hidden pitfalls or glitches. It is a very central the payment of money for the sup- amendment to this legislation. It provides for ply of an illegal interactive gam- the all important restriction that we, at this bling service; and end of the house, want to see, that is, over- (b) that civil proceedings do not lie seas gambling houses cannot provide for, or against a person to recover money attract, Australians to bet because they will alleged to have been won from, or not want to because there will be quite wide- paid in connection with, an illegal interactive gambling service. spread default on debts. Deadline for making regulations Gambling is a business of gaining a debt for the client and a profit for the provider. (2) The Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that regulations are That is what it is about. A person who pro- made for the purposes of this section vides gambling facilities cannot survive if within 6 months after the commence- the punter can default. This is a method of ment of Part 2. allowing the punter to default. The outcome Illegal interactive gambling service would be a prohibition on Australians when they try to sign up to gambling houses over- (3) For the purposes of this section, an interactive gambling service is an ille- seas. It is not the best outcome, but it is the gal interactive gambling service if, and careful outcome. However, the government only if, the provision of the service has come a long way towards accepting that contravenes a provision of this Act that unenforceability of agreements is a necessary creates an offence. requirement if we are going to stop people Definition gambling overseas. The Prime Minister and (4) In this section: ministers have all said that they wanted to achieve that aim. It is a pivotal amendment. agreement means an agreement, It is going to take good faith and it has taken whether made orally or in writing. my good faith, I can tell you! It is going to This is the backstop amendment to provide take good faith from the government. The that, after the minister has taken all reason- amendment speaks for itself, but it is very able steps to ensure that it is okay, regula- important and I commend it to the commit- tions are made to have agreements relating to tee. illegal interactive gambling services overseas Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25463

Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (8.21 the policy option that Australians can be pre- p.m.)—I support Senator Brown’s amend- vented from online gambling—we have only ment. As Senator Brown has said, we have the option as to whether the casinos most tried this evening to ensure clarity in the bill. visited online by Australians are run by I believe that Senator Harradine’s amend- Australians, foreigners or crooks. Frankly, if ments that required penalties for services the government is short-sighted enough to provided by offshore entities, because of the ban Australian online gambling businesses, I ability of the banking industry with today’s would much rather see Australians gambling technology, can achieve what Senator Har- at Ladbrokes.co.uk than at dodgy Russian radine set out. When a single mainframe sites. computer in one of three locations in the Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (8.26 world can do the entire banking transactions p.m.)—We have got to the stage where, with for the world in a day, how difficult would it the exemptions that are now in the legislation be to find out where a transaction came for certain types of Internet gambling from from? What Senator Brown is proposing overseas, the utility of this is questionable. would have to be the de facto of all de facto Nevertheless, the minister claims authorship, amendments, but I implore the committee to or the minister’s office claimed authorship. support it. I possibly have reservations about The minister’s officers did not claim author- supporting it, because in actuality it will en- ship in this chamber, and I do not know act the ability for somebody to enter into a whether they did outside the chamber, but legal contract to receive a service or the sup- Senator Alston said something that encour- ply of a product—and the product in this aged me to ask what it means. The amend- case is Internet gambling—and then allow ment talks about agreements and it states: that person to rescind that legal contract. The regulations may provide: That has implications that we may regret in future. Unfortunately, in light of the way the (a) that an agreement has no effect to the bill has been developing, this is our last extent to which it provides for the payment of money for the supply of an illegal interactive chance. I commend the amendment to the gambling service; and committee. (b) that civil proceedings do not lie against a Senator GREIG (Western Australia) person to recover money alleged to have been (8.24 p.m.)—I suspect that the Russian Mafia won from, or paid in connection with, an illegal and West Indian gangsters may not necessar- interactive gambling service. ily rely on the legal system to enforce the I thought that, prior to the dinner suspension, payment of debts. As Australians are driven the minister said that such proceedings do by this legislation from safe, regulated Aus- not lie against a person who has engaged in tralian casinos onto unregulated, unsafe casi- illegal activity. Therefore, I wonder what the nos, the possibility of international criminals purpose of the amendment is. Is it or is it not bashing and killing defaulting Australians a fact that an agreement between two parties could become a reality. To be serious, this to engage in illegal activity has no effect to proposal from Senator Brown could work as the extent to which it provides for the pay- a policy only after we have taken the time to ment of money for the supply of an illegal consult with other governments. If one service, for example, and that civil proceed- country anywhere allows the processing of ings do not lie against persons who have en- casino credits, all that the Australian gov- gaged in illegal activities, whether or not ernment would be doing by accepting this they be illegal interactive gambling? amendment would be creating a market for money laundering. So I really raise that point again. Is it or is it not a fact that (3) says: No matter how much we dislike gambling, For the purposes of this section, an interactive it is an international industry that is accessi- gambling service is an illegal interactive gamble from any computer, with unlimited op- bling service if, and only if, the provision of the tions for sneaking financial transactions service contravenes a provision of this Act that around regulators. Australia does not have creates an offence. 25464 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Could the minister point precisely now to the indicating the general areas of power, that if parts of the proposed act to which this it is an illegal activity then as a result of the amendment is referring? There are two commission of an offence it is an illegal ac- things: firstly, whether or not at the moment tivity for these purposes. Some might say civil proceedings do not lie against a person that is surperfluous but I suppose draftsmen or persons who are engaged in an illegal ac- want to be absolutely sure that the position is tivity if there is an agreement to engage in clear. that illegal activity; and, secondly, could the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.34 minister point now to the areas in the legis- p.m.)—If I can just help Senator Harradine lation referred to in paragraph (3)? too, under proposed section 6 a service is Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister prohibited if it is provided to customers us- for Communications, Information Technol- ing an Internet carriage service or if the ogy and the Arts) (8.30 p.m.)—In relation to service is provided in the course of carrying the first point, I think the situation is gener- on a business and has an Australian customer ally that the common law does not allow you link. to recover moneys paid pursuant to an illegal Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister activity, that being void as against public for Communications, Information Technol- policy. However, the Commonwealth posi- ogy and the Arts) (8.34 p.m.)—I suspect it is tion is always capable of being modified by there because otherwise it might be possible statute or indeed overturned and in this in- to argue that an interactive gambling service stance, of course, you have every state and is illegal for other reasons and therefore you territory with a capacity to make their own should not be able to recover a debt from a rules of the game. So I think the purpose of customer. It is really saying these regulations this is really to put beyond doubt the fact that will only apply in respect of offences created it is competent to protect an individual from by this legislation or illegality. having to pay money which he has paid pursuant to a gambling transaction that is illegal. Amendment agreed to. It does in a sense clarify what Senator Har- Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (8.35 radine was raising earlier, where I took him p.m.)—I seek the indulgence of both the to be saying that he did not think you could chair and the senators in the chamber. I behave a different regime for the customer on lieve there should have been a very hastily the one hand and the service provider on the scribbled amendment that has been circu- other. I think that clearly this makes it clear lated in my name that refers to page 9, line that is the intention here. 14, and the end of clause 8. Could the chair Although my memory of all of this from indicate whether they have a copy of that? contract law days is pretty hazy, certainly I The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN think we are trying to give effect to that (Senator Chapman)—We do not have a original principle that you should protect the copy at the moment, Senator Harris. It has party with the weaker bargaining power from not reached this desk. having to make the payment where the trans- Senator HARRIS—The amendment is action itself is illegal. I do not suppose you just being photocopied at the moment. I did have a situation where money is likely to go ask a few minutes ago for that to be done. I the other way, but if it did you could still apologise for this. preclude the service provider from recovery The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If so that you could in fact have in these terms you speak to the amendment, I am sure it a win-win outcome for the customer and a will arrive in due course. lose-lose outcome for the service provider. Senator HARRIS—The purpose of this Insofar as (3) is concerned, clauses 15 and amendment is very similar to that of an 15A, I am advised, contain the substantive amendment Senator Brown moved earlier offence provisions. This seems to be simply which the government found they could sup- bringing together a regulation making power port. The essence of the amendment is that which makes it clearer, at the same time as the government could, if they wished, struc- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25465 ture the regulations in such a way to exclude Senator Harris to require offshore providers an external lottery or wagering service. It to obtain an Australian licence before they does not in any way exclude it, but this could provide services to Australian custom- amendment gives the government, when we ers. This is really a slightly watered-down have gone away from this bill, six months to version of the same. To the extent it gives the reassess the situation. government power to do it, sure, we will not The amendment inserts a clause 8E on have to do it now, but someone else might page 9, line 14, at the end of clause 8. It later. It really just attempts to do by the back clearly gives the government the ability in door what you were not able to do by the the regulations to exclude wagering services front door. I simply cannot see the logic of it. in such circumstances and subject to such You can say, ‘It’s only giving powers to do conditions as are prescribed. It would then things,’ but that is the very point: why would include a clause 8F to follow 8E, which you give power to exclude external wagering would mirror exactly 8E but speak to copies services unless they are licensed when we for lotteries. That is the intention of the have already determined that that is not a amendment. It is not to bind the government sensible policy approach? into having to do anything, but it would al- Amendment not agreed to. low the government, if they so wished, to Senator Brown—I wish to record my make regulations that would provide for the support for that amendment. variation of 8A(2) in such circumstances and Bill, as amended, agreed to. subject to such conditions as are prescribed Bill reported with amendments; report in the regulation. It is not binding the gov- adopted. ernment; it is merely providing a facility to Third Reading the government that is identical to an Motion (by Senator Alston) put: amendment moved by Senator Brown that the government has accepted. I commend my That this bill be now read a third time. amendment to the chamber and so move: The Senate divided. [8.47 p.m.] Page 9 (after line 14), after clause 8, insert: (The Acting Deputy President—Senator 8E Regulations about excluded wagering H.G.P. Chapman) services Ayes………… 34 The regulations may provide for the variation of the operation of subsection Noes………… 28 8A(2) in such circumstances, and sub- Majority…….. 6 ject to such conditions, as are prescribed. AYES 8F Regulations about excluded lottery Abetz, E. Allison, L.F. services Alston, R.K.R. Boswell, R.L.D. The regulations may provide for the Brandis, G.H. Brown, B.J. variation of the operation of section 8D Calvert, P.H. Campbell, I.G. in such circumstances, and subject to Chapman, H.G.P. Coonan, H.L * such conditions, as are prescribed. Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister Ferris, J.M. Gibson, B.F. for Communications, Information Technol- Harradine, B. Harris, L. Heffernan, W. Herron, J.J. ogy and the Arts) (8.40 p.m.)—For the rec- Kemp, C.R. Knowles, S.C. ord, I must say that it is always dangerous to Lees, M.H. Lightfoot, P.R. consider things on the run. This is one min- Macdonald, I. Macdonald, J.A.L. ute past midnight, I would have thought, Mason, B.J. Newman, J.M. rather than five minutes to. In any event, we Payne, M.A. Tambling, G.E. have essentially taken a decision not so long Tchen, T. Tierney, J.W. ago to say that, if activities are legal, you Troeth, J.M. Vanstone, A.E. ought to be able to engage in them onshore Watson, J.O.W. Woodley, J. and offshore. We rejected a proposal from NOES 25466 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. contingent notice standing in the name of the Bourne, V.W. Buckland, G. Leader of the Government, I move: Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. That so much of the standing orders be sus- Collins, J.M.A. Conroy, S.M. pended as would prevent Senator Hill moving a Cooney, B.C. Crossin, P.M. motion to provide for the consideration of a mat- Crowley, R.A. Denman, K.J. * ter, namely a motion to give precedence to a mo- Forshaw, M.G. Gibbs, B. tion to exempt a bill from the provisions of para- Greig, B. Hogg, J.J. graphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111. Hutchins, S.P. Ludwig, J.W. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.53 Mackay, S.M. McKiernan, J.P. p.m.)—I am opposed to this motion. What McLucas, J.E. Murphy, S.M. we are seeing here is a prime ministerial am- Murray, A.J.M. Ray, R.F. bush on the Senate on the last night of this Ridgeway, A.D. Schacht, C.C. Sherry, N.J. Stott Despoja, N. sitting before the winter recess to get through a parliamentary superannuation amendment PAIRS bill, which is very embarrassing to the gov- Crane, A.W. Cook, P.F.S. ernment. Eggleston, A. Faulkner, J.P. Senator Ian Campbell—Why? Hill, R.M. Bolkus, N. McGauran, J.J.J. West, S.M. Senator BROWN—Why did you bring it Minchin, N.H. Evans, C.V. on at this hour of a sitting? I will tell you Patterson, K.C. Lundy, K.A. why it is embarrassing. It is because it is an Reid, M.E. O’Brien, K.W.K. attempt, again, to get around the need for a * denotes teller comprehensive reformulation of the whole Question so resolved in the affirmative. piece of legislation to make it fair and to make it seen to be fair. That is not what this Bill read a third time. piece of legislation does. What has been said BUSINESS in the second reading speech is that the Consideration of Legislation Prime Minister promised changes to the par- Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western liamentary superannuation scheme to bring it Australia—Manager of Government Busi- more into line with community standards. ness in the Senate) (8.51 p.m.)—I seek leave This bill does not do that. to move a motion to exempt a bill from the Senator Ian Macdonald—Why don’t bills cut-off order. you ask your Labor mates? Senator Brown—Before I give leave I Senator BROWN—The interjection from need to know what the bill is. the senator opposite says it all. They are your Senator IAN CAMPBELL—It is a very Labor mates, because the big parties always fair question. The motion I would seek to get together when it comes to matters of par- move is that the provisions of the cut-off liamentary superannuation or salaries and order not apply to the Parliamentary Con- changes to the Electoral Act that favour tributory Superannuation Amendment Bill them. They try to get them through the par- 2001, allowing it to be considered during liament quickly, they try to get them through these sittings. after media deadlines and they try to get them through when there is pressure on the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT members of parliament to expedite them. I, (Senator Chapman)—Is leave granted? for one, am not going to accede to that. Senator Brown—No. This superannuation legislation should be Leave not granted. going to a committee now so that it can be Suspension of Standing Orders considered properly. Above all, we should be looking at the provisions in the legislation Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western for a taxpayers’ top-up of 69 per cent for our Australia—Manager of Government Busi- superannuation, whereas in the community ness in the Senate) (8.52 p.m.)—Pursuant to the average from employers for people in Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25467 average workplaces is eight per cent. It is about it in opposition. This is not to say that, that single factor that gets the voters’ ire up. in some circumstances, some legislation It is not fair that parliamentarians are getting should be delayed by that mechanism. a big lump out of the taxpayers’ purse to top The fact is that this legislation presents us up superannuation in a way that no other with a bind. We did not initiate it; we did not worker in the country can. I am one parlia- initiate the timing of it. It has been presented mentarian who wants to see it be fair. to the Senate. We are damned if we do and I congratulate Mr Peter Andren, the mem- we are damned if we do not. Some people ber for Calare, in the House of Representa- would say that it is a step forward to have a tives, who moved extensive amendments to community standard placed on all future this legislation to make it fair but could not parliamentarians. Senator Brown would ar- even get a seconder—and that was just yes- gue that it does not go far enough, and I un- terday. Doesn’t that say something about the derstand his position on that. big parties when it comes to defending their Senator Brown—Just send it off to a own personal interest? I know that we will committee and I will be happy. get all the usual epithets coming our way about this. But this is an important piece of Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator, as I legislation. Surely, like every other important say, we are left in a bind on it. If we do not piece of Senate legislation, it should be go- support it tonight, we will be accused of ing to a committee. holding it up. In the last voting break Senator Watson in- Senator Brown—Well, I’ll wear that. formed me that, as far as the current consid- Senator ROBERT RAY—But you do not eration of Mr Andren’s own legislation, have to wear it; we have to wear it. That is which has been referred to a committee, is the point. You say that epithets will be concerned, there have been thousands of thrown at you. I do occasionally do that to- submissions so far. So the public interest is wards Independents who only ever go on high, and the public ability to comment on about entitlements because that is the only this is very clear. And what do we have here? thing they can get publicity about. But you The government and the opposition together are, I admit, an honourable exception. You trying to bypass that public interest, to cut it go across a wide range of policy areas, un- out—but to get through a piece of legislation like your counterpart in the House of Repre- so that the government at least can say, sentatives, who only gets publicity by run- ‘Well, we’ve changed it so that parliamen- ning the ‘bludge politician’ argument, by tarians won’t be able to get access to their running the entitlements argument. I do no- superannuation until they are 55. But guess tice that he takes his fourth staff member, what? That doesn’t apply to us; that applies though. He does not hand that back. If he to the next lot of parliamentarians.’ So even wants to hand his superannuation back, let that provision will not be levied on current him. Tonight will not be the appropriate ve- parliamentarians—even though most of them hicle for an all-out total discussion on MPs’ are safe because the people who are making superannuation, but I suspect we are going to these decisions are, in the main, over 55. But have it. it is wrong. (Time expired) Senator Ian Campbell—Talking about Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (8.58 vehicles, what size vehicle does he take? p.m.)—The opposition will support the gov- Senator ROBERT RAY—I do not know. ernment in terms of the cut-off motion. That I think the first point is that we are being should not come as a surprise to anyone; we consistent in saying that we rarely, if ever, have done that about 400 times in the last invoke standing order 111, because we never five years. I suppose that reflects the fact really believed in it; secondly, we are in a that, when the cut-off motion was carried by bind. We are presented with this legislation. the Democrats and the government and im- Its origins are well known to everyone in the posed on a Labor government, we opposed chamber. It came out of recommendations it. So we have never really felt strongly from a coalition backbench committee. It has 25468 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 gone through the House of Representatives; bill. That is what we are here for. We are it is here now. Do we deal with it tonight, or here to reflect the wishes of the constituents don’t we deal with it tonight? As far as we that we represent. I believe that it is wrong in are concerned, it is here. People will see it as this case for this bill to be dealt with tonight. progress. A lot of people will not see it as I believe that it should be referred to a com- enough progress. But that is a starting point mittee and that it should be exposed to the in terms of people wanting to reform a vari- rigour of comments from the Australian peo- ety of things. ple. Not only should the superannuation is- As far as we are concerned, it is up. We sue be looked at; we should also most cer- will debate it. We will not try to protract the tainly look at the benefits paid to past prime debate. But I also say this to you, Senator ministers in the same light. I normally would Brown: we are not going to restrict the de- not support retrospective legislation, but I bate, because then we would be in a position believe that in both those cases it is just, eq- of censuring your views or someone else’s uitable and it should happen. views, and we are not going to do that. If at Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.04 some stage the government want to come p.m.)—The Democrats will support the bill’s forward with a gag motion on this, I am exemption from the cut-off. In this case we sorry—we have made it clear, I think; we are disappointed that it has taken so long for have taken an honest approach—we will not the government to put forward any sort of support that. As the bill is here, we say, ‘We reforms on parliamentary superannuation, so will deal with it.’ The government are saying we are disinclined to not deal with them that it is their second-highest priority. They when they are presented. That is one of the have just dealt with the online gambling bill. reasons why we will support the exemption. This is their second-highest priority, appar- One of the other main reasons is that it is a ently. relatively simple bill and something that we Senator Brown interjecting— have been calling for for some time. In fact, it reflects an amendment that I had already Senator ROBERT RAY—You say that it prepared for a bill which was due to come up was not this morning. I agree with you, a week and half or so ago. So I think we are Senator Brown. It was not this morning, but ready to debate this bill. We had an inquiry it now is, as I often say in politics, on a better into parliamentary superannuation in 1997, view. It is now the priority that they have and this was a subject that was very much presented us with. We have plenty of time to canvassed at that time. I would argue that debate this—thanks to the resolution that this will be regarded as long overdue by was carried against our opposition earlier people who made submissions to that inquiry today that we thought would have put some and those who have made submissions to the discipline on the chamber. That is the posi- more recent one on Mr Andren’s bill. There tion we are in, so we will therefore be sup- are no surprises here. It does fall short of the porting the government in their decision to ideal, and we will be pointing out in the de- seek an exemption from the cut-off. bate where it falls short. I will have some Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (9.02 amendments to deal with those shortcom- p.m.)—I believe that Senator Ray has raised ings. At this stage we see no reason not to a very important analogy—that is, the im- proceed with consideration of the bill. portance of the legislation that we have be- Question put: fore us. It is very obvious that it is more im- That the motion (Senator Ian Campbell’s) be portant to the government to get the superan- agreed to. nuation bill through than to get a bill through The Senate divided. [9.10 p.m.] for the dairy industry that will assist dairy (The Acting Deputy President—Senator farmers who are actually losing their prop- H.G.P. Chapman) erty. I agree with Senator Brown that this bill Ayes………… 55 should not be granted an exemption from the Noes………… 2 cut-off. There should be a period in which the people of Australia can comment on this Majority…….. 53 Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25469

AYES I also table a statement of reasons justifying Abetz, E. Allison, L.F. the need for this bill to be considered during Alston, R.K.R. Bartlett, A.J.J. these sittings and seek leave to have the Bishop, T.M. Bourne, V.W. statement incorporated in Hansard. Brandis, G.H. Buckland, G. Leave not granted. Calvert, P.H. Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. Chapman, H.G.P. Question resolved in the affirmative. Collins, J.M.A. Conroy, S.M. BUSINESS Coonan, H.L. * Cooney, B.C. Government Business Crossin, P.M. Crowley, R.A. Denman, K.J. Eggleston, A. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) Faulkner, J.P. Ferguson, A.B. agreed to: Ferris, J.M. Forshaw, M.G. That intervening business be postponed until Gibbs, B. Gibson, B.F. after consideration of the order of the day relating Greig, B. Herron, J.J. to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Hogg, J.J. Kemp, C.R. Amendment Bill 2001. Knowles, S.C. Lees, M.H. PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY Lightfoot, P.R. Ludwig, J.W. SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT Macdonald, J.A.L. Mackay, S.M. BILL 2001 Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. Second Reading McKiernan, J.P. McLucas, J.E. Murphy, S.M. Murray, A.J.M. Debate resumed. Newman, J.M. Payne, M.A. Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.18 Ray, R.F. Ridgeway, A.D. p.m.)—I rise to speak— Schacht, C.C. Sherry, N.J. Senator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy Stott Despoja, N. Tambling, G.E. Tchen, T. Tierney, J.W. President, I rise on a point of order. Would Troeth, J.M. Watson, J.O.W. you be so kind as to distribute the speaking Woodley, J. order so that we can see where we are on? NOES The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—The attendants will Brown, B.J. * Harris, L. distribute that, Senator Brown, but I can ad- * denotes teller vise you are next. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator ALLISON—The Democrats Procedural Motion welcome the Parliamentary Contributory Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell, at the Superannuation Amendment Bill 2001. It is request of Senator Hill) agreed to: long overdue and it does not go far enough, That a motion to exempt a bill from the provi- but we think it is a small step in the right sions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order direction. I notice that the second reading 111 may be moved immediately and have prece- speech of the minister talks about this being dence over all other business today till deter- brought more into line with community stan- mined. dards. That is what so many people have Motion been calling for for such a long time. Back in Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western 1997, the Democrats initiated an inquiry into Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the just this question. At that time, there was Minister for Communications, Information already—and, no doubt, there was for some Technology and the Arts) (9.15 p.m.)—I decades until that point—dissatisfaction with move: the fact that a separate set of rules applied for parliamentarians, and a very generous set of That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of rules at that, in terms of their superannuation standing order 111 not apply to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill retirement benefits. 2001, allowing it to be considered during this For this reason, we do welcome it. I note, period of sittings. however, that the bill proposes to put these 25470 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 changes into effect before the next election. question. They will also apply to the current No doubt this has been done so the govern- membership. It is unconscionable that we ment not only can respond to the many thou- would in this place make laws for members sands of complaints that I have received and of parliament who are yet to arrive here and that the superannuation committee has re- not make laws reducing entitlements for our- ceived but, more importantly, can have said selves. It seems to lack any moral strength. It by the time the election comes along, ‘We’ve is certainly not fair to the next group of par- done something about this.’ We can give liamentarians that comes along, when people moderate support to this move. You could in this place will continue, as long as they not call it reform, by any measure, but it does are here, to have a very generous entitlement take away one of the most serious problems indeed. with the bill, and that is that parliamentarians You could argue that we cannot do this— are entitled to pensions provided they are in and no doubt we will hear this argument this place for eight years or three elections, from the government when I come to put my as the case may be. It could mean that for a amendments—and that this is acquiring very long period there is an entitlement to a property which is not on just terms. I would very substantial pension—much higher than argue that it is a cancellation of a benefit. Of most people can expect in their retirement. course there is only one way to put that to It is important that we have at least the test, and that is through the courts. We reached this milestone. I hope that the Senate support the preservation to age 55, and I will consider the amendments the Democrats have drawn up amendments for the Demo- will put up. Essentially, they will go to a crats on a bill which was to have been dealt number of important areas. They will allow with last week—a minor bill regarding the parliamentarians to opt out of the pension surcharge—which would have done exactly scheme that we currently have and into an that. Importantly, our final set of amend- accumulations scheme. We have picked up ments will deal with an ongoing problem on Mr Andren’s private member’s bill, which which the government refuses to face, and allows parliamentarians to do just that—to that is one of same sex entitlements. Anyone opt out into something which is truly a who does not have a spouse or a de facto community standards level of retirement spouse relationship in this place cannot pass benefits. We will also reduce the entitle- on their entitlements by way of pension to ments. This is what sticks in the craw of so their partner, and that is an ongoing problem many people in the community: the fact that, which has not been dealt with by the gov- while their employer is contributing eight per ernment. We will continue to push amend- cent of SG contributions to their superannu- ments wherever there is an opportunity to do ation, the notional contribution in this place so. is more like 69 per cent. So there is a mas- I thought I would quickly mention a cou- sive difference in the amount of taxpayers’ ple of the recommendations made in the money which is going into entitlements. That Democrats dissenting report Parliamentary is something that we cannot ignore in this Contributory Superannuation Scheme and debate. the Judges’ Pension Scheme of September We cannot in this legislation or in any 1997. The first of those recommendations other legislation force, or through amend- was: ment re-create, the parliamentary superannu- That the level of public subsidy to the PCSS is ation scheme into an accumulation scheme, excessive and needs to be substantially reduced. and so the Democrats have opted to bring the We will do that in our amendments. The sec- parliamentary scheme into line with public ond recommendation was: service standards. So there will be a considerable reduction in contributions, at least in That the Remuneration Tribunal should be asked to determine an appropriate, reduced level line with a group in society, the Public Serv- of superannuation benefits for parliamentarians, ice, where there is some rationale and fair- taking into account standards prevailing in the ness. Our amendments will deal with that Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25471 community at large and the unusual nature of g. That benefits under the scheme be paid as a parliamentary life. pension, actuarially determined based on the Recommendation 6 is one that we have not value of the accumulated benefit when the par- acted on because it is difficult from this po- liamentarian retires or turns 55 (which ever is later), with the parliamentarian able to commute sition—I think one needs to be in govern- up to 50 per cent of their pension to a lump sum ment. It really was saying that we need to: as at present. a. Restructure the scheme as a fully vested ac- The Democrats will support this bill. We do cumulation scheme with the level of public sub- not think it goes far enough, and we do hope sidy being substantially reduced, and with the Government contribution becoming an appropri- that the Senate will look carefully at the ate multiple of the parliamentarians’ 11.5 per cent amendments that we put up and be of a mind contribution. to support them. It also said: Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.28 b. That the redundancy function be separated p.m.)—It is not the bill in itself that is at fault from the retirement function. here—although it is way short of the mark and should have incorporated into it the pro- There are some steps, I note, being put in visions along the lines that Senator Allison place in this bill to look at that question of just outlined—but it is the process which is redundancy. The Democrats have always so abhorrent. As I said earlier, it is a prime said that there may well be an argument in ministerial ambush of the Senate. This bill cases of hardship for that to take place. I do was not even on the list this morning. It was not think it should be across the board and I not even on the list of eight that the govern- do not think it should be generous. None- ment flagged for debate tonight. Through theless, members who have lost their seats or that procedure we saw a little earlier with the who are otherwise not in this place should precipitant application of the rules to get not be starving, but we do expect that there around the cut-off provisions—which would should be a reasonable measure of scrutiny have, through normal processes, seen this over those benefits. bill debated when we return in August—we Recommendation 6(d) was: are now debating it here tonight, and it will d. That membership of the scheme remain be done, through and out. compulsory, but where a member can satisfy the I think there is some expectation in this trustees that they have adequate retirement sav- place that I am going to filibuster on this bill ings already, they may opt out of the scheme, thereby forfeiting the benefit of the Government tonight, but I can tell all those who are contribution. looking at the clocks that I am not in the business of self-flagellation for somebody When you get to the end of this scheme, if else’s wrong. In this case, it is the wrong of you have served in this place for a lengthy the government, supported by the opposition, period of time, again the inequities start to that we are witnessing. I will put the case, apply, just as they do up to the eight-year and I know that we are not going to have the point. The contributions over that cut-off numbers—so be it. time suddenly become very generous, whereas up until that point they are not. So Let us not mince words about this: the there are inequities in this scheme right process tonight is to get around public anger throughout, and that is why it needs more about the parliamentary superannuation than simply a bandaid measure which says scheme. Do it in the dead of night; make the we will simply preserve until age 55. Other improvement so that you can go to the elec- recommendations are: torate in an election year saying, ‘We’ve put in this age 55 provision,’ to shake off at least e. That the rules for survivor and invalidity benefits be reviewed; some of the public angst there is about it; but leave substantially unchanged the core f. That parliamentarians be able to make addi- problem with the superannuation provisions tional contributions if they so opt and be paid interest on those contributions; for parliamentarians, which is they are too generous. They are not at arms length. They 25472 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 are something that we and our predecessors ways been there. One of the worst things we have voted for and the big parties are hang- can do, as far as allowing that cynicism to ing on to like grim death because the current fester goes, is to keep on with a superannua- members look forward to the day when they tion scheme as manifestly selfish, greedy and retire with a golden handshake way out of unfair to the taxpayers as the one that is en- kilter with what people in the Australian joyed by the current members of this parlia- work force could expect. ment. What we should be doing here tonight Nice as that feeling might be—that there is reformulating that so that we get the same is a huge bag of money awaiting on retire- sort of superannuation benefits under the ment for members of parliament compared to same conditions that workers would in the what they would be getting if they were in a Australian work force in similarly renumer- similarly renumerated job in the general ated jobs, and that is not going to happen. community or that there may even be a I laud the Australian Democrats amend- multimillion dollar payout through pensions, ments. The Greens have got amendments if they are young enough, for the rest of their here too. I support them all, I declare a lives, as we have seen with former Senator vested interest in every one of them and I O’Chee’s payout—the fact is that it is not will be voting for them. But we are not going right that that is there. We as parliamentari- to get them through. The reality is that the ans cannot think of ourselves as different big parties yet again, late at night, on the last from the rest of the community. Everybody night of sitting before the winter break, are is in the business of taking the main chance, going to push this through and there is not but those of us elected to parliament can be much we can do about it. However, we must expected to set community standards when it try because there are some of us here who comes to pay and remuneration. Sadly—and very genuinely feel aggrieved at being we are not the only parliament in this—poli- caught up in this situation and want to ticians as a group do not live up to that. change it. In my experience, whenever it comes to I do adopt the provision—and I will be superannuation, to pay and conditions or to moving it; let me call it the Andren amend- provisions protecting the advantage big par- ment—put forward by the honourable mem- ties have through the Electoral Act to get ber for Calare in the House of Representa- themselves re-elected, the two big parties— tives for an opt-out clause. That clause the coalition and the opposition—come to- would allow at least those parliamentarians gether very rapidly. Senator Sherry might be who want to opt out of this superannuation interested to know that, back in 1986, I think provision and go for an ordinary superannu- it was, in the Tasmanian parliament, both my ation provision through another scheme out colleague Gerry Bates and I—the two in the marketplace to do that. If that is good Greens then—were diverted by other matters enough for Peter Andren in the House of for half an hour and in that time a big salary Representatives, it is good enough for me. I rise was put through the parliament by the will do the same. But I do not think we are Labor and Liberal parties. The time taken going to even be able to do that. I do not from the suspension of standing orders to the think that that freedom of choice is going to completion of the third reading was six min- be allowed us. I think that will be denied by utes. I have often thought of writing to the this need of the big parties to stick together Guinness Book of Records about that. Like in a situation like this where self-interest the tallest trees in the Southern Hemisphere, becomes the glue that shows up a solidarity we might just have a good case for a Tasma- in the parliament rarely seen on any other nian record there. topic, except perhaps in a national emer- But let us not underestimate the serious- gency. ness of the matter. Politics is not in great I will leave the amendments to the com- odour in the wider community. People are mittee stage, but I want to move an amend- cynical and critical of politics, and I guess ment to the second reading motion. I move: never more than now—although it has al- Omit all words after “That”, substitute: Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25473

“the bill be referred to the Select some degree out of self-interest. That is why Committee on Superannuation and Fi- we strongly believe the matters should go to nancial Services for inquiry and report a body like the Remuneration Tribunal. by 9 August 2001”. Let me comment now on Senator Brown’s It is a very brief time but, as members will second reading amendment, which is to refer know, we have referred the bill proposed by the bill to the Select Committee on Superan- Mr Andren to the same committee. There nuation and Financial Services for inquiry have been thousands of submissions to that and report by 9 August 2001. The date that committee. It would be appropriate to put Senator Brown has selected coincides with this piece of legislation to the same commit- the date for the report back on the referral tee—after all, it has only got a provision in it from Senator Brown of the so-called Andren that Mr Andren has catered for. We would bill dealing with so-called choice. I want to then give the community an opportunity to, draw a distinction between choice and levels in a constructive way, express both its feel- of superannuation contribution in a short ings and its ideas about how the parliamen- while. On my understanding, that particular tary superannuation scheme should be al- piece of legislation was referred by Senator tered. This is an effort to say, ‘Let’s let the Brown to the select committee. I am deputy people have a say here.’ I will be interested chair of the select committee and my fellow to see how the big parties respond to that Tasmanian senator, Senator Watson, is chair. option. Obviously, we sit on opposite sides of the Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (9.37 chamber. However, I would acknowledge his p.m.)—I support Senator Brown’s comments level of expertise in these areas and the sig- and record my support for an ability to opt nificant contribution he has made on these out of a superannuation scheme that is the matters. That piece of legislation has been same as that for other Australians. I would referred to the Senate committee. Hearings also like at this point in time, with great re- will take place in approximately a week and spect, to reflect upon the position of Sir Joh a half in Sydney, following some advertise- Bjelke-Petersen. Not only did he not partici- ments that were placed. There will be a full pate in the superannuation scheme in Queen- day of hearings on that particular piece of sland for parliamentarians but, when he left legislation. his public office, he left it with no superan- We will not be supporting Senator nuation whatsoever. I take my hat off to Sir Brown’s second reading amendment because Joh with great admiration, and record that to refer this legislation conflicts with the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party supports earlier principle—and Labor’s primary prin- the ability to opt out. ciple—that I outlined, which is that politi- Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (9.38 cians should not determine the entitlements p.m.)—Let me commence my remarks by of politicians. If this bill is referred to a Sen- indicating the way in which the Labor Party ate committee—and in this case, the Senate strongly believe that parliamentary superan- Select Committee on Superannuation and nuation—and, indeed, all MPs’ entitle- Financial Services—you will be expecting a ments—should be dealt with. We believe that group of politicians to make recommenda- entitlement matters, including superannua- tions in respect of politicians. We do not be- tion, should be dealt with by an independent lieve that is appropriate. body. That is our preference. We regard the I comment about the use of the term Remuneration Tribunal as the appropriate ‘choice’. The issue of membership choice— organisation to deal with these issues. Politi- the right to choose to be a member of a par- cians should not determine the entitlements ticular fund—is a very different issue from of politicians. I make this point because the the level of contributions that Australians Labor Party has a view that it is inevitable may receive from their employer or choose that, no matter what we say about entitle- to contribute themselves. In this country the ments in this context, the public not unrea- situation is that membership choice of a par- sonably will believe that we may be acting to ticular fund is a very different principle from 25474 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 the level of effective contribution, whether it covered by Medicare are also covered by the be to an accumulation fund or to a defined hardship provisions. Several limitations and benefit fund such that we enjoy. I might say criteria apply to that, but that is a brief sum- that politicians are not the only people in the mary of those early access provisions. community who are members of a defined I want to say a little about the process. As benefit fund. my colleague Senator Ray correctly outlined The legislation that we are considering has earlier to the chamber, the bill required the a number of changes to the existing scheme. waiving of the cut-off. We have often agreed My understanding of the bill—and I first to the waiving of the cut-off. The cut-off was read it yesterday afternoon—is that it will imposed on us when we were in government impact on new senators and members who by the present government and the Austra- joined the parliament following the last elec- lian Democrats. It is not unusual for the cut- tion, including MPs and senators who re- off to be waived. I make the point that this turned to the parliament after previous serv- matter is on the agenda tonight for the Senate ice was completed before these arrangements at the government’s request. The government take effect and who leave parliament volun- has listed its program and has chosen the tarily or involuntarily, become entitled to a time for this debate to take place. Similarly, parliamentary pension before age 55 and with regard to this legislation, the govern- would have payment of that pension de- ment went through its own very quick inter- ferred, including the option to commute part nal processes which led to the legislation of that pension to a lump sum until age 55. being presented in the House of Representa- There are some exceptions set out in the tives and passing that house late yesterday legislation in respect of invalidity and early afternoon or early evening. It was a govern- access in case of financial hardship. I note ment backbench committee—I am not aware that the financial hardship provisions are of the individuals who comprised that com- required to mirror the current publicly avail- mittee—which considered the matter and the able provision that is generally provided for government then put this particular legisla- in the community. There is also a reversion- tion together. ary death benefit whereby eligible spouses Because of the very tight time frame—as I and children would receive a reversionary have said, the legislation was dealt with in pension on the death of a former member the House of Representatives late yesterday whose pension is deferred before age 55. afternoon or early evening—there has not On my reading earlier today of the regu- been an opportunity for the legislation to be lations for early access to superannuation, presented through the normal Labor Party there is not a full list of criteria. However, I caucus processes. Nevertheless, my col- understand that payments of superannuation league Mr Kelvin Thomson, who is the La- prior to age 55 are available on application in bor Party’s opposition spokesperson on su- respect of what is defined as financial hard- perannuation matters, indicated in the House ship. A person is required to be on certain of Representatives that we would not be op- defined social security payments for a period posing the legislation that the government of 26 weeks and a figure of up to $10,000 a had presented. It is a change and, ultimately, year is available in those circumstances. a reduction in cost in respect of the current There is also an early access provision that parliamentary superannuation fund. provides for payment of superannuation With regard to that issue—and I ask the where the foreclosure of a person’s mortgage minister to deal with this point in his in respect of their own home is threatened. speech—the explanatory memorandum states There are provisions in respect to the death several figures for the cost savings. It is indi- of a relative and the payment of a funeral cated that there is a small positive effect on benefit. There are also some other provisions the fiscal balance estimated to be $0.22 mil- which, depending on the circumstances, may lion in 2001-02; $0.24 million in 2002-03; not be considered as major, but which apply, $0.25 million in 2003-04; and $0.50 million for example, to health costs. Health costs not in 2004-05. As those figures indicate, there is Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25475 a positive effect on the budget starting in Senator SHERRY—They should have 2001-02. I ask the minister to explain that been circulated a little earlier, Senator because a member’s or senator’s entitlement, Brown. It also puzzles me, given the exten- this being a defined benefit fund, does not sively drafted amendments, whether it was become a legal entitlement until they have such a surprise that the bill was coming on so met the minimum required standard within quickly. Anyway, those are the issues that I the superannuation fund of three parliaments want to deal with at this stage of the debate. I or eight years. Given that this legislation will referred earlier to the government process. I apply to new senators and members who are wonder at the speed of that process, given elected at the next election, and given the the election environment that we are in, but other criteria I outlined earlier, I cannot see perhaps the minister can outline the ration- how there can be a saving in the first eight ale. years or three elections. I cannot see how a I conclude my remarks by indicating, as I saving can result until that period of time has indicated at the commencement of my con- elapsed. I would appreciate an indication of tribution, that the Labor Party is strongly of how those figures are derived. It may be be- the view that parliamentary superannuation, cause of the accrual budget process rather including MPs’ entitlements, should be dealt than the cash budget process, but it would be with by an independent body, and we regard useful to know the reason for that. the Remuneration Tribunal as the appropriate The Australian Democrats and Senator body to deal with these issues. We believe Brown for the Australian Greens have cir- that politicians dealing with politicians’ enti- culated a number of amendments. Again, I tlements is not an appropriate way to deal make the point that these amendments were with the matters. The Remuneration Tribunal circulated just prior to the commencement of would have been a far better process. this debate. There are three pages of amend- Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Special ments from Senator Brown, plus his second Minister of State) (9.55 p.m.)—The govern- reading amendment, and from the Australian ment has put forward by way of the Parlia- Democrats we have six pages of amend- mentary Contributory Superannuation ments. We are doing our best to scrutinise Amendment Bill 2001 a proposal that will them in the time available. We will obviously bring the parliamentary superannuation indicate our position as we go through those scheme more into line with community stan- amendments. However, on my cursory dards by deferring the payment of parlia- glance, there are some quite technical, commentary pensions for new MPs who join the plex amendments. We will nevertheless parliament after the next general election make a call as we go through them one by until they reach age 55. The Prime Minister one. I remind the Australian Democrats and promised changes to the parliamentary su- the Greens that they criticised the govern- perannuation scheme to bring it more into ment for bringing on this matter in the way line with community standards, and this bill that it has—to some extent, that concerns me delivers on that promise. In doing that, the as well—but it cuts all ways. The Australian bill imposes a higher standard of preserva- Democrats and the Greens have presented us tion on MPs than applies to other Australians with detailed amendments in a very limited who receive pensions. However, it will time. closely align superannuation for MPs with a Senator Brown interjecting— majority of Australians who receive lump Senator SHERRY—No, it goes to a sum benefits that must be preserved until at matter of courtesy, Senator Brown. We have least age 55 in most circumstances. the skilled expertise to examine the amend- A number of senators have contributed to ments. If you were going to move the this debate, and I thank them for that. I thank amendments, they should have been circu- Senator Allison for her contribution. Senator lated a little earlier. Brown made a few contributions, some mat- Senator Brown—Codswallop! ters of which I believe I have some understanding of—for example, the pay rise that 25476 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 was referred to that went through the state diminution of parliamentarians’ entitlements, parliament. I note that consolidated revenue so I would not necessarily put it into the never got moneys paid into it from those same category as voting for benefits or to Green MPs who objected to the pay rise. increase benefits to parliamentarians. I make Whilst they complained about the morality that distinction for Senator Sherry. He also of it, they were more than willing to take the asked me how the expected savings could be consequences of it. In fact, it reminds me of justified. I must say that I spooked myself one Labor candidate in Tasmania who cam- when I found out that I understood the rea- paigned against that pay increase. Of course, soning—that is, that we have now changed as soon as he won the seat, he very kindly the budgeting system from cash to accruals, took the increased salary and nothing was and it is on the basis of accruals that the an- ever done about it. ticipated savings are made. Senator Brown has also told us about su- Another issue has been raised which I perannuation entitlements. You, Mr Acting want to put on the record during the conclu- Deputy President Murphy, and other senators sion of the second reading debate, that is, from Tasmania may well recall that it was why we are in effect grandfathering entitle- well known that one of Senator Brown’s ments that currently exist. I do not know why mates, Mr Gerry Bates, wanted to leave the it has not been mentioned, and there is parliament. If he had resigned voluntarily, he somebody sitting pretty close to me here in would not have been entitled to certain su- this chamber whom I thank for this informa- perannuation benefits. What he did was re- tion. The High Court, in November 2000, sign to contest the Legislative Council seat brought down a decision in Smith and ANL of Queenborough without any intention of Ltd. A very strong High Court—five to winning it, and, as a result, lost his seat and two—determined that section 54 of the reha- therefore became entitled, and shortly there- bilitation act was, for the purposes of section after moved out of the state of Tasmania. 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, a property right Senator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy and, therefore, if you changed the legislation President, I raise a point of order. We should but the person had some benefit beforehand, keep the debate at a good level. I wonder that benefit could not be taken away from whether the senator would like to repeat that them without just compensation. So it is not outside. possible to try to change people’s entitlements now if they are already in a particular The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT scheme. That is a constitutional argument (Senator Murphy)—There is no point of that has not been considered and, whilst I order. accept I am only a humble Hobart lawyer, I Senator ABETZ—If I can move on to think that argument has some merit. Senator Harris’s contribution, he praised Sir I will also respond to the suggestion by Joh Bjelke-Petersen for not accessing the Senator Sherry that we are in an election en- Queensland superannuation scheme. I do not vironment. I am not sure that we are, but know the terms of that superannuation there is no doubt that constitutionally there scheme, but I do know that Lady Flo Bjelke- needs to be an election within the next six or Petersen, who served in this place, accessed seven months. As a result, a lot of good men the federal superannuation scheme. Senator and women in Australia are considering run- Harris might have one Bjelke-Petersen on his ning for the parliament—be they Democrats, side, but there may well be a Bjelke-Petersen Greens, Independents, Labor or Liberal— on the other side of the debate. I am not sure and I believe it is appropriate for them to that that example necessarily takes us much have some idea of some of the benefits that further. may or may not accrue to them. I have In relation to Senator Sherry’s contribu- expressed from time to time a view—and I tion, I understand where he and the Labor am not sure that it is necessarily the Party are coming from in relation to politi- government view—that the superannuation cians’ entitlements. In fairness, this is a benefits parliamentarians get are generous. When I came into this place I in fact took a Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25477 this place I in fact took a substantial pay cut; 1D Before Part II I still consider it a great honour to be able to Insert: serve in this place and I did not take it be- 4F Choosing to be a non-Trust contribu- grudgingly. But I think those that have fami- tor lies and have certain financial commitments (1) This section applies to a member of have an entitlement to know what sort of either House who is or becomes a financial benefits may come their way member of another complying super- should they decide to run for the parliament, annuation fund or the holder of an and that applies across the board. I thank RSA. honourable senators for their contributions to (2) On or after 1 July 2001, a member of this debate. either House may, by written notice Amendment not agreed to. given to the Trust choose: Original question resolved in the affirma- (a) to cease to make contributions to the tive. Trust at the end of a day (not earlier than the day on which the notice is Senator Brown—Mr Acting Deputy given) stated in the notice; or President, could I have my no vote recorded (b) never to make contributions to the please? Trust, where the person choosing is The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT a new member of either House. (Senator Murphy)—It will be recorded. I (3) The person may make this choice on am sure Hansard picked it up. first becoming entitled to parliamentary Bill read a second time. allowance or at any time he or she is a member. In Committee (4) The person must have effective mem- The bill. bership of a complying superannuation Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (10.04 fund or be the holder of an RSA for the p.m.)—by leave—I move amendments (1) whole of the period or periods he or she is a member of either House. and (2) on sheet 2291: (5) A non Trust contributor may not revoke (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 3), after the his or her choice after the day stated in heading to Schedule 1, insert: the written notice given to the Trust. Part 1—Preservation age and the rate of (6) In this section: retiring allowance complying superannuation fund has (2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item the meaning given by section 45 of the 1, insert: Superannuation Industry (Supervision) 1A Subsection 4(1) (definition of Act 1993. member) RSA has the same meaning as in the Repeal the definition, substitute: Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997. member means a member of either 4G Superannuation contributions for House who makes contributions to the non-Trust contributors Trust. The Commonwealth must make 1B Subsection 4(1) contributions to a non-Trust con- Insert: tributor’s chosen fund or RSA for that person’s benefit. The contribu- non-Trust contributor means a mem- tions must be made with effect from ber of either House who has never the day stated in the written notice to made or has ceased to make contribu- the Trust, and in accordance with the tions to the Trust as a result of a choice Superannuation Guarantee (Admini- made under section 4F. stration) Act 1992. 1C Paragraph 4(4A)(aa) 1E Subsection 13(9) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: Repeal the subsection, substitute: (aa) a member or a non-Trust contributor (9) In this section: is taken to be employed by the Commonwealth; 25478 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Minister of State means a Minister of being payable to a member as is appli- State who is entitled to a parliamentary cable in accordance with the following allowance and who makes contribu- scale: tions to the Trust. Number of complete Percentage of parliamen- month means one of the 12 months of years in period of tary allowance to be paid the year. service of person as retiring allowance office holder means a person who: 8 35.00 (a) is entitled to a parliamentary allow- 9 36.75 ance; and 10 38.50 11 40.25 (b) holds an office in, or in relation to, 12 42.00 the Parliament or either House, be- 13 43.75 ing an office in respect of which he 14 45.50 or she is entitled to an allowance by 15 47.25 way of salary; and 16 49.00 (c) makes contributions to the Trust; 17 50.75 18 or more 52.50 but does not include a Minister of 1Q Subsection 18(7) State. After “subsection (6)”, insert “or (6A), person means a person who makes as the case may be,”. contributions to the Trust. 1R After section 18 1F At the end of subsection 18(1A) Insert: Add “or (6A), as the case may be”. 18A Benefits for members who choose to become non-Trust contributors 1G Paragraph 18(1B)(a) (1) A member who ceases to make contri- After “subsection (6)”, insert “or (6A), butions to the Trust as a result of a as the case may be,”. choice made under section 4F, shall be entitled to a benefit equal to the super- 1H At the end of paragraph 18(1B)(b) annuation guarantee safety-net amount. Add “or (6A), as the case may be”. (2) Except as provided by this section, this benefit is in substitution for any bene- 1J At the end of paragraph 18(2)(a) fits that would otherwise apply under Add “or (6A), as the case may be”. this Act in respect of the person. The effect of these amendments is to provide 1K Paragraph 18(2)(aa) parliamentarians with the option of opting After “subsection (6)”, insert “or (6A), out of the parliamentary super scheme and as the case may be,”. into an accumulation scheme, and to reduce 1L At the end of paragraph entitlements and benefits and contributions 18(2AA)(a) to parliamentary super. I would argue that both of these amendments are in line with Add “or (6A), as the case may be”. recommendations that were made by the 1M Paragraph 18(2AA)(c) government back in 1997, when we inquired into this question. The government acknowl- Omit “50%’, substitute “35%”. edged that this scheme was a generous one 1N Paragraph 18(2AA)(d) and said that a change to it was desirable. Omit “30%”, substitute “21%”. They also said—and I had forgotten this rec- 1P After subsection 18(6) ommendation—that choice and opting out to Insert: an accumulation scheme was something which the committee recommended, and that (6A) The rate of retiring allowance payable under this section to a person who is, or seems to have been forgotten. Another im- becomes, a member on or after 1 July portant recommendation was, of course, that 2001 is such percentage of the rate of future members should not receive any pen- parliamentary allowance for the time Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25479 sion before 55. It has taken a long time for been trying to grapple with for some time. So the legislation to come up, but it finally has. we thought we would opt for the next best As I mentioned in my speech in the sec- thing—that is, the Public Service superannu- ond reading debate, the opting out provisions ation scheme—and link the rates in the same are those which should be familiar to you, way. Senator Sherry, because they were both The highest level of a Public Service pen- amendments which I circulated and were due sion under the Superannuation Act 1976 is to be debated while attached to the bill on 52.5 per cent of final salary, and that is only commutations, so you would have seen them payable after 40 years of service. The highest before. But we have all seen them circulated level of parliamentary superannuation is 75 as part of Mr Peter Andren’s bill, which is per cent of final salary, so we are looking the subject of the inquiry that is under way, here at a significant reduction from 75 per so they should not be entirely surprising. In cent to 52.5 per cent of final salary. We think fact, the reason that Senator Brown and I that is reasonable. All of the other rates were able to produce them so quickly is that, would vary proportionately, as is shown by as I say, they have been kicking around. that table. Using this scale, they would all be I will mention in more precise terms what about 70 per cent of what they are currently. that opting out means. Members and senators I should note that, whilst you would need to have an option to stop making contributions be in employment in the Public Service for to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances 40 years to reach the top end of the pension Trust and from that point forward those salary scale, we are talking in this amend- members and senators will be entitled to a ment of MPs being able to obtain that benefit equal to the superannuation guarantee amount after just 18 years of service. safety net amount—eight per cent this year It is quite interesting to look at some of and nine per cent next. They will be able to the entitlements. Our dissenting report has a choose the fund into which contributions are schedule which estimates the employer con- made, provided of course that it is a com- tributions to the parliamentary superannua- plying superannuation fund or an RSA. The tion scheme. On page 2 of that report, we set decision to become a non-trust contributor out a table which shows that, after eight would thereby become irrevocable. I would years of service at retirement, the ratio of argue that this is in line with what the gov- employer to member contributions is 8.16 ernment has recommended anyway in the times. That decreases as a ratio over time: at past. It certainly would enable those parlia- 12 years of service, it is 5.99 times; at 18 mentarians who feel embarrassed and con- years, it is 4.8 times; and at 24 years, it is cerned about the fact that our entitlements 3.17 times. So clearly this arrangement are so generous to opt for an accumulation would give a different weighting, if you like, scheme, which is one common to most other to entitlements based on the contributions. people. We think it is a useful, if not ideal, way of Bringing the benefits under the Public demonstrating that parliamentary superannu- Service scheme is the other part of our ation can at least be linked with some stan- amendment. I draw senators’ attention to dard which is based on rational arguments page 3 of our amendments on which there is about years of service and reasonableness. It a scale. That scale relates to the percentage gets away from some of the quirkier, if you of parliamentary allowance to be paid as a like, but certainly more generous aspects of retiring allowance given the number of years the parliamentary superannuation scheme. of service. Whilst, as I said earlier, we would I hope that the ALP has had time to look prefer that we fold the parliamentary super- at those amendments by now. We are essen- annuation scheme and simply go to an accu- tially putting three groups of amendments, mulation scheme like most people have, that and that is the first one. Going over that was a very difficult thing for us to do by way again, it is the opting out into an accumula- of amendment to this bill or any other that is tion scheme or an RSA, and linking parlia- put before us. It has been something we have 25480 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 mentary pensions much more to the sort of for the highest level of entitlement after the scale that we see in the Public Service. longest period of service. Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (10.12 Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (10.15 p.m.)—This is just a minor contribution, but p.m.)—It is not my intention to unnecessarily I would like to ask the mover of the amend- take up the time of the committee, but I ment whether she intends to opt out if this is would ask Senator Allison to indicate passed. I would like to ask whether Senator whether it is PSS or CSS. We will not be Allison has any other superannuation that supporting this because it illustrates the prin- can make her more independent than maybe ciple that I outlined earlier—that these mat- some of the rest of us. Does she have any ters should be determined by the Remunera- other superannuation entitlements? I would tion Tribunal. Here we are, with the amend- like to know whether she is going to opt out ments circulated an hour ago, expected to and whether she has alternative arrangements vote ourselves an allowance. We just do not that will help her through those hard times if believe that is an appropriate process or, she does opt out. frankly, an appropriate outcome. Whatever Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (10.12 we think about retiring allowances, a sched- p.m.)—My preference would be for this to be ule or a level of retirement allowances, if an accumulation scheme. I have not ad- they are to exist—and I am not advocating dressed my mind to that question. I probably them—should be determined by the Remu- will be 55 by the time I leave this place, neration Tribunal, not by us sitting here with Senator Ray, so I do not know the answer to one hour’s notice of the details of the that question. Much of it depends on whether amendment. This highlights the difficulty of or not these amendments are successful. As I the process you are expecting us to go said, I think the opting out is not the ideal through, Senator Allison. arrangement. I think it would be far better if You have said that the percentages are we were to move to an accumulation somewhat crude, pretty much in line with the scheme. One of the amendments I will put up Public Service—I am not sure which fund; is that it affects people like me who are in you might just indicate that. Coming up with this place now rather than those who come somewhat crude figures that apparently have later. With regard to my other entitlements, I some relationship to one of the two Public do have some from a short career in teach- Service funds, presenting them in an arguing. My career before that did not attract su- ment to the Senate and expecting politicians perannuation contributions because, like so to vote themselves these parliamentary al- many women, they were offered mostly to lowances without reference to the Remu- male employees and not to women. So my neration Tribunal or some other independent superannuation entitlements are not enor- body is not a way to go about politicians de- mous. I think that answers your question, termining their entitlements, whether it is Senator Ray. superannuation or other. So, for that very Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (10.14 important reason of principle, consistent with p.m.)—I have a question for Senator Allison my earlier statement the Labor Party will not on amendment (2) and the subclause that be supporting these amendments. outlines the parliamentary allowance. What Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (10.17 is the rationale for that schedule and how has p.m.)—It is the PSS, not the CSS, that we are it been arrived at? referring to. The ‘crudeness’—that might not Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (10.14 be quite the right word—relates to the num- p.m.)—It is somewhat crude, but it does re- ber of years of service. We have not expected late to the Public Service schedule, and that that parliamentarians will serve 40 years. If is pretty much in line with the percentages of you looked at that scale and matched it with final salaries that are available to the Public the Public Service, the 18 or more down at Service. The maximum benefits are in terms the bottom of the left-hand column would of 52.5 per cent of final salary, instead of 75 equal 40 years in the Public Service. We per cent, which is the current arrangement, have crammed, if you like, 18 years into 40, Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25481 which is the difference. Perhaps it is more Brandis, G.H. Buckland, G. arbitrary than crude. It is just a way of using Calvert, P.H. * Campbell, G. at least some sort of rationale, some sort of Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. basis, on which to calculate a retirement Collins, J.M.A. Conroy, S.M. benefit based on years of service. Cooney, B.C. Crossin, P.M. Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Special Crowley, R.A. Denman, K.J. Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A.B. Minister of State) (10.18 p.m.)—I am advised Ferris, J.M. Forshaw, M.G. that it is the CSS scheme that is being drawn Gibbs, B. Gibson, B.F. upon here. Secondly, I also understand that Heffernan, W. Herron, J.J. the top rate, which Senator Allison referred Hogg, J.J. Hutchins, S.P. to as being 18 or more years, applies to 40 Kemp, C.R. Knowles, S.C. years—that is correct. But there is also an- Lightfoot, P.R. Ludwig, J.W. other important qualification in the Public Macdonald, J.A.L. Mackay, S.M. Service, that is, you attain the age of 65 Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. years. In case anybody is concerned that I am McKiernan, J.P. McLucas, J.E. going to be jumping up on each and every Murphy, S.M. Newman, J.M. one of these amendments, let me allay that O’Brien, K.W.K. Payne, M.A. concern. We as a government have taken the Ray, R.F. Schacht, C.C. view that this is a very specific bill that deals Tambling, G.E. Tchen, T. with one basic issue that we believe needs to Tierney, J.W. Troeth, J.M. be dealt with. I understand the relevance of Vanstone, A.E. Watson, J.O.W. the amendments and the debate that will un- * denotes teller doubtedly be excited by the amendments that Question so resolved in the negative. are being moved. But the government’s view Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.28 is that with this particular bill this is not the p.m.)—I move Greens amendment (1) on occasion to debate and discuss the amend- sheet 2294: ments further. Whilst of course we as a gov- (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 5), before ernment recognise the right of Senate to dis- item 1, insert: cuss and consider these issues, we will be opposing all amendments on the basis that 1A Subsection 4(1) (definition of member) this is a specific issue bill. Repeal the definition, substitute: Question put: member means a member of either That the amendments (Senator Allison’s) be House who makes contributions to the agreed to. Trust. The committee divided. [10.24 p.m.] 1B Subsection 4(1) (The Temporary Chairman—Senator S.M. After the definition of non- Murphy) parliamentary employment insert: Ayes………… 11 non-Trust contributor means a mem- Noes………… 48 ber of either House who has never made or has ceased to make contribu- Majority……… 37 tions to the Trust as a result of a choice made under section 4F. AYES 1C Paragraph 4(4A)(aa) Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. Bourne, V.W. * Brown, B.J. Repeal the paragraph, substitute: Greig, B. Harris, L. (aa) a member or a non-Trust contributor Lees, M.H. Murray, A.J.M. is taken to be employed by the Ridgeway, A.D. Stott Despoja, N. Commonwealth; Woodley, J. 1D Before Part II NOES Insert: Abetz, E. Alston, R.K.R. 4F Choosing to be a non-Trust contribu- Bishop, T.M. Boswell, R.L.D. tor 25482 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(1) This section applies to a member of (a) is entitled to a parliamentary allow- either House who is or becomes a ance; member of another complying super- (b) holds an office in, or in relation to, annuation fund or the holder of an the Parliament or either House, be- RSA. ing an office in respect of which he (2) On or after 1 July 2001, a member of or she is entitled to an allowance by either House may, by written notice way of salary; and given to the Trust choose: (c) makes contributions to the Trust; (a) to cease to make contributions to the but does not include a Minister of Trust at the end of a day (not earlier State. than the day on which the notice is person means a person who makes given) stated in the notice; or contributions to the Trust. (b) never to make contributions to the 1F After section 18 Trust, where the person choosing is Insert: a new member of either House. 18A Benefits for members who choose to (3) The person may make this choice on become non-Trust contributors first becoming entitled to parliamentary allowance or at any time he or she is a (1) A member who ceases to make contri- member. butions to the Trust as a result of a choice made under section 4F, shall be (4) The person must have effective mem- entitled to a benefit equal to the super- bership of a complying superannuation annuation guarantee safety-net amount. fund or be the holder of an RSA for the whole of the period or periods he or she (2) Except as provided by this section, this is a member of either House. benefit is in substitution for any benefits that would otherwise apply under (5) A non Trust contributor may not revoke this Act in respect of the person. his or her choice after the day stated in the written notice given to the Trust. This is the Andren amendment which gives (6) In this section: freedom of choice to members of parliament to stay with the parliamentary superannua- complying superannuation fund has tion scheme or to opt out and go into another the meaning given by section 45 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) scheme of their choice, with the accrued su- Act 1993. perannuation benefits rolling over into that scheme. I cannot see how any member of RSA has the same meaning as in the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997. this chamber could vote against these amendments. I note that the government says 4G Superannuation contributions for it is single-minded and it will not listen to non-Trust contributors what anybody else has to say. But that is not The Commonwealth must make contri- the nature of parliament. So I appeal to the butions to a non-Trust contributor’s opposition to support this amendment—and chosen fund or RSA for that person’s benefit. The contributions must be so they should. made with effect from the day stated in Let me give a commitment at the outset: if the written notice to the Trust, and in these amendments get up—and I will be accordance with the Superannuation opting out of the superannuation scheme—I Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. will never raise a finger at another member 1E Subsection 13(9) of parliament who does not opt out. But it is Repeal the subsection, substitute: very important that this option be there for (9) In this section: those of us who want to take it. Why should Minister of State means a Minister of we be captive to the majority in having a State who is entitled to a parliamentary superannuation scheme which is unpopular, allowance and who makes contribu- unwanted by the majority of Australians, tions to the Trust. unfair and which makes us feel bad about it month means one of the 12 months of as well? I know the arguments that will be the year. used by the other side. But the fact is that office holder means a person who: this is a freedom of choice matter, and the Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25483 only reason I can see for not adopting this Senator BROWN—I wonder if the atten- freedom of choice is that other members are dants have any antiglue material so that we concerned that it will erode even further their can release Senator Abetz from his position position. Obviously that is a risk. I think stuck to the chair so that he can get up and what would happen under this freedom of answer a very reasonable question that I have choice is that a handful of members would just put to him. take it now, quite a number of members Senator Abetz—I have already dealt with would take it in the new parliament—that is, all the issues. new members—and we would rapidly find this current superdooper superannuation Senator BROWN—Well, the reality here scheme for politicans falling away. But how is that neither the government nor the oppo- dare any other member of parliament dictate sition has the gumption to address this issue. to those of us who want to get out of this That is why the debate is taking place at this current scheme that we must stay in it. hour. They simply do not have the guts to get up and argue against an opt-out clause which I note that there was almost no debate on would allow members who feel differently in this bill in the House of Representatives, but this place to make another choice. As I say, we have an opportunity now at least to have there is no glue like self-interest to stick the the government or the opposition say why big parties together. If there is an argument the opt-out should not be available. The Sen- against this, get up and put it. Of course, the ate knows that we wanted to refer this to a reason this bill is here with the 55-year age committee. That has been denied. But let us provision—which does not apply to us; it hear from speakers on both sides why there applies to some people unspecified in the should not be freedom of choice in this mat- future who will win seats—is that it is inter. tended to divert attention away from the real Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (10.32 matters that are making the public angry p.m.)—I rise briefly to support Senator about this superannuation scheme, that is, the Brown and to record that the position of extraordinary top-up that is coming from our Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is that as par- employers, the public, without their permis- liamentarians our superannuation should be sion; it is eight or 10 times as much. Here we equal to that of the people of Australia, and have an opt-out— one way to achieve that would be to have the Senator Ferguson interjecting— ability to opt out and join a scheme that they are participating in. I commend the amend- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— ment to the chamber. Senator Brown, you have the call. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (10.32 Senator BROWN—Chair, I hope you can p.m.)—The position of the Labor Party, for hear me. Here we have an opt-out freedom of the reasons that I outlined earlier, is that we choice provision for members of parliament, will be opposing the amendment. and the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party say, ‘We won’t give our fel- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.33 low members that choice.’ What do you p.m.)—I would like to hear those reasons think of that? It is an extraordinary situation. again because I do not think Senator Sherry We did get some stick for the honourable did say why we should not be able to opt out. member for Calare, Peter Andren, earlier in I would remind senators that it was a key the night, but he has had the gumption to put conclusion reached by the government mem- this forward. I had to think twice about it, but bers of the Senate Select Committee on Su- I am with him on this. He has done a decent perannuation in 1997. I ask Senator Abetz: thing. It is quite unbelievable, and it is not what has changed in the four years since defensible, that other members of parliament then? would say, ‘But we’re not going to allow you The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN that choice.’ I am obviously going to get nil (Senator Knowles)—The question is that response from either side. The best defence, the amendment be agreed to. Senator Brown. they think, is: baton down the hatches, shut 25484 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 up, wait until this goes through tonight, and partner in relation to another person put it behind, and hopefully the electorate means a person who has or had a part- will forget about it. We will be back to push nership relationship with that person on this issue again. 6 Subsection 4(1) Amendment not agreed to. Insert: Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (10.37 partnership relationship has the p.m.)—by leave—I move Democrats meaning given by section 4B. amendments Nos 3 and 4 together: 7 Subsection 4(1) (3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 7), at the Insert: end of subsection (1), add: relative means an ancestor, or a de- ; or (c) the person was a Senator or a mem- scendant, or a brother or a sister. ber of the House of Representatives 8 Section 4B immediately before the transitional Repeal the section, substitute: general election. 4B Partnership relationship (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 8 to 36), omit subsections (2) to (5). (1) For the purposes of this Act, a partnership relationship means a relationship These amendments put in place the preser- that is genuine and continuing between vation of benefits at age 55 to both current 2 people: and future members of parliament for both (a) who have both turned 18 years of houses. age; and Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.37 (b) neither of whom is a relative of the p.m.)—I support Senator Allison’s amend- other person; and ments. The Greens have identical amend- (c) who live together, or do not live ments on the slate, and they speak for them- separately and apart on a permanent selves. basis; and Amendments not agreed to. (d) who have a mutual commitment to a Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.38 shared life to the exclusion of any p.m.)—Can I just point to the running sheet. other partnership relationship. The amendments moved by the Australian (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), 2 Democrats and the Australian Greens are people are to be regarded as having a identical. mutual commitment to a shared life at a particular time if they have been living The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN together as partners, to the exclusion of (Senator Knowles)—Yes, that has been rec- any other partnership relationship, for a ognised, Senator Brown. continuous period of at least 3 years up Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (10.38 to that time. p.m.)—I move Democrats amendment No. 5: (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), the Trust may form the view, having (5) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 26), at the end regard to any relevant evidence, that 2 of the Schedule, add: people have a mutual commitment to a Part 2—Partnership relationships shared life if they have been living to- 4 Subsection 4(1) (definition of gether as partners, to the exclusion of former spouse) any other partnership relationship, for a period of less than 3 years. Repeal the definition, substitute: (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), former partner in relation to another relevant evidence includes, but is not person means a person who previously limited to: had a partnership relationship with that person. (a) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets; and 5 Subsection 4(1) (b) any joint liabilities; and Insert: (c) the extent of any pooling of financial resources, particularly in rela- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25485

tion to major financial commit- Omit “spouse” (wherever occurring), ments; and substitute “partner”. (d) whether one person owes any legal 11 Section 19AA obligation to the other person; and Omit “spouse” (wherever occurring), (e) any joint responsibility for the care substitute “partner”. and support of children, if any; and 12 Section 19AA (f) the persons’ living arrangements; Omit “marital” (wherever occurring), and substitute “partnership”. (g) whether the persons represent them- 13 Section 19AB selves to other persons as being in a Omit “spouse” (wherever occurring), partnership relationship. substitute “partner”. 9 Section 4C 14 Section 19A Repeal the section, substitute: Omit “spouse” (wherever occurring), 4C Partner who survives a deceased per- substitute “partner”. son 15 Section 21AA (1) In this section: Omit “spouse” (wherever occurring), substitute “partner”. deceased person means a person who was, at the time of his or her death: 16 Section 21AA (a) a person who was entitled to a par- Omit “spouses” (wherever occurring), liamentary allowance; or substitute “partners”. (b) a person who was entitled to a re- The final amendment for the Democrats retiring allowance whether or not the lates to entitlements for same sex couples. It retiring allowance was immediately removes the discrimination against gay and payable. lesbian couples in access to superannuation retired member means a person who entitlements. Central to this amendment is was entitled to a retiring allowance, the concept of a partnership relationship, whether or not the retiring allowance which replaces the existing concept of a was immediately payable. marital relationship. A partnership relation- (2) For the purposes of this Act, a person is ship is a genuine and continuing relationship a partner who survives a deceased person if: between two people who are adults over 18, who are not related, who live together and (a) the person had a partnership relationship with the deceased person at who have a mutual commitment to a shared the time of the death of the deceased life to the exclusion of any other partnership person (the death); and relationship. (b) in the case of a deceased person who A mutual commitment to a shared life can was a retired member at the time of be established in two ways. Firstly, it can be the death: established by cohabitation as partners to the (i) the partnership relationship be- exclusion of any other partnership relation- gan before the retired member ship for a period of three years or more. Al- became a retired member; or ternatively, a mutual commitment to a shared (ii) the partnership relationship be- life may exist in the case of partners living gan after the retired member be- together to the exclusion of any other part- came a retired member but before nership relationship for a period of less than the retired member reached 60; three years if there is relevant evidence of a or mutual commitment. The amendment states: (iii) where neither subparagraph (i) nor (ii) applies—the partnership ... relevant evidence includes, but is not limited relationship had continued for a to: period of at least 5 years up to the (a) any joint ownership of real estate or time of the death. other major assets; and 10 Section 19 (b) any joint liabilities; and 25486 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(c) the extent of any pooling of finan- amendment, the Democrats are advocating cial resources, particularly in rela- that politicians should receive superannuation to major financial commit- tion only where there is a same sex couple ments; and relationship and that no-one else in the rest (d) whether one person owes any legal of the community should. obligation to the other person; and Senator Brown—They are not. (e) any joint responsibility for the care and support of children, if any; and Senator SHERRY—That is the effect of the amendment if it is passed, Senator (f) the persons’ living arrangements; and Brown. (g) whether the persons represent them- Senator Brown—You change it, then. selves to other persons as being in a Senator SHERRY—We have a private partnership relationship. member’s bill to change it, Senator Brown. If This is a long overdue amendment. The you kept an eye on these issues instead of Democrats have been campaigning on this grandstanding, you would know that we have subject for a very long time and will con- a private member’s bill to change it for eve- tinue to do so. We think that in this day and ryone in the community, not just for politi- age it is a reasonable position to take. I note cians. I am not going to go out on behalf of that many jurisdictions at the state and terri- the Labor Party to the same sex couple tory level have provisions within their laws groups in the general community and say, to remove that discrimination. Quite frankly, ‘You can’t have this for superannuation, but it is really time that the Senate did likewise politicians can.’ Talk about an outrageous with its own parliamentarians. I think this is position to be taking! The challenge for you, important, as I said earlier, and I think its Senator Brown, and for the Australian time has come. Perhaps its time had come Democrats is to come in here and support the some years ago, but we think this is a good Labor Party’s private member’s bill moved opportunity for the government to set right a by my colleague Mr Albanese in the other wrong which has been in place for much too place. He has campaigned long and hard on long. this issue. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (10.41 The Labor Party do support the provision p.m.)—I would like to get some clarification of superannuation for same sex couples. We from Senator Allison on this matter. Does do not see it as a moral issue; we see it as a this amendment apply a same sex couple property rights issue. The property of super- provision to the parliamentary fund? Does it annuation belongs to the individual and apply it to other superannuation funds? therefore they are allowed to leave that prop- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (10.41 erty to whomever they wish, whether in a p.m.)—It does apply to the parliamentary same sex couple or otherwise. It is a very superannuation fund. I do not believe it can important principle, and it should apply to apply to others, since we are limited by the everyone, not just politicians. For that rea- act which is before us. son, we will not be supporting an exclusivity same sex couple provision for politicians. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (10.41 We look forward to the day when the private p.m.)—That is exactly my concern. Here we member’s bill that my colleague Mr Al- have a provision from the Australian Demo- banese in the other place has moved will ap- crats. I make it clear that the Labor Party ply superannuation provisions to all same support superannuation same sex couple sex couples in the community, whether they provisions, but we are— are politicians or not. Senator Brown—When? Senator GREIG (Western Australia) Senator Greig—Where? (10.44 p.m.)—How convenient. How abso- Senator SHERRY—Just hang on and lutely, outrageously disgusting. you will get an answer. You think you are so Government senators interjecting— smart about superannuation. With this Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25487

Senator GREIG—I hear a chorus of sup- wealth public servants. He could not do that port for what Senator Sherry is saying from from the House of Representatives. But not the coalition, but the coalition is hostile to all one of his Labor Senate colleagues thought forms of same sex partnership recognition, to amend it before introducing it. superannuation or otherwise. I also make the point that Mr Albanese is Senator Ferris—That’s not true. not the Labor spokesperson on superannua- Senator GREIG—If it is not true then tion. Mr Albanese is not even a frontbencher. perhaps the minister could explain why dis- So I pose the question: why is it that this bill, crimination against same sex couples contin- which Labor claim to believe in strongly, is ues in social security, immigration, taxation, being advocated not by a frontbencher, not the defence forces, property settlement and by someone with a portfolio, but by a back- superannuation, to name just a few. The fact bencher with a pink electorate in inner city is that, until such time as we have compre- Sydney? Where is Mr Beazley on this bill? hensive and uniform national antidiscrimi- There has been deafening silence from him nation laws on the grounds of sexuality and on this issue. Labor claim to be serious—we same sex partnership recognition at a Com- hear this constant rhetoric: ‘We support same monwealth level, this issue can never be ad- sex couples’—yet, of the five or six amend- dressed. There are only two ways in which ments to deal with same sex couples that you can do that: by amending legislation have been through this chamber since I have before the parliament and by supporting a been here, Labor have opposed each and comprehensive bill. every one of them. We Democrats introduced the very bill Labor often point to the states and say, that is necessary to do all of that, and it was ‘Oh, yes, but we’ve done it at a state level.’ introduced in 1995 by former Democrat There is truth in that. Same sex couple rec- Senator Sid Spindler. It has been on the No- ognition now exists in Queensland, New tice Paper since then and gone nowhere, be- South Wales, Victoria—with the support of cause it does not attract the support of either the Liberal Party, I note—and Tasmania, to the coalition or Labor. It really gets my goat some degree. It covers super; it does not when members of the Labor Party trumpet cover other areas. In our own shared home with great clarity and fanfare the possibility state of Western Australia, Temporary of Mr Albanese’s bill passing through the Chairman Knowles, the new government is parliament but fail to point out two funda- committed to that reform. It is true that state mental things. Firstly, that bill is simply one Labor governments have largely been re- part of one section of the Democrats sexual- sponsible for that, with the exception of ity discrimination bill. That bill precedes the Western Australia, where the precedent for Albanese bill by some years and goes much same sex recognition was set by the Demo- further, covering those other areas, including crats with the successful passage at a state immigration, social security, taxation and so level of the Democrats sexuality bill in that on. It is not just one boutique piece of anti- state’s upper house by my now retired col- discrimination legislation, which the Labor league Helen Hodgson MLC. If Labor can Party seem to think is the panacea to all dis- do this at a state level, why can’t they—or crimination against gay and lesbian people. It won’t they—do it at a federal level? is not. Senator Sherry—The fact that we’re not Secondly, if the answer to resolving this in government might have something to do discrimination is the passage of such a bill, with it. where is it? Yes, it has been introduced. It Senator GREIG—Senator Sherry inter- was fundamentally flawed when it was in- jects and says that he is not in government. troduced, because it did not actually cover That is a cop-out. That is not fair. You are in Commonwealth public servants. I know that, a position to do it from opposition. Just as when Mr Albanese framed that legislation in the mandatory sentencing bill passed this the House of Representatives, he was not in a house, so too could same sex couple recog- constitutional position to include Common- nition. If you held the ground on it and kept 25488 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 in form with the Democrats and some other report of the committee be adopted, which minor parties, including Senator Brown, it says: would succeed. I do not believe for a second “and that the following matter be referred to that the government would hold out on this the Select Committee on Superannuation forever. The same is true for the same and Financial Services by the last sitting day amendment that was passed on this with the in November 2001: Governor-General bill. Whether same sex superannuation rights Labor constantly says, ‘This is not the (which have received the support of the Se- right bill,’ whenever amendment after lect Committee on Superannuation and Fi- amendment comes up, and yet it will not nancial Services in a report in April 2000) should be available to members of the Par- progress its own bill. Yes, it will introduce it liamentary Contributory Superannuation as a piece of theatre. It will drum it up in the Scheme before being applicable to all in the gay press as something that it claims it is community who qualify under provisions doing, while constantly avoiding the topics relating to bona fide relationships, regardless of immigration, social security, taxation, the of sexual preference”. defence forces and all those other areas of So they do not even know, Senator Greig. discrimination that gay and lesbian couples They have not made up their minds on that. experience discrimination in. So if we do not Fancy having to run a committee to know support this recognition from piece by piece whether that should be the case or not. That legislation, it can be done only with whole- just shows you what a scheming lot of peo- sale legislation. But Labor will not support ple they are when it comes to this matter. the sexuality discrimination bill. That will resolve that. This amendment is here to put into the relevant press, so they can say, ‘We’re doing This is the litmus test for Labor. If you are something. There’s a committee sitting on serious about recognising same sex couples, this and after the election we’ll act on it. If as you say you are, then support it. It is all only we can get your votes in the ballot box too convenient to say suddenly, at the last then, trust us, we’ll do something after- minute: ‘This is a boutique piece of legisla- wards.’ I would not trust them as far as you tion. It is a discrete piece of legislation. It could throw a barge pole, or push a barge relates only to politicians. It would be unfair pole, or touch it with a barge pole, or what- to allow same sex couple recognition just for ever the proper analogy is. You get so addled that area.’ How convenient. The truth is, if trying to work out the scheming that goes on you were to set that precedent and if you with the Labor Party in this matter that you were to meet that benchmark, the electorate start to lose track. The Democrats are to be would have faith in you in doing this com- commended on this amendment, and I sup- prehensively in government. Until then, they port it. cannot and should not. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (10.52 Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.50 p.m.)—I do not want to keep the committee p.m.)—Senator Greig has put a very cogent in lengthy process, but let me just draw case and has showed just how bereft of prin- Senator Greig’s attention to one matter that ciple the opposition are in this matter. At the Democrats have been dealing with with least the government is unashamedly dis- the government in recent times: the so-called criminatory. But the opposition pay lip- superannuation choice provisions. I do not service and duck and weave. They were in know whether Senator Greig is across that office for 13 years and did nothing about particular piece of legislation, but I under- this. They are not going to do anything more stand, Senator Greig, that the only reason in opposition, and the record shows that they you are not supporting the government’s will not do anything if they get back into package is that the government will not agree government. While the good Democrat to change that bill in respect of same sex senator has been talking, Labor have distrib- couples. You just said in your contribution uted an amendment to the motion that the that you did not believe the government would hold out. They are holding out on Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25489 same sex couples in respect of the so-called Senator GREIG—You will buckle on superannuation choice provision, and they every other bill, whether it is the Governor- have been holding out for months. So you General bill or this one, and that is the fun- are wrong. Consult with Senator Allison, damental difference. who is sitting next to you, and you will find The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN out what has been happening in respect of (Senator Knowles)—The question is that that particular provision. This government the amendment moved by the Australian will not support that. That is their position. Democrats be agreed to. They have taken an ideological position—I do not know whether it is a party position. The committee divided. [11.00 p.m.] As for the Labor Party, you refer to my col- (The Temporary Chairman—Senator S.C. league Mr Albanese, and he is here. Knowles) Senator Ferguson—A humble back- Ayes………… 10 bencher, too. Noes………… 49 Senator SHERRY—You implied he is Majority……… 39 just a humble backbencher. I have considerably greater respect for the stature of my col- AYES league Mr Albanese. It is not just Mr Al- Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. banese who has supported the private mem- Bourne, V.W * Brown, B.J. ber’s bill—the Labor Party caucus has signed Greig, B. Lees, M.H. up to it. So it has the endorsement of the La- Murray, A.J.M. Ridgeway, A.D. bor Party caucus. Should the government Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J. agree to the principle of same sex couples on NOES superannuation choice, that will apply to Abetz, E. Alston, R.K.R. everyone in the community, except for us. Bishop, T.M. Boswell, R.L.D. On that point I will conclude. We are not Buckland, G. Calvert, P.H. willing to sign up to an amendment that Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. means that the only people in Australia who Chapman, H.G.P. Collins, J.M.A. enjoy same sex couple rights in respect of Conroy, S.M. Coonan, H.L. superannuation are federal politicians. We Cooney, B.C. Crossin, P.M. are not prepared to sign up to that. Crowley, R.A. Eggleston, A. Senator GREIG (Western Australia) Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. (10.55 p.m.)—Can I respond briefly by tak- Forshaw, M.G. Gibbs, B. ing up the example that Senator Sherry pres- Gibson, B.F. Harradine, B. Harris, L. Heffernan, W. ents when he says that the government is Hogg, J.J. Hutchins, S.P. holding out on presenting the super choice Kemp, C.R. Knowles, S.C. bill until such time that the Democrats con- Lightfoot, P.R. Ludwig, J.W. cede the same sex couple point. Macdonald, J.A.L. Mackay, S.M. Senator Sherry—No, the government. Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. Senator GREIG—Sorry, the government. McKiernan, J.P. McLucas, J.E. You are right. That is my understanding. I do Murphy, S.M. Newman, J.M. not pretend to be across the detail of that bill, O’Brien, K.W.K * Ray, R.F. but I understand the human rights aspect of Reid, M.E. Schacht, C.C. it. You are right: we Democrats will not sup- Sherry, N.J. Tambling, G.E. Tchen, T. Tierney, J.W. port that bill until such time as it eliminates Troeth, J.M. Vanstone, A.E. the discrimination against same sex couples. Watson, J.O.W. We will not buckle on that, but you will. * denotes teller Senator Sherry—Good. We will not Question so resolved in the negative. buckle on that bill. We oppose it for other reasons. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. 25490 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Adoption of Report noeuvre. At least the government is dis- Motion (by Senator Abetz) proposed: criminatory and makes no bones about it. But the Labor Party gives lip-service to That the report from the committee be adopted. ending discrimination and then keeps on hedging and putting it off. That is what they Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (11.04 are doing here. p.m.)—I move: Senator GREIG (Western Australia) At the end of the motion, add: (11.08 p.m.)—We have heard Senator Sherry “and that the following matter be referred to the say tonight it would be unfair to pass a piece Select Committee on Superannuation and of legislation that would affect only one sec- Financial Services by the last sitting day in tion of the community and yet that is what November 2001: gay and lesbian people experience every sin- Whether same sex superannuation rights (which gle day in legislation that relates to relation- have received the support of the Select ships. What Senator Sherry is now saying is Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services in a report in April 2000) should be that we should support this bill, but only so available to members of the Parliamentary far as heterosexual people are concerned. Contributory Superannuation Scheme before This amendment moved by Senator Sherry is being applicable to all in the community offensive, patronising and nothing more than who qualify under provisions relating to an undignified attempt by Senator Sherry to bona fide relationships, regardless of sexual salvage something from the sham that is La- preference”. bor’s embarrassing position on this legisla- This amendment deals with the referral of a tion. matter to the Select Committee on Superan- Amendment not agreed to. nuation and Financial Services. I do not wish Original question resolved in the affirma- to speak at length. We have just had a fairly tive. considerable debate on the matter and I ask the Senate to support our amendment. Third Reading Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.06 Motion (by Senator Abetz) proposed: p.m.)—This is just a scam. You can take it That this bill be now read a third time. which way you like: either the Labor Party Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.09 do not know whether same sex couples p.m.)—I will be supporting the legislation should get the same provisions as everybody because of the inherent amendments in it. else or they are simply using another tactic to But what a great opportunity has been lost, try to get people in the community who think as far as this parliament and these two big that this discrimination should end to think parties are concerned, to do something right they are going to do something about it. by the community that we serve, to empha- They are not; they have not. And it is a pretty sise the Prime Minister’s favourite term, that low manoeuvre. Senator Greig offered the is, a fair go for Australia. This is not a fair opportunity for them to support the end of go. It is the epitome of snouts in the trough, discrimination as far as the parliamentary bill which politicians get branded with all the is concerned and they simply said, ‘No, that time. Even the minor change that this brings, would create a difference between parlia- so that people do not get superannuation en- mentarians and the rest of the community.’ titlements till 55 like the rest of the commu- And we are voting on a piece of legislation nity, does not apply to us. The Labor Party that is inherently just that. I think this is a and the Liberal Party have quite deliberately pretty low manoeuvre by the Labor Party. said, ‘Yes, but not for us’—not even that. Senator Abetz—That is why you have The Greens and the Democrats moved the recognised it. amendments and they voted them down: Senator BROWN—Senator Abetz, you ‘Don’t touch our fantastic entitlements in any can get up and give your opinion on this mo- way at all.’ tion, but you will not because that is the na- When the pressure rises in the community ture of you. I say this is a pretty low ma- because there is outrage about it, the Prime Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25491

Minister ambushes the Senate on the last Bill 2001 fully, with the exception that it night of sittings with this amendment to the now contains, explicitly and unambiguously, legislation which came in here yesterday and the prohibition on same sex couples having which has gone through here with extraordi- human rights. On that basis, I will vote nary speed, to give the impression that the against it. It is very rare that a piece of leg- government has amended the offending parts islation is so personal. Very often we deal of this legislation. It will not wash and the with issues on a day-to-day basis that are Australian electorate will not accept it as distant from us and ethereal and have a broad such. So we politicians continue to get the picture about them. I declare clearly my in- bad name, by desert in this case. When it terest in this, being in a same sex relationship comes to the opportunity to say, for those of 15 years. I cannot bring myself to support who want it, ‘Hang on to it, but do not make a piece of legislation that says to my partner other people do it; give them an opt-out that he is unworthy of my death benefit if I clause,’ the big parties get together and say, should die. ‘No, not that because that will show us up. Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (11.14 We do not want Peter Andren leaving this p.m.)—I rise briefly to register the fact that gold-plated scheme and going, as far as his Pauline Hanson’s One Nation opposes the electorate is concerned, to join the rest of the bill because it does not allow an opt out and people in an eight per cent employer topped it also does not bring the parliamentary su- up scheme. He cannot have that it because it perannuation in line with superannuation in would show everybody else up.’ It is one the community. I will be voting against the thing to say, ‘We want to keep this little bag bill. of gold for ourselves,’ but it is another thing to say, ‘Everybody else has to do the same so Question resolved in the affirmative. we will not stand out in this situation.’ Bill read a third time. This is not the end of it. It will continue. BILLS RETURNED FROM THE There will be on 11 July a hearing of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES committee in Sydney looking at the honour- Messages received from the House of able member for Calare’s legislation. Thou- Representatives returning the following bills sands of people have written to that com- without amendment: mittee. A lot of that will be constructive. Social Security Legislation Amendment (Con- Above all, it will show us what we already cession Cards) Bill 2001 know—that politicians have got an ob- Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legis- scenely topped up and self-advantaged lation Amendment Bill 2001 scheme and it should be altered. Like everybody else, I will support this minor amend- COMMITTEES ment, but it does nothing to fix the rotten Intelligence Services Committee heart of the superannuation scheme that Membership politicians enjoy. Message received from the House of Rep- Senator Watson—But you are arguing resentatives notifying the Senate of the ap- against your earlier logic. pointment of Mr Andrews, Mr Brereton, Mr Senator BROWN—Senator Watson, you Forrest, Mr Hawker, Mr Jull, Mr McArthur, can get up and make your contribution. I am Mr McLeay, Mr Melham and Mr O’Keefe to making mine. The point is that we had a the Joint Select Committee on Intelligence great opportunity here with the amendments Services. that the crossbenches brought forward to put TRADE MARKS AND OTHER things right. But the big parties got together LEGISLATION AMENDMENT in the dead of night on the eve of the winter BILL 2001 break and voted it down. First Reading Senator GREIG (Western Australia) Bill received from the House of Repre- (11.13 p.m.)—I support the Parliamentary sentatives. Contributory Superannuation Amendment 25492 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) This Bill improves the legislation by further agreed to: streamlining procedures, enabling the Trade Marks Office to provide improved services to the That this bill may proceed without formalities public, removing anomalies and clarifying ambi- and be now read a first time. guities that have come to light since the Act came Bill read a first time. into operation. Second Reading In September 1996, approximately nine months Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western after its commencement, the Registrar of Trade Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Marks invited submissions from interested groups, and the public, on the operation of the Minister for Communications, Information new Trade Marks Act. Some eighteen submis- Technology and the Arts) (11.17 p.m.)—I sions were received. Respondents included the move: Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, the That this bill be now read a second time. Trade Marks Sub-Committee of the Law Council I seek leave to have the second reading of Australia, the Australian Manufacturers' Pat- ents, Industrial Designs, Copyright and Trade speech incorporated in Hansard. Marks Association, members of the legal profes- Leave granted. sion and the Australian Wine and Brandy Corpo- The speech read as follows— ration. I thank them all for their interest and guidance on this matter. The major objective of the Trade Marks and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 is to Other comments were received from a number of give effect to a post-implementation review of the sources including focus groups set up within the operation of the Trade Marks Act 1995. That Act Trade Marks Office to look at administrative is- repealed and replaced the 1955 Trade Marks Act sues, and from the Trade Marks Office help desk and came into operation on 1 January 1996. This which was set up to assist users of the system Bill also makes some minor technical amend- with the transition to the new legislation. ments to correct erroneous references in the Pat- The post-implementation review has allowed ents Amendment (Innovation Patents) Act 2000. interest groups and the public to work with the The new Trade Marks Act modernised and Trade Marks Office to come up with suggestions streamlined the Australian trade marks registra- to further improve and streamline the legislation. tion system and brought it into line with certain A review team including members of the main requirements of the World Trade Organization’s interest groups met in February 1998. The review Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intel- team recommended that a number of changes lectual Property Rights — better known as the were necessary for the efficient and effective op- TRIPS Agreement. In September last year, the eration of the Act. This Bill gives effect to the Act was also amended to enable Australia to ac- necessary changes. cede to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid In the interests of delivering better service to Agreement Concerning the International Regis- Trade Marks Office customers, section 158 of the tration of Marks. Accession would provide a Trade Marks Act will be repealed. The provision reciprocal, streamlined application procedure for makes it a strict liability criminal offence for an Australian and overseas trade marks owners employee of the Trade Marks Office to prepare, should they wish to register their trade marks or help prepare, a document to be filed under the overseas or in Australia. Act or to search the Trade Marks Office records, The new Trade Marks Act has been very success- unless specifically authorised to do so. This may, ful in meeting its objectives. It has resulted in in some circumstances for example, cause doubt significant lessening of red tape for businesses, as to whether a Trade Marks Office employee enabling them to get their trade marks registered may help a person fill in their trade mark applica- in a more streamlined manner. It has had major tion or assist them with a search of the trade benefits for the operation of the Trade Marks Of- marks database. fice and the positive benefits of this, for users of The provision is outdated. Its carry over from the the system, are illustrated by the fact that there previous legislation is now considered inappro- have been two fee reductions and no increases in priate. The modern Public Service encourages its Trade Marks Office fees since the new Act came employees to give members of the public, within into force. These excellent results have been the proper boundaries, every assistance they are achieved without eroding the benefits of registra- able to. The Trade Marks Office is continually tion available to trade marks owners. striving to improve the service it provides its Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25493 customers and this provision unnecessarily con- strains what it can do. Its repeal will enable the Question resolved in the affirmative. Trade Marks Office to consider new and innovative ways to improve its customer service. Any Bill read a second time, and passed impropriety by an employee of the Trade Marks through its remaining stages without Office is able to be dealt under the Australian amendment or debate. Public Service Code of Conduct set out in section BUSINESS 13 of the Public Service Act 1999. This Bill will also repeal paragraph 88(2)(d) of Government Business the Trade Marks Act. This provision currently Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) enables a person, in certain circumstances, to agreed to. apply to a court to cancel or amend a trade mark That intervening business be postponed till registration. In considering the matter, the court after consideration of government business order would be obliged to apply stricter criteria than of the day No. 3, Passenger Movement Charge would have been applied by the Registrar of Amendment Bill 2001. Trade Marks when accepting the trade mark for registration. Having different sets of criteria ap- PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE ply is clearly unsatisfactory—indeed there is the AMENDMENT BILL 2001 possibility that a person whose trade mark was Second Reading removed from the Register by the court under this provision could immediately successfully re- Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion apply for registration of the trade mark. The re- by Senator Tambling: peal of this provision will therefore remove the That this bill be now read a second time. uncertainty inherent in this provision. upon which Senator Ridgeway had moved The Bill also contains a series of amendments of by way of an amendment: a minor nature intended to streamline procedures and remove anomalies and ambiguities identified At the end of the motion, add: since the Act came into operation. This Bill also “but the Senate calls on the Government: amends the Patents Amendment (Innovation Pat- (a) to make the charge commissionable ents) Act 2000 to correct several erroneous refer- and thereby encourage overseas ences in that Act. travel agents to comply with the I commend this Bill to the Senate. charge regime; and Ordered that further consideration of this (b) to introduce legislation allocating a bill be adjourned to the first day of the 2001 further M$15 per year to the Aus- spring sittings, in accordance with standing tralian Tourist Commission over the order 111. life of the foot and mouth disease prevention program for the purpose BUSINESS of marketing measures designed to Government Business boost Australia’s image as a “clean and green destination”. Motion by (Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.19 p.m.)—I would request from the government That intervening business be postponed till a list of the order of the legislation that is after consideration of government business order of the day No. 4 (Migration Legislation Amend- now coming up. That last bill went through ment (Immigration Detainees) Bill 2001). in three minutes. I am not going to stand for that if I do not have an order of bills in front MIGRATION LEGISLATION of me. If the government wants it all slowed AMENDMENT (IMMIGRATION down, then they should just keep this up. DETAINEES) BILL 2001 The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Second Reading (Senator Ferguson)—I think you may have Consideration resumed from 27 June, on just been provided with a list, Senator motion by Senator Minchin: Brown. The question is that the amendment That this bill be now read a second time. moved by Senator Ridgeway be agreed to. 25494 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID- (11.20 p.m.)—Is that a committee amend- ENT—The question is that the second read- ment? ing amendment moved by Senator Ridgeway The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID- be agreed to. ENT—No, it is a second reading amend- Question resolved in the negative. ment. Original question resolved in the affirma- Senator SCHACHT—Well, where is tive. Senator Ridgeway? Bill read a second time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID- In Committee ENT—He is here. I will put the question again. The question is that the amendment The bill. moved by Senator Ridgeway be agreed to. Senator RIDGEWAY (New South Question resolved in the affirmative. Wales—Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats) (11.23 p.m.)—I move the Aus- Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) tralian Democrats request on sheet 2218 re- (11.20 p.m.)—Can we just slow this down a vised: bit? I have an amendment here, No.2218 That the House of Representatives be requested to revised, in the name of the Democrats, by make the following amendment: Senator Ridgeway, which says that the schedule— (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute: The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID- 1 Section 6 ENT—Senator Schacht, if I can just clarify this, that is not the amendment we are con- Omit “$30”, substitute “$40”. sidering. The amendment that we have just Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate moved is a second reading amendment, not a of 26 June 2000 committee amendment, which was moved by These amendments are framed as requests be- Senator Ridgeway. I put that to the vote and cause they are to a bill which increases a charge it was passed. contained in an existing Act. It is therefore taken to be a bill imposing taxation within the meaning Senator CARR (Victoria) (11.21 p.m.)— of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator not amend a bill imposing taxation. Schacht, who is dealing with this matter for Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant us, has not had an opportunity to examine to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 this second reading amendment. While he As this is a bill imposing taxation within the has a chance to read it, we might want to meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any slow proceedings down a bit. I seek leave to Senate amendment to the bill must be moved as a have that vote recommitted. request. This is in accordance with the prece- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID- dents of the Senate. ENT—Is leave granted? I will not speak to the request other than to Leave granted. say that it is an increase in the levy from $38 to $40. I spoke about that in the second The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID- reading debate earlier today, so I will leave it ENT—The question is that the amendment at that. be agreed to. Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) (11.24 p.m.)—It is not for me to encourage (11.21 p.m.)—This is an amendment to the the Democrats to speak, but I missed your second reading. I did not hear the summing speech in the second reading debate, unfor- up from the minister. Does the government tunately, Senator Ridgeway. I am sure that it accept the second reading amendment from was a compelling and eloquent speech, but the Democrats? for the record, if some maniac wants to read Senator Ellison—No. Hansard, could you please explain why you Senator SCHACHT—Thank you. are putting another $2 on the tax that the Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25495 government is increasing from $30 to $38? I Request not agreed to. would like to hear the reason before we de- Bill agreed to. cide to vote yes or no. Bill reported without request; report Senator RIDGEWAY (New South adopted. Wales—Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats) (11.25 p.m.)—I was trying to be Third Reading mindful of time, understanding that people Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read do want to get home. Essentially, it is about a third time. maintaining the integrity of the government’s Senator Brown—I wish to record retro- foot-and-mouth measures and about gener- spectively my opposition to the third reading ating about $15 million per annum, which of the migration bill. I have not had time to the tourism industry wants allocated to the look at it, it does concern me, and I am not Australian Tourist Commission to promote going to support a bill that I am unable to Australia more extensively overseas. That is give full assent to. essentially what the increase in the levy is The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT for. (Senator Ferguson)—Your vote will be re- Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) corded, Senator Brown. (11.25 p.m.)—I appreciate the explanation, BUSINESS brief as it was, but I am still somewhat confused about why this is necessary. Government Business Honourable senators interjecting— Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: Senator SCHACHT—I am sorry, I will explain why I am somewhat confused about That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business order why the Democrats would want to increase it of the day No. 8, Tax Laws Amendment Bill (No. from $38 to $40. In the second reading de- 5) 1999. bate, the opposition pointed out—and I pointed out on behalf of my colleague Mr TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL Fitzgibbon—that the passenger movement (No. 5) 1999 charge already is raising in excess of $80 In Committee million more than is being spent on the cost Consideration resumed from 28 March. recovery for the process. Therefore, it is not The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN necessary to increase it further, because the (Senator George Campbell)—The com- government will only put it into consolidated mittee is considering Taxation Laws revenue, and there is no guarantee that they Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 and the will spend it on anything as good as you are amendment on sheet 2166 moved by Senator suggesting, Senator Ridgeway. After the last Brown. The question is that the amendment 5½ years of this government, I would not be agreed to. trust them with an extra 2c, let alone an extra $2, which will run into several million dol- Senator Brown—I wonder if the atten- lars. Your good intentions are clear, but there dants could be good enough to provide me is no way that the government will be com- with a copy. I am sorry, this is my new pelled to spend the extra $2 on what you amendment here—is that correct? rightly want it to be spent on. We found out The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—As I during the estimates that the government are understand it, Senator Brown, you have al- raising an extra $80 million a year above the ready moved it—No. 1 on sheet 2166. running costs of the passenger movement Senator Brown—I would like a copy of charge without the additional $8 to cover the that sheet, please. cost of foot-and-mouth disease. As a result, The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We because we cannot trust the government to will have to have a pause in proceedings for take up your idea, we will vote against this a couple of minutes while we try to locate a increase, because they will just put it straight couple of running sheets. into consolidated revenue. 25496 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western steps are to be taken to ensure that the public Australia—Manager of Government Busi- funds that are spent on pathology services ness in the Senate) (11.31 p.m.)—It seems, cannot become a prime revenue raising target Mr Temporary Chairman, that TLAB5 came for the for-profit companies. Presumably, on slightly too quickly and that we need within the department of health, there will be some discussions around the running sheet some monitoring of this, and I would like to and some of the amendments. I think every- hear either now or if you could take it on one who is going to do the health legislation notice the government’s response on that is available; I see that the shadow spokesman matter. has arrived and is seated. So could I suggest Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- that we report progress. We will move to the tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- health legislation and then come back to ter for Health and Aged Care) (11.38 p.m.)— TLAB 5 immediately after that. I thank Senator Harradine for his particular Progress reported. interest in this area. Unfortunately, I have not BUSINESS had the opportunity to obtain the detailed information he would like. Certainly the Government Business government is committed to ensuring that Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) there would be appropriate supervision and agreed to: monitoring in these areas, but I would like to That intervening business be postponed till take the detail of his question on notice and I after consideration of government business order will make available a detailed response to of the day No. 5 (Health Legislation Amendment him in the next week or so. (Medical Practitioners’ Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001). Senator Harradine—Thank you. HEALTH LEGISLATION Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) AMENDMENT (MEDICAL (11.39 p.m.)—I move opposition amendment PRACTITIONERS’ QUALIFICATIONS No. 1 on sheet 2275: AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2001 (1) Page 3 (after line 20), after clause 4, insert: Second Reading 5 Reports on operation of Act Consideration resumed from 27 June, on (1) As soon as practicable after the end of motion by Senator Ian Macdonald: each financial year ending on or after 30 June 2001, the Minister must cause That this bill be now read a second time. to be prepared a written report on the Question resolved in the affirmative. following: Bill read a second time. (a) the number of: In Committee (i) public pathology collection centres; and The bill. (ii) private pathology collection cen- Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) tres; (11.36 p.m.)—Mr Temporary Chairman, in each State by statistical local ar- could I ask the government to give a certain eas; undertaking. This legislation relates to pa- (b) the number of public or private pathology services, and in the context of the thology collection centres that have increasing corporatisation of medical serv- commenced or ceased operations in ices, including pathology, I believe it is es- non-metropolitan areas in the pre- sential that there be some sort of process of ceding financial year; review to ensure that the public funding of (c) any action taken by the Minister in pathology services does not become a prime the preceding financial year to en- revenue raising target for the for-profit com- sure that access to pathology serv- panies. More and more, these services are ices in non-metropolitan areas is not being supplied by medical corporations. I reduced overall. believe it would be very important for the (2) The Minister must cause to be laid minister to outline to the committee what before each House of the Parliament a Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25497

report prepared under subsection (1) would hope that commonsense prevails and within 7 sitting days of that House after they will again support it. Indeed, I hope he or she receives the report. other senators will also support the amend- (3) In this section: ment. statistical local area means an area de- Senator LEES (South Australia (11.41 fined in the Australian Standard Geo- p.m.)—We simply do not believe this graphical Classification 1999 published amendment is necessary. Indeed, after by the Australian Bureau of Statistics checking with the Association of Pathology (publication number 1216.0 of 1999). Practices and the College of Pathologists, we This first opposition amendment tackles the have been told by both organisations that problem of a shrinking public sector and loss they do not believe these amendments are of rural services by establishing a reporting necessary and that the entry of new providers mechanism. The problem of ensuring there is already catered for sufficiently in the leg- are sufficient collection centres in rural areas islation. Both organisations are concerned has been acknowledged in the past and is about any further delays to this legislation. In reflected in the three-for-one provision that particular, I have some notes from David entitles large providers to open more rural Kindon from the AAPP. He said that the de- centres. The fact is this bonus allocation has lays already to get this legislation through not been utilised to the necessary extent and have meant that private pathology practices the general pattern of recent mergers in the and practices generally that have been geared industry has seen a dramatic reduction in the up ready for it are now suffering losses, and number of centres. In the cities, this has had the public sector providers which are brought beneficial effects as the industry has stabi- into the collection centre arrangements are lised, but in rural Australia the pendulum has unable to operate legally in the community swung too far and the public system which until the new scheme actually becomes oper- has provided the backbone of services is now able. under real pressure. We may not just see collection centres close; we may in fact also Obviously, if the government want to sup- see the closure of vital small laboratories in port the amendments, they are welcome to. local and regional hospitals that provide But if we now have an ongoing battle over timely and effective services. these amendments and have further delays, it is actually further damaging what I think As a first step therefore to get this prob- Senator Forshaw is actually trying to do, lem into the light of day, the opposition is which is to advantage the public sector. So I moving this amendment to require annual would have to say to the Labor Party that at public reporting of the number of collection this time the Democrats do not believe there centres in each local statistical zone. The is any need for this, and indeed it could be minister will be required to report on the quite damaging. trends in closures of centres in non- metropolitan areas and the action taken to Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- ensure that access is not reduced. The report tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- should include advice on the action taken by ter for Health and Aged Care) (11.43 p.m.)— the minister to ensure that access to pathol- As previously discussed with the opposition, ogy services in non-metropolitan areas has data limitations in relation to the requested not been reduced. The object of this amend- report and the uniqueness of pathology ren- ment is to ensure some transparency and en- der the opposition amendments for reporting able monitoring of the impact of the new on the operation of the act of limited value. rules and whether there is a reduction in ac- The government therefore does not agree to cess to services. This amendment is an im- this amendment. Unlike other areas of medi- portant measure to enable the public to judge cal servicing, pathology is an indirect serv- the impact of this legislation and the effec- ice. The proximity of pathology provided to tiveness of the government’s rural health the patient is not integral to ensure quality, policies. The government voted for this accessible service provision. amendment last time it was presented, and I 25498 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

This legislation relates to provisions for priate to the skills and experience approval of community based collection of the applicant, are in place; centres under the Medicare benefits ar- This amendment to item (2) clarifies the rangement. Medicare data provides a limited scope of the approved placements program view of pathology activity. Funding for pa- under section 3GA of the Health Insurance thology services occurs through many Act to make it clear that in the case of streams, including Medicare, the Australian placements with general practitioners an ap- health care agreements, health program proved placement should only be made in an grants in rural and remote areas, Department area of specific work force shortage. This is of Veterans’ Affairs funding, et cetera. The actually a much wider definition than that analysis of pathology servicing under the currently applied by the government. The Medicare Benefits Scheme will provide in- schemes for general practitioners that cur- formation on only one part of service provi- rently exist provide for unsupervised training sion and would not provide an accurate indi- in rural areas or late night locum services. cation of the levels of access to services in Neither are suitable types of program, and various electoral districts. Specimens for the Phillips report recommended both should testing are collected in multiple settings, in- be scrapped. cluding in doctors’ surgeries, nursing homes, Labor wants to negotiate a community laboratories and hospitals and by patients. term for postgraduate doctors wanting to try Collection centres are only one of many fa- a 13-week stint of general practice before cilities within which specimens are collect. deciding which registrar program to enter. Businesses independently make decisions to The current maldistribution of doctors does open or close collection centres or utilise not allow such a program to be entirely open other methods of collecting specimens—that slather, as some would like. Young doctors is, collection from doctors’ surgeries, nursing have a legitimate desire to undertake a com- homes, et cetera. Routine data on the pathol- munity term at a location reasonably close to ogy is already provided by the Health Insur- where they live. They are very unhappy with ance Commission in its pathology notes schemes that require them to relocate to a publication. This provides an indication of remote area, to leave their families behind the number of providers and the service out- and to work in an unsupervised setting. La- lets. bor will solve this problem by allowing Amendment not agreed to. community terms in regional cities with a Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) shortage of terms and in areas of the capital (11.45 p.m.)—by leave—I move opposition cities such as the outer suburbs and low in- amendments (2) and (3): come area where there is a serious shortage (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 9), after item of doctors and GPs serving those areas are 2, insert: forced to work excessive overtime. This amendment makes clear that there will be 2A After subsection 3GA(2) some limits on community terms and that Insert: they will not detract from the number of ru- (2A) An Approved Placement for general ral placements. practice training may be approved only in relation to a location which has been The second amendment in this group, No. designated as an area of specific 3, inserts the second part of Labor’s reforms workforce shortage because it is under- to approved placement schemes by specifi- provided with general practitioners. cally requiring the body authorising such (3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 19), after item placements to certify that satisfactory super- 2A, insert: vision arrangements are in place which are 2B At the end of paragraph 3GA(5)(a) appropriate to the skills and experience of the applicant. This provides a wide degree of Add: flexibility and allows the designated training and (iii) that satisfactory supervision body coordinating the placements to ensure arrangements, which are appro- suitable standards are maintained. Labor will Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25499 work with doctor organisations to develop Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- the detailed design of these schemes. Its pro- tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- posals have been warmly welcomed. This is ter for Health and Aged Care) (11.50 p.m.)— not surprising, as the medical review training I note Senator Lees’s comments. Require- panel and the Phillips report have been ments for such supervision are already in making the same points to the government place, and the government is happy to con- for over two years now. I hope that this tinue to examine the adequacy of supervisory amendment is supported by the government arrangements in its programs. If doctors feel and other senators, and that the government that they have not received adequate support starts the process of ensuring all approved and supervision, the government is con- placement schemes are subject to proper su- cerned that this should be reported to the pervision in time for the start of the training Department of Health and Aged Care for year in 2002. investigation and action to prevent any recur- Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- rence of the problem. Simply adding a su- tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- pervision requirement to the legislation will ter for Health and Aged Care) (11.49 p.m.)— not enhance reporting of problems. The government does not agree to these Amendments not agreed to. amendments. Senator LEES (South Australia (11.51 Senator LEES (South Australia (11.49 p.m.)—I move Democrats amendment No. 1: p.m.)—I acknowledge that there has been (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 9), after item some concern expressed over the supervision 2, insert: of those providing locum services. But a lo- 2A At the end of subsection 3GC(2) cum service operates because a regular doctor is not available. The regular doctors are Add: presumably having some time off at night or ; and (d) to compile information in relation to are off roster on weekends, so they need to each medical college on the number of people who sit, and the number of get a locum service in. While on paper it people who pass, each examination may look to be perfectly reasonable, to say held by the medical college for peo- that the doctor providing the locum service ple seeking: has to have this sort of supervision would (i) admission to advanced training; mean that the locum service would collapse. or The doctor to be supervised would be the (ii) admission to Fellowship of the locum providing the service. college. What we are talking about here would 2B After subsection 3GC(4) collapse the whole of the locum service net- Insert: work. If you insist that these junior doctors have to have full supervision, they simply (4A) The report prepared under subsection cannot operate. The question for the commu- (4) must include the information compiled by the Panel under paragraph nity becomes: do we have a junior doctor, or (2)(d) during the year concerned. no doctor at all? Do we let this continue with a junior doctor, or if we have any questions 2C After subsection 3GC(6) at night or on a weekend do we have to go (6A) In this section, medical college means: down to the local hospital? It certainly is not (a) an organisation declared by the ideal. I do not think this scheme will work, regulations to be a professional or- unless the Labor Party—when, or if, they ganisation in relation to a particular ever get into government—are planning to specialty for the purposes of para- increase the number of GPs in some way and graph 3D(1)(a); or look at some other schemes. Under the cur- (b) the Royal Australian College of rent situation, this amendment would mean General Practitioners. that there simply would not be locum serv- This amendment is a further attempt to build ices available in many places. on the work of the Medical Training Review Panel. From speaking with some junior doc- 25500 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 tors and talking to some of those who have did with Senator Lees’s first amendment, we further information on what the colleges ac- will be supporting the other amendments that tually do and how they count numbers going are moved by Senator Lees on behalf of the in and out, it seems that there is a problem Democrats. We had prepared a similar with the way in which information is cur- amendment to this one, in order to ensure the rently being collected. This amendment will continuation of the Medical Training Review require a report on exams conducted by Panel—a panel that the government had medical colleges, looking at those who actu- wished to see abolished by virtue of the sun- ally qualify to get in rather than just those set clause coming into effect. By agreement, who are approaching the college or sitting I understand, with Senator Lees and the exams to get in—somehow some of those Democrats, we did not proceed with our ver- seem to have been counted by colleges—but sion of that amendment. also looking at how many people are actually I might just say, while I am on my feet, graduating and becoming fellows. It is sim- saving me time later, that Senator Lees has ply seeking another level of information to also proposed that every two years there give us better data on the medical work should be a report similar to that undertaken force. by Dr Ron Phillips which was tabled in the Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- Senate in December 1999. Labor had moved tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- a similar motion calling for such a report by ter for Health and Aged Care) (11.52 p.m.)— August 2002, but the effect of the amend- The government supports this amendment ment to be moved by the Democrats is that and believes that it will enhance the Medical the report will need to be completed and ta- Training Review Panel’s ability to assess bled by December 2001. I just draw to the medical work force and training require- attention of the government particularly the ments. practical difficulties that this might create, Amendment agreed to. given the probable timing of the next election. We would invite the government to Senator LEES (South Australia (11.52 consult the opposition on the selection of the p.m.)—I move Democrats amendment No. 2: person to conduct this review and the terms (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 9), after item of reference so that it is carried out in a 2C, insert: proper manner and so that the product can be 2D Subsection 3GC(7) considered by the incoming minister in the Repeal the subsection. new government. This amendment removes the sunset clause Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- on the Medical Training Review Panel. I am tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- mystified as to why the government would ter for Health and Aged Care) (11.55 p.m.)— ever have wanted to do this. I am not sure The government agrees to this amendment. whether it was an oversight or whether there Continuation of the Medical Training Re- were some other plans. It was suggested that view Panel will allow effective monitoring the government intended to reinvent it in and reporting about medical postgraduate some other area; I do not want to run that training opportunities to continue, and this is risk. Indeed, looking at the way in which all in the interests of students, doctors and the parties that have been involved in the con- Australian public. I have taken note of sultation for this legislation have responded, Senator Forshaw’s request for consultation, it is well accepted—indeed, it is growing in but I am sure it will be done in the same its importance—for its collection and publi- spirit as that extended by the Labor govern- cation of data and in the assistance it gives us ment to the previous Liberal and National in planning the medical work force. parties. Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) Amendment agreed to. (11.53 p.m.)—I was going to jump to my feet Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) on the previous amendment, but I was not (11.56 p.m.)—by leave—I move opposition quick enough. I will now indicate that, as we amendments Nos 4 and 5: Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25501

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 21 and 22), Senator LEES (South Australia (11.58 omit the item, substitute p.m.)—I am sure that Senator Forshaw is 7 Subsection 19AA(1) aware from my speech this morning that I Omit “1 January 2002”, substitute “1 have no intention of supporting this. We do January 2003”. not want to extend it yet another year and to (5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 29) to page put in front of young doctors the possibility 5 (line 1), omit the item substitute: that, if Labor comes in, there will be some 9 Subsection 19AA(2) sort of major change again. I think we need to lock in the basic principle that general Omit “1 January 2002”, substitute “1 practitioners need to be trained as general January 2003”. practitioners, and then work on some of The opposition is not persuaded that the gov- these other issues in other ways. There is a ernment has dealt with this issue properly. range of opportunities for young doctors to There have not been satisfactory negotiations get experience—and they are not all young with the young doctors, and they remain these days; many of them have come in as alarmed at the prospect of the current ar- mature age students, already having had an- rangements becoming permanent without other profession or with another qualification their having any influence. The young doc- on their CV—which I highlighted this tors rightly see the sunset clause as having morning and, given the hour, I will not go been the only thing over the last few years through them again. I know that the AMA that gave them any relevance to the govern- will not be happy with us doing this. But, ment, and their attachment to its retention is from the letters that I have received, extend- a consequence of the way they have been ing this another year cannot solve some of treated. The opposition has discussed the the problems that people are highlighting. issues at length with the young doctors, and We need to do it in other ways. they do not want the sunset clause ended now because they just do not trust this gov- If I am correct about this, I find it quite ernment—and I can understand that. extraordinary for Senator Forshaw to say that Labor is thinking of changing some of the The doctors we have consulted do not rural practices or schemes that are now in want to go back to the days before 1996, and place. What we should be doing is extending they agree that there should be a structured and expanding our rural opportunities for process for training that gives doctors in recent graduates and giving them a greater training appropriate incomes. This amend- opportunity to work in rural and regional ment will extend the sunset clause for a final areas. But I do not believe that we can tackle year in order to provide the opportunity for some of these remaining problems by ex- these goals to be achieved. If Labor are tending it by yet another year. At the end of elected, we have made the commitment to that time, presumably the question will be introduce a community term for young doc- asked: is it going to be extended for another tors to try general practice in a supervised year? It is time to bite the bullet now and to setting in an area of workplace need. Criti- do it now. Senator Forshaw alluded previ- cally this will include both urban and rural ously to my next lot of amendments in which areas. We do not support the current situa- we are looking at giving young doctors a tion, where only rural positions without su- greater say and a greater involvement in the pervision are available. I understand that the training process. That is the next Democrat government is opposing this measure, and so amendment that I will speak to. I do hope that the Democrats, the Independ- ents and other senators from minor parties Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- will support it. Extending the sunset clause tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- by one year means that whoever wins the ter for Health and Aged Care) (Midnight)— next election will certainly have to have the For the reasons given by Senator Lees, the claims of young doctors high on their government does not support these amend- agenda. ments. Amendments not agreed to. 25502 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Friday, 29 June 2001 saying that they do not feel heard. They feel ————— that there are concerns that that they are not able to get through to the Medical Training Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) Review Panel. I think I have dealt with one (12.01 a.m.)—I move opposition amendment of those concerns, with the previous amend- No. 6: ment requiring the numbers admitted through (6) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 34), after item the examination process and the ones that 16, insert: passed the final exam to be disclosed and 16A At the end of section 19AD available for discussion. The Democrat Add: amendment is stronger in this area than the (2) The Minister must, on or before 30 Labor amendment. August 2002, cause a further report to Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- be laid before each House of the Par- tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- liament setting out details of the opera- ter for Health and Aged Care) (12.02 a.m.)—I tion of sections 3GA, 3GC and 19AA think there is some confusion with regard to since the preparation of the report required under subsection (1). Senator Forshaw’s election dates. He seems to be very presumptive that the date of 2001 This amendment is intended to ensure that will be a Labor victory. I would not concede the next government goes about fixing up the that and certainly would not agree. There- mess in medical training in a thorough and fore, given that the next possible election consultative fashion. I have full confidence date is really 2004, his amendment dates are that the next government will be a Labor completely out of whack with the objectives government and will do that. However, it is that the Labor Party is seeking. The require- still necessary to move this amendment to- ment for another review so soon after the night. Drawing on the approach used previ- previous mid-term review would not enhance ously, Labor proposes that the next minister understanding of the qualification require- present a further report to parliament on the ments, given that there has been no signifi- three relevant sections of the Health Insur- cant change in training numbers and avail- ance Act, namely sections 3GA, 3GC and ability of places since 1999 other than an 19AA. Such a report would give the Senate increase in the availability of both vocational an up-to-date overview of the training of and pre-vocational places for junior doctors. young doctors and would report on the vari- The government does not agree to this ous matters which were recommended as amendment. needing further action in the Phillips report of 1999 and the introduction of community Amendment not agreed to. terms. Having the facts of the situation fac- Senator LEES (South Australia (12.03 ing young doctors reported back to the par- a.m.)—I move Democrats amendment No. 3: liament by the middle of next year will put (3) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 34), after item this parliament in a position to decide 16, insert: whether the extended sunset clause should be 16A Section 19AD lifted at that point. Repeal the section, substitute: Senator LEES (South Australia (12.01 19AD Reports by Minister a.m.)—This amendment is similar to the one (1) The Minister must cause a report set- that I will be moving shortly on behalf of the ting out details of the operation of sec- Australian Democrats, but it does not go as tions 3GA, 3GC and 19AA to be laid far as we want it to go. Our amendment before each House of the Parliament: gives junior doctors a greater involvement in (a) on or before 31 December 1999; and this process and gives them the opportunity, when the report is ready, to meet within three (b) thereafter, at the end of each 2 year period commencing on a biennial months with some members of the Medical anniversary of 31 December 1999. Training Review Panel to listen to some of their concerns. Many of the junior doctors (2) Within 3 months after a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) is tabled, the that I have met with over this process are Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25503

Medical Training Review Panel must an existing approval for an eligible collection convene a meeting to discuss the re- centre. port. The opposition’s second group of amend- (3) The Medical Training Review Panel ments concerning pathology is to simply re- must invite representatives of the fol- quire the ministerial approval principles to lowing to attend a meeting mentioned in subsection (2): promote fair competition in the entry of new providers. Our concern is that the govern- (a) a student or students representing ment has given too much incentive to exist- those people enrolled at each university medical school in Australia; ing private providers. It risks creating an an- and ticompetitive situation where a few large operators are protected from new entrants by (b) a representative of the National Ru- ral Health Network. virtue of the new system for calculating the entitlements to licence numbers for collec- (4) The Minister must cause a record of the tion centres. If licences are only issued on proceedings of a meeting mentioned in subsection (2) to be laid before each the basis of turnover, it will be impossible House of the Parliament within 20 sit- for niche operators to grow where they have ting days after the meeting. proven themselves to be efficient service I have little to say other than that this providers. amendment gives the opportunity for the This bill will effectively close the door on report to be discussed by the new doctors. I new competition in the private sector and it recommend it to the Senate. will stifle growth in the public sector. There Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- is already a large degree of concentration in tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- the industry, and it is time to allow more ter for Health and Aged Care) (12.04 a.m.)— competition to ensure that there is no scope The government is pleased to support the for the major companies to slide away from Democrats proposal to insert a requirement the most cost effective patterns of operating. for biannual reporting and to provide a forum Under the proposed rules, a new entrant will for discussion of the reports. This will give be limited to, at most, two licences and they medical students and other organisations will then have to fight for additional licences with interest in the medical work force an solely on the grounds of turnover. This puts opportunity to be heard and to express their them in an impossible position as they have views on future directions for medical train- no network to build volume and they are ing. I look forward to meeting a number of competing against much larger groups for these students at a function on Monday, and I whom an extra licence can be gained by the will be pleased to discuss that with them. equivalent of an extra day or two’s turnover. This problem should be overcome by re- Amendment agreed to. writing the ministerial guidelines to ensure Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) that new entrants are encouraged rather than (12.04 a.m.)—by leave—I move opposition frozen out. The overall caps can be main- amendments Nos 7 and 8 on sheet 2275: tained in the situation that the major players (7) Schedule 1, item 32, page 9 (after line 23), will have to work hard to maintain their after subsection (4), insert: market share by being cost effective and of- (4A) Approval Principles determined by the fering customer service that matches the best Minister under subsection (4) must that new providers can come up with. promote fair competition and the entry I am somewhat surprised that the govern- of new providers. ment have not embraced this amendment, as (8) Schedule 1, item 32, page 10 (after line 7), one would expect them to support fair com- at the end of section 23DNBA, add: petition. I therefore hope at this point that the (7) In this section: government are willing to be flexible or, in new provider means a person who, or an the event that the government are not, that entity that, does not have an ownership or the Democrats will come to the aid of management relationship with the holder of smaller operators to avoid the dominance of 25504 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 a few large providers of pathology services BUSINESS creating an imbalance. Government Business Senator LEES (South Australia (12.07 Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) a.m.)—I found in my time as Democrats agreed to: health spokesperson that the pathologists That the order for the consideration of gov- were probably the most open and outspoken ernment business for the remainder of today be as as far as containing costs is concerned. It is follows: not something the medical profession is well No. 12 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) known for, but the pathologists have to be 2001, congratulated for the efforts that they have made to work with the government putting in No. 8 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999 – in committee, place caps on expenditure and looking at actual reductions in fees to meet the agree- No. 7 Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment ments that they have got to contain costs. I (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001, think we should listen to the various organi- No. 2 Child Support Legislation Amendment sations that represent them in their concern Bill (No. 2) 2000 – consideration in committee of about these amendments. I have had no-one the whole of message no. 692 from the House of Representatives, coming to lobby me about this. Indeed, the public sector and the private sector both Order of the day relating to Australia New Zea- seem to be not just happy with this legisla- land Food Authority Amendment Bill 2001 – consideration of message no. 746 from the House tion but quite desperate to get it through. As of Representatives in committee of the whole, I said earlier, there are some real problems in the public sector. They are actually con- Order of the day relating to Environment Protec- tion and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment cerned about operating illegally unless we (Wildlife Protection) Bill 2001 – consideration in get this legislation through and get it through committee of the whole of message no. 745 from quickly. I will read again what was said by the House of Representatives, the AAPP: public sector providers which are No. 14 Higher Education Funding Amendment brought into the collection centre arrange- Bill 2001, ments are unable to operate legally in the No. 9 Innovation and Education Legislation community until the new scheme becomes a Amendment Bill 2001, and reality. So I am not quite sure where Senator Forshaw has got some of his information No. 10 Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannu- ation Contributions) Bill 2000 – consideration in from, but I really cannot support these committee of the whole of message no. 703 from amendments. the House of Representatives. Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- (No. 2) 2001 ter for Health and Aged Care) (12.08 a.m.)— Senator Forshaw is quite right; the govern- Second Reading ment does not embrace these amendments Consideration resumed from 26 June, on and does not agree to them. The government motion by Senator Ian Macdonald: is committed to ensuring that the principles That this bill be now read a second time. determined by the minister promote fair Question resolved in the affirmative. competition and the entry of new providers. Bill read a second time. Amendments not agreed to. In Committee Bill, as amended, agreed to. The bill. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (12.12 a.m.)—I indicate that the amendment I will Third Reading now move was originally circulated in my Bill (on motion by Senator Tambling) name on sheet 2134 and was to amend the read a third time. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999. I move: Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25505

Page 32 (after line 24), at the end of the bill, add: example because it will have an impact in Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 that state—there is provision for farmers in 1 At the end of Division 51 the main, and perhaps other land holders who are not part of the farming community, Add: to put aside some areas or all areas of forest 51-65 Consideration under RFA Private in perpetuity for conservation purposes. We Forest Reserve Program believe this is a sound approach and it will Any financial consideration paid under encourage those particular farmers to place the Regional Forest Agreements Pri- those areas in reserve. vate Forest Reserve Program to the owner of land for registering a perpet- It has been raised, certainly to my knowl- ual conservation covenant against the edge by the Tasmanian state government— title to that land is exempt from income the current government in Tasmania is a tax. Labor government, and I am aware that the 2 Section 116-25 (cell at table item D1, previous Liberal government holds the same fourth column) view—that, where a person does set aside Omit “None”, substitute “See section land, they should not be disadvantaged in 116-82”. terms of the current tax provisions. The cur- 3 After section 116-80 rent Labor state government in Tasmania, through our Premier, Mr Bacon, and the Insert: Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Llewellyn, 116-82 Special rule for consideration re- have written to the federal Labor opposition. ceived under RFA Private Forest Reserve As I have indicated on previous occasions, Program we support this as being very sound in prin- If you, as a landowner, receive finan- ciple. We have spent some time drafting this cial consideration under the Regional amendment. We have to be careful that tax Forest Agreements Private Forest Re- serve Program for registering a perpet- concessions are tightly worded to deliver the ual conservation covenant against your intended outcome and not to provide a land title, the consideration is not mechanism for what could be termed as tax *capital proceeds for the purposes of minimisation or evasion. That is clearly out- this Part. side the stated principles of the Private For- 4 Application est Reserve Program. The amendments made by items 3A, While I have made reference to my home 3B and 3C apply to assessments for the state of Tasmania, this is not a measure that 2000-2001 income year and later in- is confined to Tasmania; it will obviously come years. apply throughout Australia. However, Tas- We have had extensive debate in the Senate mania is a state where there are significant about this matter on a number of previous forestry operations and where there is sig- occasions. The amendment goes to the issue nificant interest in this particular proposal. of the Regional Forest Agreements Private Obviously, being a senator from Tasmania, I Forest Reserve Program. It will allow that a take a keen interest in these matters. So I will private owner of land who registers a perpet- move Labor’s amendment and ask for the ual conservation covenant will be exempt support of the Senate. I would just indicate from a range of tax provisions, including that Senator Brown has circulated a hand- capital gains tax proceedings and income tax written amendment. I am sure that it changes for the purposes of that conservation cove- the dates. I am not absolutely sure why nant. It is not my intention to debate this at Senator Brown has done that, but I would length because, as I mentioned, it has been ask him to indicate why the dates have been debated on at least two previous occasions in changed in his proposed amendment to our the Senate. amendment, as I understand it. In respect of the Regional Forest Agree- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.17 ments Private Forest Reserve Program—and a.m.)—I move Greens amendment to oppo- I will use my home state of Tasmania as an sition amendment (1): 25506 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Omit “2000-2001 income year”, substitute Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (12.21 “1999-2000 and 2000-2001 income years” a.m.)—Senator Brown has commented that The change is because your amendment does copying is the sincerest form of flattery. I not cover the people who were given grants hold up our amendment sheet and yours, and under this system in the month of June 1999. I do see some differences, one of which is So, if you do not put this amendment in the operative date. In your amendment, you there, there will be a small group of land- have the year 2000-01; you do not have owners in Tasmania who will be taxed and 1999-2000. We have not copied your dates, who will not get that rebate under this sys- so I take it that, since you moved the original tem. This is a Greens amendment that has amendment, you have obtained new infor- been taken over by the Labor Party and ap- mation, which you have outlined. Could you plied to the current tax bill before us, six be a bit more specific about the number of months after I moved it. The Labor Party, people involved and, if possible, identify the which has been in a total muddle about this, quantum of money involved? should have done it last December and is Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.22 catching up now. I am indebted to Senator a.m.)—You should have spoken with the Ba- Sherry for taking over my amendment. con government and got those particulars. Copying is the greatest form of flattery, and I Let me assure you that there are a number of am flattered. But it has not helped the land- land owners who in June were given this owners in Tasmania. money under this funding. It is some hun- What we do need to understand here is dreds of thousands of dollars. If the amend- that there is a pretty nasty streak in the Tas- ment does not go in, they will be cut out. Let manian Labor Party, particularly in the Ba- me explain that, if there were not any sums con government. When I bought this of money in the year 1999-2000, this amendment on last year, the Labor Party here amendment will sit there; it will not make rang Premier Bacon and said, ‘There’s a any difference. Green moving this amendment which is go- Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (12.22 ing to help landowners in Tasmania.’ They a.m.)—I am well aware of the issues in rela- said, ‘Oh, oppose it.’ So the landowners got tion to the year 2000-01. At this hour, Sena- cut out. That is how small-minded the Labor tor Brown, you certainly do not encourage us Party gets when it comes to any forestry is- to support your amendment with your bellig- sue in Tasmania. erent, misleading attitude on this particular I am going to be a bit big minded about matter, but on behalf of the Labor opposition this. I agree with Senator Murray: it is not so I indicate we will support your amendment much who puts it forward but that it will be despite your not having bothered to speak to carried into effect. Land owners will get the us about it prior to circulating it. Despite the relief from the capital gains tax threat over rhetoric surrounding your arguments and its them that they deserve. That is good for the somewhat misleading outline, the principle is environment and it is good for the people of important and we will support it. Tasmania as a whole. I suggest that Senator Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.23 Sherry take up the amendment to the a.m.)—I am totally indebted to Senator amendment. It will make it fair right across Sherry for those gracious remarks! the board. The Regional Forest Agreement Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) moneys to land owners who were protecting (12.24 a.m.)—I put on the record the Demo- their blocks began in June 1999. If we do not crats’ support for Senator Brown’s amend- make that amendment, a small group of peo- ment and the substantive amendment moved ple—including one person who got a fairly by Senator Sherry, which we have supported large sum of money because they were in the past when it has been raised. As stated making a pretty grandiose commitment to in the past, the Democrats believe we should conservation—would miss out, and that look to using our tax laws more to provide would be quite unfair. incentives for land conservation. We will not force a further debate on that at this particu- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25507 lar time, but certainly we are keen to expand The amendments should promote greater partici- more widely the use of tax laws to assist in pation in perpetual conservation covenants and so conservation measures. This is one small enhance the protection of Australia’s unique and way to ensure that people who are doing the fragile native ecosystems. right thing are not disadvantaged in that way. Under these amendments, at the time of entering into the covenant the landowner will apportion Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (12.24 the cost base of the property between that part a.m.)—Senator Brown, it was Oscar Wilde subject to the covenant and the remaining prop- who said, ‘Sarcasm is the wit of a poor fool.’ erty. The covenant will then be treated as a part Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) disposal of the property. CGT will be payable on (12.24 a.m.)—I just indicate that I will be the difference between the consideration received and the cost base apportioned to the covenant. supporting Senator Sherry’s substantive mo- When the land is subsequently sold, any capital tion and the amendment by Senator Brown. gain will be calculated on the difference between Senator KEMP (Victoria—Assistant the sale price and the remaining cost base of the Treasurer) (12.25 a.m.)—The government property. will not be supporting the amendment. We The capital gain made from the covenant will have had this debate a number of times in attract a pre-1985 exemption, or the 12 months this chamber. The record stands clearly with CGT discount for individuals, trusts and comply- the government’s position, and I refer to the ing superannuation entities, where applicable. In press release that was made by the Treasurer, addition to these benefits, small business landowners who enter into conservation covenants headed ‘Capital gains tax amendments and may be able to access the small business CGT private conservation’, which was issued on concessions. 15 June. We felt that that was an appropriate The change will be of immediate benefit to land- response, and I am sorry that the action by owners who have negotiated covenants with the the government has not been recognised in Tasmanian Private Forest Reserve Program, as this chamber. I seek leave to incorporate the well as being relevant to landowners throughout Treasurer’s press release on this matter. Australia. Leave granted. Only those covenants entered into for a consideration, and which enhance Australia’s environ- The press release read as follows— mental values will be eligible for the new tax TREASURER treatment. Programs offering conservation cove- NO. 044 nants would need to be accredited by the Federal Minister for the Environment. Legislation to im- Capital Gains Tax Amendments and Private plement the Government’s decision will be intro- Conservation duced into the Parliament as soon as practicable. I am announcing amendments to the capital gains The amendments will take effect from 15 June tax (CGT) rules to ensure that landowners who 2000, so as to benefit all landowners who have set aside part or all of their land for conservation entered into covenants under the Tasmanian Pri- in perpetuity will not be disadvantaged. The vate Forest Reserve Program. change will result in a lower tax liability for most Canberra landowners entering into perpetual conservation covenants, and a zero tax liability for those land- 15 June 2001 owners who have held their land since before 20 Those who wish to pursue this issue further I September 1985. urge to read the previous debates on this Governments and environmental philanthropic matter, but as the hour is late I propose just organisations enter into covenants with landown- to state the government’s position. ers to conserve their property in perpetuity, in The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN order to maintain its environmental value for all Australians. Previously, nearly all the considera- (Senator George Campbell)—The question tion received for entering into such covenants was is that the amendment moved by Senator taxable. Landowners have not been able to access Brown be agreed to. the pre-1985 exemption or the 12 months CGT Question resolved in the affirmative. discount. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The amendment moved by Senator Sherry, which 25508 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 transfers an amendment originally to the savings in pollution and assisting us in Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) meeting our Kyoto commitments, it comes 2000, will go in at page 32 after line 24 at out well balanced. FBT applying to motor the end of the bill, adding the words that cars as part of salary packages is approxi- were on the sheet that was circulated. The mately 10 per cent of the vehicle purchase question is that the amendment, as amended, price, whereas the FBT applying to public be agreed to. transport tickets is approximately 95 per cent Question resolved in the affirmative. of the ticket price. This policy creates significant disincentives for companies to in- Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) clude public transport fares in salary pack- (12.27 a.m.)—I move: ages and encourages greater use of company Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 6 to 17), omit cars for community use, which the Demo- the item, substitute: crats certainly think we need to move away 1 Subsection 47(1) from. I commend the amendment as benefi- Repeal the subsection, substitute: cial. It is again trying to use the tax system to (1) Where a residual benefit provided to a facilitate, encourage and provide incentives current employee in respect of his or for more environmentally responsible activi- her employment consists of travel on ties in the area of transport. public transport, other than in an air- Senator KEMP (Victoria—Assistant craft, and the benefit is provided for the Treasurer) (12.29 a.m.)—The government purpose of travel between: understands why the Democrats are moving (a) the person’s place of residence; or this amendment. As the Senate is no doubt (b) the person’s place of employment of aware, the government itself has a number of that employee or any other place programs to address the issue of greenhouse from which or at which the em- gases and transport, such as the alternative ployee performs duties of that em- fuels program. However, the government ployment; does not consider that an extension to the the benefit is an exempt benefit. fringe benefits tax system is really the way to This was circulated a day or two ago. This take this forward. It is a basic principle of the bill as a whole, which I did not speak to in income tax and fringe benefits tax that ex- the second reading debate because of the penses of a private nature, such as travel hour and time constraints, deals with a num- between home and work, are not allowable ber of essentially unrelated income tax and as deductions from income tax and, where fringe benefits tax measures. One of the provided to employees as fringe benefits, are major proposals is providing an exemption subject to a fringe benefits tax. The fringe from fringe benefits tax for free public trans- benefits tax exemption for free travel by po- port provided to police officers between their lice on public transport specifically recog- home and their place of employment. That is nises that police officers travelling to and a measure we support, as we do the bill as a from work on public transport provide a whole. We are moving an amendment to the public safety benefit by acting as a deterrent bill to extend the FBT concession to any to criminal and antisocial behaviour. public transport benefit provided by an em- It also recognises that state governments ployer. The idea behind this is obviously to effectively subsidise this public safety bene- encourage the use of public transport and fit by forgoing fair revenue from police offi- permit employers to pay for transport for cers travelling to and from duty. This is very employees to and from work and not be different from providing a fringe benefit tax taxed on providing that benefit. exemption to every employee travelling to It is a measure that would cost some and from work on public transport. Frankly, money, although when you look at the sav- one wonders whether this would give value ings as well that are often not factored in, for money. If there were a five to 10 per cent such as reductions in cars on the road, road increase in the use of public transport, I am expenditure, savings in the health budget, advised that the amendment would cost the Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25509 revenue between $900 million and $1.2 bil- Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (12.33 lion per annum. This is money which would a.m.)—I indicate that we are withdrawing the have to be diverted from other programs. other amendment. Accordingly, the government will not be accepting the Democrats amendment. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (12.30 Bill reported with amendment; report a.m.)—The Labor opposition will not be adopted. supporting the amendment for the reasons Third Reading that Senator Kemp outlined, and there are a couple of additional points that I will be Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a making. This is a major change to the tax third time. system and FBT. The minister—and I am TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL indebted to him—has indicated the figure. (No. 5) 1999 We thought it would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Thank you, Minister, for In Committee the information that it would be $900 million to $1.2 billion. Consideration resumed. There are two other points. The Australian The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Democrats—and I do criticise Senator (Senator Bartlett)—The committee is con- Bartlett—gave us a couple of hours notice of sidering the amendment moved by Senator this matter. It certainly did not enable us to Brown on sheet 2166. consider this as deeply as we wanted. For Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.34 example, we were not able to find an accu- a.m.)—I seek leave to withdraw that amend- rate figure, although we had a reasonable ment, because it was taken up by Labor and idea. There is one other important issue, and passed in the last bill. The job is done. here I do not make a criticism of Senator Bartlett or of Senator Stott Despoja but of the Amendment—by leave—withdrawn. other Australian Democrats. Senator Bartlett Bill, as amended, agreed to. has claimed that this would be an important measure to encourage the use of public Bill reported with amendment; report transport. It would do that at significant cost adopted. to revenue. If that is the Democrats stated principle, why did they support a GST on Third Reading public transport? Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a One of the principal culprits over there is third time. Senator Murray. The Democrats put a GST DAIRY PRODUCE LEGISLATION on public transport which has raised $300 AMENDMENT (SUPPLEMENTARY million or $400 million. They should have ASSISTANCE) BILL 2001 thought about this as a party when they considered the GST deal that Senator Murray Consideration of House of Representatives and Senator Lees signed up the Democrats Message to. Senator Bartlett’s claim that they want to Consideration resumed from 27 June. encourage public transport does ring rather hollow with the Labor opposition. As I say, it House of Representatives amendments— is not a criticism of you, Senator Bartlett, but (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 6), omit “2 a criticism of your other colleagues, except types of SDA payment rights:”, substitute “3 Senator Stott Despoja, who is now your types of SDA payment rights: basic market leader. The other issues that have been out- milk payment rights,”. lined are further reasons why we cannot support the amendment. (2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (before line 21), before paragraph (a), insert: Amendment not agreed to. (aa) basic market milk payment rights; 25510 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 20), omit Basic eligibility criteria “2 types”, substitute “3 types”. (1) It is a policy objective that an entity is (4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (before line 22), not eligible to be granted a basic mar- before paragraph (a), insert: ket milk payment right unless: (aa) a type called basic market milk (a) the entity has been granted a pay- payment rights; ment right under the DSAP scheme in respect of a dairy farm enterprise (5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (after line 23), (the qualifying enterprise); and at the end of clause 37D, add: (b) the entity held an interest (of a kind (2) It is a policy objective that, if an entity referred to in the SDA scheme) in is eligible to be granted a basic market that enterprise, or in any other dairy milk payment right and an additional farm enterprise, at a time referred to market milk payment right, the entity is in the SDA scheme; and eligible to be granted the payment right (c) the number (the market milk number) with the higher face value and is not worked out in accordance with the eligible to be granted the other payment following formula is at least 25.1 right. (rounding to 1 decimal place and rounding up if the second decimal (6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (before line 24), place is 5 or more): before clause 37E, insert: 37DA Basic market milk payment rights—eligibility etc.

Total number of litres of market milk delivered by the qualifying enterprise in the 1998 -1999 financial year × 100 Total number of Total number of litres of market milk + litres of manufacturing milk delivered by that delivered by that enterprise in that year enterprise in that year

Note: See also subclause (4) for how those delivery numbers are worked out.

Calculation of face value (4) A reference in this clause to the total (2) It is a policy objective that the face number of litres of market milk, or the value of an entity’s basic market milk total number of litres of manufacturing payment right is to be a share (worked milk, delivered by the qualifying enter- out in accordance with the SDA prise in the 1998-1999 financial year is scheme) of the overall market milk a reference to that number as deter- amount for the qualifying enterprise. mined by the DAA to have taken to have been delivered by that enterprise Interpretation in that year. (3) For the purposes of this clause, the (5) This clause is subject to clause 37V overall market milk amount for the (about the effect of death on eligibility qualifying enterprise is: etc. for the grant of payment rights). (a) if the market milk number is at least (7) Schedule 1, item 10, (page 8), line 15, omit 25.1 and less than 30.1—$10,000; the heading, substitute: or 37F Market milk payment rights—offset- (b) if the market milk number is at least ting 30.1—$15,000. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25511

(8) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 16), after milk would be able to access this scheme and “entity’s”, insert “basic market milk pay- would be guaranteed at least $15,000. Just as ment right or”. there is a cap of $60,000 on this supplemen- (9) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 29), after tary assistance package, we put in a floor of “entity’s”, insert “basic market milk pay- $15,000. ment right or”. When it got to the House of Representa- Motion (by Senator Troeth) proposed: tives after that amendment had been opposed That the committee does not press its request by the government in this chamber, what for an amendment that the House of Representa- happened? The government put up what it tives has not made and agrees to the amendments calls its compromise position. Its so-called made by the House in place of the requested compromise position was to say that $15,000 amendment. was what the opposition moved and the Sen- Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) ate agreed with as a minimum, so this gov- (12.37 a.m.)—If ever there was an acknowl- ernment reduced it to $10,000. There was no edgment by the government that its original real reason given as to why there should be a package or scheme for the dairy industry was reduction from $15,000 to $10,000. In fact, a failure, then this amendment that has been the minister’s speech identified the cost that carried by the government in the House of the department had worked out for the addi- Representatives is that acknowledgment. If tional assistance as some $19 million. It is ever there was an admission by this govern- clear that what the government has done here ment that its supplementary assistance pack- is not saving all that much on the total cost age that we are now debating was flawed and of what was involved in our amendment. needed improvement, then it was made and The minister, in my view, misled the demonstrated by the amendment that was House of Representatives. He repeated the moved by the government in the House of assertion that was made by Senator Mac- Representatives and carried yesterday. donald in this chamber that the opposition’s What the government has done here is an- amendment was going to cost $60 million. other mean and tricky exercise, and that is We clarified that in this chamber during the appropriate for this government. As I have debate. That was an honest misunderstanding said all along, the thing that underpins this in respect of the government’s interpretation scheme is an 11c a litre tax on retail sales of of the intention of our amendment. We ad- milk. When it comes to tax matters—as in- dressed that issue during the debate. The deed all other matters, but particularly tax amendment was revised to make it very clear matters—this government is mean and that people could access the scheme and get tricky. They are not my words; they are the the minimum of $15,000 or a higher entitle- words of Shane Stone, federal president of ment under the formula, but not both. the Liberal Party. Having had that clarified and acknowl- Senators will recall that a couple of days edged by Senator Macdonald on the record, ago this Senate carried an amendment, the minister, Mr Truss, gets up in the House moved by the opposition and supported by of Representatives and continues this falla- the Democrats and other minor party sena- cious argument that the opposition’s amend- tors, to improve the supplementary assis- ment would cost $60 million. Then he says tance scheme for dairy farmers to ensure that that we have to amend this amendment, and more dairy farmers in serious financial diffi- he does it by reducing the minimum from culties would be able to access the package. $15,000 to $10,000 and comes up with this We lowered the threshold of 35 per cent of figure of $19 million. I would not have income earned from market milk—that is the thought that the difference between $10,000 qualifying factor for access to this scheme— and $15,000 for that group of farmers who to 25 per cent. Further, we put into this might be eligible to be paid the minimum scheme a floor of $15,000 as a guaranteed because their formula does not give them minimum, so that any farmer who earned 25 that amount would cost a total of $41 mil- per cent of their income or more from market lion. But, according to this minister, it did. 25512 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

The minister knew he was misleading the cent out of this government. That is just dis- chamber, because it is on the record that we graceful. I have to say that the opposition are clarified that. But that is not the only thing going to reluctantly support this amendment that this minister misled the House of Repre- because we are not going to stand by and sentatives about. He asserted, once again, watch dairy farmers hung out to dry again by that this package was coming out of the this government and allow them to become goodness of the heart of the government and the innocent victims of the games being that it had been developed by the govern- played by the minister for agriculture and of ment, that it had been funded by the govern- his mismanagement of this scheme. ment, that this was terrific and that the oppo- I want to clarify a couple of other issues. sition were really about trying to undermine During question time yesterday, the minister the scheme. But by accepting our amend- sought to attack me. He had a bit of a shot at ment, even though the government has quali- me by saying that I had made an incorrect fied it, the government has acknowledged statement when I referred to a meatworks that our amendment was necessary to ensure that had received Dairy RAP funding as be- that farmers who desperately needed this ing in his electorate when it was actually in assistance would actually get an entitlement the electorate of Mr Somlyay. Honourable to it, and that will now happen. senators will recall that I corrected that on The unfortunate thing, however, is that the record as soon as I became aware of it. I this government, in its trickiness, has played felt that that was the necessary thing to do. with the figures and has said, ‘Oh well, if the What is the government and the minister on opposition, the Democrats and the other par- about when the subject of a question in ties in the Senate say that you should get a question time is to try to run some line on the minimum of $15,000, this government says basis that I might have made that slight er- that you are going to get a minimum of ror? $10,000.’ Frankly, you have to start asking What I can say, which is true and which I what really drives the policy decisions of this will put on the record, is that this minister government when it makes that sort of a has had huge amounts of money paid to en- change to what was a very appropriate terprises and other ventures in his electorate amendment moved by this Senate. under a number of schemes, including Dairy I particularly want to point out that this RAP and Regional Solutions. Under round 1 minister once again has put this parliament in of Dairy RAP, according to the figures that I a position where it is now a quarter to one on have been supplied with by the department— Friday morning and if this legislation is not and it was not easy to get these details origi- passed then the money will not be able to be nally, as Senator Woodley will recall, at es- paid to the dairy farmers. It is an affront to timates—65 per cent of the money in Queen- this parliament for such an important item sland paid under Dairy RAP went to the for such an important industry that this par- minister’s own electorate. I understand that liament is put in this position. What did the he has an electorate that has a high dairy minister say in his concluding remarks yes- community. We have supported Dairy RAP, terday in the debate in the House of Repre- contrary to what the minister tried to assert— sentatives? He said: in fact, Dairy RAP came about because of Frankly, if it is not passed by the Senate in this our urgings—but it has become the plaything form tomorrow, the money simply will not be of this minister, as we saw with money being paid to dairy farmers. given to polocrosse centres and wine appre- Once again, the minister is threatening the ciation courses. Yet, as my colleague the parliament and threatening the Senate by member for McMillan, Mr Zahra, pointed saying that, unless we agree to the meanness out in the House yesterday, when his elector- and the trickiness of this government and ate put forward an excellent proposal for agree to reduce the amount that we guaran- funding under Dairy RAP, what did they get? teed in our amendment from $15,000 to They got nothing—not a cent—out of this $10,000, dairy farmers are not going to get a Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25513 government, but Mr Truss has made sure that curred between advisers to the government his electorate has done well. and advisers to the opposition and minor We know that almost a third of the funds parties is one thing, but there was never any in the Regional Solutions scheme—$4 mil- proposition put by this government during lion out of $12.6 million—has gone to Mr the debate—and you can check the Han- Truss’s electorate. You start to wonder why sard—that it would be prepared to accept the this has happened. Well, obviously he is con- opposition’s amendment on the basis that cerned about his political future. My col- there might have been some change to the league Senator Hogg referred to the motto in minimum guarantee. That was never put. In Monto. Monto is a dairy community in Mr fact, the minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, Truss’s electorate. I recall when I visited stood up at the end of the debate and said there, and Senator Hogg referred to this, that that the government did not accept the I saw the motto of the shire council in Monto amendment in any event. So, once again, Mr is: ‘In abundance prepare for scarcity.’ It is a Truss has misled the House of Representa- good motto for that area because, in the past tives as to what actually happened in the in Monto, they have had abundance but, un- Senate. fortunately because of this minister’s neglect I will leave my remarks there. We will of his electorate, they are now suffering scar- support this amendment and the legislation, city. We certainly support the Dairy RAP but we do so because we have the interests of scheme, which of course is also a part of this the dairy farmers at heart. We are not going legislation, but we will continue to point out to see them become the innocent victims of areas where we believe there has been pork- the meanness and the trickiness of this gov- barrelling or milk-barrelling, or whatever ernment. The dairy farmers will know what people want to call it, which is simply to try has happened in respect of this legislation, to prop up the political future of Mr Truss and they will get the opportunity to pass and other members of the government. judgment on this government in a few I do not want to hold up the Senate any months time. longer, but I believe it is important to put on Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) the record our absolute disgust at the gov- (12.51 a.m.)—I rise to speak in this debate, ernment’s approach to this issue. It has de- and perhaps I should begin by saying that the layed bringing this legislation in, it dropped Democrats will support this government it in the Senate only in the last couple of amendment, but I would echo some of the weeks and the committee was forced, once words of Senator Forshaw: I really do not again, to hold in a hurry public hearings to understand why we have played around with allow people in the industry to make their the figures before us. Really, the government representations. We have cooperated at every accepted the rationale for the amendment step of the way to get this legislation through moved here. I think senators will remember the parliament, and we passed an amendment that, in fact, there were three amendments: that the government itself recognised needed one from the Labor Party, one from the to be passed. But what did it do? It got back Democrats and one from Senator Harris for to the House, tinkered with the figures and One Nation. There was a compromise. We reduced the minimum payment from $15,000 worked together to get a compromise to $10,000. amendment up. It is a shame that the gov- Senator Troeth—You could have passed ernment did not enter into that debate at that this on Tuesday. point and actually put its compromise. We could probably have expedited the whole Senator FORSHAW—The parliamentary debate if that had been so. secretary at the table says that we could have passed this. I recall from reading the Han- I point out that, in the minister’s second sard that Mr Truss said that the government’s reading speech, the government indicated proposal was put to the opposition and to the that this new payment would provide bene- Senate during proceedings in the Senate. It fits to about 892 additional farm enterprises. was not. What discussions may have oc- The parliamentary secretary might comment 25514 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 on whether that is 892 on top of the 300 to the South Australian dairy farmers who gave 400 we were told about the last time we had evidence to our Senate committee, as well as this supplementary assistance bill before us, with some farmers in Queensland. They are or whether that includes the original 300 to so desperate they said, ‘We will accept the 400. In any case, whichever way you look at drop that this government compromise the figures, this is at least a doubling of the amendment represents, because we desper- number who will be assisted, and I am ately need the money.’ In a sense, they were pleased about that. I am pleased that the gov- held over the blowtorch and were prepared to ernment has taken on board what the Senate accept it as long as the money began to flow. told it. Certainly, I am not about to be blamed for The government amendment does not depriving desperate struggling farmers from quite mirror the amendment that was passed receiving some more assistance. With those here but it mirrors it fairly closely, apart from few words, I indicate again that the Demo- the money. So the Democrats accept that the crats will support this compromise amend- government has at least come some of the ment moved by the government in the House way towards acknowledging that we were of Representatives and now here in the Sen- right. The only regret I have, of course, is ate. that the other amendments that Senator Har- Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (12.57 ris and I moved, which would have helped a.m.)—Pauline Hanson’s One Nation will other farmers who are in desperate need, support the government’s bill, but the were not accepted by the Senate. I believe amendments that the government have they were also totally valid. They were based agreed to do not address the lessors’ situa- on the evidence we heard at the Senate tion. The government have indicated that committee hearings and, in fact, were ac- their proposal is costed at approximately $19 knowledged in the Senate committee’s re- million and that it will take two months of port. But the Senate did not accept those levy to cover it. If we use that equation and other amendments. That is a terrible shame, the government’s assessment of up to $60 because I expect there is going to be some million for Labor’s original proposal, all that fairly disappointed people out there. Never- was required was to extend the period for six theless, we have come part of the way to months. No Australian would object to pay- solving the problem. ing 11c a litre extra for their milk to assist The minister really needs to be careful those dairy farmers by way of what was La- about what he says—and not only what he bor’s original amendment. There does not says about Senator Forshaw. He was reported appear to be any elaboration on any of the in the media as having said that if we do not difficulties that may continue to arise with accept his amendment, there will be a blow- sharefarmers, lessors and lessees. Is 21 May out in the budget. That is just not accurate. 2001 set down as a criterion? In other words, The budget is not involved in this issue at all. does a person have to be operating their The revenue is raised through the 11c a litre dairy on that date to be eligible for this sup- levy on retail sales of milk. We could argue plementary assistance package? about who actually pays it. Farmers have had If that is the case, how does the govern- a drop in their income of more than 11c a ment propose to assist those lessors, where litre, particularly on market milk, so in a the lessee has walked off the property— sense they are paying. This bill, as did the taken the package and the stock—and they previous bill, simply refunds the money that do not have a dairy to be eligible for this has been taken from farmers. There was no additional supplement? I would really threat of a blow-out in the budget because of appreciate a response from the minister on what the Senate did. The minister really that. The figures that I have to hand indicate needs to be careful about what he says in the that there will be approximately 892 farmers House of Representatives and in the media. who will gain a benefit from this additional As I have said, the Democrats will support package. As Senator Woodley has clearly the amendment. I checked with the QDO and indicated, the figures we have show that more than 1,000 farmers missed out in the Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25515

1,000 farmers missed out in the first assess- Tuesday, but the delay in the legislation has ment, so there are still a substantial number been caused by what happened during the of farmers who will not be assisted. Al- debate in the Senate earlier this week. though the government’s proposed additional The government has indicated that it is funding is appreciated by those in the indus- prepared to consider a compromise amend- try, it does not solve the problem; it is merely ment which reflects the intent of the opposi- a stopgap measure. Sadly, the price that is tion amendment. It also increases the cover- being paid to producers is still going down. age of the additional market milk payments Senator Forshaw raised an interesting but it does so in a much more targeted way situation in Minister Truss’s own electorate, and retains a sharp and measured focus on which had previously supplied a substantial providing assistance to the most vulnerable amount of dairy products into Brisbane. We dairy farmers. The government’s amendment now have the ridiculous situation where, be- would lower the eligibility threshold by 10 cause of the shortages in the south-east cor- percentage points from 35.1 to 25.1 per cent ner, they are now trucking milk on a weekly market milk dependency and would provide basis from Mareeba to Brisbane. That is a stepped minimum payment of $10,000 or more than 1,800 kilometres. The government $15,000, depending on the level of market did not anticipate that some of the largest milk deliveries. producers would take the package and opt In effect, the government’s new basic out, and that is what has caused the shortages market milk payment right sets a floor in the of dairy products in these areas. For the in- market milk payment for those enterprises dustry to survive, and to enable the farmers which have a market milk dependency of to have some negotiating leverage back into more than 25 per cent. Enterprises with a their industry, there is only one way to re- market milk dependency of more than 25 per solve this issue: to re-regulate the industry. cent and less than 30.1 per cent would be Senator TROETH (Victoria—Parlia- eligible for a minimum enterprise entitlement mentary Secretary to the Minister for Agri- of $10,000, and from 30.1 per cent upwards culture, Fisheries and Forestry) (1.03 a.m.)— the entitlement would increase to $15,000. I thank honourable senators for their com- Once market milk dependency reaches more ments. Earlier this week, the Senate re- than 35 per cent, the enterprise would then quested the House to consider an amendment be entitled to the additional market milk to the Dairy Produce Legislation Amend- payment currently provided for in the bill. ment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001 As senators are aware, the bill already to provide for a flat minimum payment of provides for additional payments to be made $15,000 to farmers whose market milk deliv- based on a sliding scale from 0.12c a litre, eries are more than 25 per cent under the for market milk deliveries of 35.1 per cent or DSAP scheme. The proponents in the Senate, more, up to 12c a litre at 45 per cent and the ALP, estimated the cost of the minimum above. It is important to note that an entity payment under this amendment to be within will be eligible for the larger of the basic the range of $10 million to $15 million. Due payment or the additional market milk pay- to what the government understands was an ment. This means that, if an enterprise meets unintended drafting error, the cost of the im- the eligibility criteria for both the minimum plementation of that change was likely to be basic market milk entitlement of $15,000 and closer to $60 million. The change was there- an additional market milk entitlement of fore rejected by the government. I under- $20,000, the enterprise would be entitled to stand from the advisers that we were told not the larger of the two sums, which is in fact to put our present compromise amendment $20,000. This entitlement would be shared because you, Senator Forshaw, would not amongst the entities in accordance with their accept it. If you were too proud at that stage sharing of the entitlements under the original to change your amendment, that is why we package, provided they were still involved in are here at 1.05 a.m. debating this particular a dairy farm enterprise on 21 May 2001. amendment. We could have passed this on 25516 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Senator Harris, for your benefit I would and basic market milk entitlements will be just like to say that the point you raised about made shortly after passage of this bill, and the lessors will still be up to the Dairy Ad- payments can be made promptly on comple- justment Authority to decide and would de- tion of acceptance processes. As this is the pend on such questions as whether they were last day of the current winter sittings, the actively seeking a lessee, et cetera. But the government wishes to stress the importance date of 21 May 2001, which you asked of the passage of the legislation before par- about, still applies. liament rises. Farmers are in genuine need, As with the additional market milk pay- and it is imperative that they receive this ad- ment, farmers will have the choice of taking ditional assistance as soon as possible rather the basic market milk payment as a lump than face a delay of two months or more, sum or as a quarterly payment over eight should the government’s compromise pro- years. This new payment is expected to proposal not be accepted today. vide benefit to about 892 additional farm Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) enterprises, with some 569 being in South (1.10 a.m.)—I will not delay the debate very Australia, 129 in New South Wales, 134 in long. I just have to rise to speak again. Queensland and 60 in Western Australia. The Senator Troeth, the parliamentary secretary, proposal is estimated to cost an extra $19 has just repeated the false and misleading million and will require an extension of the statement that the Labor Party rejected the 11c levy for about two months. government’s compromise proposal in the Senator Woodley, with regard to your Senate. Referring to his compromise question about the additional numbers, we amendment, which has now been passed in are not aware of the 300-plus figure that you the House of Representatives, Minister Truss mentioned. The minister actually referred in said yesterday: his remarks to the increase in the number of This alternative was offered in the Senate but enterprises picked up by the additional—ei- rejected by the Labor Party at the time. The issue ther $10,000 or $15,000—minimum pay- could have been resolved in the Senate last night ments over the original Commonwealth pro- but that was not what happened. posal. That is not true. What happened is this: the I believe that the government has moved Labor Party’s amendment was moved and promptly to address the concerns of vulner- carried very early in the debate. I am sure able dairy farmers and their communities in Senator Harris and Senator Woodley will light of the request it has received from the recall that it was one of the first amendments industry and as revealed by the ABARE re- carried. Subsequently, approaches were port. If there is any disgrace in these whole made by the government advisers to the op- proceedings, it is the fact that Labor state position advisers with respect to the wording governments, by and large, have failed to of the amendment. I would have thought that help farmers; it is the federal government what goes on in negotiations between the which has stepped in to help. Indeed, the government advisers and the advisers of the alternative dairy plan which was being can- opposition or any other party stays there. At vassed by Queensland Labor earlier this year no stage in the course of the debate did Min- wanted to remove part of the Dairy Regional ister Macdonald ever indicate that the gov- Assistance Program, and indeed dairy farm- ernment had an alternative proposition. Bear ers would be a great deal worse off under in mind that the amendment had already any of the ALP policies than under this pro- been carried, and it was some time later that posal by the government. approaches were made through the advisers. I understand no approaches were ever made Payments under the Supplementary Dairy to Senator Woodley or to Senator Harris Assistance Scheme, including the basic mar- about any compromise amendment. People ket milk payment, will be largely based on from the government’s side were still trying DSAP entitlements and information already to do calculations as to the cost. I am saying available to the Dairy Adjustment Authority. again—and I want it recorded—that the par- Notification of the additional market milk Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25517 liamentary secretary has misled the Senate (7) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 4), insert: with her statements, just as the minister Part 1—Lower child support percentages misled the House of Representatives yester- (8) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 15), at the day as to what occurred. I invite the parlia- end of the Schedule, add: mentary secretary to read the Hansard to see Part 2—Amendments relating to family what took place. tax benefit Question resolved in the affirmative. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Resolution reported; report adopted. Act 1999 Third Reading 18 Subsection 3(1) (subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition Bill (on motion by Senator Troeth) read a of FTB child) third time. Omit “and 25(1)(b)”, substitute “and CHILD SUPPORT LEGISLATION 25(1)(b), (1A)(b) and (1B)(b)”. AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2000 19 Paragraph 22(7)(c) Consideration of House of Representatives After “subsection 25(1)”, insert “, (1A) Message or (1B)”. Consideration resumed from 5 April. 20 After subsection 25(1) House of Representatives amendments— Insert: (1) Clause 2, page 1 (after line 18), after sub- (1A) If: clause (1), insert: (a) the Secretary is satisfied that there (1A) Part 1 of Schedule 1 and items 22, 23, has been, or will be, a pattern of 24, 25 and 26 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 care for an individual (the child) commence on whichever of the fol- over a period such that, for the lowing days applies: whole, or for parts (including differ- (a) if this Act receives the Royal Assent ent parts), of the period, the child on or before 1 July 2002—on 1 July was, or will be, an FTB child of 2002; more than one other individual in accordance with subsection 22(2), (b) otherwise—on a day or days to be (3), (4), (5) or (6); and fixed by Proclamation. (b) one of those other individuals (1B) Items 18, 19, 20 and 21 of Part 2 of makes, or has made, a claim under Schedule 1 commence on whichever of Part 3 of the A New Tax System the following days applies: (Family Assistance) (Administra- (a) if this Act receives the Royal Assent tion) Act 1999 for payment of fam- on or before 1 December 2001—on ily tax benefit in respect of the child 1 December 2001; for some or all of the days in that (b) otherwise—on a day or days to be period; and fixed by Proclamation. (c) the Secretary is satisfied that the (2) Clause 2, page 1 (line 19), omit “Sched- child was, or will be, in the care of ules 1 and 4 commence”, substitute “Sched- that last-mentioned individual for ule 2 commences”. not less than 10%, but less than 30%, of that period; and (3) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 and 2), omit “1 July 2001—on 1 July 2001”, substitute (d) that last-mentioned individual, by “1 January 2002—on 1 January 2002”. written declaration given to the Sec- retary, waives the individual’s eligi- (4) Clause 2, page 2 (line 4), omit “Schedules 2 bility for family tax benefit in re- and 3 commence”, substitute “Schedule 4 spect of the child for some or all of commences”. the days in that period; (5) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 6 and 7), omit the child is to be taken, despite that “1 January 2001—on 1 January 2001”, sub- subsection, not to be an FTB child of stitute “1 July 2001—on 1 July 2001”. the last-mentioned individual on any (6) Clause 2, page 3 (line 8), after “paragraph”, day covered by the declaration. insert “(1A)(b), (1B)(b),”. (1B) If: 25518 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(a) the Secretary is satisfied that there Omit “and sections 225 and 226 (which has been, or will be, a pattern of deal with tax debts)”, substitute “, sec- care for an individual (the child) tions 225 and 226 (which deal with tax over a period such that, for the debts) and section 227 (which deals whole, or for parts (including differ- with child support debts)”. ent parts), of the period, the child 23 At the end of subsection 66(2) was, or will be, an FTB child of more than one other individual in Add: accordance with subsection 22(2), ; and (f) section 227 (about deductions from (3), (4), (5) or (6); and family tax benefit to repay certain (b) the Secretary is satisfied that, if one child support debts). of those other individuals was to 24 After section 226 make a claim under Part 3 of the A Insert: New Tax System (Family Assistance) 227 Payment of deductions to Child Sup- (Administration) Act 1999 for payment of family tax benefit in respect port Registrar of the child for some or all of the (1) The Secretary must, in accordance with days in that period, the Secretary a notice given to the Secretary under would be satisfied that the child subsection 72AB(3) of the Child Sup- would have been, or would be, in port (Registration and Collection) Act the care of that individual for not 1988 in relation to a person: less than 10%, but less than 30%, of (a) make deductions from instalment that period; and amounts of family tax benefit that (c) that last-mentioned individual, by the person is entitled to be paid un- written declaration given to the Sec- der section 23; or retary, waives the individual’s eligi- (b) make a deduction from an amount bility for family tax benefit in re- of family tax benefit that the person spect of the child for some or all of is entitled to be paid under sec- the days in that period; tion 24; the child is to be taken, despite that and pay amounts so deducted to the subsection, not to be an FTB child of Child Support Registrar. the last-mentioned individual on any (2) However, the Secretary must not de- day covered by the declaration. duct an amount under subsection (1) in (1C) If an individual has given the Secretary contravention of section 228. a written declaration under subsec- (3) If the Secretary deducts an amount tion (1A) or (1B), the individual may, under subsection (1), then: by further notice in writing given to the Secretary, revoke the declaration with (a) on the day the amount is deducted, effect from a specified day, not being a the total amount of the child support day earlier than the date of the revoca- debts of the person (being debts re- tion. ferred to in subsection 72AB(2) of the Child Support (Registration and (1D) A written declaration referred to in Collection) Act 1988) is taken to be subsection (1A) or (1B), or a revoca- reduced by an amount equal to the tion of such a declaration, must be amount deducted; and made in a form and manner required by the Secretary. (b) on the day the amount is deducted, the person is taken to have been paid Note:The heading to section 25 is altered by an amount of family tax benefit omitting “10%” and substituting “30%”. equal to the amount deducted. 21 Subsections 25(2) and (3) (4) A deduction under subsection (1) may After “subsection (1)”, insert “, (1A) or result in the family tax benefit that the (1B)”. person is entitled to be paid being re- A New Tax System (Family Assistance) duced to nil. (Administration) Act 1999 228 Maximum deduction 22 Subsections 23(6) and 24(4) (1) This section applies if a notice is given under subsection 72AB(3) of the Child Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25519

Support (Registration and Collection) (a) the amount of the income support Act 1988 to a person that specifies: payment or the income support sup- (a) an amount to be deducted from plement that would have been pay- family tax benefit that the person is able to the person if the person had entitled to be paid on a day or days not been entitled to be paid family specified in the notice; or tax benefit on that day; and (b) a method of working out such an (b) the amount of the income support amount. payment or the income support supplement payable to the person on (2) The amount deducted on a particular that day. day must not exceed the total amount of the child support debts of the person (6) In this section: on that day, being debts referred to in designated child support child of a subsection 72AB(2) of the Child Sup- person has the same meaning as in port (Registration and Collection) Act section 72AB of the Child Support 1988. (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. (3) If, on a day specified in the notice, the income support payment has the same person has at least one FTB child for meaning as in the Social Security Act whom the person is eligible for family 1991. tax benefit who is not a designated income support supplement has the child support child of the person, the same meaning as in Part IIIA of the amount deducted on that day must not Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. exceed the difference between: Child Support (Registration and Collec- (a) the amount of family tax benefit that tion) Act 1988 the person is entitled to be paid on that day; and 25 Subsection 4(1) (after paragraph (c) of the definition of (b) the amount of family tax benefit that appealable refusal decision) the person would be entitled to be paid on that day, assuming that each Insert: designated child support child of the (ca) a decision under subsection person was not an FTB child of the 72AB(3); person on that day. 26 After section 72AA (4) If, on a day specified in the notice: Insert: (a) each FTB child for whom the person 72AB Deductions from family tax benefit is eligible for family tax benefit is a designated child support child of the (1) This section applies to a person if: person; and (a) the person is entitled to be paid family tax benefit under a determi- (b) an income support payment or an nation under section 16 or 17 of the income support supplement is pay- Family Assistance Administration able to the person; Act; and the amount deducted on that day must not exceed the difference be- (b) the FTB child, or at least one of the FTB children, for whom the person tween: is eligible for family tax benefit is a (c) the amount of family tax benefit that designated child support child of the the person is entitled to be paid on person. that day; and (2) An FTB child of a person is a desig- (d) the forgone amount in respect of the nated child support child of the person person’s income support payment or if: income support supplement. (a) the person has a registrable mainte- (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the nance liability of a kind mentioned forgone amount, in respect of a per- in section 17 in respect of the child; son’s income support payment or in- and come support supplement, is the (b) an amount payable under the liabil- amount that represents the difference ity is a child support debt; and between: 25520 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(c) the day on which the debt became Senator FAULKNER (New South due and payable under section 66 Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- has passed, and the debt remains ate) (1.15 a.m.)—Can I just check what the unpaid in whole or in part. parliamentary secretary has moved? (3) If this section applies to a person, the Senator Troeth—I have just read it out. Registrar may give a written notice to the Secretary directing the Secretary: Senator FAULKNER—Right. So it was (a) to deduct from each instalment amendments Nos 1 to 4. Thank you. I have a amount of family tax benefit that the copy of the running sheet now. Now that I person is entitled to be paid under have been provided with the running sheet, section 23 of the Family Assistance let me try and encapsulate in one concise but Administration Act an amount thorough contribution the view of the oppo- specified, or worked out as speci- sition in relation to the Child Support Legis- fied, in the notice; or lation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. In this (b) to deduct from an amount of family instance, on behalf of Senator Evans, I would tax benefit that the person is entitled like to put on the record again Labor’s posi- to be paid under section 24 of the tion on this important issue. Family Assistance Administration Act an amount specified, or worked Labor of course believes in the need for a out as specified, in the notice. child support scheme. Labor introduced this (4) A notice under subsection (3) must: scheme in 1988 and it has been an important policy. There are few non-resident parents (a) specify the person’s name and the who today question their obligation to pro- name of each designated child support child of the person; and vide material support for their children. Un- fortunately, that was not always the case. The (b) set out sufficient particulars to en- child support scheme has reinforced to parable the Secretary to identify the person and each designated child ents that they have obligations to their chil- support child of the person; and dren. The scheme is also an important hedge against child poverty. Research by the Na- (c) be in accordance with section 228 of the Family Assistance Administra- tional Centre for Social and Economic Mod- tion Act, which sets out the maxi- elling concludes that the scheme lifts around mum amount that can be deducted; 60,000 children out of poverty each year. and However, there is clearly a case for reform of (d) specify the day or days on which the child support scheme, and Labor supports deductions are to be made. reform. (5) In this section: The scheme is now more than 12 years old Family Assistance Act means the A and, during that time, a great deal of change New Tax System (Family Assistance) has occurred that has impacted on the Act 1999. scheme’s efficiency. There are also consider- Family Assistance Administration Act able concerns from both resident and non- means the A New Tax System (Family resident parents that the scheme is not as fair Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999. as it could be. Nevertheless, it is difficult for family tax benefit has the same mean- political representatives because we are told ing as in the Family Assistance Act. by each side that the scheme is skewed FTB child means an FTB child in rela- against them. This may be the case in some tion to family tax benefit within the areas. Changes to taxation laws, to employ- meaning of the Family Assistance Act. ment patterns and to social security legisla- Motion (by Senator Troeth) proposed: tion, not to mention shifting community expectations, have all had an impact on peo- That the committee does not insist on amend- ple’s experience of the child support scheme. ments Nos 1 to 5 to which the House of Repre- However, we cannot respond properly to sentatives has disagreed and agrees to the amendments made by the House in place of these pressures on the scheme with ad hoc amendments Nos 1 to 4. changes that simply tilt the scales marginally one way or the other or, worse still, simply Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25521 take money from one side to address per- more to assist separated families and in par- ceived unfairness on the other. This kind of ticular second families. We are proposing a cheeseparing always leaves the same number request to amend the bill to alter the impact of problems. of the measure relating to shared care. Our The legislation contains a number of posi- request is to make further changes to family tive measures. In fact, we have, without tax benefits to ensure that the introduction of question, supported some seven out of the shared care to the child support scheme cre- original 10 measures proposed. Tonight, we ates no losers. will support an additional two measures. In trying to do shared care on the cheap, However, in the view of the opposition, this the government is playing God with other legislation has attempted to fudge the reform people’s money. The only rational way to task that confronts us. I will give an example proceed, if you want to make it fair, is to that relates to the proposal to limit the in- recognise that government has a role to play. come cap for payers on high incomes. La- The opposition’s view is that unless our re- bor’s opposition to this measure is about quest is passed we cannot support the shared fairness and concern for lower income earn- care measure to be discussed after that. This ers. request makes shared care workable. The There are a number of ways to tackle this opposition would like to restate its support issue. One way, which would deliver benefits for the principle of shared care. There is to those on lower incomes as well as high nothing wrong with it. However, the gov- income earners, is to lift the amount of disre- ernment’s attempt to enshrine this principle garded income that is not currently consid- in legislation in both the social security rules ered an amount of more than $10,000. This and now in the child support rules has cre- might be fairer because it takes into account ated a crude financial incentive to shared those at the bottom. But you cannot do this care rather than addressed the costs to par- without looking across at the financial im- ents who want to share care. pact on resident parents. That is the real Recent research conducted by Paul Hen- problem with some of the measures in this man and Kyle Mitchell has thrown more bill. There is a failure to look thoroughly at light on this issue. Their research shows that the overall effect of some of the changes. non-resident parents do incur costs as a result No-one would expect resident parents look- of having contact with their children. What is ing for a break on child support obligation important about the research is that they that they believe is unfair to focus only on show that the costs to both separated parents the big picture. They just want some relief. sharing care are higher than the costs of We understand that. But for every person that share for intact families. This means that will gain a dollar, there is one losing a dollar. reform of child support which seeks only to There are plenty of resident parents with shift the balance of resources between resi- these concerns that will not get one cent dent and non-resident families does not ad- from the government’s measures. It is time dress the real economic pressure both sides we took everyone’s views and circumstances may be under. In other words, if the com- into account. bined costs of caring for children in sepa- In the interests of trying to move this par- rated families are 120 per cent of the costs ticular committee stage debate along, I they incurred when they were together, it is would like now to move to the measures in no good just trying to divide the original this bill that will benefit second families. pool of resources differently. The research Labor has supported these measures from the conducted by Henman and Mitchell should beginning. We are hopeful that they will be force senators to look more closely at what passed and come into force soon. These the opposition has proposed: the change to measures have been well thought out and, social security payment tapers that would unlike other parts of this bill, do not simply have ensured that we do not have a situation take from one side to give to the other. There of robbing Peter to pay Paul. is a recognition that government has to do 25522 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Whichever way the debate goes tonight, ents do not live together. It is not surprising that Labor is prepared to sit down with the gov- research by Henman/Mitchell reports that payer ernment and other parties in the near future parents do incur additional costs as a result of to settle the outstanding issues. The opposi- having contact with their children. Indeed that tion is moving a number of requests for research seems to be the basis for the Government wanting to move the measures before us which amendments to this bill, and I urge the Sen- take from one parent and give to the other. But ate to support them. In the interests of time, I Henman/Mitchell, reports that the cost of caring have tried to canvass the issues that will for children by separated families is considerably come before the committee in this debate. I greater than a pro-rata proportion of the cost of hope it might assist the committee to make caring for children by an intact couple. Shifting this one substantive contribution and to pro- the cost from one parent to the other does not pose at a later stage in a more formal way— address this. if that would please the minister, and I am It is disappointing that, despite having indicated sure it would—the requests for amendments from the start, our support for 7 of the 10 ele- that stand in the name of Senator Evans on ments of the Bill, and which would have provided behalf of the opposition. financial advantage for payers, this Bill has been delayed by 7 months. It is particularly unfortunate Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (1.26 that the Government could not have seen the wis- a.m.)—I seek leave to incorporate a general dom of earlier separating out and passing those speech on this matter. elements, particularly as they do not negatively Leave granted. impact on the payee. However this did not happen and we are here today to again consider all 10 The speech read as follows— measures of the original Bill and indeed a further With the marked increase in marriage dissolution two amendments. and family separation in Australia over the past I will now address the two amendments proposed 25 years, the welfare of the children of that dis- by the Government and which deal with Family solution is paramount. Tax Benefit. With the wisdom of hindsight, the We recognise that for the most part children have shared care provisions of Family Tax Benefit are two parents. The latest terminology of resident certainly problematic. We are about to witness the and non-resident parents is not a true description raising of hundreds of thousands of FTB debts by of parenting. It is probably better than access, or Centrelink simply because the change in FTB contact, but it does not reflect the reality that both legislation with relation to shared care was not parents have responsibilities and rights with re- made clear to parents in that situation. Time and gard to the parenting of their children, and the time again constituents contact my office to say Democrats will not lose sight of the importance to they have been hit by a debt of FTB. Their puz- children of having both separated parents in- zlement is clear—their caring circumstances have volved in their upbringing. For this reason social not changed. They were not clearly told that the policy debate and actual policy developments goalposts of eligibility for FTB for shared care relating to issues of resident or non-resident par- had moved significantly. It was only in a Centre- enthood should not be limited to in terms of fi- link families publication received by parents in nancial obligations, but must encompass terms of January of this year, and after questions raised by active parenting relations. the Democrats that the reality that shared care For most children of separated parents, there is a would mean that Centrelink would be seeking second non-resident parent out there somewhere. repayment of FTB since July 2000. Their degree Some have little or no contact with their children, outrage at the debt is mirrored by the difficulty most have some contact and many provide sig- and hardship they will encounter in repaying it, nificant amounts of direct care for their children. over many years. I am interested to hear this Nor will we allow any notion of assignation of morning of at least one successful appeal to the guilt relating to the reasons behind the separation Social Security Appeals Tribunal where the no- of parents to impact on the rights of children to be tion of changed circumstances was thrown out, parented, supported and nurtured. We will not and the debt nullified. support moves to make them pawns in the diffi- New Amendments cult relationships between their parents. So the Australian Democrats welcome with cau- But in the end, the majority of the Child Support tion the opportunity for the payee parent to re- Bill is about the cost and payment of raising chil- ceive the full entitlement to FTB. We are con- dren in families where for whatever reason par- cerned at the leverage this could provide to some Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25523 payee parents who face difficulties in negotiating from the resident parents whose costs have not their parental role with the resident parent. The reduced proportionately. A non-resident parent notion of “guess what I can do to you” is inap- will continue to incur accommodation, educa- propriate empowerment over parties where in tional, ongoing health and non-consumable costs reality, animosity and bad behaviours may al- notwithstanding that the children spend time with ready exist between separated parents. However the other parent. We have said before, we will the capacity for one party to waive their entitle- enter into discussions with the Government on ment to Family Tax Benefit in favour of the other, how to address this—perhaps a contact allowance provided it is done so in a non-extortionlike man- is the answer—but we categorically oppose the ner, allows parties to agree that the percentage of inequity proposed by this amendment which will shared care does not equate to shared costs, as directly disadvantage those parents who have was found by the Henman report. Henman points between 70 and 90% care of their children, and out that for example, a child’s dental costs are whose costs have not proportionately reduced. almost exclusively met by the resident parent, Reduction of the cap from $101,153 to notwithstanding that the child may spend between $78,838—oppose. 10 and 30% of time with the non-resident parent. In supporting this amendment, I would like to There is no evidence that the present cap consti- think however that it will advantage those parents tutes a disincentive to payers to work. Another who elect to use it to maintain harmonious par- measure of the Bill, supported by the Democrats, enting. enables Payee families to keep more income from a second job or overtime. Modelling shows that The Australian Democrats also support the sec- resident parents may lose up to $90 per week for ond amendment, which enables a child support one child and the effect is most likely to be on the debt to be recovered from a person’s entitlement child’s well being. This measure is poorly tar- to Family Tax Benefit. Child Support assessment geted, and there is no social justice in denying is based on the premise that parents pay a share of children of higher income earners the opportunity their income to support their children. The legis- to share in the income of their parents. lation allows for ongoing factors which result in changes to that income, and therefore it can be Non-disclosure of supporting documents—op- generally stated that where a person has a child pose support debt, that they have failed to meet their We remain opposed to this measure. It is a denial obligation. of natural justice and contravenes basic legal Our support of this amendment does not mean we principles of access and full and open disclosure. are not concerned at its impact on payee parents. It will mask the transparency and accountability The measure before us is not punitive to the of the departure from assessment process. It is payee parent, rather it is based on the need of the unacceptable to create a situation whereby a party child to access the assessed level of support de- is required to challenge or argue a case when they termined. It is undesirable that a person who has are not given access to the documentation on failed to provide for the support of their child which the other party is relying. A person cannot should benefit from Family Tax Benefit legisla- respond to an application which cannot be proven tion while the child goes without. In an ideal on the basis of that application. It will impact world, the child would benefit from the full pay- adversely on a payee’s ability to obtain informed ment of child support, however this does not hap- advice, and will further disadvantage a payee’s pen and in this circumstance this amendment is ability to ensure that the payer has made accurate appropriate. representations as to their financial position. While we do not dispute the personal nature of INSIST ON 3 PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS documents, it remains that this is the case in a Reduction in child support liability for shared range of jurisdictions. I am aware that in these, care where the non-resident parent has contact parties can be compelled to sign a declaration that with the child for between 10 and 30% of the they will not disclose to third parties, any infor- time-oppose mation gained. We do not dispute that non-resident parents have Senator WOODLEY—I need to explain costs—indeed the 1988 report of the Child Sup- the amendments that I will be moving at the port Formula for Australia (a report from the appropriate time. They pretty well mirror the Child Support Consultative Group) at Chapter 11 amendments of the Labor Party, so I presume included in the development of the formula, the that means we can come together fairly access costs incurred by non-custodial parents. But this is not the way to meet the costs of the quickly. The Australian Democrats insist on non-resident parent—by taking directly away our earlier Senate amendments (1), (3), (4) 25524 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 and (5), which oppose three measures in the justice and contravenes basic legal principles original bill. At the same time, we support of access and full and open disclosure. It will the two new amendments proposed by the mark the departure from the transparency government. The first of the previous and accountability of the assessment process. amendments upon which we insist is reduc- It is unacceptable to create a situation tion in child support liability for shared care whereby a party is required to challenge or where the non-resident parent has contact argue a case when they are not given access with the child for between 10 and 30 per cent to the documentation on which the other of the time. In other words, we will be in- party is relying. A person cannot respond to sisting on our original opposition to that is- an application which cannot be proven on the sue. We do not dispute that non-resident par- basis of that application. It will impact ad- ents have costs. Indeed, the 1988 report of versely on a payee’s ability to obtain in- the child support formula for Australia, a formed advice and will further disadvantage report from the Child Support Consultative a payee’s ability to ensure that the payer has Group, at chapter 11 included the access made accurate representations as to their fi- costs incurred by non-custodial parents in the nancial position. While we do not dispute the development of the formula. But this is not personal nature of documents, it remains that the way to meet the costs of the non-resident this is the case in a range of jurisdictions. In parent—by taking directly away from the these, parties can be compelled to sign a resident parent whose costs have not reduced declaration that they will not disclose to third proportionately. A non-resident parent will parties any information gained. continue to incur accommodation, educa- We support two new government amend- tional, ongoing health and non-consumable ments. The first is to waive family tax bene- costs notwithstanding that the child spend fit in favour of the other parent. The Demo- time with the other parent. We have said be- crats welcome, with caution, the opportunity fore we will enter into discussions with the for the payee parent to receive the full enti- government and other senators on how to tlement to family tax benefit. We are con- address this. Perhaps a contact allowance is cerned at the leverage this could provide to the answer, but we categorically oppose the some payee parents who face difficulties in inequity proposed by this amendment, which negotiating their parental role with the resi- will directly disadvantage those parents who dent parent. The notion of ‘guess what I can have between 70 and 90 per cent care of their do for you’ is inappropriate empowerment children and whose costs have not propor- over parties where in reality animosity and tionately reduced. We continue to oppose the bad behaviour may already exist between reduction of the cap, from $101,153 to separated parents. However, the capacity for $78,838, for the reason that there is no evi- one party to waive their entitlement to family dence that the present cap constitutes a disin- tax benefit in favour of the other, provided it centive to payers to work. is done in a non-extortionlike manner, allows Another measure of the bill supported by parties to agree that the percentage of shared the Democrats enables payee families to care does not equate to shared costs, as was keep more income from a second job or found by the Henman report. I might add that overtime. Modelling shows that resident par- Paul Henman is a personal friend of mine. ents may lose up to $90 per week for one He points out that, for example, a child’s child, and the effect is most likely to be on dental costs are almost exclusively met by the child’s wellbeing. This measure is poorly the resident parent notwithstanding that the targeted, and there is no social justice in de- child may spend between 10 and 30 per cent nying children of high income earners the of their time with the non-resident parent. In opportunity to share in the income of their supporting this amendment I would like to parents. think that it would, however, advantage those The third issue is the non-disclosure of parents who elect to use it to maintain har- supporting documents. We continue to op- monious parenting. pose this measure. It is a denial of natural Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25525

Finally, we agree to the beneficial measure children for between 10 per cent and 30 per to recover child support debt from the cent of the year then that should be recog- payee’s family tax benefit. We support this nised. It is a difference of between 30 nights second amendment moved by the govern- per year and 100 nights per year. At present, ment. It enables a child support debt to be if the bill is not amended, there is no consid- recovered from the payee’s entitlement to eration for a parent who has the children in family tax benefit. Child support assessment his or her custody for 70 nights per year, and is based on the premise that parents pay a I believe there should be. I would like to see share of their income to support their chil- the child support process improved to the dren. The legislation allows for ongoing point where the payer, or non custodial, par- factors which result in changes to that in- ent had some form of input into how the come and therefore it can be generally stated payments were used. That could be by that where a person has a child support debt agreement, preferably, and I believe that it they have failed to meet their obligation. Our would remove from the process a lot of the support for this amendment does not, how- dissatisfaction if the payer parent had some ever, mean we are not concerned at its im- form of input. pact on payee parents. The measure before To emphasise the point, I will give as an us is not punitive to the payee parent. Rather, example the situation with one paying parent it is based on the need of the child to access that I know whose children’s ages range the assessed level of support determined. It is between 18 and 20 years. That parent would undesirable that a person who has failed to like to make those payments directly to the provide for the support of their child should children. However, the custodial, or the re- benefit from family tax benefit legislation ceiving, parent will not in any way consent while the child goes without. In an ideal to that and maintains that the payment for world the child would benefit from the full these adults—because at this stage they are payment of child support. However, this does not children—must go through the custodial not happen, and in this circumstance, this parent. If those issues were addressed within amendment is appropriate. the child support process, it would move a Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— long way towards removing some of the Minister for Family and Community Serv- problems with the act in its present form. I ices and Minister Assisting the Prime Min- commend the government for moving in the ister for the Status of Women) (1.33 a.m.)— right direction and indicate that Pauline Han- To clarify for the benefit of the record, we son’s One Nation will support the govern- will not be agreeing to the opposition’s ment in these requests. further request that they either have made or The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN are going to make. (Senator Watson)—The question is that the Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (1.33 committee does not insist on Senate amend- a.m.)—I rise to make some comments on the ment No. 1. Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill Question resolved in the negative. (No. 2) 2000. It is pleasing to see that this bill does take into account the impact and the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The difficulties felt by second families. This is question is that the committee does not insist the first of what I hope will be many steps to on Senate amendment No. 2. right a lot of the wrongs in relation to the Question resolved in the affirmative. child support process. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The It has been suggested that one section of question is that the committee does not insist the bill that recognises the costs of the custo- on Senate amendment No. 3. dial parent who has the children from 10 per Question resolved in the negative. cent up to 30 per cent of the time is merely The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The taking from the other parent. I strongly dis- question is that the committee does not insist agree with that. I believe that if the non cus- on Senate amendment No. 4. todial, or payer, parent has the custody of the 25526 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Question resolved in the negative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the committee agrees to question is that the committee does not insist House of Representatives amendment No. 8. on Senate amendment No. 5. Amendment (by Senator Faulkner) Question resolved in the negative. agreed to: The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The Omit: question is that the committee agrees to Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 15), at the end of House of Representatives amendment No. 1. the Schedule, add: Amendments (by Senator Faulkner)—by Part 2—Amendments relating to family leave—agreed to: tax benefit substitute: Subclause 2(1A), omit “Part 1 of Schedule 1 and items 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Part 2 of Page 15 (after line 15), after Schedule 1, insert: Schedule 1”, substitute “Items 22, 23, 24, 25 Schedule 1A—Amendments relating to and 26 of Schedule 1A”. family tax benefit Subclause 2(1B), omit “Items 18, 19, 20 and 21 The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The of Part 2 of Schedule 1”, substitute “Items question is that the committee agrees to 18, 19, 20 and 21 of Schedule 1A”. House of Representatives amendment No. 8, The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The as amended. question is that the committee agrees to Question resolved in the affirmative. House of Representatives amendment No. 1, as amended. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Senator Faulkner, you have a consequential Question resolved in the affirmative. amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The Amendment (by Senator Faulkner) question is that the committee agrees to agreed to: House of Representatives amendment No. 2. Clause 2, page 2 (lines 4 to 8), omit subclause (3). Question resolved in the negative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The Senator Faulkner, do you wish to move your question is that the committee agrees to request on sheet 2269? House of Representatives amendment No. 3. Senator FAULKNER (New South Question resolved in the negative. Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The ate) (1.42 a.m.)—Mr Temporary Chairman, I question is that the committee agrees to think I have indicated to the committee the House of Representatives amendment No. 4. position of the opposition in relation to this Question resolved in the negative. matter. I do not intend to move the request for amendment, given that the minister did The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The make the government’s view clear, which question is that the committee agrees to was useful from the point of view of facili- House of Representatives amendment No. 5. tating the committee debate. Obviously, in Question resolved in the negative. relation to the Senate amendments and The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The House amendments we have dealt with, the question is that the committee agrees to opposition’s view was governed by the gov- House of Representatives amendment No. 6. ernment’s attitude to the opposition’s further Question resolved in the affirmative. request for amendment. Given the form of the running sheet, it did assist the committee The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The that the minister made clear the govern- question is that the committee agrees to ment’s position in this regard. Clearly, there House of Representatives amendment No. 7. is no point pressing that issue and it will not Question resolved in the negative. be pressed. Resolution reported; report adopted. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25527

AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOOD [Section 40—Board] AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 2001 (13) Schedule 1, item 118, page 38 (lines 12 and 13), omit “scientific and public health or- Consideration of House of Representatives ganisations”, substitute “organisations, or Message public bodies, established for purposes re- Consideration resumed. lating to science or public health”. House of Representatives amendments— [Section 40—Board] (14) Schedule 1, item 118, page 38 (lines 14 and (1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 21), omit “Part 3”, 15), omit “food industry organisations or substitute “Parts 3 and 4”. public bodies”, substitute “organisations, or [Clause 2—matters included in standards] public bodies, established for purposes re- (2) Clause 2, page 2 (line 16), after “Sched- lating to the food industry”. ule 1”, insert “(other than item 120A)”. [Section 40—Board] [Clause 2—technical correction] (15) Schedule 1, item 119, page 38 (before line (3) Schedule 1, item 36, page 8 (line 8), omit 18), before subsection (1B), insert: “principles”, substitute “guidelines”. (1A) A member mentioned in para- [Section 10—policy guidelines] graph (1)(a), (c), (ca), (d), (e), (f) or (g) (4) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 12), omit is to be appointed by the Minister. “principles”, substitute “guidelines”. [Section 40—Board] [Section 10—policy guidelines] (16) Schedule 1, item 119, page 38 (line 22), (5) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (line 14), omit after “(1)(c)”, insert “or (ca)”. “principles”, substitute “guidelines”. [Section 40—Board] [Section 10—policy guidelines] (17) Schedule 1, item 120, page 38 (before line (6) Schedule 1, item 37, page 8 (after line 14), 25), before subsection (3), insert: after subsection (3), insert: (2B) The Minister may appoint a person as a (3A) Policy guidelines formulated by the member mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) Council for the purposes of para- or (c) only if the Minister is satisfied graph (2)(e) must not be inconsistent that the person is suitably qualified for with the objectives set out in subsec- appointment because of expertise in tion (1). one or more of the following fields: [Section 10—policy guidelines] (a) public health; (7) Schedule 1, item 37A, page 9 (lines 15 to (b) consumer affairs; 24), omit the item. (c) food science; [Section 10AA—policy guidelines] (8) Schedule 1, item 81, page 22 (line 7), before (d) food allergy; “amend”, insert “by written instrument,”. (e) human nutrition; [Section 23—decision of Council] (f) medical science; (9) Schedule 1, item 81, page 22 (line 13), after (g) microbiology; “must”, insert “inform the Authority that the Council has amended the draft, and”. (h) food safety; [Section 23—decision of Council] (i) biotechnology; (10) Schedule 1, item 118, page 38 (line 8), after (j) veterinary science; “Council”, insert “for the purposes of this (k) the food industry; paragraph”. (l) food processing or retailing; [Section 40—Board] (11) Schedule 1, item 118, page 38 (after line 8), (m) primary food production; after paragraph (c), insert: (n) small business; (ca) one member nominated by the New (o) international trade; Zealand lead Minister on the Coun- (p) government; cil for the purposes of this para- (q) food regulation. graph; and (2C) The Minister may appoint a person as a [Section 40—Board] member mentioned in para- (12) Schedule 1, item 118, page 38 (line 12), graph (1)(ca) only if the Minister is omit “4”, substitute “3”. satisfied that the person is suitably 25528 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

qualified for appointment because of (ii) if the person is suitably qualified expertise in one or more of the follow- for appointment because of ex- ing fields: pertise in more than one field (a) public health; mentioned in paragraph (a)—a subparagraph of paragraph (a) (b) consumer affairs; that is applicable to one of those (c) food science; fields; and (d) food allergy; (c) the person has been so nominated. (e) human nutrition; [Section 40—Board] (f) medical science; (21) Schedule 1, item 120A, page 39 (line 28), after “1991”, insert “as amended by this (g) microbiology; Schedule”. (h) food safety [Section 40—Board] (i) biotechnology; (22) Schedule 1, item 120A, page 39 (after line (j) veterinary science. 33), at the end of the item, add: [Section 40—Board] (3) Subitem (1) has effect in addition to (18) Schedule 1, item 120, page 38 (line 26), section 4 of the Acts Interpretation omit “paragraph (1)(a), (c) or (f)”, substitute Act 1901. “paragraph (1)(f)”. [Item 120A—Board] [Section 40—Board] (23) Schedule 1, item 126, page 40 (line 14), (19) Schedule 1, item 120, page 39 (lines 7 to 9), omit “a period of 4 years.”, substitute “the omit paragraph (b), substitute: period specified in the instrument of ap- (b) the Minister has sought nominations pointment. The period must not exceed 4 from such organisations and public years.”. bodies as are prescribed by the [Section 41—Board] regulations for the purposes of: (24) Schedule 1, item 128, page 41 (line 16), (i) if the person is suitably qualified after “2 years”, insert “ending”. for appointment because of ex- [Section 41—Board] pertise in only one field men- (25) Schedule 1, item 128, page 41 (after line tioned in paragraph (a)—the sub- 20), after subsection (8), insert: paragraph of paragraph (a) that is (8A) For the purposes of subsection (8): applicable to that field; or (a) a director (however described) of a (ii) if the person is suitably qualified body corporate is taken to be em- for appointment because of ex- ployed by the body corporate; and pertise in more than one field (b) the secretary (however described) of mentioned in paragraph (a)—a a body corporate is taken to be em- subparagraph of paragraph (a) ployed by the body corporate. that is applicable to one of those fields; and [Section 41—Board] (26) Schedule 1, item 146A, page 43 (line 22), (c) the person has been so nominated. after “any time”, insert “during the period of [Section 40—Board] 2 years ending”. (20) Schedule 1, item 120, page 39 (lines 22 to [Section 52A—Chief Executive Officer] 24), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (27) Schedule 1, item 146A, page 43 (after line (b) the Minister has sought nominations 25), after subsection (3), insert: from such organisations and public bodies as are prescribed by the (3A) For the purposes of subsection (3): regulations for the purposes of: (a) a director (however described) of a body corporate is taken to be em- (i) if the person is suitably qualified for appointment because of ex- ployed by the body corporate; and pertise in only one field men- (b) the secretary (however described) of tioned in paragraph (a)—the sub- a body corporate is taken to be em- paragraph of paragraph (a) that is ployed by the body corporate. applicable to that field; or [Section 52A—Chief Executive Officer] Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25529

(28) Schedule 1, item 171, page 49 (line 30), moved a number of amendments and sup- omit “principles”, substitute “guidelines”. ported a number of opposition amendments [Section 69—policy guidelines] to substantially strengthen the legislation. We (29) Schedule 1, page 60 (after line 24), at the acknowledge the support of the opposition end of the Schedule, add: for our changes to the board and the gov- Part 4—Amendments relating to matters ernment’s agreement to this representative that may be included in standards structure. In the committee stage, we indi- 186 After paragraph 9(1)(c) cated that we were happy for an additional Insert: representative from New Zealand, pending discussion with the relevant New Zealand (ca) the prohibition of the sale of food: authorities. The government’s amendment to (i) either in all circumstances or in our board structure to allow the additional specified circumstances; and member from the non-mandated positions is (ii) either unconditionally or subject acceptable to the Democrats. to specified conditions; Senators will recall that the Democrats 187 Paragraph 9(2)(a) were particularly unimpressed with the Omit “type”, substitute “class”. structure of the ministerial council. We were 188 After subsection 9(2) of the view that the intergovernmental Insert: agreement needed to be revisited to ensure (2A) To avoid doubt, subpara- that the health ministers were the lead min- graphs (1)(ca)(i) and (ii) do not, by im- isters from each jurisdiction. We did not and plication, limit any other paragraph of do not consider appropriate that the agricul- subsection (1). ture and trade ministers should have undue (2B) The matters to which standards, and influence on food standards which funda- variations of standards, may relate, are mentally go to ensuring health and public taken always to have included the safety. That is why we supported the opposi- matter mentioned in paragraph (1)(ca). tion’s amendment to make ministerial guide- (2C) To avoid doubt, paragraph (2)(a), as in lines a disallowable instrument. force before the commencement of this The Democrats are pleased that the Prime subsection, is taken always to have had Minister has taken note of opposition and effect as if the reference in that para- Democrat concerns and has indicated to the graph to type were a reference to class. health minister that he would write to the [Section 9—matters included in standards] heads of government in the near future to Motion (by Senator Tambling) proposed: convey the Commonwealth government’s That the committee agrees to the amendments wish to make health ministers the lead min- made by the House of Representatives to the bill. ister from each jurisdiction. We welcome the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.46 government’s movement on this. It needs to a.m.)—I just want to note that, again, this be noted that the change to the IGA is not legislation is weighted. The deliberations on certain. However, we are aware that the ma- food safety in this country and New Zealand jority of states support the refocusing of the are weighted towards the food industry, the ministerial council to reflect the core objec- corporate sector, and away from the con- tive of FSANZ, the body that supersedes sumer and the public interest. That is a great ANZFA. Accordingly, the Democrats will pity, but there it is. not press for the retention of the disallowable Senator GREIG (Western Australia) instrument. Given the significance of this (1.46 a.m.)—We have a very heavy schedule change for public confidence in Australia’s this morning, so I will keep my comments food standards, I think it is only reasonable brief. The Democrats will accept the that the Prime Minister’s intention be pub- amendments passed in the House of Repre- licly recorded. So I would ask two things of sentatives. Senators will be aware that the the parliamentary secretary: firstly, what pre- Democrats had a number of significant con- cisely has the Prime Minister stated in re- cerns with the original bill, which is why we spect of his intention to write to the other 25530 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 heads of government; and, secondly, what rangement as the new Food Standards Aus- precisely is the Prime Minister’s request to tralia New Zealand comes into being. The other heads of government? broad policies and principles were exten- Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) sively debated previously and I think that, (1.50 a.m.)—I indicate on behalf of the oppo- given those extensive debates and the issues sition that we will support the bill as agreed in the intergovernmental agreement amended by the House of Representatives. In about Australian jurisdictions and the pro- fact, I endorse the comments of Senator posed treaty with New Zealand, we will Greig which referred to the fact that the gov- reach a good accord. ernment has taken on board a number of the Senator Greig asked about the Prime amendments moved by the opposition and Minister’s intentions. I can confirm that a the Democrats and carried in the Senate. We commitment has been given by the Prime are pleased to see that the government has Minister, in correspondence with Dr accepted those proposals. While the govern- Wooldridge, that he will be writing to the ment has not agreed to all the amendments, heads of government in the near future to we believe that the amendments improve the convey to them the ALP’s preference that the bill substantially and that they strengthen the food regulation intergovernmental agreement transparency, independence and science and be amended to specify that health ministers public health focus on the Australia New will be the lead ministers in each jurisdic- Zealand Food Authority. tion. It is, of course, a matter for COAG in We also note that the government has that regard but, certainly, the Prime Minister given a commitment—and, again, Senator has given an undertaking, and I am pleased Greig has referred to this—that the Prime to make it known here. Minister will write to all the state and terri- Question resolved in the affirmative. tory heads of government proposing that the Resolution reported; report adopted. food regulation intergovernmental agreement be amended to specify that the lead minister ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND on the ministerial council will be the health BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION minister in all jurisdictions. On the basis of AMENDMENT (WILDLIFE that commitment, and similar to the Demo- PROTECTION) BILL 2001 crats, we have agreed not to pursue our Consideration of House of Representatives amendments in relation to the disallowable Message instruments. We believe the states will em- Consideration resumed. brace this change. We hope that the com- House of Representatives message— mitment will be honoured as soon as possible and that the issue will be resolved as soon as Schedule of the amendments made by the possible. On that basis, we support the bill House of Representatives with the amendments that have been ac- (1) Schedule 1, item 1A, page 3 (lines 6 to 20), cepted and determined by the House of Rep- omit the item. resentatives. (2) Schedule 1, item 1B, page 3 (lines 21 to 29), Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- omit the item. tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis- (3) Schedule 1, item 10A, page 6 (lines 1 to 6), ter for Health and Aged Care) (1.51 a.m.)—I omit the item. thank the opposition and the Democrats for (4) Schedule 1, item 10B, page 6 (lines 7 and 8), their indications of support for the amend- omit the item. ments and arrangements that have been made (5) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (lines 27 to 29), in the House of Representatives. I note the omit paragraph (g). continuing reservations of Senator Brown on (6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (line 31), omit these particular issues. I hope that he will be “during”, substitute “in making”. convinced with the passage of time that the (7) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 5 to 9), arrangements between Australia and New omit section 303BAA, substitute: Zealand will lead to a very satisfactory ar- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25531

303BAA Certain indigenous rights not (23) Schedule 1, item 11, page 26 (lines 8 to 10), affected omit paragraph (ba), substitute: To avoid doubt, nothing in this Part (ba) either: prevents an indigenous person from (i) the specimen is not a live terres- continuing in accordance with law the trial invertebrate, or a live fresh- traditional use of an area for: water fish, prescribed by the (a) hunting (except for the purposes of regulations for the purposes of sale); or this subparagraph; or (b) food gathering (except for the pur- (ii) the export is an export from an poses of sale); or approved aquaculture program in (c) ceremonial or religious purposes. accordance with section 303FM; and (8) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 7 and 8), omit the definition of bear product. (24) Schedule 1, item 11, page 27 (line 7), omit “subsections (3) and (4)”, substitute “sub- (9) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (lines 9 to 11), sections (3), (3A) and (4)”. omit the definition of cat product. (25) Schedule 1, item 11, page 27 (line 16), omit (10) Schedule 1, item 11, page 9 (lines 11 and “or a live freshwater fish”, substitute “, or a 12), omit the definition of listed migratory live freshwater fish,”. bird. (26) Schedule 1, item 11, page 27 (lines 17 to (11) Schedule 1, item 11, page 10 (line 6), omit 20), omit all the words from and including the definition of trophy. “unless” to and including “303FA).”, sub- (12) Schedule 1, item 11, page 12 (after line 13), stitute: after subsection (2), insert: unless the Minister is satisfied that: (3) An instrument under subsection (1) is a (a) the proposed export would be an disallowable instrument for the pur- eligible non-commercial purpose poses of section 46A of the Acts Inter- export (within the meaning of sec- pretation Act 1901. tion 303FA); or (13) Schedule 1, item 11, page 14 (line 2), after (b) the proposed export would be an “that is”, insert “not”. export from an approved aquacul- (14) Schedule 1, item 11, page 15 (lines 1 to 11), ture program in accordance with omit section 303CDA. section 303FM. (15) Schedule 1, item 11, page 15 (lines 12 to (27) Schedule 1, item 11, page 27 (line 25), omit 15), omit section 303CDB. “conservation status”, substitute “survival”. (16) Schedule 1, item 11, page 16 (line 4), omit (28) Schedule 1, item 11, page 28 (line 2), omit “subsections (3), (4A) and (4B)”, substitute “or a species of listed migratory bird”. “subsection (3)”. (29) Schedule 1, item 11, page 28 (lines 4 and 5), (17) Schedule 1, item 11, page 17 (lines 26 to omit “or any wildlife conservation plan”. 29), omit subsection (4A). (30) Schedule 1, item 11, page 29 (lines 14 to (18) Schedule 1, item 11, page 17 (line 30), omit 19), omit subsection (10). subsection (4B). (31) Schedule 1, item 11, page 30 (after line 28), (19) Schedule 1, item 11, page 23 (line 6), omit after subsection (2), insert: “or a species of listed migratory bird”. (3) The list may only contain specimens (20) Schedule 1, item 11, page 24 (lines 20 to that are live animals or live plants. 22), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (32) Schedule 1, item 11, page 36 (line 29), omit (c) may consult such other persons and “detrimental to”, substitute “likely to organisations as the Minister con- threaten”. siders appropriate. (33) Schedule 1, item 11, page 37 (lines 17 to (21) Schedule 1, item 11, page 24 (line 23) to 19), omit subsection (5). page 25 (line 13), omit subsections (3A), (34) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (line 4), omit (3B), (3C), (3D) and (3E). “and”. (22) Schedule 1, item 11, page 26 (lines 8 and 9), (35) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (after line 4), at omit “or a live freshwater fish”, substitute “, the end of paragraph (1)(b), add: or a live freshwater fish,”. 25532 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(iii) the maintenance and/or im- (d) the export is not primarily for com- provement of human health; and mercial purposes; and (36) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (lines 5 and 6), (52) Schedule 1, item 11, page 45 (line 13), after omit paragraph (c), substitute: “other conditions”, insert “(if any)”. (c) the export is not primarily for com- (53) Schedule 1, item 11, page 45 (lines 24 and mercial purposes; and 25), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (37) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (line 7), after (d) the import is not primarily for com- “other conditions”, insert “(if any)”. mercial purposes; and (38) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (line 18), omit (54) Schedule 1, item 11, page 45 (line 26), after “and”. “other conditions”, insert “(if any”). (39) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (after line 18), (55) Schedule 1, item 11, page 45 (lines 34 and at the end of paragraph (2)(b), add: 35), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (iii) the maintenance and/or im- (b) the export is not primarily for com- provement of human health; and mercial purposes; and (40) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (lines 19 and (56) Schedule 1, item 11, page 46 (lines 9 and 20), omit paragraph (c), substitute: 10), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) the import is not primarily for com- (c) the export is not primarily for commercial purposes; and mercial purposes; and (41) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (line 21), after (57) Schedule 1, item 11, page 46 (lines 18 and “other conditions”, insert “(if any)”. 19), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (42) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (lines 28 and (b) the import is not primarily for com- 29), omit paragraph (b), substitute: mercial purposes; and (b) the export is not primarily for com- (58) Schedule 1, item 11, page 47 (lines 4 to 27), mercial purposes; and omit subsections (8) to (12). (43) Schedule 1, item 11, page 43 (line 30), after (59) Schedule 1, item 11, page 47 (lines 32 and “other conditions”, insert “(if any)”. 33), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (44) Schedule 1, item 11, page 44 (lines 1 and 2), (b) the export is not primarily for com- omit paragraph (b), substitute: mercial purposes; and (b) the import is not primarily for com- (60) Schedule 1, item 11, page 48 (lines 6 and 7), mercial purposes; and omit paragraph (b), substitute: (45) Schedule 1, item 11, page 44 (line 3), after (b) the import is not primarily for com- “other conditions”, insert “(if any)”. mercial purposes; and (46) Schedule 1, item 11, page 44 (lines 10 and (61) Schedule 1, item 11, page 48 (after line 9), 11), omit paragraph (b), substitute: after section 303FH, insert: (b) the export is not primarily for com- 303FI Export or import for the purposes mercial purposes; and of a travelling exhibition (47) Schedule 1, item 11, page 44 (line 12), after (1) The export of a specimen is an export “other conditions”, insert “(if any)”. for the purposes of a travelling exhibi- (48) Schedule 1, item 11, page 44 (lines 18 and tion in accordance with this section if: 19), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (a) the export is not primarily for com- (b) the import is not primarily for commercial purposes; and mercial purposes; and (b) the conditions specified in the regu- (49) Schedule 1, item 11, page 44 (line 20), after lations have been, or are likely to be, “other conditions”, insert “(if any)”. satisfied. (50) Schedule 1, item 11, page 44 (lines 22 to (2) The import of a specimen is an import 29), omit subsection (3), substitute: for the purposes of a travelling exhibition in accordance with this section if: (3) In this section: (a) the import is not primarily for com- exhibition includes a zoo or menagerie. mercial purposes; and (51) Schedule 1, item 11, page 45 (lines 11 and 12), omit paragraph (d), substitute: Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25533

(b) the conditions specified in the regu- (68) Schedule 1, item 11, page 55 (lines 14 to lations have been, or are likely to be, 18), omit subsection (9), substitute: satisfied. (9) The Minister is not required to comply (62) Schedule 1, item 11, page 50 (line 7), omit with subsection (8) to the extent to “or”, substitute “and”. which compliance could reasonably be (63) Schedule 1, item 11, page 50 (lines 8 and 9), expected to: omit subparagraph (iii). (a) prejudice substantially the commer- (64) Schedule 1, item 11, page 50 (after line 9), cial interests of a person; or after paragraph (b), insert: (b) be detrimental to: (ba) the operation will not be likely to (i) the survival of a taxon to which threaten any relevant ecosystem in- the plan relates; or cluding (but not limited to) any (ii) the conservation status of a taxon habitat or biodiversity; and to which the plan relates. (65) Schedule 1, item 11, page 50 (lines 16 to (69) Schedule 1, item 11, page 55 (lines 19 and 30), omit subsection (4), substitute: 20), omit subsection (10). (4) In deciding whether to declare an op- (70) Schedule 1, item 11, page 55 (lines 26 to eration under subsection (2), the Min- 31), omit subsection (1), substitute: ister must have regard to: (1) Before making a declaration under (a) the significance of the impact of the section 303FN, 303FO or 303FP, the operation on an ecosystem (for ex- Minister must cause to be published on ample, an impact on habitat or the Internet a notice: biodiversity); and (a) setting out the proposal to make the (b) the effectiveness of the management declaration; and arrangements for the operation (including monitoring procedures). (b) setting out sufficient information to enable persons and organisations to (5) In deciding whether to declare an op- consider adequately the merits of the eration under subsection (2), the Min- proposal; and ister must have regard to: (c) inviting persons and organisations to (a) whether legislation relating to the give the Minister, within the period protection, conservation or man- specified in the notice, written agement of the specimens to which comments about the proposal. the operation relates is in force in the State or Territory concerned; and (71) Schedule 1, item 11, page 55 (line 32) to page 56 (line 7), omit subsection (1A). (b) whether the legislation applies throughout the State or Territory (72) Schedule 1, item 11, page 56 (line 8), omit concerned; and “subsection (1A)”, substitute “subsection (1)”. (c) whether, in the opinion of the Min- ister, the legislation is effective. (73) Schedule 1, item 11, page 56 (lines 15 to 17), omit subsection (4). (66) Schedule 1, item 11, page 50 (after line 35), after subsection (6), insert: (74) Schedule 1, item 11, page 56 (after line 17), after section 303FR, insert: (7) If a declaration ceases to be in force, this Act does not prevent the Minister 303FRA Assessments from making a fresh declaration under (1) The regulations may prescribe an as- subsection (2). sessment process that is to be used for (8) A fresh declaration may be made dur- the purposes of sections 303FN, 303FO ing the 90-day period before the time and 303FP to assess the potential im- when the current declaration ceases to pacts on the environment of: be in force. (a) a wildlife trade operation; or (9) A fresh declaration that is made during (b) the activities covered by a plan; that 90-day period takes effect immedi- where the operation is, or the activi- ately after the end of that period. ties are, likely to have a significant (67) Schedule 1, item 11, page 54 (lines 16 and impact on the environment. 17), omit paragraph (aa). 25534 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(2) If regulations made for the purposes of (8) A period specified in a notice under subsection (1) apply to a wildlife trade subsection (7) must not be shorter than operation or to a plan, the Minister 5 business days after the date on which must not declare: the notice was published on the Inter- (a) the operation under subsection net. 303FN(2); or (9) In making a decision under subsec- (b) the plan under subsection 303FO(2) tion (1) about whether to issue a per- or 303FP(2); mit, the Minister must consider any comments about the proposal to issue unless the assessment process pre- the permit that were given in response scribed by those regulations has been to an invitation under subsection (7). followed in relation to the assessment of the operation or plan, as the (78) Schedule 1, item 11, page 62 (lines 10 to case may be. 12), omit subsection (10). (3) Without limiting subsection (1), regu- (79) Schedule 1, item 11, page 66 (lines 5 to 30), lations made for the purposes of that omit section 303GEA. subsection may make provision for: (80) Schedule 1, item 11, page 69 (lines 9 to 13), (a) the application of Part 8 (except omit all the words from and including “must sections 82, 83 and 84) and the other consider” to and including “conditions of the provisions of this Act (so far as they permit.”, substitute “must consider whether relate to that Part) in relation to the the transferee is a suitable person to hold the assessment process, subject to such permit, having regard to the matters set out modifications as are specified in the in the regulations.”. regulations; and (81) Schedule 1, item 11, page 84 (lines 13 to (b) exemptions from the assessment 26), omit section 303GZ. process. (82) Schedule 1, item 36A, page 96 (lines 5 to (4) In this section: 12), omit the item. modifications includes additions, (83) Schedule 1, page 123 (after line 16), after omissions and substitutions. item 84H, insert: wildlife trade operation has the same 84HA At the end of section 197 meaning as in subsection 303FN(10), Add: but does not include an operation men- ; or (k) an action provided for by, and taken tioned in paragraph 303FN(10)(d). in accordance with, a plan or regime (75) Schedule 1, item 11, page 61 (line 9), omit that is accredited under sec- “be in accordance with”, substitute “not be tion 208A. contrary to”. (84) Schedule 1, page 123, after item 84HA, in- (76) Schedule 1, item 11, page 61 (lines 29 to sert: 33), omit subsection (4A). 84HB Before section 208 (77) Schedule 1, item 11, page 62 (after line 9), Insert: after subsection (6), insert: 208A Minister may accredit plans or re- Public consultation gimes (7) Before issuing a permit under this sec- The Minister may, by instrument in tion, the Minister must cause to be writing, accredit for the purposes of published on the Internet a notice: this Division: (a) setting out the proposal to issue the (a) a plan of management within the permit; and meaning of section 17 of the Fish- (b) setting out sufficient information to eries Management Act 1991; or enable persons and organisations to (b) a plan of management for a fishery consider adequately the merits of the made by a State or self-governing proposal; and Territory and that is in force in the (c) inviting persons and organisations to State or Territory; or give the Minister, within the period (c) a regime determined in writing by specified in the notice, written the Australian Fisheries Manage- comments about the proposal. ment Authority under the Fisheries Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25535

Administration Act 1991 for man- to ensure that members of listed mi- aging a fishery for which a plan of gratory species are not killed or in- management (within the meaning of jured as a result of the fishing; and section 17 of the Fisheries Man- (e) the fishery to which the plan or re- agement Act 1991) is not in force; gime relates does not, or is not if satisfied that: likely to, adversely affect the con- (d) the plan or regime requires persons servation status of a listed migratory engaged in fishing under the plan or species or a population of that spe- regime to take all reasonable steps cies. to ensure that members of listed (87) Schedule 1, page 123, after item 84HD, in- threatened species are not killed or sert: injured as a result of the fishing; and 84HE Paragraph 231(h) (e) the fishery to which the plan or re- Repeal the paragraph, substitute: gime relates does not, or is not likely to, adversely affect the sur- (h) an action provided for by, and taken vival or recovery in nature of the in accordance with, a plan or regime species. that is accredited under section 245. (85) Schedule 1, page 123, after item 84HB, in- (88) Schedule 1, page 123, after item 84HE, insert: sert: 84HC At the end of section 212 84HF After paragraph 245(b) Add: Insert: ; or (k) an action provided for by, and taken ; or (ba) a regime determined in writing by in accordance with, a plan or regime the Australian Fisheries Manage- that is accredited under sec- ment Authority under the Fisheries tion 222A. Administration Act 1991 for managing a fishery for which a plan of (86) Schedule 1, page 123, after item 84HC, in- management (within the meaning of sert: section 17 of the Fisheries Man- 84HD Before section 223 agement Act 1991) is not in force; Insert: Note:The heading to section 245 is altered by 222A Minister may accredit plans or re- omitting “of management” and substituting gimes “or regimes”. The Minister may, by instrument in (89) Schedule 1, page 123, after item 84HF, in- writing, accredit for the purposes of sert: this Division: 84HG Paragraph 255(k) (a) a plan of management within the Omit “of management”, substitute “or meaning of section 17 of the Fish- regime”. eries Management Act 1991; or (90) Schedule 1, page 123, after item 84HG, in- (b) a plan of management for a fishery sert: made by a State or self-governing 84HH After paragraph 265(b) Territory and that is in force in the State or Territory; or Insert: (c) a regime determined in writing by ; or (ba) a regime determined in writing by the Australian Fisheries Manage- the Australian Fisheries Manage- ment Authority under the Fisheries ment Authority under the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 for man- Administration Act 1991 for managing a fishery for which a plan of aging a fishery for which a plan of management (within the meaning of management (within the meaning of section 17 of the Fisheries Man- section 17 of the Fisheries Man- agement Act 1991) is not in force; agement Act 1991) is not in force; if satisfied that: Note:The heading to section 265 is altered by omitting “of management” and substituting (d) the plan or regime requires persons “or regimes”. engaged in fishing under the plan or regime to take all reasonable steps 25536 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) pro- Labor is already committed to a full scale review posed: of the EPBC legislation. We will return to the amendments moved to this bill and consider how That the committee agrees to the amendments we might achieve better outcomes in the context made by the House of Representatives to the bill. of this legislation. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.54 I would like to note that we are particularly dis- a.m.)—I have done the best I can today to get appointed with the Government’s failure to ap- advice on this from people in the field. The propriately amend the bill to provide the assur- advice from the Tasmanian Conservation ance that this bill will not infringe or extinguish Trust is that, although there are shortcomings any indigenous rights including native title rights. with this legislation, it is better to get it This failure leaves open two undesirable possi- passed than not. bilities: Senator Ferguson—That’s a change of 1. at worst it will facilitate infringements of in- view. digenous rights Senator BROWN—No, it is not a change 2. any legal challenge to defend these rights of view. The trust has been sorting this all might put at risk other aspects of the bill. the way through. I have a number of very I would also like to make a brief comment on the small queries about it, but I will suspend prior authorisations and associated fisheries pro- those because it is 1.56 a.m. and it will not visions. These were provisions moved during the make any difference to the outcome. I will be debate on the Environment Legislation Amend- supporting the passage of this legislation. ment Bill No 1 and we had concerns with them then and those concerns are still valid. Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) In Government, Labor will seek to address those (1.55 a.m.)—The opposition will support the issues we outlined during the ELAB No. l debate, bill. To save time, I seek leave to incorporate particularly in relation to the requirements for my remarks in Hansard. accreditation of a fisheries regime and offence Leave granted. provisions. The speech read as follows— Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (1.55 a.m.)—I will not speak for long because of EPBC Amendment (Wildlife) Bill the time, but this is important legislation, so It has been unfortunate that this bill has been it is appropriate to speak briefly to it. As rushed through the parliament. We have had lim- Senator Brown has indicated, and I concur, ited time to first of all consider the bill, and second to consider the significant number of the bill as it now stands amended by the amendments that were moved during the debate. House is not as good as it could have been. It is certainly not as strong as it was with the Senator Bolkus said then that Labor’s support for those amendment’s was on the proviso that we 90-odd Democrat amendments that were have a bit more time to look at them in more de- agreed to in this place earlier in the week. I tail before the bill returned to the senate. put on the record that the process with the The Government also noted that it needed more bill has been less than ideal, but I recognise time for consideration of the amendments. They that it is preferable to have it pass now. The have now further amended the Bill in the House, additional amendment the government has undoing many of the senate amendments and added in the House of Representatives is altering others. problematic. The process involved with that It is unfortunate that we do not have more time to is of concern to the Democrats as well, but full consider their amendments. We do not accept the package of legislation as it now stands is all the arguments they have put forward in re- clearly an improvement on the law in rela- jecting some of the Senate amendments. tion to wildlife trade. Some of the Senate However, in the interest of progressing the bill, amendments that have been retained do we will support the Government’s bill as it was mean significant enhancements, in particu- amended in the house. larly making it an offence for the release of But, be assured that an incoming Labor govern- live plants held under permit. ment will address review these amendments in Allowing the release of live plants is sig- government. nificant, particularly given the weed problem Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25537 in many areas of Australia. Ensuring the pre- vary maximum funding levels to reflect cautionary principle is an important measure. higher HECS receipts; reflect supplementa- The duration of permits has been shortened tion in regard to Commonwealth superannu- as a result of Senate amendments. A range of ation liabilities; transfer funds from the Aus- matters are required to be considered by the tralian Research Council Act to enable the minister. Assessment is required of environ- Institute of Advanced Studies at the Austra- mental impact of the activities covered by lian National University to access ARC any plan to approve a wildlife trade opera- competitive grant programs; clarify the tion. Exceptional circumstance permits must treatment of HECS debts in the event of comply with CITES requirements. These are bankruptcy of the debtor; and broaden the some of the Senate amendments that have ministerial guidelines making power in rela- been agreed to by the government, and they tion to HECS and work experience in indus- certainly strengthen the bill. It is a shame try. Further, the bill will amend the Austra- that some other amendments—particularly lian Research Council Act to provide base some of the consultation measures and some funding for 2003, to supplement for price of the animal welfare measures—were not increases and to transfer funds from HEFA, accepted by the House of Representatives. as already indicated. The opposition’s view There is still plenty of room for improvement is that we should support this legislation, in the environmental legislation governing depending upon clarification of a number of this country. The Democrats, as I am sure issues. will others in this place, will continue to look I move this second reading amendment: for opportunities to further strengthen our At the end of the motion, add “but the Sen- federal environment laws, but this legislation ate condemns the Government for: goes some steps in that direction. For that reason, the Democrats support this motion. (a) reducing government expenditure on universities by $3 billion and shifting Question resolved in the affirmative. the burden onto students and Resolution reported; report adopted. graduates; HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING (b) cutting 3,500 research training places, AMENDMENT BILL 2001 including 800 at regional universities; and Second Reading (c) continuing to work towards total Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion university fee deregulation”. by Senator Ian Campbell: I trust the Senate will support that second That this bill be now read a second time. reading amendment. Senator CARR (Victoria) (2.00 a.m.)— Is the minister able to advise me whether My intention is to seek to incorporate some or not the government is prepared to take remarks on the Higher Education Funding some questions on notice and provide an- Amendment Bill 2001, but there are some swers within a reasonable period, such as other issues I need to articulate. Given that that set down for the return of answers to we are now at 2 o’clock and we have another questions from estimates? If so, it may in education bill to follow, I am sure all sena- fact facilitate the passage of this legislation. tors would welcome us proceeding at speed. Is that possible? At the end of the second Unfortunately, though, I need to get some reading debate, I will seek the answers to advice from some officials. those questions. This particular proposition is to amend the In particular, I would like to have answers Higher Education Funding Act to: provide to the following questions. Does this bill base funding for universities for 2003; pro- seek to establish clearly that accumulated vide funding for 2002-03 for extra places as HECS cannot be extinguished by bank- part of the budget measures, and that is to ruptcy? Have there been instances where this include some 670 extra places for regional has happened already? Is it the case that, universities; provide funding for 2002-03 for under the changes proposed in the bill, the extra support for people with disabilities; Commonwealth would have the power to 25538 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 claim a proportion of bankrupt HECS detailed answers to those questions in the debtor’s assets, even if in the year of bank- same time frame as Senate estimates ques- ruptcy the debtor’s income was below the tions on notice are answered? I seek leave to normal HECS repayment threshold? What incorporate the remainder of my remarks. are the equity measures in this for the debt- Leave granted. ors, given that others of the same income would not need to repay HECS? What are The speech read as follows— the equity arrangements for other creditors Apart from providing base funding for universi- who might receive less because of the HECS ties and ARC for 2003, the major measures in this repayments being made to the Common- Bill implement Budget measures to provide funding for extra places at regional universities wealth? To what extent do the provisions of and campuses, and extra support for people with the Bankruptcy Act not apply to HECS as disabilities. currently administered? If it is possible, I The regional universities initiative—$35.2 mil- would like to have those questions answered. lion over four years doesn’t go anywhere near I expect there will be a need to have detailed making up for the $171 million taken from re- responses to those questions. gional universities in the 1996 Budget cuts. The opposition is concerned about the in- As well, the Government’s reduction of 3,500 consistencies in this legislation. It is normal research training places, as part of its White Paper that after three years a bankrupt is dis- changes, included 800 places lost from regional charged, and other debtors are automatically institutions. freed from most kinds of debts. The bill es- This shows that the Howard Government has not tablishes that the provision for the automatic suddenly realised the importance of education, discharge of debts will not apply to HECS training and research to Australia’s future, but is debts and that HECS debts have a particular simply in pre-election spending mode, in a des- character. Unlike other debts, they do not perate attempt to stay in office. automatically have to be repaid but are re- If they succeed, then the infamous Cabinet Sub- paid only under certain circumstances—that mission will be given new life. Total deregulation is, when the debtor’s income reaches a cer- of university fees, real-interest loans, and a tain level—and they are extinguished by voucher system of funding will be back at the top of the agenda. death. For other debts, repayments are made out of the deceased debtor’s estate but for Under this scenario, newer and regional institu- HECS there is no repayment made from the tions would be most likely to suffer, as well as students. who would face higher fees and, with estate of the deceased debtor. Why are HECS real interest rates, pay big penalties for not having debts not treated equally with other debts by the money to pay off loans quickly. making them provable—that is, payable—in This is Dr Kemp’s privatisation/user pays agenda, the event of bankruptcy? which benefits the wealthy, and sees no advantage It would be simpler, more effective and in providing opportunities to less well off Austra- consistent to exclude all HECS debts from lians. the operation of the Bankruptcy Act. That This government has cut $3 billion from univer- does not appear to be the case under this ar- sity funding. If public funding had been main- rangement, and, if I have understood that tained at 1996 levels, there could have been an correctly, why not? It would seem that there extra 21,000 places in 1997, and an extra 54,000 is not an extinguishment of debt. Rather, places this year. such a debt would not be considered or re- Compared with these cuts, the extra places in this paid by the trustee appointed under the pro- Bill look hopelessly inadequate. visions of the Bankruptcy Act, but would Despite the Government’s attempts to deny the still be repaid when the debtor’s income findings of the Monash University Report on reached the required level. Can the Com- Australia’s performance as a Knowledge Nation, monwealth initiate bankruptcy proceedings it cannot deny that Australia ranks 21 out of 29 in against the result of unpaid HECS debts? As the OECD in terms of public expenditure on edu- you can see, a number of issues still require cation. further explanation. Is it possible to have Australia’s public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP—at 4.34—is still below the Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25539

OECD average of five per cent, and well below The First Assistant Secretary of the Higher Edu- that of the five leading OECD countries. which cation Division of DETYA, Michael Gallagher, all spend more than six per cent. estimates that the gap between operating grant Australia’s average investment per tertiary stu- indexation and actual salary outcomes has risen to dent of $US29,194 compares with an OECD av- around 15% over the last 5 years. When the ef- erage of $35,087. fects of a declining Australian dollar are factored into the cost structure of universities—which DETYA’s own figures show the number of stu- spend heavily on foreign-sourced items such as dents per teaching staff member in our universi- books, journals and laboratory equipment—the ties has risen from 15.3 to 18.84 since the How- unfunded shift in the cost structure of universities ard Government took office. is at least 20%. Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (2.07 The Minister also boasts in his second reading a.m.)—I seek leave to incorporate the re- speech that university revenues have grown to a marks of Senator Stott Despoja. record level—estimated to be $9.5 billion in Leave granted. 2001—despite Commonwealth cutbacks. The speech read as follows— What the Minister also neglects to mention is `diversification’ of income sources and increase The Democrats will support the various measures revenues from commercial and other private in the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill sources are not going back to universities’ core 2001. activities to ensure a sufficient increase in dollars I notice the Minister’s second reading speech per student to meet rising expenditure costs. As a proudly points out that enrolments are projected consequence, academic staff have dropped to 3 to grow by 27% between 1995 and 2003. What 8% of the total staff of universities. Libraries are the Minister didn’t point out was most of that slashing their purchases of books and serials. growth is international students domestic student Staff-student ratios have ballooned from 1:14.8 in numbers dipped in 2000 and preliminary esti- 1996 to 1:18.8 in 2000. mates suggest it has declined again in 200 1. The new private income from international edu- What the Minister also failed to mention is reve- cation and elsewhere, has been applied to differ- nue is only expected to increase by 21.5% in the ent functions to those supported by the old public same period. income. Thus, the new private income has failed This simply means less resources per student. to substitute for the public investment that this While the projections for further effective cuts per Government has cut. The new private income has student may suit the ideological agenda of the been applied to new or additional functions. Minister, nobody who knows anything about edu- How much are our notionally public universities cation or cares about the quality of education will spending on marketing? consider this good news. • On international campuses? Universities cannot sustain their current rate of • expenditure relative to income growth. Analysis On recruiting international and other fee of the state of universities’ finances undertaken by paying students? DETYA and published in the Higher Education • On corporate boxes at sporting events? Reports for the 2000 to 2002/ 2001 to 2003 Tri- • On fund-raising and alumni relations? enniums show a declining trend since 1996. For • How much are they spending to make a example, the sector-wide safety margin (which measures the ability of universities to contain commercial buck—90 cents in the dollar, 95 expenditure within the constraints of available cents in the dollar? revenue) has fallen from 6.5% in 1997 to 3.3% in These important questions go to the governance, 1999, with two institutions recording negative resourcing and quality of the teaching and learn- safety margins in 1998 and 1999. Since 1996, ing experience in our universities. The Democrats borrowings have increased by $83m, or 31 %. and indeed the sector remain frustrated that the Total revenue growth has slowed over each of the Minister’s persistent misinformation glosses the past two years. undeniable crisis in our universities. A crisis We are all aware of the 6% cuts to operating bought about by this government’s own doing. grants announced in 1996 but this doesn’t give a One of the measures in this Bill is to amend the true picture because the increases in higher edu- Australian University Act 1991 to modify the cation cost structures over the past five years have advisory structure of the ANU Council. I am been dramatic. aware that there has been an effective consultation process within, the university on these gov- 25540 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 ernance changes and that they are supported by purchasing power of the currencies involved. staff and students. When converted to Australian dollars using the This Bill also provides for a modest increase of OECD purchasing power parities (PPPs) the av- 670 funded places targeted at regional universities erage US fee is $A4,396. and campuses. This will help ameliorate the dam- However, in Australia in 2000, the average HECS age done by this government to regional univer- fee was $A4,454. Thus, fees at Australian public sities. universities are actually 1.3% higher than at com- parable institutions in the US. Indeed Australia is One of the more devastating critiques of this now the third most privatised higher education Governments’ approach to universities was re- sector in the world—a feat achieved at the direct corded by the Vice-Chancellor of the University expense of students. of Tasmania who recently told the Senate Inquiry As a final comment on this Bill, I note it is one of into The Capacity Of Public Universities To Meet two omnibus education Bills we are considering Australia’s Higher Education needs that the Uni- today. Given the absolute mess the Government versity of Tasmania could no longer meet the has made of the other Bill—this may well be one needs of Tasmania because of the lack of funded of the last two of these we see from this Govern- places. ment in this portfolio area. The Lilydale Campus of Swinburne University of Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Technology has been forced into an unsustainable Minister for Justice and Customs) (2.07 policy of massive over-enrolments at the marginal a.m.)—I thank senators for their contribu- rate because this Government withdrew the tions to the debate. Senator Carr’s questions Commonwealth Industry Placement Scheme (CIPS) and have never given Swinburne funded will be taken on notice. The department has places for Lilydale. advised me that it will endeavour to answer them by the date that was applied to the The Government approved of Swinburne investing in this campus to ensure access for students in questions on notice at the recent Senate esti- Melbourne’s outer east—and have provided mates. capital grants for the campus—they just refuse to Amendment agreed to. provide funded student places. And the Govern- Original question resolved in the affirma- ment’s response to such circumstances? Provider tive. Beware, yes provider beware. Bill read a second time, and passed A fundamental responsibility of the Common- through its remaining stages without wealth is to ensure equitable access to education amendment or debate. thus the Democrats welcome the appropriation in this Bill of $1.8 million in 2001 and $2.9 million INNOVATION AND EDUCATION in 2003 for disability support. LEGISLATION AMENDMENT However, we need to consider the Government’s BILL 2001 performance in broader terms and the perform- Second Reading ance is poor. Indigenous students, rural and iso- Debate resumed from 20 June, on motion lated students, people from low socio-economic by Senator Boswell: backgrounds all remain seriously underrepre- sented in higher education. The difficulties these That this bill be now read a second time. students, and indeed all students face is com- Senator CARR (Victoria) (2.09 a.m.)—I pounded by overly restrictive and totally inade- will seek leave to incorporate my remarks on quate income support measures. the Innovation and Education Legislation A major barrier to participation is cost and it is Amendment Bill 2001. In addition to those important to understand that Australian students remarks, I will say that this bill contains pay significantly higher tuition fees than most. amendments to three separate bills. Some we Let us set aside the miniscule percentage of stu- considered only a few months ago—the dents in expensive American ivy league private universities—in 1999-2000, the average fee paid ARC Bill and the HEFA Bill; and we have by a student at a 4 year public university in the just considered another, separate amendment US—the largest sector in the US—was to the HEFA Bill. The third issue is amend- $US3,356. How does this stack up against fees in ments to the state grants bill, which we con- Australian Universities? sidered in December. I am particularly con- The only meaningful method in measuring rela- cerned that this government has felt it neces- tive cost is a conversion based on the respective sary to bring forward an omnibus bill cover- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25541 ing those three areas. It is the first time this Under John Howard, Commonwealth funding for has occurred, to my knowledge. I cannot find universities has fallen every year - from $4.875 another instance where an omnibus bill has billion in 1996 to $4.223 billion by 2002. been brought forward to contain matters that This adds up to more than $3 billion taken from relate to the different sectors of education the public funding of universities. within one bill. In 2000, the number of Australian students at our It is particularly unfortunate and annoying universities fell by more than 3,000. that the government has sought to combine a The extra university places announced in Innova- range of measures which are, in reality, non- tion Statement - 2000 extra places a year - mean controversial—they are reasonable in the that it will take years even to repair last year’s context of this government’s policies—and damage. which the Labor Party has no objection to And the extra funding for research doesn’t change with a range of other measure which appear the reduction in research training places at most to me to be unfair and unreasonable in the Australian universities. This year, there are almost 3,500 fewer research training places at Australia’s way in which they are being administered universities, thanks to the Government’s White and which pose serious questions about basic Paper on research. So much for its new-found, equities. Therefore, as the shadow minister election-year interest in innovation. has indicated, we will be seeking to move a Removal of these places research training places number of amendments in the committee punishes newer universities which have tried to stage that balance out the proposals and extend their research effort. move for support for public education, which The Government tries to say this is about con- has so sadly been neglected by this govern- centrating Australia’s research effort but it is ment. really about reducing investment. Despite the The substantive matter that we will need rhetoric, John Howard has not changed - while he to discuss, which we will discuss by a con- might be giving with one hand, he’s still taking tingent notice of motion that I will move in away from our future with the other. the committee stage, goes to splitting this bill This Bill also establishes the Postgraduate Edu- into three. I will have to raise the matter in cation Loan Scheme (PELS), described by Dr some detail at that point, because I believe it Kemp in his second reading speech as being “de- is quite a serious issue. If it is necessary, I signed to encourage lifelong learning and to help Australians upgrade and acquire new skills. will then bring forward other arguments about what I regard to be the administrative All very fine, except that, if this government was failure of the department insofar as they have so concerned about helping Australians with lifelong learning, they would not have reduced paid certain moneys to certain schools HECS places for postgraduate coursework by 60 which, on my reading, appear to be outside per cent. the guidelines. Frankly, the arguments put Labor believes that a loan scheme has the poten- forward by the department in response to tial to help students who otherwise would miss questions which they gave me only this out on postgraduate study because of their inabil- morning are incredibly thin and not persua- ity to pay upfront fees, and we are prepared to sive at all. When the opportunity arises, I support it in principle. Nevertheless, we recognise may well have to explain the detail of that. this framework - deregulated fees, with capped Leave granted. loans from the Commonwealth - as the scenario Dr Kemp would like to impose on the entire uni- The speech read as follows— versity sector. He outlined his plan in the infa- Innovation and Education Legislation Amend- mous leaked Cabinet Submission. If the Coalition ment Bill is returned at the next election. we can expect the This Bill implements some of the measures from full implementation of that Cabinet submission: the Innovation Statement - a good thing, you total deregulation, vouchers, and real interest might say, except that the Innovation Statement rates on student loans. only slightly addressed the problems created by I should take this opportunity to state again, cate- the previous five years of short-sighted and dam- gorically, that a Labor Government will not de- aging cuts by the Howard Government. regulate undergraduate university fees and we will not allow real-interest loans. 25542 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

We will, in fact, as we have said all along, phase Labor will also be moving an amendment requir- out the capacity of universities to charge upfront ing a review of the operation of PELS after 12 fees to Australian undergraduates. months. This will include looking at movements The introduction of PELS also opens up the pos- in fees, and I would like to reiterate the point sibility of universities putting up fees unreasona- made by the Shadow Minister when this Bill was bly, and we have some concerns about the debated in the House: Labor in government will mechanism the Government envisages to deal review the PELS arrangements if universities with this: a limit on the amount students may seek to treat it as a major new source of revenue. borrow. Before moving to the schools part of this Bill, I The Opposition understands that what the Gov- would like to make a further comment about evi- ernment has in mind is a single amount. dence given to the committee on 25 June enquir- ing into this legislation. It was put to members of This could work unfairly in the case of people that Committee that there was a great deal of ur- who incurred large HECS debts (because of gency about this Bill, because it implemented course choices) before beginning postgraduate some important measures due to commence next study. year. In 1996, this Government increased HECS Those measures were announced in the Innova- charges by up to 125%. tion Statement on 29 January. The Bill imple- Courses in band three now cost $5,870 a year. menting them was not debated in the House until A four-year course at that rate would leave a stu- 19 June. If it is all so urgent, why wasn’t it treated dent with a debt of $23,480. as urgent by the Government? Taking five months before beginning a second reading debate doesn’t Now, the same Government is seeking to limit sound to me like a Bill that’s being given priority that student’s ability to access postgraduate education, because of their debt level. by the Government. Secondly, much was made in Departmental evi- But the students who would be most affected by dence before the committee about the so-called the loan limit would be those whose only path to postgraduate study is a loan -those who can pay doubling of funding for the Australian Research Council. The fact is that the extra funding for the upfront will still be able to enrol. ARC, as announced in the Innovation Statement, The loan limit on the combined HECS / PELS is heavily back-loaded, with the vast bulk of debt could also disadvantage those students who funds - more than 65 per cent - not allocated until are unable to pay their HECS up front in other 2004 or Funding in this Bill for the ARC repre- words, those for whom financial considerations sents just 2.5 per cent of the promised extra make access to university more difficult. And funding. those are the students PELS is supposedly de- The Government is so keen to develop innovation signed to help. and research in Australia that it will be 2004 be- For this reason, Labor will be moving an amend- fore any significant increase in funds is seen. It is ment in to limit the Minister’s power to set a clear that there is no urgency there. So let’s have maximum loan amount to consideration of PELS no more of this sham concern. debts only - that is, not to include HECS. Nevertheless. Labor wants to make it absolutely I listened to the objections to this proposal as put clear that we do not want to stand in the way of by Departmental officers in the enquiry into this any increase in funding for higher education re- Bill on 25 June. My response to that is, Labor search or university places, particularly given the does not accept that the difficulties that were de- way in which these key areas have been neglected scribed ought to outweigh considerations of eq- by the Howard Government. uity and fairness. For that reason, we will be pro- Therefore, in line with the notice I have already ceeding with our amendment. given, Labor will be moving to split this legisla- I note that the Minister’s office is reported (The tion into three parts,, one of which will deal only Age, 16 June) to have been “unable to supply with the additional funding for the ARC and for examples of excessively high HECS debts” but higher education places. This will allow swift advised that there were 2266 graduates with debts passage of the non-controversial parts of this leg- exceeding $20,000. So they have presented no islation, while providing appropriate time for evidence that HECS debts alone are a problem, debate of the other elements. but seem to have decided that debt levels exceeding $20,000 cross some sort of difficulty It should be noted that. at the hearings of the Sen- ate committee enquiry into this Bill on 25 June, threshold. the chairman, Senator Tierney, described this Bill Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25543 as “complex”. His words were, “it is a complex questions to be answered before the Senate can bill”. give proper consideration to this legislation. So it is very reasonable for Labor to seek to split A significant element in this blowout is due to the it into schools and higher education parts, and, Government and the Department neglecting their given the message of urgency the Government own guidelines and in the process artificially in- has sent, despite its own laxity, to seek to separate flating the number of students at new non- the non-controversial parts from the rest, in order government schools. We question whether any of to ensure quick passage for the sections deliver- the three schools (Christian College Institute of ing additional funding for the hard-pressed higher Secondary Education in Geelong, the Australian education sector. Islamic College in Kewdale, Perth and All Souls I will now move on to the second part of this St Gabriels at Charters Towers, Queensland with strangely-constructed Bill. There appears to be no a total of 1350 ‘new’ students) cited by the Gov- precedent for funding for both universities and ernment as the principal reason for the massive schools to be bundled into the one piece of legis- increase in establishment grant funding do fall lation - another reason supporting splitting the within the government’s own guidelines. Bill as I have described. The Government denies this concern. Their re- Last year’s States Grants legislation provided sponse is that “on the balance of evidence avail- $859,000 in 2001 for establishment grants, and able at the time” they were accepted as new $1,289m per annum in each of the following schools, that none of the schools are considered to years. have been formed from the separation, or the closure and re-opening, of an existing school. It is This Bill seeks to increase those amounts by a only possible to maintain their position if other total of $9.5 million, with the increase in 2001 evidence, that they either ignored or didn’t bother being 330%, 262% in 2002, and 128% in both to seek out, continues to be ignored. 2003 and 2004. Let me consider two examples, those of the We now know that last October, the Government Christian College Institute of Secondary Educa- knew that the funds in the States Grants legislation, at Highton in Geelong and the Australian tion then before Parliament were insufficient to Islamic College at Kewdale in Perth, Western provide for the number of new schools, and their Australia. large enrolments. The Government’s opinion is based on the limited So what did this Government do? nature of the records that DETYA keeps. On the Did it introduce an amendment to the legislation basis of that evidence they conclude that CCISE to try to ensure that, before any funds were actu- has a different ownership structure as the Chris- ally paid out in establishment grants, the Parlia- tian College Highton, an adjunct school. They ment had appropriated the right amount of conveniently ignore three points: money? • That the boards of the two schools are almost No. It allowed a Bill which it knew was wrong to exactly identical, with evidence of co- continue its passage through Parliament. And ordination and collaboration. Only the lim- now the Government is trying to tell us that, be- ited nature of the information that DETYA cause it has run out of money, because it failed to cares to keep allows them to maintain the le- correct its own error last year, the Parliament gal fiction that the two are separate, must jump to attention, and deal with this Bill this • CCISE is registered as an RTO for purposes week. Eight months after the Government knew of VET in schools. If they are so separate, of its mistake, it has the gall to tell the Senate that how does one explain the fact that the postal this Bill must be passed five days after it was address for CCISE as an RTO is C/- Chris- introduced. tian College Highton! Labor’s message to the Government is this: the • In the preamble of the report of the Victorian Opposition has no intention of approving one Registered Schools Board on its visit to extra cent of expenditure for non-government CCISE there is a specific mention of the in- schools without a proportionate increase in fund- tention of Christian College Highton estab- ing for public education. lishing CCISE as a new senior campus. Secondly, the Senate Inquiry into this Bill sug- DETYA notes this fact, but prefers not to gests that a significant cause of the blowout in the pursue it, noting instead that it does not ap- cost of the establishment grant program is poor pear to be a new school. administration of the scheme. There are important 25544 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

This reminds me of the saying - if it looks like a The speeches read as follows— duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, Speech by Senator Allison then it probably is a duck! I rise to speak tonight about the Innovation and But the wilful blindness and evasion of the Gov- Education Amendment Bill 2001. ernment is equally in evidence in the case of the Australian Islamic College. I refer them to the This omnibus bill seeks to amend the Higher 2000 edition of the National Register of Inde- Education Funding Act 1998, the Australian Re- pendent Schools of Australia, page 46. Here the search Council Act 2001 and the States Grants AIC is described, with its Head Office at Mar- (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) mion Street, Booragoon with, AND I USE Act 2000. THEIR WORDS, campuses at Thornlie, Dianella I will confine my comments to the provisions in and Kewdale. A campus at Kewdale! The this bill, which relate to the States Grants (Pri- school’s own publicity makes this clear- mary and Secondary) Assistance Act 2000. My “The AIC has re-established the former Kewdale colleague, Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja, will Senior High School site as co-educational opera- speak about those parts of the bill relating to tion with classes from years 1-12. The college has higher education. two other campuses...” Amendments to the States Grants (Primary and Campuses again! As I have said previously, the Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000, con- Government is either wilfully blind or intent on tained in this bill provide for: misleading us all. A new campus operation, by • an additional $9.5 million for establishment the government’s own criteria, is ineligible for assistance for new non-government schools; funding yet it persists with misrepresenting the • an additional $2.5 million for students with facts. disabilities; and Our concern does not lie with any of these • an additional $760,000 for strategic assis- schools or their registration, but with the sleight tance for educationally disadvantaged stu- of hand in which this government is engaged. dents in non-government schools Although the Department couldn’t be bothered to follow this up, even basic research reveals that over the 2001-2004 quadrennium. these schools are either campuses of existing The Democrats welcome the provision of addi- schools or is a pre-existing school re-established tional funding for students with disabilities and under a slightly altered name. educationally disadvantaged students in non- Two issues require greater scrutiny. To what ex- government schools. tent has the Government ignored its own guide- We are, however, very concerned about is the lines in this matter? Secondly, to what degree has massive increase in funding for establishment DETYA engaged in expenditure beyond its ap- grants for non-government schools. Up by a stag- propriation as the result of sloppy administration? gering 330% for 2001, 200% for 2002 and by Needless to say, there is not a cent extra in this more than 100% for 2003 and 2004. Bill for government schools. Labor will not agree The Government is getting very used to signifi- to it on those terms. We will be moving an cantly increasing the funding to non-government amendment which calls for additional spending schools at the expense of government schools and on government schools proportionate to the extra the Democrats are getting very used to fighting $12.9 million this Bill provides for non- them on this. government schools. And we are clearly have the support of the Aus- It is time for fairer treatment for public education tralian public. from the Federal Government. The Government and Opposition may well be The Minister told us in a media release at the time interested in Australian Education Union polling of the Budget that the Government had a “com- in marginal seats, which found that 94% of voters mitment” to government schools. This is their thought that the Government should spend more chance to prove it. money on public education. Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (2.12 The Democrats were the only party to oppose a.m.)—I seek leave to incorporate both my the iniquitous States Grants (Primary and Secon- speech and that of my colleague Senator dary Assistance) Bill 2000, when it was debated Stott Despoja on the Innovation and Educa- late last year. This Act awards an additional $700 million to the private schools over the next four tion Legislation Amendment Bill 2001. years. Leave granted. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25545

The Democrats opposed this bill because we are We believe that scarce public resources should strongly committed to ensuring adequate re- not be spent on new non-government schools sourcing of the public education system. We re- which have not been considered within the con- main strongly opposed to the inequitable grants to text of viability or need and which would be bet- non-government schools, particularly wealthy ter spent on the severely underesourced public non-government schools, while public schools schools. remain chronically under-funded. The Democrats argue that this extra money There is simply no justification for providing should be spent on government schools so that already wealthy schools with even more public they are also able to attract more students to them. money, when government schools are starved of But we note that $9.5 million is a drop in the funds. I regularly visit government schools whose ocean compared with what is really needed. portables have been portables for so long that they are now considered permanent classrooms. At this point I’d like to quote from the Associa- You can’t really say that they are portables when tion of Primary School Principal’s report into the they have been in the same position for over 20 views of primary principals on the state of public years. education. This report examined the views of nearly 2,500 government primary school princi- And it needs to be understood (and the Opposi- pals, who represent nearly 50% of government tion needs to be reminded) that it is not just the principals in Australia. Collectively, these princi- former Category 1 schools which are very well pals educate nearly a third of all Australian pri- off. Penleigh and Essendon Grammar, a former mary school children and hence what they have to Category 3 school in Victoria, which has a gym- say should be afforded great weight. nasium, a swimming pool, an astro-turf hockey field, ovals, soccer grounds and squash courts In relation to the condition of school facilities, the was awarded an extra $3.39 million annually. report stated that: The annual fees of this school are approximately “Twenty -six per cent of principals indicated that $8,900. their school facilities are badly in need of an upgrade. The largest group of principals, 57 per The Government claims that by providing more cent, indicated that their school facilities are ade- funding to such schools, they will lower their fees quate. The high rate at which problems with fa- as a result. But there is no evidence to back this cilities were identified in handwritten statements, up. In fact evidence to the contrary was provided however, suggests that ‘adequate’ may be a term to the Committee. that is applied fairly loosely. One submission made reference to the survey of The resource needs identified by respondents category 1 schools conducted by the Weekend suggest that many school facilities, particularly Australian in June this year. The Australian spoke old schools and those with high proportions of to all schools in this Category and found that only demountable buildings, have major design prob- 8 out of the 59 said that any of that money would lems. Principals raised concerns about not being go to reducing fees. able to protect students from the sun, wind, rain It seems clear to me that Dr Kemp is on a mis- or snow during Physical Education, school as- sion. His mission is to get as many Australian semblies and when moving between buildings. students as possible into the private education The design problems associated with introducing sector. computers into old classrooms are significant. The Australian Democrats, however, believe in More spacious and flexible learning areas are public education. We believe in the benefits of required in order to implement new outcomes- being educated in the public realm. And we be- based curriculum frameworks and attain higher lieve that the vast majority of public funds should standards. And many schools lack an area where be spent on the 70% of Australian students that they can meet as a whole school, constraining the belong to the public education system. development of a sense of community.” So, when the States Grants bill was debated last The Democrats are fully aware that the lack of year, we put up amendments to remove provi- appropriate facilities is just one of the myriad of sions related to establishment grants for non- problems facing public educators at the current government schools but the Government and the time. Opposition voted against them. We say that at least another billion dollars should We moved these amendments because the Demo- be allocated to our schools, so that public educa- crats are opposed to the provision of establish- tion is funded at a level which matches commu- ment grants for non-government schools. nity expectations, whether parents can afford to pay fees or not. 25546 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

In addition to the increasingly lop-sided balance When a situation like this arises, you have to of support between government and non- question the degree of analysis brought to bear on government schools, the Democrats are most evaluating the legitimacy of claims for automatic concerned that automatic establishment payments payment of establishment grants. to new non-government schools have far from As I stand here today, I note that we are clearly adequate accountability requirements. not alone in our concerns. The Committee heard that there are: In their submission to the Senate inquiry, the No requirements along the lines of minimum Independent Education Union (IEU) recom- enrolment size. There is no explicit or special mended that: accountability or reporting requirements attached The Commonwealth request that MCEETYA, to that; in fact, the funds do not even have to be together with non government schooling authori- accounted for separately. It is, in fact, a rather ties, broker a common set of guidelines or a co- profligate use and an unaccountable use of the operative national framework for a nationally public’s money - not the federal government’s consistent approach to the planning, renewal, money. funding and operation of new and existing gov- The Democrats note that the establishment grants ernment and non government schools. can be spent on marketing, advertising or even The IEU further recommended that in the absence corporate ventures. of a planning and regulatory regime for the estab- A new private school, may choose to do what lishment of new non-government schools, that the Mentone Boys Grammar in Melbourne has done proposed legislation should be amended to pro- and advertise for new students at prime time on vide for clear guidelines as to the purpose of the Melbourne radio. grants and rigorous accountability and reporting The Democrats are also concerned that the inade- requirements. quacy of the criteria could lead to the prolifera- In the view of the Democrats, this is the very least tion of poorly planned schools which are not eco- the Government should do. nomically viable. This would be poor allocation Before I finish today, I want to make a few brief of scarce resources, and something which is un- remarks about the inclusion of these schools pro- paralleled in any other sector. For example, if a visions in this omnibus bill. group of people decide that they want to start up a new community health centre, they don’t just It is more than curious to me that these amend- simply receive public money as soon as they open ments were included in this bill, when a bill their doors. amending the States Grants (Primary and Secon- dary Assistance) Act 2000, was introduced on Our concerns extend to the lack of any cap on the June 7, particularly given the per capita grants of $500 in the first year and $250 in the second, which together with the lack government’s great reluctance to split the bill. We of stringent accountability mechanisms means will support the oppositions amendment on that the grants could be easily manipulated to schools however we will not be supporting the maximise the benefit. bill. In response to questioning about these account- ————— ability requirements, the Department of Educa- Speech by Senator Stott Despoja tion, Training and Youth Affairs advised the The Innovation and Education Legislation Committee that there is nothing to stop a school Amendment Bill 2001 is an omnibus bill which from selling off the school buildings and the site implements a number of changes announced in and moving to another site with a new registration the Government’s Innovation Statement - Backing number and the same students. Australia’s Ability: Clearly, this is not a desirable situation and in no • additional funding to the ARC, way could be considered an appropriate use of • public money. additional research infrastructure funding, • The evidence presented to the Committee about 2000 new undergraduate places for IT, sci- the circumstances surrounding the provision of ence and mathematics, and establishment grants to Christian College, High- • the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme ton in particular, deserve further investigation. (PELS). This school received an establishment grant when In addition, the Bill adjusts increases funding to it was operating at the same address and with the non-government school students with disabilities same board of directors as an existing school. and appropriates an additional $10 million to Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25547 reflect a significant increase in the average size of At is important to understand that this failure new non-government schools in 2000. comes about because of poor policy by successive The Democrats believe the Innovation and Edu- Governments and in particular the current Gov- cation Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 Bill ernment who have removed 25,000 funded places should not be passed in its current form. While from postgraduate education. That is - it is a fail- most of the measures in the Bill are not opposed ure largely of this Government’s own making. by the Democrats - the postgraduate loans scheme The key characteristics of the market failure in and the increased appropriation for new schools - domestic postgraduate coursework are; evidence are not supported by the Democrats. that the high cost of fees and removal of HECS This contributes to our reason for supporting the places are major barriers to participation in post- Oppositions desire to split the Bill three ways. graduate coursework from equity groups, declining enrolments from domestic postgraduate stu- My colleague, Senator Allison will speak to the dents (down more than 12% between 1997 - changes in the States Grants so I will be confining 2000), and alarming drops in enrolments in par- my comments to the changes to the ARC Act and ticular disciplinary fields, notably science 21.5%, the Higher Education Funding Act. education 21% and agriculture 27%. Indeed, be- ARC & Research Infrastructure In Backing Aus- tween 1997 and 2000 only Maths and Computing tralia’s Ability, the Government announced a had any growth because of the increase in IT en- funding package of $2.9 billion for R&D and rolments - all the other disciplinary fields de- Innovation over 5 years. While the Government’s clined. Even Business, Administration and Man- backflip to increase investment was welcome it agement fell significantly last year. needs to be emphasised that this simply slows It is precisely this scenario that PELS is supposed down Australia’s decline in R&D investment to address. relative to other OECD countries. In its own terms, PELS it is quite a clever pro- Moreover, only $159 million of this package - posal that will enable some students who are cur- 5.5% - will actually be made available in 2002. rently unable to access postgraduate courses the The massive ‘back-ending’ of the increase is a opportunity to do so. major disappointment and does not sit well with the Government’s rhetoric on investing in Aus- However, the Democrats are obliged to look at tralia’s future prosperity. the broader policy context and while superficially PELS is ‘better than nothing’, we cannot support One initiative of Backing Australia’s Ability that its implementation in the seriously defective pol- was widely welcomed was the decision to double icy and funding regime this Government has im- the funding of the ARC over five years. This Bill posed on education. introduces the first stage of the increase - $18.6 million in 2002. The Democrats are opposed to the marketisation of education and believe the sorry state of post- While better than nothing - a Government that graduate coursework is a salutary reminder of the took international realities and the urgent needs of limitations and distortions of marketisation. Australia’s researchers and our research capabil- ity seriously - would not be so timid. While the Our primary concerns with PELS are; Democrats support this increase we urge the Gov- • It is premised on postgraduate education ernment to reconsider its priorities and ‘front- being solely a private benefit for the student, load’ its intention to double the budget of the • it avoids the real problem of insufficient ARC. funded places, and The Chief Scientist made it very clear that infra- • it cannot overcome the substantial cost dif- structure spending represents about 40 cents in ferentials between disciplines. the competitive research dollar invested in the USA and other OECD countries. However, de- PELS is conceptually quite different from HECS. spite the modest increase to infrastructure funding While both are income contingent loans, HECS is in this Bill, our investment in research infra- a private contribution to a publicly funded place. structure remains at a very uncompetitive 20 This explicitly recognises that there is a consider- cents in the dollar. So much for this Govern- able public benefit from higher education. PELS, ment’s commitment to our future. on the other hand, simply advances the full cost of tuition and thus either assumes a private bene- PELS fit only or refuses to make a public contribution The Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme to the public benefit. (PELS) is the Government’s response to market Full fees, in conjunction with a substantial drop failure in domestic postgraduate coursework. of HECS places, has led to declining numbers of 25548 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 students in disciplines with little or no private Whether the cost relativities in the RFM are, or benefit such as education, social welfare, nursing, indeed were, ever a good indicator is of course, sustainable agriculture and science. Yet there is another matter. considerable public benefit in having graduates Differential HECS works on a similar basis al- with postgraduate skills and knowledge in terms though the inclusion of law in the top band is of better teachers, nurses and agriculturists. We predicated on potential private benefit. are not at all convinced that students in such disciplines are likely to enrol just because they can The Democrats are concerned that as PELS does get a loan to cover up-front fees. not and cannot take cost of delivery into account as it simply relies on markets. In 2000, there were 409,560 full-time equivalent, fully funded places. Of these 365,920 was the This will create enormous problems in high cost minimum undergraduate target load and 21,498 areas with significant industry and/or public bene- were HECS-exempt postgraduate research places. fit but comparatively low private benefit, for ex- This left a notional 22,142 places for postgraduate ample, engineering and science. coursework students. The Government has made it very clear it expects Universities, allocated 3,000 places to postgradu- universities to offer fee-paying courses on a full- ate research students - the so-called gap places - cost recovery basis. The Democrats acknowledge and 14,663 to postgraduate coursework students. there may be good reasons for wanting to prevent This means nearly 5,000 notional postgraduate public funds substantially subsidising an MBA or coursework student places were not used for IT student who is likely to receive considerable postgraduates but rather were used by universities private benefit. to help ameliorate the unmet demand in under- However, there must be public investment into graduate places. high cost areas where there are substantial public Universities are fully entitled to use these places and industry benefits such as science and engi- how they see fit, but it does highlight one of the neering by either, or preferably a mixture of; real issues affecting universities and postgradu- • permitting cross-subsidies, ates in particular insufficient places due to poor • increased provision of funded places, policy. Indeed HECS places for postgraduate • and supplementation to universities for PELS coursework students have dropped precipitously places in high cost and/or high public good from 30,400 in 1996 to 14,600 in 2000. In the areas. same period fee-paying increased from 13,300 to 24,500 - it is this massive cost-shifting to students The Democrats are aware of an opposition that has caused the decline in student load. amendment to establish a review process of PELS. I would like to see that review also focus Universities are still required to offer a HECS on the consequence of fee-paying and the opera- place for initial vocational entry qualifications in tion of PELS on strategic areas including science education and nursing -although not in specialist and education are an explicit term of reference of courses such as midwifery or TESOL - Teaching any reviews. English to Speakers of Other Languages. Without a more sophisticated policy mix, which However, there is a serious anomaly whereby an takes account of significant cost differentials for increasing number of vocations including psy- course delivery -students in key strategic areas chology, social welfare, museum studies and li- will necessarily be discriminated against. brarianship are requiring a postgraduate qualification for initial vocational entry. ‘Credentialism’ The Democrats find it utterly bizarre that within combined with inadequate HECS places raises the same Bill the Government proposes to intro- major access concerns with or without a loan. duce 2000 new funded places to address the skills shortage in science, maths and IT. But in the very The Democrats are particularly concerned by a same Bill it proposes a measure that will ensure particularly serious distortion in reliance on mar- that science remains unattractive for postgradu- kets for education. ates. In the early 1990s, the then ALP government It is truly indicative of the poverty of this Gov- introduced the Relative Funding Model (RFM). ernment’s policy commitments to education and This weighted the funding that went to different innovation. disciplines precisely because it was recognised that disciplines have different delivery costs. So If the Government comes back with a better ap- science, engineering, medicine are weighted proach to postgraduate education, which includes much higher than education, law and humanities. additional funded places and other mechanisms to overcome the distortions from simple-minded Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25549 commitments to markets in education -then the The Democrats accept there may be good contin- Democrats would be more than happy to revisit gent reasons to allow public funds going to pri- our principled rejection of PELS. vate universities if there is an absence of public As Senators will be aware, this Bill was subject to provision - as was the case with Notre Dame’s a brief - and far from satisfactory inquiry process. teacher training programs in the Kimberley. Before commenting on the Government’s poor However, this should only justify inclusion on process I do want to touch on a number of issues List B. raised in the inquiry process. The Democrats take the AVCC’s point about No- The committee heard evidence that the proposal tre Dame and Bond - however it is not good pol- to allow a Minister the capacity to cap student icy to use a poor decision as precedent for another debt represented an important change to HECS poor decision. Accordingly, we do not support policy that had not been discussed or justified. I students at Bond University accessing PELS. think it is important to note that there was wide- Moreover, I want to put on the record that the spread consensus in the sector on the need to Democrats believe it is time to revisit the status of separate debt incurred from PELS and debt in- private universities on the HEFA lists. curred from HECS such that a cap could not be To conclude, I want to place on the record our applied to HECS. Indeed, we had recommenda- view on some of the process issues that Senator tions to that effect coming from student groups, Carr has lightly touched upon. the National Tertiary Education Union and the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee - a broad The Democrats note with much concern that the church by any definition. Government chose not to defend their legislation by putting a submission before the Senate inquiry. In addition, there is considerable concern that We also’ note that the Department did not provide PELS represents the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ for requested information in a timely fashion to the dismantling HECS and moving to a PELS envi- committee. ronment in undergraduate education. There is already a precedent for expanding student loan This is very poor practice and must be considered arrangements into other areas as one of this years’ a contempt of this House. budget measures was to effectively introduced The Democrats take our responsibilities as legis- PELS for overseas trained professionals enrolled lators very seriously and believe that we, and in previously funded bridging programs to meet more generally, this Chamber would be abrogat- Australia’s recognition requirements. ing community expectations if we do not consider While there is a substantial difference between legislation that has very important implications administrative arrangements for handling HECS for the policy and funding of education closely. and PELS debt and legislation to dismantle Not only has the sorry example of what has oc- HECS, the Democrats do believe that on balance curred with this Bill undermine our legislative there is a very good case for quarantining HECS. responsibility it totally undermines the various Accordingly, the Democrats take a principled assertions about the urgency of this Bill. position on this issue and support the splitting of Senator ALLISON—I indicate that the HECS and PELS. Democrats will be supporting the ALP The AV-CC recommended that Bond University amendments but we will be voting against be made eligible for PELS. As PELS represents a this bill in whatever form it ends up. significant public subsidy to students - though not institutions - through an interest free loan, the Senator HUTCHINS (New South Wales) Democrats do not support expanding PELS to (2.13 a.m.)—I seek leave to incorporate in private universities. As the AV-CC pointed out, Hansard my remarks on the Innovation and this does leave an anomalous situation whereby Education Legislation Amendment Bill students at other institutions including Australia’s 2001. other private university, Notre Dame, are able to Leave granted. access PELS but students of Bond are not. The Democrats believe it was an inappropriate The speech read as follows— decision to place Notre Dame on List A of the I rise to speak on the Innovation and Legislation Higher Education Funding Act in 1998 - and it is Amendment Bill 2001, which put into effect disappointing that the opposition did not appreci- many of the provisions announced in the Prime ate the significance of the Minister’s sleight of Minister’s Innovation Statement earlier this year. hand at that time. The Innovation Statement, and those parts of it that will be legislated through this Bill, does not 25550 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 provide a proper, forthright answer to the chal- would argue with the fact that significant invest- lenge being made to Australia in terms of our ment in education and innovation is fundamental international competitiveness. to not only expanding Australia’s export base, but Rather, it is a slow and belated response. also to attracting foreign investment, and thus for creating quality, skilled employment for Austra- Those parts of this Bill relating to the Innovation lians and high living standards. Statement merely put back what’s already been taken out. Like most of the things this Govern- Productivity, our ability to entice the world’s best ment does, the government’s new innovation pro- companies to invest in Australia, and our ability gram lacks vision and direction. to sell our products to the world are the key elements to our future prosperity. But what this Bill lacks in vision and direction, it makes up in trickiness. Once again we’ve seen That is why the current Government’s dramatic the government engage in all sorts of shenanigans failure to pursue policies that facilitate innovation to ensure that they trick, or even blackmail, mem- and create a skilled workforce is so alarming. bers of the Senate into quietly supporting some of Australia under the Howard Government is one of the mean legislation that they put before us. the few OECD nations whose investment in re- It is unprecedented in the history of this parlia- search and development has actually declined as a ment that a Bill containing provisions for the percentage of GDP in recent years. funding of universities has been tied in with pro- In 1996, Australia spent around 1.65% of its na- visions for schools funding. tional income on research and development. Un- And the only reason it’s never been done before is der this Government, we’ve fallen to about 1.4%. because we’ve never had a government so willing Had it not been for the innovation statement and to pull swifties like this and so willing to misuse the provisions contained within this Bill, our level the processes of this parliament to get their legis- of investment was predicted to decline to about lative agenda through. 1.2%. Last year the Minister for Education rammed What this basically means is that this Bill and the through his unconscionable schools funding bill Prime Minister’s Innovation Statement only go by tying the changes that saw the nation’s 58 some of the way to putting back what the Gov- most wealthiest schools get millions extra to ernment has already taken out. funding for every school in Australia. Even after the Innovation Statement, Australia is And now we’re told there’s a need for an extra still short changed when it comes to education $10 million for non-government schools that and R & D investment. wasn’t accounted for in the original Bill from last The Government has cut a total $3 billion from year. And once again, the Minister for Education the Commonwealth’s investment in universities has sought to avoid any scrutiny over the lack of and $2 billion from Research and Development, funding he provides for public schools by ram- and the Innovation Statement will, over several ming it through and holding the Senate to ransom years, only put back around $3 billion into edu- - pass my Bill to give more money to non- cation and research. Government schools, or else universities and R & My concerns with the Innovation Statement and D won’t get any money, he says. this whole package, however, go much deeper Labor will, as my colleagues have already indi- than the mere figures. cated, support any increase for much needed It is the fundamental nature and character of the funding for universities and research, and will sort of investment that’s being planned that con- support any extra funding made available for cerns me. I think the essential problem is that a schools. lot of this package is about, as I have said earlier, What we will insist on, however, is that any extra merely restoring funding. funding made available for private schools be It’s a package that fills in gaps and puts in what matched by an increase in funds for public should’ve been there in the first place. It’s a schools. That is the fair way to do it, and our backwards-looking program that isn’t concerned amendments will be insisting on that. with the need to broaden our export base nor the Innovation need to attract foreign investment. But first let me turn to those parts of the Bill that In fact, it doesn’t really seem to have any aims implement the Prime Minister’s Innovation other than to restore funding. Statement made earlier this year. Numerous commentators outside of this parlia- The importance of proper investment in education ment have thus been very critical of the package. and investment is relatively undisputed. Few Paul Kelly, whom we all know as not only a well Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25551 renowned journalist, but as a respected and The other missing element from this Bill is any knowledgeable public affairs writer, has said that effort from this Government to ensure equal ac- “The paradox of the innovation statement was its cess to opportunities in a globally competitive old-fashioned character - government handouts Australia. for special interests and tax breaks for business.” Proper investment in education is not only an Even writers in publications like the Business underlying tenet of achieving the goals of ex- Review Weekly, which is not known for its sup- panding our export base, attracting foreign in- port of the non-conservative cause, have re- vestment and creating quality, skills-based jobs. marked, and I’m quoting from an article by T It also trains people and gives them the skills and Stotnicki written in BRW in February this year, hence opportunity to have access to highly skilled “that it was largely the Howard Government’s and well-paid employment. 1996 cut-back in the R & D concession, and the subsequent drop in private sector R & D, that Investment in education and research and devel- created the need for this innovation package.” opment will arm Australia in the international battlefield of global competitiveness. A large criticism that has come from many quar- ters, for example from John Schubert, the Presi- For individuals, the arms required to take part in dent of the Business Council of Australia is that the battle for skilled and well paid employment is the package does not do enough to encourage a good and decent education. private sector investment in research. It is the responsibility of Government, if it aims to Australia’s current level of private sector invest- facilitate equality of opportunity, to ensure that all ment in research and development is only at its citizens have proper access these arms. 0.67% of GDP, which is the seventh lowest in the Everyone should equally have the right to access OECD. Business is not seeing the benefits of decent education to enable access to highly investing in innovation, and is receiving very skilled and well-paid jobs. little assistance or incentive from the government That is why those of us in the Labor Party were to do so. so thoroughly outraged by the Government’s The Government’s answer in this package is schools funding Bill that came before us at the merely to restore the R & D tax concession. There end of last year. is no extension or development of this policy, It was deeply wrong and drastically unfair to give which was established years ago under the Hawke millions of dollars to the nation’s richest schools, Government. The Innovation Statement thus only schools like the King’s School at Parramatta that goes some of the way to increasing Australia’s have rifle ranges and swimming pools and the rest private sector investment in innovation. of it, and then give virtually no increase to poorer The package is, broadly speaking, directionless. It non-government and government schools. has no targets or aims for building export indus- And now tied into this Innovation Bill is another try, no targets or aims for creating jobs, no targets $ 10 million for private schools that the Minister or aims for attracting foreign investment, and no for Education tells us he simply failed to include targets or aims for encouraging business to put in the Schools Funding Bill we were forced to more into R & D, and more importantly, no tar- pass last year. gets or aims for helping business to make capital As my colleagues and I have already stated, La- returns on innovation and R & D. bor’s position is that we will move amendments The Government has identified a political prob- to make sure that this extra funding being made lem in terms of the public’s well-founded percep- available to private schools is to be matched by tion of it being anti-education and anti- extra funding for the public system. innovation. It has responded to this by throwing This is the first time in the history of this parlia- money in areas in familiar territory - grants and ment that a Bill has simultaneously dealt with tax breaks, coupled with little to no strategic di- funding for universities and schools, as I have rection. indicated earlier. The package is funding for funding’s sake. The Once again, the Minister knows how inequitable Innovation Statement was a purely politically his proposals for schools funding are, but is nev- motivated reaction from the Prime Minister to the ertheless determined to ram through his agenda, huge electoral defeats he suffered earlier this year. and will go to any lengths to force the Senate to It is not a serious package for investing in Aus- pass his inequitable funding proposals. tralia’s future. Senators will remember the way many of us here Schools Component were given an ultimatum by the Minister late last 25552 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 year - pass my Bill or else every school in Aus- legislation relating to higher education and re- tralia gets no funding. search, on the one hand, and on the other a series And now it appears we are being given a similar of amendments to school funding provisions, ultimatum here tonight - pass my Bill or else contained in the States grants (Primary and Sec- Australia’s investment in education and research ondary Education Assistance) Act 2000. will continue to decline. Pass my bill or else we The bill before the Senate implements some of won’t increase Australia’s global competitiveness. the measures from the innovation statement. Pass my Bill or else we won’t create jobs for the While the government might be seeking to brag future. about the announcements that were made in the Labor will be supporting this Bill to the extent innovation statement, then this needs to be done that it returns some of the funding the Govern- in the context of the government’s performance ment has cut from education and research and since it was elected in 1996. development funding. Under this Government, Commonwealth funding It is my belief though that if this Government, or for universities has fallen every year, from $4.8 even a future Labor Government is serious about billion in 1996 to $4.2 billion by 2002, projected strengthening Australia’s global competitiveness in the forward estimates. This adds up to a reduc- or creating quality, well-paid, highly-skilled jobs tion of $3 billion being taken from the Common- for the future, then we need to change the way we wealth’s investment in universities. When you look at innovation strategy. add to this a $2 billion reduction in government support for research and development, we have It is also my belief that the opportunities to fully had a total of $5 billion cut by this government participate in a globally competitive Australia from investment in university education and from should be available to all. High quality education government support for research and develop- should therefore be made available equally to all ment. Australians, not just the very rich. A close examination of the table released by the I commend the Bill with amendments. Prime Minister when he launched the innovation Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) statement, it is quite clear that the government has (2.13 a.m.)—Given the hour, I seek leave to backloaded the funding in the innovation state- incorporate in Hansard my remarks on the ment. Innovation and Education Legislation In the year 2001-02 the Prime Minister’s an- Amendment Bill 2001. nouncements involve a commitment of extra Leave granted. funding of $159 million; in 2002-03 it is a commitment of $414 million; in 2003-04 it is $619 The speech read as follows— million; in 2004-05 it is $758 million; and in the The Innovation and Education Legislation last year, 2005-06, it is $947 million. So basically Amendment Bill 2001 almost 60 per cent of the funding announced by the Prime Minister in January is backloaded into • amends the Higher Education Funding Act the last two years of the five-year innovation 1988 and the Australian Research Council statement. Act 2001 to provide additional funding and introduce a loan scheme for postgraduate In other words, almost half of the extra funding coursework students, as announced in the In- announced by the Prime Minister in January this novation Action Plan and year is not going to be spent until two elections away. • amends the States grants (Primary and Sec- ondary Education Assistance) Act 2000 to The reality is that last year the number of Austra- provide additional funding for establishment lian undergraduate students at our universities fell assistance for non-government school ($9.5 by more than 3,000. While the extra funding for million) and an extra $2.7 million for stu- research is welcome, it does not change the fact dents with disabilities in non-government that we have had a reduction of almost 3,500 in schools and the number of research training places at Austra- lia’s universities. • allows universities more flexibility regarding electronic communications One of the announcements made in the innovation statement was the commitment to introduce This legislation supports the words of Shane the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme, or Stone and is a clear sign that this is a mean and PELS, and it comes after a major reduction in tricky government. The Government has sought HECS places for postgraduate course work. through this Bill to bring together in one package, for the first time in many many years, omnibus Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25553

The number of Commonwealth funded post- million. In 2002 it is up 262 per cent-an increase graduate course work places is estimated to have of $4.7 million. In 2003 it is up 128 per cent to fallen by around 60 per cent since 1996. To the $1.65 million. In 2004 it is up 128 per cent again extent that the new PELS system helps this situa- to $1.65 million. The total increase is almost $10 tion, in giving more Australians access to post- million. graduate study, Labor will support it. However, The Labor Party has been accused of holding up we do recognise that it does have the potential to education in the Senate during the last few days. act as a pilot for the full deregulation of under- This is misleading, mischievous and is simple a graduate university fees as outlined in the leaked question of this Government being inefficient cabinet submission from October 1999 of the when it comes to dealing with its legislation pro- Minister for Education, Training and Youth Af- gram. fairs, Dr Kemp. What needs to be ask is when did the Minister for The Labor Party categorically opposes the de- Education, Training and Youth Affairs know that regulation of undergraduate university fees at he needed to provide an extra $10 million for some or all universities and also opposes the re- these establishment grants for non-government placement of HECS with a real interest rate loan schools? system. We are also committed to phasing out full cost up-front fees for Australian undergraduate This is an issue that came up in the Senate com- students. mittee that dealt with this issue last week and which reported in the Senate later this week. With the introduction of PELS, the new Post- graduate Education Loans Scheme, we also rec- We now know from the evidence last week that ognise the possibility of some universities seeking the department knew last October that an extra to put up their fees unreasonably. We have some $10 million was needed to fund the schools that concerns about the mechanism that the govern- David Kemp claims that he is so concerned about. ment envisages to deal with this-that is, giving the But the department claims that they did not let the minister the power to set a limit on how much minister know about this or make this decision students can borrow under the combined HECS because they did not want David Kemp to actu- and PELS. ally exercise the responsibilities of being the We have two concerns about this. The first is that Commonwealth Minister for Education, Training it is common knowledge that the children of and Youth Affairs. We now have a position where wealthy parents are more likely to have their uni- the Department of Education, Training and Youth versity fees paid for by their parents each year. If Affairs decides whether they will tell their minis- you make an up-front payment for the university ter that there is a $10 million hole in the funding fees, you get a 25 per cent discount on that HECS for new non-government schools. fee. The parents of students from struggling When a bill is required to fix up the problem the families cannot afford to make that university fee minister for education puts out a press release payment on their behalf. That means that, at the saying that it is the Labor Party’s fault that he did end of an undergraduate degree, the students that not take action last October because his depart- have zero HECS debt are more likely to be the ment did not tell him about a $10 million hole. students that come from wealthy families. That is So the delay in the passage of the innovation rests one reason why we are concerned about putting a entirely with David Kemp. ceiling on the combined HECS and PELS debts. If the passage of this Bill is so important then: The second reason is that, because of the changes • why was it first debated in the House of Rep- that this government made to HECS in 1996, resentatives on only the 7th June, students end up with very different HECS debts depending on which course they have enrolled in. • Why is it inappropriately link universities Not only did the government increase HECS and schools measures but this Government charges in 1996 by up to 125 per cent but also we refuses to split the Bill, now have three different bands. • Why are not sufficient increases for public The second part of this Bill deals with a number schools to match the latest round of schools of school funding issues. Last year’s states grants funding increases for private schools and legislation allocated $859,000 in the calendar • why wasn’t the $10 million for private year 2001 for establishment grants and $1.2 mil- schools not included in last year’s schools’ lion per annum in each of the following years. bill when he was told about the error last This bill seeks to increase those amounts by very October? significant quantities. For example, in 2001 the increase is 330 per cent-that is, a total of $3.7 25554 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Why are the people of this country subject to a government schools? If he did find out about it Minister that cannot administer his department before the legislation passed through both houses and is not aware of what is happening with the last year, why did he not fix it last year? Why did funding situation of our schools sector. he not fix it when he or his office were first in- So if anything could be described as mean and formed that there was a $10 million hole in tricky-using the Shane Stone language again-it is funding for these new non-government schools? this minister’s attempts to claim that the Labor There is no link between the university and Party in some way is responsible for any potential school elements of these Bills and the Parlia- delay in funding for these schools. mentary Library can find no precedent for a Bill, The Labor Party has stated our position many which includes new funding for both schools and times, which is, we are not against extra funding universities. for non-government schools. Last year we sup- The Labor believes that this Bill should be reported the extra funding that was provided to drafted to provide for an additional $30 million in needy non-government schools. capital works grants to be provided to govern- But what we support is fair funding for all of our ment schools, to match the extra funding being schools. That means that, having provided mas- provided for establishment grants to non- sive increases to the non-government schools government schools; improved accountability sector what is missing is the balancing increase in arrangements to apply to the use of establishment funding for government schools. grants; and the Minister’s power to determine a maximum permitted student debt to be limited to There are amendments before the Senate that will only those amounts borrowed under the Post- increase funding for government schools by an graduate Education Loan Scheme. extra $30 million to balance the $10 million that the Government is proposing in this legislation There are no reasons why this Government can- for non-government schools. Our amendments not excise the section of the Bill containing seek to provide an extra $30 million in capital school establishment grants. They won’t do it works funding for government schools across the because they want to sneak through the extra country. money for private schools. Despite what Mr Gal- lagher, the head of the Department’s higher edu- Certain sectors of education in this country under cation division says about the impact on research this Government have been severely disadvan- and development, this Bill could be passed in taged. August with no adverse affects on Universities or We have a situation where King’s and Geelong students. Grammar have had their $1 million a year in- This is the best example of a mean and tricky creases by 2004.1 but the local Catholic schools government. It highlights a government that is not have got only about $60,000 per school and the concerned about the state of public education in local public school has got only $4,000 per year this country, but is willing to blame anyone else out of this government. for this mess in the funding arrangements but The Government has sought to bestow massive itself. This Bill should be split and dealt with increases in establishment grants for new private accordingly and at the same time the public and schools, only months after striking the levels of private sectors of our education industry should the allocations in the 2000 State Grants Act. be funded fairly and equitably. While these grants amount to a very small part of Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— the total recurrent allocations for schools provided by the Commonwealth, this consideration Minister for Justice and Customs) (2.13 of itself does not justify allowing the funds to be a.m.)—I thank senators for their contribu- increased, nor does it provide a rationale for the tions on the Innovation and Education Leg- lack of rigorous accountability and eligibility islation Amendment Bill 2001. It is best left requirements applying to the program. for the government to make its remarks when So this Government and in particular this Minis- we have the debate on the motion to split this ter has got to answer two questions. Why did he bill, which will be shortly conducted. get it wrong by a factor of three? Why did he get Question resolved in the affirmative. it wrong when he sat down and tried to calculate how much extra money was needed for the non- Bill read a second time. government schools? Was it incompetence? Was Motion (by Senator Carr) proposed: it a deliberate attempt by this minister to cover up That it be an instruction to the committee of the the fact that he is providing very significant in- whole that: creases in establishment grants for non- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25555

(a) the committee divide the Innovation and brought forward six omnibus bills. There is Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 nothing untoward or unusual in such a bill (the parent bill) into three separate bills as having these three aspects to it. The opposi- follows: tion is taking premeditated action designed (i) a bill dealing with extra funding for re- to kill off this legislation if the bill is split. search and higher education, comprising Those listening to this debate should be clauses 1 to 3 and Schedule 1 of the parent aware that, on the two occasions that the bill, Senate acted to divide bills which had origi- (ii)a bill dealing with extra funding for pri- nated in the House of Representatives, the mary and secondary education, comprising practical effect was to kill off the legislation, Schedule 2 of the parent bill, and and I refer to health legislation under the (iii) a bill dealing with the postgraduate previous Labor government in 1995 and a education loan scheme, limits on student health bill under this government last year. debts to the Commonwealth and electronic communications with students, comprising Like previous governments, we are not Schedules 3, 4 and 5 of the parent bill; and willing to establish a precedent whereby a (b)the committee amend the title of the first hostile Senate can cherry pick the govern- bill and add enacting words and provisions ment’s legislative program; that is, the gov- for titles and commencement to the second ernment puts up a program, a package of and third bills. initiatives, and it is then picked off one by Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— one by splitting the bill. The established Minister for Justice and Customs) (2.15 rules and practices of the Senate provide am- a.m.)—The government opposes this motion. ple opportunity for consideration and I think it is perhaps best if, in addressing this amendment of bills which are brought before motion, I cover aspects which could be dealt the Senate. Opposition senators should be with in the committee stage as well, because using the normal procedures in amending the I do not want to repeat the government’s po- bill instead of using this device of splitting sition on this. Suffice to say that, as Senator the bill to seek to avoid the consequences of Carr as outlined, this is a bill which the op- their actions in defeating this legislation. In position is seeking to split into three; and this taking this action, opposition senators are is an unusual practice, to say the least. We rejecting this bill and rejecting every item in have in this bill an initiative by the govern- it, and no sophistry on their part will change ment which deals with extra funding for that fact. higher education—a postgraduate education Although there is a provision in the Senate loans scheme which will provide some for a bill to be split, it is not an exercise that 245,000 students per year with an ability to has been embarked upon freely. Indeed, the take up loans to advance themselves in fur- record shows that this would be only the ther education, and the extent of those loans third time that a bill originating in the House would be to the tune of $995-odd million. of Representatives has been split. In his letter The third part deals with funding amounts dated 28 June this year to the Minister for listed in the states grants acts—that deals Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the with primary and secondary education assis- Clerk of the House of Representatives ad- tance—and also deals with small increases in vises: Commonwealth assistance for non- House of Representatives Practice indicates that government students with disabilities. The the action is highly undesirable, as ‘the estab- bill increases amounts appropriated for es- lished rules and practices of the Houses provide tablishment grants for new non-government ample opportunity for the consideration and schools in 2001-04. It deals with an increase amendment of bills by each House’. In short, this motion will have the effect of killing the bill and from $4.7 million to $14.2 million. So we the government will have to reintroduce it in the have here very worthwhile initiatives in the spring sittings. form of one bill. I have to place that on record because of the Omnibus bills are not unusual. In fact, in highly unusual approach that the opposition 1995, the previous Labor government 25556 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 has embarked upon in this matter. We have join in the opposition ruse to thwart this leg- an omnibus bill. There is nothing untoward islation. about it. But we have an opposition which, If the bill is split and not passed by 30 rather than reject the legislation and take the June 2001, there will also be significant re- consequences for that action, seeks to split source implications in relation to non- the bill, which it knows will kill the legisla- government schools educating students with tion. The implications that will be suffered as disabilities. In particular, Catholic and inde- a result of this splitting of the bill are that, in pendent schools who have students with dis- relation to the amendments to the states abilities will not be able to receive payment grants act which I referred to earlier, there for their full strategic assistance entitlement will be delays in some schools being paid the of $561 for each student with a disability. 50 per cent advance establishment grant en- There will be a shortfall of $34 per student titlement. It is estimated that the establish- until the bill is passed. ment grant entitlement for the five applications that have been approved for general There will also be implications for the recurrent funding total just over $240,000, or Postgraduate Education Loan Scheme. I $131,000 in excess of the remaining alloca- point in particular to those adjustments tion of $109,000. We have a delay in funding which need to be made in order to accom- for five applications from schools, and this modate this scheme. Universities have soft- involves some 967 students. ware provided by outside companies, and most of these companies will not make But there would also be implications of changes to these computer systems until the further delay if this bill were not passed in legislation is passed. The consequence of a time for the October payment. That would delay is that institutions may not have the result in delays in making the payment of the required forms which are designed to collect remaining 50 per cent entitlement. On cur- data relevant to universities’, DETYA’s and rent numbers, that would mean delaying the ATO’s requirements. If the system is not payments for some 54 schools, involving operational in time, institutions may have to nearly 4,000 students. So a further delay use supplementary forms and input the data would have a wider impact. Furthermore, if into their information systems at a later date, the number of new school applications re- which may lead to errors. Legislative cer- mained consistent with that of previous tainty means that institutions will be able to years, there could be around 20 new school get this work under way. applications still to be submitted which will not receive any entitlement for 2001. De- There are also problems in relation to pending on the number of new schools and course planning. During discussions, institu- their enrolments at the 2001 school census tional staff indicated they needed lead time day, schools could be denied funding of be- to plan which courses will be subject to the tween $1 million and $2 million. Post Education Loans Scheme, and to consider potential student numbers and conse- If the bill were not passed at all, the impli- quently appropriate staffing levels resulting cations would be more severe, as these from increases in enrolment. There are also schools would receive no payments this year. communication products which are essential Failure to pass the bill would also lead to to administering the Post Education Loans difficulties with payments in future years. Scheme. Institutions require information This could affect the funding of new non- booklets and forms provided by the depart- government schools across Australia, in- ment to assist students with applying for the cluding Catholic schools, an indigenous loan service facility. This delay will cause a school in the Kimberley in my home state, good many students to be disadvantaged in Lutheran schools, Montessori and Steiner relation to this Post Education Loans schools, Jewish day schools and Islamic Scheme. I mentioned some 240,000 students schools. The opposition should be ashamed that have the prospect of enjoying this initia- of holding up payment to these schools. The tive, which runs to the tune of in excess of Democrats should also be ashamed if they $900 million worth of loans. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25557

The opposition cannot hide behind the fact That is the established practice in this that by splitting this bill they are casting the chamber. That has been the established prac- onus back onto government to take action to tice because over a very long time govern- have the legislation passed, because they are ments have attempted to incorporate within a really using this ruse in effect to kill the leg- particular piece of legislation different meas- islation. That is what it will do. The opposi- ures, some of which are good, some of which tion has spoken about amendments which we are bad, some of which affect the operations are yet to have details on. There has been a of departments and some of which go to good deal of contact between the office of other policy issues that are not quite as likely the Minister for Education, Training and to attract the support of the public at large. Youth Affairs and the opposition. We are yet We have seen through the history of this to have details of any amendments that might government attempts to tag unpopular meas- be forthcoming. Suffice it to say that the ures onto various popular measures. In the splitting of this bill is a thoroughly undesir- Senate—and in legislative councils around able practice. It is designed to kill the legis- this country—the opportunity has been taken lation and it will delay, if not—even worse— to divide bills, and that remains the case. avoid funding for those essential purposes Every time this occurs, the government of that I have indicated. There can be no other the day claims that the world as we know it description of it than that the opposition are will end and that these actions are reprehen- intent upon thwarting these good initiatives sible. by the government. We will oppose vehe- The minister indicated that this action has mently the splitting of this bill, but if when been undertaken in this place on at least we get to the committee stage the bill is split, three occasions. The first occasion on which the minister has indicated that he will intro- the Senate divided a bill was on 9 June 1995, duce legislation in the spring sittings in an when the Human Services and Health Leg- attempt to make the best of a bad situation islation Amendment Bill 1995 was divided brought about by the opposition. into two bills, pursuant to the instruction to Senator CARR (Victoria) (2.27 a.m.)—I the committee of the whole, and was moved was seeking the call before. I asked a ques- on notice. That was the action of a Liberal tion, but perhaps I was a bit too slow. The opposition, the detail of which is contained minister jumped, and that is fair enough be- in Odgers on page 260. I suggest that who- cause from what the minister said we now ever is writing the minister’s speeches draw know what the government’s position is on attention to that. They will also find that the these matters. Firstly, those amendments government of the day chose to introduce have been circulated, so they should be new legislation—two new bills—reflecting available to the government. the decisions of the Senate on that matter, Senator Ellison—Just now. which contained provisions that effectively divided the bills. Senator CARR—I understand that they were distributed earlier this evening, Minis- What we have heard from the minister to- ter. I turn, in responding to the minister’s night is that, when this matter is carried by statement, to the rights of the Senate and the the Senate, the government intends to with- appropriateness of the action being proposed draw the bills. That is a decision the gov- here tonight by the Labor Party in regard to ernment is taking. The government chooses splitting this bill. The minister has said to- to do that. The minister also went on to say night that this is a position that the govern- that Minister Kemp will introduce new leg- ment basically disagrees with. He does not islation in the spring session. It seems to me say it is not in the standing orders, because that what we are being told is that this bill quite clearly the Senate standing orders have has to be accepted in this particular form or always included provisions for bills to be not at all and that that has been the tradition divided on the instructions of the committee of governments—what has always been re- of the whole. ferred to as Hobson’s choice. I note a point that Senator Harradine made on the Human 25558 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Services and Health Legislation Amendment sideration of the state grants bill—remember Bill in 1995, when he drew attention by way that great controversy over the government’s of a paper prepared by the Senate clerks measures to provide a million dollars extra a which argued that the purpose of dividing a year for the wealthier schools in this coun- bill is to facilitate the Senate’s consideration try—departmental officials discovered that of a matter; to give the Senate an opportunity they had made a mistake in the forward es- to vote separately and effectively on all the timates in regard to the payment of estab- issues involved; and, should it be necessary, lishment grants to new non-government to prevent any possible tacking provisions in schools. a bill, the effect of which may be to infringe I have found in politics that, if you make a the various constitutional powers on amend- mistake, it is wise not to repeat it, to do ments. something about it and to address it square What was argued on that occasion was on. You would expect that public officials that, since the 1600s, when the phrase first would certainly do that. We discovered entered the language, it has been an elemen- through an inquiry process of the Senate that tary political tactic to leave an opponent with the government was not told initially that what is called Hobson’s choice—that is, one there had been an error in the forward esti- thing or the other; my choice or none. I un- mates. It was put to us by senior officials that derstand that that provision arose from an old it was felt within the department that, be- story whereby, at a Cambridge inn, Thomas cause the bill was controversial and they Hobson enjoyed a monopoly over which were worried about getting the bills through, customer would have access to his horses. they were not going to say anything about He said that the horse nearest the stable door the matter and that they were not going to would be the horse that is taken—‘It’s that seek amendments in this place, which is the horse or none.’ That is where this whole normal practice when governments find that principle of Hobson’s choice arose—that they have made errors, but that the govern- those enjoying a monopolistic capacity de- ment would seek to move amendments to the mand that a certain action be taken or that no bill at a more convenient date. We discov- action at all be taken. That is what the gov- ered at a subsequent hearing that the minister ernment is putting to us here tonight. Essen- was involved in this process and that the tially it is Hobson’s choice. minister, presumably, was complicit in this Labor say that there are measures in this parliament passing legislation which the de- bill that are worthy of support. The govern- partment knew was wrong. The government ment has options to make sure that those did not correct that error, and now they ex- particular provisions are implemented in law pect us to correct it in this legislation. but it will not do so, by responding in the We discovered that there were other errors way that it has tonight. Labor say that we last year in regard to not just the establish- cannot find any precedents in education to ment grants but also the strategic assistance make an omnibus bill, where essentially payments—for funding students with dis- popular measures or reasonable measures are abilities—where the government had calcu- being put together with unpopular measures lated incorrectly certain moneys. We discov- that essentially are designed to cover up the ered a third error, which is not particularly mistakes of the department and the govern- relevant to this bill, in the innovations statement. We cannot find an example where that ment. In February this year, I asked why the has occurred in recent times. $130 million in the fiscal balance table I think we are entitled to speculate on the which had been released as part of the inno- motives of the government in packaging the vation statement was not included. The de- legislation in the way that it has. Essentially, partment told us that the exclusion of the the department has made a complete mess of measure to change the operation of the EBA this issue of payment of establishment grants from the fiscal balance table was an over- to new non-government schools. Last Octo- sight. The innovation measures, including ber, when we were in the middle of the con- the measures that were reported in the 2001- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25559

02 portfolio budget statement, were meas- need to be addressed in relation to the min- ures affecting the 2001-02 budget. isterial discretion on the cap, the amount of There are quite a few oversights in regard money that is being set at the maximum loan to the education spending and the admini- limit, on the PELS scheme itself. These are stration of programs in this portfolio. Essen- issues that we believe can be addressed by tially, the administration of the establishment way of amendment. That is why we are say- grants program has been abysmal. I think we ing that the splitting of the bill provides an can show categorically that, in the case of a opportunity for the government to allow number of the schools which the government those measures on which there is broad has paid moneys to, there are serious ques- agreement—such as the extra funding for the tions as to the actions taken by the govern- universities and the ARC—to be dealt with ment in the payment to those schools which, and processed, but the question of providing under the government’s own guidelines, are additional moneys for government schools not to be paid where the school establishes should be dealt with separately. So, in that separate campuses of the one school which way, I think we are being more than reason- are not new schools at all but which are just able. It is now appropriate for this govern- campuses of the existing school. We found ment to acknowledge they have made a few from the web sites of those schools that, in blues about this and settle down and talk to terms of their registration or their registered people about getting those blues fixed. training organisation status, their company Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (2.41 structures, their personnel and the actual a.m.)—I just want to indicate that the Demo- statements of the state registration boards— crats will support this motion to split the bill. which, we are told, is just another error in the I think the minister is being disingenuous by preamble of the state registration boards in indicating that this is some ruse. He knows Victoria—these schools are in fact separate very well that this bill was put together for campuses of the one school but are being the express purpose of pushing it through. I registered as new schools. Of course, the think we had a states grants bill that should government has paid money to those schools. have had the amendments associated with That has occurred in Western Australia, in primary and secondary education attached to Victoria and, it would seem, in Queensland. it rather than to this bill. But, in any case, we It seems to me that there is a series of all know that the need for this amendment, questions that relate to the actual payment of leaving aside its importance of otherwise, the establishment grants to date. What is was known when we dealt with the states really quite disturbing is that, having discov- grants bill in December. It is extraordinary ered that the expenditure, the appropriation, that the minister would have the cheek to was in error, the government continued to suggest that the Senate was somehow being spend the money and, of course, are at a unreasonable or irresponsible in wanting to point where they are now saying that, if this split this bill. Senator Carr is right: it is en- bill is not passed, the October payments will tirely up to the government as to whether it not be made. The reality is that this bill does accepts a split bill or not. not prevent moneys being paid in October, It seems to me that, if you put these meas- because there is an opportunity for the gov- ures together in one omnibus bill, you take ernment to reconsider these issues in August. that risk. The Senate wants to properly con- It is disingenuous of the government to argue sider each of them and have the opportunity other than that, because they know the reality to reject them if that seems necessary. I have of it. That is why they said tonight that they to say that it does seem necessary to us in a are prepared to consider legislation in the number of instances. There are some good next session. measures in this bill, but we would like to be We are saying that there are other amend- able to vote for those measures separately. It ments to provide extra money for govern- would be interesting to get the minister to ment schools. There is a need to review the respond as to why it was necessary to pull PELS scheme, and there are questions that these three together, why it is that we have 25560 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 two quite separate higher education bills, Bolkus, N. Crane, A.W. essentially, coupled with the primary and West, S.M. Alston, R.K.R. secondary schools set of amendments to the Evans, C.V. Minchin, N.H. legislation. Perhaps the minister can explain Stott Despoja, N. Knowles, S.C. why it was so important that these measures McLucas, J.E. Heffernan, W. be brought together in this way. * denotes teller Question put: Question so resolved in the affirmative. That the motion (Senator Carr’s) be agreed In Committee to. The bill. The Senate divided. [2.48 a.m.] Senator CARR (Victoria) (2.52 a.m.)—I (The President—Senator the Hon. Marga- move the amendment standing in my name ret Reid) to effect the contingent notice of motion just Ayes………… 31 carried: Noes………… 29 (1) That the Innovation and Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 be Majority……… 2 divided into 3 separate bills as follows: AYES (a) a bill (the first bill) dealing with extra funding for research and higher Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. education, comprising clauses 1 to 3 Bishop, T.M. Bourne, V.W. and Schedule 1 of the parent bill; Brown, B.J. Buckland, G. (b) a bill (the second bill) dealing with Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. extra funding for primary and Collins, J.M.A. Conroy, S.M. secondary education, comprising Crossin, P.M. Crowley, R.A. Schedule 2 of the parent bill; and Denman, K.J. Faulkner, J.P. Forshaw, M.G. Gibbs, B. (c) a bill (the third bill) dealing with the Greig, B. Hogg, J.J. postgraduate education loan scheme, limits on student debts to the Hutchins, S.P. Lees, M.H. Commonwealth and electronic Ludwig, J.W * Mackay, S.M. communications with students, McKiernan, J.P. Murphy, S.M. comprising Schedules 3, 4 and 5 of Murray, A.J.M. O’Brien, K.W.K. the parent bill; and Ray, R.F. Ridgeway, A.D. Schacht, C.C. Sherry, N.J. (2) That the first bill be amended as follows: Woodley, J. (a) Title, omit “primary, secondary and higher education and of research”, NOES substitute “higher education and Abetz, E. Boswell, R.L.D. research”. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. (b) Clause 1, page 1 (line 7), after “Act”, Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. insert “(No. 1)”. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. (3) That the second bill be amended as Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. follows: Gibson, B.F. Harradine, B. Harris, L. Herron, J.J. (a) At the beginning of the bill, insert: Kemp, C.R. Lightfoot, P.R. A Bill for an Act to amend legislation Macdonald, I. Macdonald, J.A.L. about funding of primary and secondary Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J * education and for related purposes Newman, J.M. Payne, M.A. The Parliament of Australia enacts: Reid, M.E. Tambling, G.E. 1 Short title Tchen, T. Tierney, J.W. This Act may be cited as the Innova- Troeth, J.M. Vanstone, A.E. tion and Education Legislation Watson, J.O.W. Amendment Act (No. 2) 2001. PAIRS 2 Commencement Lundy, K.A. Patterson, K.C. Cook, P.F.S. Hill, R.M. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25561

This Act commences on the day on superannuation entities to minimise and which it receives the Royal Assent. avoid tax. The main vehicles for this minimi- 3 Schedule(s) sation of tax relate to offshore superannua- Each Act that is specified in a Schedule tion funds and certain categories of onshore to this Act is amended or repealed as superannuation funds into which, over a pe- set out in the applicable items in the riod of three years from 1996 through to Schedule concerned, and any other 1999, approximately $1.5 billion have been item in a Schedule to this Act has effect placed. Approximately 2,000 high wealth according to its terms. individuals have placed $1.5 billion in these (b) Renumber Schedule 2 as Schedule 1. superannuation funds and, in doing so, they (4) That the third bill be amended as have sought to avoid—and so far have follows: avoided—income tax, superannuation taxes (a) At the beginning of the bill, insert: including the superannuation surcharge and A Bill for an Act to amend legislation fringe benefits taxes. The tax office estimates about funding of primary and secondary that the level of revenue at risk is approxi- education and for related purposes mately half a billion dollars. The Parliament of Australia enacts: When this matter was last considered, the 1 Short title Labor Party moved an amendment to retro- spectively implement this legislation. How- This Act may be cited as the Innova- tion and Education Legislation ever, we did not secure agreement with the Amendment Act (No. 2) 2001. Australian Democrats and that consequently meant that we were effectively forced to 2 Commencement support the Australian Democrat amendment This Act commences on the day on which did not go to the same period of retro- which it receives the Royal Assent. spectivity. The Australian Labor Party 3 Schedule(s) maintains that it was never the intention, Each Act that is specified in a Schedule when superannuation funds were enacted in to this Act is amended or repealed as Australia, for superannuation funds to be set out in the applicable items in the used to avoid income tax, the various super- Schedule concerned, and any other annuation contributions taxes, the so-called item in a Schedule to this Act has effect superannuation surcharge and fringe benefits according to its terms. tax. (b) That Schedules 3, 4 and 5 be renumbered as Schedules 1, 2 and 3, Other than the 2,000-odd individuals who respectively. have been identified by the tax office, every- Question resolved in the affirmative. one else in Australia pays the appropriate level of tax in respect of superannuation. For Progress reported. those reasons, the Labor Party believes that it TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT is compelling that this legislation be retro- (SUPERANNUATION spective. It is not unreasonable, if everyone CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL 2000 else in Australia is paying their respective Consideration of House of Representatives level of tax on superannuation funds, for Message these 2,000 individuals to do the same. Ac- cordingly, the Labor Party will continue to Consideration resumed from 24 May. support the amendment moved by the Aus- Motion (by Senator Kemp) proposed: tralian Democrats to ensure that this legisla- That the committee does not insist on the Sen- tion has at least some measure of retrospec- ate amendment to which the House of Represen- tivity. tatives has disagreed. Question put: Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (2.54 That the motion (Senator Kemp’s) be agreed a.m.)—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Su- to. perannuation Contributions) Bill 2000 deals with the use of a number of different types of The committee divided. [3.03 a.m.] 25562 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(The Temporary Chairman—Senator A.B. BILLS RETURNED FROM THE Ferguson) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Ayes………… 36 Message received from the House of Rep- Noes………… 21 resentatives returning the following bill without amendment: Majority……… 15 Interactive Gambling Bill 2001 AYES NOTICES Abetz, E. Allison, L.F. Withdrawal Bartlett, A.J.J. Boswell, R.L.D. Bourne, V.W. Brandis, G.H. Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Calvert, P.H. Campbell, I.G. Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Chapman, H.G.P. Eggleston, A. Minister for Communications, Information Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. Technology and the Arts) (3.07 a.m.)— Ferris, J.M. Gibson, B.F. Madam President, at the request of the Greig, B. Harris, L. respective senators, I withdraw general Herron, J.J. Kemp, C.R. business notices of motion 612, 613, 624, Lees, M.H. Lightfoot, P.R. 798, 850, 862, 868, 892, 901, 907, 910 and Macdonald, I. Macdonald, J.A.L. 913. Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J * LEAVE OF ABSENCE Murray, A.J.M. Newman, J.M. Payne, M.A. Reid, M.E. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) Ridgeway, A.D. Tambling, G.E. agreed to: Tchen, T. Tierney, J.W. That leave of absence be granted to every Troeth, J.M. Vanstone, A.E. member of the Senate from the termination of the Watson, J.O.W. Woodley, J. sitting today to the day on which the Senate next NOES meets. Bishop, T.M. Brown, B.J. ADJOURNMENT Buckland, G. Campbell, G. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) pro- Carr, K.J. Collins, J.M.A. posed: Cooney, B.C. Crossin, P.M. That the Senate do now adjourn. Crowley, R.A. Faulkner, J.P. Forshaw, M.G. Gibbs, B. Queensland: Government Policies Hutchins, S.P. Ludwig, J.W * Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (3.07 Mackay, S.M. McLucas, J.E. a.m.)—I seek leave to incorporate my Murphy, S.M. O’Brien, K.W.K. speech. Ray, R.F. Schacht, C.C. Senator Newman—Have you shown it to Sherry, N.J. us? PAIRS Senator LUDWIG—Yes, I certainly Patterson, K.C. Lundy, K.A. have. Hill, R.M. Cook, P.F.S. Leave granted. Crane, A.W. Bolkus, N. Alston, R.K.R. West, S.M. The speech read as follows— Minchin, N.H. Evans, C.V. Over the past year I have been listening to the Knowles, S.C. McKiernan, J.P. constituents of Queensland through various Coonan, H.L. Hogg, J.J. methods of communication in order to give Heffernan, W. Conroy, S.M. Queenslanders the opportunity to express their Stott Despoja, N. Denman, K.J. concerns and to allow me to assist them wherever * denotes teller possible. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The responses have indicated that there is considerable discontent throughout the community over Resolution reported; report adopted. the policies that this Government has chosen to adopt. A number of constituents have also asked that I raise these concerns over Government poli- Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25563 cies in Parliament in the hope that this Govern- It is clear that the Coalition’s attempt to advertise ment may attempt to address these issues. its way back into government will continue The overwhelming majority of responses came throughout the rest of the year, with Senate Esti- from senior citizens, including both self-funded mates indicating that other expenditure proposed retirees and pensioners. These people have seen for the year include $6.9 million on the Telstra first-hand the ‘tricky’ manner in which the Coali- Besley response, a $5 million campaign on the tion has handled the provision of government abolition of the Financial Institutions Tax and a assistance to the elderly. The $300 one-off pay- $4.2 million campaign to promote Work for the ment was a prime example of an attempt to buy Dole. This Government will spend approximately back the elderly’s vote and provide a basis for $20 million per month leading up to October this massive taxpayer-funded self promotion. The year on advertising. This is a disgraceful waste of $300 was an insult for those that were promised taxpayers money which should be spent in areas $1000 at the last election, and older Australians of genuine need. know that it doesn’t even come close to compen- Rather than spending money on genuine public sating for the slug of the GST. information, this Government has chosen to waste What is most concerning about the entire manner money on opportunistic, cynical advertising. in which the Government has chosen to provide Telstra this assistance is the $4.5 million wasted on ad- I have mentioned the issue of Telstra’s regional vertising to promote the Government in this elec- services a number of times in this chamber, pri- tion year. The Government could have informed marily because it is an issue which continually pensioners and retirees of changes through nor- arises as being of concern to those outside of the mal channels, however they decided to target the major centres. There is clearly a continued need broader community to gain wider electoral sup- to be vigilant, as indicated by the recently leaked port for the upcoming election. memo from Telstra. The memo confirms that the Rather than targeting potential recipients in a providers plan to cut further jobs from the organi- cost-effective manner, the advertising campaign sation, with the majority being from regional gratuitously covers radio, television as well as centres. The memo indicated that of the job cuts print. Telstra is considering for its National Network This is just another example of the Government’s Solutions arm, 70% will come from rural centres. extraordinary wastage of taxpayers money on self This equates to more than 600 jobs lost in re- promotion. The $4 million campaign would easily gional Australia. National Network Solutions is a have payed for the extension of the $300 payment unit within Telstra responsible for installing and to all carer pensioners aged over 55. Carers save fixing telephones and contains the field workers the Government millions of dollars every year yet who actually do the work on individual phones in the Coalition seem to believe that they do not homes. Unfortunately for those living in regional deserve this additional assistance. This Govern- towns such as Charleville, Longreach, Dalby and ment clearly has its priorities muddled when it Boonah, it looks as though the already inadequate chooses to spend millions of dollars on tax- telephone services will only get worse. payer-funded advertising rather than extending a In the March 2001 Performance Monitoring Bul- benefit to those most in need. The value of the letin, the Australian Communications Authority campaign is highly questionable given the $300 (ACA) found that Telstra has failed to meet even one-off doesn’t even require pensioners to ap- the Government’s low standards for performance ply—it’s paid automatically. The detail of this on fifty out of seventy-nine criteria. The ACA’s payment could have easily been incorporated into Customer Satisfaction Survey has also found un- the regular seniors newsletter that is mailed di- precedented levels of dissatisfaction by Austra- rectly to all age pensioners and most retirees. lians with the service they are receiving from Another example of this Government’s muddled telecommunications carriers. As Labor has main- priorities is the $15 million being spent on private tained consistently, the Government needs to re- health insurance advertising. Rather than spend- tain its position as the majority shareholder in ing taxpayers money on health services in the order to ensure that services improve. Telstra’s public health system, the Government is further recent price changes were only achieved via the subsidising private health funds. As noted by Government’s position as a majority shareholder Labor’s Shadow Minister for Health, the money in the organisation. The Government would no used for these advertisements could have funded longer have this influence if it were to fully pri- an extra 1250 hip replacement operations or 1000 vatise Telstra, ending any chance of improving heath by-pass operations. services to regional consumers. Privatisation will only ensure that Telstra focuses solely on profits 25564 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 rather than providing services to people living in the growth and the strength of the Australian the regions. economy”. (Parliament House, 13 August 1998). Unemployment It is now clear that the GST has not boosted growth or strengthened the economy. In fact, the Responses I have received from the electorate of new taxation system has had a devastating effect Forde show concern at the growing level of un- on small business, with many simply preferring to employment in the area. The unemployment fig- close their doors rather than deal with the compli- ures in the area of Forde show the Howard Gov- ance nightmare and becoming part-time tax col- ernment has broken its promise that the GST lectors for the Government. would create jobs. From December 2000 to March 2001, the unemployment level has in- An extraordinary number of businesses within the creased by 3% in Beenleigh; 3.7% in Eagleby; tourism industry on the Gold Coast have been 4.6% in Loganlea; and 4% in Waterford West. adversely affected by the economic climate cre- This Government’s policies on taxation and small ated by this Government. The Government needs business have placed unprecedented pressure on to provide much more assistance to those small the economy causing small business to suffer and businesses involved in the tourism industry, par- unemployment to rise. ticularly after slugging them with the most op- pressive tax system this country has ever seen. The unemployment problem is certainly not going Australian tourists now have the option of going to be addressed by this Government’s refusal to overseas for their holidays and avoiding paying deal with the situation of Job Network providers the GST or holidaying in their own country and using labour hire firms to place their unemployed being slugged with this tax. Prior to the introduc- clients into ‘phantom jobs’. The recent Senate tion of the GST, the tourism industry briefed this Estimates hearings exposed the practice of Job Government extensively about the effect this tax Network providers setting up their own labour would have on small businesses in this area. The hire company and then employing job seekers in Government ignored the warnings and now the this company only to sack them after completing small business operators in the tourism industry 15 hours of work. The Government then pays the are paying the price. provider up to $400 for each unemployed person who they place into a job which lasts for a mini- Unfortunately, small business owners now have mum of 15 hours. These so-called jobs often only the end-of-financial-year GST nightmare to look require the unemployed person to only fill out a forward to. According to the President of the Na- survey and often do not even require the unem- tional Tax Accountants’ Association, Rob Regan, ployed person to leave home at all. The Govern- the tax system has been complicated to such an ment should be acting immediately to investigate extent that tax agents’ fees would increase by 50 the Job Network providers to ensure that this to 100 per cent this year. With regard to the practice is stamped out. It must also investigate 350-page Tax Guide which arrives in the mail this the apparent sanction given to this practice given week. Mr Regan made the point in the Cou- by the Department of Employment, Workplace rier-Mail (p.3. 26/06/01) that “Prior to the How- Relations and Small Business. Not only is it a ard Government coming into power, it was 200 blatant misuse of taxpayers money—it is taking pages - now it’s almost doubled in size”. advantage of those in the community who are Mr Regan went on to say that even experts were most in need of assistance. Unemployed people confused about the new tax regime, concluding who are attempting to find work should be given that “Tax reform has failed under the Howard as much assistance as possible, not exploited by Government because it’s too cumbersome”. the bodies who are funded by the government to Dairy Deregulation provide genuine employment opportunities. The Government’s handling of dairy deregulation Small Business and Taxation was identified as an issue of major concern by On my recent visits to Toowoomba I have again many survey respondents in the Forde and Groom been confronted with the extent to which small areas. Many dairy farmers have seen their income businesses are struggling under the current Gov- plummet as a result of dairy deregulation, with ernment’s business and taxation policies. This precious little assistance offered by this Govern- was confirmed by a substantial number of re- ment. The Government has set the cut off point sponses from the Gold Coast area which indicated for access to additional assistance at only those that small businesses are still hurting from the who had over 35% of their operation devoted to taxation system implemented by this Govern- producing market milk. This effectively cuts out ment. It is difficult to reconcile this situation with at least 20% of dairy farmers in Queensland. Any Mr Howard’s boast before the last election that farmers which took advice prior to deregulation “the tax plan is good for Australia ... It will boost to expand and diversify their businesses have now Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25565 been penalised for doing so. Many of these farm- ard Government is proposing to scrap the Regis- ers now have very low incomes, considerable ter through legislation and replace if with two far debt, and yet still cannot access this additional more limited lists. The Government’s legislation assistance. The Government has failed to develop will immediately remove all of these listings from a cohesive plan to secure the futures of dairy the Register and will replace the Australian Heri- farming families and others in the industry. La- tage Commission with an advisory council with bor’s Shadow Agriculture Minister recently high- significantly reduced powers and independence. lighted the Government’s vast number of failings Labor supports retaining the Register of National in their handling of this issue including: failing to Estate as a comprehensive statutory register to be allow dairy farmers to directly access Dairy Re- updated and maintained at a national level. Labor gional Assistance Program (DRAP) grants where will also supporting stronger protection provi- a project can be shown to result in long-term em- sions in the existing framework for protection of ployment in a dairying area; failing to support heritage places with national significance. How- farmers seeking to bargain collectively with proc- ever, we believe that this should be achieved essors and manufacturers; failing to ensure that through amending the current legislation. Many neither suppliers nor consumers are being ex- of the places listed on the Register have received ploited in the wake of deregulation and producing greater recognition and protection as a result of an exit scheme which very few farmers have been their listing. Many places in my local area are able to access. Labor’s amendment to the Gov- listed on this Register including: the Beaudesert ernment’s legislation was passed through the Sen- War Memorial, the Bethania Lutheran Church, ate yesterday. Unfortunately, the government wa- the Boonah War Memorial, Catswold Cottage in tered down this measure this morning. This Rathdowney, Bishops Peak Shelter, Hillview Art amendment was to reduce the cut-off point for Site, Cedar Creek National Park, Joalah National access to additional assistance to 25%, as well as Park and Tamborine Mountain National Park. It is introducing a minimum payment of $15000 for of great concern to me that these places will lose eligible farmers. This amendment would have the recognition and protection offered by their meant that most of the farmers in the ‘quota’ listing in the Register. Local constituents who states, including my state of Queensland, who also wish to voice their concern over this issue would have missed out under the Governments can sign a petition at my office which calls on the plan will now qualify for assistance. The ball is Government to maintain the Register of the Na- now in the Government’s court as the legislation tional Estate. returns to the House of Representatives - they can Whilst it has been clear for some time that the support the legislation with Labor’s amendments policies embraced by this Government are failing, to insure a fairer compensation deal for our dairy responses to my survey have confirmed that peo- farmers or they can abandon them yet again. The ple do not believe that this Government is up to government took the low road and pared back our the job. More importantly, Australians have a amendment. right to expect that the Government will attempt Environment and Heritage to address these issues in a responsible manner - Environment and heritage issues seem to consis- not indulge in a panic-fuelled advertising blitz to tently rate as issues of major concern in public buy their way back into government. forums, with similar results emanating from re- Whistleblowers: Heiner Case sponses from constituents. People seem to be very Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (3.08 concerned about the preservation of their local environment as well as the conservation of local a.m.)—I seek an indication from the chamber man-made structures of historical and natural whether all senators’ adjournment speeches value. Residents who visit areas such as Mt Tam- will be incorporated. borine or the Lamington National Park in Forde The PRESIDENT—It would be a matter or the Burleigh Heads National Park in McPher- of the speeches being shown in advance to son greatly appreciate the opportunity to regularly the whips, and it may have been agreed or visit such beautiful local environments and are not have been agreed. I do not know. You rightfully determined to ensure that these areas are protected. To ensure the protection of these have the call, Senator. and other areas of national importance, Labor is Senator HARRIS—I have seen no ad- campaigning to save the Register of National journment speeches, Madam President. Estate. This Register has been developed over the The PRESIDENT—You have the call to last twenty-five years and consists of some thir- teen thousand places that have been recognised speak if you wish, Senator. for their heritage values. It appears that the How- 25566 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Senator HARRIS—I rise to table a ber may consider the content during the grievance—dated 9 May 2001—this evening winter recess. on behalf of Queenslander Mr Kevin Linde- Leave not granted. berg and compiled by Mr Robert F. Greenwood QC, in respect of a charge that Senator HARRIS—It is my intention to the Senate was gravely misled by the Queen- speak more comprehensively, when the Sen- sland government and the Queensland ate resumes, on the grievance and how I be- Criminal Justice Commission when it took lieve its serious issues should be addressed evidence in the Heiner affair in 1995 before by the Senate. To repeat: I have considered the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved the grievance carefully; it is not done lightly. Whistleblower Cases chaired by Senator It is not a rehash of old material but a griev- Shayne Murphy. The grievance is addressed ance which highlights new evidence and how to Senator Margaret Reid, President of the this chamber may have been seriously misled Senate. Honourable senators should know when making findings in the Heiner affair. that, after considering the matter, the Presi- Left unaddressed, in the face of this new evi- dent declined to table it but she invited the dence, those findings may bring disrepute on interested parties, Messrs Lindeberg and the Senate and may let a serious possible Greenwood, to see if any senator would. Af- contempt occur with impunity. I indicate to ter an approach and careful consideration, I the Senate that at an appropriate time in the have agreed to do so. Under normal circum- new session of parliament I will read into stances I would respect the President’s dis- Hansard the documents which the opposition cretion but on this occasion, regretfully, I has declined to give leave to incorporate. cannot. Northern Territory Public Order and The grievance does bring serious new evi- Anti-Social Conduct Legislation dence and critical insights into the notorious Senator RIDGEWAY (New South Heiner affair which I believe must be appro- Wales—Deputy Leader of the Australian priately considered by this chamber. Dis- Democrats) (3.13 a.m.)—I seek leave to in- turbingly, it reveals for the first time that corporate my adjournment speech into Han- allegations of child abuse brought about the sard. Heiner inquiry, and that the shredding unac- Leave granted. ceptably aided in covering up the abuse. This The speech read as follows— chamber knows that I, along with all other senators, have a longstanding interest in I rise today to speak about a bill that was tabled in the NT Legislative Assembly on 5th June, 2001. eradicating child abuse, no matter where it According to the Chief Minister, Mr Burke, the exists, who has engaged in it and who has Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Bill 2001 covered it up. is about the maintenance of law and order—“a set To reiterate, the new evidence reveals of comprehensive reforms and programs that will what can be reasonably assumed to have safeguard our security”. been shredded, namely, evidence of abuse of But on further reading of the legislation, one has children in that state run institution, and it to ask the question: “Whose security?” throws a new and disturbing light on the The Chief Minister goes on to say that the bill thousands of dollars of public money paid by will “punish where necessary”, but also “assist the Queensland government to a public ser- the rehabilitation of offenders.” This is what Mr vant to buy his silence about the child abuse Burke calls “managed punishment”. and related matters. The critical evidence And those who are to be “managed” under this appears to have been deliberately withheld bill are a group known as “itinerants or long- from the Senate at the time when it was con- grassers”. Senators may not be all that familiar sidering the Heiner affair. Contempt may with the term long-grassers—but to most in the therefore have been committed. Given the Northern Territory, it is a slang term for homeless Aboriginal people. time constraints, I seek leave to table the grievance and its attachments so this cham- A lot of Aboriginal people come into Darwin during the dry season, which happens to coincide with the tourist season. This is when the climate Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25567 is at its best, when people can actually leave re- • Disrupts the peaceful and orderly conduct of mote communities and know they will be able to an event, entertainment or gathering; get home, and when people can travel up to Dar- • Interferes with people’s reasonable enjoy- win, visit friends and family or access specialist ment of a place; or medical treatment and hospitals. • Disrupts peace or good order in or around a Of course when they arrive in Darwin. there isn’t place. sufficient accommodation, so many people turn to charitable organisations for food and shelter, or In effect, anti-social behaviour will include things they simply sleep under the stars. like: • This is an annual routine for many Aboriginal public loitering, people. It has been happening for generations. • jay walking, But to the Chief Minister, these ‘long-grassers’ • sleeping in parks, and are a blight on Darwin and the harbingers of • people who look different to the ‘model citi- crime and unsightly behaviour. zen’. So let us be clear on what this bill is about, and And it is police who will determine what is and is whose behaviour is being labelled as ‘anti-social’ not anti-social, and what is not conducive to and contrary to ‘public order’. ‘public order’. In his second reading speech, the Chief Minister The bill empowers police officers (of any rank) to made the comment that: issue a person with a ‘direction’ to leave a place “Many ways have been tried and many more or stop acting in an ‘anti-social’ manner in a given words have been expended on seeking a solution place. Directions have a lifespan of up to 72 to the anti-social behaviour of this particular— hours, and can be issued for anti-social behaviour perhaps even peculiar—group within Territory that occurs in any public place, any private. lace society. The Government in introducing the where the conduct affects people who are in a Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Bill is public place, P trying yet another way to deal with some of the or somewhere that has been deemed a ‘pre- intrusive activities we see in our streets and parks. scribed’ place by police. ... we are not being racist when we suggest that In the process of issuing a ‘direction’, police can many of our urban problems might not be there if confiscate anything that is contributing to the some of these people went home.” anti-social conduct. This may mean. a stereo, a Clearly this is a bill that is in the league of the skateboard and so on. Police are required to re- NT’s mandatory sentencing legislation. turn ‘detained goods’ in a ‘reasonable’ time It doesn’t directly name Aboriginal people as the frame—but no time limits are referred to in the target group, but it is clear after reading the bill bill. and the Chief Minister’s speech, what its true Police are also empowered to judge what is ‘rea- motivations and intentions are. sonable’ when it comes to deciding whether or It is also clear that it will disproportionately im- not to issue someone with a direction. Police will pact on Aboriginal people, bring them into greater determine what is ‘reasonably necessary’ in the contact with police, and increase the likelihood of interest of public safety, public order, or the pro- Aboriginal incarceration. tection of the rights and freedoms of others. to end the anti-social conduct. But the trade-off, in the Minister’s eyes at least, is the perceived electoral benefits of a tough law Surely, if the legal principle of ‘reasonableness’ is and order platform as the Territory approaches an to be exercised, this should be done by a magis- election. trate or a judge. So what is ‘anti-social conduct’? It is important to note that the bill does not make anti-social conduct a crime. It includes any behaviour that: The crime is committed when someone fails to • Causes apprehension, harassment, alarm or fully comply with a direction by showing further distress to a reasonable person entering or anti-social conduct before the declaration has leaving a place; expired. A breach of a direction incurs a penalty • Obstructs the movement of pedestrians or of up to $2,000 or 6 month’s gaol. traffic; When issuing a direction, police may ask for the • Obstructs or hinders another person entering offender’s name and address. If they fail to di- or leaving a business; vulge the information, this is an offence under the 25568 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001 bill, and again incurs a fine of up to $2,000 or 6 If you are not the owner of the building, but a month’s gaol. tenant, you have no right of appeal against the I return to my earlier point, if ‘reasonableness’ is declaration. A tenant would have to convince the legal principle the NT Government wants to their landlord to appeal the declaration on their exercise through this legislation—surely the pun- behalf. ishment should fit the crime. How could anyone The ability of the police to enforce directions that argue that refusing to state your name and address they issue raises a number of questions about warrants six month’s in gaol—or that sleeping in police intelligence collection and record keeping. a park could cost you $2,000? Records about what directions have been issued The bill also applies to private property such as and are in force will need to be kept. Conse- people’s homes, if the police declare the home or quently, recipients of a direction, who are other- the block of flats a ‘prescribed. place’. Police wise law-abiding citizens, are likely to have per- suddenly have extremely ‘broad powers, such as sonal details about their lives collated and held by the right to give directions to residents of the flats police. in relation. to their conduct within the flats and These are serious privacy questions when you the surrounding area. Similarly, the Minister consider that those under this type of surveillance could notify an Aboriginal community, and all the have not broken any law, until such time as they dwellings within that community, that they con- breach a direction. stitute a ‘prescribed place’. The North Australian Aboriginal Legal Service Furthermore, the bill proposes to abolish certain has provided a list of the legislation that already private property rights of peaceful enjoyment and exists in the NT to give police and government exclusive possession through the creation of a agencies powers to deal with disorderly conduct. mechanism called a ‘Place of Anti-Social Con- These include the liquor laws to prevent public duct Declaration’. drinking, protective custody laws that allow po- In other words. it defies the age-old notion of a lice to detain anyone who is drunk in public, man or a woman’s house being their castle, which council by-laws to stop sleeping in public places underpins our common law relating to property. or to move people on from public places if they Any police officer can apply to a court for this are disorderly, and so on. declaration, provided that the court is satisfied (on In other words, I fail to see an actual need for the the balance of probabilities rather than any proof) Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Bill in the that the place has been associated with ‘a con- NT’s legal system. All of the reasons that the tinuing or repeated course of anti-social conduct’. Chief Minister listed as to why the bill is neces- Courts have the power to revoke and extend dec- sary, are sufficiently addressed by current legisla- larations beyond the 12 month limit. tion. If the house that you rent comes under such a So what does this bill achieve that is new? All I declaration, police can enter (forcibly if neces- can see is that it creates an entirely new class of sary) your house at any time without your con- criminal conduct—namely disobeying a police sent, or a warrant—day or night—if they rea- officer. sonably suspect that anti-social conduct is occur- And in light of the thinly-veiled racially- ring in the house. discriminatory nature of the bill, I think most The only check and balance relating to a declara- Australians would be offended by its intrusive tion is that the officer is required to get the ap- and punitive nature and what its impact on Abo- proval of a Superintendent. riginal people will be. While in the house or the surrounding area, police Its likely impact will be more Aboriginal being can. issue directions to anyone who acts in an imprisoned for minor offences. anti-social manner, confiscate property and ask This new law runs totally counter to the manda- for names and addresses. tory sentencing deal between the Federal and NT If police suspect that any person has ‘a thing con- governments. And I hope that the Howard Gov- nected with or relating to an offence’, police can ernment will take note of this! search the entire property, including vehicles, and Most of the Aboriginal people being gaoled will people. They are also empowered to use ‘reason- be the same people currently affected by manda- able force’ to conduct any of these searches. If tory sentencing—that is Aboriginal people, par- anyone does not co-operate, the penalty is also a ticularly if they are young, homeless or itinerant. fine of up to $2,000 or 6 months gaol. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25569

This new law will increase the interactions be- has been bandied around quite a lot over the tween Aboriginal people and police, inevitably last year or so. If we look at the history of resulting in an increase in offences such as: this, it actually goes back to Bill Clinton in • resist police, America. He was the first one who came up • assault police, with Knowledge Nation. Tony Blair in the • offensive language and so on. UK then borrowed the term and then Kim Beazley out here in Australia borrowed the Assaults are now “mandatory sentencing offences” in the NT, meaning that the penalty must term Knowledge Nation. With the old be gaol—and we are not necessarily talking about videotapes, when you make a copy of a copy short sentences, because no time period is speci- of a copy what you end up with at the end is fied. not particularly good and not particularly There is also the potential that minor property clear. That is particularly the case with this damage will result from the increased interactions so-called Knowledge Nation policy of the between police and Aboriginal people as a result ALP. Kim Beazley launched this earlier this of this bill—property damage attracts mandatory year and his first bright idea was an online minimum gaol terms. university, which has been thoroughly rub- Therefore, what the mandatory sentencing deal bished and discredited right around the may represent in terms of positives for Aboriginal country. I have made many speeches relating people, the anti-social conduct bill will take away. to that and I do not want to dwell on it to- At the same time as the Federal Government is night. trying to make the mandatory sentencing deal work to reduce Aboriginal incarceration, the Ter- But I do want to dwell on the fact that the ritory Government is seeking to introduce new Labor Party, who see themselves as an alter- laws that will achieve the exact opposite. native government, have tonight trashed any The NT’s intent in tabling this bill would appear idea of their Knowledge Nation. Right at the to be to win the ‘law and order’ vote in the lead cusp of where they wanted to lead off with up to the next election. Knowledge Nation, they have refused to pass But the long-term outcomes for Aboriginal people the Innovation and Education Legislation are extremely regressive and demoralising. I think Amendment Bill 2001, which was going to all Senators can imagine the impact this bill is be the start of the allocation of over $100 going to have on communities that are already million into Knowledge Nation type activi- struggling with a range of dire social issues and ties in the schools and universities of this lack of economic opportunities. And let us re- country. I do not know what the shadow member, we are not talking about a small minor- minister for education and the Leader of the ity of people in the Territory. Opposition are actually doing at the moment. We are talking about 25% of the population. The fact is that they have allowed Senator Does Australia really want to revisit the national Kim Carr to come in here and prevent the and international backlash and criticism that came foundations of their Knowledge Nation with the mandatory sentencing laws? starting. Who is running the show in the La- Do we want to ignore the main recommendation bor Party? We have had this rogue senator of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths trashing Labor policy. The Leader of the Op- in Custody, and relegate another generation of position should bring the senator into line. I young Aboriginal people to be permanently des- do not think he realises the implication of tined for our gaols? what has happened. Let me give a little bit of I hope the Chief Minister of the Northern Terri- history of how it has developed in the Senate tory, and other members of his government will over the last few weeks. reconsider their advocacy of this bill and ensure it never becomes law in this country. The bill, quite properly, was sent to inquiry with a reporting date. The inquiry was Thank you. to be held last Monday week, and it was. Knowledge Nation Then, before we got back to the reporting Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales) date, the Democrats combined with Labor to (3.13 a.m.)—I rise tonight to speak about a move in the Senate an extension for another concept known as Knowledge Nation. This hearing. That hearing was held last Monday. 25570 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

That was engineered by Senator Lyn Allison, smaller ones in the regional areas, will be a who has a blind, ideological hatred of private lot more cautious about it and will not start schools. Because this bill quite rightly con- planning for the places. Therefore, students tains a small amount of money for an in- will miss out in rural and regional Australia. crease in funding to private schools because Students who may have gone to university there are more students in those schools, La- will now not go to university next year be- bor and the Democrats have combined to cause of the irresponsible reaction of the stop the whole thing. They have deliberately Democrats and Labor senators. engineered this, and I want to put this very Let us have a look at another measure in clearly on the Hansard record. They could the bill. We have established a postgraduate have had the inquiry, reported back and loans scheme in this bill: up to 250,000 post- given us 1½ weeks to debate the bill. But graduate students will be able to apply for they set a reporting date of today for the In- loans and, without an interest component, novation and Education Legislation repay them through a HECS type system. Amendment Bill 2001. And, with our very This is a major new push for postgraduate busy program of 14 bills to get through to- education in this country, the very foundation day, when did we get to it? We got to it at 2 needed for their Knowledge Nation—and o’clock this morning. How on earth could it what is happening to it? It is being com- be debated sensibly then anyway? pletely trashed by the stopping of this bill. Let us work out who the guilty parties Will the universities have the time to adver- here are. The guilty parties are Labor and the tise those places and get them in place for Democrats. They have stopped this legisla- next year? If we consider this legislation in tion with these manoeuvring tactics. Let us August, which is now certain, maybe it will see what the effect of it will be. I do not happen, maybe it will not; it is a near-run know if Kim Beazley is actually focusing on thing. what the effects of this bill will be. There are Another major provision in the bill relates a number of aspects. I mentioned the school to the infrastructure that goes with research. one, and I will just treat that very briefly. The Under 13 years of Labor, when research Department of Education, Training and went in, infrastructure often did not—and the Youth Affairs made an estimate of how many universities have been starved of proper in- new schools were going to start and how frastructure funding. This bill is the start of many students were going to be in those correcting that long-term error. If you are to schools. It happened that there were more buy and order this sort of equipment, you schools than they had estimated, and the must have a long lead time to do it. But in schools were a little bit bigger. We fund the Senate, due to the Labor Party and the these schools on a pro rata basis. It is not that Democrats, we have now delayed that by there are extra dollars per student; there just three months. Will it be in place for next happen to be more students and more year? schools. That is why there is an extra appropriation. That is quite reasonable, yet Senator This government, through Backing Aus- Lyn Allison’s blind, ideological hatred of tralia’s Ability, has doubled the number of parental choice is stopping that provision. ARC grants, the research grants, which is something Labor never did—we have dou- Let us have a look at what this also holds bled them. Excellent research projects will up and stops. One of the initiatives is for go ahead which are the very foundations of 2,000 extra places in the universities of this something called the Knowledge Nation. Yet country. There will be students out there who tonight the combined parties here have will now miss out. If we consider this in stopped that going ahead on time. Lead time August and there is evidence from the hear- for getting this research under way with ing and from the department to say that the projects being approved has now been com- effect will be quite patchy, some universities pletely delayed. So, putting all of those will take a punt and start to plan for their things together, with Backing Australia’s places for next year. Others, perhaps the Ability, we are attempting to implement a Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25571 major new initiative in this country for get- Parliamentary Staff ting research and training and student num- The PRESIDENT (3.22 a.m.)—Before bers post-secondary up and running in a adjourning the Senate, I just wish at this hour major way, but that has now been hobbled by to take a moment to thank all staff who have the actions here tonight. been involved in the late sitting of the Sen- What is happening in the Labor Party ate, particularly those in the chamber itself policy area? They claim that, if they come and throughout the building. I thank you for into government this year, they will develop your dedication and commitment in serving this Knowledge Nation. What we have seen the Senate to this late hour. The Senate here tonight are the very foundations of that stands adjourned until 12.30 p.m. on Mon- being cut out from under the Labor Party day, 6 August 2001. policy. How can Kim Beazley, with any Senate adjourned at 3.23 a.m. (Friday) creditability— DOCUMENTS The PRESIDENT—Mr Beazley. Tabling Senator TIERNEY—How can Mr Beazley, with any creditability, say that he is The following documents were tabled by going to build the Knowledge Nation when the Clerk: he is knocking the foundations out from un- Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regu- der the very process? He needs to focus; he lations—Civil Aviation Orders—Direc- needs to get rogue Senator Kim Carr under tives—Part— control so that we can build the new econ- 105, dated 20 [4] and 21 [7] June 2001. omy. 107, dated 20 June 2001. The PRESIDENT—Senator, you ought Defence Act—Determination under section not refer to the senator in that fashion. I 58B—Defence Determination 2001/17. would ask you to rephrase that. Health Insurance Act—Health Insurance Senator TIERNEY—Senator Kim Carr Determination HS/2/01. should be brought under control by the National Health Act—Health Benefits Leader of the Opposition so that we can get Reinsurance (Records of Organisations) innovation and development of our post- Determination 2001 (No. 1). secondary education sector on track and running and rising in this country. 25572 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE The following answers to questions were circulated: Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio: Market Testing of Corporate Services (Question No. 2673) Senator Faulkner asked Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 9 August 2000: (1) Has the department and/or any agency in the portfolio, set a timeframe to market test any of its corporate services; if so, which agency, which functions, and what is the timeframe. (2) In relation to each agency which has, or will, move to market test corporate services, what arrangements have been made to consult with effected employees and their representatives; if such arrangements have not been made, when will these consultations be undertaken. Senator Alston—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: The following agencies within Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio responded with advice that they have not conducted market testing of their corporate services nor other functions: Artbank Board Australian Broadcasting Authority Australia Council Australian National Maritime Museum Council Bundanon Trust Board Film Australia Limited Film Finance Corporation National Australia Day Council National Gallery of Australia Council National Library of Australia Council National Museum of Australia Council National Science and Technology Centre Council A number of the agencies associated with the portfolio are administratively supported by and have their corporate services supplied by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The question does not apply to these agencies: Australia Business Arts Foundation Australian Information Economy Advisory Council National Council for Centenary of Federation Committee on Taxation Incentives for the Arts Incubator Advisory Panel Intelligent Island Board National Australia Day Council National Cultural Heritage Committee National Electronic Authentication Council National Portrait Gallery Board Old Parliament House Governing Council Playing Australia Public Lending Right Committee Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board (Networking the Nation) Visions of Australia Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25573

A number of the agencies associated with the portfolio are constituted as independent and autonomous agencies, they are not budget funded and fall outside this question: Telstra Corporation Australia Post The following agencies have responded with advice that they have conducted market testing of either both or one or the other of their corporate and non-corporate services: The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts National Archives of Australia Australian Communications Authority Australian Broadcasting Corporation Australian National Gallery Australian Film, Television and Radio School SCREENSOUND Australia Australian Film Commission and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) Individual agency responses are as follows: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLGY and the ARTS (1) The Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts is market testing Hu- man Resource Management, Financial Management (except Budgets) and Property and Office Services (except records management) according to the following timetable. Date Activity 15 April 2000 Expression of Interest – released. 8 September 2000 Request for Tender – Human Resources and Financial Management – released. Request for Tender - Property – released. Request for Quotation – Office Services – released. 4 December 2000 RFT Evaluation completed. (2) Affected employees have been consulted, on a regular basis, about the market testing process with the first Information to Staff in November 1999. NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA (NAA) (1) NAA is in the process of setting a time frame. (2) Initial consultations within NAA will commence as soon as a time frame has been finalised. SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE (SBS) (1) SBS has set a time frame to test the costs of the provision of the corporate services against market providers prior to the close of the current financial year. It has recently benchmarked some services against other organisations and the other models, and will continue to do so, and use the most appropriate mix of internal and external resources. (2) Not applicable AUSTRALIAN COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY (ACA) (1) The ACA has already outsourced a number of corporate services functions as follows: • Network operations for its information technology services; • Internal audit services; • Records management services; • Property management services; • Graphic design services; and • Computing services. The ACA is a body subject to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, and is not subject to the mandatory requirements for market testing of corporate services functions. It therefore has no formal program for the market testing of its corporate functions. 25574 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

The ACA will, however, examine the scope for outsourcing some more of its corporate services as part of its ongoing efforts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its corporate services. The ACA relies heavily on external contractors for provision of applications development and maintenance services in relation to its computerised business systems. In relation to computing services, the ACA is a member of Group 8. Ipex ITG was the successful tenderer for Group 8, and commenced the provision of services on 26 June 2000. (2) The ACA has consulted with affected employees during each of the outsourcing initiatives identified in our response to part (1) of this question. The ACA will continue to consult with staff and unions in respect of any future outsourcing initiatives. AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (ABC) (1) The ABC has not set a time frame to market test any of its corporate services. However, the ABC does benchmark its IT services against the industry, benchmarking at a minimum of 20% of its IT activities each year. To date the cost of running services in-house has compared very favourably with industry averages. The ABC also annually benchmarks the cost of the provision of its legal services against the industry. The results show that the ABC makes a considerable saving by having in-house lawyers. (2) See response to part (1) NATIONAL GALLERY OF AUSTRALIA (NGA) (1) and (2) The NGA has not set a time frame to market test any of its corporate services. In recent years the NGA has participated with other national collecting and exhibiting institutions in looking at our ancillary services and has participated in a review of the delivery of such services. The review resulted in a report being presented by Tooher Gale and Associates which confirmed that corporate services delivered in-house was still the most appropriate option for the NGA. The NGA has outsourced janitorial services in the last 12 months, but at this time has no plans to market test other aspects of its operations. THE AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION AND RADIO SCHOOL (AFTRS) (1) and (2) The AFTRS is currently documenting all processes in the areas of Human Resources, Pay- roll and Financial Services ready to commence the process of market testing these services. SCREENSOUND AUSTRALIA (1) Beginning with the Human Resource Management function, ScreenSound Australia plans to undertake a market testing strategy during 2001. Following an evaluation of this process, other corporate service functions will be considered later. These timetables under review and market testing will be conducted as early as possible. (2) The unions have been advised in the course of negotiating the agency’s new Certified Agreement of the intention to benchmark and market test corporate services. Relevant staff are kept informed of developments at regular team meetings. AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION (1) The AFC has not set a time frame to market test its corporate services (2) Not applicable. Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio: Market Testing of Functions (Question No. 2692) Senator Faulkner asked Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 9 August 2000: (1) Has the department, and/or any agency in the portfolio, set a timeframe to market test any of its functions other than corporate services; if so, which agency, which functions, what is the state and city or town location of staff currently undertaking that function, and what is the timeframe. (2) In relation to each agency which has or will move to market test these functions, what arrangements have been made to consult with effected employees and their representatives; if such arrangements have not been made, when will these consultations be undertaken. Senator Alston—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25575

The following agencies within Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio responded with advice that they have not conducted market testing of their corporate services nor other functions: Artbank Board Australian Broadcasting Authority Australia Council Australian National Maritime Museum Council Bundanon Trust Board Film Australia Limited Film Finance Corporation National Australia Day Council National Gallery of Australia Council National Library of Australia Council National Museum of Australia Council National Science and Technology Centre Council A number of the agencies associated with the portfolio are administratively supported by and have their corporate services supplied by the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The question does not apply to these agencies: Australia Business Arts Foundation Australian Information Economy Advisory Council National Council for Centenary of Federation Committee on Taxation Incentives for the Arts Incubator Advisory Panel Intelligent Island Board National Australia Day Council National Cultural Heritage Committee National Electronic Authentication Council National Portrait Gallery Board Old Parliament House Governing Council Playing Australia Public Lending Right Committee Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board (Networking the Nation) Visions of Australia A number of the agencies associated with the portfolio are constituted as independent and autonomous agencies, they are not budget funded and fall outside this question: Telstra Corporation Australia Post The following agencies have responded with advice that they have conducted market testing of either both or one or the other of their corporate and non-corporate services: The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts National Archives of Australia Australian Communications Authority Australian Broadcasting Corporation Australian National Gallery Australian Film, Television and Radio School SCREENSOUND Australia 25576 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Australian Film Commission and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) Individual agency responses are as follows: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLGY and the ARTS (1) The Department of Communications Information Technology and the Arts has not set a timeframe to market test any of its functions other than corporate services. (2) Not applicable. NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF AUSTRALIA (NAA) (1) NAA has not set a time frame to market test functions other than corporate services. (2) Not applicable SPECIAL BROADCASTING SERVICE (SBS) (1) SBS has undertaken extensive evaluation of its outputs over time, including functions other than corporate services, many of which have been outsourced. This has resulted in the outsourcing of several major areas of activity, including advertising services, commissioned programs, and transmission services. During 2000-2001 new measures have and will be subject to competitive tendering. These include activities associated with the extension of analogue services to transmission areas with a population exceeding 10,000, the upgrade of the Sydney Analogue Television Transmission Tower, digital signal distribution, as well as activities associated with new media developments and operations. (2) None of these new activities will impact on current employees. AUSTRALIAN COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY (ACA) (1) The ACA has already outsourced non-corporate services functions in the following areas: • Revenue collection arrangements which are now predominantly managed through a locked box service provider through the Australian banking industry B-Pay system; and • A number of telecommunications cabling licensing functions. These include administration of licensing, development of competency definitions, and auditing of installed cabling. The ACA does not currently have plans to market test any of its other non-corporate services functions. (2) The ACA has consulted with affected employees during each of the outsourcing initiatives identified in our response to part (1) of this question. The ACA will continue to consult with staff and unions in respect of any future outsourcing initiatives. AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (ABC) (1) No, the ABC has not set a time frame to market test any of its non-corporate service functions. (2) See response to part (1). NATIONAL GALLERY OF AUSTRALIA (NGA) (1) and (2) The NGA has not set a time frame to market test any of its corporate services. In recent years the NGA has participated with other national collecting and exhibiting institutions in looking at our ancillary services and has participated in a review of the delivery of such services. The review resulted in a report being presented by Tooher Gale and Associates which confirmed that corporate services delivered in-house was still the most appropriate option for the NGA. The NGA has outsourced janitorial services in the last 12 months, but at this time has no plans to market test other aspects of its operations. THE AUSTRALIAN FILM TELEVISION AND RADIO SCHOOL (AFTRS) (1) and (2) The AFTRS is currently documenting all processes in the areas of Human Resources, Pay- roll and Financial Services ready to commence the process of market testing these services. SCREENSOUND AUSTRALIA (1) ScreenSound Australia has, since its inception, market tested a range of its functions for possible outsourcing. At various times almost all Archive functions, which are commercially available with Australia, have been either market tested or indeed outsourced. We currently outsourced Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25577

film, audio and video copying, product production, exhibition design and development, and the operation of our café. In the past we have outsourced cataloguing, collection storage, and film, video and audio repair. Most of this outsourcing relates to Canberra operations, but none of it has involved any staff redundancies. It has been designed to increase productivity and to allow staff to focus on more specialised, higher priority work. (2) The Archive has a strong tradition of thorough consultation with employees about changed work arrangements and all outsourcing and market testing has been done in this context. AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION (1) The AFC will be looking to market test its IT desktop systems during the next year. The AFC falls within the very small agency definition as part of the IT Infrastructre Outsourcing Initiative of OASITO. (2) Arrangements will be made to consult with staff affected once timeframes have been finalised and any potential impact on staff will be referred to the AFC's Joint Consultative Council established under the AFC's Certified Agreement. Prawns: White Spot Virus (Question No. 3493) Senator Woodley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 6 March 2001: (1) (a) Is it true that Thailand is a key source of prawns infected with the White Spot Virus, which have been illegally brought into Australia and that this fact has been the subject of numerous official complaints; and (b) is it also correct that while the department was refusing to allow Austra- lian industry and other interested parties access and input into the preparation of an import risk assessment report on the virus and its possible spread to Australia, the Thai Government was privately given a copy of the confidential report. (2) With reference to a confidential import risk assessment report on the threat of White Spot Virus being given to the Thai Government: (a) is the Minister aware that the Thai Government had indicated to certain parties that it was ‘very pleased with the extent of influence they had over the final recommendations’; (b) has this matter been brought to the Minister’s attention prior to now; (c) what action has been taken to determine the truth of the allegation; and (d) is it normal for officers of the department to do deals with Thai Government officials on these issues. (3) (a) Can the Minister explain why he has consistently argued that there is little risk to Australia’s seafood industry in the importation of uncooked green prawns into this country when his own experts agree that these prawns contain the White Spot Virus, which, although totally harmless to humans, has had a devastating effect on the prawn farming industries and marine environment of many countries in South-East Asia; (b) would the Minister not agree that a plea by prawn farming and other interested parties for a moratorium on the importation of these uncooked green prawns to enable a full and open inquiry to be held into the risks of White Spot Virus is a reasonable proposal; and (c) does the Minister think there is no threat, or are he and the department willing to take chances with this devastating marine disease. (4) (a) Is the Minister aware that many batches of imported uncooked green prawns carrying the devastating marine disease known as White Spot Virus are being illegally distributed as bait prawns and pose a significant threat to Australia’s prawn farms and other crustaceans; (b) does the Minis- ter agree with the assessment of the department that the spread of illegal raw prawn imports into the bait market ‘occurs more widely than was previously thought and may result in an increased risk of exposure to infection with exotic pathogens’; and (c) does the Minister not accept that while this disease may be totally harmless to humans, it could virtually wipe out the fast growing Australian prawn farming industry overnight and create havoc in our marine environment and that it is important that a moratorium be introduced to enable a full inquiry into the situation. (5) (a) Is the Minister aware that the prawn farming industry first raised concerns about possible incursion of exotic pathogens in imported uncooked prawn products in February 1994 in a letter to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS); (b) is the Minister aware that the prawn farming industry wrote to AQIS on 16 September 1996 requesting urgent action be taken to implement measures to protect Australia from exotic pathogens in uncooked prawn imports warning, ‘The prawn farming industry in Australia raised the issue of imported whole green prawns for 25578 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

human consumption being a vector for exotic prawn viruses with AQIS in February 1994. Since then the volume of imports of green prawns has increased, the clock is ticking on Australia’s disease free status and the day the industry looks to the AQIS decision makers for the reason why no decision was made in time!’; and (c) can the Minister explain why no action was taken to address the industry’s concerns until February 2001, a period of 7 years. (6) (a) Can the Minister explain how the virulent White Spot Virus, a marine disease which is totally harmless to humans but devastating to prawns and other crustaceans, made its way into Darwin waters in 2000; (b) can the Minister confirm that initial Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation tests showed the virus had become established in the Darwin Aquaculture Centre and the Aquaculture School of the Northern Territory, that it was present in prawns and crabs in these facilities and in Darwin Harbour near the effluent outlet from the centre; (c) can the Minister assure the Australian prawn faming industry and other Australians that this disease is no longer present in these facilities and the harbour; (d) will the Minister not agree that sooner or later, whether it be through unfortunate incidents such as occurred in Darwin, or through the importation of uncooked prawns from South-East Asia being illegally used for bait, we will have a marine seafood disaster in this country as a result of White Spot Virus, similar to those which have occurred in many other countries; and (e) will the Minister not take action to fully investigate this issue and establish a moratorium on imports of these prawns into this country until that inquiry has established the facts. (7) With reference to the Darwin White Spot Virus incident: (a) what sampling regime is currently in place to determine the extent of any possible incursion into Darwin Harbour; (b) who is taking the samples; (c) who is conducting the tests; (d) what tests are being done; (e) what species are being collected; (f) where are the samples being collected; (g) how many samples are being taken; (h) will there be independent tests (controls) in addition to internal government testing; (i) when will full test results be made available to industry and the community; and (j) what strategy is in place to communicate with and involve industry. (8) On 7 February 2001, AQIS Acting General Manager for Animal Biosecurity, Mr David Banks, issued animal biosecurity policy memorandum 2001/06, which proposed import conditions for uncooked green prawns which required, ‘testing of whole and unpeeled, headless green prawns from countries or zones unable to demonstrate freedom from WSSV. This will require the prawns to enter a quarantine cold store facility in Australia where samples will be tested. Shipments that are positive will either be destroyed or re-exported.’: (a) is the Minister aware that there are 16 different types of uncooked prawn and prawn products imported into Australia, totalling around 14 000 tonnes a year, and that policy memorandum 2001/06 relates to only 2 of the 16 product types, representing less than 3 per cent of total imports; (b) why are the other 14 uncooked imported product types not subject to the requirements of policy memorandum 2001/06; and (c) can the Minister give an assurance that these products will not be carrying the White Spot Virus. (9) With reference to policy memorandum 2001/06: (a) who will be conducting the testing of prawn imports for White Spot Virus; (b) what testing regime will there be; (c) what tests will be used; (d) what will the tests cost; (e) who is going to pay for the tests; (f) why will the tests only be concerned with White Spot Virus and not the other major OIE-listed viruses such as Yellow Head, In- fectious Hypodermal and Haematopoietic Necrosis Virus and Taura Syndrome Virus; and (g) can the Minister provide an assurance that the testing regime will be open and transparent and that results of all tests will be made readily available to industry and community groups. (10) (a) Is the Minister aware that, since the proclamation of policy memorandum 2001/06, and in total contravention of that policy, uncooked whole green prawns have been imported into Australia and released without testing; (b) why were these products released without being tested; and (c) can the Minister give an assurance that these products were not carrying White Spot Virus or other OIE-listed viruses. (11) (a) Is the Minister aware that the Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Tas- manian governments support the prawn farming industry’s call for a short-term, 6-month moratorium on green prawn imports as a result of the threat of the White Spot Virus; (b) is the Minister aware that recreational fishing and conservation groups are calling for a ban on uncooked prawn imports; and (c) is it the Minister’s view that four state governments, industry, conservation and recreational fishing groups have all got it wrong. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25579

Senator Alston—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) (a) My department is aware that in 1999 some prawns pickled in a concentrated brine and pre- servative solution were imported as bait. The prawns were imported from Thailand where the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) is present. Action was taken in November 1999 to stop future importation. The matter was again raised by the Australian Prawn Farmers Asso- ciation in January 2001 and was re-investigated by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). The latest investigation confirmed that no imports had occurred since No- vember 1999. (b) No. (2) (a) No. (b) No. (c) My department advises me that a confidential copy of the draft IRA was not provided to the Thai Government. This has been confirmed with relevant current and former officers in Biosecurity Australia and members of the risk analysis panel (RAP) conducting the import risk analysis (IRA). (d) No. (3) (a) I have not ‘consistently argued’ that there is little risk in the importation of uncooked green prawns. I have, however, reported the views of the RAP, made up of eminent experts in crustacean diseases and quarantine risk analysis. The panel assessed the risk of the establishment of white spot disease through the use of imported green prawns for bait as low but nonetheless recommended measures for the further reduction of risk. The RAP recognises that WSSV has had a serious effect on prawn farming in many countries but found no evidence of a significant deleterious effect on the natural marine environment. (b) The risk management measures proposed by the RAP, and other significant measures, were introduced in December 2000 and February 2001 to manage the risks until completion of the IRA. Biosecurity Australia considers these measures are adequate and in these circumstances a moratorium is difficult to justify scientifically. (c) The conditions in place until 1996 for imported green prawns were inadequate. However, the measures now in place satisfactorily address that threat, in accordance with Australia’s conservative approach to quarantine risk and Australia’s internationalobligations. (4) (a) The States and Territories have responsibility for implementing controls on the end use of green prawns within their own borders, that is, after prawns have left quarantine. The Commonwealth has demanded that commensurate with the stricter import conditions outlined previously, the States and Territories should enforce their licensing and other regulatory powers to address any illicit trade in bait prawns. With regard to the ‘significant’ threat to Australian prawn farms and other crustaceans, the RAP assessed the risk of disease introduction as low but recommended measures for the further reduction of risk. Measures introduced in December 2000 and February 2001 will help ensure that imported prawns are not diverted to the bait trade. Testing requirements will target prawns infected with WSSV. (b) Yes. (c) See the answer to (3) (a) and (b). (5) (a) Biosecurity Australia confirms that the Australian prawn farming industry raised concerns about an exotic virus in fresh chilled prawns in February 1994. (b) Biosecurity Australia confirms that the Australian prawn farming industry requested action on uncooked prawn imports, particularly bait prawns, in September 1996. (c) The Senator appears to be unaware that the issue was taken up by the National Task Force on Imported Fish and Fish Products in 1995 and 1996. The Australian Prawn Farmers Associa- tion was a member of the Task Force. Its report issued in December 1996 recommended that action be taken to address the issue of the importation of prawns not intended for human consumption. Pre-empting the recommendation, AQIS introduced a ban in November 1996. These prawns were prohibited with the intention of limiting the use of imported prawns as 25580 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

bait. The ban meant that fewer poor quality and emergency harvested prawns were imported. Also an IRA of prawns and prawn products was commenced. More recent evidence indicates that the diversion of prawns imported for human consumption into the bait trade, despite the import ban, was greater than expected and further action was taken in December 2000 and February 2001. (6) (a) Green prawns imported from Indonesia in 1999 were inadvertently (in the belief they were of Australian origin) fed to mudcrabs and prawns in an aquaculture pond at the Darwin Aquaculture Centre and to prawns at the Aquaculture School of the Northern Territory Uni- versity. (b) Samples of the imported prawns, the mudcrabs and prawns to which they were fed, and shore crabs and prawns in Darwin harbour at the outfall from the pond were tested for white spot. Samples from each group were positive. The test used recognises segments of viral DNA, ie it is not a definitive test for viable virus. The test results do however indicate that there was transmission of WSSV and that crustaceans in Darwin harbour became infected. Subsequent tests do not indicate that infection became established. (c) I am advised that susceptible animals at the Aquaculture Centre and Aquaculture School were destroyed and the facilities disinfected to ensure disease was not present in those facilities. Subsequent testing of crustaceans in Darwin harbour indicates that WSSV has not become established there. (d) The RAP acknowledged that the feeding of raw prawns in aquaculture is dangerous. Another lower risk exposure pathway for the introduction of disease is through the use of imported prawns as bait by recreational fishermen. The measures that have been put in place are designed to prevent the establishment of WSSV in Australia. (e) See the answer to 3 (b). (7) The sampling in Darwin Harbour is being conducted by the Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. Further enquiries should be directed to that department. (8) (a) The measures are targeted at whole and unpeeled, headless green prawns which are the product most likely to be used for bait. (b) Those products, which are clearly for human consumption and/or have been processed such that they are not likely to be used as bait, for example prawn cutlets and garlic prawns, are excluded from the measures. The measures also do not apply to product from countries or zones free of diseases of quarantine concern. (c) The current import conditions are consistent with this Government’s conservative approach to quarantine. Target imports of green prawns will be tested against a strict standard and any consignment detected as carrying WSSV will be rejected. (9) (a) Selected State diagnostic laboratories will conduct the testing of prawns for WSSV. (b) All batches of whole green and unpeeled headless prawns are tested for WSSV using a sampling and test protocol designed to detect WSSV infection present at 5% prevalence with at least 95% confidence. (c) A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based test for WSSV DNA similar to that used in the testing so far. (d) The cost per test is approximately $55. This does not include the costs associated with the inspection and collection of suitable samples or the transport of these samples to the laboratories conducting the WSSV testing. (e) Importers. (f) WSSV is the major disease of quarantine concern. Biosecurity Australia and the RAP consider the other risk management measures already in place adequately address risk from other diseases. Further information on the risk assessment and risk management for relevant diseases is in the draft IRA report. (g) The testing regime will be subject to usual auditing and reporting procedures. As part of these procedures, the results can be made available on request. (10) (a) I am aware that since the announcement of testing and other measures in policy memorandum 2001/06 and prior to the introduction of the testing regime, uncooked whole prawns Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25581

were imported and released without testing. This is not in contravention of that policy as the memorandum made it clear that the measures would be phased in. During this intervening period AQIS assessed all consignments of green prawns, particularly to ensure they were intended for human consumption. (b) See answer to (a). (c) The interim measures currently in place plus the closer scrutiny by AQIS of all consignments of green prawns minimise the risk of imported product introducing WSSV. (11) (a) Yes, I am aware that some State governments made such statements. However, all States and Territories have now signed onto the WSSV testing protocol for imported prawns. (b) I am aware of some recreational fishing and conservation groups calling for a ban on uncooked prawn imports. (c) As mentioned in earlier responses, a moratorium on imports is not considered necessary and is difficult to justify on current scientific evidence. The RAP, made up of eminent experts in their field, considered the interim measures are appropriate pending the gathering of further information and finalisation of the IRA. These conditions are consistent with the Federal Government’s conservative approach to quarantine and our international SPS obligations. Ansons Bay, Tasmania (Question No. 3574) Senator Brown asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 4 May 2001: With reference to the planned conversion to freehold title of Crown land on the Ansons Bay foreshore in north-eastern Tasmania: (1) Is any Natural Heritage Trust or other federal money being used for the development of a sewerage system, or any other purpose, as part of this development. (2) What threats does the development pose to local flora and fauna, in particular threatened species listed on the Commonwealth schedule of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conserva- tion Act (the Act), such as the Australian Grayling, Dwarf Galaxias, Spotted Tailed Quoll, Leath- erback Turtle and Eastern Barred Bandicoot, all of which are known to have habitat in Ansons Bay. (3) Given the potential threats posed to these species by the proposed development, will the Minister use his powers under the Act to order a comprehensive assessment and approval process of the development. (4) Has the Minister or any of his staff visited Ansons Bay to see the site of the proposed development. Senator Hill—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) No Natural Heritage Trust or other Federal funding is being used for the development of a sewerage system on or adjacent to Ansons Bay foreshore. While not directly related to the issue of the possible conversion of Crown land to freehold land, I have approved a grant of $5,025 to the Ansons Bay Coastcare Group to help protect the wetlands of Ansons Bay by improving the management of car parking and access adjacent to the wetlands. (2) I understand in general that some Crown land on the Ansons Bay foreshore may be considered for conversion to freehold title. However, I have no more specific knowledge of any proposal at this time. Accordingly, on the information available to me, I am not able to advise whether any proposed action is likely to affect any nationally threatened species in Ansons Bay. (3) In accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, when and if proposals are made for actions relating to Ansons Bay, the proponent will need to refer the proposals to me if they are likely to have a significant impact on nationally threatened species or any other matter of national environmental significance. (4) Neither my staff nor I have visited Ansons Bay in relation to this issue. Ansons Bay, Tasmania (Question No. 3575) Senator Brown asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 7 May 2001: 25582 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

(1) Is the Minister aware that the Tasmanian Government has decided to privatise land on the foreshore of Ansons Bay in north-east Tasmania. (2) Has any approach been made to the Federal Government for funds to aid this decision, either directly or indirectly through studies or to provide services such as a sewerage system; if so what was or what will be the reply. (3) Are there any endangered species such as the Australian Grayling, in the area; if so, are they unaf- fected by the decision. (4) What action is the Minister taking to protect any such species or their habitat at Ansons Bay. (5) Will the Minister or his officers visit Ansons Bay to view the lands in question and their vulner- ability to erosion, flooding, pollution, and visual degradation after the Bacon Government’s decision. (6) What in this century is the possible impact of global warming on such foreshore land which is already subject to flooding by the highest tide surges. Senator Hill—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) I understand in general that some Crown land on the Ansons Bay foreshore may be considered for conversion to freehold title by the Tasmanian Government. However, I have no more specific knowledge of any proposal at this time. (2) No approach has been made to the Federal Government to provide funding for the purpose of assisting with the conversion of Crown land to freehold title on the foreshore of Ansons Bay. (3) On the information available to me, I am not able to advise whether there are any endangered species in the area that may be considered for conversion from Crown land to freehold title. (4) In accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, when and if proposals are made for actions relating to Ansons Bay, the proponent will need to refer the proposals to me if they are likely to have a significant impact on nationally threatened species or any other matter of national environmental significance. In addition, while not specifically directed at protecting endangered species, I have approved a grant of $5,025 to the Ansons Bay Coastcare Group to help protect wetlands at Ansons Bay by improving the management of car parking and access adjacent to the wetlands site. (5) If the matter is referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, a site assessment by Departmental officers may be considered if required. (6) On the information available to me it is not possible to predict the impact of global warming on Ansons Bay. Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program (Question No. 3588) Senator Brown asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 25 May 2001: With reference to the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program (GGAP): (1) Can a synopsis be provided of the applications for round one GGAP funding, including applicant, state/territory, amount applied for, brief description of the project and the technology, and the estimated greenhouse benefit. (2) How many were from: (a) for profit companies or corporations; (b) non-profit organisations; (c) local government; (d) state/territory governments or agencies; and (e) the Federal Government or its agencies. (3) How many were received from each state and territory. (4) What was the range of project types, for example, upgrades or conversions of existing plant, installation of new technologies, education, incentives, etc; and (b) how many applications fell into each category and what was the cost, in dollars, and greenhouse benefits of each. (5) What was the range of technologies, for example, photovoltaics, wind, methane, waste to energy, energy efficiency, etc. (6) Who are the members of the technical expert panel. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25583

(7) Did the Ministerial Council on Greenhouse follow the recommendations made to it by the technical expert panel in all cases, if not, why not. Senator Hill—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: Information regarding the identity of the applicants in GGAP Round 1 is commercial-in-confidence and, therefore, cannot be disclosed. The 10 successful GGAP proposals that have been publicly announced are1; • up to $10 million to the Australian Ecogeneration Association (1.25 Mt CO2-e) for a number of cogeneration plants expected to be constructed in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales; • up to $16 million to Origin Energy (1.97 Mt CO2-e) to boost investment in highly efficient cogeneration plants; • up to $10.93 million to Energy Developments Limited (2.22 Mt CO2-e) and $13 million to Enviro- gen Pty Ltd (3.10 Mt CO2-e) for the installation of equipment to capture and burn methane gas from coal mines in New South Wales and Queensland to produce electricity; • up to $8.8 million to BP (1.10 Mt CO2-e) to blend, store and distribute part-ethanol fuel. The plant is based in Brisbane; • $7.35 million to assist the Douglas Shire Council (1.05 Mt CO2-e) and the Mossman Central Mill Company in their ethanol project which includes the development of an ethanol production plant in Queensland; • up to $7 million to Nabalco (1.68 Mt CO2-e) to assist in converting its Gove refinery in the North- ern Territory from imported oil to natural gas; • up to $11 million to Queensland Alumina Limited (1.38 Mt CO2-e) to convert to energy efficient kilns in Queensland; • up to $5 million to Macquarie Generation (1.21 Mt CO2-e) to invest in state of the art turbines at its Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales; and • up to $3.56 million to Association of Fluorocarbon Consumers and Manufacturers Ltd (0.89 Mt CO2-e) for the recovery, reclamation and destruction of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) nationally. Applications by state/territory: • NT = 2 • TAS = 2 • ACT = 7 • SA = 10 • WA = 13 • QLD = 15 • VIC = 21 • NSW = 37 Total amount applied for was $1.79 billion. Applications ranged from $0.21 million to $158.21 million.

Funding Claimed Total Number of Sought Project Cost Claimed Project type proposals $m $m Mt CO2-e Behaviour change/education 1 0.44 0.52 1.35 Integrated regional program 1 8.35 63.39 1.08 Synthetic gases 1 3.56 6.83 11.91 Tourism 1 9.81 13.97 5.90 Transport – alternative fuels 1 24.62 89.80 1.57 Broad-scale revegetation 2 59.17 489.98 8.20 Cement technologies 2 23.95 47.85 4.73 25584 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Funding Claimed Total Number of Sought Project Cost Claimed Project type proposals $m $m Mt CO2-e Fugitive emissions from pipelines 2 51.47 71.15 3.88

Geological sequestration 2 26.57 71.86 16.28 Transport – behaviour change 2 16.11 41.93 3.46 Switching to natural gas 3 130.70 367.90 5.27 Local government action agendas 4 81.21 205.02 7.26 Modelling and decision-making tools 4 17.82 31.72 49.22 Power station efficiency 5 326.14 6452.33 73.42 Waste coal mine gas 5 68.97 161.34 20.49 Cogeneration (not principally renew- 6 79.39 995.15 13.38 able electricity) Waste minimisation 6 64.53 203.87 18.26 Renewable electricity 9 117.47 1745.27 52.02 Energy efficiency (industrial plant 12 129.68 371.84 20.78 equipment) Regional partnerships and biological 12 184.62 968.18 39.90 sequestration Energy efficiency (commer- 13 224.04 1248.72 35.95 cial/residential buildings and appli- ances) Transport 13 138.90 771.42 23.48 Total claimed abatement 417.79

1 The Mt CO2-e figures provided are risk assessed abatement figures over the 5 year Kyoto period 2008-2012 For details of the range of technologies to be utilised in Round 1 GGAP projects, see paragraph (5) below. (2) Sources of Round 1 proposals (organisation type): (a) For profit organisations = 76 (b) Non-profit organisations = 13 (c) Local Government agencies = 4 (d) State/Territory Government agencies = 12 (e) Federal Government agencies = 2 (3) Origin by state/territory (See (1) above) (4) Range of projects by type, GGAP funds sought, claimed total project costs and claimed abatement (See table above). (5) The information provided in the table above is indicative of the technologies. Methane features in waste processing and waste coal mine gas; ethanol features in several other proposals in fuel mixes; energy efficiency technologies, energy performance contracting; turbine blades and electricity load shifting. Other technologies include tree planting; fixing carbon in algae; reducing methane from cows and sheep, altering travel behaviour, and replacing fuel used in furnaces. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25585

(6) There are 110 entries (covering both individual experts and consulting businesses) registered on the consultants register. For Round 1 assessments approximately 60 contracts were entered in to resulting in approximately 400 assessment reports. The consultants have a wide range of expertise including technical, environmental, financial and economic. For probity reasons, and to ensure that they are not approached by potential applicants, the names of the consultants on the register are not being publicly released. (7) The technical experts provided risks assessments of the proposals they were contracted to assess and were not required to make recommendations. Foxes: Threat Abatement Plan (Question No. 3594) Senator Brown asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 1 June 2001: (1) Is the Minister aware that a fox was sighted near Longford and another near Wynyard in Tasmania in May. (2) Given that predation by the European Red Fox is a listed threatening process and keeping Tasma- nia fox-free is a key objective, what action has been taken to contain and exterminate the foxes in accordance with the Threat Abatement Plan. (3) (a) What contingency plan is in place; (b) what are its key actions; and (c) who is responsible for implementing each action. (4) Has the contingency plan, if it exists, been activated. (5) What funding and other resources have been committed to exterminate the foxes. (6) How seriously does the Minister rate this incursion of foxes as a threat to nationally-listed species. Senator Hill—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I am advised that Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service officers are undertaking a number of measures to confirm the sighting of, and capture or kill, the fox (or foxes), including the use of hi- tech infra-red cameras imported from the United States. These efforts have been supplemented by a team of hunters from Victoria with experience of fox hunting in East Gippsland. (3) In 1999, the “Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox” was adopted in consultation with States and Territories. The plan has six objectives and 27 actions. Each state is responsible for implementing the plan within its own jurisdiction. Where a threat occurs across more than one state, the Commonwealth and states work cooperatively to implement the plan. The following projects were funded by the Commonwealth specifically targeting foxes and/or feral cats: • Development of immunocontraceptive vaccine for the control of fox populations in Australia. • Field assessment of target and non-target effects of predator baiting. • Development of a Humane Felid Specific Toxin and bait delivery system for feral cat control. • Fertility control of foxes with Cabergoline including its registration for use on Philip Island; • The potential for habitat manipulation to limit fox density and reduce the need for intensive baiting. • Development of a cheap and effective fox bait; • Fox population assessment and control. • Katarapko Island habitat and species restoration program; • Assessment of the impact of foxes on brush-tailed rock wallabies and evaluation of the effectiveness of community involvement in fox control; • Assessment of the impact of fox baiting on tiger quoll populations; • Preliminary Assessment of analgesic/1080 bait combination for humane predator control. • Integrated vertebrate pest management on Macquarie Island. 25586 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

• Bounceback 2000 (an integrated pest management - foxes, cats goats and rabbits - and recovery of threatened species project). • Operation Wanjarri - Optimising Feral Cat Baiting Strategy in the arid zone. • Effects on non-target species of 1080 baiting for foxes and dogs. (4) See the Answer to Question 2. I am advised that Victorian and Tasmanian officials have discussed the issue of fox incursions into Tasmania from Victoria following an incident in 1999 when a fox was accidentally transported to Tasmania from Melbourne. I am seeking further advice from both States on measures being taken to prevent foxes moving to Tasmania, especially in the light of recent reported sightings. (5) Through the National Feral Animal Control Program under the Natural Heritage Trust, approximately $2.9 million has been provided to fund projects that address the impact of foxes. In addition, funding is also provided through the Endangered Species Program to all States and Territo- ries to address the impact of foxes and other pest species to threatened species and communities. No Commonwealth funding has been sought by Tasmania and none has been provided to deal with these particular sightings. (6) Fox incursions into Tasmania are treated seriously. As noted above, I am conveying my concern to my counterparts in Victoria and Tasmania and seeking their advice on preventative measures being undertaken. Human Rights: Falun Gong (Question No. 3595) Senator Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 June 2001: (1) Were the human rights violations of Falun Gong raised during the trade talks between Australia and China in April 2001; if not, why not. (2) Is the human rights issue of Falun Gong always considered during trade talks with China. (3) Will the Australian Government continue to raise the issue of human rights violations in the bilat- eral human rights dialogue with China. (4) Hong Kong Security Secretary, Regina Ip, has confirmed there is a Falun Gong blacklist in response to the 95 foreign Falun Gong practitioners that were denied entry into Hong Kong in May 2001. With 19 Australian citizens who practised Falun Gong included in those not permitted in Hong Kong, how will the Australian Government investigate the origins of the blacklist. (5) Is the Minister aware of cases of alleged harassment against 14 Australian practitioners in Macau in December 2000; if so, what are the details and what action has the Government taken on the matter. (6) Is the Australian Government aware of the ‘media tours’ organised by the Chinese Government to visit the Masanjia Labor Re-education Camp in May 2001. (7) Are there concentration camps specifically for Falun Gong practitioners. (8) With increasing reports of deaths of Falun Gong in police custody in China, what estimates does the Australian Government have of the number of people who have been detained, sentenced and died in custody. (9) Will the crackdown on Falun Gong be discussed with Chinese authorities when the Prime Minister attends the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in October 2001. (10) Will the Australian Government initiate or support a delegation of Australian or international persons to be sent to China to investigate the alleged human rights violations against Falun Gong practitioners; if not, why not. Senator Hill—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) Mr John Anderson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, visited China from 10-12 April 2001. The principle purpose of his visit was to pursue Australia’s interest in the supply of liquefied natural gas to China. He also focused on opportunities for cooperation in the transport, agricultural, services and resource sectors. Human rights issues were not raised as this was not the purpose of the visit. Thursday, 28 June 2001 SENATE 25587

(2) No. (3) Yes. This is a key element of the Human Rights Dialogue. (4) In a letter to the Editor of the Asian Wall Street Journal on 8 June, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Security, Ms Regina Ip, denied that Hong Kong immigration authorities were working from an alleged “blacklist” to refuse entry to 95 foreign Falun Gong practitioners (including 20 Austra- lians) in early May. In a meeting with Australia’s Consul-General for Hong Kong, Mr Bill Twed- dell on 16 May, Ms Ip advised that denial of entry to foreign Falun Gong practitioners was decided on “security grounds” because of the need to protect VIPs attending the Fortune Global Conference in Hong Kong (on 8 May). She said this did not mean the same people would automatically be denied entry in future. (5) My Department has confirmed that 10 Australian Falun Gong practitioners were detained briefly by Macau authorities while undertaking a peaceful demonstration outside a hotel there on 19 De- cember. I am aware of only one case of alleged harassment involving an Australian citizen. Ms Kelly Kong Xu claims that she was refused entry and physically assaulted by Macau immigration officers at the border on 20 December. Ms Kong was visited by an officer of the Australian Con- sulate-General in Hong Kong while she was receiving treatment in hospital later that day, who subsequently accompanied her whilst she provided a statement to Hong Kong police. The Con- sulate-General forwarded a note to the Macau authorities on 20 December requesting that the matter be investigated. The Macau government provided a response on 17 January, a copy of which was forwarded to Ms Kong. (6) My Department is aware of reports that a media tour to Masanjia Labor Reeducation Camp took place in late May 2001. (7) My Department has information that many Falun Gong practitioners have been sentenced to terms in ‘Re-education Through Labor’ camps. It has no concrete information that camps have been established exclusively for Falun Gong practitioners, although this is certainly possible. (8) Estimates of the number of Falun Gong practitioners that have been detained, sentenced and died in custody vary. In its 2001 Annual Report, Amnesty International reported that at least 93 Falun Gong practitioners were believed to have died in police custody since July 1999. Falun Gong sources estimate at least 222 practitioners have died in detention or while being taken into custody during the same period. Several tens of thousands Falun Gong practitioners are thought to be in detention. (9) The agenda for the Prime Minister’s talks at the APEC meeting has not yet been settled. (10) The Australian Government has strong concerns about the human rights situation in China, including alleged human rights violations against Falun Gong practitioners. It is unlikely to support an international delegation to investigate alleged human rights violations against Falun Gong practitioners. As is commonly the case with international human rights investigations, the delegation would require the consent of the Chinese Government in order to enter China legally and undertake its work. My Department assesses that the Chinese Government is unlikely to agree to a visit by any such delegation. Department of Veterans’ Affairs: One-off Payments to Senior Australians (Question No. 3612) Senator Faulkner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 13 June 2001: (1) How many clients of the department will be receiving a personalised letter from the Minister regarding the one-off payment to senior Australians announced in the 2001-02 Budget. (2) What will be the cost of production of the letter. (3) What will be the cost of postage for the letter. (4) What will be the total cost of the mail out. (5) What is the timeframe for the dispatch of the letter. (6) What is the timeframe for the dispatch of letters to the following postcodes: 3131, 3133, 3134, 3135, 3152, 3153, 3155, 3156, 3178, 3179, 3180 and 3802. 25588 SENATE Thursday, 28 June 2001

Senator Minchin—The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) 347,415 (2) $0.39* (3) $0.41* (4) $285,932* *Only an estimate as a final invoice has not yet been received from the mailing house. (5) Letters were progressively lodged with Australia Post from Thursday, 7 June 2001 with the final letters being lodged on Tuesday, 12 June 2001. (6) The Department does not have exact lodgement details for these postcodes. However, lodgement of Victorian letters commenced on Thursday, 7 June 2001 and was finalised on Tuesday, 12 June. No letters were lodged over the long weekend, 9 – 11 June 2001.