COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 11 MARCH 1998

THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—SIXTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 11 MARCH

Senator Bolkus— Motion of Censure ...... 755 Consideration of Legislation ...... 780 Matters of Public Interest— Waterfront Reform ...... 790 Mr Edgar Williams ...... 793 Environment Legislation ...... 795 Superannuation: Marriage Breakdown ...... 797 AQIS: Meat Inspection ...... 800 Weather Forecasting Aircraft ...... 803 Questions Without Notice— Minerals and Energy Industries ...... 805 Howard Government: Economic Strategy ...... 805 Minister for Resources and Energy ...... 806 Environment: Marine Biodiversity ...... 807 Minister for Resources and Energy ...... 808 Health Care ...... 809 Minister for Resources and Energy ...... 810 International Transfer of Prisoners ...... 811 Minister for Resources and Energy ...... 811 IT Outsourcing ...... 812 Minister for Resources and Energy ...... 812 Endangered Species Legislation ...... 813 Distinguished Visitors ...... 814 Questions Without Notice— Fisheries Research and Development Corporation ...... 814 Postal Services ...... 815 Natural Heritage Trust ...... 816 Employment Services ...... 817 Answers to Questions Without Notice— Australian Geological Survey Organisation ...... 818 Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service: Outsourcing ...... 819 Native Title ...... 819 Commonwealth Services: Outsourcing ...... 821 Privilege ...... 822 Answers to Questions Without Notice— Minister for Resources and Energy ...... 822 Petitions— Native Title ...... 829 Notices of Motion— Economics References Committee ...... 829 Regulations and Ordinances Committee ...... 829 Regulations and Ordinances Committee ...... 830 Committees— Selection of Bills Committee ...... 832 Order of Business— Tibet ...... 833 Alternative and Complementary Medicine ...... 833 Employment Services ...... 833 Vocational Education ...... 833 Israel ...... 834 Committee Reports: Government Responses ...... 834 Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Funding ...... 834 Common Youth Allowance ...... 834 Committees— Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Extension of Time . 834 Women ...... 834 Native Title Legislation ...... 834 CONTENTS—continued

Romania: Mariana Cetiner ...... 837 Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998— First Reading ...... 838 Second Reading ...... 838 Women ...... 841 Commonwealth Environment Legislation ...... 842 Cerebral Palsy ...... 842 Matters of Public Importance— Citrus Industry ...... 842 Committees— Scrutiny of Bills Committee —Report ...... 854 Documents— Defence Determination 1998-99 ...... 858 Lands Acquisition Act ...... 860 Veterans Entitlements Act ...... 860 Committees— Membership ...... 860 Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2]— First Reading ...... 861 Second Reading ...... 861 Consideration of Legislation ...... 867 Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997— In Committee ...... 873 Documents— Australian Industry Development Corporation ...... 878 Adjournment— Employment Services ...... 879 Down Syndrome ...... 881 Postal Services ...... 882 Bureau of Meteorology: Willis Island ...... 883 Minister for Resources and Energy ...... 885 Documents— Tabling ...... 886 SENATE 755

Wednesday, 11 March 1998 the motion—that Senator Bolkus revealed certain contents of a confidential Federal Court document which formed part of legal The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. proceedings undertaken to recover assets Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m. allegedly concealed by Mr Skase; that Federal and read prayers. Court affidavits may only be obtained by leave of the court or a judge; that in relation SENATOR BOLKUS to the affidavit revealed by Senator Bolkus no Motion of Censure such leave had been obtained; and that Mr Donnelly had not authorised the release of the Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion affidavit. by Senator Vanstone: That is irrefutable and indeed accepted by That the Senate— the Labor Party. The evidence is absolutely (a) notes: irrefutable. What we heard yesterday was a (i) that Senator Bolkus, during and after a tirade against Senator Vanstone and against press conference on 5 January 1998, this excellent government. For argument’s revealed certain contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit, sake, let us set aside all concepts of truth, logic and commonsense. Let us accept the (ii) that this affidavit formed part of legal proceedings undertaken by Mr Max violence done to truth, logic and common- Donnelly, trustee of the bankrupt estate of sense and say that what Labor alleges is Mr Christopher Skase, to recover assets correct. That in no way excuses or exculpates allegedly concealed by Mr Skase, Senator Bolkus from his own personal actions (iii) that Federal Court affidavits may only be which are the subject of this motion. obtained by leave of the court or a judge, It is like a little child caught with a hand in (iv) that in relation to the affidavit revealed the cookie jar who, when accused, says, ‘Oh, by Senator Bolkus no such leave had Jimmy did it as well.’ It does not excuse the been obtained, and behaviour of the child that was caught with (v) that Mr Donnelly had not authorised the the hand in the cookie jar and, in this circum- release of the affidavit by either his firm stance, it is Senator Bolkus. The opposition or solicitors acting for him; can obfuscate as much as they like, they can (b) censures Senator Bolkus for: filibuster as much as they like, but the reality (i) revealing the contents of a confidential is that Senator Bolkus has been caught out, Federal Court affidavit, and the case has been made very strongly as (ii) his disregard of the larger public interest to the five premises on which we base our in putting at risk the success of Mr case. Donnelly’s legal attempts to recover assets belonging to the bankrupt estate of On the basis of that, we believe that Senator Mr Christopher Skase, and Bolkus ought to be censured for revealing the (iii) his knowingly taking a course of action contents of a confidential Federal Court directly contrary to the public interest; document. Why is that such a serious matter? and Our whole society and its structure and (c) calls on Senator Bolkus to apologise for his stability are based on the rule of law, that actions to: there are certain rules which people abide by. (i) Mr Max Donnelly, trustee of the bankrupt If the would-be first law officer of the country estate of Mr Christopher Skase, cannot abide by those fundamental principles (ii) the Federal Court, and as the upholder of the rule of law in a com- (iii) the Senate. munity, then the whole basis on which our Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (9.31 a.m.)— society is structured is under challenge. Yesterday I pointed out that the five premises This is a very important and very serious on which we base our censure motion against matter, one which cannot in any way be Senator Bolkus are beyond dispute. In sum- underestimated. Senator Bolkus himself mary they were—and allow me to quote from admitted to revealing the information and, 756 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 what is more, revealing more than what was to be censured and are deserving of the already on the public record, and that was condemnation and censure of this Senate? shown in his statement to Kerry O’Brien on We then call on Senator Bolkus to apolo- the 7.30 Report. He said, ‘If you look at what gise for his actions. First of all, he should I announced on that day and compare it to the apologise to the trustee of the bankrupt estate, article, there is very little different informa- which makes sense; that he ought to apologise tion,’ and then the telling point, ‘Very little to the Federal Court for breaking their rules; extra.’ He admits to revealing extra informa- and that he ought to apologise to the Senate. tion. The revealing of confidential court I have to say that there is one more very documents, as I have said, strikes at the very important point that is missing in this motion, heart of the administration of justice in this and that is that he ought to be apologising to country and in the way our society operates. the people of Australia for prejudicing the As a would-be Attorney-General, that is whole case against Mr Skase. completely unacceptable. Above and beyond that, we should call on Our second basis for asking the Senate to the Leader of the Opposition to sack Senator censure Senator Bolkus is his disregard of the Bolkus. For the would-be first law officer of larger public interest in putting at risk the this country to deliberately and knowingly success of the legal action to obtain Skase’s breach the rules of the Federal Court is assets. This case against Mr Skase is being unacceptable behaviour. That stands to reason, funded by the taxpayers of this country. it is very clear, and I would urge the Senate Senator Bolkus owes an obligation to those to support the censure motion. taxpayers not to prejudice their hard-earned Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (9.38 dollars which are being used in the chase for a.m.)—Let me say a few things about this those Skase assets. censure motion. Firstly, I would put on the Our third point is that Senator Bolkus did record that this is nothing more than an act of this knowingly. In the Senate only some two desperation by a government that is desperate. or three years ago we censured a fellow The only purpose of this motion is to cover senator for unwittingly revealing a tax file up the government’s failings, and the only number in a document that he tabled in this outcome of this motion is to expose the place—might I add with the leave of Labor government more. senator, Senator Crowley. I refer to the Secondly, what we have here in this saga is circumstance of Senator Michael Baume. the embodiment of abuse of Australian Fed- Senator Michael Baume and Senator Crowley, eral Police resources and ministerial roles in in agreeing to it being tabled, did so unwit- respect of the Australian Federal Police. There tingly. They did not realise what they were has been selective police investigation and doing. But Senator Bolkus, out of his own there has been selective use of police informa- mouth, knew exactly what he was doing tion. That is something for which the because in the transcript Senator Bolkus tells Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice the media, ‘I can’t give this document out.’ will continue to be condemned. He knows that he cannot do it but he said, Thirdly, here we have nothing more than a ‘But maybe if I just read it out off the re- political frame-up. I tell you, Senator cord.’ Vanstone and Mr Williams: I am not going to He knew what he was doing. He did so take the rap for your mess-up; I am not going deliberately, he did so knowingly, in stark to take the rap for your incompetence. The contrast to what Senator Baume did. Never- government leaked a story in the silly season. theless, the Labor Party found it appropriate It got a big run for it—‘Skase hoard found’ to censure Senator Baume. If somebody does displayed across the Murdoch tabloids. I tell something inadvertently and they are censured you what: that was the tip-off to Skase. I am for it, is there not all the more reason that, not going to take the rap for your tip-off and when somebody deliberately and knowingly for your incompetence once again, Senator engages in that sort of behaviour, they ought Vanstone. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 757

Fourthly, let me put this on the record: I see Let us put something else on the record as this as nothing more than an act of revenge well. Had the Attorney-General and Minister from a spiteful Prime Minister—a Prime for Justice done the most basic of checks— Minister who, with the rest of his government, and I believe that the Attorney-General had is prepared to smear, use innuendo and use been alerted to this anyway—they would have police resources in pursuit of political objec- found out that I had not spoken to the Aus- tives. This is a ‘get even’ with me because I tralian Federal Police since about 30 January, exposed the Attorney-General’s inaction and almost six weeks ago. For the Attorney- condoning of an injustice in the High Court General to allege and imply and, by innuendo, in respect of Mr Justice Callinan. I am being put on the record that I was being investigat- got at here for doing the job that Attorney- ed was basically wrong. But this basic fact General Williams should have done, or that has not stopped the campaign of smear—a he was unable to do or too scared to do. campaign, as I say, which reached its highest level when the Attorney-General said in the Let us face it, in this particular case ask House of Representatives last week, on 4 anyone in the gallery; they all want to know: March, that the Minister for Justice had why is this most trivial of trivial pursuits requested the AFP to investigate me. being pursued? This most trivial of trivial pursuits is being pursued because the Prime Senator Vanstone—That’s not true, and Minister has lost his balance; little Johnny has you know it. lost his marbles in respect of this issue. That Senator BOLKUS—I will go through it is why this matter continues to run. again, Senator Vanstone. We have here a case of misleading the House of Representatives. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Senator Vanstone’s performance here can also (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator Bolkus, amount to misleading of the Senate. Let me I think you should refer to the Prime Minister say to the government at this particular stage: by his title. call off the witch-hunt, it is getting you Senator BOLKUS—The Prime Minister nowhere, it is exposing your deficiencies and has lost his marbles with respect to this it is doing absolutely nothing in terms of the particular matter. That is why he and those standards of government in this place. driven by vengeance on his side of the parlia- There was a leak on 5 January—there was ment continue to run this issue. The essence a monumental leak on 5 January. It appeared of this matter is that it would not stand up in in all the Murdoch tabloids across the country any court in any country. I must say to and it was written by David Luff in the Senator Abetz, ‘Eric, after your performance Canberra bureau. It was detailed, it was this morning, don’t even try and defend revealing and it was the tip-off to Christopher people on parking fines.’ Skase—and it was well sourced. The government’s fingerprints were all over both Let me put one thing clearly on the record. pages of it—all over both of them, and you I did what the Attorney-General and the know it. Minister for Justice should have done last week: I rang the Australian Federal Police last The initial response of Senator Vanstone Thursday at 12.55 p.m. They returned the call was to say, ‘Well, Bolkus spoke to Luff.’ But and I was told that I was not being investigat- that did not carry at all because she knew that ed, that the investigation was not completed, it was not true. She knew exactly who spoke that there were a couple of matters still to be to Luff, and it was not me. Anyone who has resolved, but that I was not the target of them. wanted to check this out since knows that Let us put that on the record. Let us put on neither I nor my office nor anyone on my the record that this is what the government behalf was the source of this particular article. should have done before they went into At midnight Australian Eastern Standard parliament, before the Attorney-General went Time on 4 March, Christopher Skase would into parliament and smeared my name in a have had this article faxed to him in Majorca. most dishonest way. It would have been 3.30 p.m. on a sunny 758 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Sunday afternoon in Majorca. Skase would What we have so far is a revelation from the have picked this up, he would have rung his government. ‘We know where your assets are. lawyers, he would have got them to shift the We have taken proceedings in a number of assets and he would have opened another countries and we are about to get them.’ The bottle of champagne—all because government article says: sources deemed it fit to leak a silly season The proportion and location of Skase’s hidden good news story to try to prop up this incom- fortune which has been identified has not been petent, inept failure of a minister, the windbag revealed, but Skase has held bank accounts in that never stops. Switzerland, Austria, England, Spain and the Let me tell you what was in this article. Caymen Islands. What did this article reveal? Let us remind Come on! We are not talking about Johnny people what this article revealed. It revealed the mug down the street here; we are talking the nature of the action, the location of the about Christopher Skase, and a government assets, the objective of the action, investigat- sourced article that says, ‘We know where ions so far and future strategies—all that your assets were. We have traced them. We Christopher Skase needed to know was on continue to trace them and we have started this front page, good news for the minister, legal proceedings to seize them and bring story on 5 January. them back to Australia.’ What do you reckon Let us have a look at it. What does this he is going to think? Do you think he is article say? It is worth putting this on the going to think, ‘Vanstone is incompetent. She record because government members have won’t know where they are’? He may think conveniently glossed over it. The first para- that. It would not be a bad presumption, but graph says: what he would do is twig to it and shift the assets. That is exactly why investigators that A fortune hidden overseas by fugitive tycoon Christopher Skase has been discovered by federal morning were really down on the government, government investigators. because the government had blown it. The article goes on: Christopher Skase knows where his assets are. He knew where they were. That first para- Once Skase’s assets are frozen, the government will graph told Christopher Skase that they were attempt to liquidate the funds and return them to on to him and they were pursuing his assets. Australia. It is believed that Skase used the interim period to set up intricate international corporate The article continues: networks to hide the assets from Australian authori- The Daily Telegraph has learned that the govern- ties. ment has started legal action to recover the cash which has helped Skase fund his extravagant So you have told him what you know, but lifestyle. who told him? Slap bang in the middle of this It goes on to say: article, it says— The two main goals of the international legal Senator Alston—Mr Acting Deputy Presi- proceedings— dent, one is always reluctant to take a point and it is ‘proceedings’ in plural— of order in the course of a censure motion, but this is a very serious matter. There are are to freeze the fortune and then to liquidate the assets so that they can be returned to creditors in specific allegations on the record. This person Australia. has had 10 minutes and he is talked about nothing to do with what is part of that mo- It goes on to say how much; it was $10 tion. In those circumstances, despite the million dollars. Then it states: latitude one normally extends, he does not The money was moved out of Australia after Skase have a licence to simply distract attention and left after the failure of Quintex. point to other issues that he might find suffi- It goes on to revealingly state again: ciently distracting. Mr Acting Deputy Presi- Investigators have found their way through a maze dent, you ought to require him to address of legal, business and banking systems to pinpoint those issues. If he has a defence and he is the Skase assets. pleading not guilty, let us hear the evidence. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 759

He has been given 20 minutes; he has wasted stop messing up. It was definitely in the 10 of them so far. public interest for me to do that. Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, As I say, by 3.30 p.m. Majorca time Chris- Mr Acting Deputy President— topher Skase would have known from that article what the game was and it was about The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT time the government was told—as they were (Senator Murphy)—I was going to rule that the first time—that they ought to focus there was no point of order. properly on the game. Mr Williams fell Senator Faulkner—I appreciate that you asleep, flicked off the file and did not provide would do so, because it is a deliberate attempt cash last year to Mr Donnelly, and this time on Senator Alston’s part, when they are losing this minister should have clammed up and the argument in the debate, to try and make should not have leaked in the way that she a miserable, pathetic debating point. He did. The process had been blown and the knows it is an abuse of the standing orders. I investigation had been blown. am pleased that you were going to rule him This monumental leak was not deemed out of order. worthy of investigation. On 8 January the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I minister ordered an investigation into the thank the Leader of the Opposition. There is second leak, but not the first one. Why not? no point of order. Because her messy fingerprints were all over the first one and the minister, her staff and Senator BOLKUS—I can understand why the Prime Minister’s political staff were all up Senator Alston gets up, because I was going to it. I spoke to the Australian Federal Police to say that slap bang in the middle of the twice. They were very short and casual article it says: discussions. But when I spoke to them the Justice Minister Vanstone is understood to be ready first time, I said to them, ‘How can you to announce the legal action attempting to freeze investigate this leak without investigating the the assets. tip-off?’ It goes on to say: The fact that I raised it with the Federal Government sources said yesterday the minister Police—not you, Minister—meant that it was now is awaiting confirmation that legal action can squarely on the agenda that they should proceed, making it impossible for Skase to gain investigate the first leak. What we have here access to his fortunes. is the Minister for Justice abusing her position This was to make the minister look good. in respect of the Australian Federal Police. What did you do? You blew it. You tipped What did I do? We had a huge leak. I did a him off and as a consequence people investi- doorstop interview and quoted from two pages gating the case felt really cheesed off that of a 32- or 33-page affidavit—two pages that morning. were freely available to the media that morn- I am the one who has been hounding this ing. government on Skase for the last 18 months. I was given that document on the basis that I am the one who, when the Attorney Gener- I could read out one particular point but not al, Mr Williams, fell asleep at the wheel and others. What point did I read out? What was would not fund Mr Donnelly, pursued this the point that I added to the public record? matter both inside and outside this place. The point was from paragraph 109—but it What I was doing that morning was telling appears elsewhere in the affidavit—where Mr this government that they should not continue Donnelly said that if this matter comes to the to leak this information and should not pro- attention of the respondents, and in particular ceed with this big-noting of themselves. The to the attention of Mr Skase, before interlocu- main game here was always to pursue this tory orders can be obtained in all jurisdic- government to pursue Skase. What I was tions, he had serious concerns that steps doing was making it clear that the minister would be taken to prejudice the substantive had totally messed up and the minister should proceedings. 760 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Senator Vanstone—What about the press Senator Vanstone—Why did you go off conference? Tell them what you did there. camera? Senator BOLKUS—In the press confer- Senator BOLKUS—I have already an- ence, I drew the facts out of David Luff’s swered that, Senator Vanstone. In respect of article—and it was not hard to draw conclu- everything else, blind Freddy could have read sions—and I made the point that this minister the David Luff article and drawn the inferen- and this government ought to get back on the ces that I have drawn today and which I drew main game. We have here a document which in that press conference. As I said, it appeared most of the gallery knows was in the public in full the next day. Pardon me for thinking domain. Not one person here would not have that I had a right—and, in fact, a responsibili- been given a bit of information from time to ty—to pull this government up on the aban- time from a journalist on the basis that only doned way in which it was pursuing this part of it be used or that it be used in certain matter. ways. As appeared in the press the next day, A matter of urgency? A matter of censure? Terry McCrann, with whom I have never had Senator Vanstone, if it has taken you 60 or 70 any contact, let alone on this issue, a person days to read what I said at a doorstop inter- with whom my staff were in contact, had the view in Adelaide in January, no wonder whole story. Other journos had the affidavit— Christopher Skase is still on the loose. No Senator Alston—He couldn’t bring himself wonder you have not seized his assets. You to talk to scum like you. blew this, Senator Vanstone, and I am not The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— taking the rap for it. The real issue here goes Senator Alston, I ask that you withdraw that to your incompetence, your big mouth, your remark. leak, and it also goes to the administration of justice. Senator Alston—Okay. When an Attorney-General goes into a The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I parliament and says that a particular person is ask you to stand and withdraw the remark. being investigated when, through his question Senator Alston—Very reluctantly, I do. time briefs, he knows full well that that person is not; when a Minister for Justice The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I comes into this place and says that there is no ask you to withdraw the remark. innocent explanation, when she knows Senator Alston—And I have. through her question time briefs that there is The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I one and that the federal police are not pursu- ask you to withdraw it appropriately. ing me, then you have an abuse of ministerial position. Senator Alston—I have. You have an abuse of ministerial position The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— in a most unsavoury and undemocratic way. Would you stand and address the chair. I ask When you use the resources of the police to you to withdraw the remark. pursue political interests, you are embarking Senator Alston—I have withdrawn. on a police state. When you use the resources Senator BOLKUS—What is the govern- of the Federal Police to pursue political ment saying about a document which has objectives, when you leak operational details, public currency, is in the public domain, you have crossed the line. But we know that which the media discussed later that day and of you, because you always cross the line. which appeared in full the next day? The Senator Vanstone—On a point of order: I government is saying that everyone else can cannot give you a particular standing order, use it, but not me. Why? Because the point I Mr Acting Deputy President—and I am sure was making—and the only part of the affida- the clerk can be of assistance to you on that vit that I actually referred to and used to if you need it—but I have sat here quite pursue that particular point—was to stress to patiently, not wanting to interrupt Senator the government that they had blown it. Bolkus’s opportunity to defend himself, but Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 761

I am not prepared to tolerate the imputation reasonable hour and someone attacked me that I would misuse my position as Minister from behind and mugged me.’ I talked to him for Justice to inappropriately direct any about it. He said, ‘You sound a bit distracted.’ investigation or, for that matter, to misuse I said, ‘They’re trying to mug me in here.’ police resources and turn Australia in some We had a chat about it, and I said, ‘Nick, way into a police state. Not only is that not you’ve been mugged by professionals. I’ve true—and I understand that that is a matter been attacked by Vanstone, Costello and that I can answer for at another time—but it Howard. Let’s talk about your problem rather is a direct imputation against me and I do not than mine.’ Senator Vanstone, lift your game ask, I demand, that it be withdrawn. or get out of the job. Senator Faulkner—On the point of order: Senator COONAN (New South Wales) neither of those matters is an imputation, (10.01 a.m)—With a good deal of regret, I those matters are facts, and the record should rise to speak in support of this censure motion stand. against Senator Bolkus. The basis for my The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I regret is that, having listened very carefully have been advised, Senator Vanstone, that it to Senator Bolkus’s non-explanation, which is a matter for debate and there is no point of failed to address a single one of the issues in order. the case made out against him, there still remains such a clear and unequivocal case. Senator BOLKUS—Let me just stress the The case shows a senator revealing the con- point again— tents of a confidential court document, in Senator Vanstone—And you’ll keep too. reckless disregard of the consequences for the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— creditors of the bankrupt estate of Christopher Senator Vanstone, I heard that, and I ask you Skase and for the taxpayers of Australia. to withdraw what you said. Last week, in the debate to suspend stand- Senator Vanstone—In order to allow the ing orders and on precedence, questions were debate to continue, I will withdraw. asked in this place about the urgency and importance of this issue for the Senate. I was Senator BOLKUS—Let me go back to the amazed that any senator, whatever their point: I have pursued this government on political persuasion—and this particularly Skase, and I will continue to do so. When this goes for the Democrats—could fail to appreci- government tips him off, I will continue to ate the overwhelming public interest in the haunt them in respect of it. What you had Senate both debating and establishing one here, and what cannot be denied no matter way or the other whether Senator Bolkus, an how you try to fit me up, is my quoting from aspiring first law officer, acted in breach of a document which was already in the public his duty and in breach of trust and, thereby, domain. brought the Senate into disrepute. I am sorry But I had two pages of a 32-page docu- to say that, on examining the facts, this is the ment. What you have to ask yourself, Minister clearest possible case of an alternate first law Vanstone, is why people lost confidence in officer undermining the authority of the you that morning, after that leak. Everyone Federal Court that he is supposed to uphold. involved in the administration of this matter What compounds this outrage is that in a was convinced, as I and the media were, that press conference he called—and it was not a that story came from your office. It was in the doorstop but a press conference he called public interest for me to pursue this, and I deliberately on 5 January 1998—he revealed will continue to pursue it. matters that were not in the public domain at Last Thursday afternoon, when this matter that time. And it is worth remembering what was brought on by the government, I was in those were. First, he confirmed that the here and I got an urgent phone call. I took it. government had started legal proceedings to It was a call from my son who rang me to freeze certain of the Skase assets. That had say, ‘I was in Lygon Street this morning at a never been said. Then he revealed that the 762 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 proceedings were held in camera. That had conference in Adelaide on 5 January this year. never been said. As well, he identified that He said: action was actually proceeding in four of the I can’t give this document out, but, maybe if I just designated countries: Spain, the Cayman read it out . . . This is the proceedings in the Islands, the United Kingdom and in the court— Federal Court of Australia. He did that delib- and he knew! He said: erately, with reckless disregard for the conse- quences. If this matter comes to the attention of the respond- ents and in particular the attention of Mr Skase, At first I honestly believed that Senator before the interlocutory orders can be obtained in Bolkus must have done what he did in ignor- all jurisdictions— ance, that he did not appreciate that he was and remember, he has just talked about risking the very point of the court action proceedings in four of them— being taken in the first place. I have serious concerns that steps will be taken to Senator Alston—No. prejudice the substantive proceedings. Senator Abetz—No, deliberately. When he was bleating all over the record, he Senator COONAN—I did, I thought he knew and appreciated that proceedings were must have just been ignorant about it. at a critical stage. The relevant sequence of events shows conclusively that Senator Senator Alston—No, he is an absolute Bolkus’s press conference was the first time sleaze. there was any confirmation of recovery Senator COONAN—Yes, Senator Alston, proceedings against Skase’s bankrupt estate in he is an absolute sleaze. those nominated countries. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- What is really disappointing about Senator tor Murphy)—Order! Senator Coonan, I Bolkus’s conduct is not only that he was the think it would be appropriate if you withdrew one to reveal the specific critical information that remark. about the legal strategy, but that he then Senator COONAN—It is a debating point. sought to deny it. We have had this extraordi- nary performance this morning where he has The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, I sought to continue to blame the minister, think it is appropriate that you withdraw the Senator Vanstone. It has been a cowardly and word ‘sleaze’. unwarranted attack. Senator COONAN—I have a lot to say But no matter how much Senator Bolkus and not much time to say it in and so I will tries to wriggle and squirm out of this, he is withdraw it, so that this debate can continue. condemned out of his own mouth. Let me tell Unfortunately in the events that have you why. If Senator Bolkus truly believed that happened it is impossible not to conclude that the story was already leaked and that the Senator Bolkus knew that he was behaving affidavit was already with the media, as he improperly and that what he divulged in has since confirmed on the ABC 7.30 Report, public had the potential to sabotage the whole why was he so reticent about handing it over purpose for which these injunctive proceed- to the media at his press conference on 5 ings were taken in the first place. On closer January? He said: examination, we find Senator Bolkus sneaking I can’t give this document out, but, maybe if I just around at a critical stage of proceedings, read it out. . . This is the proceedings in the divulging information that could scuttle the court. . . whole case. He might as well have rung up I ask honourable senators: why would he Christopher Skase himself and read the bother doing this if he genuinely believed or affidavit to him direct. knew at that time, as he now says, that the The fact that Senator Bolkus had an acute affidavit was already with the media? That is appreciation of the seriousness of what he was just nonsensical. Secondly, Senator Bolkus doing is revealed in the transcript of his press now says in a doorstop interview on 5 March Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 763

1998 that he made an assessment of the the hands of Senator Bolkus and one or more material that was in the media. of the journalists. Senator Alston—‘A careful assessment’. Senator Vanstone—I wonder if he told the police where he got it? Senator COONAN—‘A careful assess- ment,’ Senator Alston. He made a judgment Senator COONAN—I do not think he has that nothing he read out on 5 January added told the police, Senator Vanstone. What is much more to what he had already revealed. blindingly obvious is that, however it got Implicit in that statement is an admission that there, it was improperly obtained. I think it is he did add more and that what had appeared worth saying that in an ex parte application to in the media that morning was, in fact, not as a court, confidentiality and speed are of the much as he was now talking about. How essence. The point of this application was to much more he revealed is not the point. How freeze assets before they could be moved. The was Senator Bolkus to know what effect what usual procedure in the Federal Court is that an he had said would have? He just did not appointment is made through the registrar know that. He was reckless in what he did with a duty judge, and counsel attend the because he did not know what effect what he judge in chambers. Orders are then made said that was extra would have. Then, to including orders for service and sometimes compound it, two critical pages from the substituted service—I am quite certain it affidavit conveniently marked up with parts would be substituted service in this case Senator Bolkus had read out at his press because it is so difficult otherwise to effect conference got boxed in the parliamentary service—and you also get a return date, when press gallery. If Senator Bolkus did this, isn’t you go back to court and review the matter. it curious that he would be actually giving In these circumstances there is virtually no back to the media what he said they already opportunity for the documents in support of had? the application to be inspected before they are served on the respondent, and letters have The sad conclusion to be drawn from been tabled from the trustee saying he did not Senator Bolkus’s antics is that not only does authorise anyone on his behalf to look at the he lack the precision of judgment to be documents. A letter from the deputy registrar expected from an average lawyer, but he also in the Federal Court has been tabled advising lacks the integrity essential to discharging the that no affidavit can be inspected without duty of a legal practitioner to the court and, leave of the court and that no application had as we said in the debate last week, any been made for that purpose, and the registrar disciplinary body would have to look serious- also confirmed that no application had been ly at whether that would be something that made in those circumstances. would warrant his being struck off. He has also destroyed any public confidence that However, the affidavit had been obtained, could remain in his trustworthiness to be the and it is clear that it had been improperly first law officer of Australia. He has brought obtained somehow. Even though Senator the Senate into disrepute. Bolkus may not have been in practice in the superior courts for many years, the confiden- This is not just a case of dropping the dead tiality of these proceedings and the conse- donkey; this is a serious case of reckless quences of dealing with journalists—who, to indifference to the public interest, which lies their credit, behaved more responsibly than overwhelmingly in effectively pursuing the Senator Bolkus—must have been pretty scurrilous Skase. Senator Bolkus has raised obvious. the barrier for the government, the nation and But the biggest blow to Senator Bolkus’s the taxpayers of Australia just that little bit credibility is that he contradicts himself. In higher, and for that alone he should be cen- the 7.30 Report transcript, he says he got his sured and sacked. copy of the document from a journalist, and There has been a great deal of debate about in Hansard on Monday, 9 March he denies the status of this affidavit and how it got into that he quoted from an illegally or improperly 764 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 obtained Federal Court affidavit. Senator Bolkus has misused information in a way that Vanstone says it was clearly shown that is directly contrary to the public interest. The Senator Bolkus had quoted from an illegally background to this particular debate is that the or improperly obtained Federal Court docu- newspapers reported on 5 January this year ment. Senator Bolkus says: that the government was moving to freeze the You know that’s not true. Skase assets. The office of the Minister for Senator Vanstone says: Justice as we have heard in this debate and previously, has claimed that it was very I recognise that interjection. ‘You know that’s not particular to limit comment on that particular true’—is that what you said? report on the basis that it was likely to affect Senator Bolkus says: the conduct of ongoing proceedings in the Of course you know it’s not true. Federal Court. On the same day Senator So we have two contradictions from Senator Bolkus held a press conference where he read Bolkus: one that he did it and one that he did from a document. I know this has been put on not do it, and for Senator Bolkus to effective- record a number of times, but this is a par- ly deny that he was aware that the document ticularly important point in the Democrats was improperly obtained just simply strains making a decision. Senator Bolkus stated the bounds of credibility. Either Senator when he read from this document: Bolkus is duplicitous or stupid— I can’t give this document out but maybe if I just Senator Abetz—Or both. read it off the record. This is the proceedings in the court. Senator COONAN—There is a third possibility, Senator Abetz, and that is he is an I am advised that he then read from a docu- opportunist prepared to risk the taxpayers’ ment which was an affidavit from an in hard-earned dollars in this country for his own camera Federal Court proceedings. As I grubby, political ends. What is laughable is understand it, this was a leaked document. Senator Bolkus’s ham-fisted attempt to blame The Democrats have obtained from the Senator Vanstone for leaking the document. minister in writing an assurance that the What a preposterous suggestion! Even the Federal Court did not release this document. Daily Telegraph, in the responsible way in The minister has also provided my party with which it dealt with this matter, said in its a copy of a letter from Max Donnelly which editorial on 6 January this year: clearly states that he did not authorise the We took the decision to publish the report against release of the affidavit, nor did he authorise the wishes of Justice Minister Amanda Vanstone, his solicitor to release it. who expressed a fear that our article would some- how imperil that legal process. The Democrats have not seen, and I certain- Senator Abetz—Why would you leak and ly have not seen, the affidavit in question. In ask them not to publish? fact, I have refused to see or take a copy of this document. I would suggest that if my Senator COONAN—Exactly that. The party, and I, as the spokesperson for the Daily Telegraph went on to make the pretty Attorney-General and justice portfolios, can obvious point that any suggestion that the make a judgment that a confidential document government was the source of leaking this with potentially detrimental effects should not document was ‘nonsensical’. Labor has be disclosed then perhaps Senator Bolkus and simply bungled the chase for Skase in a others in this place should make the same spectacular fashion and Senator Bolkus seems judgment. However, I rely on the assurances to be doing his level best to compound it. He from the minister that the document which is ought to be censured. the subject of this motion is in fact the docu- Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- ment from which Senator Bolkus was reading tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian on 5 January 1998. I am happy to be cor- Democrats) (10.14 a.m.)—The Democrats rected on these points. I have listened to the consider this matter a particularly serious one. debate so far and I have not heard a contrary As I understand the motion before us, Senator argument on this particular point. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 765

Senator Abetz—Senator Bolkus admits or by any other office. But just because that. another has disclosed a confidential and Senator STOTT DESPOJA—I know you privileged document does not justify any are trying to assist me, Senator Abetz, but you following disclosures. have had your turn. Therefore, the essence of The only circumstances where it may be what we have is that Senator Bolkus received justified to disclose a confidential or a privi- a document which was confidential and a leged document is where the public interests privileged court document. The contents of are served by that disclosure. Cases, for this document were then disclosed, and I am example, where whistleblowers have released advised that this disclosure then damaged the confidential documents are examples of this, court proceedings. I accept that this may be, and I would examine each of those matters in and this is a debatable point, but that is our the particular circumstances. However, I do advice. not think providing information that allows The Democrats are not going to participate Christopher Skase to further evade the law is in the ‘he says, she says’ arguments that we sufficient excuse. I have said in discussions have had here, and we have certainly wit- with members of the opposition and, in fact, nessed them in question times over the last with Senator Bolkus himself, that my party week or so. We do believe this issue is clear: was happy and willing to be convinced on a Senator Bolkus disclosed the contents of a matter of public interest. So far we have not confidential and privileged document. How been. much of this had already been disclosed, that Many of us here, certainly on the cross- the interview was effectively over and how benches and perhaps on the opposition bench- available the document was are all irrelevant es, understand the temptations to disclose to this debate. We certainly took on board the documents that lead to criticism against this arguments of Senator Bolkus and others on government. As I have said, there are times the opposition side in relation to the sense when this may be appropriate, and we would that the document may have already been need to analyse those reasons. But it is wrong leaked or be available or have been distribut- to disclose confidential and privileged infor- ed, but that is not relevant to the debate in mation just because you have access to it or relation to this motion. It was a confidential perhaps it will make a good story. and privileged document and yet the contents Today’s censure motion asks Senator of that document were disclosed to the public Bolkus to apologise for his actions to Max at large. Donnelly, the Federal Court and the Senate. Claims that the document was leaked from Unless there is an extremely good excuse— the minister’s office are also irrelevant to this and I have not heard an extremely good debate for now. If it turns out that the docu- excuse this far in the debate, and certainly not ment did come from the minister’s office then from Senator Bolkus—these apologies are we will have another issue which will need to acceptable and my party will support them. be addressed on another occasion, but that is We have listened to the arguments, we have not the matter of debate before us. These are listened to Senator Bolkus, and I must say serious allegations and the veracity of these that some of his political arguments sounded claims must be tested. Similarly, we take on quite convincing, but his legal defence was board concerns of Senator Bolkus and his not. He may be hounding the government claims that he feels he has been smeared by over Christopher Skase but, as I said, a lot of statements by members in this place and the that issue is irrelevant to the issue before us, other place that he is somehow subject to which is whether or not certain contents of a investigation by the AFP. That is a matter that privileged document, a Federal Court affida- is not directly relevant to the motion in front vit, were revealed on the public record. It of us. I say now that the concerns I express does not matter how little or how much of here apply equally to the possible disclosure that affidavit was revealed or where it origi- of this document by the office of the minister nally came from—or even the consequences 766 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 of that particular action. They are not the therefore, since that is established in their relevant matters. minds, Senator Bolkus should be censured. I am also anxious to place on record the I want to put to the Democrats that that is functions and the role of the Attorney-General in fact not the offence here. What is clear is and those in opposition who hope to fill that that the information that breached the confi- particular position. The Attorney-General has dentiality of that court document was in the a dual function as both the Attorney-General public domain before it reached Senator of the Commonwealth and as the first law Bolkus. It was published in the press as such officer of the Commonwealth. It is this and the alerting of Mr Skase, and therefore second function which attaches to the office his ability to take evasive action to protect his the responsibility to strive to promote the law own self-interest against the self-interest of and the rule of law in a representative democ- this nation, had occurred. It had occurred racy. I am concerned, and so is my party, that before Senator Bolkus did anything at all with in this case a would-be Attorney-General has any particular document. acted contrary to the legal institutions in The offence is the leaking of the document. Australia. Our court system depends on legal This is a document of the Federal Court and practices, such as in camera hearings, in order it is a document that we, on our side, believe to achieve justice. The Attorney-General and was leaked by the Minister for Justice or her those aspiring to that position must recognise office. It is peculiar and, in the context of all the important first law officer function by the heat and fury generated by the govern- striving to maintain these institutions. ment over this issue, extremely odd that the As I have said, my party has treated this investigation commissioned into the leaking matter with utmost seriousness. We have been of this document was not into the leaking of a little dismayed over the last couple of days it but into the use of it by Senator Bolkus. with the protracted nature of this debate. We That was the investigation that the Minister place on record our concern at some of the for Justice undertook. Why didn’t she—and filibustering. We thought it was time to air this question has never been answered to any the arguments and to resolve this issue. I satisfactory extent—do the obvious thing that believe the arguments have been aired satis- she ought to have done, that her public duty factorily; we have listened carefully to the screamed out to her to do, and commission an debates and we now believe that this matter investigation into who leaked the document? should be resolved. We are not interested in That is where the offence occurred. Why the politics of this debate. We are interested didn’t the investigation address the offence? in the facts, the legalities and the conse- Senator Vanstone—It did. quences. There is one fact that cannot be Senator COOK—It did not. The investiga- denied and that is that Senator Bolkus read tion did not address the question of who onto the records certain contents of a Federal leaked the document. Until that is investigated Court affidavit. and until we actually know who did it, we do Senator COOK (Western Australia— not know who breached the confidentiality of Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the the Federal Court. What is notorious in this Senate) (10.23 a.m.)—I might say that I am matter is that the information about Skase was somewhat disappointed by the position taken in the public domain. The covenant of secrecy by the Democrats. It was clearly and well had been breached. The public interest was in articulated, but that does not mean the conclu- jeopardy because Skase could then escape. All sion is right. Before turning to the body of that happened before Senator Bolkus touched my remarks, I would like to take up the the document. That is the offence here and conclusion that the Democrats have reached that is what ought to be addressed in this in their presentation here this morning. They debate. I ask the Democrats to reconsider say that the offence is that there was a quota- their position on the basis of that argument as tion made by Senator Bolkus from a privi- well and not, I respectfully put to them, rush leged document. That is the offence and to judgment on the basis of a very narrow Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 767 interpretation of the particular motion before nailed the fact that the High Court Justice the chair. This is a targeted motion to try to Callinan— assassinate the career of someone who has Senator Alston—The only connection he been a very effective shadow spokesman and has with the law is as a defendant. who has illustrated in public debate and by his actions the perfidy of this government Senator COOK—Will you just shut up and when it comes to the meting out of justice in take your turn. this nation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Order! I know that this is a robust debate but The Leader of the Opposition here in the it would be better run if you addressed your Senate, Senator Faulkner, has rebutted in remarks through the chair. considerable and clinical detail the arguments put forward by the shadow minister and has Senator COOK—Thank you, Mr Acting revealed in fact that there is no case to an- Deputy President, I will. Let us recall what swer. Senator Bolkus himself has stood in his happened in this case. Here was a case in place and defended himself from the scurri- which the government of Australia was a lous attack upon his standing and his reputa- litigant. That is fact No. 1. Here was a case tion, and revealed as well that there is no case in which the question was: had a newly to answer. What is worth asking in this debate appointed High Court judge, who many is: do the accusers of Senator Bolkus come to people in Australia thought had a particular this matter with clean hands? What are their public bias in many of his expressions of motives? opinion, expressed an opinion on a matter that he was going to be called to sit in judgment I submit to this chamber that they do not on? As far as the judge was concerned, he come with clean hands, that they do not have had not. A court proceeding began to test that honest motives in this matter, and that they do argument. The evidence that was adduced in have something to hide. I submit that the that court proceeding was not all the evidence government does have an obvious political within the knowledge of the government of reason for attacking Senator Bolkus in this this country. They were a litigant in this way and trying to bring him down. Senator proceeding; they took the view, it could be Bolkus’s key accusers on the government side clearly argued, that they wanted this judge to are the Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, the sit on that case so that the bench would be Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone, and stacked in their favour—it was a case that that very odd being, backbencher Senator they were arguing. Abetz. But did they put in the public domain all of Let me take up this thread of argument and the information about whether or not this develop it a little further because basically it judge had expressed an opinion on the matter goes to the government’s motive here in that he had forgotten about? They did not. attacking the shadow minister. At the begin- Senator Abetz, who is the chairman of the ning of this year, the Liberal Party held a Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation retreat at Thredbo to contemplate their tactics Committee, derives no credit from the fact for the coming year, 1998—a year in which that Senator Bolkus wanted to convene a there is obviously going to be an election. meeting of that committee to adduce a docu- What is clear from their tactics is that they ment which made the issue clear. Senator decided they would go on the offensive but, Abetz walked out of the meeting, thus depriv- when they rose from their meeting in Thred- ing that committee of a quorum. That deliber- bo, they encountered their first obstacle— ate act of sabotage to the interests of justice Senator Bolkus. The issue in the public of this nation was carried out by Senator domain at around that time was the High Abetz. Court matter concerning the Hindmarsh Island As it turned out, Senator Bolkus, in persist- Bridge case, and the first obstacle they en- ing in the pursuit of justice here, obviously countered was a forensic Senator Bolkus, who drew the matter to the attention of the High 768 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Court judge, who then disqualified himself so that the government’s chance of winning saying that he had forgotten—he could not their case was improved. remember—that he had expressed the opinion In saying that I am not taking a position on in this way. If we had known that up-front, the matter before the court. But at least in the legal action about whether or not he was terms of the procedure here the first law entitled to sit would not have taken place. But officer of the Commonwealth ought to have who knew this evidence all along and did not conducted himself not as the government’s say a word? The Attorney-General of Austral- legal officer but as the first law officer of the ia. I am surprised to hear from Senator Commonwealth. The fact that he was dis- Vanstone that this man is described as the graced by Senator Bolkus adds absolutely to first law officer of the Commonwealth. The motive when we look at the scurrilous at- first law officer of the Commonwealth surely tempts now to try to bring the reputation of has an obligation to the concept of justice in Senator Bolkus down. this nation. Surely, the first law officer of the Commonwealth has an obligation to see that, Let us now turn to Senator Vanstone, who when a High Court judge is being dealt with is Senator Bolkus’s accuser in this chamber. in a legal proceeding to see if he is right, fit Senator Vanstone is not without form on the and proper to sit on a case, all the evidence matter of leaking. Let me go to October, about his conduct is known. It is surely an 1990—a month that would ring in the ears of obligation on the first law officer to see that Senator Vanstone because it involved the the process of justice is observed. disclosure of in camera evidence given to the Joint National Crime Authority Committee. This is the allegation that is being made— Surely it is an obligation on the first law officer of the nation, as well as in the inter- Senator Alston—On a point of order: how ests of all litigants, to see that the game is can a convoluted discussion about Mr Justice conducted fairly and that justice is not only Callinan, followed by some suggestions of done but is seen to be done. But what did the involvement between the National Crime first law officer of the Commonwealth do? He Authority and Senator Vanstone, have any- said nothing. He sat mute. He had the infor- thing whatsoever to do with a censure motion mation. He did not disclose it. Who revealed that is specifically confined to the conduct of all of this? Senator Bolkus. It was a major Senator Bolkus? embarrassment for a newly sworn-in High Senator Robert Ray—Senator Cook is Court judge on his first major case, a signifi- entitled to go to Senator Vanstone’s motives cant embarrassment for the government, and if he believes they are simply malicious. This the very reason why now the trained legal is the reason for moving the motion so he is talent of the government side is on Senator entitled to go to that. He is also entitled to go Bolkus to try to bring him down. He revealed over other areas so that people can make a your improper actions in this matter and he judgment as to the seriousness of Senator disgraced you in the public mind because of Vanstone’s charges as compared with how your conduct. other people are treated and other areas are considered. Of course he is entitled. Let us get it clear that in this particular Senator Alston—That is simply carte circumstance there is real motive and the blanche for saying that you can throw around Attorney-General’s actions here cannot be as much mud as you like on any subject as held, in any circumstances, to be actions in long as it reflects adversely on the person the public interest. The Attorney-General has who moves the motion. That cannot possibly simply acted not as the first law officer of the be the rule in this chamber. The fact is that it Commonwealth but as the legal officer for the is a debate about the conduct of Senator government. Moreover, as a legal officer for Bolkus. You cannot in any shape or form use the government he withheld information that that tawdry excuse to justify an attack on the ought to have been in the public domain motives of the mover of the motion, let alone when the government was a litigant in a case suggest that somehow it is a contest between Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 769 the two parties. This is an issue that goes to the issue. It is the government’s time we are the heart of Senator Bolkus’s conduct. wasting here; it is a government motion. Senator Robert Ray—I think Senator The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I Alston has slightly misinterpreted what I said. realise that. I made two points, the first of which was Senator Robert Ray—Senator Cook’s right about intent, which he did not contest. Sena- to question Senator Vanstone in terms of tor Cook is entitled to discuss other issues so what credibility she has generally and then that people may make a weighty judgment as relate that back to the credibility of her claims to whether the charges made by Senator is absolutely in order, because if we are to Vanstone deserve merit given the circum- test the credibility of Senator Vanstone’s stances of other treatment that has not been claims she has to be a credible person. censured. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In Senator Alston—How can it possibly affect a censure debate of this nature—a wide the weight that one attaches to the conduct of ranging and at times robust debate, to use the Senator Bolkus to know whether Senator kinds of words that have been used here this Vanstone might have done a range of other morning—I would expect accusations to be things? That is like saying that if an accuser made from both sides. I take the point of has ever been in trouble with the law that Senator Alston, but I rule that there is no person is not entitled to make allegations. It point of order. However, I would ask Senator is like saying that if someone has been raped Cook to keep as much as he possibly can to and they happen to have a conviction for the subject at hand. shoplifting, they should not be heard. It is saying that you can somehow defend the case Senator COOK—Thank you, Mr Acting by purely attacking your accuser. That cannot Deputy President. I think that is the right be right. Senator Cook has had nearly 15 ruling, and I am pleased you have made it. I minutes. This is a debate about the conduct of am developing in this chamber at the moment Senator Bolkus. It cannot affect the conduct a point which is obviously uncomfortable to of Senator Bolkus to know what other people the government, hence their squawking. The might think of the conduct of Senator point is this: an absolutely scurrilous attack Vanstone. That by definition is unrelated. has been made upon Senator Bolkus’s reputa- Hypothetically, she might have all the motives tion, and an attempt to censure him in this in the world for seeking political advantage— parliament has arisen from that. It is entirely it would not be the first time in this cham- proper for the opposition, as we have done ber—but how can that possibly assist people through Senator Faulkner and through Senator in understanding the merits of the allegations Bolkus himself, to demolish the argument contained in this charge sheet? This is about made against him that is the substance of this the conduct of Senator Bolkus. attack. Senator Cook—This is not a court of law. It is also entirely proper for the opposition to look at the motives of the attackers. It is Senator Alston—It is an attempt to try to convenient for the government to argue that deal with issues. It is a parliament in which only Senator Bolkus is on trial here. Senator a motion is before the chair, and we are Alston seems to think that this is a court. It is trying to determine whether or not there is not; it is a political chamber. He is the first to any defence—Bolkus certainly has not ad- use it as a court for every political purpose he duced one this morning—to explain away can when it suits him. those allegations. It cannot possibly assist in that process to try to smear Senator Vanstone. It is entirely appropriate to look at the motives. The first motive is that Senator The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I Bolkus is a thorn in the government’s side. A hear the points from both sides— High Court judge stood down from a case. Senator Robert Ray—Mr Acting Deputy The government did not introduce the evi- President, I will make just one more point on dence to justify why he should; Senator 770 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Bolkus did. This is a High Court case in Senator Vanstone has form in leaking in which the government itself is a litigant. The camera evidence. The fact that she is making ordinary person on the street has an entitle- that allegation about Senator Bolkus as loudly ment to say, ‘Let us get it right: the govern- as she can, at the top of her lungs whilst ment was taking this case; it knew that the drawn up on the balls of her feet, is to deflect judge should not sit; it thought the judge was attention from the issue that the opposition going to decide in its favour so it did not say contends remains at the nub of this: who anything.’ That is surely relevant to this leaked the documents in the first place? It is matter. something that Senator Vanstone has not investigated. Before I turn, as I will in a moment, to Senator Vanstone, it is also relevant in this Let us go to the next example of where case that the Attorney-General and Senator Senator Vanstone’s hands are far from clean. Vanstone have been repeatedly making I have here an excerpt from the Adelaide allegations about Senator Bolkus while know- Advertiser of 6 September 1996 headed ing that the AFP, the Australian Federal ‘Vanstone wants uni spies on spending’. We Police, have investigated Senator Bolkus and know that Senator Vanstone, the former that Senator Bolkus is cleared. Questions that minister for education, was dumped from the ought to be answered in this debate is: when cabinet by this government to the role of did they find out that the Australian Federal Minister for Justice, the junior minister for the Police had investigated Senator Bolkus and Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, because of cleared him, and did they find that out before her unfortunate inability to handle the educa- they started making their allegations about tion portfolio in a way that students and Senator Bolkus or after? That is, are they educationists of Australia could feel any continuing to make allegations about Senator confidence in her stewardship at all. Bolkus knowing that in fact the AFP investi- This is back in the days in which Senator gation of Senator Bolkus has concluded and Vanstone had glory, back in the days in that that investigation has cleared him? which she was a minister in the cabinet. What did she say? She said—I assume the Adelaide This does raise questions about justice. The Advertiser quoted her accurately: obligation of the first law officer of this "What’s the problem with an academic—when they nation is to protect the institution of justice. realise there is an administrative inefficiency— Engaging in this political debate to score dobbing the university in?" political points, knowing the fact that the The article goes on to say: investigation has concluded and has cleared the person he is attacking, hardly serves They should contact the media to alert the com- justice in the true sense of the word; it serves munity to the wastage. political opportunity. That is the nub of this Then she says: debate. That is why the motives of those ". . . put a piece of paper in a brown bag to raise people making these allegations should be the problems— investigated. and she goes on. Here is a person about I now turn to Senator Vanstone and October whom there is a real suspicion in the public 1990, when she made public in camera mind and a direct accusation from us that she evidence given to the Joint Committee on the leaked this material telling people how to leak NCA. In a minority report, Senator Vanstone material. and three other coalition members of the Senator O’Chee—Mr Acting Deputy committee released confidential evidence not President, I raise a point of order. I know you authorised for release by the committee. Does have already ruled on the point of order raised that sound like the allegation being made here by Senator Alston, but this is a separate against Senator Bolkus? Is it being made by matter. Senator Cook is discussing something someone without form, with clean hands? It to do with higher education. It has absolutely is not. no relevance to the— Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 771

Senator COOK—On the point of order— from my office rather than get mixed up in Senator O’Chee—Hold on, I have to the acrimony that has flowed from either side finish. of this chamber. Senator COOK—On the point of order— Censure motions are normally directed against ministers of the Crown for perceived The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— failure to perform their functions as ministers Wait until I hear what Senator O’Chee has to of the Crown. There have been a number of say, Senator Cook, and then you can make those censure motions over a period. Very any point you like. few censure motions have been directed Senator O’Chee—Mr Acting Deputy against individual private senators who are President, this discussion which Senator Cook not members of the government. I will come is now leading relates to higher education. I to that in a moment. know you have already ruled that it is appro- The motion that we have before us notes a priate to look at the circumstances surround- number of things. It states: ing an allegation against Senator Bolkus, but that Senator Bolkus, during and after a press this can in no way relate to the circumstances conference on 5 January 1998, revealed certain of the allegation against Senator Bolkus, nor contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit can it in any possible sense relate to the ... motives that we on the government side have That has been made out. It is clear. It is in raising this censure motion. This is just a correct in that that occurred. The motion time waster. continues: The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I that this affidavit formed part of legal proceedings have already ruled that a censure motion does undertaken by Mr Max Donnelly, trustee of the range far and wide. In this particular case bankrupt estate of Mr Christopher Skase, to recover Senator Cook has been getting wider but, with assets allegedly concealed by Mr Skase... one minute to go, I would like to hear what Again, that is a fact. It continues: else he has to say. that Federal Court affidavits may only be obtained Senator COOK—The point that I am by leave of the court or a judge... making here is that we believe that the ma- That is a fact. That is the rules of the court. terial was leaked by Senator Vanstone’s that in relation to the affidavit revealed by Senator office. Here in the Adelaide Advertiser of 6 Bolkus no such leave had been obtained, September are leaking instructions issued on Again, that is correct. It further says: the public record by Senator Vanstone. One that Mr Donnelly had not authorised the release of cannot say that this person is innocent and the affidavit by either his firm or solicitors acting does not know how to do that job. She is for him; advising others how to do it. Again, that is clearly not in dispute. But then Senator Vanstone—To whistle blow. the motion goes on to censure Senator Bolkus Senator COOK—A whistleblower; that is for: right—how to go about leaking material. We (i) revealing the contents of a confidential know Senate Vanstone is a past master at this. Federal Court affidavit, The accuser in this case stands accused. But (ii) his disregard of the larger public interest the real offence here is who leaked the ma- in putting at risk the success of Mr Donnelly’s legal attempts to recover terial and broke the confidentiality in the first assets belonging to the bankrupt estate of place. Senator Vanstone should plead guilty. Mr Christopher Skase, and (Time expired) (iii) his knowingly taking a course of action Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.49 directly contrary to the public interest a.m.)—A censure motion in this chamber is ... a very serious matter indeed. I have listened I will just deal with that before I go on to carefully to what has transpired. Most of the paragraph (c). With regard to those particular time I have found it more beneficial to listen matters, let me first of all come back to the 772 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 point that there have been only three, I think, to the rest of the motion, it seems to me to be censure motions that I know of that have been a clear-cut case and I will be supporting that. directed against private members—the latest Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister for one of which was against Senator Baume in Communications, the Information Economy March 1995. That was a motion which cen- and the Arts) (10.56 a.m.)—Senator Harradine sured Senator Baume for including in some of is absolutely correct. This is a very serious his tabled documents a tax file number of a matter which goes to the heart of the adminis- particular taxpayer. He did so inadvertently tration of justice. It clearly has a great deal to and it was clear that he was not aware of that. do with the standards that are applied in As a matter of fact, I moved an amendment public office and the extent to which legal that we note he was not aware of the tax file forms and ethical proprieties are upheld. The number. It stated: critical issue, and I think Senator Harradine . . . that Senator Baume, in seeking the leave of the put his finger on it, is that Senator Bolkus has duty Minister and the Senate to table the documents simply pleaded no contest. He has come in in question, was not aware of and thus did not draw here and sought to distract attention by attention to the tax file number identified therein, talking about everything but the real issue. publication of which otherwise than under cover of parliamentary privilege was a criminal offence. The fact is that he should not have used these documents, even to confirm a specula- That was included in the motion. I actually tive press report. But to deliberately go voted for that motion. Just for the record, further and release critical information is to Senator Bolkus also voted for that motion. compound the felony. To see this, we do not But here we have a very serious matter need to go very far beyond the 7.30 Report indeed. A lot of the discussion here has been interview which Senator Bolkus gave on 5 absolutely irrelevant. The question is whether March, where he told Kerry O’Brien, ‘I did Senator Bolkus should be censured for doing a very close check of the articles that morn- what he did. On balance, I would have ing.’ In other words, these were not the thought that, whilst he is not a minister of the actions of a political tyro, someone who did Crown, he certainly is the shadow Attorney- not understand the process; someone who got General. If the opposition wins the next a bit carried away with his enthusiasm. This election, in due course Senator Bolkus will no is a seasoned political operator. This is basi- doubt be desirous of being the first law cally a person who has never had a job in his officer of the Crown. I think it is important life other than as part of the political process. for the Senate to take this action to uphold He knows the game backwards; he knew not only its credibility as an institution but exactly what he was doing and he carefully also the credibility of the courts. I will be checked the articles that morning. voting accordingly. He then told Kerry O’Brien that in fact he Paragraph (c) calls on Senator Bolkus to had released information that was additional apologise for his actions to Mr Max Donnelly, to that contained in the press reports. That is the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Christo- what says it all. The fact is that he should not pher Skase, to the Federal Court and to the have even laid a finger on those documents, Senate. I am always a little hesitant about even if they were in the public arena. The asking people to apologise like kids. An argument of the Leader of the Opposition in apology has to come from within. One hopes the Senate seems to be that because these that that comes from within Senator Bolkus documents are, he thought, on the public himself. But I am not keen on that. It reminds record—what he meant by that, presumably, me of being asked 30 years ago to apologise is that they are outside the court—it is then to certain members of the federal executive of open season; anyone can do whatever they the Labor Party for expressing a view that like. Bolkus did not think that because Bolkus they were friends of the communists. I really said, ‘I can’t give this document out. But do not think it is terribly appropriate to push maybe if I just read it out, presumably off the that particular part of the motion. With regard record, this is the proceedings in the court.’ Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 773

He then proceeds to quote from it and ends Senator Bolkus has not been prepared to come up by saying, ‘As I say, I cannot give them into this chamber and accept responsibility for out.’ his actions. It is a classic example. So this is a conscious and deliberate action It is one thing to effectively hope that it on his part. That is what concerns us so will all go away and to not contest the is- much. This is not only a deliberate flouting of sues—which he has not done. But he is the rules of the court, but it is also action that brazenly carrying on and trying to throw as has very significant consequences. It puts at much mud as possible and raising all these risk the successful recovery of assets of red herrings about who leaked what docu- someone whose behaviour is notorious, ments. There is nothing to suggest, from what someone about whom the Australian public he said, that when interviewed by the police has the greatest concern and is wanting action he did anything other than refuse to cooperate to be taken. Of course, millions of dollars and suggest that they widen their investigat- have been invested in the pursuit of those ions to take in the actions of Senator assets and indeed the bankrupt himself, and Vanstone. In other words, he was not in the at this stage to very little avail. slightest bit interested in assisting them in Quite clearly, there was a significant oper- their inquiries; but that is an irrelevancy. That ation being undertaken. It is unfortunate that is not the issue before this chamber. The issue the matter got into the public arena. But is that he revealed the contents of a confiden- clearly it was against the wishes of Senator tial Federal Court affidavit. He did not do it Vanstone, because that is made abundantly accidentally or inadvertently. He did it abso- clear by the editorial in the Daily Telegraph, lutely deliberately and in a calculated political where they confirm that she had sought to fashion to achieve political advantage. dissuade them from running the article. Then Those are actions which deserve not only they effectively said that Bolkus’s line was utmost censure; they demand action from the simply unbelievable. Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), who The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— I see has done yet another backflip on the Order! Senator Bolkus. charter of budget honesty. He is someone who has no conception of what is expected of the Senator ALSTON—Senator Bolkus’s line Labor Party by the Australian public. He was unbelievable because he was simply might have his own standards, but he is trying to smear his accuser, and that is par for simply not interested in ensuring that any the course. The fact of the matter is that standards apply to behaviour and conduct. In Senator Bolkus’s record shows that he has those circumstances, he should have no choice never had any respect for the law and he has at all but to stand Senator Bolkus down. He never had any respect for ethics or propriety. is quite clearly unfit to hold office in this In fact, ethical standards and Bolkus is a country again. His behaviour over a long contradiction in terms. period of time—going back more than a The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— quarter of a century—makes it perfectly plain Order! Senator Bolkus. that he has utter contempt for anything that Senator ALSTON—Senator Bolkus. What gets in the road of political advantage. In we have here is a deliberate and calculated those circumstances, not only does he deserve action to put political advantage ahead of the censure from this chamber, but he ought to be interests of the taxpayer in seeking to recover stood down. He ought to be told by the assets by deliberately going on the record and Leader of the Opposition that that behaviour doing whatever it takes, at whatever cost and is totally unacceptable. at whatever expense to the taxpayer or the I am grateful to Senator Ray for pointing trustee of the estate, in order to achieve out to us that we have already had valuable personal aggrandisement and political advan- government time expended on this issue— tage. It has backfired spectacularly and that is well beyond what it should have taken. We quite clear. What is entirely regrettable is that saw a deliberate and calculated filibuster 774 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 yesterday. We have had MPIs and we had 29 issue. In those circumstances, we are prepared notices of motion. They are doing absolutely to grant him leave. everything to avoid having this matter dealt with, and even as late as last night it did not Leave granted. look as though Senator Bolkus was even going to come in here and say anything on Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (11.05 the record, because he was clearly afraid he a.m.)—That is most gracious of you, Senator might mislead the chamber. So eventually he Alston. Mr Acting Deputy President, we are decided on a tactic of coming in here and faced with a censure motion that has been talking about everything else. gagged. That is most unusual. When former Senator Baume was facing a censure motion Senator Robert Ray—Rubbish! in this chamber—two years ago, almost to the Senator ALSTON—I take Senator Ray’s day—the debate was not gagged at any stage, point that enough valuable time has been and it was never, ever suggested that it be spent on this matter. I therefore move: gagged. But in case those opposite complain about interruption to their program, let me go That the question be now put. to the brilliant source on this. Let me go to Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (11.03 what Senator Hill, the then Leader of the a.m.)—I seek leave to make a statement on Opposition, said in March 1995: this. This is your choice; this is your program; this is Senator Alston—For how long? your priority. Senator ROBERT RAY—It is either that or a contingent notice of motion. That is what he said then. We say exactly the same. This was your choice to bring it on, Senator Alston—Are you prepared to this was your priority to use government indicate that you want to speak for a minute business time and this is your priority. But, or less? having put your rather weak case, you want Senator ROBERT RAY—No. I have got to run up the white flag. You want to vote on half an hour under a contingent notice of it now. You do not want the issues fully and motion. properly debated. Senator Alston—Leave is not granted. A Senator Vanstone—If you think the case contingent motion cannot be moved. This is so weak, you would be happy to get rid of matter must be dealt with immediately. it. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, it can. Senator ROBERT RAY—On this particu- There is a precedent on this, Mr Acting lar issue, we have several senators wanting to Deputy President. When a motion to gag a make a contribution to refute the various debate in this chamber some years ago was accusations made by Senator Vanstone and moved, a contingent notice of motion was her colleagues. But, Senator Vanstone, you then moved, and my memory is that about are not willing to face the music. You are not three hours later we got to the actual debate. willing to have what you regard as a serious Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister for matter debated in this chamber; you are not Communications, the Information Economy willing to have that tested. You are willing to and the Arts) (11.05 a.m.)—Mr Acting Depu- invest everything on what you say is a serious ty President, it is certainly not my understand- matter—that is, a censure motion; you are ing that Senator Ray’s seeking of leave ought willing to say that. But you do not actually to have precedence over a motion that the want it tested. You do not want senators on question be put but, in the circumstances, we this side—and presumably you have also are prepared to allow Senator Ray to not use gagged Senator Ian Macdonald, who was on other forms of this parliament to filibuster the speaker’s list, to prevent him from ex- endlessly. Presumably he would like to have pressing a point of view. Why is this govern- yet another diversionary discussion on the ment running scared on this particular issue? Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 775

Senator Alston—We are not running The tactics finally got right on Monday. scared. You wasted an hour yesterday on Their normal tactic on these things is to come notices of motion. in on a Thursday, pre-plan it but not notify us Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator Alston and ambush us with a censure motion after refers to us wasting an hour. Let me go to question time, knowing that if it runs its full another source, Senator Alston. Let me quote course the whole of general business will be our now esteemed President, someone whom expunged. They did that some weeks into the I admire enormously. In terms of the Baume previous session with Senator Sherry: they motion and taking up government time, what ambushed after question time. They even did she say? She said of Senator Evans, ‘He ambushed the noting of answers to ques- brought in a censure of one of our senators; tions—a historical precedent that I hope will he will wear the consequences for having never be repeated in this chamber because it done that.’ I am not making any threats; I am grossly embarrassed the President of this merely quoting from one of the most es- place. But then they come in on general teemed presiding officers this chamber has business day by way of ambush, knowing that ever been blessed with who at that time was it is not going to cost them any time. acting in another role as chief whip. The fact is that, if governments censure What this apparently is about is that the opposition senators, they have to pay the price moment they come in here to gag the debate in terms of time. They have to say, ‘We are basically they are saying: this is a political willing to give this precedence over all other stunt; this is just a political vengeance thing. business and debate it out until its conclusion’ If anyone would have summed it up—and I if they are serious about a censure motion. am sure that he will read the transcripts in But if anything reveals this as a totally grub- New York—it would have been Senator by, cynical political exercise, it is the fact that Michael Baume. What did he say about the they have gagged it. How many gags were 1995 censure, which was not gagged, com- moved in this chamber in the life of the pared with Senator Vanstone’s 1998 one? He Hawke-Keating government? I am not talking said that it should not be a political stunt or about guillotines. some kind of political ‘get square’; it must The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— rest on principle. If it is going to rest on Order! Senator Ray, I think you have had a principle, let us debate the principles. fair amount of time to put your statement. Instead, Senator Alston comes in here and Senator ROBERT RAY—I have unlimited not only makes a few accusations but does time, once I am given leave on a statement, not have the courage to have anyone respond Mr Acting Deputy President. You know that. to him; he moves a gag so that no-one can reply to the gutless Senator Alston. Why is The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I that so, Mr Acting Deputy President? thought it was given with the limit being put on it of ‘a reasonable amount of time’. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Order! I would ask you Senator ROBERT RAY—No, there was to withdraw that remark. no limit put on it whatsoever—and, Mr Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, Mr Acting Acting Deputy President, this is going to be Deputy President, I will withdraw ‘gutless’ full tote odds. So you can sit back and relax and I will replace it with a minister who and wait to be replaced in an hour’s time, or totally lacks courage, who comes into this whatever, and you can go back to your room chamber and attacks Senator Bolkus—but and listen to me speaking there, if you like. refuses to have anyone else respond. And, in But it was leave without a time limit. You moving that motion, he cannot even go to concede that? No response. precedence in terms of an attack on an oppo- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— sition senator. The whole move by this Senator Ray, I think leave was given on the government on this issue has been botched understanding that it was going to be a from start to finish. statement, not an epistle; it was not going to 776 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 go forever. I thought that was the understand- If what he is now saying is that, under ing. guise of seeking to speed up the debate, he is now going to spend an endless amount of Senator ROBERT RAY—That might have time on talking about everything that interests been their understanding; it was not mine. him, then that is a clear abuse of process. It Leave was given. exposes him as someone who is not interested The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It in the forms of the parliament. All these was my understanding as well. If we want to weasel words about what a wonderful person argue that the original question on the notice the President is and ‘I would like to sit down of motion should be now put, that does take and hear you in silence’ should not disguise precedence. the fact that what he is doing, if he persists in this conduct, is simply trying to frustrate the Senator ROBERT RAY—I am sorry, Mr processes of the parliament and the Acting Deputy President. Can I apologise and government’s agenda. I can certainly confirm sit down while you are giving a ruling? I was that Senator Ray made it very clear to us that still standing. leave was in lieu of his spending half an hour The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I on a contingent notice of motion. thought leave was given on the understanding Senator ROBERT RAY—I might be able that a statement would be made, but I did not to assist the chair. I was pointing out, having expect a statement to go forever. I took been given leave, what my rights were and advice on that matter. There is some doubt, in the potential exercise of those rights. I doubt fact, about the motion that Senator Alston that, even as verbose and garrulous as I can moved: that the question be now put. It does be, I will even get to the half hour that the take precedence. I think, in the spirit of trying contingent notice of motion allows for. But it to get on with the debate, Senator Alston gave should be made clear to the genius of tactics leave for you to speak. But I think he gave it over there that if he gives leave with that on the understanding that it would not be qualification—and he effectively did—that endless. could be the consequence. But I will leave you to make a ruling and then I will get back Senator Alston—Mr Acting Deputy Presi- to the relevant points. dent, I raise a point of order. What I think we are seeing here is yet further evidence of Senator Chris Evans—On the point of Senator Ray’s absolute determination to avoid order, Mr Acting Deputy President. debating the merits of the issue. The fact is The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT that we moved a gag because you have had (Senator Calvert)—I did not believe there three speakers who have not addressed the was a point of order. subject matter of the issue. Senator Chris Evans—You let Senator The fact is that Senator Ray indicated that Alston speak for five minutes on a point of he believed that his seeking leave should have order. I am speaking to the point of order that precedence over the gag motion. That is Senator Alston so eloquently addressed at certainly not my understanding of standing length. I wanted to make the point that leave order 199. But, in the circumstances, when he was given by the Senate. What happens to be effectively threatened that he would spend in Senator Alston’s mind at the time, while of half an hour on a contingent notice of motion, interest to us all, is not the crucial point in I was prepared to accept that this might be a any ruling you make, Mr Acting Deputy more expeditious way of dealing with it. President. Leave was given by the Senate for What he was saying was, ‘If you don’t give Senator Ray to make a statement. I gave that me leave, I will spend half an hour on a leave, as did other senators around the cham- contingent notice of motion’; in other words, ber. While it is of interest, if there is anything he was making it clear that he expected that in Senator Alston’s mind or not, I do not we should give him leave to save time, less think it is relevant to any ruling you make than half an hour. about the decision to grant leave. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 777

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Senator Faulkner—On an opposition When the Senate gives leave, I believe it does senator. give leave with a reasonable amount of time. Senator ROBERT RAY—On an opposi- It is up to whoever is in the chair at the time tion senator. The gag was moved by Senator as to what they believe is a reasonable Durack then. The Senate was a more benign amount of time. I will rule that Senator Ray then; it was defeated. My point to the Senate still has the leave of the Senate to continue, is that it should be defeated again today but I will listen and when I think the senator because the government has had four speakers has had enough time, I may put the motion. on the attack—notably Senator Vanstone, Senator ROBERT RAY—We would Senator Abetz, Senator Coonan and Senator obviously challenge that ruling, and move Alston. Our side has been given only three dissent to the ruling, but that is for a later speakers to respond. That in itself is a mani- time. What I was saying in terms of the festly unfair use of the gag. proper procedures here in relation to this gag To go back to the President’s previous is that the government finally at least got its statement, there will be knock-on conse- tactics right. Rather than moving suspension quences of that in this chamber, because you of standing orders and then having a long are actually using a device to prevent at least debate over precedence by way of ambush, equal numbers in this place speaking on the they gave notice properly on Monday so that motion. We certainly had Senator Quirke and it would come up for debate as government Senator Cooney who wanted to address business on Tuesday. different aspects of it. Senator Alston can say what he likes about irrelevancies, but he can I wanted to make the point that it is very be assured that one of our next speakers, important that this procedure be followed in Senator Cooney, would have gone right to the future. The reason why it should be followed heart of matter. and the reason why it will always be resisted like it was last Thursday is that it is an The only precedent we have for gagging a ambush. It is quite clear that the government censure motion against an opposition mem- decided some time Thursday morning to do ber—not the traditional ones—goes back 17 this, but did not have the courtesy to notify years and that was defeated in this chamber. us. The problem for us then in terms of The question comes up: why won’t this preparation time is that probably only one government, having given notice of a motion speaker on our side can speak to it, and that in government business time, actually debate is the person accused. The others do not know the resolution out? Why won’t they give the about it and cannot prepare. Therefore, the opposition at least equal time to debate the procedure to this point of time of moving it motion? The only conclusion that we can one day and giving people time to prepare for draw on this matter is that they do not want the second day is always going to be the to face the counter-attack; they do not want appropriate approach. to face up. Senator Vanstone—Counter-attack! Hit me If you are looking for precedents you have with a feather. to go back 17 years to the last time a govern- ment tried to gag a censure motion in this Senator ROBERT RAY—Hit Senator place. This was a censure motion moved by Vanstone with a feather? Senator Vanstone Senator Durack. It was to censure an opposi- has made accusations. You do not have the tion senator. Again the government tried the political courage to allow the response to be gag motion. given. You have to sleaze out of this chamber using the device of a gag— Senator Faulkner—No, the gag was Senator Vanstone—Just closing the debate. moved by Senator Durack. Senator ROBERT RAY—You are not Senator ROBERT RAY—The gag was closing the debate at all. Are you going to moved by Senator Durack. have a right of response as well? Is that what 778 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 you are saying? Mr Acting Deputy President, vote according to their particular bias at the are we also going to have a right of response time. so that their side gets five speakers? Today, this government has said that it is The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— willing to censure an opposition senator Order! Senator Ray, I would remind you that without other senators being able to express you are making a statement and I would ask their views. The government is saying, ‘We’re you not to be distracted by interjections. now into this particular issue but we want to Senator ROBERT RAY—It was actually bail out.’ Why does it want to bail out? It is a very pertinent one. Let me explain it to you saying that government business time is more so you understand. I thought Senator important than censuring Senator Bolkus. To Vanstone indicated that that side of politics is go back to Senator Hill’s comments as they not only going to gag this debate; they are apply to this, he said, ‘This is your choice; going to have another speaker and right of this is your program; this is your priority.’ To response. Is that what you said? reverse that: the government has made the choice that government legislation is more Senator Alston—No. important than the censure motion on Senator Senator ROBERT RAY—You are not Bolkus. The government is willing to counte- going to have a right of response? You are nance an unfair distribution of speakers and just going to leave it at four government to gag debate when it has had more speakers speakers and three opposition speakers? That than the opposition. is fair according to you? The old stacked jury; To wind up, we have a government too that is fair according to you. I thought there gutless to debate this and too scared to have was some redemption for Senator Vanstone; all the issues put on the table. It is an abso- never argue that with Senator Alston. lute disgrace that Senator Alston has moved What we have here is a government that a gag motion here today. It took 17 long says censure motions are serious. Clearly, I do years for the coalition to return to the tactics not agree with that. I think they have been it used in 1981, move a censure motion on an scattered around like confetti. They have opposition member, and then gag the debate absolutely no relevance. They are carried on because it cannot hack it. We are dealing with political grounds, as happened in the House a pathetic, miserable government. Senator of Representatives the other day. All this Vanstone, you have been involved in these government needs to censure an opposition is sorts of exercises because you were under- to round up two of the other 11 votes. No-one mined by David Kemp, sacked by the Prime will ever tell me that every one of those will Minister, and bullied by the state governments vote on the facts of the case. over gun control. You are prone to invention under attack and you have never found a bad Sometimes they might vote for Senator microphone yet. Bolkus because they like him, and not listen to the arguments. Sometimes—and I cannot Question put: understand how—they might vote against him That the motion (Senator Alston’s) be now put. in the censure motion because they do not The Senate divided. [11.29 a.m.] like him. It is an absolute joke. This is not a judicial finding; this is a highly politicised (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret chamber and this is a highly politicised Reid) motion in which the views will merely reflect Ayes ...... 41 party lines. Can you imagine someone oppos- Noes ...... 28 ite voting in favour of Senator Bolkus or —— Majority ...... 13 someone on our side voting against him? It —— probably never happens. Voting on censure AYES motions goes along party lines. For the rest, Abetz, E. Allison, L. some will address it on the merits and vote Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J. accordingly for or against; others will just Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 779

AYES amended, be agreed to. All those in favour Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. * say aye; against say no. A division is re- Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. quired. Ring the bells for one minute. Coonan, H. Crane, W. Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B. Opposition senators interjecting—Four Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F. minutes! Heffernan, W. Herron, J. Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. The PRESIDENT—Ring the bells for four Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H. minutes. Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. Question put: McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. That the motion (Senator Vanstone’s), as Murray, A. Newman, J. M. amended, be agreed to. Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. The Senate divided. [11.38 a.m.] Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. Reid) Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Woodley, J. Ayes ...... 44 Noes ...... 25 NOES —— Bishop, M. Bolkus, N. Brown, B. Campbell, G. Majority ...... 19 Carr, K. Conroy, S. —— Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. AYES Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. Abetz, E. Allison, L. Evans, C. V. * Faulkner, J. P. Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J. Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. Harradine, B. Hogg, J. Brown, B. Brownhill, D. G. C. Lundy, K. Mackay, S. Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, I. G. Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J. Crane, W. Eggleston, A. O’Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J. Ray, R. F. Schacht, C. C. Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B. Sherry, N. West, S. M. Heffernan, W. Herron, J. Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. PAIRS Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H. Ellison, C. Collins, R. L. Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I. O’Chee, W. G. Reynolds, M. Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Collins, J. M. A. Margetts, D. McGauran, J. J. J. * denotes teller Minchin, N. H. Murray, A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.33 Reid, M. E. Stott Despoja, N. a.m.)—I seek leave to move a motion to Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J. delete clause (c) of the motion. Tierney, J. Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Woodley, J. Leave granted. NOES Senator Margetts—For clarification, could Bishop, M. Bolkus, N. the entire new motion be read to the chamber. Campbell, G. Carr, K. Conroy, S. * Cook, P. F. S. The PRESIDENT—It is the motion on Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A. page 2 of the Notice Paper, deleting clause Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. (c). Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G. Motion (by Senator Harradine)—as Gibbs, B. Hogg, J. Lundy, K. Mackay, S. amended, by leave—agreed to: McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. Omit paragraph (c). Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. The PRESIDENT—The question is that Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. the motion moved by Senator Vanstone, as West, S. M. 780 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

PAIRS an opposition senator as higher than any of its Ellison, C. Collins, R. L. legislative priorities, surely this is an issue O’Chee, W. G. Reynolds, M. that would warrant concern not only from all Watson, J. O. W. Collins, J. M. A. * denotes teller senators in this chamber, but also there must be a significant amount of public concern Question so resolved in the affirmative. about that approach to the planning of the CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION government’s legislation program. Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) pro- The key point that needs to be made here posed: is that the exemption from the provisions of That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 is something that appears standing order 111 not apply to the Native Title to be a proposal that is only attractive to the Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2], allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. coalition when it is in government. A history of this particular standing order is worth Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— relating to the Senate in case any senators in Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) this chamber have forgotten how it came (11.43 a.m.)—Madam President, we have about. It was originally a proposal that was indicated, as you would be aware, that the sponsored by Senator Chamarette, who was a opposition has taken the principal position representative of the Western Australian that we do not want to be party to any pro- Greens, but it was enthusiastically picked up cedural motion that would, if it were success- by the coalition, then in opposition. When the fully carried in this chamber, have the effect Labor Party was in government, we pointed of further delaying the Wik debate. This is a out the weaknesses of the cut-off motion. We useful opportunity for the opposition to be pointed out the weaknesses of any standing able to state very clearly that we have heard order that constrained a government’s capaci- the rhetoric from the government in relation ty to effectively work through its legislation to suggestions that the opposition is about program. But that was never the view of the delaying debate in the Senate on the Native Liberals, that was never the view of the Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2]. Exempt- coalition, when they were in opposition. ing that bill from the provisions of standing order 111 puts the lie to that particular rhetor- Of course, we have seen the Manager of ic. I do want to say on behalf of the opposi- Government Business in the Senate (Senator tion that we are willing to have this debate at Ian Campbell) forced on very many occasion any time of the government’s choosing—that to come in here and move exemptions to this is, whenever the government believes it is standing order. One wonders whether the appropriate to list the debate. government has started to think that the pious It is very difficult, having seen the speeches it made about the cut-off resolution government’s behaviour over the last couple at the time when it so enthusiastically sup- of days, to really believe that the native title ported the cut-off standing order were perhaps legislation is the highest priority on the ill thought through. We had at the time an government’s legislative agenda. It is almost opposition that did not approach its business unheard of for a government that talks consis- in this chamber from the perspective of an tently about the pressure of its legislative alternative government. Labor, since it was program to bring on as an item of government defeated in the election in 1996, has never business a censure motion on an opposition had that approach to dealing with the new senator, but that has been the government’s government’s legislation program. We have priority in this chamber for the last couple of never had that approach. We approach these days. We believe that of itself will make it issues from the perspective of an alternative very difficult for the government to argue a government. We approach this from the substantive case in relation to priority to be perspective of a political party that we think given to the native title legislation. When a is likely to find itself on the other side of the government regards a censure motion against chamber, probably in a few short months. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 781

The rationale of the cut-off motion is that I will be interested to hear the case that is it ensures that all senators, and not only presented by those who do not support an senators but others who have an interest in exemption because, as far as the opposition is government legislation, have sufficient time concerned, it is difficult to justify a denial of to analyse legislation and formulate a view the exemption from the cut-off for this bill on upon it. That has always been the rationale of the basis that we might need more time to the cut-off motion. The cut-off device ensures understand the issues. At the time—and I that there is sufficient time for this to occur would refer people back to— between the introduction of a bill into the Senator Harradine—It is not us who need parliament and debate on that bill on the floor any more time. of the chamber. I think the government, from its perspective, first realised some of the Senator Faulkner—Sorry, I did not hear weaknesses in this standing order when, as a what you said, Senator. newly elected government, it found a problem Senator Margetts—He said, ‘It is not us with the standing order’s application to who need the time.’ legislation brought in in the first period of Senator FAULKNER—Who is it, Senator? sittings after the election. That is something that you might care to make a contribution on. But the point needs to be made to the Senate in relation to the Native Title Amend- Senator Newman—He is pretty quick with ment Bill that we do have legislation before his contributions. I have noticed that. the chair that is essentially the same as that Senator FAULKNER—I will take that which was debated in the Senate last Novem- dopey interjection from Senator Newman who ber and December. I think that all senators said that he is pretty quick in his contribu- would have to acknowledge the fact that that tions. I would never accuse Senator Harradine was a most extensive debate and one of the of being quick in all his contributions. I think most complex committee stage considerations he acknowledges that by the nod of his head. we had seen in this chamber. It is also worth Senator Newman, the contribution that I am noting that the minister responsible for han- making at this time is one I am surprised that dling that legislation on behalf of the govern- you are not supportive of. This is a major ment, Senator Minchin, and the opposition issue for the government. You might be so shadow minister responsible for the legislation out of touch with what your own government in the Senate, Senator Bolkus, both acknow- is proposing in relation to debate on the Wik ledged that in summing up and concluding legislation that you cannot understand that the this debate. It also needs to be said that a government is proposing an exemption. This range of other minor party and independent is an issue that has received a great deal— senators, many of whom played a very active Senator Newman—You take a lot longer role in that committee stage consideration, to say it than needs to be taken. also acknowledged the fact that it had been a most intensive and complex committee stage Senator FAULKNER—The difference consideration. between you and me, Senator Newman, is that I am capable of making a speech in the The issue before the Senate is one of parliament and I am capable of participating whether, with the level of scrutiny of the in a committee stage debate; you are not. legislation that took place in that exhaustive Who will ever forget you on the social securi- committee stage debate towards the end of ty legislation? There you are propped up, with last year, it is appropriate for the Senate to Senator Hill trying to hold you together on apply standing order 111—which I think we one side and Senator Alston on the other. It all colloquially refer to as the ‘cut-off was very embarrassing. Senator Harradine and motion’—in this circumstance. Is it appropri- I were both very embarrassed by your per- ate for the Senate to apply this particular formance. Frankly, Senator Newman, I think standing order to the native title legislation in the less you say about this the better. Your the circumstances that I have outlined? best contribution to this debate probably 782 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 would be to keep quiet because you do not be dealt with as soon as possible. We believe even seem to understand that I am indicating the behaviour of the government in the Senate on behalf of the opposition that the opposition over the past couple of days indicates that its is proposing to support the exemption in this priorities are elsewhere and, when you have particular case, which is something that the got—as I have indicated before—a govern- government is arguing—not that we have ment willing to give so much time to a banal heard the case mounted by Senator Campbell. and pointless censure motion of an opposition When I was manager of government busi- senator, I think it does strain credulity to ness—and the place ran a lot better than it accept that the government is serious about does now—I would always try to make a case this particular proposal. for the exemption of a bill from the cut-off As far as the opposition is concerned, we motion. I think Senator Harradine, Senator point out that the government is proposing an Woodley and Senator Margetts were here at exemption to a standing order of the Senate that time. I acknowledge that Senator Brown that historically the Labor Party has always did not have the pleasure of being here when viewed as having weaknesses. But we have I was managing government business. I would accepted that this standing order is here to come in here and argue the case if an exemp- stay and that governments do need to ensure tion to that standing order was proposed, that their legislation program is planned in a particularly on a matter as important as this way that allows adequate time for senators legislation is, not only to the parliament but and the community to examine legislation. I also to the Australian community. I think also believe, and I want to make this point even my worst enemy in politics would have very clearly, that when legislation comes to acknowledge that that is the case. before the Senate the principle of introduction The point I am trying to make, Senator in one session for debate in the next is im- Newman, which, obviously, you are not portant. It is important that the Senate and capable of understanding because of your governments are able to comply with those limitations, is that we believe that there has principles. been— So some of the spirit of this standing order The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— was certainly accepted by Labor when in You should make those points through the government. We have always pointed out that chair, Senator. you do have urgent legislation—budget Senator FAULKNER—What I was saying, related legislation and other legislation—that Mr Acting Deputy President, was that appar- requires consideration by parliament in the ently Senator Newman, because of her limita- same session as it is introduced. That has tions, is not able to understand this argument. always been a weakness in this standing The opposition is not going to be in the order. But you have to acknowledge that business of opposing procedural motions sometimes you have powerful arguments in before the chair in the Senate that might have these sorts of matters. Our powerful argu- the effect of delaying debate on the native ments have, in the past, not been accepted. So title legislation. That is the point that I am this standing order is here to stay. We accept making, and I am indicating that we believe that it is here to stay. It has to be applied in there has been sufficient time to deal with this a sensible manner. What we say in relation to in terms of familiarisation with the issues. We the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. are saying that the opposition is ready, willing 2] is simple: we have had a lot of debate over and able to engage in that debate at any time the issue. We have had sufficient time. We all that the government believes it ought to bring know the issues that are before us. The the debate on. We are not going to accept opposition are ready, willing and able to being accused of not being willing to debate debate the issues. So we say, ‘Let’s get on this legislation in this current session of with it.’ We will support the exemption. parliament. The government has indicated Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) that it believes it is important that this matter (12.02 p.m.)—Senator Faulkner has indicated Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 783 that we do not need more time to consider or any political will, a proper consultative debate the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 process over time, not this kind of shove [No. 2]. I think he has missed the point that legislation through and threaten or even put the people who are most affected by this people in a room, close the door and insist legislation are the ones who have never had that they come up with a solution no matter it taken to them at any grassroots level. The how lacking that could possibly be in grass- haste with which the legislation was put roots participation. through at the end of last year meant that there was no proper process of consultation I believe that the Labor Party had a consis- with indigenous Australians. It was an ex- tent view in relation to the cut-off motion. tremely complex bill; it changed considerably But from the Greens (WA) perspective, that over time; and there was never a time when consistent view was that it was the those people most affected by the legislation government’s legislative program—as if they had the ability to have a say and get around owned the outcome of the legislation; as if it what was being proposed. This was brought was not affecting other people. It seemed to very painfully to us when we saw an an- be a ‘thumbing their nose’ at any real democ- nouncement by the Leader of the Opposition racy and also seemed to go along with the (Mr Beazley) about his option of putting idea of mandate and three-year elected dicta- indigenous leaders in a room with industry, torships. So it is nice to hear Senator Faulkner shutting the door and saying, ‘You don’t get acknowledging that there are benefits to the out until you come to an agreement.’ community and, obviously, the Senate in the principle that the Senate and the community If that is what the Labor Party consider is have the chance to look at legislation and the a correct and proper consultative process then way it has been drafted and to comment on it it is probably no wonder that they are today before we are required to vote on it. But it is putting their hands up to exempt this bill from disappointing to see that he has forgotten that a cut-off. It is a bill which is not yet before there never was a full community consultation the Senate. It is not a particularly good in relation to this bill. It did not happen last principle for us to be debating these cut-off year and will not, potentially, happen this exemptions when a bill is not as yet before year if the opposition is prepared to let this the Senate. Senator Harradine has circulated through. an amendment to government business notice of motion No. 1 in which he is asking for the It is a great disappointment. It certainly is debate to be adjourned until after the bill is very telling that Senator Faulkner does not introduced into the Senate. I am inclined to understand that we—that is, the Senate and support that, although there is no standing the parliament of Australia—are not the only order that I know of which prevents the people who need to understand this bill. I will government from doing what they are doing, support Senator Harradine’s amendment and that is, pre-empting the end of the debate in indicate that if it is not passed I will vote the House of Representatives and the intro- against the exemption from the cut-off mo- duction of the bill into the Senate. More and tion. more, Senate committees are being asked to deal with bills or the provisions of bills which Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (12.08 are not before the Senate. In this particular p.m.)—I indicate that the Australian Demo- case, I do not think it is proper process and I crats will not support the cut-off motion. We would not be prepared to accept this. will support Senator Harradine’s amendment to it, which is a very sensible amendment and The process by which countries such as really would put everything in its proper Canada have moved towards some sort of order. One of the problems with what we are lasting solution on issues of sovereignty and doing today is that due process has again land justice has not been attempted overnight. been thrown out the window. I support every- It has taken a number of years. Quite frankly, thing that Senator Margetts has just said to us any real process would require, if there was and would like to add some other very good 784 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 reasons why this legislation is not in any assertion for which he had no legal advice sense urgent. whatsoever. In fact, he got advice from his The motion before us today is about ex- media officer to run with this assertion be- empting the 10-point plan of the Prime cause it looked like it might have been a good Minister (Mr Howard) from the due process idea at the time. There was no legal support of the Senate. Standing order 111 was intro- for the claim; nevertheless, he went ahead duced and supported by the coalition parties with it. At least one member of the Labor to prevent the previous practice sometimes Party in Queensland phoned me when I used in this place of legislation by ambush. pointed this out in the media and said, ‘Go That is a situation which means non-govern- for it. You’re absolutely right.’ ment senators would have quite complex It is interesting also that in the week I had legislation presented for their consideration this debate with Premier Borbidge about the with little or no time for proper deliberation. Wik issue I was phoned by a very embar- This motion was introduced to prevent that rassed mill owner from the Gold Coast who from happening. It has become known in this had invited me and the premier to be present place as the cut-off motion. at the opening of a sugar mill. He was phon- In its wisdom the Senate also recognised ing me to say that I was no longer invited. that there are some instances where legislation You can imagine where the pressure came could be justifiably—I emphasise ‘justifi- from for me to be uninvited to that opening. ably’—presented as urgent and that that legis- Senator McKiernan—No sweetener for lation could be exempted from standing order you. No. 111. However, the 10-point plan is not Senator WOODLEY—No sweetener for urgent. It is at its very core a political stunt me on that occasion. We have a premier who aimed at completing the final act of dispos- is desperate to win a state election and has no session against indigenous Australians. It is other issue to base it on other than this. I do immoral for any Australian government to not believe that the Senate ought to support attempt to prop up the failing popularity of a that kind of politics in my home state— premier in my state by using indigenous although we are quite used to it there. people as a political football. This is one of With this cut-off motion the government is the reasons why the Democrats will not pursuing, at its core, the abrogation of due support the cut-off motion. process. It is an abrogation of due process to We know that Mr Borbidge was here in exempt legislation under the standing orders Canberra this week for the specific purpose of of the Senate when that legislation is not lobbying the Prime Minister on this very urgent. It is an abrogation of due process issue. We know that he has no other issue in when the separation of powers under the Queensland on which to fight an election. On constitution is not respected and conservative almost every other issue he has shown himself governments seek to legislate away the to be absolutely bereft of policy or of any common law property rights of some Austral- worthwhile action. Yet this government is ians because of the colour of their skin. It is prepared to go along and try to prop up the an abrogation of due process to use racism as Queensland premier in his attempt to have an the basis of an election in this country and to election based on the whole of the Wik issue, spend $60 million of taxpayers’ money to which, I might say, could not fail to be a race pursue what is a gamble, which in the end election. will see constitutional backup for what the The premier has already said that he is government is doing if it goes to a double going to have an election in Queensland dissolution and has a joint sitting of parlia- based on this issue. I point out to the Senate ment following that. that just a couple of weeks ago he was in the It is an abrogation of due process to use press saying that people living in housing this debate in this chamber to continue the commission homes are losing their homes as oppression of the most disadvantaged groups a result of native title claims. It is a ridiculous of people in the Australian community. I Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 785 remind the Senate that in eight weeks time Aboriginal people have time to negotiate with there will be a decision handed down by the us, the Prime Minister and all of those in- High Court which will have a bearing on the volved a proper outcome for this debate and legitimacy or otherwise of the legislation this legislation. which we are debating—that is, the Hind- Senator COONEY (Victoria) (12.17 marsh Island Bridge case. We ought to know p.m.)—The Leader of the Opposition in the the result of that case whichever way it goes Senate (Senator Faulkner) has put our posi- so that we will be able to take that decision tion, and Senator Woodley, in his usual of the High Court into account in the debate. courteous fashion, has put arguments to the I do not agree with the Prime Minister’s contrary. He says, for example, that time premise—I hope the Labor Party do not agree ought to be made available for people to with it; perhaps they can tell us—that people convince the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) are sick of the Wik debate. I think the Prime that he ought to change his position. I would Minister is sick of the Wik debate and I think have been more impressed with that argument some people in his party are sick of the Wik had the Australian Democrats not supported debate because it is turning against them. Out the gag motion earlier this morning, cutting there in the public arena people are waking off the opportunity we on this side had to up to what this government is seeking to do. convince the chamber that a particular argu- Certainly out there in the public arena the ment ought prevail. For the Democrats to now debate is turning against the government. The talk about time being made available to people are not sick of the Wik debate, but convince people is rather hollow. they certainly are taking sides in the debate Senate Woodley also pointed out in his and, increasingly, they are not on the side of argument that due process should be pre- the government. served. This is from a man whom I have a Are we to return to the 210 years of terra great respect for but who, this very morning, nullius, to the legal invisibility of our Abo- voted to gag debate before people had an riginal and Torres Strait Islander people? opportunity to put a case and then voted During the first round of debates on the 10- against the person about whom the motion point plan, I noted the absence of indigenous was put. I say with due respect to Senator people in this chamber. I again draw the Woodley that his arguments about due pro- attention of the Senate to that fact. Because cess and time being made available are not in of that absence, it is morally incumbent on keeping with the way that he and his party each and every senator in this place to listen acted this morning. to what indigenous Australians are telling us. The Greens, Senator Brown and Senator I know the Aboriginal people have told the Margetts, and Senator Harradine, as an Inde- Labor Party that they should delay this bill. pendent, at least voted for due process and, Why doesn’t the Labor Party take that advice? having been defeated with the assistance of The people have told us they need time to try the Democrats, then voted a particular way. to convince the Prime Minister that there is I can understand that. But I cannot understand another way to go. In today’s press Gatjil the argument Senator Woodley, who comes Djerrkura again repeated this offer and under- from a party which supported gagging debate lined that that was the agreement which he to censure a man who is now visited with that reached with the Prime Minister when the opprobrium for the rest of his life, put when Prime Minister was in Arnhem Land just a he voted to deny the person concerned the couple of weeks ago. Surely we can hear this opportunity of having a proper defence put. appeal. That the Democrats are debating the matter As Senator Harradine indicated before, it is that has come on after that in a way contrary not whether you or I or any senator in this to how they conducted themselves earlier this place has had time to debate the issue. What morning is a little hard to take. really is important in this place—I underline Senator Woodley says this matter is one what Senator Margetts said—is that the that does not need to come on early. He 786 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 spoke about the business of the indigenous ceptible to good argument. There was good people of Australia. To my way of thinking, argument put last time by this side of the the business of the indigenous people of chamber, and indeed by the Democrats and Australia should be foremost in our minds and Senator Harradine. I thought that was quite we should be ready to bring that on for debate outstanding—I think that has been accepted— now. in the debate last time on this bill. There were Senator Woodley, in opposing this motion, quite outstanding arguments, too, by Senator introduced material and debated it on a basis Margetts and Senator Brown. that would indicate that he is well abreast of Senator Boswell—What about me? the arguments that are to be put for and Senator COONEY—Senator Boswell, you against this bill. It has been said, and I think did it with style and a flourish. The only thing said with some truth, that the government is wrong with your arguments was that they about this bill being a trigger for a double were in error. Senator Boswell, I think that dissolution, and no doubt it will be said that your heart is a great heart; but it is the Labor Party is in the same game, as it misdirected in this particular debate. I ask were. That is not true. The Labor Party wants whether Senator Boswell has a broad enough a regime in Australia that serves the people of mind in the political sense—I do not mean in Australia well, whether they be pastoralists, the intellectual sense—to accept the argu- indigenous people, miners or what have you. ments that are put against the position that he The Australian Labor Party is about putting takes up. forward a scheme which gets Australians You are loyal. I continue with the very working together and which gets Australia relevant matter that Senator Boswell has properly developed, developed in a way that raised. Senator Boswell, you want to support gives the proper respect to those indigenous the pastoralists. You want to support those people that have worked towards this over the people in Queensland who feel threatened by years—people like Geoff Clark from Fram- native title claims. That is understandable. lingham, Monica Morgan from the north of But, Senator Boswell, you have to remember Victoria and her mother, Elizabeth Hoffman; that we are here to represent all Australians. those sorts of people who are desperate to see The argument should not be, ‘I have a par- a proper solution reached in this area; people ticular problem up there. I have a particular who have laboured over the years towards a constituency to service.’ We have all got that. situation where a proper result is obtained. This is such a great issue that we should It is clear, in the way we put things, that debate this matter that you have talked about the government’s legislation is flawed. We on with open minds. this side of the chamber showed just how Senator Ian Campbell—We are going to badly it was flawed the last time it was before bring on social security if you are going to this chamber. The government wants to bring filibuster. that legislation on again and go through those matters. Let us hope they can be convinced. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Let us hope they do bring that legislation (Senator Murphy)—Order! Senator Camp- back here on the basis that they are willing to bell, if you want to have a discussion, I listen to debate. suggest you have it outside the chamber or some other place where you are not interrupt- But that proposition—the proposition that ing— they should reconsider—looks as if it is not going to be accepted. It seems that their Senator Ian Campbell interjecting— minds are made up, just like the minds of the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— coalition and the minds of the Democrats Order! Senator Campbell, there is a senator were made up about Senator Bolkus this on his feet who is speaking. It is a breach of morning when that matter was brought up. the standing orders to interrupt that. If you That is a pity. It is a pity that the government, wish to have a discussion, then leave the in bringing back this legislation, is not sus- chamber. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 787

Senator COONEY—I understand Senator He goes on— Campbell’s position. He has no doubt other - in terms of why there should be a cut-off motion business to bring on—the business not only in place— of the indigenous people of Australia but also Then the motion goes on: of the pastoralists of Queensland and of the miners of Western Australia. Senator (a) there should be an orderly debate of bills in accordance with some of the general chronological McKiernan, who sits next to me, is a great priority based on the principle that bills introduced Western Australian. in one sitting, should preferably be debated in the Senator Woodley—That is true; yes, he is. next sittings; (b) that such a priority reflects and ensures effec- Senator COONEY—Yes. He is always tive use of the time available: urging the interests of Western Australians (i) to Senators, to research the implications of the upon me, including the miners. It is important bills, consult the community, prepare speech that we bring on the debate in accordance notes and draft any necessary amendments, and with what the government wants. But what I (ii) to the media and to the public to become want to make clear is that, in bringing on the aware of the possible effects of proposed laws; debate, we do not take positions where we and simply come here with fixed minds. I think I (c) where the government wishes the Senate to can get from the Manager of Opposition depart from that general chronological priority, the Business in the Senate, Senator Carr, a clear government should justify each such departure in undertaking that we will listen to the argu- debate which concludes with a resolution of ments. But we are dedicated to making sure agreement by the Senate. that all the people of Australia get what is Going through that—the issue of the orderly right. debate of bills in accordance with some Senator Harradine—But you are not doing general chronological priority based on the that. Voting for the cut-off is not doing that. principle that bills introduced in one sitting should preferably be debated in the next Senator Woodley—And that is the prob- sitting—this is a bill that has been debated lem, Senator Cooney. once already, for just over 56 hours. Senator COONEY—I take up the remarks Let me make it clear that the arguments are of Senator Harradine and Senator Woodley. important and it is essential, when this bill They say that voting for the cut-off is not comes on again, that the bill is debated fully doing that. But, as I understand the way the with the issues aired. The point made in government puts it and the way we have reference to the general principles given to me accepted it on this side, this matter is of by Senator Carr—and I thank him for that—is importance, given the fact that the indigenous that the ability to have an orderly debate is people have been held out of their land for there because of the arguments that have such a length of time and given the fact that already been raised. the pastoralists and the miners want a quick resolution of this matter. We can see what the As I said, part (b) says: government is about. that such a priority reflects and ensures effective use of the time available: In answer to Senator Harradine and Senator (i) to Senators, to research the implications of the Woodley, I will quote from a statement by bills— Senator Carr, the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, who made this state- There has certainly been time to research the ment on 29 May 1996: implications of the bill, and there has been time for the media and the public to become I would perhaps start by reminding senators of the aware of the possible effects of the proposed terms of the order of continuing effect, which is commonly referred to as the Hill cut-off motion. In law. effect that motion says: Senator Woodley said, ‘Yes, but perhaps we The reasons referred to in paragraph (1) are as can get to the point where the Prime Minister follows:— can be lobbied and all these other things 788 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 should be done.’ I do not think that is the Senator COONEY—I think Senator Camp- right approach to take in terms of whether or bell makes a good point—that I have two not you give priority to this bill. The issue is minutes to take up my 20 minutes. I think the not whether or not a deal can be done but, point he is making is that this is a matter that firstly, whether or not senators can research should be debated fully. the implications of the bill; secondly, whether or not the public has become aware of the Senator Ian Campbell—At great length, possible effects of the proposed bill; and, obviously! thirdly, whether the government should justify Senator COONEY—At great length. I each such departure. In deciding those ques- would like some assurance from the Demo- tions, I think we have to decide them in terms crats—and I do not want the answer now, of debates in this chamber and not so much Senator Woodley, but perhaps you could talk in terms of whether or not we hope that about this in the party room—that they will history will somehow change outside. not gag this debate in the way that they gagged the debate on the very rare occasion The points raised by Senator Woodley of a censure motion being brought against a certainly have merit, but they have to be non-minister in this chamber. In those circum- regarded in the context of what the parameters stances they cut off debate without this side ought to be in deciding this particular debate, having a chance to put a defence in favour of which is a debate about whether or not stand- that man. I would like an assurance that the ing order 111 should be looked at so as to Democrats will undertake not to put a gag on exempt this particular bill. The approach of this very important debate of the Native Title the opposition on this matter is to allow that Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2]. I have not to happen, and what I am doing now is taken up my full 20 minutes, Senator Camp- explaining why. The philosophical reason bell. behind this side of the chamber doing it is that we do think that the affairs of the in- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.37 digenous people are important. They have p.m.)—I oppose this motion because I agree been shut out from their rights for 210 years. with Senator Margetts and other speakers who It is proper that their rights be vindicated as have made the point that this is a matter of soon as possible. The fact that they have had critical public importance and the public to wait all this time is no reason for them to needs to be taken into account. Senator wait longer. Christabel Chamarette was not in this place for a great length of time, but she had a In that context, the fact that the miners and remarkable impact as far as making it more the pastoralists want a clarification of the democratic. situation are also reasons. I think Senator Woodley is right. I do not think the people of Senator Patterson—Who? Australia are sick of this. They want the Senator BROWN—Senator Patterson, you matter resolved, but they want it resolved need to read history; I am not surprised that fairly and justly for all parties. The sooner you do not know. One remarkable innovation that is clarified the better. The matter will that Senator Chamarette was able to have come in here, and I hope a full debate takes accorded to the Senate was the business of place because this matter deserves a full not allowing bills to be brought in here and debate— debated immediately. Senator McKiernan—Without being The problem with that process as it used to gagged. be was that the public was left out. Opposi- Senator COONEY—That is true. Perhaps tion senators did not have time to go to their I should ask Senator Woodley that. constituencies, nor did the constituencies have time to feed back their feelings, about legisla- Senator Ian Campbell—You still have two tion, which was often amended, coming from minutes to take up your full 20 minutes. the House of Representatives. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 789

So it was an important principle, the coali- If the government has its way, we will be tion supported it at the time, and we ought forced to do that on the run. not put it aside lightly. In particular, we ought I do not support doing that on the run. This not put it aside lightly in dealing with legisla- is far too important, and it is a matter of high tion which is as important as this is to the democratic principle. The people most in- first Australians—the indigenous people of volved in this matter—a matter which will this nation. affect not just their lives but the lives of their Let me reiterate that this piece of legislation children and their children’s children—must on native title is going to impact on Austral- know what the amendments mean to this ian life for the next century, and possibly well legislation and have time to feed back to their beyond it. It is very important that the nation elected representatives their support, their have time to feed into it. What I am con- opposition or their wish for change. cerned about is that there will not be the same I have a feeling that serially, every time we result this time around as there was last time; deal with this legislation, the rights of the that there are shifting sands, and that the indigenous people are being eroded; their government is aware of that and feels it is import into what happens to their lives and moving to some sort of conclusion which will their land is being eroded. I am mightily be to its benefit and to the detriment of the alarmed about that, and I am not the only indigenous people of this country. one. The feedback that I get—as Senator Margetts has already indicated that she is There are critical matters here. The thres- getting—is that Australians are very con- hold test for native title claimants: will it be cerned about this, and they want to have their altered by the stand that the Senate takes next say. time around? There is the provision for the legislation to be under the sway of the Racial I oppose this move by the government to Discrimination Act; also, the right to negotiate relegate this legislation to being just another on mining on pastoral leases. We know piece of legislation that can be rushed already, with the major components in here, through. That is not the proper way to be the Labor Party and the coalition, not having handling it. There should be due time. We stood firm on the right to negotiate on the and the government and the opposition should upgrade of pastoral leases on other things be observing due process. Above all, we than mining—on a whole range of things— should be insisting that the wider Australian that there has been an enormous diminution public have time to feed into whatever chan- in the expectation that the indigenous people ges any component of this Senate makes. would have a right to negotiate on a whole Let me put this to the Labor Party in range of changes to their land as development particular: if you are to change position, if engulfs the north of this country in the com- you believe that the government is changing ing century. position, if you think there will be a different outcome this time around, you have an obli- If there are shifting sands in connection gation to the indigenous people and to the with any component of this Senate—be it the wider populace of this country to ensure that Greens, the Democrats, Senator Harradine, they are taken into confidence so that they Senator Colston, the Labor Party, and in have time to let you know what they think of particular the government—then the public any changed position. has a right to know about that before the debate gets under way. In particular, the The same applies, of course, as I said, to all indigenous people of this country have a right other components of this House, including to know about that before the debate gets Senator Harradine—and the government. I under way, so that they can feed their re- know there are negotiations about this going sponse to those changes back to us, the on all over the place. But the public out there elected representatives, who at the end of the does not. day have to cast a vote on this critical matter. Senator Faulkner—What negotiations? 790 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Senator BROWN—The papers have stated Nations to take a particular interest in multi- that you have been negotiating with the lateral procurement. government, Senator Faulkner, in recent The interest which greeted all of my discus- times; you have been talking with the govern- sions on this issue with Victorian business ment about this legislation. I do not think the representatives left no doubt in my mind that public are fully acquainted with that, and they Victorian enterprises could and should gain a ought to be. That is my point. So, as a repre- greater slice of the multi-million dollar inter- sentative of the Australian Greens, I for one national multilateral procurement business. I will be standing firmly against change to the had many discussions with the heads of forms of this place which insist that we take international procurement agencies. I was told time. This legislation must not be brought in by both the World Bank, which I visited on here one day and debated the next. two occasions in Washington, and the United Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (12.44 Nations procurement officers that they would p.m.)—I might need to continue what I am like to do more business with Australians. about to say when we come back to this I was told innumerable times how good we issue, because I have only 20 seconds now. I were at supplying consultants, what a tremen- was not going to speak on this question, but dous reputation Australia has in supplying I feel it is necessary to answer some of the consultants to the United Nations and the inaccurate arguments put forward by particu- World Bank and yet how we fell down on larly Senator Cooney from the Labor Party. supplying goods. For that reason, I need to speak as to why it In order to win procurement contracts, Aus- is not appropriate that we exempt this bill tralian businesses must be involved in the from the normal process. process and be active participants. Also, they Debate interrupted. have to have the preliminary qualification of guaranteeing a reliable supply of the relevant MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST goods. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— The Committee for Melbourne—a commit- Order! It being 12.45 p.m., under standing tee which has been established to promote orders, we will now proceed to the matters of Melbourne, Victoria and businesses—has in public interest debate. fact worked assiduously in the multilateral procurement area and has secured the United Waterfront Reform Nations procurement conference, which is a conference of officers from the United Senator PATTERSON (Victoria) (12.45 Nations who purchase goods and services who p.m.)—I rise today as a senator from Victoria have a meeting once a year. The Committee to discuss the very important issue of water- for Melbourne has secured that conference for front reform. The Victorian business environ- Melbourne next year. That was one of reasons ment is robust and the state government is they asked me to get involved and meet as very supportive of business enterprise. I was many of the procurement officers as possible. not surprised that the NFF chose to situate their new business at Melbourne ports. The Committee for Melbourne is also working towards establishing a World Bank Victorian businesses, farmers, horticultural- partnership centre in Melbourne—and hope- ists and others in the business area are among fully a centre which also includes United the most competitive in the world. They are Nations activities—to provide a focus for not efficient, well organised and have taken up only Victorian businesses, but also Australian the challenge to expand their businesses businesses to get in at the ground level and through overseas exports with enthusiasm. learn about the sorts of things that the United Their enthusiasm for export and keen eye for Nations is purchasing and the sorts of things new business opportunities prompted me in that the World Bank is doing. One of my capacity as the parliamentary representa- messages that I received when I was at the tive to the Australian mission to the United World Bank and the United Nations was that Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 791 you need to be involved in the preliminary Australia and a peak period in July/August for stage so that, when the actual tenders are let, the American market. He tried to maintain you have more knowledge of the process. jobs here in Australia and he had to put Sometimes we are coming into it too late in people on and off to meet the peaks and the process. I commend the Committee for troughs in his business. Melbourne for the work that it is doing to In the second year there was another strike assist Victorian and Australian businesses to and he did not get the paints to America on get involved. time. What happened was that he set up a Australian businesses are very responsive. subsidiary company in Canada and 12 jobs When I was visiting the Antarctic I got to went to Canada. This was mainly because our know the helicopter company down there that wharves were so inefficient and he was was responsible for all the flights and the delayed. It was only a very small business servicing of the helicopters in the Antarctic. with 35 employees, but 12 jobs went down They are a Western Australian company. I the drain and became Canadian jobs. So, that rang them and said, ‘The United Nations is the sort of thing that happens when our wants to send helicopters. Would you be wharves are not reliable. Businesses make interested in getting involved with them?’ other decisions. They cannot afford to invest They said, ‘Look, if we can deliver a helicop- money, make losses or get a reputation for ter service in the Antarctic, we can deliver it being an unreliable supplier. anywhere in the world. That is the toughest An international survey of reliability was environment.’ reported by the Herald Sun on 31 January this There are Australian companies that are year. Melbourne came a miserable seven- keen to get in there and do it. They are keen teenth on the scale of how well we performed to be involved in this multilateral procure- as a supplier. On value for money we did one ment, but it is no good if cannot get the point better; we went to sixteenth position. goods from the production point to overseas Our waterfront strike action is 10 times the points, especially in multilateral procurement, national average. It is the only area in which and get it there on a timely basis. It is just the Australian waterfront leads the world. We counter-productive. lead on the worst score. I am naturally concerned that, even as all The National Institute of Labour Studies at levels of government strive to assist busines- Flinders prepared a report late last year which ses with their exports, even as the Committee shows that the level of industrial disputation for Melbourne is working towards establishing on the waterfront is second only to the coal a World Bank partnership centre and a UN mining industry. Every day around Australia procurement centre in Melbourne, and even there is a stoppage. You think about that. as the Minister for Trade is busily promoting That is some paints that are not going to be Australian exports overseas, Australian busi- delivered on time or some food that might nesses cannot make this basic guarantee of spoil. That is another group of businesses who reliable delivery. are seen as unreliable suppliers in overseas markets. Every day there is a stoppage, a go- I have given the example of my father’s slow or some other form of interruption to business before. He manufactures artists’ service, resulting in ships missing sailings. paints and poster paints. He had two orders from America some years ago two years in a Ships regularly calling into Australia build row. One lot was left sitting on the wharf in several extra days into their schedules to the heat. The tubes exploded because the allow for delays, damaging Australia’s reputa- containers became too hot. They were sitting tion as a trading partner. It is damaging the there during a strike and he did not get the reputations as reliable suppliers of each of delivery to the American market in time for those businesses, small and large. the school year. He was trying to even out his It is clear that Victorian businesses are not production over a year. He had a peak period hampered by the tyranny of distance. They here for the beginning of the school year in are hampered by the tyranny of disruption and 792 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 delay on the waterfront, particularly on the attempts at waterfront reform, the much Victorian waterfront. As proof of this point, maligned WIRA process, cost the nation $420 another nation, even further from the major million. After the money had been paid in European and North American centres of redundancies and other outlays, the monetary commerce, New Zealand, has managed to improvement in productivity and reliability overcome its tyranny of distance with its fell away, and the restrictive work practices extremely efficient waterfront operations. I again brought the Australian waterfront back will quote Mr Ron Longley, who runs a to a level far behind our international com- shipping line exclusively between Australia petitors. and New Zealand and who would be more qualified, I suppose, than anyone else to make When I explain that the previous govern- a comparison on waterfront costs in both ment paid $420 million to ‘bribe wharfies into nations. When he was asked how much more retirement’ and that, as a result of this invest- expensive Australia was, he replied: ment today, our five port average crane rate Over three hundred per cent more than New of 18 per cent per hour is currently 45 per Zealand, and that is on a like per like basis for a cent below the modest Bureau of Transport ship calling into a New Zealand port or into an and Communications Economics benchmark Australian port and getting exactly the same of 25 containers per hour, peoples’ jaws drop. services at both ports. Then they understand very quickly how we With a like to like comparison, we are 300 got so disastrously into debt. per cent more expensive than New Zealand. Australian waterfront productivity levels are We have paid $420 million, and we are no woefully below those of our competitors. better off. That $420 million to retire about Auckland manages 25 crane movements per 5,000 wharfies is a very generous rates for hour compared with Australia’s average of mates deal, even by the standards of the 18.3. Auckland wharves are 37 per cent more Australian Labor Party. The unproductive and productive than Australian wharves. Thai unreliable nature of Australian waterfronts is ports average 30 movements per hour, which compounded by featherbedding, restrictive is 64 per cent more productive than Australian work practices, overmanning and rorts. ports. All of this is after a $400 million investment in the last three years by the major When I was down in the Antarctic on the Australian stevedores to bring their terminal Aurora Australis with members of the Aus- equipment up to date. With figures showing tralian Seamens Union and other unions, I virtually no movement in productivity over saw what those union fellows could do when the last year, this is a demoralising example they really needed to, when they really want- of the problems that exist on our waterfront. ed to. When they realised that people’s lives were at stake and that it cost $70,000 every As I travel throughout Victoria, I am often day that ship was late, they worked in minus asked how it was possible that the Labor 10 degree temperatures. They worked in government managed to rack up so much blizzards, they worked in the freezing cold, debt. I do not blame people for finding it hard and they worked on Christmas Day. They to believe the size of the Beazley black hole, were fine examples of what people can do but it is due to grossly incompetent economic when they put their minds to it. They were management. It is hard to credit this, even tremendous examples of union guys who, from the Labor Party, but it is true. There was when they decided that they were going to be enormous mismanagement. productive, could do it. They showed the sort One example I often use is the Labor of example that could be set. Around the government’s $420 million waterfront indus- wharves in Australia, if the temperature drops try reform authority process used, as former to nought degrees, the wharfies will stop minister Graham Richardson put it, ‘to bribe work. These guys were working in minus 10 the wharfies into retirement’. That is what the degrees—freezing; your hands froze on to the former minister said, ‘to bribe the wharfies steel—and they were working in slippery into retirement’—$420 million. Labor’s conditions. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 793

I said to people, ‘Isn’t this an example of the ordinary working people of Australia. what can be done when people feel a commit- That tradition has been built up over more ment to the Antarctic project?’ What we want than 100 years by the efforts of so many to see from the waterfront workers—and there committed and dedicated men and women. On are many of them, I am sure, who have a 11 December 1997 the labour movement lost commitment to Australia—is a demonstration one of its finest servants with the passing of that commitment. We want to see them away of Edgar Williams. Edgar Williams was putting themselves where their mouths are, a giant of a man in every sense of the phrase. showing that commitment. We know it is His service to the union movement, the possible. Australian Labor Party and, more importantly, The Maritime Union of Australia’s claim to the Australian Workers Union and ordinary be interested in productivity is belied by its Queenslanders, for more than 50 years was actions in rejecting an Arbitration Commis- unrivalled. sion recommendation on 20 October 1997 that Edgar was born in Alexandria, New South it improve productivity to a modest 22 con- Wales, on 11 April 1911 and left school at 13 tainers per hour before laying claim to further to become a messenger boy at a music com- benefits. The MUA will not agree to further pany in Sydney. But that did not last long. In reform unless Patrick Stevedores agrees to a 1925 Edgar went west, working on properties guaranteed minimum wage of $75,000, plus until he started shearing in western New improved superannuation benefits. South Wales in 1927. In 1929 Edgar went to Practices such as two up, two down man- Queensland and from then until 1943 he ning, eliminated in New Zealand half a dozen followed the shearing trails, mostly in the years ago, are still practised on the Australian western districts of Longreach, Blackall, waterfront. One outstanding example of Winton and Isisford. inefficiency is the procedure for unloading In July 1943 Edgar took up his first official cars on the waterfront. At Webb Dock, a car role in the Australian Workers Union as an gang comprises 29 wharfies, including the organiser in the western district, a position he supervisor. Of the 29 men, only 15 drive the held until becoming western district secretary cars off the ships, three men are supervisors, in 1947, stationed at Longreach. In 1950 he three men are on clerical duties—there must transferred to Townsville as northern district be so much paperwork involved in unloading secretary. This position gave Edgar a wider cars that you need three men—one man to responsibility and more experience as it took direct traffic with a flag, three men to provide in the sugar industry and the mining industry taxi services to save walking back on board in Mt Isa. He was there for 10 years. In and four men to unlash cars. When the men January 1960 he became Queensland branch are on ordinary time, productivity is three cars secretary, a position he held until retirement per man hour. When the men are on double in May 1982. Those 22 years and five months time, and are allowed to knock off after all made Edgar the longest serving secretary of cars are unloaded, productivity soars to 7.5 the Queensland branch, a record that will cars per hour per man—an increase of 150 probably never be broken. For 17 of those 22 per cent. years Edgar was also the federal president of I can go on and on. High costs, low produc- the Australian Workers Union. In those nearly tivity and unreliability on the waterfront are 40 years as a full-time official Edgar had one hampering the ability Australian businesses in thing in mind—better working conditions for general, and Victorian businesses in particu- his members. lar, from fulfilling their export potential. So it is appropriate for me to look briefly at some of the record of Edgar Williams and Mr Edgar Williams his devotion to his beloved union—the Aus- Senator HOGG (Queensland) (1.00 tralian Workers Union—and also to the p.m.)—The Australian Labor Party has a long people whom he represented through that and proud tradition of serving the interests of union. Edgar rose from very humble begin- 794 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 nings. By 1957, before affiliation of the AWU paper of the AWU, ‘From Eggleston to with the ACTU, Edgar was nominated and Egghead.’ But as Bob Hawke said after elected by the ACTU to the Mines—other Edgar’s death, ‘I came to develop a warm and than coal—Conference in Geneva. He went effective relationship with Edgar Williams, on in his career to do three months with the truly a giant figure in the history of the Leader Grant program in the United States. Australian trade union movement.’ He served on delegations with the trade union Even after his retirement as a full-time movement in West Germany, Israel, Russia official in 1982, Edgar was never very far and China. from his beloved union. Hardly a week went Edgar will be remembered also for the book by without Edgar visiting the union office which he published in 1967. The Australian either to just drop in to say hello or to offer Worker, a publication put out by the Austral- advice that may have been sought by his ian Workers Union, of 31 August 1983, said: successors. In 1967 Edgar’s book, "Yellow, Green and Red" Edgar also made a massive contribution to was published. It views the industrial scene, the Australian Labor Party over 50 years. In particularly the Mt Isa strikes of the 1960’s in 1983 he was given due recognition when he which he was one of the leading figures. In his book Edgar airs his dislike of communists. was awarded life membership of the ALP. As further recognition of his contribution to It was this open expression of his low opinion of Australian industrial relations, Edgar was communists that brought throughout his career unabashed attempts by some of his opponents to awarded an Order of Australia in 1989. In discredit him...allfailed. 1995 the ACTU congress awarded him a certificate of honour in recognition of a The article goes on to give a further insight lifetime of service to trade unionism and the into Edgar Williams. It says: Australian labour movement. His reputation for integrity as well as for his skill as a top Union negotiator earned him the further My memories of Edgar go back to 1976 respect of friend and adversary alike. when I became an official of the SDA, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees The article goes on: Association. At that stage our union rented He had, he says, no ambition, he only wanted to premises at Dunstan House, which was owned assist fellow workers. by the AWU. We used to get to meet Edgar This is the quality of the worker. The article on a number of occasions. From my first goes on to say that on two occasions Edgar meeting with Edgar, he always greeted me was offered safe seats in the state parliament with, ‘Good morning, young fella’ or ‘Good but declined. It was also made apparent in the afternoon, young fella.’ He was very polite in article that Edgar was offered an opportunity his approach to life. The only problem that I to become an industrial commissioner. But, had with that greeting was that for the next 21 again, he rejected that because on all occa- years, until Edgar’s death, I got the same sions Edgar put as his priority the needs of greeting, which probably said something representing the working people who were about my youthful outlook on life and my members of his union. youthful appearance. Edgar was a great man who treated all of Edgar was a very private man. He did not those he met equally regardless of who they seek publicity. He was very much a person were or their position. One of the best exam- who kept to himself. I always remember ples of this was when he first met a young Edgar at ALP state conferences in Queens- Bob Hawke. Prior to Bob Hawke’s arrival at land. You could always bet that whenever a the ACTU, the major industrial cases had ballot was on, Edgar would be one of the first been conducted for the ACTU by Dick in line for his ballot papers. That was until Eggleston, QC. When it was announced that the last state conference that was held in June Bob Hawke would be replacing him for the 1997. To show the tenacity of the man, on 1959 basic wage case, Edgar wrote the head- that occasion, Edgar had gone out to do some line for the Australian Worker, the official shopping during a luncheon break. There was Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 795 a ballot due to close not long after lunch and ments which have an impact on the environ- Edgar had failed to show to vote. I met him ment. in the corridor. He had blood over his shirt So what is the Commonwealth’s appropriate and he had broken his glasses. But so fixed role on the environment? The Democrats was he with his obligation to cast his vote argue that it should be much more substantial, and his commitment so strong that Edgar hence, our private member’s bill, which signed for his ballot paper, filled out the would put the environment into the constitu- ballot paper and deposited the ballot paper tion. The government’s paper could have with the returning officer before seeking presented varying opinions on this matter in medical attention. order to promote an informed public policy Edgar’s iron will and commitment came debate, but obviously it did not want to do from his days as a shed hand and shearer in that. It clearly has an agenda to wind back the the tough areas of Western Queensland and levels of protection and leave them up to the New South Wales. Edgar will always be states. It is on this matter that I have very remembered as one of the great leaders of the major concerns. We have all seen state premi- Australian Workers Union, touching the lives ers in undignified brawls over who gets what of generations of Australian workers. As long sporting event. We have seen them offer as there is an Australian Workers Union, the subsidies and all sorts of attractions to bring spirit of Edgar Williams will live on. We certain industries into their states. Often this lament his passing. is at the expense of residents’ tax bills. My concern with the states assuming so Environment Legislation much power with environmental decisions is Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (1.11 p.m.)— that we will end up with a kind of Dutch The review of Commonwealth legislation is auction. I can hear the calls right now. We something I want to discuss today, and to will have Queensland saying, ‘Come to argue that it has been made extremely diffi- Queensland. We’ll offer you good subsidies cult—that is, the debate about this question by which are quite reasonable’—for that we the government’s discussion paper which is at should read low—‘and conditions on your best vague and at worst deliberately environmental safeguards’. Then Victoria will misleading. I would argue that the reason the be saying, ‘No, come to Victoria. We can do detail is missing from this document is to a Queensland and have even lower standards confuse the public and to give the government than you.’ The voice from the west would an out every time those hard questions are have its own trump card and they would say, asked of it. I have gone through the document ‘Come here and we will give you your very and I would like to take this opportunity to own act.’ I believe it encourages the states to point out some of those glaring problems. get into lower and lower bidding wars on the environment. That is not in the best interests I hope that the government will listen to of the environment that sustains us. these arguments and that they will take these views seriously because I know that my Another concern I have is that the minister concerns reflect those of very many Austral- will have to make a decision within four ians. The paper vaguely refers to an appropri- weeks of the matter being referred. Four ate role for the Commonwealth without weeks is a very short time frame when you defining that role. The nearest we get to consider the number of years that some of seeing the government’s opinion on this Australia’s biggest conservation campaigns matter is when it refers over and over again have taken. During this time there have been to unacceptable delays for developments and massive public awareness campaigns and the states and local government needing more places protected. of a role. It seems to me that the collapse of The government may think this is not 20 pieces of environment legislation into four relevant when compared to a few fossil fuel watered down acts is simply to hasten both industry jobs or the odd mine, but I would the time lines and the numbers of develop- contend that there has been so much spin-off 796 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 from tourism that the economics are clearly ment not giving us the information we need on our side, as it were. The government bases and why such a short time frame for com- the changes on the fact that some of the ment? environment legislation is 20 years old. There are many acts of parliament which are still in This process has been going on since the use that are much more than 20 years old. coalition got into government. The govern- The logical consequence of that kind of ment is rushing to get this legislation into argument is that we should change all acts. parliament before the end of the April sittings. The argument does not work, as the govern- I predict that the government will make ment has singled out a particular area for mistakes as a result of that. The government massive reform. It is clear that the has already realised just how complicated it government’s concerns are not solely about will be to change the heritage act and to roll the environment. into this, which is why the government had to I turn to more specifics. The government is drop it from the discussion paper at the last taking 20 acts, turning them into three and minute. only asking us for a comment on the first two. They will all be connected, so the The government made mistakes over the government is asking for our comments Natural Heritage Trust. Hopefully, they will blindfolded in some senses. Just one illustra- be learning their lessons from that. The tion of this is the fact that the act hinges on government has made the reform of environ- a trigger mechanism about places of national ment legislation debate as confusing and as significance, yet the government says that this misleading as they can. I think they showed definition is not to be presented to us at this me yesterday in question time that the stage. Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) will not answer reasonable questions on this How are we expected to make up our minds matter. whether or not this is a good idea? The government has not given the definition or the I need to say, however, that I will be way that it will work. The government goes tracking and thoroughly examining this and on to refer to a test of national significance. calling the government to account all the way This is even more sloppy and misleading. The through. I would like to call on the minister government says that it will be tightly de- to stop drafting the bill until the public fined, so it is another trigger and will not be submission phase is over. Indeed, during the defined until enactment of the third bit of minister’s answer in the Senate yesterday, he legislation—not when the discussion paper is made it sound like it was a consequential out, not when the first two bills are brought process. He said, ‘Then there will be draft- in and sent to committee and not even when ing.’ So stop the drafting. I know you are they are in the Senate. It will not be defined doing it because you have an agenda and it when the third bill comes in but when it is all does not matter what the public say. over and when it is enacted. Even taking this into account, we are supposed to trust the The Democrats are asking the minister to government. The government has not given us carefully consider and evaluate those com- any reasons so far for this kind of staging. ments from the discussion paper first. Then This matter reminds me of the Larsen when we have the detail, put out a draft bill cartoon about a scientist who has heaps of for public comment and tell us how the calculations on a board and then more calcu- heritage component will work. We need to lations at the bottom. In the middle there is a see the specifics so that we can consider blank spot saying, ‘And then a miracle oc- whether this package is better or worse for the curs.’ Then another scientist says, ‘I think the environment in the overall scheme of things. government will have to be more specific Give the community more than four weeks. I here, Henderson.’ What miracles is the say again that there is absolutely no need to government waiting for? Why is the govern- rush this bill. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 797

Superannuation: Marriage Breakdown tion that is the legal property of only one Senator COONAN (New South Wales) party to a marriage to be adjusted as if it is an (1.20 p.m.)—The announcement by the Prime asset of both parties to the marriage. Minister (Mr Howard) this week that reforms The Family Court may have regard to will be introduced to provide equity of access superannuation as an asset to be taken into to superannuation in the event of a marriage account in its calculations and can offset the breakdown is further evidence of this value of other assets by way of adjustment to government’s commitment to the principles of compensate the non-superannuated spouse. equity and sharing. The current inequities in Such a system is fine if there are sufficient the treatment of superannuation when a other assets to provide sufficiently for a marriage breaks down were identified over 10 dependent spouse and children and enough to years ago, yet absolutely nothing was done allow the party with the superannuation to about it by the previous Labor government. survive until he or she can access that super- The government recognises that superannua- annuation. Where it falls down, however, is tion has not always provided women in where there are insufficient other assets to particular with the security they need and allow a fair adjustment to reflect the amount deserve in retirement. The issue is an import- of superannuation involved. It also fails to ant one when it is taken into account that in allow the proper quantification of the superan- 1996, 52,000 Australian couples applied for nuation or provide a formula for arriving at a a divorce. This government has acted and quantification. The reforms will allow far introduced measures already to address the greater clarity in divorce settlements as well needs of women, including the low income as providing certainty for the future of the spouse superannuation rebate, to help women non-superannuated spouse after a divorce. outside the paid work force. Another measure There are a number of key areas being introduced by the government has been the examined to guide these reforms through. The added versatility provided by the retirement first is that superannuation should be clearly savings accounts. Now the government is recognised in legislation dealing with the actively working to introduce reforms to bring division of marital property. The key here is about greater fairness and certainty into the that the principles be clearly defined, not just treatment of superannuation in the event of a assumed. The second aspect is that there be marriage breakdown. clear rules for valuing superannuation that The situation at present is that often a will take into account the vagaries of the women forgoes the economic benefits which different types of schemes. Back of match- are derived from working to enable her book calculations cause more problems than partner to go to work and save via a superan- they solve. By having a defined formula and nuation fund. The woman forgoes work and set of rules, both parties will know exactly makes sacrifices for her husband and family where they stand. This is important in order and the husband is able to translate some of to bring to finality settlement of property and those sacrifices into a compulsory savings to allow both parties to have a fresh start, program or superannuation. especially if new partners and new families On any view, the woman has made an are on the scene. The third policy objective indirect, but nonetheless tangible, contribution with these reforms is to encourage the parties to that form of family savings. The problem to try to settle their own affairs. To facilitate arises in that if the couple divorce, superan- this, the reforms will ensure that both parties nuation is not available in a liquid form to be have full information available to them. adjusted between the parties. Even the person On top of this, the reforms will be consis- who has directly contributed to the fund tent with the government’s retirement incomes usually cannot have access to it and may have policy and arrangements will be made to to wait a number of years before he or she minimise the complexity and costs for all can draw down the superannuation. Added to parties. They will also take into account the this is that it can be difficult for superannua- particular features of the various types of 798 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 superannuation funds involved. The a member of the scheme and whose potential government is addressing the tough questions for loss of security is very great indeed. involved with these reforms. One such ques- The 1994 Australian Law Reform Commis- tion is just when will the superannuation be sion report has pointed out the particular shared between the two parties and in what effect on women. It states: proportions? The issue of retirement income is particularly Then there is the question of calculating important for women. On average, women live just how much superannuation will be accrued longer than men and are therefore more likely to up to the contributor’s retirement. Obviously, spend more of their last years alone. if a member of a superannuation fund has Current government policies are aimed at retire- been contributing before marriage, an equal ment income being provided by superannuation division would not be fair. If both parties funded by the employer or the employee, or a combination of both, rather than by government have superannuation, it may be necessary to through age pensions. offset one against the other to see if any The problem for women is that the superannuation adjustment is warranted. Already the govern- system is geared to the typical working pattern of ment has written to superannuation industry a man, not a woman. The greatest benefit is derived representatives seeking their input in relation by those who work full time and continuously over to the reforms. One of the principles in the an extended number of years. reforms is to provide maximum flexibility as This is not a typical working pattern for women. well as a legislative lever. Therefore, we have the situation where the There is overseas precedent not only for non-member spouse loses the prospect of community of property schemes but also for security for the future, the legitimate expecta- legislating to ensure superannuation is fairly tion of which has been a foundation of the adjusted on separation. One model is that of financial management of the couple’s affairs. British Columbia, with its 1995 Family One of the problems faced by the Family Relations Amendment Act, which deals with Court in trying to determine superannuation the divisions of superannuation—called entitlements stems from the very nature of ‘pension’ in British Columbia—in the event superannuation schemes. A common model is of a marriage breakdown. This act clearly the discretionary trust. If the marriage breaks defines such terms as entitlement, net invest- down and the member spouse is not of retire- ment returns, pensionable services and vested ment age, he or she has no proprietary interest pension. The act also details how the calcula- in future superannuation entitlements, merely tion of commuted value should be arrived at. an expectation. How then is the real value of This is a vital area which has clouded the the future benefit to be taken into account in division of superannuation in Australia. property division given that an order cannot Germany and the United States have operate directly on the benefit? One technique schemes in place which recognise superannua- is what is known as offsetting, under which tion as a marital asset. This allows for the the Family Court takes future superannuation equitable division of superannuation as part of entitlements into account at the time of the property settlement in divorce proceed- property distribution. But the court has experi- ings. Great Britain is heading in the same enced considerable difficulty in identifying direction. A white paper is being prepared precisely how the superannuation entitlements which defines the benefits and tax implica- should be taken into account and in particular tions of splitting superannuation, or pensions how the entitlement should be calculated at as they are also called in the UK. the time of the trial. This government is now heading towards Different Family Court rulings such as the fair division of superannuation. In a Prestwitch and Prestwitch, Jenner and Jenner, marriage breakdown, the prospective loss of Webber and Webber and Hauff and Hauff benefits on retirement from a former spouse’s have seen a number of complex formulas superannuation scheme can impact with being devised. However, there has been no particular severity on the party who was not consistency in these formulas. The court has Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 799 another approach available to it in that it can although technically vested it is not property adjourn part of the family property proceed- divisible in divorce proceedings. ings if a party’s financial circumstances are The third area is funds that do not give likely to change significantly in the future— members any vested interest in the superan- for instance, by benefiting from a superannua- nuation fund itself until retirement. In this tion pay-out down the track. case members have no rights in respect of the However, this also has its problems. It goes fund, and the court’s view is that their super- against the grain of the clean break principle annuation is not regarded as divisible proper- in that it may see a case go on for years. ty. In light of the complexity of the issue, Understandably, the courts have tended to private property agreements between parties prefer the techniques of offsetting rather than have assumed some popularity. The Family adjournment when the spouse with the benefit Law Act makes provision for parties to a is a long way off retirement age. Under the marriage to enter into private agreements current law, these are the only options avail- which, although technically called mainte- able as the Family Court stressed in Harrison nance agreements, can concern the division of and Harrison in 1996. property. Such agreements can be prenuptial, although they are generally entered into upon A point of significance in looking at super- separation. This is only equitable if the parties annuation benefits is that they often involve are aware they can claim a share of their substantial amounts of money. In a great partner’s superannuation. number of cases, the sum involved is greater Commenting on the ignorance of rights and than the value of the family home, which so also the problem of identifying superannua- often is the single most valuable asset a tion entitlements, the Australian Law Reform couple has. Future superannuation benefits are Commission noted: significant primarily because they affect the financial circumstances of a party after retire- This lack of certainty causes particular hardship for non-contributory spouses, usually female partners, ment. However, their significance is not on separation. They do not have a clear basis on confined to future financial circumstances. which to conduct their negotiations...Many are They also concern past financial circum- unaware of their entitlement to have superannuation stances as they constitute enforced savings taken into account in property settlement. and, in many circumstances, income which As can be seen from the remarks I have made has been voluntarily forgone. Therefore, when so far, the whole issue of the division of a marriage breaks down, a wife may want to superannuation in divorce cases is murky, make a notional claim on part of her confusing and indecisive. This leads to uncer- husband’s superannuation benefits not only to tainty of financial future and because the share in his future economic security but also parties often do not understand the complexity as compensation for income which her hus- of the issues, the debate between the parties band earned but did not receive and which so frequently becomes acrimonious. she did not enjoy during the marriage. The government’s initiatives will lead to a Some superannuation schemes give mem- clear, precise and understandable way to bers a vested interest in the fund itself, which proceed in relation to the division of superan- enables the member to withdraw their contri- nuation. At last there will be equitable and butions plus accrued interest at any time they fair division of funds which to many have wish. In these circumstances, the Family been a pot of gold largely unavailable to a Court does not have a problem because non-member spouse on divorce. While much clearly there is a present entitlement to prop- of the focus is on protecting women and erty. In other circumstances, members cannot ensuring that they receive their equitable withdraw their funds until retirement and, share of their partner’s superannuation, I while there is some authority for the proposi- hasten to say the reforms will cut both ways. tion that an entitlement of this kind consti- If both parties have worked, then both super- tutes property, the prevailing view is that annuation funds will be accounted for in the 800 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 divorce settlement, and where, as is increas- not acceptable. He said that the preliminary ingly the case, there has been a man who has design work that had been going on in the forgone the economic benefits and stayed at five plants would continue. He told the home being a Mr Mum, he will also be committee: protected by the reforms. What could be fairer In the interim, we will be having further discussion than that? with the United States authorities to try and pinpoint more precisely the nature of the concerns AQIS: Meat Inspection that they have about the current design of the Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (1.34 project... p.m.)—The Howard government made many He then identified government verification of commitments on matters rural when it came the operation as the key issue. He said: to office in March 1996. A priority in this They are matters that I expect will be the subject long list of promises was the reform of the of discussions between us and our counterparts in AQIS meat inspection program—a process the United States in the course of the next couple that was already well advanced. In August of of weeks. that year, the Minister for Primary Industries The minister has been personally involved in and Energy (Mr Anderson) said: this process from the beginning. In July last The AQIS meat inspection is now the most urgent year, the minister went to the US to discuss priority for reform. his meat reform agenda. He correctly identi- fied the USDA requirement that there be a I repeat: ‘the most urgent priority for reform’. high level of government scrutiny of the meat The executive director of AQIS told an industry. For that reason, Mr Anderson put estimates committee at that time that the the project 2 plan on the top of his list for project 2 plan was the centrepiece of that talks with the US Secretary of Agriculture, reform strategy. The minister announced the Dan Glickman. Mr Anderson was talking to start of the government’s reforms for the meat Dan Glickman again last month. After those inspection program on 1 August 1996. He discussions, Mr Anderson put out a press said that the government was committed to release headed ‘Americans respond positively restoring the reputation of AQIS as a profes- to government’s project 2 meat inspection sional, efficient and competent organisation. system’. The first paragraph of that press The minister predicted that the reforms would release stated: be in place in all export and domestic abat- The Australian Government’s ‘Project 2’ proposal toirs by early 1998—now, in other words. for company based inspection in export meat On 27 February last year, Mr Hickey, the establishments has been accepted in principle by Executive Director of AQIS, told an estimates the United States authorities. committee: Mr Anderson said in the statement the break- We, over a period of 15 to 18 months now, have through came in personal discussions with the been developing and submitting proposals for the Secretary of the US Department of Agricul- project to trial Australia’s major meat export ture, Dan Glickman, and members of the US markets. We have been involved in an extensive House Agriculture Committee. He said: round of briefings and discussions with those I am pleased to say the Americans have charted a markets on the principles of project 2, its technical path forward for ‘project 2’... design and the like. The situation we have got to at the moment is that the United States is currently The American authorities reacted with some considering the proposal. vigour to this claim, and Mr Anderson was In August, I asked Mr Hickey in the estimates forced to step back from it. Some six days process whether projects 1 and 2 were either later Mr Anderson—the same person who put almost concluded or significantly progressed out the media release—acknowledged on to conclusion. He answered yes. However, by ABC radio that project 2 in its original form November significant problems began to was unacceptable to the Americans. emerge. Mr Hickey told the estimates com- Mr Anderson was talking to Dan Glickman mittee on 13 November that the US had again last week—this time in Paris. The topic, advised that project 2 in its current form was again, was Mr Anderson’s plan for meat Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 801 inspection. He was interviewed by the ABC to Mr Costello and Mr Fahey, and up went last Saturday morning following those discus- charges to the industry—some by as much as sions. He said he wanted to make two com- 200 per cent—or perhaps it was Mr Anderson ments. The first was: who proposed to cabinet that support for the We are continuing to negotiate about the best way meat industry be abandoned. Either way, there to do these things in future. was little or no consultation, and the minister And the second was: was forced to back down. The Americans themselves are looking at hazard I have to say that, on the face of it, Mr based principles for improving quality assurance Anderson’s record in cabinet on these matters and food safety. is not good. Firstly, Mr Anderson must ensure He went on to say: that the level of charges for export meat inspection services is maintained at a reason- There is no difference between us in terms of us able level in 1998-99. The industry does not agreeing to a sensible and harmonious negotiating need another surprise in this year’s budget. process to work it forward. Secondly, the minister must ensure that AQIS He said: operates within its own rules. For example, That is at this stage the end of the matter. the decision to use a company employee as an In other words, he was getting nowhere. He AQIS inspector at Tongala in Victoria last was talking about the process for negotiations December has done enormous damage to our rather than the substance of the government’s reputation in the key markets of the US and reforms. the European Union. It does not really matter if the employee only acted for a short time or Evidence to the Rural and Regional Affairs whether the tasks he performed were basic. and Transport Committee hearings on 26 AQIS breached its own rules, and the Ameri- February confirms this lack of progress cans and the European Union took note. We absolutely. The committee was told by the are asking both those countries to accept the Executive Director of AQIS, Mr Paul Hickey, lessening of government oversight of the meat that AQIS was attempting to determine what processing sector but we then turn around and performance standards would be acceptable to break the existing rules. the Americans. The service was also seeking advice on what baseline monitoring and When AQIS was questioned on this matter, evaluation systems the Americans might Mr Hickey told the estimates committee that accept. Finally, Mr Hickey said that AQIS it was an administrative oversight. I would was attempting to find out exactly what level like to draw the attention of the Senate to of federal oversight export meat processing section 75 of the Crimes Act: facilities the Americans would find accept- Any person who: able. This issue was urgent in May 1996, ...... some two years ago. The minister gave it high (b) falsely represents himself to be a Common- priority but, according to Mr Anderson, we wealth officer, and assumes to do any act or are now back to square one. attend in any place for the purpose of doing any act by virtue of pretending to be a There are two related issues to which the Commonwealth officer; government does need to give priority. The shall be guilty of an offence. first is the level of support for the industry through subsidies for meat inspection charges Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years. until the reform process is complete, and the Not only is this sort of action by AQIS second is the management of the restructuring politically silly but apparently it is in breach of AQIS. The subsidy for export meat inspec- of the Crimes Act. Hence my surprise when tion charges to allow AQIS to maintain the minister supported the use of a company existing services at a reasonable price while employee in this way. He is now paying the it restructured survived the first Howard price for AQIS’s lack of judgment. budget, but it did not survive the second This saga illustrates very clearly two weak- Howard budget. Out went the subsidy, thanks nesses in Mr Anderson’s management of 802 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 reforms in the meat industry. He has by no situation in New Zealand. I happen to have means administered effectively this area of his received a copy of an article from the Journal portfolio, and he has failed to implement of Industrial Relations of September 1997 change in an area rightly identified by him as entitled ‘Waterfront labour reform in New a key sector in both the rural and the national Zealand: pressures, processes and outcomes’. economy. By the way, it is an industry that The author of that is James Reveley, who has generates $4 billion a year in export earnings a PhD and is a research associate at the and provides thousands of jobs in regional Department of Sociology, University of areas. In failing in his duty, Mr Anderson has Canterbury. It is a lengthy document but, for put at risk the key markets of the USA and the purposes of the exercise, I just want to the European Union. The minister needs to refer to the conclusion. This is what James reconsider his approach, both in terms of the Reveley says: way in which AQIS is now managing meat inspection in this country and what our major In a comparative article about waterfront reform markets might reasonably expect from us by published in 1992, Turnbull argued that, unlike way of government oversight. Otherwise, this Britain, Australia had potentially laid the basis for saga still has a long way to go and, more long-term sustainable change. In an update on importantly, the risk to our meat exports will Britain, it was found that the waterfront industry is currently experiencing a ‘vicious spiral of cost- only increase. competition and ever decreasing margins which is I want to refer briefly to the matters ad- undermining port performance and debasing labour dressed by Senator Patterson earlier this relations.’ Notwithstanding differences in port systems, if Australia follows the New Zealand afternoon, when she talked about the water- model of waterfront labour reform, which under the front and the need for reform on the Austral- Employment Contracts Act is rapidly moving in the ian waterfront. I must say that Senator direction that employment relations in Britain’s Patterson’s speech was based substantially on ports have taken, this sustainability may well be hearsay and stories of what might occur rather lost. Far from something to be emulated, the New than on matters of substance. We all hear Zealand experience of waterfront labour reform, stories about the lack of performance by the like its British counterpart, should be avoided. Australian waterfront. Being a senator from Tasmania, I can say we regularly hear in In the short space of four years waterfront labour Tasmania that when there is a problem in the reform in New Zealand moved from attempts by waterfront employers to decentralise bargaining, to delivery of a product it is caused by a strike the abolition of the Waterfront Industry Commis- on the Melbourne waterfront. In fact, that is sion, through to challenging historic union rights. the excuse that is almost invariably given. As a result, the waterfront industry shifted very quickly from union control to employer control, but The fact is that I have received that excuse the imbalances and problems that have occurred are from businesses in Tasmania for the non- no less numerous or significant than in the 1970s, supply of a particular product on time even when the industry was characterised by a dynamic when I personally knew that there were no of union strength and employer weakness. Under strikes on the Melbourne waterfront at the the Employment Contracts Act the pendulum has time. In other words, the inadequacy of the now swung too far in the opposite direction, to the point where recent moves by employers to increase delivery system or communication or inability labour ‘flexibility’ are threatening to undermine the of the manufacturer to supply were not the gains in efficiency that resulted from the abolition reasons given when, in fact, they were the of the bureau system. true reasons. The easy reason given was that there was allegedly a strike on the Melbourne I commend this article to Senator Patterson waterfront. So if we are going to deal with and other members of the Senate because, far this matter, let us deal with the facts and not from being based on innuendo and falsity, it with innuendo and untrue allegations. is an analysis of the situation in New Zealand. Another matter that Senator Patterson If we are to compare our situation with the touched upon was the comparison of the outcome in New Zealand, then we had better Australian waterfront with the waterfront know where we are headed. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 803

Weather Forecasting Aircraft that is designed to withstand stresses of Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queens- around five times the force of gravity, that land—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister gives you some idea of the conditions inside for the Environment) (1.49 p.m.)—Today I these cyclones. will speak on an exciting matter which again This first operational fight was part of a demonstrates the quality of Australian science six-week trial that involved eleven Aeroson- and engineering and the world-class expertise des in all, which saw a range of missions take of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. Coinci- off from the Cargill Salt Works outside Port dentally, it is also a matter that was reported Hedland in north-west Western Australia. The on in today’s Daily Telegraph in an article by locals call this area Cyclone Alley, and indeed environmental reporter Simon Benson. the team were fortunate enough to be able to An event recently took place in the skies test this aircraft during that severe tropical off the coast of Port Hedland in Western Cyclone Tiffany. A significant feature of the Australia. This event is a wonderful example aircraft is that while in this case they were of necessity being the mother of invention, being launched and recovered at Port Hed- though in this case it is more a matter of self- land, the staff working in the Perth Regional preservation because, until now, important Forecasting Centre of the Bureau of Meteorol- weather information being obtained from ogy, some 1,500 kilometres away, were within a cyclone was an occupation solely for actually the people in control of this aircraft. the foolhardy. It involved daring aviators By this process, forecasters were able to make flying expensive aircraft as far into storms as special requests for observations anywhere they could physically go in an attempt to within the designated flight region. gather as much data as they possibly could to The most satisfying aspect of this innova- help meteorologists get a better understanding tive environmental monitoring concept is that of cyclones and therefore improve their ability it is being driven by Australians. The to forecast them. Aerosonde is being developed by a Mel- bourne company, Sencon Environmental So it is with some enthusiasm that I tell you Systems, in collaboration with the Bureau of that on Tuesday, 27 January this year, as Meteorology. The project leader, Dr Greg tropical Cyclone Tiffany was spinning her Holland, who is from the Bureau of Meteorol- way down the Western Australian coast, a ogy Research Centre, has been working for small gathering of meteorologists and techni- several years on a project to harness converg- cians were preparing to launch a small robotic ing aeronautical, computing and communica- aircraft called an Aerosonde for its first data tions technologies and developing a weather collecting flight. By all accounts, the mission reconnaissance instrument that would eco- was a success. So this small aircraft has nomically monitor those huge areas of the confirmed its potential as a very useful, low- southern hemisphere where no direct weather cost method of gathering and transmitting observations exist or, if they do exist, are very weather information from remote areas of rare. Australia and its surrounding oceans. The project has been endorsed by the World The magnitude of this feat is most definite- Meteorological Organisation and the United ly of biblical proportions in so far as this Nations International Decade for Natural small aircraft, with its thin three-metre wing Disaster Reduction and is a result of com- and a distinctive inverted V-tail structure on mendable international collaboration, involv- twin booms, seemed wimpish and no match ing both public and private sectors. Dr for a decent thunderstorm—let alone a cyc- Holland’s major technical collaborator is a lone like Tiffany, much like a David and Canadian engineer, Tad McGeer, of Insitu Goliath contest. Consider that this Aerosonde Group Inc. Together they planned an airframe has been designed to withstand stresses of up made of carbon fibre and kevlar tough enough to 15 times the force of gravity. If you com- to survive inhospitable weather and powered pare that with a passenger airliner in flight by a 20cc engine. Within this very small air- 804 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 craft they crammed robust, even smaller north of Port Hedland. That is quite a remark- computers, the emerging technology of global able feat. positioning satellite systems and sophisticated There has been close liaison with the Civil communications equipment. They worked out Aviation Safety Authority from the start of how to enable the aircraft to fly itself under this program to ensure that Aerosondes can almost infinite options of flight missions, and operate to their full potential while maintain- they drew upon an expanding web of com- ing a high degree of safety and minimal munications satellites to learn how to com- disruptions to large aircraft operations in the mand the aircraft in flight and how to transmit area. The meteorological applications are data continuously and, not least, they learned numerous. how to bellyland the l5 kilogram aircraft automatically on the nearest available pad- As a North Queenslander with some un- dock or bit of flat ground. happy acquaintance with tropical cyclones, I can see the immediate benefits of something Sencon Environmental Services is now which can remain in the vicinity of dangerous assembling production aircraft in Melbourne. weather systems for days or even penetrate It has the potential to be a valuable scientific those cyclones. For instance, forecasting export for Australia, with more than 30 cyclone landfalls remains a difficult task, and aircraft already sold to the United States and anything which can capture and relay precise Taiwan. While the current aircraft are de- numbers, the pressures, the temperatures, the signed primarily for weather reconnaissance, wind speed and direction from these hazard- carrying virtually the same radiosondes as are ous systems will make for improved forecasts lifted by balloons from 37 Bureau of Meteor- and a safer community. ology stations around the continent, the Aerosonde is expected to be used in other You can imagine other targets: pinning environmental monitoring tasks as well. For down the timing and intensity of a cold front example, it will be able to carry a small video affecting firefighters; tracking a southerly camera or a wide range of chemical or other buster whipping up the New South Wales sensors or perhaps search and rescue oper- coast; patrolling the data void in the Indian ations support. Ocean west of Perth. There is research as well. In late 1995, prototype Aerosondes The model that is being tested at this time contributed to international atmospheric will fly for over 30 hours at up to 16,000 feet, research projects, which studied the afternoon if needed—all of this on a 20cc engine. There thunderstorms which form over the Tiwi is essentially no noise or environmental Islands north of Darwin before the wet seas- pollution. Recent trials included flights of 31 on. Following the Port Hedland operational and 26 hours, with eight daylight flights over trials, the weather squadron is to be sent off seven hours. The research team expects that to another multinational experiment, studying by the new century the Aerosonde will be the monsoon life cycle in the South China able to fly continuously for four days or so Sea. Transport is pretty easy: you simply with a range of 7,000 kilometres, and it will unbolt the wings and the tail assembly and reach perhaps 45,000 feet with a new turbo- then you carry this aircraft in special suit- charged engine—enough to fly over a cyclone cases. A scientist can carry an Aerosonde as and descend into its relatively calm eye. aircraft luggage. Even with today’s aircraft, a laptop com- Aerosondes are expendable, of course. They puter and a mobile phone will enable a will be expected to work at times in weather scientist in eastern Australia to command the conditions that menace the big planes, and operations of an aircraft monitoring a cold they will do it very well. They will be able to front west of Perth. Indeed, during the recent go where humans are unable to. Their com- trials, a test connection via the Internet en- plex computing, navigation and communica- abled a scientist at the Bureau of Meteorology tions package complicates the risk but, with Research Centre in Melbourne to assume a production cost currently below $20,000 operational command of an Aerosonde flying each, and at least 20 missions expected from Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 805 every airframe, they are a monitoring device You persisted in keeping export controls that merits serious consideration. over the whole 13 years you were in govern- I commend the lateral thinking and effort ment. By doing that, you forced those count- that created these tiny high-tech environment- ries to diversify to other countries at the al monitors and the elegant engineering that expense of Australia. We got rid of export has provided a robot that flies itself and controls. Countries such as Korea, Japan and currently squeezes over 500 kilometres from Taiwan are now free to purchase more from a litre of fuel. To all of those involved in the Australia rather than diversifying between design and development of this very special countries. In other words, they can diversify aircraft, I say well done. within Australia without the threat of a hostile government holding them hostage in the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE future. That is an opportunity. Minerals and Energy Industries With regard to the Korean situation, the government acted very quickly. I had a Senator COOK—My question is to Sena- number of calls just before Christmas from tor Warwick Parer, Minister for Resources exporters who were concerned about the fact and Energy. Is the minister aware of a report that banks in Australia were not prepared to in Monday’s Financial Review that accept letters of credit from Korea. We acted Australia’s minerals and energy exports are very quickly. We increased the EFIC finance under serious threat from the Asian economic by some $300 million. We also added in crisis? Minister, what has this government another $300 million, approximately, in done to protect Australia’s important minerals respect of what I think is called public inter- and energy exports from serious economic est, or words to that effect. As I understand downturn? Is it not a fact that you, as it, there is no restriction whatsoever at the Minister for Resources and Energy, have done moment with regard to the export of coking absolutely nothing to protect critical Austral- coal and steaming coal in respect of Korea. ian industries like coal—industries critical to your home state of Queensland—from the Korea was the country with which we were ravages of the financial crisis in the Asian most concerned. It has been a long-term region? What justification can there be for trading partner of Australia, going back over your spokesman to state that the outcome for 20 years to when the first contracts were these industries remains positive? signed between Australian coking coal com- panies and Pohang Iron and Steel. I will take Senator PARER—I am delighted that at you back to those days, Senator. In those days long last I am asked a serious question about the Korean economy was not that great, but what has happened with the Asian fallout, the early suppliers to Korea actually sold their instead of the stupid, nitpicking stuff that coking coal without letters of credit and on usually comes from the other side. trust. This was very much appreciated by the As Senator Cook says, the energy and Koreans, and I know from the discussions I minerals sector is vital to Australia. Our have had in recent times with the Korean major markets in the Asia-Pacific region are purchasers that they are very appreciative of Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Very little of those the actions taken by this government in energy materials goes to the other Asian supporting their industry in their time of need. countries that have been part of the financial meltdown. The country that has suffered most Howard Government: Economic Strategy is Korea. I am having continuing discussions Senator GIBSON—My question is to the with people within the industry. In those Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. I refer the discussions, it is their view and mine that one minister to the magnificent work this govern- of the major things we have done relates to ment has done in turning the $10.3 billion export controls. I took great exception to budget deficit inherited from the former Labor Senator Cook saying we have done nothing, government into a surplus, within three years. and I will list some of the things we have Could the minister please outline the vast done. benefits to the Australian community of this 806 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 strategy. Also, Minister, has the government Cook will correct me if I am wrong—R&D received support for the strategy in the parlia- syndicates, and Senator Cook was a strong ment, and what have been the alternative supporter of that area. strategies put forward by the other parties? Senator Cook—You are wrong. What would be the implications of such strategies on taxation, interest rates, budget Senator KEMP—Senator Cook, you deficit and government debt? opposed this crackdown in this chamber and you were a very strong and vigorous support- Senator KEMP—I thank Senator Gibson er of R&D syndicates, and that cannot be for that important question. In this parliament denied. Senator Gibson has always shown a great interest in economic matters, and it is not Senator Cook—Absolutely! surprising that he has raised this question. Senator KEMP—‘Absolutely!’ he says. All senators will know of this government’s Well, we have got that on the record again. A determination to restore fiscal responsibility huge tax rort and you support it—that’s all to the nation’s finances. We are determined to right. take the $10.3 billion deficit inherited from Senator Cook—Wouldn’t it be good for Mr Beazley and transform it into a surplus Australia— within this term. Our strategy has helped to Senator KEMP—Thank you for the quote. cut debt, lower interest rates and build a It is recorded in Hansard, Senator Cook. platform for strong and sustainable growth. It Thank you for that. is worth noting that we now have the lowest As the Treasurer has said on a number of underlying inflation figures on record and the occasions, if people support Labor at the next lowest inflation rates since the late 1960s. election interest rates will go back up to Senators will remember that under the failed where they were under Labor. The Labor Labor government interest rates peaked at 17 Party is a high tax, high deficit, high interest per cent for some home owners. At present rate party and that was completely shown to we have one of the fastest growing economies be the case during their term in office. Just to in the developed world. I would have thought illustrate how advantageous our policies are, that was all good news. Although the Labor at the current low level of interest rates the Party are complaining about it, people outside average family is saving some $300 a month are cheering this on, because it is good news. or more on an average $100,000 mortgage. Sadly, the fiscal responsibility adopted by Huge savings are being delivered to home this government has been opposed in some owners, and I think they are greatly appreciat- quarters. The loudest and most vigorous ed by home owners throughout Australia. opposition to it has come from the Australian One of the things we went to an election on Labor Party. The Labor Party has opposed was to avoid the sort of shenanigans we saw billions upon billions of dollars worth of under the previous Labor government in budget repair over the four years. On top of relation to hiding the real state of the econ- that they opposed the very important Telstra omy, and, of course, this government has saleconstitution promoted a charter of budget honesty. The As for promises in recent times, shadow truth of the matter is Labor vigorously op- ministers have gone around promising to posed the charter in this chamber but now spend more, all of it uncosted. There are they have backflipped. (Time expired) promises, for example, that Mr Beazley made recently in relation to health. Mr Beazley Minister for Resources and Energy promised to spend another $1.7 billion in that Senator FAULKNER—My question is area—unfunded—and, of course, that would directed to the Minister for Resources and have to be costed in to what the Labor Party’s Energy. Is it the case, Minister, that you hold policies are for the next election. They have shares through your family trust in Queens- made other promises in relation to foreign- land Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd, or have owned nursing homes and indeed—Senator you disposed of them? Have you ever de- Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 807 clared this shareholding in the register of that goes back many years. I have never tried senators’ interests, as you are required to do? to hide anything. Minister, have you complied with the require- ment set out by the Registrar of Senators’ Environment: Marine Biodiversity Interests in his letter of 20 March 1997 that Senator KNOWLES—My question is to senators should notify actual shares held by the Leader of the Government in the Senate relevant family or business trusts on the and the Minister for the Environment, Senator grounds that ‘it would not be sufficient to Hill. I refer the minister to the government’s declare only the name, activity and benefi- goal to protect Australia’s unique marine ciary of the trust company or partnership’? biodiversity, reduce marine pollution and Senator PARER—I am pleased to answer ensure that marine resources are used in an the question by Senator Faulkner. I personally ecologically sustainable way. What action is have no shares in mining companies. As the government taking to promote off-reserve required in the disclosure rules of the Senate, conservation measures in our vast marine I have disclosed all interests that I have from territory? Will the minister indicate how those a pecuniary point of view. As regards the actions relate to the government’s coasts and Prime Minister’s requirements, let me say that clean seas program, which is a key feature of I have fulfilled all the requirements of the the natural heritage program? Prime Minister’s letter in regard to any Senator HILL—I thank the honourable investments that I have or that are held by the senator for that important question. It con- family trust. trasts starkly with the sort of smear questions that we hear from the other side particularly Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, from Senator Faulkner, who has not even got I ask a supplementary question. the decency to come in here and apologise to Government senators interjecting— the Baillieu family—to apologise to those Baillieus who are alive and those Baillieus The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my who are dead—just to demonstrate a little bit right will cease interjecting. Senator Faulkner, of basic decency. He might then be better I have not called you yet; I am waiting for the credentialled to ask questions. Anyway, that noise on my right to cease. I call Senator is by the way. Faulkner. Senator Knowles has raised the important Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam issue of off-reserve preservation of conserva- President. Can I ask you again, Senator Parer: tion values in Australia’s marine environment. have you complied with the requirements set It is important because it is another area that out by the Registrar of Senators’ Interests in has, of course, been neglected in the past, but his letter of 20 March 1997 that senators we now have a responsibility for one of the should notify actual shares held by relevant largest marine territories in the world, an area family or business trusts on the grounds that more than one and a half times Australia’s ‘it would not be sufficient to declare only the land mass. name, activity and beneficiary of the trust company or partnership’? Minister, what, if One of our goals has been to ensure that any, other undeclared shareholdings do you our marine environment is protected through own through your family trust? a representative system of marine protected areas. Our announcement of a new reserve in Senator PARER—The trust to which the Great Australian Bight, which will be Senator Faulkner refers is 28 years old. It is Australia’s second largest reserve, is, of a family trust. I do not control it; in fact, it is course, a down payment on that commitment. controlled by others. It is a discretionary trust But we also recognise that marine parks are which is spelt out in the Register of Senators’ not the only answer in protecting marine Interests and I have one-ninth of that. I have biodiversity. Just as important will be those fulfilled, to my best recollection, all the measures that we develop off reserve. I am requirements of the Senate in that regard, and therefore pleased to announce that the 808 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Commonwealth has agreed to work with the opportunity to improve Australia’s natural Western Australian government and the resource base, to improve Australia’s natural petroleum industry to develop a comprehen- environment, through the opportunity to sive conservation strategy for Commonwealth support community groups in this way. This waters surrounding the Montebello Islands off is an opportunity for Labor senators to move Western Australia. This is a first. It is an off the smear path. Perhaps Senator Faulkner historic development. It is an occasion when could make a start by apologising to the an industry organisation will work in partner- Baillieus, and then opposition senators might ship with two governments to develop such commence to do something constructive in an important strategy. this important area of marine environment. At the end of the process we are confident Minister for Resources and Energy that we will have in place measures that will protect an area of enormous conservation Senator CARR—My question without significance, an area that has been identified notice is to the Minister for Resources, Sena- as providing habitat for a range of marine life, tor Parer. Minister, are you aware of clause including humpback whales, dugong, turtles 14 of the explanatory notes to the statement and a number of sea and shore birds. So I of registrable interests, which requires sena- particularly want to take the opportunity to tors to publicly disclose: congratulate the petroleum industry. It is an . . . any other interest where a conflict of interest industry that has itself identified many of with a senator’s public duties could foreseeably these important conservation values within arise or could be seen to arise. this region and is, as I said, an industry that Minister, did you list under this section— is prepared to work with government to Government senators interjecting— conserve those values, and for that they deserve to be commended. The PRESIDENT—Order! There are too many interjections on my right. It is necessary I also want to take the opportunity to that I hear the question and it is necessary comment on the coasts and clean seas compo- that Senator Parer hears the question. nent of the Natural Heritage Trust. As sena- tors will be aware, the $125 million coasts Senator CARR—Minister, why did you list and clean seas program represents the largest under this section matters such as married, financial commitment by any Commonwealth ratepayer and Christian but fail to list your government to protect our marine and coastal significant shareholding in a coalmining environment. Through that program, we are company? Is it the case, Minister, that you encouraging innovative solutions to problems were going to use the Eastcourt defence that such as sewage and stormwater pollution, you have previously used? introduced marine pests, threats to marine Senator PARER—I did list those things species and ad hoc coastal development. because I think they are important, perhaps I want particularly to highlight the fact that more important when it comes to one’s applications for the 1998-99 round of com- considerations than any other sorts of things munity grants for the program opened last that you might talk about. Senator Carr says Saturday. The application period closes on 30 ‘listing my shareholdings’. My shareholdings June, after which proposals will be assessed are listed under the Senate register. I think the by community based panels before presenta- important thing about this is that we have tion to me. $8.5 million will be available in fairly strict guidelines, as laid down by the the year 1998-99 for the community compo- Prime Minister. Let me just repeat that I have nent of the program, and I would encourage adhered strictly to those Prime Ministerial senators to ensure that community groups in guidelines. their areas are aware of the opportunities that Senator CARR—Madam President, I have the program provides. a supplementary question. Minister, can you I would particularly like to encourage Labor confirm that you still have a shareholding, as senators, those that have disregarded the listed in the ASC documents, in Queensland Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 809

Coal Mine Management worth over $2 they had cut the amount of funding that went million, or have you disposed of these shares? to the public hospitals because of the money Senator PARER—Madam President, I do that had come from the federal Medicare not have any shares— agreement at the time. You will recall the deals that were done, because you were on Government senators interjecting— the community affairs estimates committee The PRESIDENT—Order! It is necessary when we considered the previous Medicare that the answer be heard. Senators who are agreement. talking loudly shall cease. I call Senator Parer. To answer the second part of your question, Senator PARER—I have indicated two or I would like to read from a statement made three times that I do not own any shares in by a previous health minister: mining companies. As every person pulls out of private health insur- ance, the profile worsens for those left in. The sick Health Care obviously are going to stay in and so the premiums Senator LEES—My question is to Senator go up. More and more people get pushed out. As Herron, the Minister representing the Minister they get pushed out, the premiums go up more. It just feeds on itself the whole time, and it is going for Health. Minister, do you agree with the to come to a crunch point because as they leave statement made by your colleague Dean private health insurance they are dependent on the Brown, South Australian Liberal Minister for public hospital system. Health, that the federal government has: No more, no less than Senator Richardson . . . failed to understand the needs and the growing when he was health minister. I think that if demand of Australians for health care and is you do not accept my explanation, you will ignoring the reality of what is occurring in public accept his explanation. hospitals. Of course there are increased pressures on Isn’t it true, Minister, that this government the public hospital systems of this country. does not particularly want to understand what The reason that it occurred is that those is going on in the public system and that you opposite left it in tatters and forced people out do not care, because what you are planning to of private health insurance. As I started to say do, and indeed what you are doing, is deliber- yesterday, but Senator Forshaw would not let ately starving Medicare to death in the hope me, 61 per cent were in private health insur- that people will shift over into the private ance when the Labor Party came into power system? How else can you explain the mas- and by the time they left it was down to about sive cuts, now in the billions of dollars, that 35 per cent. your government has made to the public health system? Those opposite are responsible for the effects on the public hospital system which Senator HERRON—I thank Senator Lees were brought about by their de-funding the for the question. No, I do not agree with Dean private health system by removing the bed Brown’s statements because, as you know, day subsidy. They gloated about that at the Senator Lees, you and I were both around time, how it was going to socialise medicine when the previous government was in office in Australia because that was the ideal—to when the same charade went on with the have everybody in the public hospital system. states over the Medicare agreements. It is But, allied with that, there is something that standard practice for the states to come along is not their fault—it is to the credit of the and demand more money. medical profession, as much as anything else Senator Patterson—And posture. in this country—the increasing longevity of Senator HERRON—And posture. Thank people, where two-thirds of the health care you, Senator Patterson. This goes on every expenditure goes on people over the age of time. It is a natural progression that occurs, 65. where the states come along and cry that they The fact of the matter is that we have got are poor when in fact in many cases—and I a rapidly ageing population which is causing refer to one state—they have boasted how increased pressures on the public hospital 810 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 system of this country. We recognise that as The Commonwealth government has offered a government. In fact, the offer to the states $30 billion, compared with $23 billion paid is three per cent over what they had last time, over the last five years, and $27 billion in the and there is an increase in recognising the current forward estimates. So it is ridiculous difficulties there. to say that there is less money being offered. But the reality is that the states have to put There is not less money being offered. We money into the public hospital system because believe, on the other hand, there needs to be it is their responsibility to do so. A fair offer a reversal to that equilibrium that occurred has been made by the federal government to before. Anybody who is listening to this them which they have not accepted—as you broadcast would know that, 20 years ago, know, the previous government went through there were not the problems that exist today, the same episode before. This happens on because the private and the public hospital every occasion. The states come along crying systems were in equilibrium, and our subsidy poor. They come to the federal government, was designed to keep people in, to raise the demand funds and say it is the Common- number of people in private health insurance wealth’s responsibility, but the reality is that so that they could afford the private hospitals. the states have a responsibility in this regard Minister for Resources and Energy and they have got to devote resources to the public hospitals. Senator FAULKNER—My question is I am delighted to say that in Queensland directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for they are. There is a major rebuilding program Resources and Energy. Minister, is it true that going on under the present state government, Investment Management Pty Ltd, IMPL, which is to their great credit. There are new which is your family trust, holds 16 shares in hospitals being built right throughout the Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd state. When the Labor Party was in control, comprising 1.4 per cent of the 1,111 QCMM they were deliberately run down and capital shares? Minister, is it further true that you expenditure decreased to less than three per personally own 44 employee shares in the cent. (Time expired) QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd? Senator LEES—Madam President, I ask a Senator PARER—All I can say is exactly supplementary question. Minister, you may what I have said previously—that I have accuse the states of posturing, but isn’t it the made full disclosure in accordance with the case that you have cut some $700 million out Prime Minister’s requirements. I have got to of state grants, $400 million from the public think carefully about this. ESP, as my recol- dental health system and $700 million from lection is—and I stand to be corrected and I the PBS—and so it goes on? Isn’t it really the will check this—has nothing to do with the case, Minister, that the basic health policy of mining company itself. It was an employee your government is to starve the public scheme of some sort that occurred in the days system and to push people into the private when I was fully involved. I might point out and then, if that does not work, to blame the that, on the day I got this appointment—I private health insurance system failures? think within 24 hours; certainly within 48 hours—I resigned from all interests, director- Senator HERRON—That is almost a ships and chairmanships of that particular laughable supplementary question. I would company and, I might say, all subsidiary have thought that Senator Lees would have a companies. Since that time I have had nothing better understanding of the situation. The whatsoever to do with the operation of that public hospital systems and the private hospi- particular company. tal systems of this country worked when there was equilibrium—about 50 per cent in either Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, system in my own state. Anybody who was I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can around 20 years ago knew that the system I ask you if you have informed the Prime worked very well. Then the Labor Party ran Minister that you have a personal sharehold- it down by removing bed day subsidies. ing— Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 811

Government senators interjecting— advised that legislation has been introduced The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Parer into the South Australian parliament. cannot hear and neither can I. Senators on my We are also taking preparatory steps to right will cease interjecting. enable Australia to become a party to interna- Senator FAULKNER—Minister, have you tional agreements for prisoner transfers as informed the Prime Minister that you have a soon as is possible. Our first priority is to join personal shareholding in a subsidiary of the Council of Europe Convention and the Queensland Coal Mine Management, called Commonwealth scheme. The conclusion of a QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd? I might say, bilateral transfer agreement with Thailand is you appear not to have disclosed this on the also a high priority. But, Senator, I cannot put parliamentary register. Wouldn’t this mean, a date on it. I have no indication of the time Minister, that you would appear to have span we might need to conclude such agree- breached both parliamentary and Prime ments. I can assure you that the government Ministerial requirements in relation to disclos- remains committed to maintaining cooperation ure of these shareholdings? amongst all jurisdictions in participation in the national scheme and, as I say, to working Senator PARER—Madam President, I with our first priority, which is the Council of respond again to the Senator. I do not know Europe Convention and the Commonwealth how often I have to say this. I have exactly scheme. But a high priority is a bilateral fulfilled the Prime Minister’s requirements in transfer agreement with Thailand. fully disclosing everything that I own. With regard to ESP, my recollection is that the ESP Minister for Resources and Energy itself was abandoned some years ago but I Senator FORSHAW—My question is will check that. I have no particular recollec- directed to Senator Parer, the Minister for Re- tion of that thing continuing. sources and Energy. International Transfer of Prisoners Government senators interjecting— Senator COLSTON—My question is The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my directed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for right will cease interjecting. Justice. I refer the minister to the legislation Senator FORSHAW—Minister, can you passed in this parliament in relation to the confirm that a wholly-owned subsidiary of international transfer of prisoners. Could the Queensland Coal Mine Management, a com- minister advise the chamber what the status pany called Advanced Queensland Resources is of the scheme which is being established and Mining— under this legislation? As there is at least one Government senators interjecting— Australian woman who has been in a Thai prison for well over 10 years, can the minister The PRESIDENT—Order! also advise when it is likely that a bilateral Senator FORSHAW—I might start again treaty between Australia and Thailand on for the benefit of the minister so he clearly international transfer of prisoners will be in understands it. Can the minister confirm that place? a wholly-owned subsidiary of Queensland Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator Coal Mine Management, a company called Colston for that question. The government is Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining, anxious to have the international transfer of operates the Jellinbah Coal Mine in the prisoners scheme operating as soon as is Bowen Basin in Queensland? Minister, is it possible. Following the passage of the also the case that Advanced Queensland Commonwealth International Transfer of Resources and Mining is a significant recipi- Prisoners Act 1997 last year the next step is ent of the diesel fuel rebate, claiming $1.7 the enactment of complementary legislation million in 1995-96? by the participating states and territories. Senator PARER—If anyone cares to look Tasmania, Queensland and New South Wales back over the Register of Senators’ Interests, have now enacted such legislation and I am and I am sure that that is what you have 812 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 done, you will find that in the past not only Senator KEMP—We have seen a deliber- was I on the board of QCMM, in fact I was ate tactic in this chamber in recent question the chairman of the board. Advanced Queens- times where individuals, some of whom are land Resources and Mining is simply an not members of this parliament, are regularly operating company that is a subsidiary of defamed. Senator Faulkner has led that attack. QCMM. That is correct. If you look back to His notorious attack on the Baillieu family re- past years you will find that I put it down mains. The errors having been pointed out to there. In fact, when we had to disclose travel him, he refuses to apologise. I put ‘travel in association with the company’. I regret to report to the Senate that yester- It was paid for by the company. From the day day Senator Sherry made inferences about Dr that I was appointed as a minister I resigned Lisle-Williams of Deloitte & Touche in his from that board, I resigned as chairman and supplementary question. Dr Lisle-Williams I have had nothing whatsoever to do with it has written to me; he has taken great excep- since. tion to the question from Senator Sherry. The Senator FORSHAW—Madam President, letter from Dr Lisle-Williams reads as fol- I ask a supplementary question. The minister lows: has directed himself to the first part of the Dear Senator Kemp, question but he has said absolutely nothing It has come to my notice that Senator Sherry has about the second part of the question. implied or suggested that my letter to the Austral- Minister, is it also the case that Advanced ian Financial Review concerning Commonwealth Queensland Resources and Mining, which you IT outsourcing resulted from pressure from the have indicated you have had a past interest in, Minister for Finance, his office or his officers. This was not the case. I wrote the letter on behalf of my is a significant recipient of the diesel fuel firm in somewhat angry response to the misleading rebate, claiming $1.7 million in 1995-96? slant and errors of fact contained in the Australian Senator PARER—Madam president, I have Financial Review article. These errors were ac- knowledged by the journalist responsible for the no idea— article and by the editorial staff in phone discus- Government senators interjecting— sions. The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my Dr Lisle-Williams continues: right will cease interjecting. I take exception to the imputation that I or my firm would yield to ministerial or bureaucratic pressure. Senator PARER—It reminds me of a The fact is that the article was wrong. Yours question that Senator Cook asked once as to sincerely, Michael Lisle-Williams. whether John Anderson’s tractor had diesel in I table that letter. There was a serious infer- it. I am sure that they use diesel because it is ence in the question regarding Dr Lisle- a mining operation. What else do you expect Williams. I trust that Senator Sherry will now me to answer? Of course they use diesel. I do the right thing and appropriately apologise have no idea what they are paid in diesel fuel to Dr Lisle-Williams. rebate. Minister for Resources and Energy IT Outsourcing Senator ROBERT RAY—I direct my Senator CHAPMAN—I direct my question question to Senator Parer on the same subject. to the Assistant Treasurer. I refer the Assistant Government senators interjecting— Treasurer to questions raised yesterday con- cerning the role of the office of the Minister The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my for Finance and Administration in a letter right should observe the provisions of stand- from Deloitte & Touche staff, which was ing order 197 and refrain from speaking while published in the Australian Financial Review, another senator has the call. regarding savings from outsourcing of infor- Senator Ian Campbell—Madam President, mation technology. Is the minister aware of a I raise a point of order. I respect that you can response from Deloitte & Touche regarding call whomever you want, but when Senator this matter? Ray was given the call he was actually stand- Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 813 ing behind Senator West. Is it appropriate for given to the Prime Minister as required—that Senator Ray to seek the call while he is the shares in that company are 16 non-voting wandering around the chamber, sitting in the shares. advisers box or speaking to Senator Faulkner? Government senators interjecting— Or should senators stand in their place and seek the call? The PRESIDENT—Order! The level of The PRESIDENT—The custom for ques- interjection is unacceptably high, as it has tion time has become that I follow a list that been on days recently, and totally out of order I am provided with. There are many senators as far as the standing orders of this Senate are who do not stand up when they should; they concerned. An interjection from time to time wait till they are called to even stand. Senator that is witty may add to the ambience of Ray was standing at the time, though not Senate question time and is acceptable, an quite in his place. intelligent interjection may also be acceptable, but the sledging, shouting and screeching that Senator Ian Campbell—Madam President, goes on is not acceptable. Senators should be on the point of order: I do not regard a warned that I have drawn the standing orders senator waddling along the back row as to their attention. standing. It was a waddle, not a stand. The PRESIDENT—You are out of order, Endangered Species Legislation Senator Campbell. Senator ALLISON—My question is ad- Senator ROBERT RAY—My question is dressed to the Minister for the Environment. directed to Senator Parer. Minister, could you Minister, I refer to your review of the explain why the ASC company returns for Commonwealth environment legislation. Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd Yesterday you twice avoided answering a showed that as of 30 January 1998 your simple question about regulations on world family trust owned 16 shares in that company heritage areas, so today I will make it a little and also listed an address which I think you easier for you. The Commonwealth lists three would know very well—I do not want to put invertebrates, 19 fish— Government senators the address on the record at the moment, interjecting— Senator. Can you confirm that this company’s The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my asset value is $153 million? Can you confirm right will cease making so much noise. It is that the shares that your family trust holds are important that I hear the question that is being 16 C class shares? Are you now willing to asked. say on the record whether these shares have derived very substantial income into your Senator ALLISON—The Commonwealth family trust, of which you are a beneficiary? lists three invertebrates, 19 fish, 14 amphib- ians, 52 reptiles, 82 birds, 49 mammals and Senator PARER—I pointed out earlier that 886 plants as rare or endangered. Minister, in this family trust has been in existence for 28 abolishing the Endangered Species Act, will years. you give a commitment in this chamber to the Senator Robert Ray—But you were Australian people that you will relist every present, Warwick, at the meeting. one of these rare or endangered species under Senator PARER—Let me continue. I point your new legislation? out that I have a one-ninth interest and that it Senator HILL—Of course I will. We were is a genuine family trust—it is not a tax lurk advised on which species to list by an inde- or anything like that. It goes back 28 years. pendent scientific subcommittee. The point I certainly do not recall in the past 10 years that I regret that you are failing to appreciate, ever getting a dividend or a distribution from Senator, is that the purpose of this legislation that particular family trust. We have a large is to update and improve what currently family of seven children, and that is what it exists, which is now very outdated. In the is—a trust. I confirm—I do not move away case of biodiversity protection, it does not from it; this information certainly has been exist at all. It is time that the Common- 814 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 wealth’s environment laws were brought up Senator ALLISON—Madam President, I to best practice. ask a supplementary question. I thank the Senator Allison—Madam President, I raise minister for his answer. We are vaguely a point of order. I did not ask about whether reassured but I must say that the problem here or not the legislation needed to be updated; I is that the minister has put out the most vague asked whether the minister would guarantee discussion paper possible on this and it is that those rare or endangered species would very difficult for the public to understand be protected. It is a simple question to which what the intention is. Again, I ask: will these the answer is yes or no. endangered species be listed in the schedule? The PRESIDENT—I think the minister is That is the important point. So far we have dealing with the question as asked, and I heard much about responsibility being trans- would say there is no point of order. ferred to the states but the point here is whether those species will be listed. Senator HILL—I thought I started answer- ing the question by saying yes, they will be Senator HILL—They will be listed. They protected. But the point I was going on to will continue to be protected on Common- make is that they will be better protected wealth land as they are under the existing under the new legislation than they are under legislation, and they will be further protected the old. If Senator Allison reads the consul- because the Commonwealth will take a wider tation paper in relation to endangered spe- responsibility in relation to those endangered cies— species, no matter where they are. Senator Lees—That’s our worry; we have. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Senator HILL—If she reads it in relation The PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the to endangered species, she will see exactly attention of honourable senators to the pres- why that is so. I will ask Senator Lees, who ence in the chamber of a parliamentary has interjected, whether a threat to endangered delegation from the Federal Republic of species on state land at the moment triggers Germany led by Mr Klaus Hasenfratz. On the Commonwealth protective mechanisms behalf of honourable senators, I have pleasure under the ESP Act. The answer is it does not. in welcoming you to the chamber and wish At the moment it does not on non-Common- you a pleasant and enjoyable stay in this wealth land. Under the new legislation it will. country. I do not mind taking some further Common- wealth powers to protect the most valuable of Honourable senators—Hear, hear! our national natural resources. I will do that QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE through a scheme that will provide a better mix of roles and responsibilities between the Fisheries Research and Development Commonwealth and the states. The outcome Corporation will be a more effective, contemporary, Senator MURPHY—My question is protective arrangement to protect these great directed to the Minister representing the resources. Whether it is world heritage areas, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. they will continue to be protected more Minister, is it a fact that the Howard govern- effectively than they are at present. ment last year announced a $3.6 million As I said yesterday—and you have gone on funding cut to the Fisheries Research and about it again today, Senator; you did not Development Corporation? Can you confirm listen—there will be no damming of the whether fishing is the only primary industry Franklin, there will be no logging within the to have had funding cuts to its R&D corpora- wet tropics area. Not only will world heritage tion? be protected to the extent it is under current legislation; it will be more effectively protect- Senator Vanstone—Didn’t you hear that? ed. That is our objective, and we are quite The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator proud of it. I do not understand why you are Vanstone. Senator Murphy, have you finished opposed to it. the question? Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 815

Senator MURPHY—No, I want to add a Postal Services little more to the question. I thought I might Senator O’CHEE—My question is ad- find something about shares in here. Minister, dressed to the Minister for Communications, given that recent reports have supported an the Information Economy and the Arts. In increase in research into fisheries, how do you light of today’s release of the final report of justify this cut taking effect as it does in the National Competition Councils’s review 1998—the Year of the Oceans? of the Australian Postal Corporation Act, I Senator PARER—Madam President— ask: is it true that the government is commit- ted to increasing competition in the postal Senator Heffernan—Declare an interest. sector whilst adhering to the coalition’s Senator PARER—Yes. This was very election commitments to retain Australia Post much canvassed in an estimates committee, in full public ownership and to maintain a but let me point out the background to it. standard letter service for all Australians at a Yes, there was a $3.6 million cut and it came uniform rate? Further, is the minister aware of from reserves held by the Fisheries Research any alternative proposals or approaches to and Development Corporation. The back- postal services? Are these alternatives being ground to it is that, when we came to govern- given serious consideration by the govern- ment, we inherited a total disaster in the ment? south-east fisheries—something that the last Senator ALSTON—I welcome the release government should be totally ashamed of. of the report from the National Competition There was litigation after litigation by people Council. It is a review that has taken many who had been unfairly dealt with by the months to prepare. It certainly reflects the previous government. The only way to handle extensive consultation process that has been this was to go into a buy-out scheme, so I undertaken. I personally thank Graeme appointed a special committee to look at a Samuel and his fellow counsellors and staff buy-out scheme so that those people who had for the work that has been put into the prepa- been unfairly treated could be given the ration of this comprehensive report. chance to sell their licences. Compensation Senator Conroy—Another little mate! was paid in certain cases. Senator ALSTON—What about Skase’s An estimate was made and, if my memory little mate? That is what you should be more is correct, about $6.9 million was required. concerned about. The government will devel- We had to find the funds. It is difficult to find op a comprehensive response to the NCC funds when you come into government and recommendations in the next few months. you need to do something like this but you But, as Senator O’Chee rightly says, any have a $10.5 billion black hole left to you as response will fully honour the coalition’s a legacy of the mismanagement of the previ- election commitments—namely, that Australia ous government. Post will be retained in full public ownership Two sources were found. Part of the mon- and that the entire nation, including those in eys was obtained from AFMA, the Australian rural and regional Australia, will receive a Fisheries Management Authority, from a fund standard letter service at a uniform rate. that they had set aside for adjustment, but At the same time, we are committed to there was not sufficient funds to be able to do increased competition in the postal services that. The rest we sought and it was obtained sector which, in every other area of human from reserves that had been built up by the endeavour, normally leads not only to greater Fisheries Research and Development Corpora- efficiencies but also to price reductions. There tion. We naturally would have preferred not is no reason why that cannot occur in this to have taken that route, but the priority was industry as long as the proper community to fix up a disaster left to us by the previous safeguards are in place. Of course, that is very government and, because of the stringent good news for consumers. It is also the fact financial conditions at the time, this was the that with new technology developments, only way it could be done. particularly the Internet, there is going to be 816 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 constant competition for Australia Post and get through this election with the sort of dirt other postal providers in any event. They will and scum that we have had thrown up to clearly continue to be under increasing pres- distract attention from Senator Bolkus’s sure to deliver faster, cheaper and higher unprecedented censure in this place.’ In quality services for consumers. almost 30 years we have not had a senator So we have a clear position. We are com- censured; yet this person has been censured mitted to reforms, but sensible ones that by everyone who was in here, except his reflect the paramount concerns of users of the mates, who felt they had no choice but to service, consumers in general. By contrast, the support him. That is not our approach. Labor Party is once again all over the shop. Natural Heritage Trust If you look at the Australian Financial Re- Senator McKIERNAN—My question is view in October last year, you will see Sena- directed to the Minister representing the tor Schacht claiming that no case had been Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. made to change the current rules. The ALP Minister, are you aware that in your home did not see any reason to change the current state of Queensland Minister Anderson has arrangements. He said that before this discus- funded the following projects under the sion paper was even released—at the very Natural Heritage Trust: $63,350 for a project start of the process. In other words, he could officer for the northern dairy industry; not be bothered addressing himself to any of $70,000 for the fruit and vegetable industry the policy issues. future profit project; $112,800 for eight Senator Schacht’s idea of serious policy workshops entitled ‘Planning a future in formulation is to wander down to Manuka on beef—North Queensland’; and $10,500 for a Friday afternoon and have a nice, long, office accommodation for the Hodgson Creek leisurely lunch with the Jim Middletons, the catchment project officer? Minister, can you Peter Cole-Adamses and all the other mem- tell the Senate exactly how projects such as bers of the club who congregate there on a these meet the Natural Heritage Trust objec- regular basis. We do not regard that as a tive of ‘a better environment for Australia in substitute for policy formulation. This bloke the 21st century’? can hardly put a word on paper. He certainly Senator PARER—As Senator McKiernan cannot put anything on his web site, we know will know, before agreements are reached on that. He cannot ever address any submissions the funding of various projects in the various to inquiries. states, they have to go through a regional Now it is quite clear, from what happened assessment process and a state assessment in Hobart, that he has no idea in terms of process. They then come to the minister. policy reform in this important area. You do What Senator McKiernan is raising, I think, not have to take my word for it. Simon Crean, is yet again the issue of accountability, which the industry spokesman, in September 1996 Senator Hill was pursued on at great length. said that you can never rule anything out site The minister, Mr Anderson, has worked unseen. He obviously did not know Senator hard to ensure that accountability is built in Schacht’s form. He said, ‘If you retain a at all levels of the trust’s activities. The community service obligation, it is possible to Natural Heritage Trust provides a repository open up to more competition as long as you for funds and a mechanism to coordinate are guaranteeing the service.’ So there is the delivery of a range of nature conservation and Simon Crean position in relation to Australia sustainable agricultural initiatives. I think the Post. very issues that you touched on—I did not The alternative, which presumably is still pick them up; I do not know them individual- espoused by the ALP and its official spokes- ly—relate to agricultural industries. The man, the leader of the faction for disgruntled details of these initiatives were set out in the unionists, is one that simply says, ‘I can’t be government’s election commitment documents bothered. I’m not interested. I’m going to and the Natural Heritage Trust application bury my head in the sand. I’m going to try to guidelines. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 817

As I mentioned earlier in reference to what tender process. Can the minister shed any they call RAPs and SAPs, project assessment light on Senator O’Brien’s allegations? is a rigorous process which demonstrates the Senator ELLISON—Thank you for that strict standards of accountability built into the question, Senator Tierney. Senators will recall trust. The applications were received in all that the day before last Senator O’Brien asked states and territories, not just Queensland, and a question about Allhands Hire Pty Ltd. The assessed by the community and state assess- allegation was that that company was going ment panels. Each state then forwarded a to be sold and that there was some financial prioritised bid to the Commonwealth. Recom- difficulty thereby and also casting doubt on mendations made by the panels provided the the government’s Job Network process. Let basis for decisions on project funding made me tell the Senate that that company is not for by Ministers Hill and Anderson. sale. There is not much I can add to that. That is Senator Chris Evans—Was it for sale? the process that is gone through. As far as I am aware, apart from questions raised by Senator ELLISON—As a result of that, it people opposite, there has not been any has lost two clients. complaints from my home state of Queens- Senator Chris Evans—Was it for sale? land. Senator ELLISON—I have been advised Senator McKIERNAN—Madam President, that that company has lost two clients. I ask a supplementary question. Minister, Senator Chris Evans—Was it for sale? thank you for your answer, as far as it went. But you, Minister, would also be aware that The PRESIDENT—Senator Evans! the Prime Minister has guaranteed that the Senator ELLISON—It is not for sale. Natural Heritage Trust would be used for Senator Chris Evans—Was it? capital expenditure and not for recurrent purposes. How can you and Minister Ander- The PRESIDENT—Senator Evans! son justify NHT grants going to pay for office Senator ELLISON—A member of the accommodation? family who contacted the department today has said that approaches were made to the Senator PARER—In response to Senator company for the sale of it and that there was McKiernan, the detail of that I will refer to no aspect of it being sold. This is a smear Minister Anderson, but my understanding is tactic to cast doubt on Job Network. More that it has gone through all the very strict importantly, it has damaged a citizen. It has processes involved with the Natural Heritage damaged a private entity which does not have Trust, from the regional assessment programs, the ability to reply. It does not have the the state assessment programs and then back protection that we in this chamber have. As through the ministerial office. But I will refer a result of that, it has lost two clients. That is that specific request to the minister and get despicable. you an answer. As I stated the other day, the opposition Employment Services must be very careful before it makes these Senator TIERNEY—My question is sorts of allegations. It must get its facts directed to the Minister representing the straight. It was reported yesterday in the Minister for Employment, Education, Training Sydney Morning Herald that this business was and Youth Affairs. I refer to Senator not for sale. It is an experienced business in O’Brien’s allegations in the chamber on the employment sector, and it has a lot to Monday that a Queensland company, offer those job seekers. It is a respectable Allhands Hire Pty Ltd, was selected to pro- business and there is no problem with it. vide employment services when it had finan- Let me also tell the Senate that the process cial problems with unprofitable contracts and that we have put in place requires that, if any was put up for sale only days after DEETYA business is sold, if any Job Network member informed the company of its success in the intends to sell its business, it has to go back 818 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 to the department for vetting. It has to go before they attack Job Network. This is a back to the department for vetting so that you process which will meet the needs of Austral- cannot just on sell your business and the ian job seekers, one which they could never contract goes to someone else. It has to go have thought of. (Time expired) back to the rigorous process that it went Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask that through when the tender was granted. further questions be placed on the Notice This is a usual tactic. When the government Paper. puts forward something constructive for the job seekers of Australia, we have a smear ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT tactic which not only causes scaremongering NOTICE amongst job seekers but also damages a Australian Geological Survey private Australian, an Australian who does not Organisation have the ability to answer that allegation like we have in this chamber. It is despicable. You Senator PARER—Yesterday in question want to cast your minds back to when em- time Senator Quirke asked me a question with ployment was at an all time high under your regard to the spending of $25,328 for the sod- government of 11 per cent and see what you turning ceremony at the AGSO building. He did for job seekers then. Nothing. Look at then went on to ask a number of other ques- what we are doing: we are offering job tions, such as, was there an open tender seekers more diversity and more choice, and process and how could I justify paying this you should apologise. ludicrous amount of money for a sod-turning ceremony without testing the market. When Senator TIERNEY—I ask a supplementary he referred in his question to the fact that this question, Madam President. Minister, was had been something that Senator Faulkner Senator O’Brien’s wildly inaccurate allega- raised, he should have been on his guard. You tions against a reputable company just part of always have to be careful of the Left. My a pointless trawl by the ALP through the Job reason for saying that is that this contract with Network tender process that wasted two days Burson-Marstellar was given under the term of the Senate’s time last week and revealed of the previous government. nothing? Would the minister care to compare the success of this program with Labor’s Government Senators—Ha, ha! failed Working Nation program? Senator PARER—I have here a letter Senator ELLISON—I thank Senator written on 15 January 1996 where Burson- Tierney for his supplementary question. As Marstellar were advised that they were suc- we all know, Working Nation was a $12 cessful and that they should spend no more billion disaster. It was a training roundabout than $25,000 depending on the cost of print- which just put people back into training. It ing the kits. did not find people jobs. What we have The other question raised is in respect of a embarked on here with Job Network is a shovel. I think Senator Faulkner asked me tendering process to find the best people to whether I had declared it. So I thought had I match people for the jobs concerned. What better check as to what the cost of this shovel we are doing here is providing a choice was. It was apparently bought at the local between those private providers and Employ- BCC Hardware, taken out for chrome plating, ment National, and we are providing a variety and has a total cost of $110. of services from job matching to intensive One of the concerns I had was what to do training for those disadvantaged job seekers. with this shovel. I thought to myself that This is an innovative scheme which will probably a more appropriate use of the shovel answer the needs of Australian job seekers. would be if I gave it to Senator Quirke; he The opposition fails to remember that, when could use it to clean the bulldust out of this their current leader was minister for employ- place that we are used to from day to day. ment, long-term unemployed increased by Another thing he could do would be to use it 95,000. That is what they want to think of in an appropriate way to get back at Senator Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 819

Faulkner for giving him a question where, as * the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service pointed out in a headline in the Daily Tele- (CRS) will separate from the Department of graph today, it says ‘Sod it, it happened Health and Family Services on 30 June 1998; under us’. * the Government’s intention to introduce competition for provision of Commonwealth Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service: funded rehabilitation services to give people Outsourcing with an injury or disability choice of provider for the first time, and best possible value from Senator HERRON—Senator Forshaw the Government’s substantial investment in asked me a question yesterday about the rehabilitation services; Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service and * the government’s intention to consult with outsourcing. I seek leave to incorporate the both industry and consumer groups on how answer in Hansard. best to introduce such competition. Leave granted. Transitional legislation will be introduced into the Parliament in this Sittings to facilitate establish- The answer read as follows— ment of CRS as a Commonwealth owned company Senator FORSHAW—My question is directed to which, pending introduction of competition, will the Minister representing the Minister for Health operate under a contract to the Department of and Family Services. Minister, are you aware of the Health and Family Services, which will continue to impending corporatisation of the Commonwealth be subject to administrative law requirements. No Rehabilitation Service and the resulting system of Government decision has been made on how competitive tendering for CRS’s role of rehabilita- competition will be introduced and won’t be until tion and return to work for injured and disabled there has been an opportunity to consult with workers?Minister, are you also aware that staff, industry and the community. No decision has been clients and community groups are seriously con- made to introduce competitive tendering for cerned about this outsourcing having the effect of rehabilitation services and this is only one among denying seriously injured or disabled workers any a number of ways of introducing competition. access to a service at all, either to the CRS or a Accordingly the Honourable Senator’s questions private agency, because the priority criteria for on outsourcing and competitive tendering are tendering will be the cost of provision and the misdirected. likelihood of an early return to the workplace? Is The Government is interested in achieving the best this not just another example of the government possible outcomes for people with an injury or abandoning its responsibilities to another disadvan- disability. Eligible persons rights to Commonwealth taged group in the labour market and, accordingly, funded rehabilitation services will be maintained another that the government should be condemned under these reforms." for? Senator FORSHAW—Madam President, I ask a Native Title supplementary question. Whilst, Minister, you can Senator VANSTONE—Senator Lees asked go away and update yourself on your portfolio a question of me in my capacity representing responsibilities in this chamber with respect to the Attorney-General a few days ago, and I rehabilitation services, I would also like you to seek leave to incorporate into Hansard his answer this supplementary question. Minister, isn’t it the case the corporatisation of CRS and the answer. outsourcing of work undertaken by CRS until now Leave granted. will also have the effect of denying injured and disabled clients any protection of their rights The answer read as follows— through the Privacy Act, the Freedom Information Senator Vanstone: On Monday 9 March 1998 Act and the rest of the administrative law system? Senator Lees asked me a supplementary question Won’t these actions of the government leave these in my capacity as Minister representing the Attor- workers even more vulnerable and unable to ney General about legal advice provided to the exercise rights that they have been able to exercise Government on the operation of s.57 of the Consti- up until now? tution and the Native Title Amendment Bill. Senator HERRON—In response to the question Her 2 questions to the Attorney-General were: asked on 10 March 1998 by Senator FORSHAW, (1) Whether any minister sought a formal legal the Minister for Health and Family Services has opinion from him or his Department? and provided the following answer: (2) Whether or not this advice was delivered "The Minister for Family Services announced in before the House of Representatives laid the a media release on 22 December 1997: original bill aside. 820 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

I undertook to refer the matter to the Attorney provided for by the Constitution for resolving General who has provided me with the following deadlocks. It will continue to do so and, as appro- response: priate, seek legal advice as required. The Government did obtain legal advice on the operation of section 57 and its implications for the Native Title Amendment Bill. Response to a Supplementary Question from That advice was provided prior to the House Senator Lees resolving to lay the Bill aside. Senator Vanstone: On Monday 9 March 1998 The Government completely repudiates any sugges- Senator Lees asked me a supplementary question tion by Senator Lees that there is any notion of a in my capacity as Minister representing the Attor- "dodgy joint sitting" in relation to the ney General about legal advice provided to the Government’s actions in relation to this Bill. Government on the operation of s.57 of the Consti- I note that the Government’ s legal advice has been tution and the Native Title Amendment Bill. independently affirmed by George Williams—an Her 2 questions to the Attorney-General were: ANU Law Faculty Constitutional Law expert. In a (1) Whether any minister sought a formal legal research note for the parliamentary Information & opinion from him or his Department? and Research Services titled "The Road to a Double Dissolution?", Mr Williams states: (2) Whether or not this advice was delivered before the House of Representatives laid the "On 6 December 1997 the House of Representa- original bill aside. tives indicated that it would not agree to many of the Senate amendments and laid the Bill aside. This I undertook to refer the matter to the Attorney meets the requirement in s.57 that the Bill be General who has provided me with the following passed by the Senate ‘with amendments to which response: the House of Representatives will not agree"’. The Government did obtain legal advice on the "However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the operation of section 57 and its implications for the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been Native Title Amendment Bill. complied with. He argues that ‘there must be an That advice was provided prior to the House ongoing unwillingness by the House of Repre- resolving to lay the Bill aside. sentatives to accept amendments made by the Senate’.... The Government completely repudiates any sugges- tion by Senator Lees that there is any notion of a "However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the "dodgy joint sitting" in relation to the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been Government’s actions in relation to this Bill. complied with. He argues that ‘there must be an ongoing unwillingness by the House of Repre- I note that the Government’ s legal advice has been sentatives to accept amendments made by the independently affirmed by George Williams—an Senate’.... ANU Law Faculty Constitutional Law expert. In a research note for the parliamentary Information & Mr Williams then goes on to state Research Services titled "The Road to a Double "This interpretation may, as Evans argues, be Dissolution?", Mr Williams states: supported by ‘the procedures of both Houses’. However, it is not supported by the text of the "On 6 December 1997 the House of Representa- Constitution. Evans places too much weight on tives indicated that it would not agree to many of the words ‘will not agree’ in s.57 to find that it the Senate amendments and laid the Bill aside. This is mandatory that the Bill be returned to the meets the requirement in s.57 that the Bill be Senate after the House of Representatives has passed by the Senate ‘with amendments to which rejected the Senate amendments. The Constitu- the House of Representatives will not agree"’. tion merely requires that the Bill be passed by "However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the the Senate ‘with amendments to which the House Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been of Representatives will not agree’. The extra step complied with. He argues that ‘there must be an set out by Evans goes beyond the demands of the ongoing unwillingness by the House of Repre- Constitution. It is also not necessary in order to sentatives to accept amendments made by the maintain the Senate’s role in the lawmaking Senate’.... process." "However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Mr Williams article completely supports the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been position taken by the Government on the true complied with. He argues that ‘there must be an interpretation of section 57 of the Constitution. The ongoing unwillingness by the House of Repre- Government has always been careful to ensure that sentatives to accept amendments made by the it is acting within the clear scope of the processes Senate’.... Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 821

Mr Williams then goes on to state ments predated the Government’s announcement on "This interpretation may, as Evans argues, be proposed amendments to the FOI Act and, there- supported by ‘the procedures of both Houses’. fore, do not take it into account. However, it is not supported by the text of the Accountability to the public will be maintained in Constitution. Evans places too much weight on the process of Government outsourcing. The the words ‘will not agree’ in s.57 to find that it Government’s strong commitment to this is demon- is mandatory that the Bill be returned to the strated by its already announced decision that the Senate after the House of Representatives has Freedom of Information Act will apply to requests rejected the Senate amendments. The Constitu- by individuals for access to and correction of tion merely requires that the Bill be passed by personal information about themselves held by the Senate ‘with amendments to which the House contractors on behalf of the Government. Govern- of Representatives will not agree’. The extra step ment agencies will ultimately be accountable for set out by Evans goes beyond the demands of the compliance with obligations imposed by the Act. Constitution. It is also not necessary in order to Access to information in the hands of contractors maintain the Senate’s role in the lawmaking will still also be available through contractual process." provisions under which a government agency has Mr Williams article completely supports the a right of access to documents held by a contractor. position taken by the Government on the true The Government intends that there will be minor interpretation of section 57 of the Constitution. The clarifying amendments to the FOI Act which will Government has always been careful to ensure that ensure that access can be sought under the FOI Act it is acting within the clear scope of the processes where there are such contractual rights of access. provided for by the Constitution for resolving The ARC’ s final report on Contracting Out is also deadlocks. It will continue to do so and, as appro- expected to canvass issues of access to administra- priate, seek legal advice as required. tive review in respect of contracted service provi- Commonwealth Services: Outsourcing sion. Response to a Supplementary Question from Senator VANSTONE—Yesterday Senator Senator Lees Collins asked a supplementary question of me Senator Vanstone: On Monday 9 March 1998 again in my capacity representing the Attor- Senator Lees asked me a supplementary question ney-General. I undertook to get an answer in my capacity as Minister representing the Attor- from the Attorney-General, and I seek to ney General about legal advice provided to the incorporate that in Hansard. Government on the operation of s.57 of the Consti- tution and the Native Title Amendment Bill. Leave granted. Her 2 questions to the Attorney-General were: The answer read as follows— (1) Whether any minister sought a formal legal Senator VANSTONE: On Tuesday 10 March 1998 opinion from him or his Department? and Senator Jacinta COLLINS asked me a supplemen- (2) Whether or not this advice was delivered tary question, in my capacity as Minister represent- before the House of Representatives laid the ing the Attorney-General, about comments made by original bill aside. the Administrative Review Council about the I undertook to refer the matter to the Attorney contracting out of services. General who has provided me with the following I undertook to refer the matter to the Attorney- response: General and to provide an answer at a later time. The Government did obtain legal advice on the I am now able to table a response to the supple- operation of section 57 and its implications for the mentary question asked by Senator COLLINS. The Native Title Amendment Bill. information has already been provided to Senator That advice was provided prior to the House Jacinta COLLINS. resolving to lay the Bill aside. FURTHER RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMEN- The Government completely repudiates any sugges- TARY QUESTION BY SENATOR JACINTA tion by Senator Lees that there is any notion of a COLLINS ON 10 MARCH 1998 "dodgy joint sitting" in relation to the Senator Vanstone: Government’s actions in relation to this Bill. Senator Collins implied that the Administrative I note that the Government’ s legal advice has been Review Council has formed a final view on issues independently affirmed by George Williams—an of accountability and contracting out. The ARC has ANU Law Faculty Constitutional Law expert. In a not yet issued a final report on Contracting Out but research note for the parliamentary Information & it issued an Issues Paper in February l 997 and a Research Services titled "The Road to a Double Discussion Paper in December 1997. Both docu- Dissolution?", Mr Williams states: 822 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

"On 6 December 1997 the House of Representa- The matter clearly meets criteria which I am tives indicated that it would not agree to many of required to consider. I therefore determine the Senate amendments and laid the Bill aside. This that a motion to refer this matter to the meets the requirement in s.57 that the Bill be passed by the Senate ‘with amendments to which Privileges Committee may have precedence. the House of Representatives will not agree"’. I table the letter from the committee. A senator on behalf of the committee may now "However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been give a notice of motion to refer the matter to complied with. He argues that ‘there must be an the Privileges Committee. ongoing unwillingness by the House of Repre- Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria)— sentatives to accept amendments made by the I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, Senate’.... I shall move: "However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the That the following matter be referred to the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been Committee of Privileges: complied with. He argues that ‘there must be an ongoing unwillingness by the House of Repre- The unauthorised disclosure of a draft report sentatives to accept amendments made by the of the Economic References Committee Senate’.... referred to in the report by the committee of 10 March 1998. Mr Williams then goes on to state "This interpretation may, as Evans argues, be ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT supported by ‘the procedures of both Houses’. NOTICE However, it is not supported by the text of the Constitution. Evans places too much weight on Minister for Resources and Energy the words ‘will not agree’ in s.57 to find that it Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— is mandatory that the Bill be returned to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.11 Senate after the House of Representatives has p.m.)—I move: rejected the Senate amendments. The Constitu- tion merely requires that the Bill be passed by That the Senate take note of answers given by the Senate ‘with amendments to which the House the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator of Representatives will not agree’. The extra step Parer), to questions without notice asked today, set out by Evans goes beyond the demands of the relating to the financial interest of Senator Parer. Constitution. It is also not necessary in order to Today the opposition has raised a number of maintain the Senate’s role in the lawmaking questions regarding very serious matters— process." questions that we believe it is appropriate for Mr Williams article completely supports the the Minister for Resources and Energy to position taken by the Government on the true answer comprehensively on the public record. interpretation of section 57 of the Constitution. The Government has always been careful to ensure that We now, of course, have a situation where it is acting within the clear scope of the processes apparently the government believes that it is provided for by the Constitution for resolving not appropriate for the opposition to hold the deadlocks. It will continue to do so and, as appro- executive accountable during question time. priate, seek legal advice as required. We will not be adopting that level of PRIVILEGE ministerial and parliamentary accountability when, as we have a situation here, we have The PRESIDENT—The Economics Refer- been provided with information— ences Committee has raised with me a matter Senator Ian Campbell—Have you been at of privilege concerning the unauthorised the ASC again looking up dead directors? disclosure of a draft report of the committee. The committee has investigated the matter The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! and reported to the Senate in accordance with Senator Campbell, it is disorderly to interject, the order of the Senate of 20 June 1996, in the first place; but it is even more disorder- relating to the unauthorised disclosure of ly to interject out of your seat. committee proceedings and documents. The Senator FAULKNER—When we have committee has reported, in accordance with information that indicates that discrepancies that order, that the unauthorised disclosure exist between the minister’s own statements, caused damage to the committee’s work. his entries on the Register of Senators’ Inter- Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 823 ests and publicly available Australian Securi- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! ties Commission companies information. Senator Campbell. Senator Ian Campbell—He is very good Senator FAULKNER—We ask: have you at looking up dead directors. divested yourself of all shares in the area of The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! your portfolio responsibility; and, if not, why not? We ask Senator Parer: is your director- Senator FAULKNER—We believe it is ship of a trust which holds mining shares appropriate that the minister set the record likely to conflict with your public duty? We straight on these issues. We invite the ask Senator Parer— minister to provide answers to a number of questions, and they are important ones. Senator Ian Campbell—We ask you to Senator Parer ought to address himself to the apologise. issue of whether his Register of Senators’ Senator FAULKNER—We ask Senator Interests lists all shares. Parer: do your business interests expose you Senator Ian Campbell—You found your to charges of using public office for private way down there! gain? We ask Senator Parer, in relation to the The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! details of his family trust—and we know that Senator Campbell. Senator Faulkner, excuse it owns the shares in QCMM from third party me. sources—what else does it do? Senator Ian Campbell—Take your seat. Senator Ian Campbell—We ask: when are you going to apologise, you scumbag? Senator Robert Ray—You are not sitting down either, grub. Senator FAULKNER—We ask: is it, or its related entities, engaged in activities related Senator Ian Campbell—Yes, I am. to Senator Parer’s ministerial responsibilities? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! We ask: where does it get its income? We Senator Ray. It is not appropriate to interject ask: does it have the power to influence, in this place at any stage, and it is more directly or indirectly, any other company? inappropriate to interject when you are not in your seat. I would please urge you to observ- The opposition is asking for substantive ing standing orders and to cease your interjec- answers to what we believe are very import- tions. Thank you. ant questions, because we are well aware of the requirements incumbent on ministers Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam regarding their public duties and private Deputy President. We ask Senator Parer: does interests. For example, there is the statement your Register of Senators’ Interests list all of registrable interests which says that: shares held either directly or indirectly by Any senator must notify any relevant interest in any your family trust? If not, why not? shares which enables the senator, the senator’s Senator Ian Campbell—When is the next spouse or dependent children to exercise control meeting of dead directors? over the right to dispose of those shares. This includes shares held by a family or business trust. Senator FAULKNER—We ask Senator Parer: does your register of interests identify The notes also state: your apparent interest in a coal-mining com- The senator must list any other interest which in pany as a potential conflict of interest; and, if the opinion of the senator holds the potential for not, why not? real or apparent conflict of interest with the senator’s public duties to arise. Senator Ian Campbell—Why don’t you apologise, you scumbag? We ask about the discredited Prime Minister’s guidelines on ministerial conduct. We just say The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! that the Prosser defence, that is, ‘I have Senator Campbell. complied with all requirements’, is not good Senator Ian Campbell—When is the next enough. This minister must be accountable on meeting of dead directors? these important issues. 824 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queens- Senator Cook got their jobs because the Labor land—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Party has to share the factional jobs around. for the Environment) (3.16 p.m.)—Another In the other chamber Mr Beazley happened to grubby attack from the gutter by the Labor be elected as leader and Mr Evans happened Party. Regrettably, the attack is a smokescreen to be elected deputy leader and they were to try to hide the absolute inconsistencies and both from the Right. the smearing by the Labor Party in this You would know, Madam Deputy Presi- chamber of the parliament. dent, as everybody over there does, that they But the distressing thing is that the Labor had to give the Centre Left and the Left a job. Party choses to attack one of the ablest What did they do? They put the most able, ministers of the Howard government, Senator Senator Ray, up in the back row—and Sena- Parer. Senator Parer has devoted his life to tor Ray acquiesced in this because he knows Australia and has created something of real the deal—and they put some dummy from the wealth for this country. He has done some- Left at the main table and some guy from the thing which employs hundreds of workers in Centre Left who was the second choice the coalmines and elsewhere and he is a very behind him. That is how we get this weak great Australian. The Labor Party choses to ineffective leadership in this chamber. attack and smear this man, just as they always The Labor Party will smear and tell lies do. about Senator Parer and anyone else to try to We thank Senator Richardson for his book, hide this lack of leadership. It is also a Whatever It Takes. He told us how the Labor smokescreen to hide the ineffectiveness and Party, when they are in trouble and want to absolute lack of any intestinal fortitude of Mr attack a competent person, brings out the Beazley as the Leader of the Labor Party. Can smears and lies to do it. That is what has you imagine what would have happened in been happening today. this very hypothetical instance if Mr Howard had been Leader of the Labor Party over the Senator Ian Campbell—You should hear last week? Senator Bolkus would not have what he says about John Faulkner. lasted five minutes, because Mr Howard Senator IAN MACDONALD—I know would not have anyone on his frontbench who what he says about John Faulkner, but he deliberately leaked a stolen document and does not take much notice of Faulkner and distributed it to the world just so that Mr neither does anyone else. It is the old Labor Skase—that criminal who used to be in Party, union, bully-boy stuff to attack one of Australia—could escape retribution. Senator the ablest ministers. Bolkus has released that information so that It is a smokescreen to hide the censure of a criminal, Mr Skase, can escape. the would-be first officer of this nation, Senator Calvert—Why did he do that? Senator Bolkus, from those very serious Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator charges of which he has been found guilty; Calvert might well ask, ‘Why did he do that?’ not just in this chamber and not just in the Mr Beazley’s leadership is what tells. Every- other chamber, but in both chambers. They body knows that Senator Bolkus will never, know that this is a rare and very serious thing ever be the first law officer of the land. There and they will smear and tell lies to try to hide is not a person sitting opposite who would that from tomorrow’s media. argue with that. What it shows is that Mr It is also a smokescreen to try to hide the Beazley simply cannot control his troops. He ineffectual leadership that the Labor Party has would like to get rid of Bolkus, but he cannot in this chamber. We all know how Senator stand up to the Left and Centre Left of his Faulkner and Senator Cook got their jobs party. here. It is without question that Senator Also, Mr Beazley is showing lack of any Ray—for all his faults—is the real leader of leadership in the way he has dealt with the the Labor Party in this chamber and should be Oxley preselection. There is a woman who on the frontbench. Senator Faulkner and wants to get up there and the national exec- Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 825 utive of the Labor Party has threatened to tip While I am on the Senate one, I still have a bucket over her so she will be put out of the this problem with Senator Parer: he lists a race. Where is Mr Beazley coming into this? company, as I understand it, that controls his He should show some leadership and stop the family trust. I do not think he ever actually ALP from threatening to tip a bucket over this goes to the point of declaring his family trust, woman. You would understand, Madam but that could have been an oversight or a Deputy President, that the women are sup- belief that, by putting the organising company posed to have 35 per cent of the safe seats in in there, that would be good enough in terms the Labor Party. Where is Mr Beazley’s of declaration. leadership? This whole attack is a smoke- We did have a letter go out some time in screen to hide Mr Beazley’s inefficiencies. March 1997, following some controversy, (Time expired) asking people if they owned family trusts that had substantial shareholdings and to put some Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (3.21 more detail on the record. Senator Parer has p.m.)—The questions asked of Senator Parer made no such amendment. But the thing that today do require an answer—maybe not really confused me today was when Senator immediately because there were some com- Parer said, ‘I think some of these things may plex questions asked and we will certainly have happened more than 10 years ago.’ The give Senator Parer time to answer them. It did basic thrust of our questioning, in terms of appear from some of the questions today that owning shares that may have a benefit in he either was confused at the type of ques- coalmining, is that this was set up in 1994— tions that went to him, or on a couple of just four years ago. I would have thought occasions said that he was having some Senator Parer would have remembered this difficulty with his memory in this particular arrangement for these 16 C class shares. For area. We await him going back, going anyone thinking that 16 shares is not much, through the records and giving us answers to there are only just beyond 1,100 shares in those particular questions that he could not totality for a company that values its own quite focus on today. But the one thing he assets at $153 million—so we are not talking consistently said was, ‘I have complied with about peanuts. the Prime Ministerial guidelines.’ Apparently he cannot focus on and remem- We do not know whether to challenge that ber the allocation of those shares in 1994. I totally or not because we do not see the will tell you why I am even a little more declaration Senator Parer makes to the Prime shocked by that: guess who chaired the Minister. What we do see is the declaration meeting in 1994? Senator Parer. It was more that Senator Parer makes to this chamber and than one meeting—at least three that I know to the public as a whole through the parlia- about. He chaired the meeting in which these mentary process of disclosure. That is on the matters were discussed and decisions were record, not only in its basic text but also in made. So we do want him to go back, check any amendments made over the last four his records and find out. years. We see that. But if Senator Parer has It is no use Senator Parer coming in here accurately stated all of his interests to the and saying, ‘I don’t own any shares personal- Prime Minister and it is not reflected in his ly.’ The fact is that, if the investment com- pecuniary interest form in the Senate, then it pany that runs his trust and the trust own 16 reflects badly not only on him but even more shares that are valuable, and they depend on so on the Secretary to the Department of the the fortunes of the coal industry and he is the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to whom the minister directly responsible for export con- Prime Minister himself has said he entrusted trols on the coal industry, for diesel fuel the task of checking it all carefully. Surely he rebates and all of these other things that would have compared the Prime Ministerial impact there, an allegation could then be declaration form with the Senate one to see if made of a potential conflict of interest. So as there were any inconsistencies. to avoid those allegations the Prime Minister 826 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 has properly ruled that, if you own shares Today we moved a censure motion with the either directly or by way of a family trust— support of every senator in this place, other other than a blind trust, and no-one has than those from the Labor Party, against argued that this is a blind trust—and if you Senator Bolkus for his most outrageous are going to get what we understand is a very behaviour in deliberately and knowingly substantial franked dividend out of all this leaking a confidential Federal Court docu- process into the family trust in which you ment. He did that deliberately and knowingly. have an interest, and you are making deci- The Senate has quite properly condemned him sions that affect it, the allegation can be there for that by censuring him. So what does the of a potential conflict of interest. Labor Party do? They say, ‘They finally got I would never think for a moment that Bolkus. They nailed him. What do we do? Senator Parer would consciously and directly Our little besmirching tactics on the Natural take a decision affecting the coal industry to Heritage Trust, bringing in dead people, directly benefit himself but that is not the making accusations against Deloittes about point. The whole point is that he should have employment agencies and about contracts declared, in some detail in his Senate pecuni- being let, and the question Senator Quirk ary interest form, the details of the holdings asked have all failed. What are we going to in this particular company. So it is no use the do? We will embark upon a deliberate cam- other side going on and saying these are paign to besmirch Senator Parer as a smoke- absolute smears; these people are accountable. screen.’ (Time expired) Senator Parer is one of the most honourable Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (3.26 p.m.)— people in this place. To his great credit Anybody who has watched question time Senator Ray, in his speech, was very careful since the parliament resumed would have not to besmirch the character of Senator been aware that Senator Bolkus was in the Parer. Indeed, he made this telling point. If sights of the government for having leaked Senator Parer did something that was not confidential Federal Court documents. As a within the guidelines it would have been done result, the Labor Party have engaged in a inadvertently, in sharp contradistinction to the deliberate besmirching tactic dealing with behaviour of Senator Bolkus, who did what people who have been dead for decades, the he did knowingly, connivingly and with a Baillieu family, and with the Natural Heritage deliberate intent to put on the public record a Trust. Do we get any apology from them? No. confidential court document in breach of the What do they do? They simply move on to Federal Court rules. the next issue, such as Senator Quirke making This taking note of answers today and the a false allegation about a contract that he Labor Party tactic at question time have been alleges this government let, only to find it designed simply as a smokescreen to try to was the previous Labor administration that let protect Senator Bolkus. Senator Bolkus cannot the contract. Do we get an apology from the and will not be protected from his own Labor Party? Absolutely not. actions and activities. He deliberately em- We had the spectacle of Senator Sherry barked upon leaking those two pages of that asking his first question on his return, making confidential court document. The Labor Party some very grubby allegations in relation to can try as much as they like to besmirch the minister and Deloittes. Today, that was innocent citizens of this country, dead people completely debunked. Do we get an apology or companies but there is nothing as rock from Senator Sherry? No. We then had the solid and as proven as the case against Sena- allegation yesterday from Senator Kerry tor Bolkus for deliberately leaking the infor- O’Brien from the Labor Party about an mation he did. employment agency. That was completely The Labor Party tactic in this matter is so debunked today at question time and exposed transparent and such a sham. The Labor Party as untrue and incorrect. Do we get an apology know what they ought to do; that is, remove from Senator O’Brien? No. Senator Bolkus from the frontbench. If Sena- Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 827 tor Bolkus will not move, he ought to be We also have an obligation by the Prime moved. If Mr Beazley is not willing to move Minister to ensure that ministers hold to those him, I am sure the Australian people will standards. ensure that Mr Beazley never becomes Prime Minister, let alone Senator Bolkus becoming What are the facts of this debate, as we the Attorney-General of this country. know them to this point? In my view, we know that in his words in answers to ques- Senator COOK (Western Australia— tions at question time Senator Parer was quite Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the careful in what he said. He said, ‘I have Senate) (3.31 p.m.)—It is a pity that Senator exactly complied with the Prime Minister’s Parer is not here and that he has not taken the requirements.’ I do not know, and I am opportunity to defend himself in this debate. prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt With the greatest respect to Senator Parer, he at this stage, whether that means in a techni- moved more rapidly out of this chamber than cal sense or in a full blown, proper sense. He I have seen him move at any other time said as well, ‘I have personally no share- around this building. holding in a mining company.’ Again, that The issue of the probity and the honourable may be a very tightly drawn, technical mean- conduct of government ministers was made an ing of what he has said compared to what the election matter by the Prime Minister (Mr facts are and it may not meet the intent or the Howard) himself at the last election. He requirement of the provisions. promised the people of Australia that there would be a code of ministerial conduct which What we do know now is that the Parer would ensure that private and public dealings family trust owns 16 shares in QCMM. by responsible ministers in this country were QCMM wholly owns Advanced Queensland at the highest possible level and he promised Resources and Mining which operates the that he would hold his ministers to that code. Jellinbah Coal Mining Company in the Bowen Basin. Those 16 shares amount to, I In his document, the Prime Minister said: understand, about 1.4 per cent of the com- Ministers are required to divest themselves of all pany; that is, the trust owns about 1.4 per shares and similar interests in any company or cent of the mining company, which is valued, business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. The transfer of interests to a family according to its June 1996 annual report—the member or to a nominee or trust is not an accept- last I have a reference to—at $153 million, able form of divestment. which is not an insubstantial amount. There- That is what the Prime Minister has said is fore, it is proper and reasonable to conclude required in these circumstances. What is that the minister has a beneficial interest in beyond doubt is that there is an interest of a QCMM through a family trust. Apart from the particular sort by Senator Parer in a mining interest QCMM has in Advanced Queensland company, and we know that Senator Parer is Resources, the operation company of Jellinbah the Minister for Resources. That would appear Coal Mining, QCMM also has a 70 per cent to be directly in conflict with what the Prime interest in Bowen Basin Coal Pty. Ltd. There Minister requires. is a substantial case to answer here. As well as that, there are the Senate’s own In addition to that, the ASC records show requirements. The Senate requires that, in that on 30 June this year Senator Parer held stating what their interests are, senators 44 shares personally in QCMM Group (ESP). should say what their shareholdings in public There is a substantial case for the minister to and private companies, including holding answer here about how those facts set out in companies, are and should indicate the names the ASC records and documented in the of the companies. This goes to the issue of proper way in the companies commission tally family and business trusts and nominee with his allegations that he has properly companies as well. What we have here are complied with the ministerial code of conduct quite clear, fundamental requirements to and that he has no shares in a mining com- which senators and ministers have to comply. pany. It may not be directly that he does but 828 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 through his trust. He has to answer those very considerable involvement in a piggery? allegations fully and properly. (Time expired) Would you have considered that to be person- Senator FERGUSON (South Australia) al gain from public office? Probably only a (3.36 p.m.)—I do not know why you hate few million but that is neither here not there, successful people so much on your side of the just a drop in the ocean for these people. chamber. As soon as anybody is successful, ‘Personal gain from public office’—former you find the best way you can to try to smear member Wayne Swan would not have had a them in any way possible. When Senator job of personal gain from the public office Faulkner stands before this chamber and uses that he held before; I am quite sure about the option of his quietly spoken voice to talk, that. So when you come in here and start we know that his heart is not really in it. talking about personal gain from public office After a series of questions to Senator Parer, and when you talk about a senator who has he then had to make the big decision about spent his life working in the mining indus- whether to take note of the answers or not, try—as Senator Parer did, and he is well because no answers given by Senator Parer respected and is someone who has been were likely to raise any issues other than successful; he did not have to have his job those you have tried to raise by trawling propped up by any factional colleagues— around and conducting this smear campaign Senator George Campbell interjecting— you have started today—a tactic you have Senator FERGUSON—Senator Campbell, used on practically every other person you let me tell you that he was not responsible for have chosen to vilify, inside or outside the the loss of a hundred thousand jobs either. Senate chamber. Senator Parer was responsible for employing I think I heard Senator Faulkner say during people. He actually created employment and, his speech that he was accusing Senator Parer Senator Campbell, a former Prime Minister of using public office for personal gain. I accused you of costing this country a hundred think that was the phrase that he used—using thousand jobs. That is something you will ‘public office for personal gain’. Talking always remember, Senator Campbell, and we about using public office for personal gain, remember it well because the comment was how do you measure the personal gain that made by someone from your side. anyone gets from holding a public office? Is Let us get down to the real issue of why the it a monetary gain? Is it some position that so-called attack on Senator Parer was made they gain after they have held public office? today. As Senator Abetz highlighted, it is a I can think of a couple of examples. Former fact that we have had a situation today where President Kerry Sibraa: was it personal gain one of your colleagues has been censured by after holding public office when he was given this parliament. He has been censured in the a job by the former government as an ambas- House of Representatives and he has been sador overseas? Neal Blewett, a former censured in the Senate, where the government member: was that personal gain from holding does not have a majority. A person cannot be a public office? Graham Maguire: just an censured unless you get the support of other ordinary backbench senator all his life who parties in this chamber, and the only ones managed to score a few jobs on some boards who stuck by Senator Bolkus were the Labor when he finished—was that personal gain Party senators. from holding public office? I would not want Let me tell you that some of those did it to go too far if I were you. very reluctantly. I would not want to name There are a great number and you can name names but, although some of those were as many as you like but, if you are going to sitting on that side of the chamber, when the talk about personal gain from holding public votes went up—and the vote was 44 to about office, you had better be careful about where 26 or 27—I could not help but notice a bit of you start and where you stop. Can you re- a wry smile come over the faces of some of member your defence, only two or three years Senator Bolkus’s so-called colleagues when ago, of a former Prime Minister who had a he was censured by this parliament. So this Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 829 effort today to try and attack Senator Parer for (b) the level and extent to which information- some alleged mistakes in his register of based technologies are being used, or can be interests can only be described as a very poor used, to integrate regionally-based com- panies into Australia’s mainstream industrial effort to try and protect Senator Bolkus. (Time network; expired) (c) the growing importance of service-enhanced The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The products in world trade and the enabling time for the debate has expired. role played by information technology in Question resolved in the affirmative. their development; (d) the speed of take up of enhanced manufac- PETITIONS turing technologies by Australian industry; The Clerk—A petitions has been lodged and for presentation as follows: (e) the extent of commercialisation within Australia of ideas and products developed Native Title with the assistance of research and develop- ment tax concessions. To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of Australia: Regulations and Ordinances Committee The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws Senator CALVERT (Tasmania)—On to the attention of the House our concerns about proposals to introduce legislation amending the behalf of Senator O’Chee and the Regulations Native Title Act. We feel that the Government’s and Ordinances Committee, I give notice that, proposed 10-point plan appears to favour the vested 15 sitting days after today, he will move: interests of pastoralists over the principles of That the Veterans’ Vocational Rehabilitation fairness and justice for indigenous peoples. Such Scheme, as contained in instrument no. 5 of 1997 legislation would also severely impede the recon- made under subsection 115B(1) of the Veterans’ ciliation process, and would rob Aboriginal people Entitlements Act 1986, be disallowed. of their dignity and right to self-determination. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short Your petitioners therefore request the House to: summary of matters raised by the committee. reject the Government’s proposed 10-point plan; Leave granted. ensure any legislation passed maintains the integrity of the Racial Discrimination Act and The summary read as follows— respects the High Court’s native title decisions; and Veteran’s Vocational Rehabilitation Scheme, encourage the introduction of legislation that being Instrument No 5 of 1997, made under includes negotiated agreements that are fair and subsection 115B(1) of the Veterans’ workable for indigenous peoples as well as pasto- Entitlements Act 1986 ralists. The instrument seeks to assist specified classes of by Senator Allison (from 197 citizens). veterans to find employment and to continue in Petition received. employment. Clause 1.3 .1 defines a service provider as a person NOTICES OF MOTION or organisation with which the Commission or the Economics References Committee Department has entered into an arrangement to provide services. It would appear from the tenor of Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (New the Scheme as a whole that such service providers South Wales)—I give notice that, on the next may well be commercial organisations. However, day of sitting, I shall move: there is no avenue provided in the terms of the Scheme whereby a person or organisation, which That the following matter be referred to the is dissatisfied with the decision to reject its applica- Economics References Committee for inquiry and tion to be a service provider, may seek a review of report by 27 August 1998: that decision. The current state of, and issues and opportunities Clauses 1.4.1 to 1.4.3 permit the Secretary to within the use of, information technology in require a veteran to be examined or assessed, or Australian industry, with particular reference to: both, by a service provider, and for that service (a) the level and extent to which information- provider to report to the Secretary, who in turn based technologies are being used to in- reports to the Commission. However, there is no crease productivity and improve competi- provision in the Scheme requiring the service tiveness in Australian industry; provider to maintain confidentiality of the informa- 830 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 tion it acquires in that process. Since the service Minister for Transport and Regional Development providers may be private individuals or companies, Parliament House it does not appear that they would come within the CANBERRA ACT 2600 restrictions of the Privacy Act 1988, with the result Dear Minister that any requirement of confidentiality would have to be included in this Scheme. I refer to the Exemption Order made under s.8G of the Christmas Island Act 1958, which exempts two Paragraph 1.5.2(b) requires the service provider or companies from the need to comply with the the Secretary (if they have prepared a rehabilitation operations of the Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA) as plan) to agree with the veteran on its details. This it applies to Christmas Island. The Committee would appear to be an unenforceable provision as would appreciate your advice on the following the law cannot force parties to come to an agree- matters. ment. The Explanatory Statement does not indicate Clause 3.2.3 provides that an approved scheme whether these are the only agents operating on the should not normally include particular elements. If Island and, if this is not the case, whether other a scheme were not to be approved because it agents been arbitrarily excluded from the benefits contained some such element, it would appear to be of the Order. impossible for a veteran to succeed in a review of that decision. There are, however, no criteria by Clause (2) does not appear to serve any practical which the reviewing body might determine whether purpose as the Order must necessarily have effect the case before it was normal or not. until revoked and does not need the clause to say so. Clause 4.5.2 gives to the Secretary a discretion to determine whether or not a grant has been applied Clause (3) provides that the Minister may not for a proper purpose. However, Chapter 5, which unreasonably withhold consent to the approval of deals with rights of review, applies only to the an insurance policy. The Explanatory Statement review of decisions of the Commission, and hence does not advise whether a decision by the Minister does not apply to the decision of the Secretary to withhold consent is subject to merits review. under this clause. There does not appear to be any The requirement in Clause (3) for the applicants to provision in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 deliver the policy to the Minister could cause which allows for review of any decisions of the difficulty if an applicant subsequently wished to Secretary. claim on a policy. In such circumstances delivery The Committee has written to the Minister for of a copy of the policy would appear to be suffi- advice. cient. The Explanatory Statement advises that the Order Regulations and Ordinances Committee is a temporary measure only but does not indicate Senator CALVERT (Tasmania)—On how long the Order will be needed. The Explana- behalf of Senator O’Chee and the Standing tory Statement also notes that the Order must be laid before each House of the Federal Parliament Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I but that it need be gazetted only in the Territory give notice that, on the next day of sitting Gazette. It may also be appropriate to also gazette Senator O’Chee will withdraw business of the such Orders in the Commonwealth Gazette. Senate notices of motion Nos. 1 and 2 stand- Yours sincerely ing in his name for two sitting days after Bill O’Chee today for the disallowance of the Exemption Order made under section 8G of the Christ- Chairman mas Island Act 1958 and Locally Engaged Staff Determination 1997/31 made under section 82D of the Public Service Act 1922, Senator Bill O’Chee Chairman respectively. I seek leave to incorporate in Standing Committee on Regulations Hansard the committee’s correspondence and Ordinances concerning these instruments. Parliament House Leave granted. CANBERRA ACT 2600 The correspondence read as follows— Dear Senator O’Chee Thank you for your letter of 2 December 1997 Exemption Order made under s.8G of the addressed to the Honourable Mark Vaile MP, Christmas Island Act 1958 Minister for Transport and Regional Development 2 December 1997 concerning the Exemption Order issued under the The Hon Mark Vaile MP Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA)(CI)(the Act). I am Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 831 replying as Mr Vaile executed the Order on my It is considered that it is sufficient to publish behalf. instruments in these cases in the Territory Gazette. The following are the responses to your queries This is readily available to Territory residents, who concerning the Order and Explanatory Memoran- are the main clients of the travel agents. The dum. gazettals would be of limited interest to persons outside the Territory. The two travel agents cited in the Order are the only ones operating in the Territory of Christmas Yours sincerely Island. Both are major participants in the ALEX SOMLYAY Territory’s tourism industry and play an important Minister for Regional Development, Territories and role in the Territory’s economy. The Order was Local Government made to facilitate their obtaining a licence to 21 JAN 1998 operate as travel agents and to enable them to become members of IATA so there was no impedi- Locally Engaged Staff Determination 1997/31 ment to their arranging international travel to the 2 December 1997 Territory. The Hon Alexander Downer MP I take your point that the statement that the Order Minister for Foreign Affairs continues until revoked is redundant. However, this Parliament House statement was included because paragraph 6(2)(a) CANBERRA ACT 2600 of the Act provides that the order may specify the Dear Minister period during which the order shall remain in force. It was not thought appropriate to specify a period I refer to Locally Engaged Staff Determination in the circumstances. 1997/31, which provides for aspects of medical insurance for locally engaged staff in Kenya. Paragraph 6(2)(b) of the Act provides that an order may provide that its operation is subject to such New subclause 5.32.11(4) appears to limit to six conditions as are specified in the order. There is no the number of children a locally engaged employee provision in the Act for merits review of the may enrol in the group medical assistance scheme imposition of conditions under section 6 or an to which that clause refers. This would appear exercise of power in a condition. I have instructed improperly to discriminate against those locally my Department to draft an order varying the Order engaged staff who have a large family. The Com- to provide an opportunity for a merits review in the mittee would be grateful for your advice. local court in Christmas Island of the Minister’s Yours sincerely decision to withhold consent pursuant to Clause 3 of the Order. Bill O’Chee Chairman As you may be aware, travel agents’ licences are issued by the Commercial Tribunal of Western Australia. The tribunal must hold hearings if objections to the issue of a licence are lodged and 30 DEC 1997 in certain other cases. Should an applicant be Senator Bill O’Chee refused a licence or have its licence revoked, the Chairman applicant is entitled to appeal to the District Court Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances of Western Australia under Division 4 of Part 11 Australian Senate of the Act. Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 I agree that copies of insurance policies and premium receipts would suffice if it were con- Dear Senator O’Chee sidered necessary for these to be delivered to the Thank you for your letter of 2 December 1997 Minister. concerning Locally Engaged Staff Determination It was not possible to estimate how long the Order 1997/31 which provides for aspects of medical should remain in force, hence the statement in insurance for locally engaged staff in Kenya. clause (2). It was considered preferable to have an The High Commission in Nairobi originally recom- open-ended order rather than to have to remake it mended that the number of children a locally if permanent arrangements could not be made engaged employee may enrol in the group medical within a set period. assistance scheme be limited to six. This was done Section 74A of the Interpretation Act 1984 to provide the Commonwealth with some protection (WA)(CI) provides that if an applied law requires against fraudulent claims relating to extended a person to publish an instrument in the Gazette, families. The number was limited to six because the requirement is satisfied if the instrument is this was the maximum number of children declared published in the WA Government Gazette, the for enrolment by any member of the staff at the Commonwealth Gazette or the Territory Gazette. High Commission. 832 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

My Department has reviewed the situation and is Ordered that the report be adopted. satisfied that the High Commission can achieve a reasonable degree of protection against fraudulent Senator CALVERT—I seek leave to have claims by ensuring that only those children who are defined as dependants by the providers of the the report incorporated in Hansard. Scheme are enrolled. An amending determination will therefore be issued to remove the subclause Leave granted. which limits the number of children which may be enrolled. The report read as follows— Yours sincerely Alexander Downer Report Minister for Foreign Affairs SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee REPORT NO. 2 OF 1998 Report 1. The Committee met on 10 March 1998. Senator CALVERT (Tasmania)—I present the second report of 1998 of the Selection of 2. The committee resolved-That the provisions of Bills Committee. the following bills be referred to committees:

Stage at which Bill title referred Legislation Committee Reporting date Aged Care Amendment Bill immediately Community Affairs 2 April 1998 1998 (see Appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for refer- ral) Australian Capital Territory immediately Rural and Regional Af- 31 March 1998 (Planning and Land Manage- fairs and Transport ment) Amendment Bill 1997 (see Appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for refer- ral)

3. The Committee resolved to recommend—That . Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 the following bills not be referred to commit- . Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill tees: 1997 . Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commis- . Insurance Laws Amendment Bill 1997 sion Amendment Bill 1997 . Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] . ANL Sale Bill 1997 . Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment . National Residue Survey Administration Bill 1997 Amendment Bill 1998 . Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Bill 1998 . Commonwealth Places (Consequential Amend- ments) Bill 1998 . National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Bill 1998 . Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998 . Privacy Amendment Bill 1998 . Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Collec- . Public Employment (Consequential and Transi- tion) Bill 1998 tional) Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] . Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Imposi- . Public Service Bill 1997 [No. 2] tion) Bill 1998 . Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legisla- . Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill tion Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) 1997 Bill 1997. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 833

The Committee recommends accordingly. Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- 4. The committee deferred consideration of the sideration: following bills to the next meeting: Provisions of the bill are contrary to reports and (deferred from meeting of 2 December 1997) recommendations made previously. There is concern as to whether the Territory should have the . Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) power to determine its own land management 1997 system, and in the spirit of reconciliation, indigen- (deferred from meeting of 3 March 1998) ous people need to be consulted. . Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Possible submissions or evidence from: Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 ACT Government . Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 Michael Moore, MLA . Workplace Relations Amendment (Superan- ACT conservation groups nuation) Bill 1997 Australian Democrats, ACT Division (deferred from meeting of 10 March 1998) Residents’ associations . Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Committee to which bill is to be referred: Measures) Bill 1998. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legisla- (Paul Calvert) tion Committee Chair Possible reporting date: 11 March 1998 As soon as possible. (signed) Vicki Bourne Appendix 1 Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member Name of bill: ORDER OF BUSINESS Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- Tibet sideration: Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: . Uncertainty over application of accommodation That general business notice of motion No. 951 bonds standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, . concern over working of additional recurrent relating to Tibet, be postponed till 25 March 1998. funding and future provision capital for upgrades. Alternative and Complementary . concern over future of uncertified homes and the residents of these homes. Medicine . concern over equality of access and treatment. Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request . concern over the future viability of the sector. of Senator Lees) agreed to: Possible submissions or evidence from: That general business notice of motion No. 960 Nursing home providers (not for profit and for standing in Senator the name of Senator Lees for profit), consumer groups, concerned individuals. today, relating to complementary medicine, be postponed till the next day of sitting. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Standing Committee on Community Affairs. Employment Services Possible reporting date: Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to: 8 April 1998 That general business notice of motion No. 983 (signed) standing in the name of Senator Hogg for today, S. Conroy relating to the tender process for employment services, be postponed till the next day of sitting. Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member Vocational Education Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to: Appendix 2 That general business notice of motion No. 965 Name of bill: standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land relating to funding for vocational education, be Management) Amendment Bill 1997 postponed till the next day of sitting. 834 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Israel (i) 32 per cent of Australia’s farm work force is female, Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: (ii) women contribute over 28 per cent of That general business notice of motion No. 984 hours worked on farms, representing $4 standing in the name of Senator Reynolds for billion per annum, today, relating to Israel’s 50 Year Jubilee release of prisoners, be postponed till until the next day of (iii) women also contribute 80 per cent of off- sitting. farm wage income to the sector, and Committee Reports: Government (iv) despite their level of input, women occu- py less than 20 per cent of paid manage- Responses ment and board of management positions Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to: in the agricultural sector; and That general business notice of motion No. 971 (c) Coalition Government programs which standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, encourage women in the agricultural sector relating to government responses to Employment, to become more involved at a leadership Education and Training References Committee, be level, including: postponed till the next day of sitting. (i) a rural women’s scholarship worth $37 Australian Broadcasting Corporation: 500 which allows the successful applicant to participate in the Australian Rural Funding Leadership program (ARLP), and which Motion (by Senator Hogg) agreed to: has, since the introduction of the scholar- That general business notice of motion No. 990 ship in 1997, led to an increase of 25 per standing in the name of Senator Hogg for today, cent in the number of female applicants relating to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for the ARLP, be postponed till the next day of sitting. (ii) a roundtable of leading rural women to contribute to the development of a busi- Common Youth Allowance ness plan for Australian agriculture, held Motion (by Senator Carr) agreed to: in December 1997, That general business notice of motion No. 980 (iii) the support of the Rural Women’s Unit in standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, the Department of Primary Industries and relating to the common youth allowance, be Energy, which provides an important link postponed till the next day of sitting. between the Commonwealth Government and women in rural Australia, COMMITTEES (iv) progress towards establishing a national Legal and Constitutional Legislation action plan for women in agriculture and Committee resources management, and (v) the introduction of the Farm Business Extension of Time Improvement program through the Agri- Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request culture-Advancing Australia package, of Senator Abetz) agreed to: which will benefit farmers by providing activities that will develop their farm That the time for the presentation of the report business and financial planning capabili- of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Com- ties, with a specific component for mittee on the provisions of the Migration Legisla- women. tion Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997 be NATIVE TITLE LEGISLATION extended to 23 March 1998. Senator WOODLEY (Queensland)—I ask WOMEN that general business notice of motion No. Motion (by Senator Troeth) agreed to: 950 standing in my name for today relating to That the Senate recognising International an order for the production of documents be Women’s Day on 8 March 1998, notes: taken as a formal motion. (a) the contribution of rural women to Austra- Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- lia’s agricultural sector and rural communi- tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister ties; for Social Security) (3.49 p.m.)—This is not (b) recent research which indicates that: an objection and, whilst the government is not Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 835 opposing the formality of this proposal, I seek However, in the opinion of the Clerk of the Senate, leave to make a short statement. Mr Harry Evans, s57 has not been complied with. He argues that ‘there must be an ongoing unwill- Leave granted. ingness by the House of Representatives to accept Senator TAMBLING—This matter relates amendments made by the Senate’... to the tabling of legal advice in relation to the ...... NTAB and the operation of section 57 of the This interpretation may, as Evans argues, be constitution. The government has clearly supported by ‘the procedures of both Houses’. received extensive legal and policy advice in However, it is not supported by the text of the relation to the Native Title Amendment Bill Constitution. Evans places too much weight on the 1997 [No. 2]. I am informed by the Attorney- words ‘will not agree’ in s.57 to find that it is General (Mr Williams) that he is prepared to mandatory that the bill be returned to the Senate after the House of Representatives has rejected the admit that this legal advice extends to the Senate amendments. The Constitution merely correct interpretation of section 57 of the requires that the bill be passed by the Senate ‘with constitution. Indeed, the Attorney has in- amendments to which the House of Representatives formed me that the government has received will not agree’. The extra step set out by Evans legal advice on section 57 on a number of goes beyond the demands of the Constitution. occasions. This is not surprising, given the The only contrary and very vocal view is that constant difficulties the government has faced being promulgated by the Clerk of the Senate. in getting its legislative program, for which it The Clerk, despite his undoubted expertise in has received a clear mandate from the Aus- Senate procedural matters, is not a lawyer, is tralian people, through the Senate. not a constitutional law expert, and regularly The legal advice to the government is clear. puts forward views which extend the power The government’s action is clearly disagree- of the Senate. It is not surprising that the ing with some of the Senate’s amendments, government does not seek to rely upon his and laying the bill aside in the House has interpretation. triggered the first stage of section 57 of the The government’s expressed intention is to constitution. The government’s position has pass the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 been expressly supported by constitutional [No.2] legal experts. This includes many expert . We have, in consultation, developed a fair commentators who do not normally support and balanced compromise of all the interests the government’s view. In this regard I draw involved. The coalition does not want to have the Senate’s attention to the comments of a double dissolution election on the issue of Professor Cheryl Saunders of Melbourne native title. The content of any legal advice University’s law faculty and George Williams which addresses the operation of section 57, from ANU reported in the Sydney Morning therefore, is really irrelevant to the forth- Herald of 5 December 1997. Professor Native coming Senate debate. The government, Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2]Saunders nonetheless, will be opposing this motion in is quoted in this article as saying: accordance with established principle. The The literal reading of the Constitution seems to general position is clear: legal advice provid- suggest that all you need are amendments to the ed to the government is subject to legal bill by the Senate and a disagreement by the professional privilege. House. The Senate is well aware of the position George Williams has subsequently prepared taken by successive governments, whether a research note for the parliament’s Informa- ALP or coalition, that the Senate should not tion and Research Services which explicitly demand the tabling of documents which states: attract either public interest immunity or legal On 6 December 1997 the House of Representatives professional privilege. Indeed, it is interesting indicated it would not agree to many of the Senate’s amendments and laid the bill aside. This to note the views expressed by Senator meets the requirement in section 57 that the bill be Bolkus on the tabling of legal advice when he passed by the Senate with amendments to which was sitting on the government benches in the House of Representatives will not agree. relation to the Carmen Lawrence matter. After 836 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 not tabling documents, which included legal legal professional privilege. Senators will all advice from the Attorney-General’s Depart- be aware that successive governments have ment, Senator Bolkus supported this position refused to table legal advice on the basis that by stating: it is protected by legal professional privilege. These documents clearly fall within the accepted As has previously been acknowledged by the boundaries of legal professional privilege and ALP, the availability of this privilege is an public interest immunity. The Senate has tradition- essential element of good government. The ally recognised these claims. government, therefore, does not accept that it The next day, Senator Bolkus went further, in can be compelled to provide any such advice, referring to the return to order passed by the if it exists, as referred to in the motion. Senate, as follows: Consequently, the government opposes the That is why your return to order motion is at best motion. vacuous and at worst blatant hypocrisy. It is a disregard of the accepted principles of practice in Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (3.57 this place. It is a disregard of accepted principles p.m.)—by leave—I must say that, in granting of government. You know that but, despite know- leave for Senator Tambling to make a brief ing it, you come in here with a wish list that you statement, I did not realise that in that brief know any responsible government cannot meet. statement he was going to insult half of The now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Australia. However, he has done that, and I Gareth Evans, also commented on the need to certainly must object to the way in which it respect legal professional privilege. On 28 was done. August 1995, Mr Evans said: I am offended by the reference to the Clerk The government simply does not make available of the Senate. I do not think that matter government documents which fall within accepted needed to have been dragged in here. We boundaries of legal professional privilege and public interest immunity to the Senate. We certain- certainly have used the Clerk of the Senate’s ly will not be doing that to a Senate committee. advice, but the important thing about the Nor is it the practice or has it been the practice clerk’s advice is that he pointed out that the over the years for any government to make avail- opinion of Sir Garfield Barwick was the basis able legal advice from its legal advisers made in for that advice, and the comments of Sir the course of the normal decision making process Garfield Barwick stand in this debate. They of government, for good practical reasons associat- are very important. Those comments said that, ed with good government and also as a matter of fundamental principle. unless the processes of the Senate and the House were followed, a double dissolution The then Senator Evans went on to say: and a joint sitting of the House would be . . . we are not prepared, as I have already indicat- based on very shaky ground indeed. Those ed, to make available legal advice prepared in the words of Sir Garfield Barwick cannot be ordinary course for the purpose of the development of government policy or the making of specific contradicted; they stand in this debate. That government decisions. The confidential relationship is what the government should be taking issue between the government’s legal advisers is an with, not with whether the Clerk of the Senate essential part of the business of government. has entered the debate. He gave the Demo- The claim of legal professional privilege as a crats that advice because it was asked for, and basis for not tabling material in the Senate has it was very legitimate advice indeed. I really been used by governments of all persuasions. do feel a little offended by the way in which Other recent examples include Senator Senator Tambling has given his comment to Sherry in his then capacity as Parliamentary the Senate. Secretary to the Minister for Primary Indus- What the Democrats are trying to do, of tries and Energy on 1 March 1995 in respect course, is to allow the people of Australia to of a motion for documents associated with the have some part in the spending of their granting of woodchipping licences. Similarly, money. If we go to an early election, we will on 23 May 1996, the Minister for Social be spending $60 million upfront to have an Security, Senator Newman, refused to provide election which may be based on dubious legal advice on the basis that it was subject to constitutional grounds if, in fact, the purpose Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 837 is to pass legislation such as the Wik legisla- Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. tion, which we may then find at a later Evans, C. V.* Faulkner, J. P. occasion is struck down by the High Court. Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. Hogg, J. Lees, M. H. That is the gamble we are talking about; it is Lundy, K. Mackay, S. a gamble about opinions. We do not believe Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. that it is worth taking that gamble when, in Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. fact, the Senate and all the people of Austral- Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K. ia—all of us—could have a look at the Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. opinions upon which the government is Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N. relying. West, S. M. Woodley, J. NOES We accept that the government received Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D. legal opinion. What we are not sure about still Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.* is whether or not the government sought and Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H. received independent legal opinion before its Crane, W. Eggleston, A. action in December in laying aside the bill. Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. We hear what you are saying. We are not Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W. Hill, R. M. going to contradict that. Obviously you sought Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R. legal opinion. But the question still remains Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. as to whether or not you sought independent MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. legal opinion before the bill was laid aside. Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. That question still remains an open question. Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. For those reasons, I have asked that general Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J. business notice of motion No. 950 be taken Tierney, J. Troeth, J. as a formal motion and we will see where we Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. go. PAIRS The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R. objection to this motion being taken as for- Collins, R. L. Herron, J. mal? Reynolds, M. Knowles, S. C. Schacht, C. C. Chapman, H. G. P. Leave granted. Forshaw, M. G. Minchin, N. H. Senator WOODLEY—I move: * denotes teller That there be laid on the table by the Special Question so resolved in the affirmative. Minister of State (Senator Minchin), on the next day of sitting, no later than 12 noon, any legal advice received by the Government on how the ROMANIA: MARIANA CETINER Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 satisfies the Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: requirements of section 57 of the Constitution. That the Senate— Question put: (a) notes, with concern: The Senate divided. [4.01 p.m.] (i) the imprisonment in Romania of a les- (The Deputy President—Senator S. M. bian, Mariana Cetiner, for allegedly West) attempting to seduce another woman, and Ayes ...... 34 (ii) the existence of the notorious Article 200 in Romania’s penal code, which makes it Noes ...... 32 an offence to entice or seduce a person to —— practise same sex acts or to form propa- Majority ...... 2 ganda associations or engage in other —— forms of proselytising with the same aim; AYES Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. (b) notes that Amnesty International has an- Bishop, M. Bourne, V. nounced that Mariana Cetiner is their first Brown, B. Campbell, G. ever prisoner of conscience jailed on the Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. basis of sexuality; and Colston, M. A. Conroy, S. (c) calls on the Australian Government to Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. appeal to the Romanian Government to 838 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

release Mariana Cetiner and others gaoled Following this Report, the Privacy Commissioner for consensual homosexual acts, and for the prepared a Discussion Paper, ‘The Privacy Implica- repeal of Article 200. tions of Genetic Testing’ (September 1995) which set out a range of issues, but did not make firm GENETIC PRIVACY AND NON- recommendations. Since then the Parliament has DISCRIMINATION BILL 1998 not considered this matter in any form of legisla- tion. The Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination First Reading Bill 1998 (the bill) does this, and sets out in detail the mechanisms by which human genetic informa- Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed tion may be collected, stored and used. to: The recognition of genetic privacy in Australian That the following bill be introduced: a bill for law is timely. On 11 November 1997, the General an act to protect the genetic privacy of individuals, Conference of the United Nations Educational to prohibit genetic discrimination and to provide for Scientific and Cultural Organisations (UNESCO) the collection, storage and analysis of DNA sam- adopted, unanimously and by acclamation, the ples, and for related purposes. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed Human Rights. The General Conference matched the Universal Declaration with a resolution on its to: implementation, which provides, in part: That this bill may proceed without formalities "Urges Member States: and be now read a first time. (a) in the light of the provisions of the Universal Bill read a first time. Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, to take appropriate steps, including where Second Reading necessary the introduction of legislation or Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- regulations, to promote the principles set forth in the Declaration, and to promote their imple- tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian mentation;" Democrats) (4.09 p.m.)—I move: Article 7 of this Universal Declaration provides: That this bill be now read a second time. "Genetic data associated with an identifiable I seek leave to have the second reading person and stored or processed for the purposes speech incorporated in Hansard. of research or any other purpose must be held confidential in the conditions set by law." Leave granted. This bill is based on the model ‘genetic privacy The speech read as follows— act’ published by George Annas, Leonard Glantz The rapid developments of genetic technology have and Patricia Roche of the Boston University School changed the basic identity of individuals so that it of Public Health and the bill called the ‘Genetic is now possible to distinguish between individuals Confidentiality and Non-discrimination Act 1997’ on the basis of their genetic material—the sequence sponsored by Senators Pete Domenici, Christopher code that makes up genes and chromosomes in Dodd and James Jeffords (introduced on 11 March every cell of our bodies. This achievement is 1997) in the Senate of the United States. However, significant and has the potential to provide con- changes have been made to these templates relying siderable benefits through improved medicine and on the enactments of other States and the unique treatment of diseases. However, these advances also institutions in Australia dealing with privacy and bring the need to develop new laws to deal with the discrimination. new possibilities to make sure we achieve the full There is a need for the Commonwealth to lead this benefit of the new technologies. debate and provide the guiding principles. The Genetics has been examined by the Parliament in exponentially increasing number of genetic condi- legislation and before Parliamentary Committees. tions which may be tested and the huge range of The Report to the House of Representatives Stand- genetic information that will be available from the ing Committee on Industry Science and Technology Human Genome Project will make genetic informa- ‘Genetic Manipulation: The Threat or the Glory?’ tion a reality for many in our community. It is (February 1992) set out at recommendation 7: estimated there may be 3 000 to 4 000 genetic hereditary diseases and conditions and their identifi- "The Committee recommends that a Parlia- cation at the gene level is possible. Each person mentary Standing Committee be given responsi- probably carries a number of non-functioning genes bility for examining and monitoring complex (often lethals) and most probably a larger number issues involving the overlap between technology, of genes which place the individual at risk of law and the protection of individual rights." developing some condition. Further, a harmonising Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 839 national approach is essential to make compliance whether the other family members should be tested with the laws as easy as possible and avoid the or offered the test? potential for different, and conflicting, State and This illustrates the central concern, and that is, how Territory legislation. These argument have been should the personal genetic information be col- applied to all forms of privacy protection and it lected, stored, corrected and disclosed. The infor- applies equally to genetic privacy and discrimina- mation of the older sisters was that they have the tion. BRCA1 gene. This was their information which This legislation is also necessary to reassure the was directly relevant to their lives. However, that Australian community that genetic science and information was also relevant to their youngest (bio-)technology should be used for the benefit of sister. She shares genes with her sisters and it was society. Genetics is a rapidly developing science very likely she would have the same BRCA1 gene. and technology with many prospects for commer- Is her sister’s genetic information also her informa- cialisation. The existing and future applications of tion and what entitlements does she have to that this science and technology require a framework of information? Does she have a right to know that legislative protections to ensure that the information her siblings or relatives carry specific genes? which becomes available can be obtained and used This bill addresses some of these issues by provid- with a certainty that it is not being misused. ing for a scheme which gives to the individual the Without certainty that personal information is safe, right to determine how their genetic information is our communities will continue to be reluctant to disclosed. Under this bill, the individual will have adopt the great potential that genetic sciences and to provide written authorisation for the collection, technologies offers. This bill is essential to make storage and analysis of a DNA sample. The genetic sure we achieve the full potential of the technology information can then only be disclosed (or re- and the promises of improving human health. disclosed) if the individual has authorised the This bill recognises there is a difference between disclosure, the disclosure is required or authorised personal information and personal genetic informa- by or under law or the person who possesses the tion. The Privacy Act 1988 addresses personal information believes on reasonable grounds that the information and the Privacy Amendment Bill 1997 disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a which I introduced earlier this year extends that serious and imminent threat to the life or health of protection to personal information in all sectors of the individual or of another person. The information the Australian community. This bill, however, may also be re-disclosed only to the extent reason- addresses only genetic privacy and the related issue able in the exercise of judgment for professional of genetic discrimination. The key difference medical consultation for the direct benefit of a between personal information and personal genetic patient or with the written authorisation of the information is that genetic information is a perma- individual. nent part of our lives and those of our biological The recent High Court decision in Breen v. Wil- relatives. liams confirmed patients do not have a right at The issues are probably best illustrated by the common law of access to their medical records. example of the hunt for the breast cancer gene These are the records that would in the majority of called BRCA1. Following a diagnosis of breast cases contain genetic information and the ways the cancer in 1986 Kay Dickersin and her three sisters information was obtained. This bill provides a right submitted themselves to DNA testing in Mary- to inspect the genetic records and a mechanism to Claire King’s laboratory in Los Angeles. Through correct or identify disputed accuracy of those analysis of the sister’s DNA, the laboratory and records. These provisions are not an acquisition of other collaborating laboratories identified a region property and they should not offend the court’s of DNA which carried the undiscovered BRCA1 decision or the proprietary rights of medical record gene. Since then the gene has been cloned and the holders. predictive DNA test is available. The issue for the This bill also addresses the issue of who owns the community is how to ensure that this test, and biological material from which the genetic informa- others like it, are applied so that the basic privacy tion is derived. The case of Moore v Regents of the of individuals is adequately protected. University of California concerned the ownership In Kay Dickersin’s case she had three sisters, two of biological materials and illustrates the problem. of whom also developed breast cancer at age 38. John Moore was diagnosed to have hairy cell With 3 of the 4 sisters developing breast cancer leukaemia and sought help from Dr David Golde before menopause, and the youngest sister aged 35 at the UCLA Medical Centre. John’s cancerous and free of breast cancer, this represented a good spleen was removed and Dr Golde and his labora- bet for an inherited breast cancer gene. If a predic- tory cultured cells from the tumour. They discov- tive test had been available at that time, the issue ered unusual proteins in a cell line and filed a for the family could have been to determine which patent. The matter resulted in a dispute when Dr family members carried the BRCA1 gene and Golde attempted to get John to sign away his 840 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 rights, which ended up in court. The court eventual- discrimination on the basis of genetic information ly decided that Dr Golde should have revealed his unlawful except in certain circumstances of em- research to John, but granted the property rights of ployment and insurance. the cell line for a limited period to Dr Golde. There are no reported cases of discrimination based The effect of this decision was to say that John did on the results of a test for BRCA-1 (or BRCA-2). not own his own bodily material. This does not The commercialisation of these tests will lead to seem to be a satisfactory result and by extension more widespread testing and increase the dangers means that bodily material, such as blood and of genetic discrimination. However, if Kay DNA, used to obtain genetic information becomes Dickersin youngest sister as a healthy young the property of the tester. This is unfair. A patient woman went to her doctor for a routine checkup with their unique biology should not be removed to and mentioned her sisters had been diagnosed with the status of an interesting source of wealth, and the BRCA-1 gene and that was recorded on her their body and its materials should not be owned medical record, then it would be open to an by another. employer, an insurance company, etc. to use that A part of this concerns is addressed in the Patents information to treat her differently. It is estimated Amendment Bill 1996 which is presently before the that a woman carrying the BRCA-1 gene will have Senate. That bill excludes the patenting of gene and an 83 per cent chance of getting breast cancer by gene sequences. However, that bill does not the time they reach 70 years of age. Up until they adequately address the ownership of biological develop the cancer the person may be healthy and materials from a person. In this bill there are may never suffer breast cancer. To treat Kay provisions which require authorisation for the Dickersin youngest sister differently because she collection, storage and use of biological material had a sister with the BRCA-1 gene or that she had used to obtain the genetic information, and as a the BRCA-1 gene itself is unfair. This form of part of this authorisation there is a requirement that discrimination should not be allowed and this bill the individual have consented to the commercial will outlaw such discrimination. use of the sample with a waiver or provision for This bill recognises that genetic information may the economic benefit to go to the individual. This be of particular interest to an employer, employee provision is a balance between the interests of and/or prospective employee where it would enable complete ownership and promoting the opportunity a genetically susceptible employee to avoid occupa- of researchers to derive a commercial benefit from tional exposure to substances with a mutagenic or their endeavours. This is not an easy compromise teratogenic effect or determining a genotype that is and may need to be reviewed based on the experi- otherwise directly related to the work and is ence of this practice in Australia and overseas. consistent with business necessity. However, this Genetic discrimination describes the different use of genetic information must not restrict any treatment of individuals and their family based on right or benefit otherwise due or available to the genetic differences (presumed or actual) and may employee (or prospective employee). be distinguished from discrimination based on The impact on insurance of genetic information is having symptoms of a genetic disease. On 11 substantial and must be controlled. The insurance November 1997, the General Conference of providers in Australia have taken steps towards UNESCO adopted, unanimously and by acclama- addressing the use of genetic information, and these tion, the Universal Declaration on the Human steps are commendable. However, this bill provides Genome and Human Rights. Article 6 provides: clear guidance that insurance providers cannot "No one shall be subjected to discrimination discriminate against a person or their family based based on genetic characteristics that is intended on genetic information where that person or family to infringe or has the effect of infringing human member is presently healthy or on the basis of a rights, fundamental freedoms and human digni- request for or receipt of a genetic service. Further, ty." an insurance provider cannot require an applicant This bill outlaws genetic discrimination which to undergo genetic analysis or be questioned about occurs when an act involving a distinction, exclu- genetic information and they must inform the sion, restriction or preference is based on genetic person about their rights under this bill. information which has the purpose or effect of Although there are no reported cases of genetic nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment discrimination in Australia and world-wide the data or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human is limited, such discrimination most probably does right or fundamental freedom in the political, occur. A survey of 322 people with genetic dis- economic, social, cultural or any other field of orders in 44 United States States found 22 per cent public life. This discrimination should be unlawful were refused health insurance and 13 per cent were unless the community sanctions particular forms of denied or dismissed from a job. These findings do discrimination which are clearly set out in legisla- however, show genetic discrimination is an issue tion. This bill achieves this goal by making all which should be addressed. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 841

This bill also deals with the vexed issue of those next periodic report. To that end, it recommend- with a legal disability (for example, children) being ed that Australia conduct analyses of the success- subject to genetic analysis and how the resulting es and shortcomings of the new policies with a information will be disclosed—these decisions are view to providing data for future action, both in left to the parent, guardian or legal representative. Australia and elsewhere. It recommended that the Where genetic analysis is carried out on a foetus, Government design a long-term strategy aimed the foetus is treated as a part of the mother for the at the full implementation of the convention. purposes of the bill. When the foetus is born alive, That an evaluation should be conducted of the the genetic information then becomes the genetic Workplace Relations Act 1996, assessing its information of the newborn and dealt with under impact on women of different age groups, with the bill accordingly. That information remains different educational levels and in different available to the mother according to the disclosure occupational groups. The Government should provisions in the bill. assess whether the Act leads to increased or The collection of genetic information about indi- decreased part-time and casual work, and its viduals is central to the advancement of our impact on women workers’ benefits and on understanding of genetics. However this must be workers with family responsibilities, particularly balanced against the privacy rights of individuals. women’s ability to obtain maternity leave. A This bill attempts to draw this distinction by similar evaluation and assessment was recom- requiring authorisation and notice for the collection mended for Australia’s new child care benefit of the information and for the storage and analysis scheme. of the DNA sample(s). The measures set out in this That the Government assess the benefits of a bill are directed at ensuring many of the conten- continuing national women’s health policy and tious issues are dealt with before the research is ensure that any further change in that policy did undertaken so that there is agreement between both not lead to a decreased access by women, the researchers and their subjects. These measures especially vulnerable groups of women, to are significant in that they allow the disclosure of comprehensive health services. It also recom- genetic information for purposes other than those mended that data and indicators on health should for which it was collected if personal identifiers are be collected, disaggregated by sex, age, ethnicity, not used. Alternatively the authorisation of the rural/urban areas and other distinctions. Data individual can be obtained. should also be collected on the impact of the We recognise the inherent dangers in limiting the shift in responsibility for health care from the availability of information collected for research federal to the State level. purposes on the potential of that information as a resource for further research. The measures in this That the convention, as well as the Beijing bill are a balance between the interests of the Declaration and Platform of Action, should be individual and the interests of researchers. translated for non-English speaking Australians. This bill sets out a comprehensive scheme to deal That a comprehensive strategy to eliminate with genetic testing. The bill is necessary because violence against women should be adopted genetic science and technology are rapidly advan- following the National Domestic Violence cing and what was once difficult and expensive will Summit, with an emphasis on prevention, and soon be routine and cheap. The wealth of this new with sufficient funding. It also recommended that information must be recognised and put towards the ways should be found to involve women’s benefit of our communities. groups in the development of strategies to reduce violence in the media, including electronic Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) media, and that they should participate in the adjourned. development of self-regulatory codes of practice of the media. The Government should further WOMEN assess its monitoring and enforcement responsi- Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the bilities in that regard. request of Senator Reynolds) agreed to: Noting the differing State provisions in relation That the Australian Government should mark to prostitution, the Government should assess the International Women’s Day 1998 by responding effectiveness of the varying measures in reducing publicly to the recommendations made by the the exploitation of prostitution. United Nations Commission on the Status of That the Government collect statistical data on Women in July 1997, which include: the participation of indigenous women in the That the Government should carefully monitor work force, in decision-making, in politics and the impact of recent policy changes in all areas administration, and in the judiciary. It suggested covered by the convention for inclusion in its that the Government might include representa- 842 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

tives of indigenous communities when it present- That the Senate— ed its next report to the committee. (a) notes: That, in the light of the Mabo and Wik judg- (i) that 6 March 1998 was ‘Go Casual for a ments of the High Court, the Government should Cause’ day, and develop the necessary legislative and policy measures to ensure women’s equal access to (ii) that, on this day, members of the com- individual ownership of native land. munity are encouraged to ‘Go Casual for a Cause’ by wearing jeans, pyjamas, a The Government strengthen its support for moth-balled relic from the past, or an ‘I women’s studies, provide funding for research would if I could’ badge for those who and teaching, and facilitate international academ- cannot bring themselves to dress casually; ic exchange and cooperation in that field. and The Government resume its active and visible (b) commends the Spastic Centres of Australia participation in international forums on women’s in their bid to make Australians ‘Go Casual equality, such as in the Commonwealth and the for a Cause’ on 6 March 1998 in support of United Nations. therapy, research, education and services for The wide dissemination of these concluding people with cerebral palsy. comments in Australia, so as to make individuals aware of the steps that had been taken to ensure MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE de facto equality for women. Citrus Industry COMMONWEALTH ENVIRONMENT The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT LEGISLATION (Senator Patterson)—The President has Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: received a letter from Senator Woodley That the Senate— proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for (a) notes that: discussion, namely: (i) the Minister for the Environment (Senator The failure of the government to do anything Hill) has released a consultation paper, effective about the crisis in the Australian citrus entitled, Reform of Commonwealth Envi- industry resulting in the loss of more than 440 ronment Legislation, seeking public million fresh Australian oranges a year. comment by 23 March 1998, (ii) comment is called for on the most exten- I call upon those senators who approve of the sive review of environmental powers ever proposed discussion to rise in their places. initiated by the Commonwealth, More than the number of senators required (iii) if it were a true public consultation pro- by the standing orders having risen in their cess there would be no drafting of legisla- places— tion until comments had been received and evaluated, Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (4.14 p.m.)—The state of the citrus industry is a (iv) while the Minister wants the legislation introduced into Parliament in April 1998, very important matter. It is certainly important there is no need for this haste, and to those many primary producers who are (v) the Minister is already getting the legisla- affected by the fact that the government has tion drafted so that it will be ready re- done nothing to prevent the collapse of their gardless of the public comments received, industry. I would like to point out, not in my making it a cynical public relations exer- own words but largely in the words of the cise; and industry itself, what the failure of this govern- (b) calls on the Minister to give a commitment ment has meant. to the Senate that the drafting of the legisla- I will quote from a number of different tion will immediately stop until the date for comments has closed and those comments sources. The first quote is from a media received have been evaluated and incorpo- release by Sunraysia Citrus Growers Inc. rated into the review process. headed ‘Orange growers dump Canberra’. They do not actually mean the city of Can- CEREBRAL PALSY berra, or even all the politicians in Can- Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed berra—quite specifically, they are dumping on to: the government. This press release is about Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 843 impoverished citrus growers who want to orange juice enterprise, the Original Juice Com- draw attention to their dying industry which pany, said today, "We have been running a TV and has been ruined by imported orange concen- radio campaign to convince consumers to buy Australian orange juice because, quite frankly, if trate and improper labelling. Mr Peter Crisp, they don’t the industry will simply disappear. An chief of Sunraysia Citrus Growers Inc., is unnecessary, tragic loss for Australia". reported as saying: Let me also quote some facts and figures It beggars common sense that a government of from an orange fact sheet supplied to me by economic rationalists is sacrificing an industry which is not only internationally competitive but in the industry: the export arena outperforms beef, wheat and wool! Due to Federal Government trade policies and inadequate labelling laws, 1.1 million Australian He goes on: orange trees will be destroyed by 2000. Reducing We have been lied to, conned, ignored and patron- the amount of oranges grown in Australia by a ised by the Federal Government because they just staggering— won’t act nationally or internationally to save our I will repeat the figure because I know some industry... members were incredulous when they read it Sunraysia Citrus Growers went on to say in on the Notice Paper; this is from the indus- their press release that ‘Australia is awash in try— a sea of cheap Brazilian orange juice 440 million per year! concentrate’. Mr Crisp then says: That is a loss of food to this country. Let me This will lead to the destruction of 500,000 orange trees within two years making a total of 1.1 million give some more facts: Australian orange trees ripped up over five years, Orange juice is still the only breakfast food that all because the Government— pays a wholesale tax of 12%. Milk, coffee, butter, including the former government— cereal, tea and bread are all tax free. In a 1997 benchmarking study the Australian citrus places political expediency above rational econom- industry was confirmed as being internationally ics. We believe consumers will react with horror competitive. when they discover this means the loss of more than— So the industry are doing their best. They are this is where the figure comes from— not relying on just domestic markets. They are trying to be competitive in export markets, 440 million fresh Australian oranges a year. but they are having the ground stripped from He goes on to say: underneath them. The fact sheet continues: What makes us angry is Australian companies, During the last two years Brazilian orange juice some of whom received financial support from their concentrate has flooded into Australia at an alarm- State governments, are selling Brazilian concentrate ing rate equivalent to 300,000 tonnes (of fresh fruit) as an Australian product! Because of ludicrous per annum, or 150,000,000 litres of orange juice a labelling laws this amounts to misleading Austral- year. ian consumers in a big way—again promises from Federal and State politicians/governments have Despite promises from both State and Federal resulted in no tangible action! politicians to reform labelling laws, Brazilian concentrate is still on our supermarket shelves Senator Ferguson—So what is your solu- labelled in such a way that it can easily be con- tion? Have you got some solutions? fused by the consumer for an Australian product. Senator WOODLEY—Again, talking ...... about pre-election promises for labelling Southern Australia’s 2,400 citrus growers (located legislation, the South Australian Farmers in NSW, Victoria, SA) employ directly and indi- Federation, Senator Ferguson would be rectly around 7,000. Australia’s juice processors interested to know, said to me that this employ approximately another 3,000 people— government has done nothing and they are this is the industry that this government very upset that the legislation promised to refuses to support—Together they are an eco- them has not eventuated. The press release nomic rationalist’s dream in terms of efficiency and export performance. These industries contribute continues: $millions to the national economy. So why is it that Lending support to the growers plight, Mr Adam Federal and State governments alike sit on their Thyssen, manager of the nation’s largest fresh hands watching the entire industry crumble? 844 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

The Original Juice Company pays Australian concentrate sector. I must emphasise that that orange growers $210 per tonne and the average reworking of trees does not necessarily in- labour rate is $110 per day. volve pulling the trees out. (Time expired) I do not deny that the Asian currency crisis Senator TROETH (Victoria— has obviously had an impact on fresh product, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for particularly that going to Indonesia. But the Primary Industries and Energy) (4.21 p.m.)—I government is acting to minimise this impact thank Senator Woodley for giving us this through IMF assistance packages to Thailand, opportunity to talk today about the true state Indonesia and South Korea as well as through of the citrus industry and how the government the Export Finance Insurance Corporation’s is assisting growers. This situation is not new. short-term credit insurance through the nation- Citrus growers have been aware for a long al interest facility. I would like the Senate time that they need to move into higher value also to note that, as a result of recent events, produce, and indeed many have done this. Indonesia has recently reduced tariff levels on The returns from whole fruit for export and imports of fresh citrus from 25 per cent to the production of whole fruit for the domestic five per cent—an event which will help market compared with the returns for juice Australian exporters considerably in the have been and always will be very much longer term. higher. In view of Senator Woodley’s com- ments that the industry is disappearing, it is I chair the Citrus Market Development important to note that in 1996-97 total citrus Group, which over the previous five years has exports were valued at $175 million—3½ had a budget of $8.4 million to assist citrus times the level of citrus imports. So we are growers. This money is available for a variety obviously exporting far more citrus than we of projects that will benefit the industry in import. terms of developing market opportunities. The decision as to what people grow and Since 1994, projects have been funded to how they grow it is made by, as in any other assist the industry with export market and industry, growers. It is not a government development, with technical adjustment and decision that trees are being removed. On the with promotion of 100 per cent Australian other hand, it is the decision by growers to fresh orange juice on the domestic market. deliberately concentrate on either growing We look forward to further activity on behalf trees that will produce better or other products of this group, which has $500,000 to commit such as wine grapes or table grapes that will in this financial year and a further $1.54 return a far greater level for their investment. million in the next financial year to fund these projects. But it is up to the industry to As far as Senator Woodley’s charges are determine how they want that money spent concerned that the industry will disappear, it and to put it to that group for consideration. is also important to note that citrus exports in It is not for government, Senator Woodley, to 1996-97 were five times the value of exports tell growers what they should grow or how seven years ago. That is a growth of over 30 they should grow it. per cent per annum—a good improvement in anyone’s terms and certainly not an indication I would now like to move to the issue of that this very important industry is disappear- labelling. The industry believes strongly that ing. The returns from the 20 per cent of citrus one of the key ways in which the government production that is exported represents about can assist the industry is through improved 50 per cent of total citrus returns. It is in that labelling laws. I am pleased to say that the production of whole fruit that the real value Hon. Warren Truss, the Minister for Customs of the industry lies. The progressive citrus and Consumer Affairs, will be introducing producers are now pruning, thinning and legislation very shortly to improve our label- consciously culturing their trees in order to ling laws, not only to benefit the industry but increase the quality pack-out ratios and also to provide further information to consum- thereby reduce their reliance on the juice ers in a way that is much clearer. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 845

Like me, all senators and indeed all those government. Funding is available and we listening will have been into supermarkets await the cooperation of the state govern- where they have been unable to read the very ments in this happening. fine print on labels to determine where exact- The other assistance that we have provided ly the product comes from. Under these new includes such items as the tri-state fruit fly laws the label ‘Product of Australia’ will strategy; the government advancing agricultu- mean just that: 100 per cent Australian con- ral Australia package of $500 million, which tent. To use the ‘Made in Australia’ label, two assists citrus farmers, among others, with farm tests will have to be passed: one, the product business plans; the research and development will have to be substantially transformed in matching dollars provided by the government Australia to be a new and significantly differ- through the payment of industry levies; and ent product; and, two, at least 50 per cent of the benefit of a more open trade environment, the cost of production must have been in- with new markets being opened in Thailand, curred in Australia. Taiwan, the Philippines and the US. The regulations will specifically address the I must emphasise that industry has its part very point that Senator Woodley made. It will to play in this. We are looking for expressions no longer be possible to add Australian water from industry through the Citrus Market to Brazilian concentrate and pass that off as Development Group, the Australian Citrus an Australian product. They will specifically Growers Association and all those grower, preclude that advantage being taken. Senator processor and marketing groups which take an Woodley, we expect you and the Democrats interest in the citrus industry. All of those to support this legislation when it comes into groups have avenues to government. We look the Senate. So, having taken into account the for expressions of interest from them. There remarks you have just made on labelling, we will be no heavy-handed government interfer- certainly expect to see the Democrats voting ence in this industry, Senator Woodley. The with the government when those labelling days of that have passed. laws arrive. This government looks for an open expres- Senator Woodley—We will vote with you. sion of interest from the industry as to the We will probably have to fix it up, though, way in which this government can best assist before we do. it. We will then move towards that assistance Senator TROETH—No; it is such careful- through the programs that I have already ly crafted legislation that any assistance from mentioned, certainly through my own activi- you probably will not be needed. ties as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister I would now like to move to the rural for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. partnerships programs. The government has John Anderson, and in my role as having made funds available to the major citrus particular responsibility for horticulture and, growing areas of New South Wales, Victoria through that, the citrus industry. Those citrus and South Australia through the rural partner- growers with whom I have already spoken on ship program. The kick-start Sunraysia strat- my visits to the Riverland, the Murrumbidgee egy centred around Mildura will provide irrigation area and Queensland know that I am $10.8 million over three years to the always very happy to hear from them about Sunraysia region to enable irrigation farmers the way in which this government can con- to initiate redevelopment programs and move tinue to assist their industry. towards planting some of the crops that I Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) mentioned earlier. They will then become (4.30 p.m.)—Let me say at the outset that the sufficiently viable to be able to continuously opposition supports the terms of the matter of invest in the world’s best technology for public importance that has been proposed by production and sustainability. Similar plans Senator Woodley today. We strongly support are under way for the final form of the River- the proposition that this government has failed land and Murrumbidgee irrigation area strat- and failed dismally when it comes to doing egies. A commitment is in place by this anything effective about the crisis in the 846 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Australian citrus industry. It is a pity that the Senator FORSHAW—I will come in a Australian Democrats earlier in the day did moment to what we propose, Senator Fergu- not show the sort of concern for a serious son. We are here talking about the failures of matter like this that they are now showing. It this government. is a pity that we wasted a lot of time on the disgraceful censure motion that the govern- This is one of Australia’s major rural ment moved. It would have been better spent industries. It has a great tradition in this devoting more time to this important issue. country. For a long time Australia has been about 75 per cent self-sufficient in terms of its Let us look at the government’s position. requirements for fruit and fruit juice. As The parliamentary secretary, Senator Troeth, Senator Woodley referred to, and as I think at the conclusion of her remarks called upon all members of parliament know—if they do the industry to put forward their views and not they should know because of the constant their strategies, to be a partner in an approach cries from industry representatives and from to looking at the problems with the industry. my former trade union, the Australian Work- That is all well and good. The problem, ers Union, to members of parliament who however, that Senator Troeth, Minister Ander- have been lobbying us—we have this major son and the government have to come to grips problem of the importation of large quantities with is that this is a crisis. The word in the of Brazilian fruit juice concentrate. motion is correct; there is a crisis in the citrus industry. We all recognise that Australia played a leading role in the promotion of trade I have had the opportunity over a number liberalisation. Our government, the former of years to be involved closely with the citrus Labor government, was at the forefront of that industry and the fruit growing industry par- with the establishment of the Cairns Group. ticularly in my former capacity as an official We do not resile in any respect from that, but of the Australian Workers Union. Whilst the dilemma that is faced today that was not members of the government like to deride necessarily faced even a couple of years ago anybody who happens to have a trade union is that, with this massive collapse in prices background, the fact is that that gave me an that has occurred in the last couple of years opportunity to visit many, if not all, of the and with the ability for manufacturers in this fruit growing regions of Australia and talk to country to import huge quantities of Brazilian employers, particularly family orchardists, fruit juice and then market it often in a fruit growers and their employees. Many of disguised way or in a misunderstood way as those employees, as Senator Ferguson coming if it is produce of Australia because it has from South Australia no doubt recognises, are Australian water added to it, we have fruit hardworking seasonal itinerant workers. They growers and fruit industry workers on their come back year after year to the same district knees. to bring in the fruit crop. The problem we have today is that, because This government has talked about what it of a range of factors, particularly because of is going to do in the areas of labelling, but the depressed—in fact, collapsed—price for when is it going to get around to it? This fruit internationally, Australian fruit growers issue has been on the government’s doorstep are being hit harder than they have ever been for at least 12 months. This government has hit before. It is no good standing up and talked about the fact that industries should talking about strategies and plans for partner- cooperate and participate in developing ships when you have the jobs of 9,000 em- alternative products. That may be a good ployees under threat and you have the inter- long-term view, but when it came to the ests of 3,000 fruit growers under threat. crunch in the textile, clothing and footwear Action has to be taken and taken now. industry and when it came to the crunch in the motor vehicle industry this government Senator Ferguson—What are your solu- was forced to backtrack on the implementa- tions? tion of its policies. That was because of the Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 847 critical situation that was reached in those The Shadow Minister for Trade, Simon Crean industries. has declared his view that Australian industry should not be forced to compete unfairly against It is quite clear that one can support quite product coming in that itself is not fairly priced. openly the appropriate reduction of tariffs ...... over time. But crisis situations do arise in . . . Labor is giving some hope to citrus growers industries, as they did in the steel industry and other industries which have suffered under the when our government was in office—and we current trade conditions. dealt with it at the time, as would be known Then it goes on: about by Senator George Campbell. Your government eventually was forced to the table Support for the citrus industry has also come with textile clothing and footwear and vehicle from Russ Collison, the State Secretary for the Australian Workers Union, who was in Griffith last manufacturing industries. So why can’t you year and spoke at the Citrus and Chicken Meat also do the same thing in respect of the citrus Rally. industry? The citrus industry is now waiting on a response We have a situation where growers and from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for grower organisations have been screaming for Trade, Tim Fischer, following on the meeting at Tooleybuo recently. months now, sending deputations to the government, and they are still waiting for As many in the industry recognise, now is the time to put pressure on politicians while they’re in responses; they are still waiting for some election mode. glimmer of hope from this government. But, of course, this government is preoccupied. It So, Senator Ferguson, I would say that you does not really seem to have too much of a can expect a few more phone calls from the concern about the crisis facing many people citrus growers. The article concludes: in rural and regional Australia. As I said the Unless something is achieved soon, then growers other day, we have not heard boo from this will be waiting for the ballot box to make their government or this minister about the prob- views known in the only way some politicians understand. lems that have affected the people in Cobar, or in Grafton, or now in Woodlawn Mine— So the position of the Labor Party is that and equally in respect of the citrus industry. there needs to be urgent action; there needs to be a package of support for citrus growers In contrast, Senator Ferguson referred and employees in the citrus industry—and earlier to the ALP’s position. The position of that package of support should be developed the ALP was firmly put down at the national and should be provided urgently. Furthermore, conference held in Hobart only a couple of the long term position of the industry, particu- months ago. In relation to its position, I larly in respect of how it can cope with the would like to read to you, Senator Ferguson, depressed price market and the quite unfair from a newspaper report of that conference. comparative tariff levels in other countries, This is from the Area News, a country news- needs to be resolved. paper in rural New South Wales, of Wednes- day 28 January. These are not newspapers In conclusion, we support this motion. It is that are necessarily noted for their great self-evident that this government has failed support for the Labor Party. But the heading the citrus growers and the citrus industry. of the article is ‘Welcome citrus news from They are but one group of many in this ALP conference’. It states: country that are complaining long and loud about the lack of support for rural and region- Citrus growers should be heartened by the al Australia. knowledge their plight has been recognised and taken on board by the Australian Labor Party at I note that Senator Boswell will be speaking national policy level. after I have concluded. Senator Boswell no By embedding anti-dumping measures in its core doubt will try and get up here in some pathet- policy, the Labor Party is formally acknowledging ic attempt to defend the government’s record. that Australian industries must be allowed to But Senator Boswell knows just as I know compete fairly in order to survive. that, when you go out—and Senator Woodley 848 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 knows this—into the rural and regional areas, debate on the Uruguay Round of GATT and as I am constantly doing, and talk to the sugar the World Trade Organisation, and currently growers, or the wheat growers, or the meat in relation to the Multilateral Agreement on industry employees, or the miners, or the local Investment, the Greens have repeatedly government representatives in country towns, warned the major parties against embracing or when you talk to the citrus growers, as I these agreements wholeheartedly without have done down in the Riverina, they have thorough consideration of the impacts and one message. That message is: this govern- implications for Australians. We wanted to ment has failed them. look, if you recall, at the social, economic and What they are even more concerned about, environmental impacts of these changes over what they are even more upset about is that time. What would be the impacts on produc- the National Party has failed them. All these tive capacity; what would the impacts on seats in these areas are invariably held by employment; and what would be the impacts National Party members. I go up to Page in the long run on the balance of trade—and fairly regularly— we know what the impacts have been on that. Senator O’Chee—You have not made We also know what the impacts have been much impression then, have you? on some of those industries which were meant to be the big winners—the beef industry and Senator FORSHAW—We have made a the wool industry. A lot of those other rural large impression, I tell you. Ian Causley is a industries were basically told to be quiet very worried man. Just as the electors of because there was going to be so much Clarence elected Harry Woods to the state benefit for other parts of the rural industry— parliament with a resounding victory at that and, of course, it did not happen. state by-election, they are going to kick Ian Causley out of his seat because he has done The major parties have assumed, without nothing for the farmers and people in that investigation, that the benefits will be realised area. I support the motion wholeheartedly. and everyone will be a winner. The citrus industry is a shining example of the devastat- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ing effect that can result from this kind of (Senator Patterson)—Order! Senator blind attitude. The industry has been burdened Forshaw, would you refer to members of the with a reduction in tariff protection from 35 other side by their proper title? per cent to five per cent in the last decade, Senator FORSHAW—Member Causley. and a sales tax of 12 per cent on freshly The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— squeezed orange juice, without adequate Mr Causley, thank you. assistance for the industry in the adjustment phase. As a result, there has been a flood of Senator FORSHAW—Mr Causley. cheap Brazilian concentrated orange juice, the Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) citrus industry has had to destroy thousands (4.42 p.m.)—I am encouraged by the words of trees, and the viability of the industry is of some members of the Labor Party today, under threat. in particular those of Senator Forshaw saying We acknowledge that the export figures that the Labor Party has discovered some of have increased over the last six years, and this the problems in relation to the citrus industry. evidences the commitment of the citrus I am encouraged because, as some honourable industry to building up export markets and senators will know, the citrus industry was pursuing international areas. However, a extremely concerned in the lead-up to the strong home base is crucial for the continued Uruguay Round of GATT about the implica- survival of this industry, which is trying tions that so-called free trade would have on desperately and valiantly to adjust and di- the industry—and they were basically left versify. Figures stated in the Australian floating at that time. Commodity Statistics 1996, produced by The current crisis in the citrus industry is ABARE, show that imported orange juice has no surprise to the Greens WA. During the increased from a mere 7.1 per cent of domes- Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 849 tic availability in 1988-89 to 67.8 per cent in talked about stopping imports from Brazil. 1995-96—or from 6.3 million litres in 1988- But let me ask you, Senator Forshaw: what 89 to 129.7 million litres in 1996-97. (Time would happen if we did decide that we were expired) going to cut our imports? If we cut off any of Senator FERGUSON (South Australia) our markets to overseas suppliers, how is that (4.45 p.m.)—I am not surprised at Senator in Australia’s interest? As well as increasing Woodley’s contribution to this debate, or prices, restrictions on imports would be Senator Margetts’s, because they are entirely challenged by our trading partners—who are predictable. Senator Woodley travels around members of the WTO—and this could only Queensland and other rural areas of Australia lead to retaliation, which would not be in the trying to canvass some support for the Demo- best interests of Australian industry, Austral- crats in those areas, and he will never get it ian farmers or Australian jobs. because everything he says is totally illogical. You allude to the fact that orange juice Senator Woodley tries to highlight what he concentrate is dumped in Australia. There are perceives to be problems but he never offers anti-dumping measures in place, but nobody a solution. In all the time that he spoke, not has made use of the anti-dumping measures once did he offer any solution. I am not to try to stop what they perceive to be dump- surprised at his contribution, or that of Sena- ing of concentrated orange juice. Lost export tor Margetts, but when it comes to Senator markets, if we have retaliation, would not be Forshaw’s contribution, I am somewhat in the best interests of Australian industry, surprised. Australian farmers, rural producers or Austral- Senator Forshaw, your government was in ian jobs. There are 130 countries in the World power for a long, long time, and a lot of the Trade Organisation and there are another 28 things that we have in place are there as a countries seeking to get into it because of the result of the actions taken by your govern- benefits it provides. Not once, Senator ment. Yet now, for some perceived political Woodley, did I hear you mention any of the gain, you choose to change practically every benefits it provides, because with 0.3 per cent view that you have had. You are now getting of the world’s population and only one per to the stage where you never get up and say, cent of the world’s trade, Australia cannot ‘All we did was wrong and we are going to gain by closing off our markets and having change our ideas.’ All you are saying is that our export markets shrink. you are going to tinker at the edges. I asked We do not believe that we can just naively you to provide some solutions as to how this go outside the rules agreed on in the Uruguay problem could be overcome—because you Round of world trade negotiations which were said you had all the solutions when you were finalised by the previous government. Your in government, which in fact you did not— government finalised them, and we do not but you did not come up with one concrete believe that we can just naively go outside solution. What would you like us to do? those rules. That hard-won market access has Would you like to raise imports? benefits of an estimated $5 billion per annum The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT to Australian industry, including $1 billion to (Senator Patterson)—Senator Ferguson, the agricultural sector. The government is not address your comments through the chair. prepared to put at risk these benefits to the Senator FERGUSON—I am sorry, Madam wider Australian community. Acting Deputy President. The question I The benefits of open trade are not always would put to you is: what would Senator well known because this is the good news that Forshaw have us do? Would he have us no-one complains about. But in citrus alone prevent imports and raise tariffs? That is one over the past two years, as my colleague solution. That is really what you are after. Senator Troeth said, new markets have been You say that many growers have called for opened up in Thailand, Taiwan, the Philip- restrictions on imports of orange juice concen- pines and the United States. We know that the trate and that is a fact; specifically, they have situation is not a level playing field, but we 850 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 must work hard to make it fairer. That is what lower cost and we cannot compete in that this government has been consistently trying segment of the market. If you were to con- to do for a number of years now, and yet you sider a tariff, putting aside the difficulties that would turn your back, Senator Forshaw, on Senator Ferguson has mentioned for example, those things that have made world trade much it would have to be a tariff of massive propor- fairer today than it ever was— tions. It would have to be a tariff of 100, 200 Senator Boswell—What about all the blue- or 300 per cent and that is simply not pos- collar workers? sible if we are to meet our obligations in respect of the various GATT agreements and Senator FERGUSON—I am not sure that the World Trade Organisation. It is simply not he is very concerned about the blue-collar possible and I certainly do not advocate that. workers, but let me tell you that it has been made fairer and we have not turned our backs The approach that the Labor Party took like you have on your policy. (Time expired) when it was in office was to try, in a proactive way, to assist the industry to refocus Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (4.50 and to restructure—to deal with the funda- p.m.)—My contribution may surprise the mental problems that the Australian citrus government, but I am largely going to agree industry faces. Except for Queensland—and with the position and strategy taken by the I am sure Senator Boswell is aware of the government on the citrus industry to date. I structure of the industry in Queensland—the will be critical in respect of the resources producers of citrus are generally small scale allocated to the strategy they are following. I land-holders, especially in Victoria, New would also like to take the opportunity to South Wales and South Australia. Many of congratulate Senator Troeth on being appoint- them have properties that have been inherited ed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for from solider settlement days. These are very Primary Industries and Energy. small properties where it is difficult to obtain The difficulty facing the citrus industry is, an economy of scale. fundamentally, the importation of cheap The citrus industry, in common with many concentrate from Brazil. There are a number other areas around Australia and many other of other sources but, in the main, it is coming sectors of the agricultural industry, is facing from Brazil. The very difficult and sad fact is the phasing of full cost recovery for water in that the Australian industry, when it is pro- the area of irrigation. That is a substantial ducing for the juice market—the fresh juice problem of adjustment, particularly for the market aside—cannot compete against citrus industry, which is a very substantial Brazilian and other imports. Production costs user of water. The cost recovery of water is in that segment of the market, for a variety of a position subscribed to by Labor, and Liberal reasons, are much lower in Brazil than can be and National Party governments at a federal achieved in Australia. Unfortunately, Austral- and state level. ian citrus producers—if they are producing in the main for juice concentrate—cannot com- One of the critical problems for producers pete against Brazil. in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria is that their pack-out rate—in other We had this debate back in 1994, and I am words, the proportion of their crop that is glad Senator Boswell is in the chamber produced and sold as whole fruit where it is because he was one who contributed on that possible to make money—is very low. I do occasion. We had the debate when we were not know the latest figures— considering eight bills in respect of the World Trade Organisation. Senator Boswell—Sixty per cent, isn’t it? The simple solution that is advocated is to Senator SHERRY—In 1994 I think it was put a tariff on imported concentrates of juice. about 30 per cent. I suspect it has actually The fact is that the juice concentrate being improved since then. imported into this country does not fit into the Senator Boswell—Forty per cent go and 60 category of dumping. It is produced at a per cent are for juice. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 851

Senator SHERRY—That is right. If it is disappointing given the very serious nature of 40 per cent at the present time then 60 per the problems facing the citrus industry. It cent of their crop, which is hand picked, goes could certainly be argued that in the current to juice. It is a market they cannot compete climate, with the continuing increase of in against the Brazilian imports. imports, particularly of Brazilian concentrate, That is contrasted to the situation in your the allocation of money could have been home state of Queensland, Senator Boswell, increased. I hope you take that suggestion on where the pack-out is between 80 and 90 per board, Senator Boswell, because I would like cent. Eighty or 90 per cent of the fruit that is to see the National Party flex its muscles in picked is for the whole fruit market, whether this and other primary industry areas. Unfor- it is domestic or export. Only a very small tunately that muscle is sadly lacking. That is proportion of the crop goes to the juice not a personal reflection on you but unfortu- market. That is one advantage that Queens- nately, under the current coalition arrange- land growers have. Also, because of the ments, the voice of the National Party is not climatic differences, Queensland growers are being heard in this and some other areas. That able to market in the domestic market and to has been reflected in that budget allocation of some extent in the export market before $8.5 million. southern growers. That is another important The fundamental challenge for the citrus advantage that Queensland growers have. growers, particularly in the southern states of Thirdly, the properties of Queensland growers, Australia, is to improve the pack out rate. I on average, are larger than properties in acknowledge that that is not easy to do. It southern Australia, so there is an economy of means a significant change in practices. scale factor. I also understand that substantial Unfortunately, I think it does mean a signifi- sections of the Queensland industry are cant increase in the average size of properties. relatively new in a sense compared to the Unfortunately, that means some rationalisation three southern states. Therefore it is very of the industry. I have to be honest about it. difficult for producers in the three southern I think that is happening and is inevitably states to compete in the juice concentrate going to continue. But there is an important market. role for government in providing both positive What was the approach of Labor when it assistance and assistance in other forms to the was in government? I think Senator Ferguson growers in that industry. was a little uncharitable in his remarks. Labor I also think this does mean ongoing upgrad- did recognise that there were some fundamen- ing of many of our irrigation projects around tal structural problems. Labor and the minister Australia. I do not hold federal governments for primary industries and energy at the time, responsible for this, but it is a sad fact that Senator Bob Collins, announced the allocation successive state governments have neglected of $9 million for various programs in the the irrigation infrastructure in this country. It citrus industry. This was a good example of is all very well to have constructed irrigation the role of government in being proactive in projects around the country and to have industry development and industry assistance. encouraged soldier settlement. I applaud that. What was the $9 million for? It was for a But over a long period state governments did variety of proactive programs to benefit the not upgrade the irrigation infrastructure in this citrus industry, including citrus promotion, country. We still have open channel irrigation additional research for new markets, fresh in this country, and that is very inefficient for juice promotion, export marketing and product the delivery of water. identity. That was a Labor Party initiative. I I have touched very briefly in my contribu- know Senator Boswell argued at the time tion to this debate on some of the essential about whether or not it was enough. elements and problems that are facing the The area where I will be critical of this citrus industry. I do have some time left so government is their reduction of the funding perhaps I will highlight the last figures I have from $9 million to $8.5 million. That is very available, which I think are for 1992-93. I am 852 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 sure these have changed, but they do illustrate contribution, if we were to do that we would the problem. The average return to a grower need tariffs of around 200-300 per cent. That for concentrate was $90 per tonne. The is not feasible. average cost of production was $150 a tonne Senator Woodley, let me address a couple in 1992-93. It is probably worse now. Fresh of items you brought up which were relevant. juice products gave an average return of $176 When I was listening to you on the TV, I to a grower and the production costs were responded to your address by ringing Warren $150, so they could just make ends meet in Truss’s office up and saying, ‘When is this the fresh juice area. Domestic fruit orange labelling legislation coming through?’ I was sales were $200 a tonne and production costs told that the labelling legislation would be were $150 a tonne. Export navel oranges gave coming into this parliament around 30 March. a return of $324 to the grower and had a I have two press releases here to verify it. production cost return of $150. I am sure The points you pick up on labelling are valid, those figures have got worse. I can see Sena- and I believe the government has responded tor Boswell nodding. He may have some to those points by having legislation which it updated figures. will introduce on the 30th of this month. Let I have been a touch critical of the govern- us put the labelling issue to one side and say ment and I have to conclude by saying that that that has been fixed. the government has reached some agreements The real issue is that Australia exports $23 for export marketing. It could have been a billion worth of food and fibre. Through that little more balanced and acknowledged that in process, it creates 180,000 blue collar jobs. 1995 we did improve the market access to Those are the jobs of people that work in Thailand. (Time expired) Golden Circle, in the sugar mills and in the Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leader abattoirs. They all depend on trade of the National Party of Australia in the liberalisation. The more the tariffs come down Senate) (5.03 p.m.)—At the outset, let me in overseas countries, the more our export commend Senator Sherry for a speech that markets increase and, therefore, the more blue was truthful and honest. Sometimes in this collar jobs increase. The highest employer of place you have to do that. You have to stand blue collar workers in this nation is the food up and tell people what is good for them, processing industry. It produces and provides although they might not want to hear it. 180,000 jobs to Australian workers. I expect Going out and misleading them, telling them you have been down to Golden Circle, Sena- you can build up artificial trade barriers and tor Woodley— raise the tariffs sounds good, Senator Senator Woodley—On a number of occa- Woodley, but it is not. You are playing right sions. into the hands of Pauline Hanson. You are Senator BOSWELL—on a number of where the left meets the right. You are firmly occasions, as all good Queensland senators jammed up together with her, arms around would. The reduction in the sugar tariff meant each other, walking towards dishonesty and about $800,000 to Golden Circle. It meant towards misleading the primary industries of $200,000 to the ginger industry. They can Australia. increase their production and their profits and Senator Woodley—Who is going to swap their workers’ wages. They can put on more preferences with whom? That will really be workers and export. That is how it works. If the test, whose arm is around who. you reduce your costs, you can increase your Senator BOSWELL—Your arm is firmly production. around Ms Pauline Hanson’s shoulders, as But then you talk about the industry being you march together, misleading the primary in crisis. I accept that some sections of the producers of Australia. Much as he would like industry are in crisis—I have to acknowledge a tariff barrier to help him out, any primary that—but some sections of the industry are producer knows that it is not feasible. As doing very nicely. Some sections of the Senator Sherry correctly pointed out in his industry, particularly the ones in Queensland Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 853 where they have gone into easy peel fruits cause we need only one farmer in five to and they have access to early markets, are grow enough, to produce enough, for doing exceptionally well. Mention a tariff to Australia’s domestic industry.’ If your policies them and they will run you off their property. were implemented, Senator Woodley, some- They do not want a tariff because they can one would have to go out and say ‘You are get into the export markets, and they do not redundant’ to four out of five farmers. (Time want any retaliation from Asia or the US, expired) which have cut their tariffs and provided them Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (5.10 with export market opportunities. We are now p.m.)—in reply—I will reply particularly to exporting $175 million in citrus—$175 some of the statements made by some of the million worth of oranges and easy peel fruits, government senators on this matter of public including mandarins, are going out. So $175 importance. I am really amazed that Senator million of navels are going out and around Boswell did not actually say what his govern- $46 million in the equivalent of orange juice ment was going to do. He spent most of his concentrate is coming in. Where the swings time saying what he thought my policy was meet the roundabouts the industry is doing and, of course, he is wrong—but that is okay. reasonably well. In reply to Senator Boswell, Senator Ferguson I accept totally that some people in the and Senator Troeth, let me give you one industry are not doing well, and I hear it ad solution: how about some support for our nauseam from John Forrest in our party domestic markets instead of destroying them? room—how we have got to do more and how I am not saying that we should close our we have got to provide more adjustment. I borders, but I will tell you what the orange hear it, I listen to him and I know the agony growers are saying. They are saying, ‘Give us that he is going through. a little bit of support for a change instead of Senator Woodley—A true National. He is allowing us to be destroyed.’ a good man. The Democrats do not believe in the rhetor- Senator BOSWELL—Yes, he is. I know ic about global trade. We have not seen any that he has fought for and won some $3½ improvement in the fairness in the global million worth of concessions for the fruit market, and there never will be. We believe industry in his electorate. The way out of that you are chasing after a rainbow, and it is this—and we have got to understand it be- about time that you woke up. cause we are doing so well—is with our Senator Boswell said that I have got my exports: $23 billion worth of exports and we arm around Pauline Hanson. We will see, are actually importing about $4 billion worth come the federal election, where the National of food. Party’s preferences go, because I can tell you The dairy industry is going particularly that the Democrats have already declared we well: $1.6 billion worth of exports. Mention will put her last. I suspect that you will find tariffs to them and they go into cold shock. that there will be a cosy deal done between The sugar industry is going particularly well. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and the Nation- The wheat industry is going particularly well. al Party because they are desperate. They are We are exporting $23 billion worth of food going to lose a lot of their seats unless they and importing $4 billion worth of product. can do that deal with her. We know where Senator Woodley, if you got your way—and their votes are going. I do not think you do this out of ignorance; I am glad to hear that labelling legislation I think you actually do it out of goodwill, but is in the pipeline at last because a lot of the your intentions are very misplaced—we would farmers organisations really believed, when rely totally on a domestic industry. We would they heard this promise at the last election, stop imports, we would stop exports, and that was actually going to happen fairly soon. someone has then got to go out to the Aus- It has come very late in the life of this parlia- tralian farmer and say, ‘I am totally sorry. ment. I might say that we will look very Four out of five of you have got to go be- carefully at that legislation because the cur- 854 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 rent legislation in terms of labelling is really Senator Conroy—Disgraceful. quite useless. Senator McKIERNAN—It is indeed Senator Troeth said this government would disgraceful, Senator Conroy. It is worse than not interfere with the industry. She really disgraceful, but we have got a probity in this means that we will allow the citrus industry place about the type and form of language to try and compete with imports from Brazil. that we use and I am not going to go further. I will finish a quote that I was making in my It is indeed, as you said, disgraceful to move previous contribution to show you just how a gag in that fashion. Of course, the censure unfair is the market that we compete in. The motion was carried— Original Juice Company pays Australian Senator Ian Campbell—You’re not going orange growers $210 per tonne and the to gag the native title debate. average labour rate is $110 per day. Brazilian orange juice concentrate manufacturers pay Senator McKIERNAN—No, we want to their orange growers $30 per tonne and the speak on native title. Your motion is on the labour rate is $4 per day. I presume that is Notice Paper. I think it is next up. Actually, what the government wants our workers to be I was prepared to talk on that this morning. It paid. (Time expired) was you running around the chamber that got things moving on that particular motion, not The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT this side of the chamber. We are more than (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Order! The prepared to talk about that motion. But I am discussion on the matter of public importance not dealing with that now; I am dealing with is concluded. a very important report which has been presented to the chamber by Senator Conroy COMMITTEES on behalf of Senator Cooney. I will explain Scrutiny of Bills Committee briefly the circumstances in which I am speaking and the reason why I am speaking. Report Senator Ian Campbell—You are a hypo- Senator CONROY (Victoria) (5.13 p.m.)— crite. You voted to gag native title. At the request of Senator Cooney, I present Senator McKIERNAN—I am not going to the second report of 1998 of the Senate gag native title and I am certainly not a Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. hypocrite. Believe it or not, Senator Camp- I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert bell, today is 11 March 1998 and I am talking Digest No. 2 of 1998 dated 11 March 1998. about events of today, not events of the past. I move: But I am very concerned about events of the future, because major precedents have been That the report be printed. set in this place today—precedents which will Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia) be remembered. I am not talking about the (5.14 p.m.)—I want to take the opportunity to precedent that I suppose I am setting in speak very briefly on the presentation of this getting up and speaking to this usually non- report. I do it particularly for the reason that controversial report, the Alert Digest that has the chair of this committee is my colleague been presented. I cannot recall, in the time I Senator Barney Cooney from Victoria. Sena- have been in this chamber, where a senator tor Cooney was listed on our side as a speak- has actually got to their feet and spoken on er on the censure motion that took place here reports such as this. I have been here a few this morning but, when Senator Alston moved years and I cannot recall it happening. in with his gag motion, Senator Cooney and The precedent I am really concerned about other senators on this side of the chamber is the gag that was moved and, unfortunately, were not able to make a contribution to that was supported by the Australian Democrats debate. It is the first time in 17 years that the and was carried. We will be remembering and gag has been moved and carried on a censure recalling these precedents, because they motion. always come back to us. That is particularly Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 855 the case when we talk about due process. We ation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997, the talk about due process when the character of Taxation Laws (Technical Amendments) Bill a colleague, a fellow senator, is on the line. 1997, the Telecommunications Amendment The government know they have got the Bill (No. 2) 1997, the Therapeutic Goods numbers with them and they can close the Legislation Amendment Bill 1997, and the debate and stop people like Senator Barney Workplace Relations Amendment (Superan- Cooney speaking in defence of his colleague. nuation) Bill 1997. The Australian Democrats sided with the Senator Forshaw—What about my ballast government in order to silence Senator Water levy collection bill? Cooney. It is not all that easy to silence Senator Cooney because he, like the rest of us Senator McKIERNAN—Your ballast water on this side, has got a long memory. Were it bill is coming. I am assured it is on the way. not for the fact that he has got other important It is probably in this week’s report. One of business in another part of this building today, the issues that I did note in last week’s report he might in fact be in here speaking to his was how it addressed the matter, which was important report. It is a non-controversial somewhat controversial at the time, of the report. Judiciary Amendment Bill 1997. Let me address a few comments to the Senator Ian Campbell—I raise a point of Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which is so ably order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I chaired by Senator Barney Cooney. I have not think that Senator McKiernan has made a had the opportunity to look at the particular most eloquent attempt to filibuster this debate. content of the report that is before us, but we I think it is an unprecedented debate on a can look at last week’s report. This is actually motion to submit the report. We know that, the second report of this year, which shows although the Labor Party are trying to force— you what a hard-working committee it is. Senator Carr—What is the point of order? Senator Calvert would appreciate that; he Senator Ian Campbell—I am coming to always appreciates hard-working committees. the point of order. It is to do with relevance. Last week this particular committee addressed The Labor Party will do anything to stop us their minds to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait coming to a vote on the cut-off motion on the Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997, native title bill. Clearly the left wing senators the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and in this place are determined— Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997, the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. Senator Conroy—I object to that. 2], the Commonwealth Superannuation Board Senator Ian Campbell—I do not look at Bill 1997, the Company Law Review Bill you, Senator Conroy, when I say that. The 1997, the Criminal Code Amendment Bill left wing senators in this place are determined 1997 [1998], the Customs and Excise Legisla- to overrule Kim Beazley, their leader, on this tion Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997, the agreement they have made to exempt the bills Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill from the cut-off. They will do anything to 1997, the Insurance Laws Amendment Bill stop the Senate today coming to a vote on the 1997, the Law Officers Amendment Bill cut-off motion on the native title bill. 1997, the Managed Investments Bill 1997, the NRS Levy Imposition Bill 1997, the Primary The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Senator Campbell, please come to the point. Bill (No. 3) 1997, the Social Security and Senator Ian Campbell—I am coming to Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997, the President. For a senator to get up and debate Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth a motion to print the bill, a standard motion, Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill is unprecedented—the first time in the history 1997, the Superannuation Legislation of Australia as far as I can determine—and a (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and clear act of filibustering to stop the Senate Transitional Provisions) Bill 1997, the Tax- coming to a vote on this cut-off legislation so 856 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 that the people of Australia will know where the committee. The point I was just getting to the Senate is going on the native title legisla- related to the very important and necessary tion. It is, of course, absurd and childish and work the committee did in the report on the very unlike Senator McKiernan, who is a Judiciary Amendment Bill 1997 that was good, fellow Western Australian. presented to the parliament last week. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— There were some difficulties with the bill as There is no point of order. first presented to the Senate. The bill went to Senator Ian Campbell—On the point of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. They order, to debate the printing of this week’s picked up this particular matter that was of bill is, of course, in order. But to debate concern and they, without delaying the Senate matters out of last week’s report by the and using the very valuable time of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is entirely irrel- Senate, Senator Campbell, referred the judi- evant to this debate to print this week’s ciary bill to the Attorney-General’s office— report, and I would ask you to bring Senator Senator Ian Campbell—You hypocrite! McKiernan to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Senator Carr—Madam Acting Deputy Order! Senator Campbell, you referred to President, I raise a point of order. There is no Senator McKiernan as a hypocrite, and I ask doubt that this spurious point of order that has you to withdraw. been raised is in fact an attempt to waste the Senator Ian Campbell—He is! He spent time of the Senate to prevent us from discuss- four and a half hours trying to censure ing this issue. Michael Baume less than three years ago. Senator Ian Campbell—Madam Acting The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Deputy President, will you make a ruling on Senator Campbell, I ask you to withdraw. this point of order? Senator Ian Campbell—If you ask me to, Senator Carr—I am speaking to the point of course I will. of order. Senator McKIERNAN—There goes The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— another minute, I think. The point I was Senator Carr and Senator Campbell, please trying to make was about the Judiciary both resume your seats. I have sought advice; Amendment Bill and how the committee my advice is that there is no point of order. saved the valuable time of the Senate by There is no reason for any further discussion referring the particular clause with the prob- on this point. lem to the Attorney-General and getting Senator Carr—Can I take a point of order? written advice from him on that matter. Those details are contained in the report that was The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— presented last week. When I get a copy of it, No. There is no point of order. I will address matters that are contained in the Senator Hogg—Madam Acting Deputy report for this week, which has just been President, I raise a point of order. Senator presented to the parliament, but, unfortunate- Campbell made references to certain people ly, I have not been given a copy of this being left wing. I take that seriously. I have week’s report as yet. never been called that in my life. In making my contribution, I have given all Senator Ian Campbell—What is your of the credit for the work of this committee point of order? What standing order? to Senator Cooney. I know, from my work Senator Hogg—I think I have been de- around the parliament, that it is not only the famed. It is a reflection on my character. chair of the committee who makes the contri- butions on committees such as this. He is ably The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— supported, dare I say, by my other colleague There is no point of order. from Western Australia Senator Winston Senator McKIERNAN—The relevance of Crane, who is deputy chair of the committee. what I am talking about is the importance of Senator Cooney talks to me about these Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 857 matters. He is also supported by Senator sometimes unintended consequences of many Ferris, Senator Sandy Macdonald, Senator of the bills that come through this place, and Andrew Murray and my good friend over here the retrospectivity elements of some of those Senator John Quirke from South Australia, unintended consequences have drawn the who is in here making very valuable contribu- attention of the committee. There are others tions to the good governance of this nation. where there is, in fact, an inadvertent attempt Senator Conroy interjecting— at retrospectivity in the sense that bills have come through and they make determinations Senator Ian Campbell interjecting— which necessarily involve going back some The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— time—in some instances, back to announce- Order! Senator Campbell and Senator Conroy. ments made by the government. Senator McKIERNAN—We are not seeing Probably one of the clearest examples of a very good example of good governance of that is the package of bills that has gone the nation coming from the Manager of through here, which the committee had a very Government Business in the chamber this close look at, in respect of the budget, par- afternoon. Senator Campbell, I wish you ticularly in 1996—the budget in 1996 came would contain yourself somewhat. (Time down, as I understand it, on 20 August. There expired) is a whole range of tax measures and other Senator QUIRKE (South Australia) (5.27 items that have gone through the committee p.m.)—As a member of the Scrutiny of Bills in the time I have been there which will, Committee I should make some comment on when they go through this place—or those the proceedings, and I take this opportunity to that have already gone through and received indicate to the Senate that I have learnt a royal assent—have an impact from that great deal in the six months that I have been particular date. here as a result of my membership of this In the meeting this week—and it is not my committee. Indeed, one of the first things I position, Senator McKiernan, to go into too learnt was how to use an alarm clock because many of the precise details—we spent over an it meets very early of a morning. I think the hour on a number of key elements involving only committee that meets any earlier is the this very vexed question of retrospectivity. Regulations and Ordinances Committee, and The report that will shortly come down as a I want to thank the Senate for discharging me result of this week’s meeting of the committee from that committee as of this day, I believe, will deal again with a range of measures, last week. particularly taxation measures. One which is I must say that the scrutiny of bills commit- very close to my heart is in respect of the tees and, indeed, the regulations and ordinanc- trigger times for when this legislation will es committees in many of the smaller parlia- operate. I will come to that in just a moment. ments around Australia are amalgamated into For some time there has been a problem one committee that looks at both bills and at with favourable tax deals in South Australia, delegated legislation. I think the Scrutiny of particularly on the Parafield aerodrome where Bills Committee does an excellent job. It a much more favourable tax treatment has certainly has a very important charter which, been used by the owners of the liquor stores I understand, was set up in 1981 and, indeed, there. There have been a couple of owners one of the most important elements of its taking advantage of these favourable deals. In charter is to deal with the question of retro- state politics I have managed to close up most spectivity. of those deals, with the exception of the I do not want to take up too much of the question of the liquor licensing fees and the Senate’s time this afternoon, except to say liquor licensing taxes. The other state imposi- that retrospectivity comes in two shapes and tions, which eventually we managed to have forms, as I found out with this particular placed on these premises because they are on committee. I thought it was a fairly open and Commonwealth land, involved every aspect shut case, but that is not so. In fact, there are of gaming machines and opening and closing 858 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 hours, as I understand it. All of the liquor DOCUMENTS operations on the Parafield aerodrome—and I presume in the rest of the country—now Defence Determination 1998-99 have to mirror the state legislative provisions. Senator BISHOP (Western Australia) (5.35 p.m.)—I seek leave to speak to the Defence As a result of a bill which is shortly to Determination 1998-99. come before the Senate and which the com- Senator Ian Campbell—Can we do the mittee has had a very close look at there will committee memberships first? We had moved be a mirror tax treatment now for these on to that; you called it. particular operators. So, in fact, they will not be at an advantage as compared with the rest The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT of my constituents—the rest of the businesses (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Minister, I have around there that have to pay their legitimate called Senator Bishop. There was some state taxes. The state government is not confusion. getting the tax; the Commonwealth govern- Senator Ian Campbell—You had called ment is getting it but at least it establishes a committee memberships and I was on my level playing field. feet. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I I want to finish my remarks by saying that did not see you on your feet when I glanced I have enjoyed my time on the Regulations towards the minister. and Ordinances Committee. It has been a Senator Ian Campbell—That is because learning curve for me over the last six you keep looking over that side. months. I want to thank the old hands here, like Senator McKiernan and the others, for The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I their encouragement to go on this committee. am sorry, Minister. I have called Senator I think Senator McKiernan was being unduly Bishop and if leave is granted we will pro- abused before and Senator Hogg felt abused ceed with his matter. when he was called ‘Left’. I have been called Leave granted. ‘Left’ for a good part of my life, Senator, and Senator BISHOP—Thank you, Madam it is a badge that I have carried—wrongfully, Acting Deputy President. I move: I might say—quite often quite proudly. That the Senate take note of the document. Question resolved in the affirmative. I wish to make a few remarks concerning the Defence Determination 1998-99. It is tabled Senator McKiernan—Madam Acting by a Mr Nicholas Jefferson Ford, the Direc- Deputy President, on a point of order: on the tor-General, Financial Conditions, Defence Senate red I note that a report from the Personnel Executive, Department of Defence. Regulations and Ordinances Committee is He, of course, is acting under a delegation listed for presentation by the chair, Senator made by the Minister for Workplace Relations O’Chee. It is a paper on the scrutiny of and Small Business under the relevant regula- national uniform legislative schemes. I won- tion—regulation 72A of the Defence Force der what has happened to that report? Has regulations made pursuant to a determination that been gagged as well, as we saw this under section 58B of the Defence Act 1903. morning? It is all properly in accordance with proced- ures as required under the relevant act, I point The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT out to the chamber. (Senator Jacinta Collins)—Senator, the The explanatory statement attached to the Chair is not cognisant of what has happened. tabling of Defence Determination 1998-99 is No-one arose to give that report. The next of great interest and relevance to this chamber item is variation of committee memberships. and to those listening on broadcast because it relates to something that is very close to the Question resolved in the affirmative. interests of many persons employed under Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 859 industrial awards—enterprise bargaining grandparents, nieces and nephews, and the agreements and certified agreements, whether like. In the late 1970s there came a standard made under state legislation or the relevant benefit of paid leave; prior to that time, federal legislation. This Defence Determina- bereavement had been unpaid leave. That is, tion 1998-99 authorises a bereavement pay- if a worker or employee employed under an ment equivalent to four fortnightly pays to industrial award should have died or been provide transitional financial assistance for killed in the course of his employment, the dependants of Defence Force members who preparatory time leading up to his or her die while rendering continuous full-time funeral, when the worker’s dependants needed service. So that bereavement leave to mem- to go through the preparations, was regarded bers of families of Defence personnel who die as unpaid leave when they took time away or are killed in carrying out their duties is of from work. Of course, the worker’s family great relevance. suffered some additional financial disadvan- Bereavement leave has a long and chequ- tage or harm because of that unpaid leave. ered history in Australian industrial life. It The reason I have given a detailed back- first emerged as an award condition in the ground on the development of bereavement 1950s, when it was the subject of a series of leave is that it was one of the foundations test cases in both relevant state tribunals and upon which the ACTU built its family leave what was then the Australian Conciliation and test case in the late 1980s, early 1990s. That Arbitration Commission. The first grant was family leave test case was a most significant given by a full bench in 1952 or 1953. It milestone for what was then the new type of awarded a very limited form of bereavement work force—a work force that was radically leave to immediate family members of a different from that which existed prior to then deceased worker employed under an industrial and which had been developing since the war instrument—an industrial instrument being an years. industrial award or a federal award of that That family leave test case before a full Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Over time it became a routine clause of Commission ended up being quite successful most industrial awards—indeed, probably of because it allowed workers employed under all industrial awards in this country. The first all state and federal industrial awards—it was significant expansion of bereavement leave shifted through a number of state tribunals— was when it was awarded not only to full- to access the range of leave that existed— time workers but also to part-time workers. annual leave, sick leave, long service leave Part-time workers were quite rare in the pre- and other types of leave—for the purpose of war days. The dominant form of employment bereavement leave. That was particularly was full-time. Casual work was supplemen- relevant in a mobile society where labour was tary labour. Part-time labour came into most increasingly shifting from city to city— industries in the immediate postwar years. In interstate as well. It meant that, when there those days a series of test cases had to be run was a death in the family and a lot of the by the trade union movement to extend to necessary funeral and business arrangements part-time workers the benefits that existed had to be taken care of quickly, workers under industrial awards and which formerly could have access to other forms of leave in were awarded only to full-time workers. The the period leading up to and immediately after extension of that particular benefit to part- the funeral of their departed one. time workers occurred in the late 1950s. Other industries took a different approach. Through the sixties and seventies the For instance, industries dominated by female benefit was extended from being given only workers chose not to access existing forms of to the immediate family members of the leave as a supplement for bereavement leave. affected worker to being given to a wider Instead, they chose to go down the path of range of persons who were interested in the negotiating additional family leave entitlement welfare of that worker—sisters, brothers, clauses of sometimes two, three or four days. 860 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Of course, that was a significant benefit and Lands Acquisition Act was appreciated greatly in those industries. Senator HOGG (Queensland) (5.45 With that background to the development p.m.)—by leave—I move: of bereavement leave leading into family That the Senate take note of the document. leave, I turn to the explanatory statement I seek leave to continue my remarks later. attached to the Defence Determination 1998- 99, made under the Defence Act 1903. I note Leave granted; debate adjourned. that the new provisions are contained in a Veterans Entitlements Act new part C, which is inserted into an existing principle determination. That determination Senator QUIRKE (South Australia) (5.45 goes by the name of Defence Determination p.m.)—by leave—I move: No. 12, 1997. It deals with the financial That the Senate take note of the document. entitlements on the death of a member of the I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Australian Defence Forces. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Clauses 1 to 8 of this determination set out the formal provisions and make very minor COMMITTEES consequential changes to the principle deter- mination arising from the inclusion of the new Membership part. We are told that clause 9 of the explana- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT tory memorandum inserts the new part C, (Senator Jacinta Collins)—The President has which authorises bereavement payment. The received letters from party leaders seeking six main effects of the new provision are as variation to memberships of committees. I call follows. Firstly, clause 7 defines a term used the minister. in the new part. Secondly, clause 8 establishes a notional pay period for the purpose of Senator Robert Ray—Madam Acting assessing the amount of bereavement pay- Deputy President, I raise a point of order. ment. This corresponds with the last complete How can you call Senator Campbell when he fortnight of the member’s service. was not in his normal place? I distinctly saw him waddling around the Deputy Clerk over Thirdly, clause 9 sets out an interpretation there. of the concept of gross fortnightly pay used in calculating the entitlement. I am sure you The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— would be interested to know that the concept There is no point of order. is based upon the deceased member’s gross Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western fortnightly pay for the notional pay period. Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Provision is made for the average amount of Treasurer) (5.46 p.m.)—by leave—Touche, gross fortnightly pay during the member’s Senator Ray. I give notice that, on the next final three months of service to be substituted day of sitting, I shall move: in cases where the amount for the notional That senators be discharged from and appointed pay period is below the average. to committees as follows: Fourthly, clause 10 in the insertion in the Community Affairs References Committee— amending document specifies the deceased Substitute member: Senator Gibbs to replace members to whom the new part applies. Senator Forshaw for the committee’s inquiry Fifthly, clause 11 authorises payment, in into the impact of government child care accordance with clause 12, of an amount of funding cuts on families, children and child bereavement payment set at four times the care services specified amount of gross fortnightly pay. Employment, Education and Training Legislation Payment is to be made in equal instalments. and References Committees— I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later Participating member: Senator Mackay time. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legis- Leave granted; debate adjourned. lation Committee— Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 861

Substitute member: Senator Allison to replace ment is confirmed, rather than leave individual Senator Woodley for the consideration of the grants to be litigated on a case-by-case basis; provisions of the Australian Capital Territory . to make it clear in the Act itself what acts can (Planning and Land Management) Amendment be done on land and waters that may be subject Bill 1997. to native title, including the provision of services NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT BILL to the public, the renewal of leases and licences, the regulation and management of water and the 1997 [No. 2] implementation of past reservations of land, and First Reading to apply the non-extinguishment principle in relation to those acts; Bill received from the House of Representa- . in the case of pastoral lease land, to specify the tives. kinds of activities that can be carried on by Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed pastoralists, and to reflect the Wik decision by to: expressly providing that those activities prevail over native title rights and interests, but do not That this bill may proceed without formalities extinguish them; and be now read a first time. . to protect any existing access of native title Bill read a first time. claimants to pastoral lease land while claims are being determined; Second Reading . to limit application of the special statutory right Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western to negotiate process to those areas where it was Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the intended to apply—vacant Crown land where Treasurer) (5.47 p.m.)—I move: there are no competing third party interests; to reduce unnecessary delay in that process; and to That this bill be now read a second time. put in place a registration test for claims which I seek leave to have the second reading ensures that those negotiating with developers speech incorporated in Hansard. have a credible claim; Leave granted. . to provide a legally certain, procedurally straight- forward and comprehensive agreements frame- The speech read as follows— work; and Introduction . finally, to help bring about an effective native When I introduced the Native Title Amendment title system by ensuring that Native Title Repre- Bill 1997 into the Senate on 11 November 1997, I sentative Bodies are efficient, effective and outlined the circumstances which made amendment accountable. of the Native Title Act 1993 essential and how The 1997 bill resulted from 18 months of consulta- each of the major provisions in the bill would tions and discussions with all sectors of Australian address the inadequacies of that Act, particularly society potentially affected by native title, and following the Wik decision in December 1996. represented an honest compromise based on the Very briefly, in common with that bill, this bill is outcome of those discussions. designed to achieve the following outcomes: The bill’s broad policy approach and the processes . to provide an application and determination which led to its development are more fully system which is constitutionally secure and outlined in my Second Reading Speech to the which will enable the States and Territories to Senate on 11 November 1997. develop their own systems for dealing with The Government has at all stages indicated it is native title matters provided they comply with prepared to consider changes which would improve national standards; workability and reduce uncertainty, provided they . to ensure that action taken by governments and did not tip the balance of interests so carefully others between the commencement of the Act in reflected in the 10-Point Plan, and then in the bill. 1994 and the Wik decision in December 1996 Indeed, a substantial number of Government should not be invalid because of a legitimate and amendments were moved to the bill during the reasonable assumption that the grant of a pastoral Senate debate in December 1997 for that purpose. lease extinguished native title, an assumption The Government’s judgment about the fairness of subsequently found to be wrong; the 1997 bill has been largely vindicated by the . to bring a greater level of certainty to all Aus- acceptance by the Senate of substantial parts of the tralians by providing, where it can reasonably be bill including those dealing with indigenous land said that native title has been extinguished by use agreements, representatives bodies, the confir- types of government grants, that this extinguish- mation of past extinguishment, the validation of 862 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 acts before Wik, and the future act provisions, with October 1997 with the majority report recommend- either no changes, or only minor changes. ing that the bill be adopted, and that the Govern- It is noteworthy that notwithstanding the early ment consider making amendments in four areas. harsh criticism from the Opposition of a wide range The relevant amendments were moved by the of these provisions, the Leader of the Opposition Government in the Senate and accepted. has now indicated support for that Senate outcome. The bill was passed by the House of Representa- However, the Senate made a number of changes in tives on 29 October 1997, the House having agreed areas we regard as vital to the Act’s workability. to the inclusion of a new Schedule of exclusive The Government cannot accept these amendments possession tenures. for reasons described in more detail below. The Senate had already agreed on 2 October 1997 The Prime Minister indicated when the 1997 bill that the provisions of the bill should be referred to was laid aside by the House of Representatives that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation the Senate would, after three months, be asked to Committee for inquiry and report on the constitu- consider that bill again. tionality and constitutional bases of the bill. The Prime Minister also indicated that if it became After receiving submissions from 29 bodies and apparent that the only way in which the bill could individuals and hearing evidence from 11 of these, be passed was to use the Constitution’s processes the Committee reported on 10 November 1997, for resolving disagreements between the Houses, with the majority concluding that, on balance, the the Government would be prepared to take that High Court would find the bill constitutionally course. valid. The Prime Minister also indicated his hope that this The Committee recommended, however, that the option would prove to be unnecessary. relevant provisions of the bill be reviewed to confirm that the legislation met the constitutional A history of the Bill requirement for the acquisition of property on just Apart from incorporating a number of amendments terms. made by the Senate in December 1997, this bill is What happened in the Senate the same as the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 passed by the House of Representatives on 29 The 1997 bill was introduced into the Senate on 11 October 1997. November 1997 with non-Government parties and Senator Harradine indicating they would be moving The 1997 bill itself contained the substance of the a total of over 750 amendments; in the case of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1996, which was Opposition and Greens and Democrats these introduced into the House of Representatives on 27 involved a substantial rewrite of the bill. June 1996. In response to the recommendations of the Parlia- It also contained proposed Government amend- mentary Joint Committee and the Legal and ments to the bill released in October 1996, dealing Constitutional Legislation Committee, the Govern- with the right to negotiate, indigenous land use ment released its own amendments to the bill agreements and representative bodies. designed to address some of the legal and policy The main additions in the 1997 bill were of course issues raised in their respective reports. the amendments developed by the Government, Additional amendments were also introduced by the following negotiations with interest groups, about Government arising out of discussions with the the best way to respond to the uncertainties created Opposition and Senator Harradine during the Senate by the Wik decision of December 1996. debate. Immediately the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 It is important that specific mention is made of the was introduced into the House of Representatives more significant of these Government amendments on 4 September 1997, its contents were referred to because in the heat of the debate last year, they did the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title not receive the recognition they deserved as and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land effective measures for dealing with the issues Fund for report by 27 October 1997. raised in evidence to the Committees. The Committee undertook an extensive inquiry, For instance, the bill’s validation provisions were holding public hearings over twelve days, visiting amended to require notification of mining leases Broome, Alice Springs and Cairns. granted in the period from 1 January 1994 to the The fact it received over 1700 written submissions date of the Wik decision (Schedule 1, section 22EA is indicative of the immense public interest in the in this bill). bill. The confirmation of extinguishment provisions The Committee’s reports were tabled in the House were amended to put beyond doubt that Aboriginal on 27 October 1997 and in the Senate on 28 land, national parks and conservation areas and Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 863 stock routes were not included (Schedule 1, section ation by the Senate was over 56 hours), the Senate 23B in this bill). debate was generally characterised by its calmness, In part to address the issue of just terms compensa- good spirit and professionalism. tion, a requirement for notification of native title The Opposition combined with the Government and holders of the doing of specific future acts (such as Senator Harradine on 5 December 1997 to vote for agricultural and forestry activity), and a general the third reading of the bill, with 217 Senate regulation-making power for notification of such amendments. acts, were both included. This outcome represented a significant narrowing The operation of the sunset clause on compensation of the areas of disagreement. The Opposition claims was made subject to notification of native indicated its support for the bill’s provisions which title holders affected by the compensable act it had, until that time, denounced as racist and (Schedule 2, section 50(2A) in this bill). totally unacceptable. Provisions were also included to ensure that any These provisions included— compulsory acquisition of native title rights and . the comprehensive validation regime for acts interests must be done in a non-discriminatory between the commencement of the Native Title manner, and that the requirement to pay just terms Act in 1994 and the Wik decision; compensation for acquisitions would apply to the States and Territories as well as the Common- . subject to a number of additional relatively wealth. minor changes, the confirmation provisions, including the Schedule of exclusive possession The capacity of governments to grant pastoralists tenures; new primary production rights was clarified, in particular by ensuring that if more than 50% of a . the primary production provisions which put pastoral lease of over 5,000 hectares was to be used beyond legal doubt what activities pastoralists for non-pastoral purposes, any native title must be are able to carry on; and acquired by agreement or in a non-discriminatory . the statutory access rights for registered native manner (Schedule 1, subsection 24GB(4) in this title claimants. bill). The general support by the Senate of many other In response to concerns about the registration test, initiatives included in the bill, such as the powers and to encourage negotiated rather than arbitrated and functions of representative bodies, the regime outcomes in the right to negotiate process, the for recognising indigenous land use agreements, Registrar was given an extra month to consider and the new claims and determination process claims for registration, and the parties were given necessitated by the High Court’s Brandy decision, six months to negotiate an outcome. was a welcome sign of the recognition of the As a result of discussions with the Aboriginal and substantial deficiencies of the current Native Title Torres Strait Islander Commission, a number of Act. changes were also made to the comprehensive However, the Senate also made a number of representative body provisions to clarify their amendments proposed by non-Government parties operation and ensure proper accountability. and independent Senators which would severely Perhaps most significantly, so far as indigenous undermine the workability of the Act, and this is criticism was concerned, the Government met the why the 1997 bill could not be finally dealt with. argument that the bill failed to take account of the The response of the House of Representatives issue of ‘historic’ pastoral leases. On 6 December 1997 the House indicated its Proposed sections 47A and 47B in Schedule 1 will acceptance of 125 of the 217 amendments in the enable indigenous people who are in occupation of Schedule and its rejection of 92. an area where there are no longer any competing The House then agreed to lay the bill aside. third party rights, to claim native title and have the Court disregard the tenure history of the area in There were four particular sets of amendments determining that claim. made by the Senate which were, and remain, unacceptable to the Government—they relate to the It is worth noting that the Senate supported the vast registration test, the right to negotiate, the relation- majority of these Government amendments. ship between the Native Title Act and the Racial Any fair minded observer will concede that these Discrimination Act and the sunset clause on changes go a substantial way to meeting concerns applications for determinations of native title under raised about some provisions of the bill. the Native Title Act. It is also worth noting that, notwithstanding the Also significant were those amendments relating to sometimes heated and ill-informed public and small claims, indigenous land use agreements, media debate, and the lengthy consideration by the pastoralists’ rights, the renewal of leases, the committee of the whole (the total time for consider- treatment of Crown to Crown grants, and the way 864 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 in which State and Territory tribunals should relevant to those claimants who have yet to estab- operate. lish their claim in court. The Government made clear during consideration The Government has therefore maintained the by the House of Representatives on 6 December registration test previously passed by the House of 1997 of the Senate Schedule of amendments its Representatives (Schedule 2, sections 190A, 190B reasons for rejecting the registration test, right to and 190C in the bill). negotiate, Racial Discrimination Act and sunset (ii) Right to negotiate clause amendments. When introducing the bill in November 1997, I It is appropriate and timely for those reasons to be made the point that the right to negotiate proced- reiterated. ures have failed to deliver the outcomes that were (i) Registration test expected. Everyone agrees, including indigenous representa- The situation has not changed in the intervening 6 tives, that an effective registration test as the months. gateway to the statutory benefits which the Act At 16 January 1998, of the 2,186 mineral tenements provides, is essential. in Western Australia which have become subject to While the Brandy amendments in the bill have the full right to negotiate, only 196 have been overcome the watering-down of the current thres- cleared for grant following lodgement of an agree- hold test by the Waanyi and Northern Territory v ment under section 34 of the Act. Lane decisions, it is essential to the continuing The bill’s amendments to the right to negotiate acceptance of the right to negotiate process that procedures, which were effectively rejected by the only those people with a credible native title claim Senate, were designed to achieve two outcomes— should participate. . to exclude the right to negotiate where it is Application of an improved test will go a long way inappropriate because of the nature of the rights to removing the ambit and unprepared claims which to be granted, the minimal impact on the land or are now clogging the National Native Title Tribu- the limited native title rights that can potentially nal, causing uncertainty for state and local govern- exist; and ments, involving thousands and thousands of respondents and dollars, delaying many resource . to streamline the process to reduce unnecessary developments and undermining the credibility of delay and, where appropriate, to devolve greater native title processes. responsibility to the States and Territories to deal with these matters. The registration test adopted by the Senate, while an improvement on both the current situation and The effect of the Senate amendments to the right the wholly ineffective test originally proposed by to negotiate provisions would be to maintain the the Opposition and the Greens and Democrats in full right to negotiate on pastoral lease land, on the Senate in December, would not provide the non-Government infrastructure development, on degree of scrutiny which those who will have to exploration activities and on the renewal of mining deal with registered claimants have a right to leases (even though the grant of the lease may expect. already have been subject to the right to negotiate process) and in towns and cities. For instance, it would not expressly prevent registration of a claim over land which has been The right to negotiate is a significant brake on subject to a freehold grant or a residential lease. mining and public and private development activity. It would also allow claimants to be a party to It is a right that no others with interests in land negotiations on whether a mine should go ahead have. even though no member of the claim group can Because of this, the Government believes that the demonstrate that they have ever visited the area. right to negotiate should only operate where native A test which sets the bar too low and does not title holders have significant interests in the land, require the Registrar to be prima facie satisfied in interests analogous to ownership of that land. relation to all aspects of the native title rights and Where native title holders do not have such a high interests claimed will not effectively address the level of rights, and in particular where they can problem of claimants with limited prospects of only have co-existing rights with others, then the success having access to the right to negotiate full right to negotiate is inappropriate. process. This bill still contains section 43A in Schedule 1 It should be remembered that once a court has which enables a State or Territory to apply its own determined that native title exists, the native title regime in relation to mining and relevant compul- holders will, as a matter of course, have access to sory acquisitions where native title holders have the right to negotiate—the registration test is only limited co-existing rights. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 865

Of course those alternative regimes must meet It is the obligation of this Parliament to make clear, specific criteria, including the provision of pro- precise laws. cedural rights to native title holders equivalent to Even the Labor dominated Senate Legal and the procedural rights of others. Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded in (iii) Racial Discrimination Act 1993, in considering the 1993 Native Title bill, that The Senate agreed to an amendment which would a similar formulation would be a recipe for uncer- replace the current subsection 7(1) of the Native tainty and recommended that it not be adopted. Title Act (which states that nothing in the Act It is reassuring to see that someone who could affects the operation of the Racial Discrimination never be accused of supporting the Government on Act 1975) with a provision which instead states that native title matters recognises the uncertainty which the Native Title Act is intended to be read and the amendment would produce if the generally construed subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. agreed aim of all parties for certainty and worka- Perhaps the most eloquent exposition of the argu- bility is to have any meaning. ments against this proposal was stated by Senator Father Frank Brennan said earlier this year that Harradine in the Senate on 5 December 1997: ‘Despite the populist appeal of this amendment, the ’It is unworkable because every provision in the Opposition parties should back down in the inter- legislation will have to be subject to the RDA. ests of certainty, justice and workability for all There will be endless litigation about it. Why did stakeholders’. we not put it in the 1993 legislation? For the This bill therefore maintains the existing provision very reason that we ought not be putting it in in subsection 7(1) of the Act. here. The Labor government at that time knew that it was a nonsense to put a similar provision (iv) Sunset clause in the Native Title Act. If the Labor Party faced As to the sunset clause, the Government believes up to the real world now, they would realise that that it is important that some discipline be imposed it would be, and is, not an appropriate thing to on the claims process and that those potentially do if you want to have the legislation work for affected by that process can be assured that at the the benefit of indigenous people—native title end of a reasonable time, native title issues will holders—and in fairness to the rights of other have been finally resolved. persons. Under those circumstances, I do not intend to support the motion.’ Subsection 13(1A) in Schedule 2 is therefore maintained. It is unclear what the amendment agreed to by the Senate actually means. The provision requires only that claims under the Act be made within 6 years of commencement of On one view, it could mean that, notwithstanding the amendments. a government had fully complied with all the requirements of the Native Title Act in relation to It does not otherwise prevent native title claims the granting or renewal of a particular lease or being made in the courts or the exercise of com- licence, and the Act stated that the grant was valid, mon law rights. the grant may still be challenged in the courts as Content of the Bill inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act and on that basis be held invalid. As mentioned above, the content of the bill is the same as the Native Title Amendment bill 1997 as On another view, it does no more than reflect what it was passed by the House of Representatives on the High Court indicated in Western Australia v 29 October 1997, but with the addition of a number The Commonwealth, ie that the Racial Discrimina- of amendments later made by the Senate. tion Act is relevant in resolving ambiguities in the Native Title Act and in guiding the exercise of On 6 December 1997 the House of Representatives statutory discretions under that Act. indicated its acceptance of 125 Senate amendments, the majority of which were moved by the Govern- The inherent ambiguity in the proposed amendment ment during the Senate debate. is the kind of political double-speak which under- pinned the deal done by the previous Government It has become apparent however that a small in relation to pastoral leases in 1993—a mistake number of these amendments may not in fact have which this Government has no intention of emulat- been ‘made’ by the Senate. ing. Having carefully considered the matter, the Govern- For this reason, the amendment should be rejected. ment has decided not to include these amendments It cannot be in anyone’s interests to have such a in the reintroduced bill. high level of uncertainty surrounding the relation- Technical and drafting issues have arisen in relation ship between the Act and the Racial Discrimination to a number of the 25 non-Government amend- Act. ments accepted on 6 December 1997 which make 866 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 it inappropriate for them to be incorporated into the This is an approach which would be significantly bill. boosted if the indigenous land use agreement However, the Government still supports the policy provisions were in place. intent underlying those amendments and intends to Since the bill was introduced, the Full Federal move, or agree with, amendments designed to Court has held that parts of the Native Title Act achieve the same outcome when the bill is debated which give the National Native Title Tribunal in the Senate. determinative powers are unconstitutional—an Relevant non-Government parties are being con- outcome which was anticipated but which makes sulted on the form of the revised provisions. enactment of the Brandy amendments more urgent. Finally, in relation to the small number of remain- Since the bill was introduced, the Government’s ing amendments, after careful reconsideration and argument for legal certainty about the effect on discussions with the other parties, the Government native title of a freehold grant, and whether this has decided that there are substantial policy reasons effect is temporary or permanent, and the need for why these amendments should not be incorporated a new registration test, has been substantiated by into the bill nor be supported as amendments in the the seeking of an injunction by native title claim- Senate. ants in the Northern Territory to prevent govern- ment development activity on land over which there Very briefly the Government does not support the is a registered claim within the city of Darwin. following ALP-sponsored amendments in their current form: I note that at the end of February the Federal Court upheld the position which the Government sought . amendments which would prevent some of those to confirm in the bill—that native title is perma- whose interests are affected by a native title nently extinguished by a freehold grant—a position claim from being parties to the court processes initially opposed by the Opposition and which (Opposition amendments 242, 247, 248 and 249); continues to be opposed by the Greens and Austral- . an amendment to provide that resources may be ian Democrats. a relevant factor in deciding whether it is reason- The Federal Court also refused to grant the injunc- ably practicable for a representative body to tion. notify native title holders on matters affecting their interests (Opposition amendment 382); Since the bill was introduced action has been taken by native title claimants in the Federal Court in . an amendment which would render uncertain the Queensland to close down a mine currently em- compensation provisions as they apply where ploying around 250 workers, the argument being native title is only impaired (but not acquired) that the relevant mining lease, not having gone (Opposition amendment 188); through the right to negotiate procedures, is invalid. . an amendment which would prevent the States and Territories from including more than one The Government believes it is in the national future act to which the right to negotiate applies interest that these issues be resolved as soon as in the notification sent to native title holders and possible and that all groups have the opportunity to advertised in notices to the public (Opposition get on with making the Act work and securing amendment 131). practical outcomes. A total of 107 amendments have been incorporated The continuing controversy and uncertainty is and they are identified in the explanatory memoran- damaging to the interests of all key groups and the dum. Government is aware of the community’s frustra- tion with the delay in securing passage of these The Government will also be moving a number of important provisions. new but minor technical and drafting amendments in the Senate. The Government is confident that on further consideration, the Senate will support the bill and Conclusion this long and difficult process can be brought to an In the six months since this bill was introduced into honourable conclusion which is in the national the House of Representatives on 4 September 1997, interest. over 80 new claims for native title have been made, I present an explanatory memorandum to the bill but there are still only two determinations on the and recommend the bill to the Senate. mainland. One of those, the Hopevale agreement involving 11 Ordered that further consideration of the separate groups of native title claimants and the second reading of this bill be adjourned until Queensland Government, represents the way the first day of the winter sittings, in accord- forward in native title matters. ance with standing order 111. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 867

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION going to answer it. It seems quite bizarre to Debate resumed. the Democrats that the Senate is not grasping this opportunity to have that matter clarified Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (5.48 for us before we reconsider this legislation. p.m.)—I commenced speaking on this motion just before we moved to discussing matters of In some ways there is more reason than public interest earlier today. As my colleague ever for the exemption from cut-off motion Senator Woodley mentioned earlier, the not to be applied in this case and for the bill Australian Democrats will not be supporting to follow the normal process and not be this move by the government to exempt the exempt from the cut-off. It is a great shame Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2], an that the Labor Party appears to have chosen important piece of legislation, from the to support the coalition in that regard. normal Senate process. I would not have Senator Carr—The former Democrats. spoken further on the motion except for the Senator BARTLETT—No former Demo- need to respond to some of the comments crats over here. I can point out one or two made by the Labor Party in particular in over your way. You can keep the former relation to the reasons why they are support- Democrats. I wish to respond to similar issues ing the government in fast-tracking the con- that Senator Cooney raised in a fairly unfair sideration of this bill. attack, I thought, on my colleague Senator It appears to the Democrats that the Labor Woodley. Senator Cooney is normally a fair Party, as usual, has its eyes basically on its man, but this time he perhaps let his emotions own potential electoral advantage—and in no get hold of him a little and perhaps needed to place more so than Queensland. Clearly that try to shoot a few rounds of bullets to cover is the same motivation that drove its approach up the weaknesses of the Labor Party’s to the native title legislation when it was argument as to why they are falling into line debated in this place last year. It is obviously behind the coalition on this crucial bill. They also motivating them to support the coalition were complaining, as they have complained in this instance on this motion. The Demo- once or twice subsequently, about not being crats believe that is a great shame. able to talk on and on in relation to the It does seem very curious that, as we just censure motion. I certainly acknowledge that heard with the introduction of this piece of a censure motion is a very important motion. legislation a minute ago, the consideration of Senator Conroy—The Democrats sitting the bill is adjourned until the first day of the with the Nationals—shame, shame, shame. next sittings, which I think is in May, unless Senator BARTLETT—That is where you we support this motion. There is the strong will be sitting when this motion is called on. likelihood that between now and then the I would have taken more seriously the Labor High Court will bring down its decision on Party’s wounded cries of anguish in relation the Hindmarsh Island bridge case, a case that to that motion if they had actually shown that will clearly impact significantly on one of the they were taking it seriously. It was very clear key constitutional principles that underpin this from their actions, as happened this afternoon, bill. that they were not in any way taking that For the life of me I cannot see why, given issue seriously. They are obviously not taking that circumstance, we are not following this particular issue seriously either. If you normal process. It may be a total coincidence want to put on a par your desire to filibuster that it is happening but we should grasp that endlessly on a whole range of issues with little bit of serendipity and simply follow something that is as absolutely fundamental normal process and wait until the next sitting to the future of this nation as the native title to consider this bill. We will be able to do so legislation, and think that talking about your more adequately informed about one of the regulations is as important as talking about key unanswered questions that this Senate this, then it just shows how clearly your cannot answer. It is a question that only the priorities are wrong. I reiterate the point I High Court can answer. The High Court is made earlier in relation to the High Court 868 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 decision and why that is so crucial and will with, and dealt with expeditiously. But I want put a different light on this particular legisla- to see it dealt with expeditiously in a fair tion. manner so that various stakeholders—the Senator Conroy—Convince us. indigenous groups, the miners, the pastoral leaseholders and various communities—will Senator Carr—Tell us what it is. be able to focus on what the Senate did Senator BARTLETT—What the High previously and to see that what we want Court decision is? We do not know what it is. ultimately is a fair, just and decent outcome That is why it is all the more valuable that we for all of the stakeholders and for all of have the opportunity of hearing what it is Australia. before we deal with the legislation. That is fairly self-evident, I would have thought. I As I have been trying to explain to a simply wish to reiterate the Democrats’ number of the stakeholders—the miners and opposition to this motion and our sadness that others—I have come to the conclusion that the Labor Party have seen the need to put there is a good deal of confusion about what their own electoral fortunes ahead of the we were attempting to do. I thought we were proper process in this regard. proceeding pretty well in discussions to try to Senator Robert Ray—Absolute rubbish! get some sort of common ground which will provide a workable, fair, decent and just Senator BARTLETT—I take it you dis- outcome. I thought it would be desirable to agree. It is an important issue, one that should have standing order 111 up one’s sleeve in be debated fully and with the most complete case there is intransigence on the part—dare information possible in relation to the legisla- I say—of the government. I am not suggest- tion. For that reason, the Democrats believe ing that that intransigence is there. But why the normal process should be followed with give away that very standing order, why give this particular legislation, that fast tracking away that particular aspect, just at the present should not apply in this regard and that the moment? normal operation of the Senate standing orders should apply with this particular bill. We are in a different position than we were Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (5.56 this morning when the debate was on. Senator p.m.)—I will be very brief. I shall be oppos- Ian Campbell has now introduced the bill into ing this motion to exempt the Native Title the Senate, and standing order 111 operates. Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2]—for some I will be voting against the motion for the reason dated 1997—from the cut-off motion. cut-off, not because I do not want to see the As we all know, this is a new bill. Again, I legislation dealt with expeditiously but be- am not sure why the government has entitled cause, the week after next, it would have been it ‘Native Title Amendment Bill 1997’, since desirable for everybody around the place to it was not introduced into the House of know where everybody else is going, includ- Representatives until 1998. It is probably a ing particularly the government. technical point. I would be interested to know why. It is a new bill. It does contain amend- Senator Campbell, in introducing this ments which were not in the old legislation. legislation today, has gutted what I was There are probably about— proposing in respect of leaving the matter until it was introduced into the chamber. He Senator Woodley—There are 120. has not done it quite deliberately. He is trying Senator HARRADINE—Thank you, to pursue this matter expeditiously, and I Senator Woodley. There are about 120 accept that. But I will still be voting against amendments. As has been recognised in this the motion. Some of the points that have been chamber, standing order 111 was really one made by Senator Margetts, Senator Woodley of former Senator Christabel Chamarette’s and Senator Bartlett were very telling. But, let legacies in this particular place, and a very us face it, there is no point in continuing the good one at that. I make this point to the cut-off motion. The bill will be exempted opposition: I want to see this legislation dealt from the cut-off motion. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 869

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral- I want to make the point which I think ia) (6.01 p.m.)—I want to make a few fairly Senator Harradine was attempting to make brief remarks on this issue because it is an that the government is not being serious in important issue. I find myself in thunderous dealing with the legitimate concerns about agreement with Senator Harradine as to the their bill. It is interesting, as I understand it, arguments. I just do not reach the same that the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, has conclusion. I think his concern about dealing introduced the bill into the House of Repre- with the bill expeditiously and trying to reach sentatives and now into the Senate in almost a fair and just outcome for all stakeholders is exactly the form that it took when it was first a laudable one. I think the same motives introduced into the House of Representatives motivate the Labor Party in this debate, but last year. That is, it does not include, to the that does not lead us to the conclusion which best of my knowledge, Senate amendments Senator Harradine draws, which is that we that the government accepted when we debat- ought to oppose the cut-off. ed the bill the first time. The government have chosen to go back to We have decided to support the motion to the original bill with some minor variations, exempt this bill from the cut-off motion as I understand it, and present that to the because, firstly, we see that the cut-off motion House. That is for one very good reason: they was not designed for a circumstance such as are concerned about their legal advice as to this. The bill has been in the public arena for whether or not they could justify a double some time now. We have had a full debate in dissolution if they were to introduce the bill this parliament previously, and the govern- in another form. Rather than proceed with the ment is reintroducing the bill in almost amendments they accepted in the Senate and exactly the same terms as the original draft introduce the bill in that form in the House of bill. That is a point I will come to in a Representatives and then push it through to minute. I do not think the normal good the Senate again, they have gone back to the reasons that supported the introduction of a original bill for one reason and one reason cut-off motion apply in this case. There is no only: they are concerned about their ability to argument to sustain the proposition that we achieve a double dissolution trigger. What are not ready to debate this. that establishes, if anyone was in any doubt, is that this debate will not be about getting a The argument Senator Harradine makes that workable Native Title Act. This debate will we should try to ensure that people come to be about the government securing an election their senses about the bill is a good one, but trigger. That is what this is about. They are I do not know that the cut-off motion is the not after a solution; they are after an election. way to do that. We ought to keep the pressure on the government to see sense. I think the The government have sought to minimise assertions of the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, the legal risk which has been articulated by that there will be no amendments to the bill the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, and reflect a very inflexible personality and a which I think is based upon an original legal political decision that I think is self-serving opinion by that great ‘socialist’ Sir Garfield rather than in the interests of the nation. I Barwick. They have been concerned at the think the Senate has every right to consider criticism of their legal advice, which we are the bill in detail, and to seek to make amend- not able to see. They are not prepared to ments to improve the workability and the share it with anyone. So they have decided to fairness of the bill. We ought to take that take the safe route. While they were prepared responsibility seriously, as I think we did on to accept amendments which they said would the first occasion. I think it was a debate that make the bill more workable in the Senate the was positive for Australian politics and did first time round, they are not prepared to the Senate great credit, even though there was introduce the bill in that format for fear that a range of matters on which the Labor Party they will not get the result they want out of was defeated in terms of the detail of that bill. the Senate. 870 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

The result they want is an excuse for an the cut-off motion. I must say that those election, not a solution to the problems of points in the past had passed me by because, constituent groups in terms of the workability as I recall it—and it could be a faulty recall— or the fairness of the Native Title Act. That the reason for the cut-off resolution was to is an important issue for us to put on the give senators a chance to read the legislation record. It is important that we understand in detail; whereas the reason advanced today, what the motivation of the government is in albeit a valid reason— this matter. I think Senator Bartlett’s com- ments were most unhelpful and a little un- Senator Margetts—And proper community kind—and I would have expected better of consultation. him when questioning the Labor Party’s Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, I was about motives on this matter. I think it is fair to say to say that I do not recall that aspect of the that the Labor Party has worked very hard to debate when this was in contemplation. But try to improve the bill to achieve a more just I have no doubt that it is your genuine view, and fair outcome and to improve the real Senator Margetts. problems of workability that exist in the current act. But we always approach the cut-off motion Having been part of that process, I think, in terms of: will the Senate have sufficient did the Labor Party great credit. I also think time, in fact, to consider the ramifications of it was to the credit of the minor parties, legislation? Remember, the cut-off motion Senator Harradine and others who participated originally was not a continuing order; it was in that debate. Therefore, I do not think we an ad hoc thing moved from time to time. It need to degenerate into name-calling when later became a continuing order. I suspect that discussing this motion today, nor do we need it was not a continuing order when it was first to be too self-righteous. moved, because no such concept was properly ever entrenched in the Senate. It just became I think it is important that we signal we are a practice that suddenly grew into continuing prepared to debate the bill, but also that we orders. remain committed to the objectives of getting a fair and just outcome for all constituent So that was my view of why the cut-off groups when we re-debate the bill. The Labor exists. Clearly, if it is my view—and I do not Party has made it very clear that we will not in any way disparage Senator Margetts’s be accused of refusing to debate the bill. We view, or the validity of it—that that was the stand ready to debate it, and we stand ready reason for it, I cannot really argue for the cut- to improve the bill. Our interests are in off motion to apply to this legislation. getting a better Native Title Act than present- After all, we knew about this legislation ly exists—certainly one that is much better several months ago. We spent many days here than the bill put forward by the government. in December going over it in intricate detail. I believe that the Senate can do this job. So it is not as though we are getting fresh The real test in all this is whether the govern- legislation that we are going to find difficulty ment is truly committed to improving the in understanding. I suspect that all the argu- Native Title Act—or whether it is committed ments will be the same; all the votes will be to an early election strategy. the same in this particular chamber—maybe Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (6.08 not; but I suspect that that is the case. p.m.)—I think, according to the whip, I am If you believe that the cut-off motion was the last opposition spokesman on this particu- essentially there so senators could be properly lar matter, and I am under starter’s orders not informed and not be rushed by the govern- to go too long. But I do want to make a few ment of the day into passing legislation, not points about the cut-off resolution. I have be ambushed on it, then we should support listened, I think, to Senator Margetts today, here the government’s— Senator Harradine inferentially and some Democrats who have gone to the rationale of Senator Carr—We spent 56 hours on it. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 871

Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, as Senator I was fortunate that I was not eating my Carr says, we spent 56 hours on it. So we tomato and onion sandwich when I heard should support the government’s motion. Senator Woodley’s contribution this morning. Whilst I have acknowledged that I think I think I had completed the sandwich, which some of the minor parties in the Senate have was just as well. We got a long dirge on: we supported the cut-off motion for valid reasons, have got to be more consultative; we have got it is rather ironic now to have a coalition to have more time; we have got to be more government fighting this particular thing and democratic. For ‘Woodley the gagger’ to seeking exemption from it—because they come in here and make that particular state- supported the cut-off resolution. But, Senator ment was very galling; it almost made me Margetts, they did not support it because they reach for the Dexsal, I have to say. wanted more time to consider legislation; they We hear these pleas about the Democrats did not support it because they wanted more and how democratic and open they are. But community group consultation. They support- this morning they did not even wait until we ed it to disrupt the government program as could get our fourth speaker up to balance off much as they could. That is why they sup- the government before they sleazed around— ported it then. and I do not think it was to Senator Campbell’s office; I think it was to Senator It is a long road that does not turn, isn’t it? Hill’s office on this occasion—and struck the Suddenly, here is the cut-off resolution that deal about gagging a censure motion. And this government wants to axe. So what was this was several hours short of the debate that principle in opposition becomes opportunism we had on the Senator Baume resolution. in government. Of course, I would have liked to have heard Senator Campbell’s explanation Senator Ian Campbell—I was having a of this road to Damascus conversion. But the tuna and onion sandwich; they didn’t come to silent senator said nothing after moving this my office. motion. He gave us no justification. He Senator ROBERT RAY—No, I am sure advanced no reasons whatsoever. He is lucky they did not come to your office, Senator we are thick skinned, because we are not Campbell; I am sure even they draw the line insulted by this attitude from him. We have somewhere in the sand. But it just spoilt the still seen the logic of the proposed resolution, ambience of the place to hear Senator even though he has treated the Senate with Woodley’s contribution—someone who absolute contempt by not putting any reasons normally gets to some degree of consistency forward. in his contributions here. But Woodley the gagger came in here—no, I am sorry, I could One of the questions that probably will not be wrong. He may have been impersonated. have to be resolved now, given where people I did not look carefully on the other side. I will vote in this, is: if this cut-off resolution thought I saw a saintly looking gentleman came into force—that is, if we did not support over on that other side there, voting for the Senator Campbell’s motion today—would it gag, but it could have been an impersonator. be a failure to pass under section 57 of the So if it was an impersonator, Senator Constitution? I think the answer from any Woodley, let me apologise to you. Governor-General, especially one with High Court training, would be no; that you could On that particular issue, Senator Harradine not actually argue that, if Senator Campbell’s has made the point that he thinks the debate motion is defeated today, it is a failure to may be assisted with some more time. I think pass, because any High Court judge would there are two ways of arguing that. I can see look back at the history of the continuing his point of view but I can also see the order and find all sorts of names dotted across opposite—that delaying this issue will just here of those who trooped into the division make the situation worse. I can see both sides that imposed this on the Senate, having voted of the argument. for it as a principle in the past. So I do not Let me conclude on this point. I do not think that will particularly come up. know whether the cut-off resolution as it 872 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 currently exists as a continuing order should Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western stay forever, but again I have to be a bit Australia—Manager of Government Business political here. I will promise the Manager of in the Senate) (6.17 p.m.)—I will be as brief Government Business in the Senate (Senator as I can. I have been accused of holding the Ian Campbell) that if they ever happen to be Senate in contempt but that is something that in government that long and if the continuing I would never willingly do; I probably hold order as it applied to the Labor government the institution in the highest regard of all applies to the Liberal government for as long institutions that I have come in contact with. as it applied to us, we will contemplate There are a number of things I could getting rid of it; and I am sure we will get respond to, which I will not, but I think it is your votes on that. But you should never important that particularly those who take an whinge about the cut-off resolution. interest in these matters know that we do not, Let’s have a look at what this government as a matter of course, make the case for the has got so far. In the winter session of 1996, cut-off when we move it. In fact, we distri- the first time it applied, 34 exemptions were bute the case for the cut-off and the need for granted by the Senate. In the spring of 1996, the cut-off in writing and in quite some detail; 30 exemptions were granted—a total of 64 for as you would know, Madam Acting Deputy the year. In 1997, 21 exemptions were granted President, because you would have received to this government in autumn; 14 in the those documents and I know that you read winter session; and a staggering 57 in the them carefully when you do receive them. We spring session—a total of 92. If we vote for circulated a document to all honourable this motion today, it will be the 157th time in senators quite a few days before this session the life of this government that the cut-off began, so it gave honourable senators the motion has been granted. opportunity to read a detailed statement. I Senator Ian Campbell—Out of 302 bills seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the in toto. statement that was circulated. Senator ROBERT RAY—Out of 302 bills Leave granted. in toto. Thank you. I hope your statistics are The document read as follows— right. I know these are; they were researched STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUC- by a very competent Senate officer. It is TION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1998 AUTUMN worth putting on the record that those num- SITTINGS bers are there. So granting an exemption is NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT BILL 1997 [No. nothing unusual. But we are talking about 2] granting an exemption to a bill that has Upon election, amending the Native Title Act 1993 already been debated in the House of Repre- to make it workable was one of the government’s sentatives, has come to the Senate with 56 top priorities. After a period of consultation the hours’ debate and has gone back to the House Native Title Amendment Bill 1996 was introduced of Representatives—not, incidentally, returned into the Parliament in June 1996. Before the here as it should have been. Nevertheless, amendments were debated, the Wik decision was most people know what the issues are. handed down by the High Court on 23 December 1996. Our decision to support the government on The decision held that native title was capable of this is based on the precedent that there have coexisting on pastoral leases, reversing a widely been 156 exemptions, that it has been in the held presumption when the Act was passed in 1993. House of Representatives and that it is a The Wik decision has led to intense public debate rejection, but not a demolition, of the argu- and uncertainty in rural areas about what activities ment that there should be more community pastoralists can currently perform on their leases. consultation. The argument that has been put There are real difficulties with proceeding with forward by Senator Bartlett, Senator Margetts pastoral business in some jurisdictions and conse- quent pressures on the government to provide and Senator Woodley is not demolished; it certainty for government granted interests on all has just not given enough weight for us to forms of tenure where native title coexistence is oppose Senator Campbell’s motion. possible. Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 873

A replacement Bill incorporating the Government’s Conroy, S. Coonan, H. response to the Wik decision was introduced on 4 Cooney, B. Crane, W. September 1997 and passed by the House of Repre- Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. sentatives in late October. After consideration by Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V. the Senate, the House laid the Bill aside on 6 Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J. December 1997 after indicating that some Senate Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. amendments were not acceptable. Gibson, B. F. Hogg, J. The Treasury and resources and farming/pastoral Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I. industry associations have indicated that there is a Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J. need for a response as soon as possible to the McKiernan, J. P. Minchin, N. H. issues raised by the Wik decision. If not, uncertain- Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J. ty may reduce and delay investment in mining, Newman, J. M. O’Brien, K. W. K. petroleum and rural industries and, consequently, Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. slow the rate of economic growth. Quirke, J. A. Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. (Circulated by authority of the Prime Minister, the Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J. Hon John Howard, MP) Tierney, J. Watson, J. O. W. Senator IAN CAMPBELL—I will make NOES only one further point. The government Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. sought to have this matter resolved. It has, of Bourne, V. * Brown, B. course, been a matter of some controversy. Harradine, B. Lees, M. H. Margetts, D. Murray, A. We thank those senators—particularly those Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J. on the other side of the aisle—who will be supporting this motion. It will ensure that * denotes teller there is certainty for all senators about when Question so resolved in the affirmative. we will be able to deal with this Wik bill. I think everyone recognises that it is important to have it dealt with. There has been signifi- SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION cant discussion as to the contents of the bill, AMENDMENT (YOUTH but at least all honourable senators and the ALLOWANCE) BILL 1997 people of Australia will know that this matter In Committee can be dealt with by the Senate during these current sittings. Dealing with the cut-off today Consideration resumed from 9 March. ensures that there is that certainty, and hon- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- ourable senators know that, when they come tor Knowles)—The committee is considering back for the three weeks leading up to Easter, the Social Security Legislation Amendment they will be able to deal with this legislation. (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 and Democrats’ Had this matter not been resolved today, there requests 1, 2 and 3 on sheet 860, which were would have been continuing uncertainty. moved by Senator Woodley. Question put: Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) That the motion (Senator Ian Campbell’s)be (6.27 p.m.)—The costs associated with the agreed to. youth allowance measure have been used by The Senate divided. [6.24 p.m.] the government as their fallback position at every stage of this debate. If the bill is dem- (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret onstrated to be unfair to young people, the Reid) Greens (WA) point out that young people will Ayes ...... 40 be worse off under the bill. Senator Newman Noes ...... 10 has invoked her mantra that the bill is a —— spending measure, not a savings measure. On Majority ...... 30 the other hand, when the Greens propose —— measures to lower the age of independence or AYES Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D. raise the parental means testing threshold to Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, G. average weekly earnings, Senator Newman Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. would cry poor as her advisers handed her a 874 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 note saying that the Greens’ amendment address the requests for amendment in relation would cost $X million and could not be to the exemption—and in relation to farm afforded. assets in particular—that have been moved by So just how much faith can we put in Senator John Woodley from the Australian Senator Newman’s financial figures? When Democrats. the bill was first introduced, the whole initia- In 1994, the Senate Standing Committee on tive amounted to a cost of $27.78 million for Rural and Regional Affairs received more 1998-99 and $2.95 million for 1999-2000. than 250 submissions regarding this issue The bill alone amounted to a saving of $9.46 from a range of organisations and individuals million for 1998-99 and $9.27 million for over eight months. The conclusion that the 1999-2000. When the bill was introduced into committee came to was that the family farm the Senate, the minister had a new set of should be exempted from the assets test. Evi- figures in which the costs for the whole dence from the Department of Primary Indus- initiative had risen to $53.77 million in 1998- tries and Energy given to that inquiry demon- 99 and $22.52 million in 1999-2000. The bill strated that around 5,400 students from alone has magically transformed from a farming families were being denied access to savings to a cost of $52.33 million in 1998-99 Austudy as a result of the assets test. That is and $33.52 million in 1999-2000. In the space something the Democrats have long con- of six months, the government managed to sidered unfair, regressive and quite discrimi- turn a $9.46 million saving into a $52.33 natory to those farming families. million cost, without a single change to the Unfortunately, we have stood alone in most legislation. This amounts to an increase of of our attempts, certainly in the 1980s, to just over 650 per cent in the cost of this bill. move the amendments that Senator Woodley This extra cost has been attributed to is pursuing. I might add that Senator Robert recosting based on 1998 dollar values and Bell, who was here before Senator Woodley, increased projections of youth allowance did not receive any support from the National numbers in the next two years. Given that the Party either when it came to moving amend- inflation rate is very low, that student num- ments that would favour and give assistance bers are falling and that the rate of unemploy- to farming families. Farming families are ment seems static, it is very hard to under- often assets rich but income poor and have stand how the government arrived at a 650 been penalised as a result of both this per cent increase in the cost of the bill, unless government’s and the former government’s it decided to undertake some creative account- rules regarding Austudy and student financial ing to justify the attacks on students and on assistance. the young unemployed which it has made in I return to the committee’s recommenda- the youth allowance measure. tions and conclusions. It found that the assets Senator Newman also conveniently fails to test was discriminatory to farming families, a mention that the government has already conclusion the Democrats reached long ago. slashed the Austudy budget—by $100 million In its conclusion, it said: in 1997-98 and by over $50 million in 1996- The committee considers that the assets test applied 97. So that this chamber—together with the to farming families in order to determine eligibility many young Australians affected by the for Austudy is an inappropriate policy instrument changes, and their families—can have faith in that does not take into account the nature of farm the minister’s assurances that this bill will be assets and their relationship with income. In essence, the current assets test does not acknow- to their financial benefit, I ask her to explain ledge that some farmers are assets rich but income in a clear, understandable fashion how the poor and that farm assets cannot readily be liquidat- department arrived at a 650 per cent increase ed without diminishing the viability of the farming in the cost of the bill. unit. Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- Senator Woodley’s amendments, which we tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian are dealing with in the committee stage of the Democrats) (6.32 p.m.)—I wish to specifically Social Security Legislation Amendment Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 875

(Youth Allowance) Bill 1997, help those Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Given the farming families who, solely because of their time restraints, I will. The point I want to farm assets, are currently excluded from make is that this measure will increase the receiving Austudy. City families in similar burden on families, particularly on those financial circumstances do receive Austudy. people in rural and regional areas, including I concur with the earlier comments of farming families, who are once again going to Senator Dee Margetts. The Democrats remain fall through the loop. That may be due to very concerned about the passage of this bill travel requirements or to the fact that students and about the policy thrust of this government are not considered independent until the age in relation to the common youth allowance. of 25 or to the fact that young unemployed in As we said on record in this debate this week those areas and in those farming families are and last week, we support streamlining and not considered independent until the age of increased flexibility when it comes to benefit 21. There are so many gaps in this legislation, payment arrangements but we still have a and they mean that people, particularly those number of problems with the bill as it stands. families already most discriminated against or most disadvantaged, will be adversely affect- I am disappointed that attempts in the last ed. couple of days to increase the threshold in relation to the parental means test have not I have made my points on the assets test been successful in this place. Similarly, the and I concur with Senator Woodley’s com- Democrats’ attempts to change the age of ments about the ALP being sensitive about independence have not succeeded in this the age of independence. I urge the chamber, chamber. I put on record my concern that the especially coalition members—and especially Labor Party did not support Democrat or National Party members—to support the Greens amendments to reduce the age at assets test changes Senator Woodley has which students were considered independent moved. They genuinely will assist farming and, therefore, eligible for the independent families. They are backed up by research rate under the common youth allowance from the Democrats, from the community, proposals. We believe the age of 25 is ridicu- from farming families and also from the lous. We believe the ages of independence Senate committee to which I referred. under this bill and in the common youth Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister allowance are concocted and are shameful for Social Security) (6.38 p.m.)—Under the ages of independence. new youth allowance there is a family assets Senator Neal—Madam Temporary Chair- limit of $407,250. That is indexed on 1 man, I rise on a point of order. The matter January every year. The assets test does not before the chair is an amendment relating to apply to young people whose parents receive the assets of farm families. It has nothing to a pension, a benefit or an allowance. It does do with the age of independence for a student. not apply for payment under the Farm House- I suggest the senator restrict her comments to hold Support Act or a full-time educational what is before us, rather than trying to make vocational training allowance, including a few extra points from the other day. Austudy. Senator Woodley—I am surprised the Farm assets are disregarded for the purposes Labor Party is so sensitive but, as you know, of the assets test if the person has a drought Madam Temporary Chair, the debate often exceptional circumstances certificate. Self- ranges far and wide. What Senator Stott employed families can already benefit from a Despoja is saying is relevant to Austudy. very generous 50 per cent discount which is Farm families are affected not only by the applied to business assets, including farm assets test but also by this age issue. assets. That allows families with debt-free The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- assets of nearly $800,000 to retain full eligi- tor Knowles)—Senator Stott Despoja, I bility for the youth allowance. encourage you to address your comments to Increasing the discount to 75 per cent for the amendments before the chair. all family businesses would have raised the 876 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 assessable assets to $1,575,000, creating the there is a fallback position of 75 per cent—is opportunity for millionaires to receive social quite preposterous. security payments, which, I would have There is probably an argument to say that thought, would have attracted considerable farmers in particular, because their farm is community criticism and it would have been often their residence as well, should be given the first thing to be criticised by the Demo- some equivalence with the rest of the com- crats. Increasing the primary producers’ assets munity—they should be provided with some discount to 100 per cent would create inequity discount on their asset—but to say that it between farmers and other types of family should be entirely disregarded no matter what businesses, and that would be likely to lead the value is quite extraordinary. I do not to calls for flow-ons to all businesses. Increas- know what the costing of this is. I am sure ing the already generous discount would that if I sat down the minister and her advis- infringe one of the cardinal principles of ers could tell us. When I weigh these up means testing, namely that people with sub- against the other groups who are very badly stantial assets are expected to use those off, to see the Democrats putting forward this resources for their self-support and, in this proposition as some sort of priority is quite case, for the support of their children before extraordinary. calling on the taxpayer. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) This government has reintroduced a range (6.42 p.m.)—I wonder whether, having given of measures, known as the triple A package, a very clear question to the minister, I can to assist farming families. I do not have time expect a clear answer sometime before the tonight to go into the details of that. There end of the consideration of this bill. can be no doubt that this government is concerned about the plight of farm families— Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (6.42 we very much understand them—but this is p.m.)—I have a question for the minister, but not the measure that is appropriate for their I might say that the Labor Party has never needs. It would be laughed out of court supported this particular issue, which we have around the nation if we were to provide social debated for many years, so I do not expect security for millionaires. Senator Neal to change that opinion now. It is clear that she has never heard the debate Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (6.40 before because if she had she would not have p.m.)—I find this one of the most extraordi- made the silly statements she has just made. nary amendments that has come before us on this bill. The only thing I can think of is that Minister, the Department of Primary Indus- it arises from some confusion by the Demo- tries and Energy gave evidence that 5,400 crats about where their constituency lies. students were affected. Can you tell us how Previously, they were satisfied with coffee many of these come from millionaire fami- shop yuppies and libertarian Christians but lies? now they are extending their influence to the Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (6.43 bush, where they think they can pick up a few p.m.)—Minister, I did not actually frame this votes by telling those people on the land that before as a question: I am just wondering if no matter how large or how— you could tell us what the cost would be if Senator Stott Despoja—How dare you take we extended it to 100 per cent or 75 per cent. a point of order on me and then come up with Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister this insulting rubbish. Address the amend- for Social Security) (6.43 p.m.)—I was trying ments, Senator. to get that before the debate began. I do not, Senator NEAL—I might say that it grati- unfortunately, have it with me. I cannot help fies me to get a response. To suggest that you, but it would be some substantial cost. property owners, farmers, who already get a Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (6.44 50 per cent discount and who, frankly, come p.m.)—It would be extraordinarily helpful if out of this scheme extraordinarily well, should we could actually have those figures before have it extended to 100 per cent—and I think we vote on this particular amendment. Could Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 877

I suggest that debate on this matter be pos- farming families is actually quite inappropri- sibly adjourned. ate. Senator Newman—Oh no. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Senator NEAL—Just this particular amend- (6.46 p.m.)—I am just wondering whether ment; we can go on and deal with the other what the minister was suggesting is that, if amendments. We are not going to deal with there is a one in 5,400 chance that potentially it this evening anyway and that would give a paper millionaire had got Austudy for their you time. children—and, of course, we would like to The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- think that there are means by which that can tor Knowles)—Senator Woodley, do you be avoided—this is a basis upon which wish it to be postponed? legislative action is taken which might in fact remove Austudy from 5,000 deserving fami- Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (6.44 lies and young people within that category. I p.m.)—No, I was going to ask another ques- imagine that if you utilised that logic in tion. Does a motion for postponement take business legislation—that there might be a precedence? one in 5,400 chance in business legislation Senator Neal—I am happy to let you ask that somebody might receive an unfair advan- a question. tage—you would be drummed out of office so Senator WOODLEY—My question was quickly your feet would hardly touch the not a frivolous one, and I was waiting for the ground. Is the minister suggesting that this minister to give an answer. The evidence we enormous amount of common youth allow- have is that there are 5,400 students from ance which potentially could go to a farming families being denied Austudy simply millionaire farmer—one in 5,400—would be because of the assets test and the peculiar the reason that the government might risk nature of farming. The minister in explaining leaving 5,000 or so young people worse off her opposition to this amendment said that we than what they might have been? do not want to give millionaires an opportuni- Requests not agreed to. ty to get Austudy. What I need to know is whether there are 5,400 farming families who Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (6.48 are millionaires, or has she any estimate of p.m.)—I move: how many of those 5,400 come from farming (4) That the House of Representatives be request- families that are millionaires? ed to make the following amendment: Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister Schedule 2, item 8, page 149 (line 17), omit for Social Security) (6.45 p.m.)—I am not in "50%", substitute "75%". possession of that information. The basis of This is a backup to the former amendments, your proposition is that there are not too which were defeated, and I am very said many farmers who are millionaires. That is about that. Let me now move to what really true. And that is sad, isn’t it, for Australia, is the coalition’s policy, announced at the last that they cannot do very well and that they election. I will read that so that nobody is at are under such difficulties. But would you all confused about what that policy was. In condone one millionaire getting youth allow- the lead-up to the 1996 election, the coalition ance? released its higher education policy, and in Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (6.46 this they said: p.m.)—No, I would not. With farming fami- There are a number of inequities in the current lies, however, there is the income test, and the eligibility requirements for Austudy. The coalition evidence given to our committee—and that is will relax the assets test for Austudy so that why the coalition, along with myself, actually farmers and other self-employed people are not disadvantaged when the value of business related signed off on that report—showed to us very assets such as the family farm significantly outstrip clearly that it is actually the income test for actually income. As a first step, a coalition govern- farmers which determines whether or not they ment will increase the discount in the assets test for are millionaires. The assets test in terms of Austudy from 50 per cent to 75 per cent for farm 878 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 and business assets in businesses in which the That is illustrated by what is happening in parent is substantially engaged. America. We now have the picture of We are actually giving the coalition an oppor- Microsoft being before the American authori- tunity to fulfil their own policy as announced ties to break it up because it is nearing a at the election. Although that is a fall-back monopolistic state. That could not happen to position from what the coalition itself said in Microsoft in Australia the way it can happen the report which I was debating before, in America, because Microsoft is located in nevertheless it seems to me that this would be America, its culture comes from America, and an opportunity for them to fulfil that promise its whole ethos is within America. Therefore, which they made. The amendment will in- the political power that the American govern- crease the current 50 per cent discount avail- ment can bring is much greater than the able to farmers and other self-employed political power that the Australian government people to 75 per cent—no more and no less could bring if something had to be done about than the coalition promised. Microsoft in Australia. There has to be a The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! measuring of the economic power of a com- It being 6.50 p.m., consideration is interrupt- pany by the political power of government. ed. The contrast between the power that the parliaments in Australia have compared with Progress reported. the power that international companies have DOCUMENTS is getting more and more out of synchronisa- tion. The power that the company has is Australian Industry Development growing, to the detriment of the political Corporation power that government has in Australia. Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.52 p.m.)— We have people in this parliament who I move: have been associated with big Australian That the Senate take note of the document. companies. Senator Parer is a person who I want to make a comment on this report from comes to mind—a person of high reputation the Australian Industry Development Corpora- and a person who has had much to do with tion. It is a sad report for the following the mining industry. It is clear that the power reason: it sets out that the AIDC Ltd has been that the Australian government has over that sold to Babcock and Brown Pty Ltd and the industry is greater than the power it has over, Union Bank of Switzerland. say, the vehicle making industry or any other The purpose of this corporation was, first of industry where the ultimate control is held all, to facilitate the establishment, develop- overseas. ment and advancement of Australian industry It is a matter of regret to read the AIDC and, secondly, to increase the participation of Australian Industry Development Corporation Australian residents in those industries. The Annual Report 1997, which announces the fact that that is now no longer the task of the taking away from Australia of a vehicle AIDC is tragic because I do think that the whereby investment could be made in Aus- ownership of Australian industry by Austral- tralian industry and shared amongst Austral- ian citizens is a thing to aim for. ians, and that that control is going to seep It is said that, in this era of globalisation, it away overseas more than it should. That takes does not really matter where the money away the political control which Australian comes from or where the control of a particu- parliaments should have over industry—a lar company is because globalisation has control which is essential. made us all, as it were, of the one place. But Question resolved in the affirmative. that is not accurate because, if an enterprise is located in a country, it is pretty much able ADJOURNMENT to do what it will unless the ownership and control of that company are in the particular The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT nation concerned. (Senator Knowles)—Order! As consideration Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 879 of government documents has concluded, I I do not want to attempt in any way to propose the question: mislead the Senate in this manner. I seek That the Senate do now adjourn. leave for this letter to be incorporated in Hansard. Employment Services The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (6.57 (Senator Knowles)—Is leave granted? p.m.)—I rise in the adjournment debate this evening to respond to some matters which Senator Ian Macdonald—No, not at the were raised by Senators Tierney, Ellison and moment, Madam Acting Deputy President. I Abetz today, firstly in question time and then have just come on duty and I have not had a in taking note, in relation to a question I chance to look at it. asked during question time last Monday. Last Monday I asked questions relating to the Senator O’BRIEN—We did deal with it government’s new employment services and I thought that there was no problem with contract arrangements. In a supplementary it. I am happy if it needs to be considered question, I referred to Allhands Hire Pty Ltd further. which, as I said then, was selected to provide The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— employment services when it had financial We will come back to it later. problems with unprofitable contracts and was put up for sale only days after DEETYA Senator O’BRIEN—Enclosed with that informed the company of its success in the was a copy of the first page of a letter from tender process. the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs headed ‘commer- In answer to Senator Tierney’s question cial in confidence’ and addressed to Mr Lance about this matter today, Senator Ellison said: Allen Long, Allhands Hire Pty Ltd. I will not The allegation was that that company was going to recite the address. I am also seeking leave to be sold and that there was some financial difficulty have this document incorporated in Hansard. thereby and also casting doubt on the government’s Job Network process. Let me tell the Senate that The purpose of drawing this to the attention that company is not for sale. of the Senate is to say this: the business was for sale shortly before the minister publicly ...... announced the successful tenders; it was As a result of that, it has lost two clients. certainly for sale at a time after this particular ...... company became aware that it was a success- A member of the family who contacted the depart- ful tenderer in the government’s employment ment today has said that approaches were made to services contracting process. the company for the sale of it and that there was no aspect of it being sold. We rang Mr Rudy Weber, who is the signatory to the letter from Lloyds Business Following that, I went back to the primary Brokers, who advised that they had been documents that have been conveyed to me contacted around Christmas time with a view which relate to the very question I asked last to marketing this company on a selective Monday. The first was a copy of a letter marketing basis; that is, they would seek which has been sent to a business in Queens- particular companies to buy it. I am con- land. That business has forwarded that docu- cerned, firstly, because Senator Ellison says: ment but has removed its name from it. It is a letter from Lloyds Business Brokers dated A member of the family who contacted the depart- 16 February 1998 and it is signed by Mr ment today has said that approaches were made to Rudy Weber. The letter has a reference ‘Re: the company for the sale of it... business for sale’ and says: That is clearly not the case according to Mr Thank you for your expression of interest, and for Weber. He is saying that they received in- completing our ‘Confidentiality Agreement’. The structions from the company. And, secondly, business we have been appointed to sell is he said: ALLHANDS HIRE. A copy of the Business Profile is enclosed for your perusal. .. that there was no aspect of it being sold. 880 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Clearly, every aspect of it was available for tenders closed this company had problems sale on 16 February, and probably later than with part of its operation and was not achiev- that. ing its business plan. That is contained in Further information as to when the business other documentation that is in circulation. But ceased to be for sale, if indeed that is the in fairness to the company I do not think that case, is in the Australian Financial Review on that should be put on the public record at this Tuesday, 10 March on page 9 in an article by stage. But I reserve my right to include that Michelle Grattan entitled, ‘Job contracts matter in further debate if this matter is to go attract more fire’. The article reports a Mr further. John Leach as saying that the business was no I in no way apologise, as was suggested by longer for sale. He also refers to the docu- Minister Ellison, or withdraw any of the ments that I have referred to. In an article in aspects of my question or remarks I have the Sydney Morning Herald of the same date made on this matter. I suggest, indeed, that by Tony Wright there is a quote in the third the minister ought to look carefully at this column which I will read: matter and come back into the Senate and make it clear that his comments about the Mr John Leach, a partner of the company that had offered Allhands for sale last month, Lloyds company not being for sale might have Business Brokers, told the Herald yesterday that related to the particular time he made his Allhands had been withdrawn from sale, but would statement. But it is not clear that, immediately not comment on the suggestion that this had prior to question time on Monday, this com- occurred during the past two days. pany was not for sale. I will accept from Mr Leach that the company The PRESIDENT—Is leave granted to was withdrawn from sale. Whether it was incorporate the document in Hansard? withdrawn from sale on the day I asked the Senator Ian Campbell—I do not want to question in the Senate is not clear. It was give leave and I would like to explain why. clearly up for sale shortly before all material We would refuse the first document, notwith- times and I think most likely up to the time standing Senator O’Brien’s comments, be- we asked questions in the Senate. cause it is not addressed to anyone. It is just In relation to the second document, it is a piece of paper. It is not really a document clear that this document was forwarded to a that means anything that we could allow. The prospective buyer of the company on 16 second document is quite clearly from the February 1998. That document reveals that Commonwealth and marked ‘commercial in Allhands Hire Pty Ltd was a successful confidence’. For that reason we certainly tenderer in the process. It was going to get a would not allow that to be incorporated. The contract of some substance. Notwithstanding matters you raised will be referred to the what Mr leach might have said to the media, minister and he may have other views in due it is beyond belief that successfully obtaining course and may countermand my refusal. But a $1 million contract from the Common- at this stage I could not let either of those be wealth, someone who is very likely to meet tabled. their commitments and pay the bill if you Leave not granted. perform the contract, does not add value to Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (7.06 the company. That is absolutely beyond p.m.)—by leave—If that had been made clear belief. earlier I would have used part of my time to We are suggesting, and indeed I was sug- make a further statement. In relation to the gesting in the question, that there is a coinci- matter, I categorically state that the letter that dence between the awarding of the contract to is marked commercial in confidence does this company and the sale of the company specify that Allhands Hire Pty Ltd is being and that that is a matter for concern. I also offered the chance to sign a contract with the talked about the financial situation of the Commonwealth. I believe that that has not company and it is clear from the material been and is not in question. The statement which was distributed that at the time the that I read from the document earlier is in fact Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 881 a quote from the document and will now be the name of Dr Langdon Down. But it was in Hansard. not until the early thirties that genetic re- searchers began to surmises that Down Syn- Down Syndrome drome might be caused by a chromosomal Senator SYNON (Victoria) (7.07 p.m.)—I abnormality. Further research shows, as most would like to take the opportunity to speak people now know, that Down Syndrome is the this evening for a few minutes on National result of an extra chromosome—21 in every Down Syndrome Awareness Week. All over cell. Despite recent advances in genetic Australia from 15 March to 21 March people research, the cause of this extra chromosome will be celebrating the three As: ability, is still largely unknown. attitude, achievement. This is the slogan of In countries with developed health systems, Down Syndrome Awareness Week 1998: such as Australia, the average life expectancy celebrate ability, attitude and achievement. of a person born with Down Syndrome is The message is a positive one. It supports the more than sixty years. Like many conditions recent publicity of the Down Syndrome which people may not fully understand, there associations in our country which emphasise are many perceptions which should be chal- ‘my ability plus your attitude equals our lenged. For example, people do not suffer achievement’. Next week we celebrate the from Down Syndrome. It is a condition, not ability of people with Down Syndrome and a disease. There is no pain or distress in- their achievements both big and small. volved, although many people experience We will be celebrating the fact that people other associated medical problems. born with Down Syndrome are now being Nothing done before or during pregnancy offered their rights and privileges as equal causes a baby to have Down Syndrome. The citizens of Australia. Australians who have intellectual and physical abilities of people Down Syndrome, their family and friends are with Down Syndrome vary with each individ- faced with many challenges. The Down ual, as does the individual’s range of achieve- Syndrome Association of Victoria provides a ment—the only difference being, as we would top class support structure to people who are all agree, achievement is so much more born with Down Syndrome and their families, meaningful to someone who faces severe as do Down Syndrome associations through- obstacles. As the Down Syndrome Awareness out Australia. The Victorian association, by Week slogan says: they are achievements maintaining a home page on the World Wide worth celebrating. Web, also provides readily accessible infor- I would like to take a minute to read to the mation on Down Syndrome. Senate a piece written by a family who have I will mention some of the facts and in- a baby with Down Syndrome—a family who sights that bring a contemporary and realistic were aware in the early stages of pregnancy focus to Down Syndrome. Down Syndrome that they would be expecting a child with is one of the most common genetic birth Down Syndrome. Emily Pearl Kingsley conditions. Approximately one in every 600 likened the experience of having a child with to 700 babies is born with Down Syndrome, a disability to planning for a holiday to Italy which means that about 100,000 babies are only to find that plans have changed mid born with Down Syndrome around the world flight and the destination is now Holland. every year. Babies born with Down Syndrome Emily wrote: are born to parents of every age, social class It’s just a different place, it’s slower paced than and race. Although the incidence of babies Italy. Less flashy than Italy. But after you have born with Down Syndrome increases with the been there a while and you catch your breath, you age of the mother, most babies with Down look around and you notice that Holland has Syndrome are born to mothers under the age windmills, Holland has tulips, Holland even has of 30. Rembrandts. But everyone you know is coming and going The syndrome was first documented in the from Italy. And they’re bragging about the wonder- mid-19th century by an English physician by ful time they had there. 882 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

For the rest of your life you may say "Yes, that’s When I got back to my office I found a the place I was supposed to go. That’s what I had copy of a statement that the minister and the planned.’ And the pain of that will never go away Treasurer who is responsible for the National because the loss of that dream is a very significant loss. Competition Council, had put out in response to this report that was made available today. But if you spend your life mourning the fact that It says: you didn’t get to Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, very lovely things about The Government welcomes the National Competi- Holland. tion Council’s final report of the Review of the Australia Postal Corporation Act 1989. Resilience and courage like Emily’s are things The Government will develop a formal response to many people who share their lives with Down the National Competition Council’s recommenda- Syndrome discover. The achievement of tions. families of those with Down Syndrome should It is clear from what is further stated in this therefore also be celebrated. Those who share statement and from the minister’s own re- their lives with Down Syndrome have much marks, and even from Senator O’Chee’s resilience, courage and, of course, love. Their question, that the government are favourably work in assisting an important group in our disposed to accepting many of the recom- community to live their lives as citizens and mendations of this report. I find it very with human dignity should be acknowledged strange that any senator who represents rural gratefully by the rest of us. or regional Australia would accept any of these recommendations. Next week Australians have an opportunity to recognise not only the individuals and The National Competition Council recom- families who live with Down Syndrome but mends that Australia Post lose its reserve also the hardworking groups in our communi- services for business mail. This is overwhelm- ty who are working to provide support to ingly the bulk of their business. This no families and public awareness to Australians. longer will be reserved as a standard letter. If I encourage all of us to join in those celebra- it is a business letter, it will be open to tions in whatever way we can. Ability, atti- competition. That means Australia Post will tude and achievement and the acceptance of be cherry picked in its most profitable areas people with Down Syndrome as Australians by private competition but will still be expect- with equal rights like every other Australian ed to provide services to the non-profitable are things we can recognise in National Down and loss-making areas of regional and rural Syndrome Awareness Week 1998. Australia. Today I found it astonishing that the Postal Services government did not, when they received the Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) report, hit it right on the head straight away— (7.14 p.m.)—In the adjournment debate I wish especially since they claim to represent most to speak on an issue that arose in question of regional Australia in the seats of federal time in the Senate today. In response to a parliament—and say they would have nothing question by Senator O’Chee, the Minister for to do with this report as they understand the Communications, the Information Economy need for Australia Post to provide these and the Arts (Senator Alston) made comments services and to have the revenue base assured about a report from the National Competition by having the reserve services of the standard Council that was tabled today regarding letter provided to regional Australia. But, no, further deregulation of Australian postal this minister and the Treasurer said they services. The minister made a few comments welcome the report. about the report and then spent most of the I say on behalf of the Labor Party that we time making intemperate remarks, as he reject the report. We find it unimaginable that usually does, about other senators and gener- those opposite would adopt this report. Aus- ally abusing the forum of the parliament at tralia Post, over the last 15 to 20 years, has question time. reorganised itself to be one of the most Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 883 successful postal services in the world. It Australia. I have to say, particularly to Na- makes a substantial profit. On the radio tional Party members, that I would be very tonight Mr Samuel criticised Australia Post surprised if they copped this report because for making too much profit. That was one of we will certainly make it a major issue his objections. The profit is used to cross- against National Party members, who claim to subsidise regional areas. represent the best interests of regional and A further astonishing recommendation is rural Australia. This report should be immedi- that, instead of the profitable areas cross- ately dispensed with by the government and subsidising the unprofitable regional areas rejected, as it is by the Labor Party. under community service obligations, he Bureau of Meteorology: Willis Island recommends that cross-subsidy be paid by the Treasury. We all know what that means: it Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queens- might be okay for the first year but by the land—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister second and third years the Treasury will be for the Environment) (7.20 p.m.)—One of the recommending that we get rid of the cross- first tasks that I had the honour to perform subsidy payment and make it a complete cost upon my appointment almost 18 months ago recovery operation. as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment with responsibility for, That will lead to only one thing: this coun- amongst other things, the Bureau of Meteorol- try will have a two-tier letter mail service ogy, was to officiate at the celebration of the with one price for the delivery of city letters 75th anniversary of the establishment of the and a much higher price for the delivery of weather bureau station at Willis Island in the letters in country areas. Country people will Coral Sea. end up with a second-rate service and pay higher prices than their city cousins. I am At the time, I was invited to visit Willis astonished that the minister would not make Island but difficulties with itinerary and the any comment on these very serious recom- fact that the island is some 500 kilometres mendations other than to welcome them and north-east of Townsville and about 500 the final report from the National Competition kilometres directly east of Port Douglas made Council. getting there rather difficult for that occasion. So we did the celebration at the time by The minister today said that I and other remote control, by telephone, from the members of the Labor Party are doing this at Thuringowa City Council Chambers. But I did the behest of the trade union movement. We commit myself to visit the island at the first certainly do support Australia Post employees available opportunity. Just prior to last Christ- who happen to be members of their union— mas I was able to honour that commitment by and most of them, if not all, are members. visiting the island as part of the half-yearly Not only do Australia Post union members supply and changeover of bureau staff at want to maintain their jobs; they are very Willis Island. proud of the service they provide to the community. In country towns Australia Post Willis Island has a unique, high quality staff are honoured members of the community climate record dating from its establishment because they play a very important role. The by Commonwealth navigator Captain John K. minister bagged those staff in his remarks Davis in 1921. Coincidentally, Australia’s earlier today. main base in the Antarctic, Davis Station, is As the next election approaches the Labor named after that very same Captain John Party looks forward to campaigning on this Davis. issue against the coalition, against the minister After the cyclones which devastated for communications and against the Treasurer Mackay and Innisfail in 1918, agitation for a if they consistently leave open the opportunity station in the Coral Sea grew. Between June for these recommendations to be adopted. I and November 1921, a wireless hut and an tell the minister now, we will be delighted to 87-foot wireless mast were constructed on campaign on this issue all over regional Willis Island, with the first weather reading 884 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998 being at 9 a.m. on 8 November 1921. The nicely described as ‘a heavily weathered island has been continuously manned since Australian flag’. In fact the flag, from being that time. flown in that unprotected spot for more than Over the years there have been periodic six months, was worn almost halfway through upgrades of both the technical equipment and and was covered with the droppings of the the staff facilities. The Willis Island program plentiful inhabitants of the island, the booby continues to be a key component of tropical bird and the terns. During the visit I took part cyclone warning systems in Australia as well in some trials to obtain temperatures and as the basic observation network for the pressures which all form part of the science Queensland weather forecast. The more attempting to understand and determine the El accurate positioning and tracking of cyclone Nino impact on Australia. Willis Island was centres provided by Willis Island radar and battered last year by Cyclone Justin and was the data provided by the six hourly upper air again earlier this year the subject of some soundings contribute materially to the accura- very severe weather when the most recent cy of tropical cyclone forecasts—a matter of cyclone on the east Queensland coast was major importance to the safety of life in North roaming around the Coral Sea area. Queensland, to say nothing of the economy. Madam President, the highest point on The climate record from Willis Island is Willis Island—and you will recall that I said virtually unique in the world in its length and it was about 150 metres by 500 metres in representativeness of an undisturbed oceanic length—is about 10 metres above sea level, trade wind regime. The island is manned by and this island is right in the middle of the a staff of three or four, usually consisting of Coral Sea. But I am told that at no time has two or three technical officers, observers, one the island ever been awash. The staff are of whom is the officer in charge, and a reasonably well accommodated on the island technical officer, electronics, who is respon- in airconditioned comfort in their sleeping sible for the maintenance of electronic and quarters. The weather predicting area, the mechanical equipment on the island. The bureau office, is also airconditioned. island measures about 500 metres by 150 The rest of it is fairly open and quite a metres and is in the middle of the Coral Sea. pleasant place, but it can be quite dangerous At the time of a changeover, a team of with heavy winds around. Whilst the staff are contractors descend upon the island, spending looked after in good times, there is a safety an intensive two days repairing, maintaining bunker constructed on the island which will and renovating very sensitive equipment as keep safe the staff and those who might well as the base buildings. On the time of my happen to be there at the time in the case of visit prior to Christmas, I was accompanied to an unthinkable event ever happening, such as the island by the Regional Director of the a major tidal wave—although I am told that Bureau of Meteorology in Queensland, Mr because the island is in the middle of the Rex Falls, and the ingoing party, consisting of Coral Sea dangerous tidal waves rarely hap- the officer in charge, Graham Taylor; an pen. observer, Mr Brendan McMahon; and the The Willis Island weather station is an technician, Mr David Hughes. The outgoing essential part of the Australian weather ob- party consisted of the OIC, Rob McFarlane; serving and predicting system and has a long, Robyn Paton; Geoff Smith; and the techni- proud record and a very colourful history. The cian, Chris Hughes. The trip to the island dedicated bureau people who have staffed the from Townsville took about 36 hours in the station over the years continue to do marvel- supply ship Pacific Conquest in what was lous work. The isolation is difficult for the said to be, mercifully, one of the calmest bureau personnel. The dedication of the recent resupplies of this Coral Sea island. people and others at equally remote places on As the bureau’s recent newsletter says, I the mainland and in Antarctica demonstrate was given a memento of my visit by the very clearly what a dedicated and professional outgoing team. I was presented with what is group it is who watch over Australia’s weath- Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 885 er 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 The Prime Minister further says that the weeks a year. secretary advised him that in forming his view he took into account the following points. The Minister for Resources and Energy family trust vehicle has been in operation for Senator PARER (Queensland—Minister a considerable period of time, well pre-dating for Resources and Energy) (7.28 p.m.)— my appointment as a minister—in fact, as I Today in question time a number of issues mentioned earlier, 28 years. The shares held were raised by the Labor Party in respect of by the trust are non-voting. As the company a company called Investment Management itself is a private company whose shares are Pty Ltd, which is the company that looks after neither listed nor traded, there is just no scope my own family trust. That trust has been in for public disinvestment, as is the case with operation for 28 years. It is a genuine family listed shares. That might be a little bit diffi- trust. The Labor Party, in its normal scurrilous cult for people on the other side to understand fashion, distributed a piece of paper to the because they do not understand the business press gallery simply in an attempt to blacken sector. my name and my integrity. I object strongly Another point is that basically the trust has to that. been run by my wife, who has relied on the As everyone in this place knows—and that advice of accountants. It was pointed out that is not just people on our side; I know there in a report early in the piece when I was are people on the other side, because some of appointed as a minister the question was them have phoned me already—I have always raised as to whether I or the trust had any worked in a manner of great integrity. I do listed shares in public companies. I mentioned hold shares in Investment Management. I that, while I was not big on shares, my wife have never hidden that. That has been in my had got the trust to divest itself of any shares disclosure ever since we were required to that might have indicated they were involved make disclosures. I suppose I could have gone with a mining company. The accountant has off and done something secretive, like hand advised me—because, as I said, the distribu- it to somebody else, which I did not do. tion within the trust is something that is Government senator—Like Paul Keating advised from him to my wife—that neither I did. nor my wife received income from the trust holdings in the company, in QCMM, in either Senator PARER—Yes, like Paul Keating. 1995-96 or 1996-97, which is more than the My wife and I have been and are the two whole period that I have been a minister in directors of Investment Management Pty Ltd. this government. That company holds 16 non-voting shares in a private company called Queensland Coal Senator Carr—You gave your income to Management Pty Ltd. A number of issues charity, did you? were raised today. One was whether I had Senator PARER—It is alleged by some, disclosed this to the Prime Minister, and I particularly some of the more grubby people would like to address that. on the other side— The Prime Minister has just made a state- Senator Carr interjecting— ment in the House of Representatives. As part Senator PARER—I might say that Senator of that statement he says quite categorically Carr could well listen to what Senator Robert in the beginning that I have not breached Ray said. At no stage did Senator Robert Ray ministerial guidelines. He goes on to say that question my own integrity and the fact that my own return which provided full disclosure there was a conflict of interest. was referred to the Secretary to the Depart- ment of Prime Minister and Cabinet on 7 May Senator Faulkner—But, Senator, you for consideration, as is the procedure with all would acknowledge that many questions were ministerial declarations. The secretary advised asked. his office that my statement was in accord- The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on ance with the guidelines. both sides will cease interjecting and allow 886 SENATE Wednesday, 11 March 1998

Senator Parer to speak. There are only four was introduced in March 1997. I do agree minutes left on the adjournment debate before that, as that requirement is there, technically the Senate rises. you could say I was in breach. I am happy to Senator PARER—It was alleged by some correct that. I might also say that the Parer that there was a potential conflict of interest. trust does have shares—other shares—which As I indicated, from what I heard Senator Ray are publicly listed which are not in any way say, he made a point of saying that he did not involved with the mining industry. That was believe that. I have not sought to advance the a deliberate position taken by my wife, who interests of that company that I used to chair controls that trust. I will be happy to correct and of which I was a director and of which I that. I checked with my staff both here and in resigned in all cases on being appointed to the Brisbane and they have no record of that Senate. change to the liability requirements. Senator Patterson—To the ministry or to The only thing I would say, which shows the Senate? how scurrilous the Labor Party can be, is that the member for Hotham from the other side Senator PARER—To the ministry. I have in another place produced a piece of paper. not sought to advance my interests in any What he tried to indicate in quite a deceitful way whatsoever, and I have not made any way was that somehow, on being appointed direct representation in support of that com- to the ministry, I involved myself in a compli- pany either within government or to any cated structure simply to avoid disclosure. overseas purchasers. That is the sort of sleaze that we have been The question was raised—I think it was a used to from the other side. This has been in lead-in question from Senator Cook—about existence for many years. I think I have what we have done for the mining industry. explained the difficulties. On my appointment, I am very proud of what we have done for the we did have some publicly listed shares. If mining industry as to the business of export my memory is correct—and it might not be controls. Let me point out that this was an that good—I think they were BHP, and they election commitment formulated prior to my were immediately sold. having any portfolio responsibility. I was not even on the backbench committee when we Senate adjourned at 7.38 p.m. were in opposition with regard to resources DOCUMENTS and energy. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that in no way have I committed Tabling any breach of ministerial guidelines. The following government document was Let me now address the register of interests. tabled: Until question time I had not been informed Australian Industry Development Corporation in any way of the requirements to disclose Act—Australian Industry Development Corpora- shareholdings of a trust. tion (AIDC)—Report for 1996-97 Senator Carr—What did Jim Short go for? The following documents were tabled by Senator PARER—I beg your pardon? the Clerk: Australian Communications Authority Act, The PRESIDENT—Senator Parer, I sug- Radiocommunications Act, Radiocommunications gest that you concentrate on what you want (Receiver Licence Tax) Act and Radiocom- to say and ignore interjections. munications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act— Senator PARER—If you want to question Radiocommunications (Definitions) Determina- me, Senator Carr— tion No. 2 of 1993 (Amendment No. 9). Defence Act—Determination under section Senator Carr—I asked a straightforward 58B—Defence Determination 1998/9. question. What did Jim Short go for? Lands Acquisition Act—Statement describing Senator PARER—I was not advised. What property acquired by agreement under section 40 I did was do exactly what I had done for the of the Act for specified public purposes. years gone by. The requirement, I understand, Radiocommunications Act— Wednesday, 11 March 1998 SENATE 887

Radiocommunications Licence Conditions Tax) Determination No. 1 of 1996 (Amendment (MDS Licence) Determination No. 1 of 1998. No. 1 of 1998). Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Radiocommunications (Transmitter and Re- Act—Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence ceiver Licences) Determination (Amendment Tax) Determination No. 1 of 1996 (Amendment No. 1 of 1998). No. 1 of 1998). Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Veterans’ Entitlements Act—Instruments under Act—Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence section 29—Instruments Nos 1 and 2 of 1998.