COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 1996

THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—SECOND PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER

Petitions— Ramsar Treaty ...... 5133 Notices of Motion— Human Rights: Nigeria ...... 5133 Regulations and Ordinances Committee ...... 5133 Drought Recovery Assistance ...... 5135 Routine of Business ...... 5135 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee .... 5135 Regulations and Ordinances Committee ...... 5135 Cooked Chicken Meat ...... 5136 Child Care Assistance ...... 5136 Order of Business— Questions Without Notice ...... 5136 Superannuation Committee ...... 5136 Uranium Mining...... 5136 Landmines ...... 5137 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ...... 5137 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras ...... 5137 Tamil Community in Australia ...... 5137 Queensland Criminal Justice Commission ...... 5137 Port Hedland ...... 5137 Aboriginal Reconciliation— Suspension of Standing Orders ...... 5137 Procedural Motion ...... 5137 Motion ...... 5138 Member for Oxley— Suspension of Standing Orders ...... 5145 Bills Returned from The House of Representatives ...... 5150 Gun Control Campaign ...... 5150 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plans ...... 5153 Matters of Public Interest— State and Territory Rights ...... 5169 Industrial Relations ...... 5171 Financial System Inquiry ...... 5174 Australian Democrats : Policies for Women ...... 5176 Racism ...... 5178 Election Commitments ...... 5181 Ministerial Arrangements ...... 5182 Questions Without Notice— Telstra ...... 5182 Interest Rates ...... 5183 Foreign Aid ...... 5184 Women into Politics ...... 5184 Aboriginal Affairs ...... 5186 Federal-State Responsibilities ...... 5187 Pensioners ...... 5188 Perth Airport ...... 5188 Legal Assistance ...... 5189 Environment ...... 5190 Housing Affordability ...... 5190 Rent Allowance ...... 5191 Mr Max Moore-Wilton ...... 5192 Information Technology ...... 5192 Australian Medical Association: Medicare Provider Numbers ...... 5194 Training Programs ...... 5194 Telstra ...... 5195 Australian Medical Association: Medicare Providers Numbers ...... 5198 CONTENTS—continued

Committees— Membership ...... 5201 Notices of Motion— Economics Legislation Committee ...... 5201 Bounty Legislation Amendment Bill 1996— Report of Community Affairs Legislation Committee ...... 5201 Committees— Scrutiny of Bills Committee—Report ...... 5203 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plans ...... 5203 Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996— In Committee ...... 5204 Gun Control Campaign ...... 5232 Documents— Family Law Council ...... 5233 ADILtd ...... 5235 Gun Control Campaign ...... 5238 Adjournment— Hon. David Yeldham QC ...... 5238 Impulse Airlines ...... 5239 Employment: Casual and Part-time ...... 5241 Documents— Tabling ...... 5242 Questions On Notice— New Work Opportunities Program—(Question No. 176) ...... 5243 Ministerial Staff: Resources and Energy—(Question No. 242) ...... 5244 Palm Beach, Rockingham—(Question No. 252) ...... 5245 Mining: Garden Island—(Question No. 253) ...... 5245 SENATE 5133

Wednesday, 6 November 1996 (v) the strong connection of Shell Oil to the military regime, the company’s appalling environmental record in Ogoni land and its role in the militarisation of Ogoni The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. land; and Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., (b) calls on the Federal Government: and read prayers. (i) to bring international pressure on the PETITIONS Nigerian regime, both directly and through the Commonwealth, to restore The Clerk—A petition has been lodged for democracy and human rights and, in par- presentation as follows: ticular, to release the 19 Ogoni activists currently in prison, Ramsar Treaty (ii) to cease dealing with Shell Oil in Austral- To the Honourable President and Members of the ia until the company: Senate in Parliament assembled. (A) cleans up existing pollution in Nigeria, The petition of the undersigned citizens of based on an independent audit of its Australia in Geelong requests that the Senate operations, examine the proposal to set aside land currently protected under the Ramsar Treaty in order to (B) adopts standards for its operations in provide for a chemical storage facility at Pt Lillias. Nigeria no less than those it is required Further, we request the Senate to examine whether to meet in Australia, the proposal to set aside an area alternate to the (C) pays fair compensation to people ad- one now nominated by the Ramsar Treaty is in versely affected by its activities in accordance with the requirement of that Treaty. Nigeria, by Senator Cooney (from 1,102 citizens). (D) requests the military to cease its in- Petition received. volvement in Ogoni land, and (E) uses its influence to stop the Nigerian NOTICES OF MOTION Government’s violation of human rights, including the release of the 19 Human Rights: Nigeria Ogoni activitists currently in prison, Senator MARGETTS (Western Austral- and ia)—I give notice that, on the next day of (iii) to support the United Nations and interna- sitting, I shall move: tional efforts for regulation of corrupt That the Senate— practices by business modelled on the corrupt practices legislation in force in (a) notes: the United States of America. (i) that 10 November 1996 is the anniversary of the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and Regulations and Ordinances Committee eight other Ogoni activists by the Senator COLSTON (Queensland)—At the Nigerian Government, and is an interna- tional day of action in support of human request of Senator O’Chee and the Standing rights in Nigeria and environmental activ- Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I ists around the world, give notice that, at the giving of notices on (ii) the appalling human rights record of the the next day of sitting, Senator O’Chee will military junta in Nigeria, withdraw business of the Senate notice of (iii) that at least 19 other Ogoni activists from motion No. 3 standing in his name for two the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni sittings days after today for the disallowance People remain in detention and have sent of the South Pacific Regional Environment pleas to the international community to Programme (Privileges and Immunities) intervene on their behalf, Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules (iv) the behaviour of Shell Oil in Nigeria as 1996 No. 144 and made under the Interna- an example of the exploitation by transna- tional Organizations (Privileges and Immuni- tional corporations of a corrupt and vio- ties) Act 1963. I seek leave to make a short lent government in order to bypass social statement. and environmental standards in the pur- suit of profit, and Leave granted. 5134 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

Senator COLSTON—On 10 October 1996, Parliament House Senator O’Chee reported to the Senate on the Canberra ACT 2600 committee’s concerns with this instrument, Dear Senator O’Chee which related to delay and possible prejudicial retrospectivity. The minister has provided the I refer to your letter of 13 August 1996 regarding committee with information which meets our questions of retrospectivity of the South Pacific concern about retrospectivity and we will Regional Environment Programme (Privileges and Immunities) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1996 No. withdraw the notice. However, the committee 144 ("the Regulations"). decided to write again to the minister about delay in making the regulations. As usual, I The purpose of the Regulations was to do no more seek leave to incorporate the committee’s than restore the status quo ante to SPREP, and my correspondence in Hansard. Department’s drafting instructions to the Attorney- General’s Department were explicit in this regard. Leave granted. SPREP was a program of the South Pacific Com- The correspondence read as follows— mission (SPC) and until 31 August 1995, on which date SPREP became an autonomous organisation 13 August 1996, when the requisite tenth ratification of the Agree- The Hon Alexander Downer MP ment Establishing SPREP was lodged, it enjoyed Minister for Foreign Affairs the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the SPC. Parliament House Technically, when SPREP achieved autonomy it CANBERRA ACT 2600 lost those privileges and immunities, hence the Dear Minister need for their restoration. With specific reference I refer to the South Pacific Regional Environment to the question of retrospectivity, the Attorney- Programme (Privileges and Immunities) Regula- General’s Department confirmed the acceptability tions, Statutory Rules 1996 No. 144. of such a provision in all respects other than immunity from suit, on the basis that only the The Regulations commence generally with retro- Commonwealth itself (in respect of tax) should in spectivity of more than 10 months from gazettal. practice be prejudiced by the retrospectivity. The Committee would be grateful for your advice on the apparent delay in making the Regulations, In this regard, I note that: which, the Explanatory Statement advises, provide for obligations under an agreement signed on 21 a. there was no activity in Australia by SPREP or September 1993 and which entered into force on 31 its staff between 31 August 1995 and gazettal of August 1995. the Regulations, hence there is no possibility of prejudice to third persons; and The Regulations properly provide that any immuni- ty from suit conferred by the Regulations com- b. a "retrospective right to sue" is meaningless in mences on gazettal. However, r. 5 provides for practice as SPREP could not have sued anyone retrospective rights which apparently include the before gazettal of the Regulations; while it is true right to sue. This retrospectivity would benefit the that SPREP could now sue on a cause of action SPREP but would appear to prejudice anyone being that accrued between 31 August 1995 and gazettal, sued. The Committee would appreciate your it is difficult to see how there could be any preju- comments on the validity of this provision and, if dice in this. valid, whether it is appropriate to prejudice people in this way. By way of expansion of this last point, I might add The Regulations provide for other retrospective that if SPREP were not able to sue on a cause of privileges and immunities. The Committee would action that accrued in that time (between 31 August appreciate your advice on whether any person could 1995 and gazettal), this would in effect confer an have been prejudiced by this retrospectivity. immunity on any person who had done SPREP a civil wrong. It would not be desirable for any Yours sincerely person to escape liability for such a wrong merely Bill O’Chee because SPREP was not a legal entity at the time. Chairman In any event, while ever SPREP was not a legal entity, the wrong would have been suffered instead by some natural person who could have sued in his/her own name even before gazettal of the 14 October 1996 Regulations. Senator B. O’Chee Chairman Yours sincerely Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Alexander Downer Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5135

Drought Recovery Assistance United States of America (Mr Clinton) in accordance with the order of the Senate Senator WOODLEY (Queensland)—I give of 29 October 1996; and notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (c) at the conclusion of that meeting, the Senate stands adjourned till Thursday, 21 That the Senate— November 1996 at 9.30 am. (a) notes that the Minister for Primary Indus- tries and Energy (Mr Anderson), on Mon- Rural and Regional Affairs and day, 4 November 1996, announced details Transport References Committee of an $81.5 million package for drought recovery assistance; and Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral- (b) congratulates the Minister for his efforts in ia)—At the request of Senator Bob Collins, I securing this essential funding for drought give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he relief. will move: Routine of Business That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Refer- Senator KEMP (Victoria—Manager of ences Committee for inquiry and report by 6 March Government Business in the Senate)—I give 1997: notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall The basis for the recommendations contained in move: the Review of the Australian National Railways (1) That on Monday, 18 November 1996: Commission and National Rail Corporation prepared by Mr John Brew and the options (a) the hours of meeting shall be: available to the Commonwealth Government for 12.30 pm to adjournment; a continuing role in the Australian rail industry. (b) the routine of business shall be: Regulations and Ordinances Committee (i) Government business (ii) At 2 pm, Questions Senator COLSTON (Queensland)—At the (iii) Petitions requeset of Senator O’Chee and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances I (iv) Notices of motion give notice that 15 sitting days after today (v) Postponement and rearrangement of Senator O’Chee will move that Commiss- business ioner’s Rules No. 22 made under s.252 of the (vi) Discovery of formal business Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Export (vii) Any proposal to debate a matter of Control (Hardwood Wood Chips)(1996) Regu- public importance or of urgency lations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1996 (viii) Government business; No.. 206 and made under the Export Control (c) the question for the adjournment of the Act 1982, be disallowed. I seek leave to make Senate not be proposed until a motion for a short statement about the committee’s con- the adjournment is moved by a minister; cerns with this legislation. and (d) the procedures for the adjournment speci- Leave granted. fied in the sessional order of 2 February 1994 relating to the times of sitting and Senator COLSTON—The committee’s routine of business shall apply in respect concerns with these instruments include of this order. possible breaches of personal rights, prejudi- (2) That on Wednesday, 20 November 1996: cial retrospectivity, omissions of provisions (a) the Senate shall sit from 9.30 am to 12.30 for reconsideration and review, inappropriate pm and the routine of business shall be delegation of powers, lack of a requirement to government business only; give reasons for a decision and no require- (b) at 12.30 pm the sitting of the Senate shall ment to make decisions within a time limit. be suspended until it reconvenes in the As usual, I seek leave to incorporate in House of Representatives chamber at a Hansard a short summary of the matters time to be notified by the President of the raised by the committee. Senate (Senator Reid) for the purpose of hearing an address by the President of the Leave granted. 5136 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

The summary read as follows— Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) an- Commissioners’ Rules No. 22 made under s.252 nounced that ‘the Government was deter- mined to seriously consider allowing im- of the Life Insurance Act 1995 ports of cooked chicken meat’; The Rules revoke the existing rules and make rules (b) condemns the Minister for destabilising the for the purposes of s.15 of the Act relating to non- Australian chicken meat industry in this participating benefits. The Committee was con- way; and cerned about the following matters: (c) calls on the Minister to read the Rural and 1. A note in the instrument advised that the Rules Regional Affairs and Transport References would commence on making, while the Explanatory Committee report on the importation of Statement advised that they commenced on gazet- cooked chicken meat into Australia and to tal, which was a different date. implement all the recommendations of that 2. The Explanatory Statement also indicated that report before making any further decision to the Insurance and Superannuation Commission allow the importation of cooked chicken intended to administer the Rules as if they had meat. taken effect on 1 January 1996, although different provisions were in force at that time. Child Care Assistance The Committee has written to the Minister seeking Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral- advice on the above concerns. ia)—At the request of Senator Faulkner, I give notice that, five sitting days after today, Senator Faulkner will move: Export Control (Hardwood Wood Chips)(1996) That the Childcare Assistance (Fee Relief) Regulations Statutory Rules 1996 No. 206 Guidelines (Variation) (CCA/12A/96/2), made The Regulations provide for the control of the under the Child Care Act 1972, be disallowed. export of hardwood wood chips. Fifteen sitting days remain for resolving.** Regulation 8 provides that the Minister may ** Indicates sitting days remaining, including this consider the commercial reputation of the applicant day, within which the motion must be disposed before making a decision. There is, however, no of or the Guidelines will be deemed to have requirement for an applicant to be informed of any been disallowed. adverse material considered by the Minister. The Regulations provide for extensive rights of ORDER OF BUSINESS reconsideration and review of some decisions by the Minister or by a delegate of the Minister, but Questions Without Notice not of others. Motion (by Senator Brown)—agreed to: Regulations 32 and 34 do not require the Minister That general business notice of motion No. 264 to give a statement of reasons for a decision to standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, suspend or refuse an assignment of a licence. relating to the allocation of questions without Although regulation 36 provides that the Minister notice, be postponed till Wednesday, 20 November must reconsider a relevant decision within a 1993. specified time, there are no time constraints placed on the making of the original decisions which are Superannuation Committee subject to the reconsideration process. Motion (by Senator Kernot)—agreed to: Regulation 40 provides that the Minister may delegate powers to any officer of the Department, That general business notice of motion No. 275 no matter how junior. standing in the name of Senator Kernot for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Senate The Committee has written to the Minister seeking Select Committee on Superannuation, be postponed advice on the above concerns. till the next day of sitting. Cooked Chicken Meat Uranium Mining Senator WOODLEY (Queensland)—I give Motion (by Senator Margetts)—agreed to: notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That general business notice of motion No. 300 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, That the Senate— relating to Western Mining Corporation and its (a) notes that, in answer to a question on 5 Roxby Downs uranium mine project, be postponed November 1996, the Minister for Primary till the next day of sitting. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5137

Landmines are some 62 different nationalities represent- ed in the town’s population, encompassing Motion (by Senator Margetts)—agreed to: people from every continent on the globe and a large aboriginal population all harmo- That general business notice of motion No. 306 niously contributing to the spirit of the standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, community of Port Hedland. relating to landmines, be postponed till the next day of sitting. ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Senator KERNOT (Queensland—Leader Motion (by Senator Margetts)—agreed to: of the Australian Democrats)—I ask that general business notice of motion No. 316 That general business notice of motion No. 320 standing in my name for today, relating to standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, Aboriginal reconciliation, be taken as formal. relating to a reefline fishing experiment, be post- poned till the next day of sitting. Leave not granted. Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Suspension of Standing Orders Motion (by Senator Margetts)—agreed to: Contingent motion (by Senator Kernot) That general business notice of motion No. 330 agreed to: standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, That so much of the standing orders be suspend- relating to the ABC’s programming decisions, be ed as would prevent Senator Kernot moving a postponed till the next day of sitting. motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to Tamil Community in Australia general business notice of motion No. 316. Motion (by Senator Woodley)—agreed to: Procedural Motion That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 329 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for Motion (by Senator Kernot) proposed: today, relating to the Tamil community in Austral- That general business notice of motion No. 316 ia, be postponed till 18 November, 1996. may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined. Queensland Criminal Justice Commission Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (9.45 Motion (by Senator Woodley)—agreed to: a.m.)—I would oppose this motion for sus- That business of the Senate notice of motion No. pension of standing orders. There is much 333 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for merit in the actual motion that is before the today, relating to the Queensland Criminal Justice chair. Commission, be postponed till the next day of sitting. The PRESIDENT—Senator, we are on the precedence motion, not the suspension at this PORT HEDLAND stage. You can speak to that. Motion (by Senator Eggleston) agreed to: Senator HARRADINE—I was about to That the Senate— say that I do not believe that this motion (a) congratulates the town of Port Hedland, should be given precedence at this time. Western Australia, on reaching the centena- There are a number of matters that need to be ry of its gazettal as a town site on 22 Octo- dealt with by the chamber at present. I cannot ber 1896; see the minister in the chamber, either, at the (b) recognises the great contribution Port Hed- moment. I do not know where he is. But I land has made over the past 100 years as a believe that we do have matters which do centre for the development of the eastern require precedence before this particular Pilbara; and matter. In saying that, I am not denigrating (c) expresses its appreciation of the fact that the issue that is contained in the notice of modern day Port Hedland is an example of motion which is, as we all agree, a most successful multiculturalism, noting that there important question. 5138 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

I am opposed to the matter being given Since we passed our so-called bipartisan precedence. I would like to have this matter joint house motion last week, you can see the dealt with on Thursday. I am not sure but I continuation of comments and the continu- believe that the time on Thursday when these ation of incidents which need to be com- matters can be discussed is going to be taken mented on. They need to be remarked upon. up by some government business. These sorts It is not enough for members of parliament, of matters ought to come up in general busi- in good faith, to pass a resolution which is ness time. I do not think the Australian full of rhetoric and pretty empty on action. Democrats have had a go at general business Since that resolution was passed last week, time for some considerable time. So I would we have seen the incident in Townsville. We suggest that that is when it be done. have seen the distortion in the reporting of the The PRESIDENT—Senator Kernot, there incident in Townsville by the honourable is no right of reply on the precedence motion. member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). I believe this If you wish to speak again, you would need chamber has just as much right to comment leave of the Senate. I put the motion that on that matter as does the other place. precedence be granted as requested by Senator We have also heard this morning and seen Kernot. in today’s Daily Telegraph comments about Question resolved in the affirmative. the Chair of ATSIC, Ms Lois O’Donoghue, and inferences that there is something wrong Motion with her earning a salary level equal to a Senator KERNOT (Queensland—Leader departmental head. The simple point I want of the Australian Democrats) (9.47 a.m.)—I to repeat is that we passed a bipartisan mo- move: tion. That motion says, in part, that we reaf- firm our commitment to the process of recon- That the Senate- ciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait (a) notes the joint resolution of the Parliament Islander people in the context of redressing of 30 October 1996 which states, in part, their profound social and economic disadvan- that the Parliament ‘reaffirms its commit- tage. ment to the process of reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, We might think that is the end of it because in the context of redressing their profound we said we reaffirm our commitment. These social and economic disadvantage’; were the fine words at a luncheon in May this (b) calls on the Treasurer (Mr Costello) to year and in a bipartisan joint house resolution restore funding for the Aboriginal and last week. But what is going on out there in Torres Strait Islander Commission and the the community in terms of racist comments, Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation so that the rhetoric is matched by some mean- community division and alienation are things ingful action; and that are continuing. That is why I wanted the Senate to have a few minutes today not to let (c) deplores the comments of the Member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) accusing Aborigines it pass without comment. affected by alcohol of attacking Asian I take huge exception to somebody like troops. Alan Jones editorialising on Lois O’Donog- In my remarks, I will attempt to answer hue’s right to earn a salary that is equal to Senator Harradine’s concerns. This is not an that of a departmental head. The clear infer- attempt to have a long debate on this particu- ence was: she is an Aboriginal woman; how lar motion. But, Senator Harradine, because could she possibly be worthy of this level of so many things in the reconciliation debate salary? We politicians have to speak up. I am happen in the other place, we do not have a taking that opportunity to speak up and to tell contemporary opportunity very often to ad- Alan Jones, and all the rest of those who are dress it. I am seeking only five minutes now ill informed, who might be listening and who to answer the continuing, festering racist have no access to the information, that that comments that I think we see all around us on salary is set by the Remuneration Tribunal— a daily basis. That is all I am seeking to do. as are our salaries. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5139

Lois O’Donoghue does not have a right to had conciliation and that all we need is representation in terms of going in there and reconciliation. That is not an accurate presen- saying, ‘My salary is not enough.’ This is a tation of reality. departmental head equivalent. I think it is Whilst I will not be opposing the motion, objectionable that we have made this commit- I wanted to indicate that reconciliation is ment to reconciliation and we allow com- problematic. It is the term for the process of ments like this to go unremarked upon. getting a better relationship between Aborigi- I want to make two other points. You nal and Torres Strait Islanders and the rest of cannot make a commitment to the process of the community in Australia. As it is an reconciliation and you cannot talk about accepted term, I will therefore not be oppos- redressing profound social and economic ing the motion. disadvantage when, at the same time, you Senator TROETH (Victoria) (9.55 a.m.)— reduce the budget of the Council for Recon- I will present the government’s point of view ciliation, whose job it is to bring together on this notice of motion. The fact is that it is indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. It time that the non-government parties started is a huge task—just leading to a greater dealing in facts not fiction. It is time that understanding about the true history of this Senator Kernot stopped playing politics in this country, about the significance of land and important area, opened her eyes and con- sea to indigenous Australians. You cannot sidered the facts. The fact is that this govern- have this commitment and, at the same time, ment is committed to increasing spending on reduce the running costs of the Council for indigenous affairs and it is time that Senator Aboriginal Reconciliation by 30 per cent and Kernot realised and acknowledged that. take $400 million out of the budget of Let us deal with the substance of her ATSIC. motion. She calls for a restoration of funding Those are the points I want to make. We to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. have passed a resolution; it is not enough. We The council had a reduction in its forward might have felt good about it on the day; it is program estimates from $4.66 million to $3.5 not enough. We, as politicians, have to stand million for 1996-97. The council has also up every time somebody out there continues been allowed to roll over $711,000 from this ill-informed, bigoted campaign aided and 1995-96 to 1996-97, primarily to meet costs abetted by the member for Oxley. associated with the council’s Australian I think the Senate has a small role to play reconciliation convention to be held in May in this debate as well. That is all I wanted to next year and coinciding with the 30th anni- say, Senator Harradine. Because of the uncer- versary of the 1967 referendum. This means tainty of what is going to happen on Thurs- that actual expenditure this year will be day, I cannot accept that we should have $4.195 million higher than the actual expendi- postponed this matter to Thursday. I do not ture last year of $3.806 million. seek to delay the Senate unduly, but I do seek That is right Senator Kernot, more will be to make those points. Let us not sit here and spent on the Council for Aboriginal Recon- be complacent about the fact that we have ciliation this year than last year. As for passed a resolution on this. Let us try to overall Commonwealth spending on indigen- match the rhetoric with a bit of action. At the ous specific programs, I point out that we individual level, that action includes speaking will be spending more—$429 million more— up and speaking up every time the over the next four years than was spent during misinformation and the bigotry continues. the last four years. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) The non-government parties fail to compre- (9.53 a.m.)—I will not be opposing this hend that there is a new government in office. motion. I believe the term ‘reconciliation’ is They fail to comprehend that the policies of problematic for a number of people. A num- the last 13 years have proven to be an un- ber of Aboriginal representatives and groups qualified failure. They fail to comprehend that have indicated that it assumes that we have this government will not play the politically 5140 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 correct game if it means that Aboriginal were seeking asylum and refugee status. His people on the ground in remote communities slur was against three Chinese women who continue to miss out. They fail to comprehend were seeking refugee status due to their well- that this government is about achieving real founded fear of persecution if forcibly re- outcomes for indigenous Australians. turned to the PRC. Mr Jones claimed that the There are 300,000 Aboriginal and Torres basis of their application was that these Strait Islander people in Australia, and less women wanted to have more than one child. than 100,000 of those are adults. In the past He painted a picture of millions of people 12 years, over $12 billion has been spent on coming down from China to flood this coun- indigenous specific programs. Despite that, try if their application was agreed to. Bear in indigenous Australians still have an infant mind what he said—that these women want moratality rate two to three times that of non- to have more than one child. If Mr Jones had indigenous Australians, a life expectancy rate done even a tiny amount of research he would up to 18 years less than for non-indigenous have learnt that having more children is Australians, an adult diabetes rate that runs at impossible for these women, all of whom four times the rate for non-indigenous Aus- were sterilised by the PRC and one of whom tralians and falling education standards. had her baby forcibly taken out of her womb at 7½ months. Those opposite would have us continue the same failed policies. Instead, we have em- How do you think those people feel? How barked on policies that will deliver real do you think the people who represent them outcomes. Despite the savings that we have feel? How do you think they feel in the made within the ATSIC budget, during the detention centres? Alan Jones, how do you next four years the Commonwealth will spend think they feel? How do you think Lois in today’s dollar terms $429 million more on O’Donohue feels? How do you think the Abo- indigenous specific programs than during the riginals, whom she represents and serves last four years. During the next four years we extremely well, feel? It is time that the televi- will spend an additional $97 million on sion stations like Channel Nine acted respon- indigenous health, an additional $26 million sibility in this so-called racism debate. on the community housing and infrastructure I do not think there is a racism debate program, an additional $337 million on the going on. There are certain allegations by community development employment program xenophobic twits, but there is very little and an additional $147 million on Department serious discussions about these matters. The of Employment, Education, Training and joint resolution of 30 October that is before Youth Affairs run indigenous education and us states in part: training programs. For all these reasons we Parliament reaffirms its commitment to the process oppose Senator Kernot’s motion. of reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait (Quorum formed) Islander people, in the context of redressing their Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.00 profound social and economic disadvantage. a.m.)—I was very concerned to hear about a It then goes on to call on the Treasurer (Mr number of the matters raised by Senator Costello) to restore funding for the Aboriginal Kernot, in particular a repeat of some of the and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the statements being made by television and radio Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation ‘so that talkback commentator Alan Jones. There are the rhetoric is matched by some meaningful racial overtones in quite a number of Alan action’. Jones’s comments. This is not the first time I say through you, Madam President, to that this has occurred. It is a disgrace. I think Senator Kernot, that I wanted a bit of time to that the radio station has some responsibility get across paragraph (b). Hopefully, we can in this matter, as has Channel Nine. adjourn this matter. I know that I should have On another occasion, on 13 September this got across it but I did not think it would come year, on the Today show Mr Alan Jones took in so soon, though your office did contact me a sideswipe at three Chinese women who by fax. It was one of the thousands of pieces Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5141 of paper that come into my office. I apologise I would also like to comment on Senator to you. Dee Margetts’s contribution and acknowledge that there are indigenous peoples who do not As to ‘deploring the comments of the accept reconciliation, partly because the focus member for Oxley, Ms Hanson, accusing has been on Aboriginal reconciliation. Senator Aborigines affected by alcohol of attacking Kernot and a number of other senators and I Asian troops’, I have said what I have said know that it is not a question so much of about the so-called racism debate. When you Aboriginal reconciliation. It is a question of have a specific statement like that I believe non-indigenous Australians recognising indi- that is something the parliament should genous people, recognising their culture and deplore. But I wonder whether it is possible history and coming to terms to with our past. to defer this debate so that people can get across paragraph (b). I hear what Senator Of course, there are high profile people— Troeth has said about the reconciliation issue. leaders even—who say, ‘Let’s forget the past. I know that there are areas of concern to a What does it matter?’ You cannot deal with number of people about the way certain the present unless you learn the lessons of the moneys are spent but I personally am not in past. So I would commend Senator Kernot’s a position at present—and I apologise to you, motion. I would say to government members: Madam President for this—to vote one way do not underestimate the significance of this or the other on this. debate; do not interpret it in crude numbers of voters who may or may not support you. Senator REYNOLDS (Queensland) (10.07 a.m.)—I would like to speak briefly on this This goes to the heart of what Australia is because, as a former member of the Council all about. We ignore the so-called race debate for Aboriginal Reconciliation, I totally support at our peril. I urge all honourable senators to the motion that has been moved by Senator support Senator Kernot’s motion. Kernot. I think that in this place we cannot Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri- underestimate the importance of our leader- tory) (10.11 a.m.)—The opposition supports ship on this subject. this motion. In doing so, I would just like to There are people in this place and the other refer to a couple of articles in today’s press. place who say, ‘Look, if we don’t talk about You can find on almost a daily basis in the it, this so-called race debate will go away. press around Australia an indication of the Let’s just push it to one side. If we take no need for a process of reconciliation in which notice of it, it will go away.’ It will not go facts can be put before the Australian people away. It is one of the most crucial issues on rather than the fiction which is constantly which this parliament must show leadership. peddled. This never ceases to be important. I am talking about a story from the Adelaide We have heard from Senator Troeth. I Advertiser that all honourable senators will accept her defence of the government, but the find in today’s Senate clips and it is in the reality is, Senator Troeth, that the government Herald-Sun and various other papers. has downgraded the position of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. It has done this Because Senator Alston is in the chamber in financial terms. It has justified it on the at the moment, I might just mention in respect basis of treating everybody equally and that, to these stories—they are, of course, all if there have to be cuts in other areas of written by the same journalist—the constant government expenditure, then why not for the concern in Australia with the concentration of Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation? But media ownership in this country. I got some we do not treat everybody equally. There real evidence the other day of the difficulties were no cuts to the defence budget; there that are caused by our unfortunately bad were no cuts to a number of other areas of the situation in Australia with concentration of budget. Why single out an area of significant ownership. importance to this nation: the question of I received a letter that had been circulated, reconciliation with indigenous people? I presume to all members of parliament from 5142 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

News Ltd, extolling the virtues of new ar- front page! Hold the back page, more like. In rangements that they had just entered into that my seven years as a minister in all the port- would provide nomination of a number of folios that I was in, I was never in a position specialist journalists to particular areas of where I earned as much as any one of the reporting which would result in a better people who were in fact employed in statutory quality, more accurate, and so on, news authorities responsible to me. In fact, I can service for Australians. They pointed out—it recall that the chief executive of the smallest made my hair stand up to see it in black and organisation for which I had carriage—and it white—that this one organisation, News Ltd, is a very small organisation and there is no is responsible for ‘70 per cent of the print need to name it—was then earning $180,000 media which Australians read on a daily a year, which was commensurate with the basis’. That attracted my attention, and I am same positions held by executives in other sure Senator Alston got a copy of the same statutory authorities. In fact, that was about letter as we all did. The letter was simply double what I then earned. advising us of these new arrangements and I point out that that is a commonplace boasting about the fact that News Ltd had 70 situation, because the fact is that most of us per cent of the coverage of the morning news are not in it for the money. We are in it for that Australians sit down and read. other things and job satisfaction has a lot to That is a very good thing if all the stories do with it. It is commonplace for statutory that News Ltd prints are accurate. But it is officers in every single statutory authority that very disturbing when you discover gross a minister is responsible for to be earning inaccuracies in stories written about Aborigi- significantly more than the minister. So what? nal affairs—I have pointed out some of these But this is highlighted as some dreadful crime in earlier debate in this chamber—knowing being committed by ATSIC and that it is that those stories are simultaneously being uniquely ATSIC bosses’ windfall. It then goes read by 70 per cent of Australians that are on to talk about Pat Turner and I found this reading morning newspapers. That places a grossly offensive in personal terms. It says: significant responsibility on the people who ATSIC’s latest annual report reveals the chief enjoy this kind of monopoly in this country executive, Ms Patricia Turner, a niece of former to ensure that their coverage is not in any way ATSIC deputy chairman Mr Charles Perkins, tops biased and is accurate. the payroll. In this respect, I see in today’s papers a On this occasion that is an absolutely clear banner headline that reads ‘ATSIC bosses’ and sleazy inference in that paragraph that Pat windfall’. It talks about pay rises that have Turner got that job because of preferment, been received by executives of ATSIC. This nepotism and her relationship with Charles often happens in newspaper reports. If I had Perkins. If that was Sue Smith or someone I to list one significant whinge about news- did not know, I would read that and say, papers in 20 years in public life, misleading ‘Perhaps that is right. Perhaps it is wrong.’ headlines would be at the top of the list. I am sure the Minister for Aboriginal and When you read the body of the report, it Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) accurately points out that the ATSIC bosses’ would be the first one to agree with me on windfall is precisely the same windfall that this, but anyone who even knows Patricia every other public servant in a similar posi- Turner slightly—and perhaps you could ask tion received across the board. some of the people she worked with when she It also points out accurately that these worked for Prime Minister and Cabinet in an remuneration levels are set across all govern- equally senior position—knows full well that ment departments by the Remuneration Pat Turner got that job purely on personal Tribunal. This is all carried in the body of the merit and nothing else. In fact I know that Pat story itself. It also points out—and I was Turner was approached on many occasions intrigued to see this—that the ATSIC bosses over a period of years to take the chief get more than their minister. Well, hold the executive’s position at ATSIC and declined to Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5143 do so because she deliberately wanted to public statements in respect of the honourable broaden her experience in other Common- member for Oxley’s contribution about Aus- wealth government departments. In fact, she tralia being overrun by Asians and so on. To is a public servant of significant ability and quote the Prime Minister again, he said that has got her position, as everyone who knows many of the things she said were ‘an accurate her knows, through nothing else except her reflection of what people feel’—that is people own ability. This is today’s press and you generally, all people—and I rejected that. constantly read this kind of sleaze and infer- Comments were made at the time correctly ence. that, where the Prime Minister has failed in Senator Calvert—It even made the Hobart this debate, is that he has been talking in code Mercury. and that is a fact. Senator BOB COLLINS—There you go, I was reminded of a biography I read years and that is what I get angry about. I know ago on a very well known character in terms that the newspaper group that publishes this of race debates in the United States, and that sleaze—to quote its own letter to me— was the former Governor of Alabama, George provides 70 per cent of the total readership Wallace. It triggered a memory for me and I for morning news in Australia. I want to say have just finished re-reading the biography. It on the public record here in the Senate that is a fascinating biography. There is a particu- this inference is wrong. Pat Turner did not get lar section of the biography that I recall from her senior position with ATSIC because of years ago which just nails this stuff down. any relationship with Charles Perkins or Everyone knows what they are talking about. family connections. In fact, she rejected—and This book is written by a southern journalist I know this to be a fact—approaches for years called Marshall Frady. to take the job until she felt that she was What prompted this memory was an abso- ready for it because she wanted to broaden lutely superb television production broadcast her experience in other departments. I know by the ABC in Australia last week on the that she is a bureaucrat who is held in high American presidential election and Dole and regard in the Commonwealth Public Service. Clinton. It was heartening to see that kind of This is the sort of nonsense perpetuated on a in-depth, quality television being produced daily basis which makes the work of the once again by the public television organisa- Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation abso- tions in the United States. They are the same lutely crucial. organisations which produced that magnificent We were talking earlier in the session about civil war series. If honourable senators did not leadership being required on these things in see the Dole/Clinton production last week that order to get the correct picture through to I am talking about, they should do themselves Australians and about the role the Prime a favour and have a look at it. It was superb. Minister has played in that with his comments One of the journalists that was a commenta- for example about the ‘Aboriginal industry’. tor in that program was indeed the same I was profoundly disheartened when I heard Marshall Frady, the author of this biography the Prime Minister say it. As I pointed out at of Wallace. On page 6 of this biography, he the time, the only two people of whom I was says: aware who had used that totally pejorative To many he portends the eventual arrival of a expression ‘Aboriginal industry’ in the last final racist psychology— several years were the honourable member for this is George Wallace— Oxley, Pauline Hanson, who used it in a into American politics. It seems certain that his column she wrote to the Bulletin, and the candidacy can only increase the racial alienation in Prime Minister of Australia. the country. A moderate Alabama politician Senator Herron—And Margaret Valadian. declares, "What he’s trying to do in the nation is what he’s managed to do in Alabama. When you Senator BOB COLLINS—Perhaps others draw the line the way he does, the whites go with as well whom I did not notice. It is a totally the white, and the blacks with the black, and when pejorative term. The Prime Minister made that happens, you’re in for warfare." A former 5144 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

Alabama senator echoes, "It’s conceivable that he the Sunday program from the Minister for could win a state like Illinois or even California Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. when he puts that hay down where the goats can get at it. He can use all the other issues—law and I conclude by drawing the attention of all order, running your own schools, protecting proper- honourable senators—and I will not quote it ty rights—and never mention race. But people will because of the time—to the introductory know he’s telling them, ‘A nigger’s trying to get paragraph on page 1 of the annual report of your job, trying to move into your neighbourhood.’ What Wallace is doing is talking to them in a kind the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, of shorthand, a kind of code. which mentions that despite the problems of ignorance and apathy in respect of the real That is absolutely correct. That is what we position with Aboriginal funding and so on, have seen during these very disturbed several there is ‘widespread community support for months in Australia, to the great concern of reconciliation’. I believe, fundamentally, that us all. I have seen nothing like it in the 20 that is the case and that is why it is even years that I have been in public life and it is more important that the work of this council about time it was put down. is fully supported. I commend the Minister for Aboriginal and Senator Hill—Madam Acting Deputy Torres Strait Islander Affairs for the position President, can you rule that the motion be he took on this on the Sunday program. I divided into its parts because of its complexi- thought his statements were forthright and ty? helpful to this debate. But I express my great regret again about the comment last week by The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I the Prime Minister of Australia. have been advised that a motion can be divided at the request of any senator. The Senator Hill—Madam Acting Deputy question is whether you want them all taken President, on a point of order: I understood separately. that Senator Collins was going to speak for five minutes. Senator Hill—Yes, I want them taken separately. We are happy to vote in support Senator BOB COLLINS—You should of (a) and (c) but we cannot vote for (b) have rejected that theory when you heard it. because, as Senator Troeth said in her presen- Senator Hill—I am told that we can always tation, we do not believe that it accurately accept what the opposition says in its detailed reflects the funding situation. form. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Are you moving to put (a), (b) and (c) sepa- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT rately? (Senator Patterson)—There is no point of order but if there were an agreement, maybe Senator Hill—Yes. you could assist the Senate, Senator Collins. Senator KERNOT (Queensland—Leader Senator BOB COLLINS—Madam Acting of the Australian Democrats) (10.27 a.m.)—I Deputy President, I will conclude, having would like to sum up first before you put the been brought to order by Senator Hill. I do motion, Madam Acting Deputy President, deeply regret the kind of unmistakable code whether it is separately or collectively. The in which the Prime Minister is speaking—the Senate should pass parts (a), (b) and (c) of same sort of code that George Wallace’s this motion. I am hopeful that when we have biographer, Marshall Frady referred to. No- the vote on part (b), the majority of the one is in any doubt about what the Prime Senate will pass that anyway; but we should Minister means when he talks about not pass it for a couple of reasons. We should having a ‘black armband’ approach to Aus- pass it in the context of the recent resolution tralian history. These remarks are unfortunate. of the parliament, particularly the third dot It is about time that the Prime Minister point which says: delivered the same forthright advocacy on ‘reaffirms its commitment to the process of recon- behalf of Aboriginal Australia that I saw on ciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5145 people, in the context of redressing their profound motion put by Senator Kernot in its (a) (b) social and economic disadvantage’; and (c) form be agreed to. Given that Senator Senator Troeth says that the government Hill has asked that it be divided, I now put objects to part (b) of my motion and has put the question: that paragraph (a) as moved by before us what she says are facts which Senator Kernot be agreed to. I think the ayes support the government’s assertions that they have it. The question is: that paragraph (b) as are increasing funding for the Council for moved by Senator Kernot be agreed to. I Aboriginal Reconciliation and that, through think the ayes have it. The question is: that various other programs, there is an overall paragraph (c) moved by Senator Kernot be increase in the indigenous issues budget. agreed to. I think the ayes have it. When you cut everything by 20 per cent MEMBER FOR OXLEY across the board it is very easy then to say, ‘But next year you are getting an increase.’ Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.31 When you are rolling over something into the a.m.)—I ask that general business notice of next budget it is very easy to say, ‘You are motion No. 311 standing in my name for getting an increase.’ The fact of the matter is today and relating to the member for Oxley, the budgets were cut by 20 per cent. In the Ms Hanson, be taken as a formal motion. case of the Council for Aboriginal Reconcili- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ation, the cuts have reduced its staff and (Senator Patterson)—Is there any objection severely reduced its capacity to carry forward to that notice of motion being taken as for- its work for the remainder of its term. That is mal? the reality. Senator Margetts—Yes. The Senate should pass this motion because there is a special case to be made for the Suspension of Standing Orders work of ATSIC and the work of the Council Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.32 for Aboriginal Reconciliation in furthering a.m.)—Pursuant to contingent notice of this parliament’s reaffirmation of its commit- motion, I move: ment to reconciliation. That is why ATSIC That so much of the standing orders be suspend- and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation ed as would prevent Senator Brown moving a should have been a special case when budget motion relating to the conduct of business of the cuts were being considered. Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 311. Of course, ATSIC and the council are not immune from scrutiny. No-one is saying that. At the outset, I thank Senator Margetts for This motion is simply saying that you cannot that refusal to give formality. I had had one week pass a resolution saying we reaffirm refusal to give formality flagged to me from our commitment, allow yourself to feel good the government, but then the government was about it and do nothing about the actions withdrawing that commitment from yesterday which make it possible for that resolution to to try to stifle debate on this motion. be implemented. Government senators—Rubbish! The second reason we should pass this Senator BROWN—Well, we will at least motion is that the Senate and the individual have this debate. Last week in this parliament members of it should take their opportunity to there was unanimity for a motion which com- continue to speak out in the face of the prehensively reaffirmed this nation’s toler- continuing ill-informed and racist comments ance, its diversity, its multiculturalism and its of the member for Oxley and certain media sense of a fair go. The initiative for that commentators. We have an obligation to do historic motion, however, did not come from that and I thank those who have taken part in the Prime Minister (Mr Howard); it came this debate for being willing to take this from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr opportunity to do so. Beazley) and a Liberal MP. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT However, it was a turning point against the (Senator Patterson)—The question is that the outbreak of racism which followed the first 5146 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 speech of Pauline Hanson in the House of failure of the Prime Minister as the leader of Representatives. One can see the impact of this nation to tackle her head-on and to rebut that motion by referring to comments from her misinformation and her bigotry head-on. the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Chris Pauline Hanson has shown a weakness in Sidoti, on the weekend. He was commenting compassion. She has shown a failure to relate on the furore that has followed the racist and to others. Her shortcomings are as a tense and bigoted statements of Ms Hanson in saying: immature person without much worldly This is perhaps a new industry that we are seeing wisdom. It was easy to spot that, and it would develop in Australia—the manipulation industry have been easy for the leader of this country that tries to attract some points of advantage from to recognise that her arguments could very the misuse of different phrases, different words, to dignify it with the word ‘debate’. What we have easily be rebutted but that unrebutted they had and what we have experienced in the last few could cause great damage in our society. And months is a gross misstatement of what has occur- that is what has happened. red. What has occurred is an outbreak of racism. It was the Prime Minister’s failure of There has been no fact and no logic in what many of the people who have dragged this so-called leadership, as much as anything, which has debate into the community and inflicted on us have led to the need for an urgent call from this had to say. Senate for him now to take the tack he should He went on to add that since that motion went have taken at the outset. The failure of the through this parliament, whereas the majority Prime Minister has never been more demon- of calls to the Human Rights Commission had strated than by his failure to come off the been abusive, and supporting the comments verge, get into the traffic of this debate and of Ms Hanson, there had been a turnaround redivert it. and those comments are running seven to one Just a few weeks ago, Pauline Hanson against what she has had to say. There is the visited an Aboriginal community in Queens- value of leadership. There is the failure of our land. Instead of feeling sorrow for the forced Prime Minister. cultural dislocation and disintegration, for the years of oppression, for the intolerable unem- Senator Panizza—I raise a point of order, ployment, which is such a potent force in Madam Acting Deputy President. Unless I am what we are seeing, and for the health statist- mightily mistaken, we are debating the sus- ics—including Aboriginal infant mortality— pension and urgency for suspension and I all she saw were papers blowing in the have not even heard the word ‘urgency’. If breeze; all she saw were papers on the verge. Senator Brown wants to suspend standing It is the Prime Minister standing on that verge orders, he could at least tell us why we that is the problem we are facing today. (Time should deal with such an urgent matter. expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Senator HILL (South Australia—Leader of (Senator Crowley)—Senator Panizza, I thank the Government in the Senate) (10.38 a.m.)— you for your comments. It is always a fine I stand on behalf of the government to oppose line to decide between what is the substance the suspension of standing orders. This is of the debate about a matter for urgency and grandstanding by Senator Brown—presumably what is the substance of debate. I draw those to some constituency—brought on by a comments to your attention, Senator Brown. somewhat devious manoeuvre on the part of Senator BROWN—Thank you, Madam the Greens. The time for debate on this matter Acting Deputy President. I take the point. was last week when it was debated, generally This matter is urgent. Senator Panizza knows speaking in a sensible and rational way, after that this is urgent. And it is the failure of the which the parliament passed a resolution— Prime Minister that we now have to urgently across the parliament—to reinforce the stand- address because every day we are getting ards that the vast majority of Australians more stories, more indications, more impli- apply to themselves and expect to be applied cations, from the racist fire that has been by representatives in this chamber. That was fanned not only by Ms Hanson but by the the occasion to pass such a resolution. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5147

The motion was passed and there is now an the sorts of intolerant views, the stridency and attempt to revive it by Senator Brown for no the ignorance of the member for Oxley (Ms reason other than that he believes it can be to Hanson). In that debate, the motion was his short-term political advantage. No attempt passed unanimously by both houses of parlia- has been made by him to establish urgency ment. It provided national leadership on an for this debate. It is therefore an abuse of issue of vital national importance. I must say these processes. It is simply Senator Brown that the opposition has clearly said it shares seeking to attack the Prime Minister (Mr the sentiments that that leadership has been Howard), and I would be quite happy to stand found wanting in the lukewarm and ambiva- the credentials of the Prime Minister on this lent responses of the Prime Minister (Mr matter against those of Senator Brown any Howard) on this issue. That debate provided day. The Prime Minister has condemned and an opportunity, though, for all parties repre- continues to condemn racism and bigotry in sented in the parliament to express their views all its forms, but what he does not have to do on this issue. There was a further opportunity is jump to the demands of Senator Brown. this morning through the vehicle of the Senator KERNOT (Queensland—Leader motion moved by Senator Kernot. of the Australian Democrats) (10.40 a.m.)—I The substantive motion that Senator Brown have sympathy for the substance of the wants to bring on is one that the Labor Party motion, and I did say in the debate last week will support. We do support this substantive that I felt we did not go far enough in the motion. But I also want to say this: in this agreed resolution. But I do not have sympathy chamber a few moments ago, we saw a trick for the device that is being used to bring this from Senator Brown, as has been exposed by on as a matter of urgency. Quite frankly, I Senator Hill and Senator Kernot, and a trick was surprised when I was given suspension of from Senator Margetts. Senator Brown, in his standing orders to debate the motion that I put substantive motion, asks for formality and forward for the same reason. I think what Senator Margetts says, ‘No. I, Senator made my motion a little more urgent were Margetts’—Senator Brown’s comrade in arms; this morning’s comments of Alan Jones on the other Green senator—‘will not agree to the radio and the continuing attack on ATSIC formality.’ That, I am afraid, Senator Brown, and the need to speak up today on that matter. is just not acceptable practice in this place. So, while I regret the fact that the Prime I have never known a political party in this Minister (Mr Howard) did not take on Pauline place to think a motion is of significance but Hanson, the member for Oxley, at the begin- then have that motion formality opposed by ning in a more obvious way by rebutting the a member of the same party. It has not hap- fallacious and bigoted statements that she is pened from the Labor Party since I have been making, I do not agree that it is urgent to do a member of the Senate; I do not believe it that now. has happened with the coalition; I do not Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— believe it has happened with the Australian Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Democrats. I want to say to you, Senator (10.41 a.m.)—Let me make the position of Brown: it has never happened before with the the opposition absolutely clear on the substan- Australian Greens. It is a trick. It is a crude tive motion of Senator Brown, No. 311. Last parliamentary device that I think you will Wednesday, we had a situation in the parlia- regret. ment where both houses of the parliament I make it clear to you that we will support engaged in what I described as an historic absolutely the substantive motion you move. debate. It was a debate on the kind of society Don’t be under any misapprehension about we are and the kind of society that we aspire that. But also, Senator Brown, don’t come to be: a decent, tolerant, pluralistic society; a into this chamber and use those sorts of society that is free of racism. devices, those sorts of tricks, those sorts of That debate was a direct response to the abuses of parliamentary privilege and expect divisive and dangerous community reaction to a party like the Australian Labor Party, which 5148 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 has always had a fine record of defending Senator Bob Collins—Get formality and proper parliamentary process in this and other try us out. That’s rubbish. chambers, to support it. We will not do that, Senator MARGETTS—Senator Collins Senator Brown. So while I am happy to place does not want to hear this debated but if we on record our strong support for your motion, are talking about proper process— the sentiments behind your motion and many of the comments you have made in support of Senator Bob Collins—If it had got formali- your motion, I will not support the use of this ty we would have voted for it. sort of device now or on other occasions. I The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT am disappointed that you have resorted to (Senator Crowley)—Let us give Senator that. Margetts a fair go here. Let me make it clear that we will take any Senator Alston—Would you have voted for invitation that is offered to the opposition to it? denounce racial intolerance in any form. I The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— believe we need in this parliament to respond Senator Alston, Senator Margetts has the call. to the call of the Australian community for strong and unequivocal leadership from our Senator MARGETTS—If we are talking parliamentary representatives on this issue. about proper process and about what is and The Labor Party will always respond to that. should be the proper process in this Senate, But we will never respond to these sorts of it is about whether or not the device of parliamentary tricks. On that basis, I assure leading the Senate in one direction in terms you, Senator Brown and Senator Margetts, we of declaring formality in order simply to gag will not support the motion for the suspension debate is good process. For the purpose of of standing orders manipulated in such a way process, to allow a debate to occur which is by the two Australian Greens senators. important is to say that the question is wheth- er this should be without debate or not. That Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) is what the process of formality is about. (10.46 a.m.)—There seems to be one small point that Senator Faulkner has missed here. By denying formality, as Senator Harradine We are not actually from the same party. The did on a previous occasion, it is saying the Australian Greens and the Greens (WA) are debate should occur, the people in the Senate different parties. should listen to the ideas before we knew what everybody knew, which is that both Honourable senators—Oh! major parties had various opinions. The Senator MARGETTS—No, I want to put government said no; instead of denying that on the record. Senator Faulkner has debate, you have the process to listen to those actually given an incorrect statement. ‘The debates. two Australian Greens senators’ is an incor- If we are talking about process, it is time rect statement. I am with a separate party, the the government stopped using that device to Greens (WA). Senator Bob Brown is with the gag debate and realised that people do have Australian Greens. the right to speak on important issues in the Having said that, if the Senate wants to Senate. I certainly have different viewpoints listen to the basis for my action in relation to on the issue of the handling of the race debate both today and yesterday, it is because if from Senator Brown. People heard my pas- there has ever been a convention that has sionate contribution to last week’s debate. If been manipulated or ratted upon, it is that in you have not read it, I advise people to look the last few weeks what we have seen is a at what I said in that debate. change of convention, whereby parties who My viewpoint is that we will never in our disagree with a motion are saying that it community be able to deal with this urgent should be a formal motion—that is, indicating issue until we look at the means by which a that they agree with the motion—and then growing number of people in our community voting against it. are becoming disillusioned. And yes, I also Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5149 believe it is absolutely necessary and urgent way. Through you, Madam Acting Deputy for the leader of the government in Australia President, with due respect to Senator Brown, to rebut the misinformation that has been I would like to say that what he is doing here provided to the community. now is really something that he has been I may have a different viewpoint from doing for the last three, four or five weeks: in Senator Brown in relation to how that might essence, he is trying to jump the queue. be done, but I do not think it is proper pro- There are a large number of notices of cess to do what the government has been motion on the Notice Paper. What is happen- doing in recent times, which has been to gag ing here, as has happened on a number of debate. Quite frankly, this is probably a previous occasions—through you, Madam convenient means by which the opposition Acting Deputy President to Senator Brown— can avoid dealing with the issue, by saying, is that there is a call of formality. On a ‘We are shocked and horrified by the contra- number of occasions that has been agreed to; vention of the process’ when they have been on other occasions there has been a call of involved in complicity in recent weeks in non-formal. But bear in mind that other subverting that process themselves in gagging senators have notices of motion they would debate. like to see dealt with by this chamber. So if we are going to talk about process, let Under standing order 66 there is provision, us go back to the beginning of what motions if the notice of motion is called formal, for are about, what formality is about. If I have the notice of motion to be put without debate. subverted the process, let us talk about how Generally that occurs after there has been that process is being subverted at the moment discussion between people in the chamber and by parties together guaranteeing formality in people have been given time to consider the order simply to gag debate, by saying, ‘Yes, implications of voting on a matter without we agree with formality but no, we won’t debate. That is a special procedure that I allow any debate on this issue.’ So process is believe is allowed for under standing orders, important. Let us talk about process, before but it relies on the goodwill of every one of we start flinging outrageous arrows, and about the 76 senators here. It is obvious, Senator what we should be doing in this place to look Brown, that the goodwill is running out. I at rights of speech. (Time expired) hope that you will take this on board. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.52 Senator Brown—Look at your own history a.m.)—The point is taken from Senator of goodwill, Senator Harradine, before you Margetts because some time last week there make too many comments on that line. was a call for a division by Senator Brown Senator HARRADINE—I am not sure and Senator Margetts was here. Of course, what that means; perhaps you should let the you need two persons to call for a division to Senate know. I think you have to understand take place. On that occasion Senator Brown’s that you need the goodwill of every single was the only voice calling for a division, so senator to pursue the avenues outlined in I think that proves what Senator Margetts has standing order 66. For that reason I feel that been saying, that they are not in fact the same I will be voting against a suspension of party. standing orders. But there is another reason. What I want to raise goes to the question Today I think we gave the member for Oxley of, I suppose, courtesy and form in this place. a pretty strong serve in the motion put for- Over the 21 years that I have been here, one ward by Senator Kernot which was adopted— soon finds out—it takes some of us longer to (Time expired) find out—that one does not contribute to the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT general debate in the community or to the (Senator Crowley)—Before I call the vote on legislative improvement of our Common- this suspension motion, I would simply like wealth enactments, or indeed to the sort of to inform the Senate—and perhaps correct a country that we are looking to improve by our misunderstanding of yours, Senator actions here, by rubbing people up the wrong Margetts—that while declaring a motion 5150 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 formal means that there is no time allowed for I can table some documents on behalf of debate, it does not mean senators may not the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). They are vote against it. That needs to be clearly records but they are not all records. I might understood. Perhaps today’s contribution say that the search continues. This practice indicates the old Kermit adage that it’s not that has just become the daily fishing exercise easy being green. by the opposition has, unfortunately, very Senator Margetts—Madam Acting Deputy significantly devalued the currency of returns President, I don’t think that comment is to order. It is having the effect that the oppo- appropriate for the position you are in. sition wanted, and that is really just bogging down the administration of government. Senator Bob Collins—It wasn’t insulting; it was humorous. Haven’t the Greens got a Nevertheless, I am able to table some sense of humour? records. I am not tabling those that I said to Senator Bolkus yesterday I would be prepared Senator Margetts—I have, but not— to have him look at in confidence. They are The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— confidential to firms that were involved in the Would you resume your seat, please, Senator? tender process. You can take this up in another way, Senator. Senator Conroy—Rubbish. I will now put the motion for or against the suspension of standing orders. Senator HILL—Before you came here, Senator, this was a practice that was accepted Question resolved in the negative. as reasonable on both sides of the chamber. BILLS RETURNED FROM THE Where it is unfair to these firms on the basis HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of having provided material in a tender which they understood to be in confidence, it would Message received from the House of Repre- seem to me to be quite unfair to expect those sentatives intimating that it had agreed to the documents now to be put on the public amendment made by the Senate to the Pri- record. mary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996. We are not publishing advice to the Prime Minister from the secretary or other officers GUN CONTROL CAMPAIGN of his department relating to these matters. Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister That has not been the practice in the past and for the Environment) (10.59 a.m.)—I want to should not commence to be now. It certainly table some documents in accordance with would bring the administration of government order of the Senate No. 18 relating to the to a halt if the parliament felt that it could national gun control public education cam- intrude within the privacy of a minister’s paign. I seek leave to make a short statement office and in the relationship between a in relation to this matter. minister and his or her officials. Leave granted. Senator Bolkus—You always claim that. Senator HILL—As you will recall, Madam Senator HILL—Well, I took the same Acting Deputy President, this was an order attitude with PPQs in relation to the estimates made against me, representing the Prime and Foreign Affairs, as I recall it. It was the Minister, against the Minister representing the attitude that was always taken by the previous Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, government as well. Senator Vanstone, and against the Minister I am also not tabling documents that fit representing the Minister for Administrative within the categories of cabinet documents, Services, Senator Kemp. It required each of legally privileged documents and other docu- us to table all records relating to the tendering ments that are commercial-in-confidence. As out and awarding of the advertising and I said, the search goes on. The compilation of public relations contracts made in the course these documents in accordance with the long of the national gun control public education established guidelines continues. I understand campaign. that Senator Vanstone will be very shortly in Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5151 a position to table some documents on behalf regarded as being commercial-in-confidence of the Attorney-General (Mr Williams). or advice prepared by the Attorney-General. However, the vast majority of these docu- As far as commercial-in-confidence docu- ments are held by the Minister for Adminis- ments are concerned, the government takes trative Services (Mr Jull). I understand that the view that it is against the public interest his staff worked until 3 a.m. on this require- to make public any material that could ad- ment from the opposition in this place, which, versely affect the broader, long-term commer- of course, is of no interest to the opposition. cial interests of the tendering companies. It demonstrates the extent to which we make Where such information could be deleted the effort to comply with the orders in this without affecting the integrity of documents, case, even though they are simply a fishing I am advised that we have done so. I share exercise and well beyond the purpose for Senator Hill’s disappointment that the Austral- which such orders were originally established. ian Democrats, Greens and Independents have I think it is going to be some little time chosen to support the opposition in this before the Minister for Administrative Ser- venture. I am hopeful that, unlike the opposi- vices is able to provide to his representative tion, once they—that is, the Greens, Demo- in this place the documents to be tabled. They crats and Independents—have seen the docu- will certainly be doing the work as quickly as ments the government is tabling, they will possible; therefore, we will table those docu- realise that the opposition is really on a ments as soon as we can. fishing expedition and they will join us in forcing the opposition to get on with the job. Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— Minister for Employment, Education, Training I am in a position to table some documents and Youth Affairs) (11.05 a.m.)—by leave— at this time. I am advised that the Attorney- As Senator Hill has indicated, we oppose this General’s Department has done all it could in return to order as an abuse of process. We the time available to locate and assess the believe the opposition is using the process of various documents. I am advised, however, a return to order just simply to tie up the that the department is continuing its search to administration of the government. It says a lot ensure that we have completely complied with about the opposition’s real intentions that they the order. I am aware that that search is have not sought to indicate quite specifically continuing and that there may be some more the documents that they want. The return to documents. I am not in a position to say order asks for ‘all records’. This is clearly a whether there certainly are. I am equally not fishing expedition. The opposition is hoping in a position to give an exact time that I to find documents that would justify their expect to have that matter finalised. All I can specious claim that there has been some sort say is that they have been doing everything of fix in the tendering process, which has they can and that this is what we have got been consistently denied by the government. thus far. As an indication of our good faith, Senator I spoke to the secretary to the Attorney- Hill offered to provide certain documents to General’s Department this morning. I im- the opposition in confidence on the basis that pressed on him the commitment we have to they are commercial documents of those who comply with the return to order and the need tendered them. The opposition rejected that to complete that continuing search as soon as offer because it clearly did not serve their possible. I informed him to advise either the purposes. Again to prove good faith, we will Attorney-General’s office or mine, as soon as comply with the opposition’s request under he is in a position to do so, when any remain- this return to order but do so under protest. ing documents that may be there can be However, it would be irresponsible of us to provided. I table the documents. provide documents where to do so would be Senator KEMP (Victoria—Assistant clearly against well-established precedents of Treasurer) (11.09 a.m.)—by leave—Motion not tabling cabinet documents, legally privi- No. 310, which was referred to by the two leged documents, documents which are previous speakers, requires that all records 5152 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 relating to the tendering out and awarding of people to the sorts of documents that the advertising and public relations contracts government is already talking about denying made in the course of the national gun control access to. At the start of the last government education campaign be laid on the table. I am finance estimates committee, Senator Kemp informed by the Minister for Administrative said, ‘You can have all the documents you Services (Mr Jull) that, due to the large want. We are here and open.’ That was a volume of records held by his department pretty general statement. The government has which need to be examined, I am unable to had to back down on that commitment given table the documents at this time. by Senator Kemp. Senator Conroy—It’s a plot. We are talking about having access to Senator KEMP—There is no plot. As submissions to ministers. Of course we expect Senator Hill pointed out, a great deal of work them. They were given in the past by the is being done to process the documents and previous government, and they are quite to ensure that they are tabled in the Senate. critical here. We are talking about accounta- Every attempt is being made to complete the bility to parliament. We can go through the process as quickly as possible preparatory to record and find all the statements of Senator tabling. Hill, Senator Kemp and Senator Vanstone Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (11.10 when they were demanding documents, which a.m.)—by leave—At the outset, let me say the previous government would provide. We that we are not talking about a fishing expedi- are talking of a cover-up of critical documents tion. We are talking about a case that has from within the Attorney-General’s Depart- been substantially proven in the estimates ment to the Attorney-General. Those docu- process and in the parliament. It is a case ments argue very strongly against the tender which the government has to answer but going to the favoured son firm of the Liberal which it is continuing to cover up. The Party of Australia. We are talking about documents we are seeking are documents that documents that are consistent and trenchant in are quite critical to exposing the extent of the their opposition to the DDB Needham propo- rort and fix that has been involved in this sal. case. We are talking about a cover-up to the We are accused of making a daily fishing extent that the Attorney-General knew of the expedition. It is worth placing on the record advice of his department and how strong it that, in the last 12 months of the previous was. But, for some dereliction of duty and government, 54 returns to order were passed responsibility, he chose not to take sides in by the Senate and responded to by that terms of the particular bidders. We are talking government. We are nowhere near that level about grand embarrassment to the Attorney- now. We are choosing quite deliberately General, a person who has not met his re- which returns to order we will proceed with. sponsibilities in what is, and is to be, the There were 54 in one year. That is an average most critical campaign run by his department of two per week in sitting times. Senator under his responsibility. That is the sort of Kemp, Senator Hill and Senator Vanstone thing we are talking about in terms of briefs ought to be aware of that next time they come to ministers. in here and make generalised statements with In terms of commercial-in-confidence, no- respect to our motivations. one is arguing that there is any doubt about Taxpayers’ funds in the Medicare benefit the figures. We have seen all the competitive have been rorted. You are fixing up your figures. If there are any more, we are pre- mates, and the public is entitled to know pared to go through that process. I remind about it. It is just not good enough to come Senator Hill that I have spent some time in in here and say that you are not tabling his office late at night from time to time certain documents. There is a cover-up here. going through what were then supposedly There is no good reason to deny access to the commercial-in-confidence documents. We Senate, the parliament and the Australian agreed to what extent they could be published Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5153 and produced in the parliament. There is a wisdom teeth—that process will have to process, but it does not cover qualitative continue. You will be exposed, even more, for research, generalisation, competitive tenders covering up the fix, the rort, that your mates and bids other than where there might be or the Prime Minister’s men have been in- some commercial-in-confidence financial volved in. information shown. As I say, there is a This is not a fishing expedition. We have an mechanism for that. We are talking about entitlement to these records. There is nothing whether there is continuing tracking research unreasonable in terms of what the opposition of this DDB Needham bid. In terms of is seeking here. There is a fix of Fine Cotton commercial-in-confidence, the previous proportions, a fix that plunders the taxpayers’ government had a practice of providing as funds. It is a fix for which the documents, I much information as possible. That is not the think, will expose the extent of the rort that practice that we are seeing here. it is. So we do expect to see documentation— In terms of legal advice, there was no advice to ministers. exemption to the offer made by Senator Kemp We know that, with respect to, for instance, the other day. We knew, and we know, that the research done on the DDB Needham bid, we would not be talking about advice that there were at least three levels of research. would jeopardise the Commonwealth in any We have seen the advice from the Office of legal suits. No-one is talking about legal suits Government Information and Advertising. We in this case. There is a good case to argue have seen the research from Elliott and that some legal advice should be kept from Shanahan. But we also know what the public view. We would argue that, in this government is very keen to hide here: advice case, in the absence of any pending court from just about every area of the Attorney- action, the government should show more General’s Department telling the Attorney- flexibility in terms of legal advice. We accept General that this DDB Needham bid was not the opposition’s decision with regard to the one to be supported, that it should not be cabinet documents. We are talking about supported in the interests of the campaign to fundamental accountability to parliament. recover as many guns as possible. The government has come in here this Could I say to you, from experience here morning and argued that the search goes on and elsewhere, that to the extent that you and that people in Mr Jull’s office were continue your cover-up and drag your feet on working till 3 a.m. to provide all the docu- this, this will continue to be an issue. The ments. This is not a new practice. People in opposition will find more and more ways of my office used to work all night to get docu- exposing the fact that you, your government ments in on time. It was demanded of us that and a Prime Minister who has a hypocritical we get them in on time, and we got them in commitment to standards have plundered the on time. The government has already had an taxpayers’ Medicare levy in pursuance of this. 18-hour extension to the time that they should In terms of documents, there is probably have produced these documents by. very little that has been produced this morn- It is part of the responsibility and accounta- ing. That should also be placed on the public bility to parliament that documents are pro- record. There are very few documents and vided here on time. It is not good enough to that, generally—and specifically in this case— say, ‘We need a little extra time’ or ‘We’ll is just not good enough. give them to you in our time’ or ‘We can’t give you an exact time’—as Senator Vanstone GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE has said today. We have an estimates process PARK ZONING PLANS tomorrow night, and we expect to be able to Senator LEES (South Australia—Deputy see all the documents before that process Leader of the Australian Democrats) (11.18 kicks off. To the extent that we do not see a.m.)—I move: documents, to the extent that they have to be That the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Cairns dragged out of you, Senator Kemp—like Section Zoning Plan (Amendment No. 1 of 1996), 5154 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Central Section reefs—16 of them in protected zones—and Zoning Plan (Amendment No. 1 of 1996) and the fish target species, then close the reefs for a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Mackay/Capricorn few years to see what comes back and how Section Zoning Plan (Amendment No. 1 of 1996), made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act biodiversity is affected. That is akin to open- 1975, be disallowed. ing up some of our national parks, shooting This motion relates to the disallowance of out maybe black cockatoos, lining up the regulations that will open up currently pro- carcasses to count how many there are and tected areas of the Great Barrier Reef to then sitting back and waiting to see how fishing. We move the disallowance of this many of that species find their way back into regulation because we believe that, rather than that particular forest area. reduce the amount of the Great Barrier Reef While the minister will undoubtedly use that is protected, we should be looking to arguments that there are still some protected other examples, such as forestry, where we areas left, that this experiment is not going to see some 15 per cent of various forest types go into all the protected areas, I think he will being protected. Rather than tapping now into forget to tell us what the evidence is of the the just over four per cent of the reef that is actual impact of this activity on the reef. I protected, we should be increasing the amount think he will conveniently avoid mentioning of reef protected to closer to 15 per cent. the fact that there will be more impacts on some areas than others. Let us look at this issue that is before us today. Many Australians believe that the For example, in the central zone of the entire reef is protected. It is a view that is barrier reef there are only 32 protected zones. widespread but, unfortunately, very little of it Yet he seeks to allow eight of those to be is. It is opened up to a range of resource used in this experiment; that is one in four extraction activities, in particular, fishing. areas on that reef. Nowhere is there an as- That is a major means of extracting resources sumption that most of the reefs once had the on that reef and, indeed, the major way in fish that are now to be found in these protect- which the resources of the reef are depleted. ed areas and then use that basis as a means of It is rather ironic that so little of our marine comparing what has happened in other parts species on the reef are protected, because this of the reef. is what the majority of tourists go to see. This I am not quite sure, but it seems that there is what attracts the tourists and earns the huge are some scientists out there who actually amount of money that is being earned by the cannot count fish that are swimming. They tourism industry in Queensland. have actually got to kill them and line them It is the beauty and the abundance and up and then see how many of the species diversity of marine life that draw people to were out there. Nowhere is there an assump- the reef itself. One of the major reasons it is tion that closing off fished areas, waiting to now listed as a world heritage area is its see what comes back and comparing that to abundance and diversity. The other 96 per protected zones in two years would also give cent of the reef is open to a range of activi- the result without opening up these protected ties, including trawling, commercial and areas. recreational line fishing, diving, et cetera. Nowhere is there an assumption that the It is already considered that there are areas computer modelling, which has already been of the reef that are over-fished. This is and done and is based on an earlier experiment, has been recognised for some time as a major is sufficient to at least give a very accurate problem. However, instead of protecting more idea of exactly what is going to happen rather of the reef from the damaging effects of than going out and plundering these areas of fishing, the Cooperative Research Centre for reef. The government has an act to protect the the Great Barrier Reef and GBRMPA want to reef and the intent of that act has not open up some of the protected zones to fish changed. target species and then see what happens. The Moss Cass said in a second reading speech experiment is designed to take about 24 to this parliament that the Australian govern- Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5155 ment ‘has decided the protection of our been listened to. Proper process has not been unique Barrier Reef is of paramount import- followed by the environment minister. I do ance to Australia and the world’. Since the not believe we should let these regulations Great Barrier Reef act was enacted, the only through this place because, firstly, proper thing that has really changed is that there is process has not been followed and, secondly, now the overlay of the World Heritage Act, we should be conserving, not experimenting which has the primary aim of protection, with, what little of the Great Barrier Reef is conservation and preservation of the reef to protected. transmit those values to future generations. It The environment minister, as you know, is is based on the ethic of the precautionary required to take a number of steps to gather principle, which in no way could be stretched advice before making or allowing Common- to allow these experiments to go ahead. wealth decisions which will significantly Last year the Democrats put through two affect the environment. Yet on 17 October he significant amendments to the Great Barrier tabled regulations to downsize some of the Reef act to include the precautionary principle few protected areas of the reef to allow also in management plans and to have the fishing. He tabled and expects the parliament concept of world heritage put into that act. to allow these regulations without ever exam- We have two acts affecting this area and the ining reasonable and prudent alternatives, precautionary principle is in both of them. Yet without asking the Heritage Commission for still the authority and the Cooperative Re- advice and without ever receiving and con- search Centre are persisting with this reef line sidering such advice. He has also not made a fishing experiment which goes against the decision about designating the proposal and precautionary principle. whether or not to have any environmental Last year GBRMPA stopped their anchor review proposal under the EP(IP) Act. damage experiment. They were going to Now it appears the minister will argue that deliberately destroy reefs to look at the effect he still could ask for some of this advice after of anchor damage instead of monitoring the the rezonings have been through this place— reefs that had already been affected by anchor that is, before the advertisement goes in the damage and looking at the impact on species paper notifying that the rezoning has occur- and what was happening on those reefs. red. Technically there may possibly be room Where is the consistency in opening up for this to happen, but surely this is a farcical protected areas of the reef to fishing and approach to decision making. He has made fishing out as much as they can target species. his decisions on the rezoning to allow the They have already done this experiment. experiments without due process or proper I point to the example of Bramble Reef, advice as he is required to do. If we let these which was closed to fishing for about 3½ regulations through today we will not have years. It was reopened and within several another chance to debate them. weeks 80 per cent of its adult fish were taken The Democrats have received a copy of a by the industry. I could go through the docu- letter from the Great Barrier Reef Marine ments that Senator Hill has presented to us. Park Authority to the Australian Heritage They are able to do their computer modelling Commission demonstrating that correct on that experiment. They know what is going process has, in their words, been ‘unfortu- to happen. They know what was left. They nately overlooked and a slip has occurred’. It are already making some suggestions on what also sets out the minister’s argument that he the results of this experiment that they are could wait until the end of the process to arguing they absolutely have to do are going begin the process. This is like something I to be. remember from Alice in Wonderland where There certainly are a few scientists within the Queen said, ‘We always do it like this— GBRMPA that support this experiment. verdict first and evidence later.’ I have circu- Unfortunately, many of those who think the lated to a number of senators the advice I experiment should not go ahead have not have received from the clerks on the letter, 5156 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 the legislation and the minister’s arguments. line fishing and commercial fishing in and see Senators can see for themselves that the some of the impacts there rather than open up opinion of the clerks tallies with our opinion these few protected areas? Surely at the very and they support what we are saying. least we should have before this chamber The Democrats argue strongly that this more time to look at some of the very diffi- advice provides a clear argument that these cult issues we are facing in regard to the very regulations have to be disallowed today. This small amount of reef that is protected. As I particular form of regulation cannot simply be said before, less than five per cent of forest deferred. Only by disallowing can the parlia- areas are protected. ment be assured that the minister made an What if the industry minister does not informed and proper decision before putting accept the results and asks for more time? the regulations before us. The minister could Where are we going to draw the line in the come back in six months after following this sand? The Democrats argue that it should be process and do the same thing. I notice that drawn now, that there are compelling reasons, the minister is already talking about some both because due process has not been fol- revision of the body that oversees the Great lowed and for conservation reasons, why we Barrier Reef. What is the point in letting should not pass these regulations. through things like this major reef experiment I stress again that we want the minister to and then reviewing the body that has let this follow his own legislation before making such slip through its net? decisions. Indeed, if the regulations are not I will turn to the second reason for dis- disallowed we will have no further opportuni- allowance which is the science of this issue. ty in this place to debate this issue. There will It does not appear that the idea of conserva- be no point in waiting for any review that the tion has got through to this government. minister might put in place of the Great Conservation means you look after something, Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. There protect it and do not start eating into the few will not be any time to revisit the issue of line areas that you have actually protected. fishing. Conservation is not about hanging onto If they are disallowed, the minister still has something for a while, then gradually down- the opportunity to follow the processes and sizing the area you have protected bit by bit. then, in six months, he can present these To say that we have to kill fish in protected regulations to us. I acknowledge those sena- areas to count them is like that old argument tors who have indicated that they are support- Japan has been using about having to kill ing us on this. I hope that other senators will whales to count them. That is an argument move with us today to protect the Great that Australia has found abhorrent. Hopefully Barrier Reef and, indeed, to protect one of Japan and Norway are now moving away Australia’s 11 world heritage areas. from those scientific experiments. Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister I must remind the Senate that this is also a for the Environment) (11.33 a.m.)—That is world heritage area. Under that act we should what this debate is all about—what is the best be using the precautionary principle. We course of action to protect the reef and its should be observing that principle and using conservation values. In this instance we are a totally different methodology from the one particularly talking about the fish resource of that these scientists are suggesting. Obviously the reef. There is no debate about what we we have to know about fishing pressures on are seeking to achieve. The debate is about the reef, but there are other ways of doing it. whether the advice that is being put to the Finally, letting industry into a protected authority by Australia’s best marine scientists area, even if it is only for a few years, is a as essential to ensure that there is not over- very dangerous precedent to set. Why not fishing of the reef to the extent that it would close some of the 96 per cent of the reef that threaten the resource should be accepted. is currently open for various periods of time, I have some sympathy, as I said in question put different fishing pressures on them, let time a few days ago, with the sort of instinc- Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5157 tive reaction of Senator Lees, which was not carry out this experiment and I will take a dissimilar to my own reaction when I first chance that the current conservation regime, read these papers. I wondered why it was against your judgment and your advice, will necessary to open currently closed reefs to work.’ produce data that was essential to assure us that we were not overfishing the currently I can imagine the uproar in this place in a open reefs. As I said in question time, I was few years time—if perchance I was still the sufficiently concerned to sit down personally environment minister—if the stocks had with the scientists in Townsville. Even after collapsed on the reefs that were open and I listening to their argument and debating it stood up and tried to justify why I had not with them I still went back and sought further taken the advice of the scientific experts and information from them because I felt that I enabled them to carry out the experimentation had to be satisfied that, although years of which they had said was necessary to be planning have gone into this experiment, it satisfied that the conservation regime in place was well based. was working. Senator, they tell me and they tell you that the history of fishing on reefs That is not easy for a non-marine scientist internationally—and fishing generally—is that to do. If you cannot turn to the experts for stocks collapse quickly and often with very advice in relation to specialised areas, where little evidence that it is going to occur. At do you turn? We all start with our instincts times it happens so quickly that it is too late and our prejudices but most of us, if it is an to then change the conservation regime and area of specialisation beyond our training or preserve the resource. That is the fear that experience, then turn to the experts and listen some Australian scientists have expressed to to their arguments. We probe them and we me on this matter. In those circumstances, the test them. As I did in this instance, if neces- precautionary step for me to take is to accept sary we revisit it several times. But in revisit- their advice. ing it they constantly came back with the argument that they could not be confident that Senator Lees, I know that you are sitting the current fishing regime was not putting over there and saying all the scientists are stocks at risk unless they were able to com- wrong. But I do not think that I am in a pare the resource with an area that was not position where I can responsibly make that currently fished. Only with that would they judgment. A lot of these scientists— have sufficient data to be confident that the Senator Ian Macdonald—It’s good to conservation regime that is in place for the know that you know more than the scien- reefs that are being fished was such that it tists—not you, Senator Hill. would preserve the stock. Senator HILL—It is not as if this is When they come back and are reinforced by something that has been thought up in the last their professional colleagues in this assess- week or two. The planning for this research ment it is very difficult to decide otherwise. and establishing the basis of the research has In fact, my judgment in the end was that it been taking place for some years. would be reckless of me to put my non- specialised assessment ahead of the specialists Senator Margetts—Why do you think they who told me that, unless this experiment was are doing it? carried out, the stocks would be threatened. Senator HILL—I do not know many of The experimentation is to ensure that the these scientists, I have to concede. But I was conservation regime is adequate and is work- interested in a press release that was put out ing. My agreement to the experimentation is in response to a press release of Senator Meg therefore precautionary, Senator. You said that Lees on 30 October. This was put out by Dr the precautionary principle should apply. But Alan Butler, whom I do know. He put this out it would have been disregarding the precau- as President of the Australian Marine Sciences tionary principle if I disregarded the advice of Association. I do not think he has any interest the scientists and said, ‘You are not going to in this experiment, but I am not absolutely 5158 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 sure of that. I am sure Senator Lees will tell They will accept that, Senator Macdonald, me if I am wrong. The press release read: because they are obviously interested com- "If we are to protect the Reef, we must understand mercially in ensuring that the resource does how it works. That means we have to understand not collapse. They are interested in maintain- how the fish respond when fishing activities are ing a resource for commercial reasons. They, carried on," Dr Butler said. like all other Australians, are also interested "The series of experiments criticised by Senator in preserving the conservation values of the Lees are an absolutely central tool in the process reef. of gaining scientific knowledge." They are prepared to cooperate with scien- "There are good and bad ways of designing experi- tists to demonstrate that the conservation ments, and there must be no confusion about the regime at the moment is working satisfactorily difference. Poorly designed experiments lead to in terms of protecting a resource or, if it is unreliable knowledge." demonstrated that it is not, the conservation Dr Butler said that the Reef research process had regime would have to change. Not only do been thoroughly discussed by competent scientists you have the scientists involved in the experi- at both national and international level. ment—from James Cook University, from the "Senator Lees’ emotive claims that the experiments CRC and AIMS—the Australian Institute of would "rip the heart" out of sections of the Reef Marine Science—up at Townsville all provid- are simply not true. The scientists involved in this ing us with advice that it is important that this project are vitally concerned about the long-term future of the Reef," he said. experiment take place to protect the reef values; you have scientists outside of that He criticised the experimental suggestions put group, such as Dr Alan Butler, whom I have forward by the Democrats, saying they would NOT known for a long time and whom I respect yield the same understanding as the properly planned opening of some reefs and closing of greatly, reinforcing it. others. You have the industry prepared to take a In supporting these experiments, which require a drop in stock out of respect for the import- rezoning of portions of the Great Barrier Reef ance of the experimentations. Yet you have Marine Park, AMSA sees Great Barrier Reef the Democrats and, I think, the Greens com- Marine Park Authority (GRBMPA) as acting in the ing in here and saying that we should disre- best interests of protecting and managing the Reef, gard all this advice and take a chance. They and not merely acting for the fishing industry. say that the precautionary principle is to take Senator Lees came into the Senate the other a chance. That does not, with respect, make day and said, ‘Why are you doing this for the any sense. So I accepted the advice of the fishing industry?’ And I told her, although she scientists after some considerable testing of disregards it, that I have witnessed corres- their argument and that is the reason I have pondence from the fishing industry complain- been prepared to agree to these regulations ing about what we are doing. Why are they and the rezoning necessary to enable this complaining? I will tell you why they are experimentation to take place. complaining. They are complaining because it means that for some years their resource On the question of process, Mr Deputy will be less. President, my legal advice is that the process that I have adopted is perfectly correct. So it To conduct this experiment, eight reefs that is something of a red herring to say that this are currently closed—and I understand that is should fail because there is some error in eight out of some 500 reefs that are currently process. I am not just simply judged by closed—would be open for one year. But, on senators in this place. Every action I take has the other side of the ledger, eight reefs that to be in accordance with my obligations, as are currently open would be closed for five set out in the various pieces of legislation. I years. It is not as if the stock is captured take the best advice to help me ensure that I within one reef, so it logically follows that meet those obligations which are not all over that period of time the fishing industry straightforward in terms of the legislation would have to accept a reduced take. under which I operate. The advice I have is Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5159 that I have acted in accordance with my safeguard to ensure irreparable damage is not obligations. caused. I would have thought that would give I could go through every step that has been some comfort to Senator Lees. Secondly, Dr taken by me and also by GBRMPA because Lawrence said that she wanted a commitment we both have separate responsibilities in from the government that, as a matter of relation to this particular effort but I think urgency, the information obtained from the that would unnecessarily take up the time of experiment would be used to develop a proper the Senate. I simply wish to put on record our management strategy for commercial and response to certain queries put by the opposi- recreational fishing on the reef. tion, in particular by the shadow minister for The reason for adopting such an experi- the environment, Dr Lawrence. She asked us mental approach within the specified time if we would ensure that the Australian Heri- frame is the information is vital for the tage Commission would be formally informed effective management of the impacts of of the proposed action, as required under the recreational and commercial fishing on the Australian Heritage Commission Act, and Great Barrier Reef. That is one of the pur- would be given a reasonable opportunity to poses of the experiment which this is all consider and comment on its impact. In the about. The government is committed to response—which I have given to Dr Law- ensuring that this information is promptly rence—from the chairman of the marine park applied to management strategies for these authority, Dr McPhail has confirmed that he two fishing sectors. will consider the application of the Australian Heritage Commission Act before any reefs are Thirdly, Dr Lawrence wanted a guarantee opened. He advises that he has already infor- that the reefs would be rezoned to their mally referred the proposal to the AHC and current status at the completion of the experi- if the legislative test is triggered, the proposal ment. The response is that the provisions will be formally referred to the AHC. I would relating to the opening and closing of reefs have thought, Senator Lees, that you would are spelled out in the proposed zoning amend- accept that as his obligation under that piece ments. The proposed provisions, which deal of legislation. with fishing on those reefs that are presently Dr Lawrence also asked if formal consider- closed, provide that only four of the reefs ation would be given as to whether to desig- would be open at the one time and that each nate the proposal under the Environment reef may be open only for a maximum of 12 Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. Dr months. McPhail has also confirmed that he will give I said that Dr McPhail had assured me that formal consideration as to whether to desig- the authority would commence proceedings to nate the proposal under that act. She asked a rezone the green reefs at the completion of number of other questions which I also should the experiment which, I think, is exactly what put on the record because I have not yet heard she was seeking. Fourthly, she was seeking an whether she believes the authority and I have assurance from me that I would report to sufficiently answered her concerns. She said parliament, at the end of the first year of the that: experiment, on the preliminary results of In addition, we believe that the status of the area fishing the green reefs. I have given her my requires, as a minimum, that explicit monitoring assurance that, at the end of the first year of mechanisms are in place for the duration of fishing research under the experiment, I will table a on the green reefs to ensure irreparable damage is not caused. report containing the preliminary results. The response is that monitoring of fish stocks You will see from that, Mr Deputy Presi- will be undertaken five times per year for the dent, that we have done our best to meet the duration of the experiment and more intensely requirements of the opposition in this matter. for the first three months following each reef I understand why they are wishing to receive opening. This will provide a reliable measure these assurances. As I said, within the spirit of what fishing impact has occurred as a of this debate, we are all looking towards the 5160 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 best conservation outcome and it is a matter tion will allow the authority to gauge how of us being satisfied. much fishing the reef can sustain. It will also In conclusion, I have decided that the give the marine park authority an indication precautionary approach is to accept the advice of the effect of line fishing on the marine of the scientists. To do otherwise at this time park to date. would be reckless. The experiment will enable the scientists to Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— determine what annual rate of fishing effort Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) causes a level of change in the fish stocks. It (11.52 a.m.)—I thank the Senate for the also allows the authority to look into the opportunity to speak on Senator Lees’s future to measure how the fish stocks and the disallowance motion. I commence my contri- fishery will respond to any future increases in bution by making three comments which fishing effort. By providing important infor- summarise the opposition’s approach to this mation about how catch rates relate to the matter. number of fish in the water, the experiment Firstly, the rezoning of a world heritage will allow reef managers to better interpret area demands closest scrutiny, particularly if changes in catch rates and, hopefully, avoid the rezoning involves the opening up of the errors that have led to many of the world previously protected areas to fishing. Second- fisheries collapsing. ly, the CRC Reef Research Centre proposed The scientists claim that the alternative experiment would make an important contri- research designs which involve closing and bution to our knowledge of the reef’s fish then reopening general use reefs would delay stocks and greatly assist the Great Barrier the experiment by some 10 to 12 years and Reef Marine Park Authority develop a proper that this would be irresponsible as the data is management plan for fishing on the reef. required urgently to develop a management Thirdly, the Minister for the Environment plan for fishing on the reef. Without an (Senator Hill), by not fulfilling his statutory independent assessment of the experiment by responsibilities in ensuring the environmental the Australian Heritage Commission to assess impact of the proposal was formally assessed, all the feasible and prudent alternatives, it is as is required under the Australian Heritage difficult for the opposition to properly assess Commission Act and the Environment Protec- the arguments for and against the two re- tion (Impact of Proposals) Act, does severely search designs. jeopardise the future of this important experi- ment. There are over 2,700 reefs in the marine We have heard much of the views of the park and nearly 500 of those reefs are closed scientists and the Great Barrier Reef Marine to line fishing. The experiment proposes to Park Authority who have argued that the open eight of the 500 reefs for 12 months and rezoning of eight green reefs is essential to close eight open reefs for five years. Only allow a proper assessment of the impact of four per cent of the reef is zoned marine park line fishing on the Great Barrier Reef. Marine B and opening up these green reefs to fishing national park B zones or green reefs are used for 12 months is a very serious matter. in the proposed experiment to set a baseline The opposition does believe at a minimum from which the state of the fish population on that, given the world heritage status of the the surrounding open reefs can be gauged. area, explicit monitoring mechanisms are in The proposed experiment will also determine place for the duration of fishing on the green how unfished populations react to fishing. reefs to ensure irreparable damage is not The experiment has in fact been justified on caused. We believe there should be a commit- three grounds. It enables the Great Barrier ment from the government that, as a matter of Reef Marine Park Authority to measure the urgency, the information obtained from the size, age and reproductive structure of popula- experiment is used to develop a proper man- tions of fish on previously unfished coral agement strategy for commercial and recrea- reefs in the Great Barrier Reef. This informa- tional fishing on the reef. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5161

We believe that a guarantee is required that Section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission the reefs will be rezoned back to their current Act, 1975. I am not sure that this is, in fact, a legal status at the completion of the experiment. requirement, given that the proposed amendments to the zoning plans do not, in their own right, result We require an assurance from the Minister for in any action in the Park, and in any case the the Environment that he will report to the amendment is a matter for consideration by Parlia- parliament at the end of the first year of the ment. However, I believe it would be clearly experiment to inform the parliament of the necessary for the Authority to refer to the Heritage preliminary results of fishing the green reefs. Commission a proposal to open an area to fishing prior to publishing a notice (written advertisement) As the minister indicated, the shadow implementing such a proposal. This later action minister for the environment, Dr Lawrence, would have an effect on the Marine Park, although yesterday wrote to Senator Hill outlining the extent to which such an action would be these issues and requesting his assurance that significant is open to some debate. these matters be addressed in due course. I Then the letter goes on: acknowledge the fact that the minister has It is unfortunate that this quite controversial issue provided these assurances, firstly, by letter to has slipped through the system— Dr Lawrence this morning and, secondly, in the chamber during this debate. these are the words that Senator Lees used In general, the opposition objects to open- earlier— ing up protected areas. I must say, however, without our normal process of consultation with the that the scientific benefits and the capacity of Commission. the knowledge gained to improve the long- Well, it is unfortunate that it slipped through term sustainable management of fishing on the system. I think most of us would acknow- the reef could make this temporary rezoning ledge that. an exception, provided that proper processes are followed by the Minister for the Environ- In the letter to Senator Hill from Dr Law- ment. Regrettably, it appears that the minister rence that Senator Hill referred to, Dr Law- has not properly performed his statutory rence stated that the opposition’s position on responsibilities and the matter has not yet the regulations tabled in the Senate was been independently assessed by the Australian conditional on a couple of issues. They were: Heritage Commission and evaluated under the immediate government action to ensure the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Australian Heritage Commission is formally Act. informed of the proposed action, as required under the AHC Act, and given reasonable I would like to draw the Senate’s attention opportunity to consider and comment on its to a letter relating to this issue under the impact; and that it gives formal consideration signature of Mr Peter McGinnity, Director, to whether to designate the proposal under the Planning, of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Park Authority, that has been communicated Act. from the marine park authority to Dr Michael Mulvaney of the Australian Heritage Com- Senator Hill indicated a little earlier in the mission. In part, this letter says: debate what his response was to these two Further to our earlier telephone conversation, I am matters in the letter that he sent to Dr Law- enclosing background material regarding the rence this morning. I think the words here are proposed zoning amendments. Our records confirm very important—and I appreciate that Senator your advice that the Australian Heritage Commis- Hill has read some of those words into the sion has been inadvertently left off the mailing list Hansard—and his formal response indicated for the proposed amendments. This was an uninten- this: tional administrative error in compiling the mailing list for this particular proposal. Dr McPhail has confirmed that he will consider the application of the Australian Heritage Commission It goes on: Act before any reefs are opened. He advises me You referred to the possibility that the authority that he has already informally referred the proposal may be required to refer the proposed amendment to the Australian Heritage Commission. If the to the Australian Heritage Commission under legislative test is triggered then the proposal will be 5162 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 formally referred to the Australian Heritage Com- regulations before parliament before seeking mission. advice from the AHC and the EPA. I think And on the other issue: Senator Hill well understands that it is within his own discretion to refer these matters Dr McPhail has also confirmed that he will give formal consideration on whether to designate the whenever he wishes. proposal under the Environment Protection (Impact In the absence of referrals and advice from of Proposals) Act 1974. the two agencies, I think the opposition The position of the opposition on this is that certainly finds itself in an invidious posi- at this stage the minister’s response does not tion—I do not know what the position of go far enough. We believe that the proposal other non-government senators in the chamber should be formally referred to the Australian is. I would ask Senator Hill to assure the Heritage Commission for proper assessment Senate that, if the AHC or the EPA advise and consideration of prudent and feasible him that this experiment is environmentally alternatives. We are continuing to demand of unsound or inadvisable, he will accept that the minister that he give that assurance on advice and not proceed. I hope he is willing this matter. I must say to the Senate that, in to give that level of assurance to the Senate the absence of a clear assurance on that, we on this particular matter. do have very little choice but to support the Democrats’ disallowance motion standing in I note in the minister’s contribution his the name of Senator Lees. concerns about the difficult position that he might be placed in if he does not take the I also make the point—and I hope this is scientific advice that is available to him and acknowledged by the minister—that this if there is a serious deterioration in fish stocks exchange of correspondence has occurred over on the reef. He indicated that a precautionary a relatively brief period and the opposition approach was appropriate. I thought the same has not had an enormous amount of time to precautionary approach was sadly lacking in look at the correspondence that has been the Port Hinchinbrook development on the referred by Senator Hill. And I suspect that Great Barrier Reef, and I am pleased to see the minister has not had a great amount of that the precautionary principle is uppermost time to look more closely perhaps at the in the minister’s mind. issues that have been raised by Dr Lawrence, although we are pleased with some of the I say again that the issue of a formal AHC assurances that Senator Hill has been able to referral is the outstanding matter. I ask the give on those matters, which I will not repeat minister to give serious consideration to that but which Senator Hill has read into the and also give serious consideration to assuring Hansard. the Senate that, if there is advice from the AHC or the EPA that the experiment itself is I say to the minister: if he wishes to take environmentally unsound or should not be more time to consider the issue of a formal proceeded with, he would in that circumstance referral to the AHC and he thinks that would accept that advice and not proceed with the be useful, the opposition certainly would give experiment. it very favourable consideration. We would support a motion to adjourn the debate to a Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) later hour of the day or a future sitting day if (12.11 p.m.)—I have been impressed by the that was a useful contribution. Perhaps a arguments of Senator Hill and Senator fuller response might be forthcoming from the Faulkner on the substantive issue. I am minister. From the perspective of the opposi- somewhat disappointed that Senator Faulkner, tion, the issue of a formal reference to the having agreed with the necessity for the AHC for proper assessment and consideration experiment, has decided on procedural of prudent and feasible alternatives is, I think, grounds to support the Democrats’ motion at the key one now that is outstanding. I think this stage, although I do understand that it is a matter of regret that Senator Hill has Senator Faulkner is saying that if there were brought this matter to the stage of putting the certain further discussions about this during Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5163 the day he may be able to come to a different viable for many years in the future. That is conclusion. why they are very keen to see this, even I must say that I am not familiar with the though, in the short term, it will be at a net procedures, so I really cannot comment on the cost to their availability of fishing. matter that Senator Faulkner raised lastly. It One of the reasons why I am speaking is does, however, seem that any further technical that they have asked me to enter into the procedures that need to be done may well—as debate to say to the Democrats and the I say, I am no expert on this—delay the Greens that we support this experiment. The experiment to such an extent that it becomes Cooperative Research Centre—the Reef not as appropriate. I would hope that Senator Research Centre based at James Cook Univer- Faulkner and the Labor Party will support the sity, with Professor Chris Crossland, who is first part of Senator Faulkner’s argument— very well regarded—has also approached me that is, the argument in which he clearly to do what I can to ensure that this very acknowledged the need, the necessity and the necessary experiment goes forward. Professor importance of the experiment—and will Crossland is one of the recognised experts in support us and vote against the Democrats’ this field. The CRC at James Cook University disallowance motion and not allow the pro- in Townsville is very well recognised and cedures that others want to adopt to interfere very well regarded. These people would not with what is a most important experiment. be doing this experiment if there was any I thought Senator Faulkner and Senator Hill problem at all. Speaking as a sort of represen- put the arguments against the disallowance tative of the scientific community and the very clearly—perhaps better than I could. I fishing community in North Queensland, I wanted to enter the debate for three additional enter into this debate to urge, particularly, the reasons. There are a couple of things that I Labor Party not to support this motion for want to add to the substantive part of the disallowance. debate. I also speak in the debate because the The other reason that I enter into this experiment is being operated out of Towns- debate is to vent my annoyance at the noisy ville. Of course, having my electorate office minorities who are trying to run this country. there and living in the area, I come in contact The Democrats and Greens concede that they with the scientists who are doing the experi- have no scientific expertise, but they seem to ment and with the people who use the reef say they know better than these very well and use the fish stock of the reef. They have qualified, very well regarded scientists. So, approached me and said, ‘Can you please tell again, we have the noisy minority, the Demo- the Democrats just how stupid they are on crats and the Greens, the people who, in the this particular issue and tell them to get out Lindsay by-election, were shown to have of the way of an important experiment.’ three per cent support, now trying to interfere The fishing interests, both the commercial in things that the Labor Party acknowledges and the recreational fishermen, initially were should be done, even though they are un- a bit concerned about the project because, as happy about the procedures; the government Senator Hill and Senator Faulkner have said, parties acknowledge these things should be there are 16 reefs being dealt with. Eight of done, as do the scientific community and the them are reefs that are currently open for fishing community—everybody except the fishing. Those eight will be closed for five Democrats and the Greens. I am again ex- years, but the ones that are being opened will pressing my annoyance that Australia is going be open for only one year. So the fishing to be held to ransom by this noisy minority interests were initially concerned about it without any significant scientific support to because they thought they were getting the stop this very worthwhile experiment. wrong end of the deal. But they eventually I want to reiterate what the experiment realised that the whole purpose of this experi- actually is so that people understand what it ment is to make sure that the fish stock is is all about. The experiment hinges on the managed properly and that their industry is exact measure of fishing pressures on 16 5164 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 reefs—that is 16 out of about 3,000 reefs on be reviewed in a year. That was part of the the Great Barrier Reef—over a period of just CRC proposal. After one year the experiment 12 months. Eight of the reefs are currently will be reviewed and if it is not delivering the closed to fishing and will be closed again expected results it will be stopped. after the 12 months of measured fishing. So The public may well ask: why do we need for 12 months they will be opened and then to manipulate fishing pressure? The effects of they will be closed again. the fishing experiment is the only way to find The other eight reefs have always been out how reef fish populations respond to open to fishing, but after the 12 months of increased fishing pressure. The traditional measured fishing they will be closed for five approach to fisheries management is to moni- years. That is the problem the fishing industry tor the past behaviour of the fishery and, initially had, before they worked out that this based on that history and biological informa- was very beneficial for the long-term fish tion about target species, attempt to predict stock. So, after 12 months of measured sustainable catches for the future. This is fishing in those reefs that have been open, more guesswork than science. That is what they will be closed for a whole five years. the scientists say—it is just an informed Effectively, through the life of the experi- guess; it is not a science. They want to move ment, more reefs will be closed than are at it into a scientific category. By the time the present. At the end of the experiment all the nation realises we are in trouble with these reefs will revert to their current status. fisheries in the way we have done it in the past, there is too much fishing effort, too The fish stock size is what is being looked many boats, and costly action then has to be at. Catch rates are often used as an index of taken to reduce it to sustainable levels. the stock size. The assumption has been unavoidable in many fisheries but has gener- I want briefly to refute some of the argu- ally been found to be wrong and has contri- ments that the Wildlife Preservation Society buted substantially to fisheries collapses. One of Queensland in the Proserpine-Whitsunday of the questions that the experiment will be area have been raising, which seem to be the looking at is how quickly fish populations basis on which the Democrats have moved recover following closure. Closure of reefs this motion. I point out that the experiment after fishing of known amounts will allow the will not, as alleged by the Democrats, result experimenters to answer questions such as: in fishing out of any reefs. Pilot studies have how long does a reef have to be closed to indicated there will still be viable populations fishing before populations have recovered and of target species after controlled fishing. how do you measure the recovery? Does an I also want to emphasise that, contrary to increase in catch rates mean the abundance the allegations of the Democrats, there will be and biomass of fish has increased or just that no sponsored fishing nor will there be any the fish on a closed reef are easier to catch spearfishing of every fish seen, as apparently because they have not been fished for a has been alleged will happen on the control while? These questions are central to evaluat- reefs. It is important also to emphasise that, ing any system of periodic or area closures as contrary to allegations, the data collected from management strategies for the GBR reef line the total catch, including secondary species, fishery. will be analysed as part of the experiment. It It is important to emphasise that this experi- is particularly important—and this is an ment will never have to be repeated. Re- objective of the project—to know the secon- searchers will be able to model on computers dary effects on non-target species, particularly with the data collected at this time to give on the green reefs. accurate predictions of the level of fishing Further, there is no evidence that the reefs which the reefs can sustain. So it is a once- in the general use area of the Great Barrier only thing and involves a small amount of Reef are already severely overfished—as reefs. As Senator Hill has guaranteed at the alleged. The fish stocks seem to be in reason- request of the opposition, this is all going to able shape, but the managers have no evi- Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5165 dence of their robustness or fragility. Fisheries Senator Margetts—You wait until you collapse without warning, and that is why hear what I have to say, instead of quoting scientific experiments need to be done. me out of context. Again, contrary to allegations from oppo- Senator IAN MACDONALD—Unfortun- nents of this experiment, it is not possible to ately, I will not be able to answer that be- computer model the effects of fishing on cause I am speaking now. Why on earth stocks when the critical data are missing. You would these experts want to damage the reef can do it once you have the critical data, but if this experiment is going to be as bad as you have to get that critical data. Models Senator Lees has said? Certainly Dr Alan were purpose built to test and verify the Butler does not think it will be, and the design of the experiment, but those models scientists at James Cook University do not will not be adequate to evaluate management think so, either. options because they need information which I remember there was a time when the is currently not available and which the Democrats and the Greens were relying on experiment is designed to get. some scientists—I must say they were pretty Contrary also to some of the more outra- low order scientists—at James Cook Universi- geous claims of the opponents of this experi- ty to support their opposition to the Oyster ment, the experiment is not—I repeat, not— Point issue. Now they are apparently just being funded by the fishing industry. That going to ignore those world leaders in the allegation seems to have been thrown in to try scientific area who are saying, ‘Go ahead and to garner a bit of support. Further, the study support this,’ because it seems they know of the reproductive biology of fish popula- better than the scientists. tions, particularly the coral trout, is an inte- I will just give some examples of the gral part of the whole study of the fishery. A comments in the newspapers. The Canberra lot of allegations have been made by the Times said: Democrats and other opponents. None of . . . the scientists, from James Cook University, say them stand up to scientific scrutiny, and they the experiment is crucial to the protection of the have been rejected by the people who should reef and that the Democrats claims are emotive. know. It continued: I want to conclude by raising a couple of Project leader, Dr Bruce Mapstone, said the comments that various people involved in this experiment was crucial if fisheries were to be matter have said. Senator Hill has already managed sustainably in the future. His group had mentioned Dr Alan Butler, the president of not received any funding from the fishing industry the Marine Science Association of Australia. ... Dr Butler has given total support to the That is another quote confirming something experiment and has published his support I have said before. The Courier-Mail report- quite widely on behalf of the Marine Science ed: Association of Australia. The Queensland Fisheries Management Authority I asked in an interjection across the cham- also attacked Democrats Senator Meg Lees for her ber before why on earth these marine scien- stance on the James Cook University line-fishing tists, whose whole purpose in life is to protect experiment. the Great Barrier Reef and the fishing stock, QFMA reef fisheries resource manager . . . said are supporting this experiment if it is not time was running out for efforts to manage the important. Senator Margetts replied to my Reef fishery. interjection by saying, ‘They have their own Another paper stated that a recreational agenda.’ I think she said they were in it for anglers’ organisation, Sunfish North Queens- the short-term money or something like that. land, had also attacked those opponents for their: Senator Margetts—No. You are quoting me out of context. . . . aggressive, ill-informed stance in misleading the public with general mistruths over a proposed Senator IAN MACDONALD—Sorry? Great Barrier Reef research program. 5166 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

I emphasise again that in the short term these Honourable senators may remember that I recreational and commercial fisheries will be recently placed a notice of motion to the the losers because the reefs that they currently Senate in relation to the reef line fishing fish will be closed for five years. The new experiment. It stated ‘That the Senate notes, reefs that are being opened will be open for with concern, the recent decision’ and so on. only one year. Then part (b) reads: For all of these reasons, we really must get . . . calls on the Minister to table: on with the experiment and reject this motion. (i) the research outline for the reefline fishing I understand that some of the matters Senator experiment in protected zones, as proposed Faulkner raised are being further considered, by the Cooperative Research Centre; and and he suggested to me that it would be better (ii) details of the level of scientific peer review if this debate proceeded at a later time. I of the research outline and the manner in appreciate that others do wish to speak on which this review has been organised. this, but it perhaps would be a more informed I have received some of that information back debate if we concluded it at some other time. from the Minister for the Environment (Sena- For that reason, I seek leave to continue my tor Hill), but my request was that that infor- remarks on 18 November 1996. mation be tabled. I am quite happy to table Leave not granted. my copy. If by the end of this debate it is not Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) tabled, then I am happy to table the copy that (12.30 p.m.)—The fallacy that occurs be- I have. I guess that would need to be copied cause of the rich colour and the variety in so that other people can see it. We have asked reefs is that we have a rich and robust envi- for the information to be tabled. It is really ronment. That is wrong from a biological quite important that this information is tabled. point of view: reefs are the equivalent of an The information is nowhere near complete. undersea desert. The fact that there are so However, the third page of the research many varieties in this undersea desert is the outline entitled Effects of line fishing: experi- outcome of being a very fragile area which ment, design and timing states: responds very quickly to changes in nutrient The Reef Line fishery is currently undergoing levels and to a number of different environ- substantial changes, especially in the commercial mental changes. One of the reasons why reefs sectors. and corals are being looked at around the We have this little note here. There should be world is to see the likely impact of things like bells ringing that there are commercial pres- bleaching occurrences and so on on further sures pushing this experiment. What are those changes in the greenhouse levels around the pressures? Here we go: world, changes in the temperatures of currents and changes in pollution levels. The reefs, if In particular, changes in marketing (the growth of the live fish trade)... you like, become the canary of pollution and change in the world. That is very important What we know is that the live fish trade is to see. driving this experiment. What is this live fish First of all, reefs are very fragile eco- trade? There are two elements to the live fish systems. Unfortunately, the government’s trade, and we need more information about contribution that we have heard today is fairly which element is pushing this experiment. limited in thinking of reefs as only a source One is live fish for eating and the other is live of fish. It is a bit like thinking of old-growth fish for aquariums. or ancient forests as a source of timber or, We are seeing a great deal of evidence that worse still, thinking of old-growth or ancient the trade in live fish for aquariums throughout forests simply as a source of woodchips. It is the world is responsible for what is largely not that. The reefs are fragile ecosystems, and killing reefs throughout the world. We are they need to be considered as such when we hearing evidence of cyanide and so on being are talking about the government’s responsi- used in pushing for that trade. Is this a trade bilities in relation to the reefs. that the Australian government should be Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5167 encouraging? Should they be doing that to the years is necessitated by the need to formally detriment of the ecological communities? amend the zoning plans which in fact are The reefs are not just a source of fish; they driving this proposal. are a very complex ecological community, the Senator Ian Macdonald talks about the parts of which are so intertwined that, when levels of fishing that the reef can sustain. That you remove one portion, other parts suffer. is what we are beginning to see. If we are You may not only be getting rid of adult fish; saying that we need to make this experiment you may be interfering with this complex two years in length, we are talking about the ecological community, which may lead to the desire not just to project the reef but to killing or changing—maybe forever—of change the zoning so that, in the future, we aspects of the reef. can continue to have reefs which are not Why would you do this? It is really quite protected from fishing but about which we interesting because all around the Indo-Pacific have some crass idea of assimilative capacity. region we have reefs which have similar If you want to know of scientists who have ecological communities. If you wanted to find criticised the whole concept of assimilative out what the impacts are of either overfishing capacity, I can get plenty of scientists to pristine reefs or overfishing reefs to the point provide that kind of critique. It is a very odd of extinction, you have many examples within idea about the precautionary principle that we the region. Experiments have been carried out are hearing today. again and again throughout the region. What is a national park? What signal are It also has to be understood that the nature we giving to other countries in the region? It of the experiment conducted on the reef is is my understanding that Australian scientists very important. You cannot just put a cage are working very hard in other parts of the around the reef and say, ‘This is a controlled region, including the Philippines and other experiment within the reef.’ The reason you places, to convince local communities that cannot do that is that what happens on one closing off reefs to fishing will be of benefit reef affects what happens on other reefs. It is in many ways. It is happening successfully. not just within the Great Barrier Reef that What kind of signal will it give to those changes within pristine reefs will have an communities if Australia is doing what ap- impact—there is no indication that the rest of pears to be exactly the opposite? the reef will be monitored at the same time We cannot wait to see what happens when for the impact, only those areas within the we close off the reef. We are in too much of study area—but also the reefs around the a hurry, so we will do the exact opposite. We Indo-Pacific area for which things like coral will either fish out or more intensively fish spawn are carried from the currents. blue reefs. That is what is happening. The This is not fanciful. Coral spawning in one blue reefs will be more intensively fished, or part of the world then becomes the basis for perhaps come close to being fished out, and continued healthy coral reefs in other parts of we will open our otherwise pristine reefs. the world. This is not part of the experiment That is exactly the opposite of what we and either. There is no indication that we will Australian scientists overseas are asking the have monitoring set up in those other reefs fishing communities in other countries to do. throughout the world which benefit from the We are asking them to take some care for the healthy nature of some of our coral reefs in overall long-term benefits, yet we are doing the Great Barrier Reef. What controlled the exact opposite. research will there be in the reefs elsewhere The research outline and methodology in the Indian-Pacific region? Nothing to review process need very careful consider- indicate that that will be the case. ation. There has been all this talk about The experiment has been changed from four scientific analysis and processes. In the years to two years. Is this change in timing normal case of these kind of scientific experi- ‘scientific’? No. It also mentioned in this ments, you measure ‘effort’. If you were outline that change from four years to two going to do this as a proper scientific experi- 5168 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 ment, you would require, I would think, a log people would do such a thing. Perhaps the of what size and type of fish the fishing answer is to see how far we can get away companies are catching. But are they requir- with the level of exploitation that we would ing that? No. You have to wonder exactly want to get away with. That is not the way to how scientific this experiment is if you are treat a national park. It is not the way to deal only talking about the numbers of fish but not with such a precious and valuable ecological requiring even a log from those people who community. will suddenly be allowed to fish in otherwise I do not think there has been any effort to pristine and protected areas. Comparative see the wider scientific critique of this propo- studies of live and dead fish are not valid in sal. It is quite difficult, just as it is in Western a scientific sense. We could find a number of Australia, for people to speak up and give scientists who could give reasons why this alternative critiques. In Western Australia, it kind of comparison is not valid. involves scientists from the Department of What does this all say about the future? It Conservation and Land Management. There is not making very good statements about the are great parallels here. In Western Australia, current processes and attitude of the govern- the scientists from the Department of Conser- ment. We have already seen the Minister for vation and Land Management have a number Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) come of conflicting interests. They include forestry into this chamber and say that the way to deal and the demand to continue receiving royal- with the problem of bluefin tuna, which is ties. very controversial, is to give increased access There are also these conflicting interests to it by fishing fleets. He believes that that within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park would solve the problem. That is not giving Authority. That is not something that is bad us a very good signal of how this government about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park sees the issue of depleted fish stocks and the Authority, but it is the reality. You have whole marine ecosystem. tourism, fishing and recreational interests and Unfortunately, in the case of fishing, it is you obviously have conservation interests. very difficult to isolate one area of the sea The reality is that there are conflicts of and say, ‘We can deal with this issue because interest. There are people who would like to it is in everybody’s interest to take the same see whether they can do things in a different line.’ In the north-west cape in Western way instead of operating by the principle of Australia, you have a reasonably closed actual conservation. They would like to see ecosystem. You can monitor those areas. If just how far they can damage an area and still you have people with limited licences, there get away with it. That is not a good principle is a coming together of interests between or the message Australia should be sending to fishing and other interests, such as pollution those countries where we are desperately and so on. That happens when there is a trying to get communities to look at their limited number of licences and where under- long-term interests. fishing or controlled fishing becomes the There are species of fish within a reef that rationale for real sustainability. go to the reef only in their juvenile stage and In the case where it is impossible to put a which move off the reef later. There is prob- line around what is or is not part of a particu- ably a reasonable argument to say that the lar fishing area, this whole process becomes total level of fish will increase if you do lock an understanding that fish stocks are threat- out areas of reef. There are obviously types of ened, that reefs may be threatened and that fish that spend their entire adult life on reefs. commercial pressures may bring extra pres- If we are talking about coral trout and so on, sures in the future. Each of those players maybe those fish can be gained in other ways, might be looking to see how they can benefit such as through carefully designed aquacul- in the short term if they know that there is no ture. way of controlling the long term. That is the There are many issues. I do not think there worst spin of it, but it has been asked why is any indication at all that the government Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5169 has gone through proper processes in making community on the issue of territory rights. It the decisions here. I think that it is proper that seems to be used in the same context as states this motion be supported today because it was rights. an improper decision, in my view, to go ahead so quickly. This appeal to territory rights in the context of the euthanasia debate is baseless and The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT intellectually unsustainable. The rights of (Senator Crowley)—Order! It being 12.45 territories are simply that bundle of rights p.m., the debate is interrupted. bestowed upon a territory by the goodwill of Senator Calvert—I move that the debate this the Commonwealth parliament. The be adjourned until 18 November. foundation of the Northern Territory’s alleged Senator Lees—We are not obliged to defer rights are rooted in the Northern Territory this at all. I believe we need to deal with this (Self-Government) Act 1978, passed by the today. Commonwealth parliament. Therefore, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly only The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— exists by virtue of the federal parliament’s Senator Lees, it is now 12.45 p.m. and we goodwill. What the parliament gives, it can move to matters of public interest. That is a also take away. matter for resolution at a later stage. This is in stark contrast to the states, which MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST combined to form the Commonwealth and State and Territory Rights federal parliament for specific purposes. The states pre-dated the Commonwealth. A quick Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (12.46 p.m.)— read of our constitution provides the salient Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. differences and exposes the shallowness of This is the first time that you have been in the talking territory rights in the same breath as chair when I have risen to my feet. I wish states rights. you well in your job as Acting Deputy Presi- dent. Section 122 of our constitution was drafted Today, I wish to canvass an aspect of the by our founding fathers and democratically euthanasia debate which I find profoundly accepted by the peoples of the various states. interesting, given my outspokenness on that It has been part of the legislative province of aspect, which has engendered considerable the federal parliament since the inception of public comment. In my first speech in this the constitution and has remained so ever place, I stressed the importance of having a since. Section 122 reads in part, as follows: truly federal system of government. Those The parliament may make laws for the government who served with me on the legal and constitu- of any territory... tional affairs committee of the Senate and the Nothing could be clearer. No highly paid QCs Joint Standing Committee on Treaties would are needed for this one. It is crystal clear— be aware of my continual concern at treaties literally black on white: impinging on the legislative domain of the states. The parliament may make laws for the government of any territory... In November 1994 I voted for the rights of the legislature of my home state of Tasmania It is under that power that the Northern against the views adopted by my party. In Territory (Self-Government) Act was enacted. short, I believe that I have some credentials This act provides for the appointment of an to speak on the issue of the impact of the bill administrator of the Northern Territory by the introduced by the member for Menzies (Mr Governor-General. The same legislation under Andrews), the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, on section 9 allows for disallowance of any what has been dubbed territory rights. Today, Legislative Assembly enactment, once again, I do not wish to canvass the merits of the by the Governor-General. ‘Governor-General’ Northern Territory’s euthanasia legislation. in this context means the federal executive, or However, views have been expressed in the a simple cabinet decision. 5170 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

Under section 53 of the Northern Territory In short, to talk about states’ rights in the (Self- Government) Act, the federal Industrial context of a territory is to demean the curren- Relations Act applies in relation to industrial cy of federalism. It is galling in the extreme disputes in the territory. Each state has its to witness the Paul-like conversion of com- own industrial relations regime—not so the mentators to the principle of states’ rights territories. Under section 23 of the Australian when they have previously dismissed them. Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act, there They supported federal intervention to take are matters specifically excluded from the away land management decisions from a ACT Legislative Assembly’s power to make state—denying a clean hydro-power scheme laws, ranging over numerous matters and in favour of fossil fuels under the ludicrous issues, including the classification of materials guise of an international responsibility to the for the purposes of censorship—a power environment—or the interference in a state’s enjoyed and exercised by each and every right to determine its own criminal code. state. Given the behaviour of the ACT on this Yet on a subject dealing with the issue of issue, it is little wonder that the federal life and death of Australian citizens, we are parliament refused to trust the ACT with the suddenly confronted by a frenzied breast- power to classify and censor. beating and chanting of not states rights but In relation to the Australian Capital Terri- territory rights. Those who oppose the Human tory (Self- Government) Act of 1988, I note Rights (Sexual Conduct) Bill on states rights that the Governor-General has the power to grounds look with absolute amazement at the dissolve the ACT Legislative Assembly under disingenuous arguments and intellectual section 16 and appoint a commissioner, dishonesty of those now promoting the new similar to the power that the state govern- found concept of territory rights whilst they ments enjoy in relation to local councils. But retain a strange silence on states rights. do we hear the state premiers condemning the The case for the states retaining their interference by state governments in local legislative provinces is a lot stronger, indeed government affairs? Hardly likely, given their overwhelming, given the founding fathers’ quite high-handed treatment, on occasions, of drafting of the constitution and its acceptance local government. by our forebears through referenda. The real The premiers’ response would undoubtedly effort ought be put into restoring the federal be that local government is set up by state balance which has been so badly undermined legislation and that the state governments by international treaty making, so-called therefore have a right to determine how local international jurisprudence and our own High governments operate, and their electors in Court’s desire to play politician legislator their various states will ultimately judge them rather than judge. in due course. I agree with them. But if that A lot of woolly thinking has given expres- is—and we know it is—the response of state sion to this claim of territory rights. In apply- premiers, then they cannot complain about the ing this concept in the context of states rights Commonwealth parliament dealing in exactly there has been a demeaning of federalism and the same way with creations of its own a misunderstanding of our constitutional legislation, namely the territories. history and the role of the territories. Requests to uphold the integrity of the constitution and I trust the point has been made: territories the federal balance are welcome but simulta- are hardly in the same category as the states, neously severely undermined when those which the Constitution Act reminds us created same requests embrace the territories for the Commonwealth when its preamble tells which the Commonwealth parliament has a us: clear and unambiguous legislative responsi- Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, bility. South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have Like state governments that can sack local agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal councils, amalgamate them and foist their Commonwealth... own planning legislation on them, this federal Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5171 parliament must similarly determine whether In recent weeks we have heard how the or not to deal with a creation of its legisla- Democrats have negotiated some changes to tion—the territories—in a like fashion. That improve what is essentially a bad and regres- is an appropriate consideration and a matter sive piece of legislation. I accept that the which ought exercise our collective mind as Democrats have negotiated in good faith and a federal parliament. But in exercising our they have won some concessions. It is only mind on this matter, we should not obfuscate reasonable to acknowledge that. However, it the debate and our considerations by hiding seems that, while concentrating on a number behind an intellectually unsustainable argu- of well meaning principles, they have actually ment by appealing to territory rights which lost sight of the practical implications of have no basis in constitutional law. making an already highly complex piece of legislation even more difficult to follow and Given that this parliament has the clear and certainly less accessible to ordinary workers. unambiguous right to legislate in relation to Mr McMullan has said in the other place: the territories, the only question remaining is This change represents a threat to the security of whether it should exercise that clear and working conditions for millions of Australian unambiguous right. I would assert to this workers, particularly those who depend upon the parliament that it should only do so on the award for their actual rather than merely their rarest of occasions. minimum conditions, which is about one-third of Australian workers. But, when no other equivalent country or He also said: state has legislated in a similar manner and when the legislation deals with the most In case you thought that somehow or other the deal between the Australian government and the fundamental issue facing its citizenry, that of Democrats might have protected workers in this life and death, I believe we have the firm case, it is far from the truth. All that deal does is foundation required for justifying the exercise reduce by two the number of award conditions that of the Commonwealth’s clear and unambigu- will be lost. ous power—a power granted not by dubious ...... international treaties or contorted High Court Workers will lose access to dozens of current decisions but from the power specifically award entitlements... crafted and provided to us as a parliament by our founding fathers and accepted by our He gave one example in the hospitality forebears in referenda. industry. He further said: It is evident, on the face of it, that at least 16 Federalism and the role of the states in our conditions provided for under that award will Australian body politic are commodities too disappear as a result of this legislation... precious to be diluted by ill-considered This is even allowing for those concessions notions of territory rights. In short, territories that the Democrats claim to have won. ain’t states. Let the debate continue on wheth- At the very time that Australian workers er this parliament ought exercise its clear and most need the guaranteed protection of the unambiguous powers on the merits of the Industrial Relations Commission, the award euthanasia issue. system and their trade union, fundamental Industrial Relations equity structures are being undermined. The Australian Democrats, to give them their due, Senator REYNOLDS (Queensland) (12.57 have always in the past stood up for equity. p.m.)—Australian workers are really asking I believe that, in negotiating the terms of the about their futures given the debate that is agreement—certainly Senator Kernot put in an going on in this place and in the Australian enormous number of hours to get a deal, a community. They know that there will be a resolution—the Democrats have had to com- major upheaval in their working lives as a promise, and what they have done has made result of the major changes to the Industrial the practical implementation of this legislation Relations Commission, the award system and an absolute minefield of uncertainty and the right to take effective collective action. contradiction. I believe the government is now 5172 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 wavering in its comprehension and under- been listening for, I think, seven minutes, standing of precisely how its altered legisla- which is pretty well halfway through the time tion will actually function. that is allocated to senators in these debates. A number of us in this place have made I did not intend to make a point of order speeches in the past about a range of legisla- unless the honourable senator kept on with tion. We have made them with good intent. the subject matter. There has been the oppor- We have been well-meaning, as I believe tunity for speeches on the second reading of Senator Kernot has been. But it is not until the bill and the committee stage is currently we get into the nitty-gritty, the practicalities before the chamber. of what we have done with this legislation Clearly, the honourable senator is canvas- and how it will impact on the community, sing, indeed, anticipating, further debate that some of us have been left red-faced about specifically in relation to the legislation that our speeches on the second reading. is on the Notice Paper. Madam Acting Depu- Some constructive concessions have been ty President, whilst a lot of leeway has in the won by the Democrats at the nitty-gritty level past been given to honourable senators in but, because of compromise, it is now more these debates, I ask that you suggest to the complex. There are people who simply cannot honourable senator that she direct her remarks answer basic questions about how some of the in a more general way rather than being so changes will impact on ordinary workers, specific and, in fact, making condescending particularly women workers, and how workers comments about the parliamentary secretary will go about guaranteeing their protections. and about the way the government has been We know that the government is uncertain handling this very important piece of legisla- and wavering. Look at what we have seen in tion. the last week or so: the Minister for Industrial Senator Chris Evans—On the point of Relations (Mr Reith) has been sitting in the order: I think Senator Reynolds has been advisers box, not quite biting his fingernails having a fairly general discussion about the but looking very nervous as his advisers issues. They do touch on the bill in some speak—not to the minister, not to the minister respects, but I would make the point to representing the minister but to the parlia- Senator Abetz and to the parliamentary mentary secretary. I have no wish to criticise secretary that the government has been put- the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for ting a great deal of pressure on the opposition the Environment and Parliamentary Secretary to confine the debate on the bill. One of the to the Minister for Sport, Territories and reasons Senator Reynolds is speaking today Local Government (Senator Campbell). I rather than during consideration of the bill is think he is doing a hard job with his normal to try to facilitate that debate. So I would say competence. to Senator Abetz that I doubt that it is in the We are told that this is the government’s government’s interests to try to make a major piece of reform legislation yet the debating point rather than a point of order. minister has to sit in the box to make sure Matters of public interest provide an oppor- that the advisers get it right in order that the tunity for senators to make a contribution on parliamentary secretary gets it right. Where is whatever subject appeals to them. I suggest the Minister for Communications and the Arts that Senator Reynolds is debating a wide (Senator Alston), the minister who represents range of issues and not debating the bill per the minister in this chamber? Isn’t he able to se. come? Doesn’t he understand the implications Senator O’Chee—I beg to disagree with of the legislative changes as negotiated with my friend on the other side of the chamber. the Democrats? Why isn’t he in here? It The matters of public interest debate is not for seems to me extraordinary. I tried to find out senators to make a contribution on whatever whether this is an unprecedented— they wish. They are constrained by standing Senator Abetz—I raise a point of order, order 194. Standing order 194 does— Madam Acting Deputy President. I have now Senator Conroy interjecting— Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5173

Senator O’Chee—Listen, son, I have been trial relations it is important that we consider here a little bit longer than you so you might all of the issues that are being debated in the just steady on. Standing order 194 says quite community. clearly that a senator shall not digress or I find as I go around the community that anticipate debate on a matter which is on the there are a number of issues being raised with Notice Paper. That is exactly what is happen- me. Quite clearly, there is great confusion ing: the honourable senator is anticipating about the future nature of industrial relations debate on a matter on the Notice Paper.Ido entitlements in this country. I have some not want to take any more time, but I do questions that have been asked of me by believe that she is out of order in her recent Australian workers. comments. They are asking, for example, about equal The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT remuneration. They are asking: will workers (Senator Crowley)—I thank the senators for have access to both the Industrial Relations their contribution. I am going to read the Commission and the Human Rights and Equal advice provided about what, amongst other Opportunity Commission, and in what order things, the decision here depends on. It is will they have access to those two institu- stated that the rule of anticipating debate: tions? Will going to the Industrial Relations . . . is seldom invoked except when a senator Commission to clarify a matter of entitlement speaking on another matter appears to be entering preclude their going to the Human Rights and upon debate on a bill which has recently come Equal Opportunity Commission, or vice before the Senate and which is expected to be discussed within a short period of time. versa? That is very confusing. They are asking whether they will have access to both; There is absolutely no doubt that Senator in which order they will be able to appeal; Reynolds is talking about the matters of how long that process will take and how they concern of a bill that is actually in committee will be jeopardised in the process. in this place. But I think it is also open to the interpretation that Senator Reynolds is speak- In relation to many part-time and casual ing in a manner that is general rather than workers, one question I received the other day particular to the points of issue of debate. was about the introduction that Senator Kernot has won, in one of her conditions, of However, Senator Reynolds, it is important the predictability of the number of hours. The to know that you are sailing very close to a query was how that provision will operate. breach of this standing order. I ask you to How will families access that provision at relate your future remarks on this matter in a short notice in the event of child illness? Is more general rather than a particular manner ‘casual’ merely another word for part-time? to the points at issue under the bill, in which Will the benefits of permanent part-time work case I will allow it. disappear as whole industries become casual- Senator REYNOLDS—Thank you, Madam ised? Will Australia follow the United States Deputy President. I accept that industrial where workers are having to take on not just relations, in the current climate, is very dear two but three and four casual jobs in order to to our hearts on this side of the chamber and survive, because of the limits to their entitle- I concede that I may have erred in some of ments to permanent part-time work? my comments. I will avoid doing so for the Because I am extremely concerned about final five minutes. the position of Australian workers vis-a-vis I would just like to clarify that, in making the experience in other countries and also vis- my comments about the parliamentary secre- a-vis the commitment Australia has made over tary, I was in no way being critical of him, many years to the International Labour Or- nor of his contribution. I believe it will be ganisation, one question I would ask is: what found from a check of the Hansard record standards do the Democrats see as being set that I described it as his usual competent in relation to our international obligations as contribution. However, I was simply making referred to by the Human Rights and Equal the point that when we are discussing indus- Opportunity Commission? Will the Demo- 5174 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 crats, for example, continue to support ILO The financial systems inquiry is dragging its convention 156 which does give workers with heels in assessing the appropriateness of some responsibilities special provision, special submissions for public access. Some six attention, to have flexibility and recognition weeks have passed and the particular submis- by employers? This is something that does sion which I am talking about remains hidden really concern me. from public view. All of these tactics are applied under the guise of lack of privilege Financial System Inquiry and the potential for defamation. I believe it Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (1.12 is a disgraceful attempt to bury unfavourable p.m.)—Those senators who have been here information, and it renders the financial for a while would be familiar with my interest systems inquiry a farce. in the regulation of financial institutions in The Australian Democrats ask: is the Queensland. On previous occasions I have financial systems inquiry simply a ridiculous questioned the capacity and willingness of the rigmarole with a predetermined outcome? I Queensland Office of Financial Supervision am concerned that, given the inability of the to competently and diligently perform its inquiry to run a straight course, it will invari- regulatory responsibilities, especially in ably run into a conflict of interests and relation to the Queensland Professional Credit deliver non-credible recommendations. Finan- Union Ltd. cial institutions might well have a substantial I again want to draw the Senate’s attention investment in the outcome of this inquiry, but to the composition of the financial systems with this liability on board: they will be lucky inquiry, which is being promoted by the to salvage the cost of their contribution. federal government, and point out that one of Australian depositors and investors have the members of that inquiry, Professor Jeffrey had enough of the deregulation sleight of Carmichael, is the past chairman of the hand of the past two decades and of the abject Queensland Office of Financial Supervision. failure of watchdogs of banking institutions to The Senate would recall that I have ques- raise a bark, let alone bite the bad practition- tioned the competence of that office on more ers. Given the enormous funds invested in than one occasion. superannuation savings, competent and dili- Let me give you an illustration of the gent regulation of the financial sector is a problems which the financial systems inquiry must in the coming decades. The spectre of has within it, problems which I believe are failures, similar to the US Savings and Loan making it impossible for that inquiry to have fiasco or to the United Kingdom Maxwell any credible outcome. In response to calls for superannuation fund, looms large in Australia public submissions to that inquiry, some of without a diligent regulator. my constituents have placed before the in- One thing is certain in my mind, and that quiry certain information based on the ineffec- is that the credibility of credit unions and tiveness of the watchdog and a request for building societies is diminished by the Professor Carmichael to be discharged in the Queensland situation. No doubt there are interests of procedural fairness. The infor- parties in the banking sector that may benefit mation placed before the inquiry draws from all this, but we are all the losers when attention to alleged serious failures of the confidence, diversity and competition dimin- Queensland Office of Financial Supervision ish. What is the big secret that the financial in relation to breaches of the criminal code systems inquiry is perhaps trying to hide? My and its failure as a regulator. constituents have put it thus to the inquiry: Building Societies and Credit Unions should not be The surprising thing is that my constituents responsible for the management of superannuation who made this particular submission were funds in any form on the basis that the regulator of notified that their submission was initially those institutions (QOFS) is not capable of acting considered public and then they found it was on complaints from members and shareholders of withheld from public scrutiny, whereas 99 per these financial institutions. cent of submissions were readily available. Matters that we— Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5175 my constituents— Committee on Privileges—the Commissions have raised go to the very essence of the rule of of Inquiry Act of Queensland, the rules of law in Australia; a person has been victimised by natural justice and the rules of the QPCU. a financial institution following his giving of When the Senate Standing Committee on evidence to a Queensland Commission of inquiry Privileges considered aspects of the QPCU and when confronted with this evidence, the behaviour, they found the explanation of the Queensland Office of Financial Supervision did not act. Even though the financial regulation that it was QPCU to be ‘disingenuous’, and they reported responsible for may not have been sufficient to act that the committee had ‘little doubt’ that such (a possibility that is hardly tenable) there is an onus a withdrawal of membership was a ‘reprisal’. upon that organisation to bring the matter of a The same member, Kevin Lindeberg, has breach of the Criminal Code to a competent authority. The Queensland Office of Financial never received a satisfactory outcome from Supervision failed to do so. the regulator of building societies and credit unions. This example illustrates the reasons With all of the publicity and promotion of the Australian Financial Institutions Code, we put it to why Australians are cynical about the under- you— lying motives behind self-regulation. This saga poses the question: does the current and I would put it to the Senate, on behalf of practice of regulation of financial institutions my constituents— seek to exempt itself from the moral consen- that we have a legitimate expectation that the sus of the rule of law in favour of that other regulator will regulate in accordance with the law. principle of liberal democracy, the freedom of It has been our experience that the regulator is a the individual? In so doing, they betray the failure in Queensland. legitimate expectation and trust of citizens. It is our contention that in the case of QOFS the foundation of regulation—being based on financial From the current annual report of the contributions from those that are subject to regula- QPCU, it appears that the general manager of tion is a farce. There can be no respectable arms that organisation is receiving a salary— length between the two. There is also a distinct including superannuation—in excess of possibility of the ‘revolving door syndrome’ $160,000 per year, and that a motor vehicle whereby professionals move between regulator and industry with the result that professionals are and expenses are provided in addition to that. subjected to cultural pressure to adopt a blurred The general manager’s salary has risen from interpretation of their responsibility and erroneous $110,000 in 1994 to $130,000 in 1995, and is client identification. now in excess of $160,000 per year. This is Senators may recall that, in 1993, a member of the same order as the salary of the Premier of the QPCU gave evidence to the Senate of Queensland or that of the Prime Minister Committee on Superannuation regarding of Australia. irregular transactions in the Queensland Such raiding of members’ funds is extra- Professional Officers Association super fund ordinary for senior executives in the credit by four of its beneficiaries. At least one of the union sector, and is an affront to typical wage directors of the QPCU was also the benefi- earners. Members might recall that this was ciary of the irregular pay-out by the QPOA the same general manager who tried to con- super fund. The Senate Committee on Super- vert his long service leave and annual leave annuation discovered that the benefit request to a direct superannuation deposit, in order to forms, which apparently contained misleading reduce income tax. I spoke of this in my information, were missing from National speech to the Senate on 2 May 1996. Mutual, the fund manager. I really must ask the Minister for Finance The same member who gave evidence to (Mr Fahey) what his expectations of the FSI the Senate committee also gave evidence to inquiry are. Given that that inquiry has now the Queensland Cook inquiry. Thereafter, the reduced itself to the status of a lame duck, member was dismissed as a member of the will he now abandon the exercise and institute QPCU. This dismissal action was alleged to a process with parliamentary privilege and be a breach of the privileges of the Australian some semblance of procedural fairness and Senate—it was referred to the Senate Standing open discussion? The confidence of the 5176 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 investors and depositors is paramount, if So Senator Stott Despoja clearly put her cards Australians are to respond to the call for on the table. Senator Allison, in making her increased savings. Without a credible process, maiden speech only two months ago, said: any report from the financial systems inquiry Another reason why I am here is because of my will be devoid of credibility, providing cosy passionate belief that women should share equally protection for powerful mates but doing in decision making. I am immensely proud to be nothing for those who do not belong to the part of a strong team of women, so ably lead by ruling financial elite. Australians are sick of women, and I am proud to represent a political the ideology of deregulation which leaves party which finds its female majority unremarkable. them vulnerable to the kind of rip-offs I have They are fine sentiments, high principles, and described. those persons are to be congratulated for achieving the heights that they have. But, as Australian Democrats : Policies for a necessity, allied to that achievement of Women power and the exercise of power is the exer- Senator BISHOP (Western Australia) (1.24 cise of that power in accordance with princi- p.m.)—I wish to make a few comments ple. concerning female workers in the workplace. In those speeches, those female senators Mr Acting Deputy President, I have noted the outlined the principles that guide their life and earlier comments made by your predecessor that would dictate the conduct of their affairs in the chair, and I wish to address my com- in this place—principles no different, indeed, ments in the context of principle, power and from those of a number of other senators. A politics. I have had cause to review, over the number of senators on this side have a very past three or four days, the first speeches of strong union background and they have a number of senators in this place: in particu- repeatedly articulated that they believe in the lar, the first speeches of the senators who collective, they believe in trade unionism and represent the Australian Democrats party. All they seek to put forward those objectives in of those senators made very high-sounding this place. Senator Harradine has repeatedly and principled comments, as one would made comments addressing the issues of expect in their first speech; and, indeed, the abortion and family matters, and they are high same comments can be made of nearly all principles also. senators in this place. We would be most disappointed if our Almost without exception, however, the union representatives in this place departed senators from the Australian Democrats chose from their declared principles. We would be in their contributions to address the issue of most surprised if Senator Harradine departed feminism and of females in the workplace, from the principles that he has articulated in leaving the home and taking their rightful this chamber over a period of 20 years. I have place in our community, in our institutions been surprised that the five female senators in and in our structures. They all acknowledged the Australian Democrats have deliberately that they had received considerable assistance chosen to depart from the principles that they from both males and females in their commu- have articulated publicly, privately and on the nities and in their parties in their formative public record in this place. years. I make particular reference to the role of Senator Stott Despoja, indeed, made a plea female workers in the workplace, by and large that as the youngest person to enter the unskilled, by and large without high levels of Australian Senate she spoke on behalf of the education and often without the opportunity youth of our country. Senator Stott Despoja to progress through a career path. They seek said, in her first sentence: simple things: a fair go, security in employ- I rise in this chamber today as the youngest woman ment, guarantees of continuing employment, ever elected to a federal parliament. It is an honour guarantees in the allocations of hours and that I cherish but for no longer than it takes other regularity in rosters. These are not unremark- young women to be chosen by an electorate... able demands and every other person in this Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5177 place would accept them as the norm. Female Female workers repeatedly said to me that workers, particularly those at the bottom end they were unable to arrange finance from of the chain, need those things because they banking and finance institutions because they have a dual commitment. They have a work did not have set hours, a maximum number of commitment that raises finances to fund their hours, that they could guarantee as income to families and they have an obvious family repay their loans. Because of that, as casual commitment to their partners and to their workers, they were unable to access building children. societies and banks, unable to purchase homes or to fund repayments of mortgage loans. Many people suggest that that is in a They were denied a place in our community process of change and that things will become because they had no maximum hours and much more equal over time. My view is that, hence could not persuade a bank manager or much as the institutions and structures of a bank clerk that they were deserving of a society change, the role of females in the loan. family will continue to be a caring and nurtur- ing role. It might change and go into other In the retail industry, the norm in all state areas, but that will still be a task that falls to awards and agreements, and federal awards them. Accordingly, if they are to enter the and agreements was a minimum of 10 hours workplace, if they are to carry out tasks in the per week and a maximum of 30 hours to 34 workplace, they need strong support in the hours per week, often converted to a fort- family to carry out their caring and nurturing nightly roster or a monthly roster to give activities. flexibility. In all my time as a union official, representing tens of thousands of people, I One of the things that female workers in the never had a complaint that a maximum of 32 retail, hospitality, cleaning and service indus- or 34 hours per week, or a minimum of nine, tries need is the knowledge of regularity of 10 or 12 hours per week was inadequate or hours and the guarantee of continuing hours. oppressive or did not give access to sufficient It has been clearly demonstrated in a range of income or could not be changed. reports, and by every day observations, that these workers do not have a high level of The marketplace in that industry determined skills, that by and large they are poorly a result, by negotiation, of a minimum of nine educated and that they are confined to sectors to 12 hours and a maximum of 28 to 34 hours of work that do not have a high wage. The per week. This result was achieved over many flexibility that is sought by employers, and years, not through arbitration and not through articulated by a range of interests in this strikes, but by negotiation. It was a result that place, is sometimes not the flexibility that was acceptable to the work force, by and they need. They need guarantees and securi- large a female work force, and it was a result ties. that was acceptable to the major and minor employers in the industry. The only company The litany of complaints that I had from that I ever recall seeking more than 32 hours female workers over my 15 years as a union a week was David Jones and that was for official in the retail industry can be reduced reasons particular to that company. to two or three basics. They were not signifi- cantly complaints about the award or about It seems to me that, in the context of the levels of salary—although, more was looking after female workers, low-paid work- always desirable, but it was not a pressing ers and those who do not have great ability to issue—but that, as casuals or non full-time advance their own interest, one would consult workers, there was no guarantee of hours and with those persons before seeking changes. no maximum number of hours in their em- Indeed, the theme of consultation, of talking, ployment contract. They had no ability to plan of setting up structures to facilitate those into the future or the ability to determine their objectives is a recurring feature in many of own future in both their family life and their the speeches given by the female senators of work life. the Australian Democrats. 5178 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

Unfortunately, it is a fine sentiment that is she failed. Senator Stott Despoja, in her first often difficult to convert to practice and, in a speech, said: range of issues under discussion lately, it has If I can speak at all for the youth of this country it been deliberately ignored. In fact, the word is to say that we want to respect our institutions ‘betrayal’ comes strongly to mind when and our leaders and we want to pursue change that describing the actions of those female senators makes individuals free and able to pursue their in betraying their own gender and those hopes and dreams whatever their circumstances. people whom they profess to look after and Fine sentiments. When referring to the Youth whose interests they profess to advance. Poll she said: It is a betrayal of their own principles; a It shows a very caring generation—caring about employment prospects and concerned about their betrayal of feminist principles. It is also a families and teenage suicide levels . . . However, betrayal of the basic fundamentals that they it is true that young people show disdain for say they stand for and would seek to advance politicians and are cynical about the political in this place. But, when it comes to the test, process. The Youth Poll shows that only 1.5 per when the power is there, they choose to avoid cent of young people trust us. it and to use it for other purposes. The betray- That is not surprising, when Senator Stott al of those principles, in respect of female Despoja is leading the charge to betray youth workers, by those female senators would be workers in the retail industry and in the akin to Senator Harradine taking money to hospitality industry and deny them guarantees change his position on the abortion vote, and to maximum hours of employment, and deny no-one in this place would ever suggest that them finance, banking and the opportunity to such a thing would occur. purchase homes. They are denying single But, apparently, when it applies to female mothers the opportunity to participate fully in workers, the female representatives of the our society and married couples the oppor- Australian Democrats—Senator Allison, tunity to plan their futures. That is the legacy Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Kernot—do that the female senators in the Australian not think it is important. It was not important Democrats leave with us today. because two days of headlines in the national Racism press were pleasing, and gratifying and Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia) showed flexibility. Sometimes those things are (1.39 p.m.)—Let me make it plain at the not sufficient and what is more important is beginning of my contributions this afternoon attachment to principle and articulation of that I do not know Malcolm McGregor, a principle, particularly when it is those princi- columnist reporter with the Australian Finan- ples that have brought those persons into this cial Review. To the best of my knowledge, I place. have never spoken with him on a face-to-face It is entirely proper in this matter of public basis or over the telephone so I do not carry interest to address that concept of principle, a brief for Mr McGregor whatsoever. power and politics and to make pertinent Last week, I referred to an article of Mr references to the role of the various parties in McGregor’s that appeared in the Australian this place, as they address issues of public Financial Review on 30 October, which was concern in the public forum. They have highlighted ‘Howard’s shameful silence’. I repeatedly said that they seek to attach them- also referred to other newspaper articles, selves to that mast. Indeed, Senator Allison something that I have done from time to time, concluded her first speech by saying: in my period of serving in this parliament and I look forward to the day when women will cross in this Senate. the floor in solidarity and when the strength of I make those points because I am not argument regularly influences the vote. Madam getting up defending Mr McGregor, who was President, I look forward to my term of office. the subject of a very virulent attack by way In the first instance, when Senator Allison of a letter in yesterday’s Australian Financial could have chosen to exercise her principle, Review from none other than Senator Nick Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5179

Minchin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the . . . Mr Howard should have been clearer and Prime Minister. I found it extraordinary that firmer in his response to the comments of Ms the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Hanson, who has said that Aborigines are not the most disadvantaged group in the country, that Minister should have time available to re- Australia is in danger of being swamped by Asians spond and react to the comments of Mr and that our foreign aid and immigration programs McGregor in that article. I found it a very should be stopped. Such comments are shallow, useful article and I actually quoted from part ignorant and contrary to our national interests. of it last week. There was some logic in Mr Howard’s initial refusal to respond to Ms Hanson since that could Senator Chris Evans interjecting— have elevated her views beyond their significance. But Mr Howard’s strategy hasn’t worked—despite Senator McKIERNAN—He will have his reticence, Ms Hanson has received a mountain plenty to do if he is going to respond to each of publicity. and every article in the media during that period which called on the Prime Minister of These are but a small selection of many Australia, Mr Howard, to take a lead in the newspaper articles that appeared in the period race debate that was abounding in the country leading into last Wednesday’s debate in the then. Mr McGregor’s article was but one other place and, indeed, in this place on a article that appeared over that period calling resolution that was carried unanimously in on Mr Howard to say something, to take both houses on the subject of racism and leadership in the debate, to do something reconciliation. I am very pleased to have been about it. a part of that, although we did not have the opportunity to speak here. Mr Mike Seccombe had something to say about Mr Howard in the Sydney Morning It is interesting, though, that the Parlia- Herald on Tuesday, 29 October. His article, mentary Secretary to the Prime Minister on page 9, was under the heading, ‘Howard should take time out of what should be a very softly strokes the wildcat of politics’. The busy schedule. But, as Senator Evans said, Sun-Herald newspaper, also from Sydney, had native title is not going anywhere and there a commentary by Peter Robinson on 27 are a whole number of things Senator October under the headline, ‘It’s time to Minchin has responsibility for that are not speak out’, which was a clear reference to Mr going anywhere. So he responds to one Howard. The article began: particular individual whom I have never met but whose articles I certainly do enjoy reading THE more John Howard twists and turns with the from time to time. racism issue, the more he exposes his inability to understand exactly what the fuss is all about. I wonder if Senator Minchin is also going to reply to what I think was a brilliant article Senator Minchin could have responded to the by Alan Ramsey that appeared in the Sydney Age newspaper, whose editorial on Monday, Morning Herald last Saturday, 2 November. 28 October was entitled ‘The past may not be It was entitled ‘Replay of ‘88 to haunt over’. The final paragraph of that editorial Howard’. There was another article next to said: that one which related the events that occur- On issues as sensitive as race, a Prime Minister red in 1988 and was entitled ‘Racist "missile" cannot afford to be intimidated by those who stand finds its mark eight years on’. for divisiveness rather than reconciliation. For the sake of all Australian, it is hoped that Mr Howard There is something very disturbing in our will find the courage to take the lead in opposing society, which unfortunately, according to those who stand with Ms Hanson. articles and for those of us that lived through The Canberra Times, way back on 10 Octo- the debates at the time, seems to be being ber, had an editorial under the headline repeated now. For example, Mr Ramsey has ‘Howard has to reply on Hanson’. this to say in his article: The Australian on 8 October had a editorial Nothing has changed in the latest debate... entitled ‘Racism: time to curb rhetoric’. In the He is referring to 1996 as opposed to 1988. body of the editorial it said: He continues: 5180 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

Neither have the opinion polls. In August 1988 Dame Beryl is quoted as saying: public support for less Asian immigration was 77 ‘At this stage I think what they have done is fine, per cent in one published poll and 82 per cent in but I only wish they had done it earlier.’ another. A Hawke government-sponsored inquiry into Australian attitudes found, in part: ‘Racism is Mr Beazley tried, but Mr Beazley does not by no means excised from Australia. The potential have the numbers in the other place in order for bigotry sleeps within most individuals and to press the matter forward. racism in many forms pervades our society.’ But we can claim a victory, and all fair- Malcolm Fraser was referred to in the article minded people in Australia can claim a as well. Mr Ramsey says: victory, by the passage of that motion last Malcolm Fraser, now a critic of Howard’s failure week. One reason I am very pleased it was to be more forthright against Pauline Hanson’s passed last week in the House, and carried ignorance, was just as vocal against him eight years ago. So were three State Liberal leaders, a number unanimously, is that when we refer back to of churchmen, a wad of newspaper editorials, the election campaign earlier this year, Ms umpteen pundits and all the ethnic groups. There Hanson is not the only member of parliament were outbreaks of yobbo racism: cars sprayed, who was involved in making racist remarks houses daubed, a garage burnt down in Adelaide, before the election. Neither is Mr Campbell, and wide media reportage of ‘ugly incidents’ in a former member of my own party from which Asians were ‘abused and spat at’. Western Australia. It is unfortunate that some things do repeat We may recall one candidate for the Na- themselves in later years. With the carriage of tional Party of Australia, from the state of the resolution in the parliament of Australia Queensland, who made some not very compli- last week, with bipartisan support, I hope that mentary remarks about citizenship cere- many of the events referred to here will not monies. I think he referred to them as ‘de- recur in Australia. wogging ceremonies’. He was criticised by But it is interesting to reflect on the events his leader at the time but retained his candida- leading into last Wednesday’s debate. The ture for the ongoing election. What was very resolution was an agreed resolution between disappointing at the time was that a sitting the main political parties. But it was an member of parliament, another National Party initiative of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr member, Mr Bob Katter, actually went public Kim Beazley, to have the motion put forward. and defended Mr Burgess for the remarks that He gave notice of it in the House of Repre- he had made. In actual fact, Mr Katter took sentatives some two or three weeks before the the matter somewhat further with his com- actual carriage of the resolution. It was only ments, which I do not care to repeat in this when the thoughts of the public were express- place. ed through the media—and I have only I note with pleasure that it would appear referred here to a part of that outrage—that that Mr Katter supported the motion for the the Prime Minister, possibly at the influence joint statement in the House of Representa- of his parliamentary secretary, though one tives last week. I hope that is the case, that he would doubt that very much, actually came to has reflected on some of the earlier remarks the party and agreed to meet a representative that have been attributed to him and that now of the opposition and to agree on a form of he and all other members of parliament can words acceptable to all parties in the parlia- fulfil their obligations to the parliament and ment. to the people of Australia, doing everything I will quote from an article in the Sydney in their power to end this very damaging Morning Herald of last Saturday, 2 Novem- debate that is going on. ber, which said: When I say ‘damaging’, I am not referring The Liberal Party’s doyenne, Dame Beryl merely to the economic damage that may be Beaurepaire, former head of its National Women’s Advisory Council had both blame and praise for Mr done to our trade with our partners in the Howard and the Federal Opposition Leader, Mr region. I think the debate that has been Beazley, for finally passing a bipartisan motion happening, especially some of the contribu- abhorring racism. tions from some of the people that have Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5181 participated in it, is damaging the human workers is of fundamental importance, par- spirit and the human being. Overall and over ticularly for female workers. Quite often, time, that will be the greatest damage—far probably in the majority of cases, the families greater than any economic damage that might of the battlers have both parents working. result from this debate. Also, it has been put on many occasions that it is of fundamental importance that people Election Commitments have some idea of either the maximum or Senator MURPHY (Tasmania) (1.52 minimum hours of work that may be required p.m.)—I wish to address an issue with regard of them. to a matter of public interest. It relates to a We have seen this arrangement put in place commitment that politicians and parties give in the Senate. I must say that I have the to people when they go to elections, and the utmost respect for the Democrats, in particular factors on which people vote for individuals for Senator Kernot. I do have a view in so far and parties in elections. as Senator Andrew Murray is concerned that, In this instance I wish to address the credi- unfortunately, due to his lack of knowledge bility and the commitment of the Liberal and of industrial relations in this country and his National parties and also the Democrats. Prior lack of experience in so far as industrial to the 2 March election they espoused com- relations is concerned in this country, he has mitments to the electorate, to the people of been well and truly led up the garden path by Australia. It seems that, once elected, parties the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr take the opportunity to do exactly the oppos- Reith. He has then, maybe inadvertently, led ite of their commitments—in fact, to renege the Democrats into a trap that has been set by and/or rat on what they have committed the government—one that I feel will at some themselves to through their policies and point in time come back to bite them very public statements with regard to various severely. issues. I just hope that at some point in time, when I find it rather curious in relation to the it is proven that the position that they are Liberal and National parties, the coalition that currently adopting in supporting the govern- was elected to government. During the elec- ment with regard to industrial relations policy tion campaign, the so-called ‘race for the and changes is wrong, when the time comes battlers’, Mr Howard said that those were the that they see the error of their ways, they will two parties which stood best to represent the have the courage of their convictions and of battlers of Australia and the workers of the policy and philosophies that they have Australia. Indeed, he said on many occasions espoused, both in this place and to the public that no worker would be worse off under a in general. I hope that they will have the Howard led administration. Clearly, however, commitment and the courage to get up and— that is not going to be the case. if we are still in opposition at that time—to What is worse is the position of the Aus- support us in moving changes to legislation tralian Democrats, who have often claimed that may ultimately be adopted in this parlia- themselves to be the custodians of social ment, to ensure that we restore the rightful equity, the party that ‘keeps the bastards conditions and protections for workers in this honest’, and who have proclaimed on many country and, indeed, look after the families of occasions that they represent those that major Australia in the way that they deserve to be parties do not. I find it rather unusual that we looked after. That includes male and female now see an alliance between the Democrats workers. and the coalition government on a particular It really is unacceptable, and the Prime issue that is of such fundamental importance Minister (Mr Howard) has on many occa- to working and battling Australians. sions, in a number of speeches, said that the As has been addressed by two other sena- problem with the parliament, and indeed the tors earlier in the debate on matters of public problem with politicians and with the credi- interest, the question of hours of work for bility of political life being so low, arises 5182 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 because there is a view amongst the public— the Australian; Peter Young of Computer and it is probably true—that politicians never, World; Charles Wright of the Australian ever stand by their word. I think that has been Financial Review; and Sue Lowe of the demonstrated, and is being demonstrated in Sydney Morning Herald? Is it true that these the legislation that is being debated in this journalists have been singled out to be chamber at the moment. ‘marginalised’ as ‘unreasonable critics’ as I appeal to the Democrats, especially to specified in Telstra’s media strategy? Senator Kernot, at some point in time to Senator ALSTON—That was a pretty reconsider their position. I hope that, when it excited diatribe, wasn’t it? Obviously, Senator is proven that the position that they have Carr has been tapping into his own unique taken is wrong, that they have made a funda- sources of conspiracy theories. None of that mental error, they will not be frightened but has been brought to my attention. will have a true commitment to the convic- Senator Bob Collins—It is in the paper. tions that I hope, at least, that they hold and will assist the opposition in bringing about the Senator ALSTON—It might be in the changes to restore the rightful protection and paper but I have not seen it. I know nothing conditions for workers in this country that about any war room. ought to be in place. Senator Robert Ray—Will you investigate I sincerely hope that that sort of approach it? will not be lost on the Democrats. If they are Senator ALSTON—I was not asked that. to play a role, then they ought to play the role that they indicated to the Australian public Senator Robert Ray—Yes, but will you? they would play. Senator ALSTON—I was asked about the war room. I know nothing about that. I know MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS nothing about any Telstra strategy to manipu- Senator HILL (South Australia—Leader of late the media. I know nothing about them the Government in the Senate)—I have an singling out any journalists to be marginal- important announcement regarding govern- ised. If they have got any brains, of course, ment management matters. Senator Ian Camp- they would have had Senator Carr on their bell has now become the Manager of Govern- list, to make sure they did not waste too much ment Business in the Senate. Senator Rod time briefing him, because I would have Kemp has retired from that position—after thought he was beyond redemption. Other much success, I might say. I am sure the than that, I would have thought Telstra would whole of the Senate would want to record its be more than happy to respond to requests gratitude for the facilitation and generally from any sensible and interested parties. high performance rendered by Senator Kemp. Senator CARR—I have a supplementary QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE question. Will you investigate these claims? Will you establish whether it is true that the Telstra war room’s role includes, in the run-up to Senator CARR—My question is directed privatisation, advising the minister’s office in to the Minister for Communications and the advance of initiatives that may be politically Arts. Can the minister outline the composition sensitive and identifying members of the and responsibilities of Telstra’s war room? Do media who may be hostile to Telstra’s plans? Telstra’s war room activities include the Isn’t this a case of Telstra putting commercial manipulation of media and public opinion to before public interest? Isn’t this precisely advance Telstra’s business interests and the what your government’s privatisation agenda government’s political interests as part of the is encouraging? privatisation process? When did Telstra brief Senator ALSTON—I thank Senator Ray you on its media strategy which has identified for that supplementary question! The fact is the following specialist journalists as hostile Telstra has had commercial obligations and aligned against Telstra: John Hilvert of imposed upon it since it was corporatised in Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5183

1991. It does not have any overriding obliga- Senator KEMP—Two major banks, Sena- tion to apply social responsibilities other than tor Cook, the ANZ and the Commonwealth, as prescribed by law. Indeed, there are a have already announced they will be passing range of those, including the universal service on the full benefit of the rate reduction, obligation, where there is a cross-subsidy that making three rate reductions since the elec- is necessary to ensure that people in rural and tion. remote areas get quality service. Since the election their standard variable What we ought to focus on for a minute is rates have fallen from 10.5 per cent to 8.75 this: if you want an example of how a per cent. This delivers a $145 per month government can interfere and manipulate a benefit in the form of a lower interest rate government business enterprise, I would very bill. The Bank of Adelaide cut its first home much like to know whether it is true that at loan rate by 0.76 percentage points more than one stage in the recent past it was necessary the Reserve Bank cut and is offering a rate of for all Telstra press releases to be approved 7.99 per cent. Lower interest rates mean more by the minister’s office. It seems to me that money for families paying off their mortgages is a classic example of the way in which you and more money for businesses to invest, go about achieving very high level inefficien- expand and employ staff. If banks can cut cies—(Time expired) their variable rates by a bit more than the cut by the Reserve Bank, that is, they can trim Interest Rates their margins, standard variable home rates by the big four banks will be at their lowest level Senator BOSWELL—My question is since the mid-1970s. We will have achieved directed to the Assistant Treasurer. Senator a conjunction of the lowest inflation rates and Kemp, you would be aware that the Reserve home mortgage rates in the last two decades. Bank has lowered official interest rates by 50 basic points this morning. Can you inform the Senator Bob Collins—You? You, in seven Senate of signs that the financial institutions months? You are joking! will pass on the benefits of the rate cut? Senator KEMP—This starkly contrasts, Senator KEMP—Thank you for that Senator Bob Collins, with Labor’s very sorry important question, Senator Boswell, which record. Official rates went up 2¾ percentage shows the continuing interest of people on points under the last two and a half years of this side of the chamber in the need for low the Labor government and average standard interest rates to help families and people, mortgage rates under Labor were 12.75 per particularly in small business. As Senator cent—more than one-third higher than the Boswell indicated, the Reserve Bank decision rates charged today. today to cut official interest rates by half a I read a quotation to the Senate from the percentage point to 6.5 per cent is unambigu- book by Edwards on Keating in which he ously good news for Australia. boasted how he was able to raise the interest rates in the economy. He called it ‘de-spiving’ Senator Cook—It is not, because you have the economy. There was not one mention— killed the economy. and I pointed it out to the Senate—that any of Senator KEMP—First home buyers would the former Keating ministers on the front- know that under your government, Senator bench raised a word of protest about that. Cook, the interest rates peaked at 17 per cent. That is why every time interest rates— The official rates have now fallen twice since Senator Cook—You would not know. the coalition was elected last March. We are very pleased to report that financial institu- Senator KEMP—Senator Cook says I do tions are already moving to cut home mort- not know. Well, if you did raise a protest, get gage rates in light of the Reserve Bank cut. up after question time and tell us how you did. But, Senator Cook, there is no mention Senator Cook—There is no demand out of you, or Senator Bob Collins or any of your there. ilk complaining about the high interest rate 5184 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 policies that were followed by the Keating by that. But he is not arguing that the giving government. If people want low interest rates, should be affected. We try in the delivery of the answer is they vote for the coalition, and aid through our government services, and the that is what we are delivering. NGOs do also, to minimise the extent of loss but it will, to some extent, occur. That is Foreign Aid unfortunate. But we do not use that as an Senator GIBBS—My question is directed excuse to walk away from the humanitarian to Senator Hill, the Minister representing the or development causes that are deserving of Prime Minister in the Senate. Minister, given support. the Prime Minister claimed that taxpayers’ Senator GIBBS—I ask a supplementary money has been ‘literally wasted’ by foreign question. Minister, isn’t it true that the only aid groups, and dug himself further into this example the Prime Minister has given goes hole in a personal explanation where he back to 1984? Won’t the Prime Minister’s reiterated that he could ‘understand the anger intemperate remarks do great damage to the of people who gave money to great organisa- fund raising efforts of World Vision and other tions like World Vision that foreign aid was organisations? wasted by overseas regimes’, can the minister give some examples of this waste? Has the Senator HILL—If the senator spoke to the Prime Minister personally apologised to major NGOs, they would tell her that a World Vision yet? percentage loss is unavoidable. They seek to minimise it, obviously because they want the Senator HILL—The honourable senator greatest benefit to come from the public has misunderstood what the Prime Minister contribution, but also because it can attract said. He was not seeking to talk down World publicity that is unhelpful to their fund raising Vision at all. In fact, we applaud and support causes. That is the answer to the question. the work of NGOs who contribute to humani- tarian causes internationally and to develop- Senator Schacht—Why doesn’t the Prime ment assistance. You would see, from the way Minister explain that? He was crawling to in which we structured the aid part of the Hanson and he should have explained it budget, our support for the non-government again. sector in this way. Often they provide effi- Senator HILL—Senator Schacht knows it ciencies in delivery—contacts that are vitally as well as I do. He has seen what happens in important that are very difficult for govern- Africa. We try to avoid it. I simply use the ments to obtain. Particularly in relation to occasion to repeat on the record our support grassroots works in developing countries their and applause for these very significant NGOs contacts are invaluable. So their work is that do a great job internationally. strongly supported by this government. Women into Politics What the Prime Minister was saying is that Senator FERRIS—My question is directed unfortunately some aid does go astray. to Senator Newman, the Minister Assisting Senator Cook—Examples, please. You the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. were asked for some; give some. Has the minister seen a copy of the latest Senator HILL—I have seen it, and you newsletter of the organisation Women into would have seen it, in Africa. It is just an Politics? The publication comments on the unfortunate fact of life that some aid will go success of different political parties in their astray because the delivery mechanisms are efforts to increase women’s representation in obviously not particularly sophisticated, the parliament. What is this government doing because the regimes you are having to deal to increase the representation of women in with on occasions do not hold the same politics and how will its policies assist women standards that we do. That is a percentage generally? loss that is unfortunate. The Prime Minister Senator NEWMAN—Senator Ferris is very was saying that he understands that those who interested in status of women issues and I give may well be frustrated and disappointed commend her for the question. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5185

I have had my attention drawn to the And we all know what that means! newsletter of the Women into Politics organi- but it has failed to follow through with affirmative sation. I have also this morning seen an action, or even action to stop the men pushing interesting juxtaposition in the Australian aside women who put their hands up, much to the Financial Review of two articles. One on page disappointment of women inside and outside the 6 gives us the story of the ALP in this cham- party. With one or two notable exceptions, when a vacancy occurred, and even when well qualified ber yesterday, when they were debating the women were candidates, the ALP has failed to Workplace Relations and Other Legislation preselect women. Amendment Bill, claiming to be the only Senator Jacinta Collins—What about your party concerned about women in the nation. Senate representation? The opposition yesterday was claiming that the Democrats and the government had ‘sold Senator NEWMAN—And that puts the lie out working women in this country’. The to all those opposite who are posturing about paragons who sit opposite would like us to being champions of women’s rights! The think that they are the only protectors of Federal Secretary of the ALP, Gary Gray, had women’s rights. a post-mortem committee and that reported: But for a more objective view of the ALP’s We were painted as hypocritical for putting up real position on women’s issues, Madam fewer women in winnable seats in 1996 than we did in 1993. President, we could turn to page 8 of today’s Australian Financial Review to an article He went on to say: headed: Affirmative action compared poorly to the Liberal Labor’s love lost on us, say women Party success in this area. Many women saw the idea of a 35 per cent representation— which reports on the Women into Politics Senator Jacinta Collins—You haven’t organisation’s latest newsletter. It makes even got 30 per cent. fascinating reading. The most interesting section is: Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, Reflections on the 1996 Federal Election. they don’t like hearing the truth, but this time it comes from their own federal secretary. It states: Many women saw the idea of a 35 per cent quota . . . the ALP currently lacks credibility on women’s by 2002 as condescending. equality issues. The Party which brought in so many reforms for women failed on the most basic Terry Sheahan made similar comments. He reform—that of adequately fostering political said: equality for women in accordance with Australia’s One of the main obstacles for women gaining commitments under CEDAW Articles 7&8to preselection, especially in safe seats is the old boy "take all appropriate measures to eliminate discri- tradition, a man being lined up years ahead to take mination against women in the political life and a seat when the incumbent retires. These sinecure public life of the country..." positions invariably go to men. And one thing you never hear from the now That is not me saying those things, Madam opposition is who signed the convention President; that is a Labor Party stalwart eliminating all forms of discrimination against saying those things. women? That, too, was a coalition govern- Of course, the Women into Politics news- ment. The report goes on to say— letter said: Senator Jacinta Collins—But the question The ALP, as it rebuilds, will not win women again is: what have you done about it? unless they restrain the favouritism, cronyism, The PRESIDENT—Order! There are far nepotism, the sometimes quite unconscious sexism too many interjections. and the factionalism so evident in the party and adopt the equal appointment opportunity rule... Senator NEWMAN—The report goes on to say: (Time expired) In 1994, with much publicity, the ALP announced Senator FERRIS—Madam President, I ask its policy of putting 35% women in winnable seats a supplementary question. I ask the minister by 2002,— whether she can tell the House the further 5186 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 opportunities that the government has provid- tion and distribution of a document entitled ed for women? Rebutting the myths: some facts about Abo- Senator NEWMAN—The noise opposite riginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, makes it difficult to get this message across. which in fact addresses the nine most com- I think the people of Australia want to know mon misconceptions in the community about what we are doing to increase the number of Aboriginal affairs? Given the joint resolution women in politics. For example, we have of this parliament last week, which I am already got Jackie Kelly back. That is a really pleased to say appeared to have some positive big plus, thanks to the people of Lindsay. We impact on public opinion, would you give have continued to support all our new mem- consideration to updating and reissuing this bers, of whom so many are women. document in the public interest? We are improving the consultation process- Senator HERRON—Thank you, Senator es with women’s organisations, Madam Collins, yes, I am aware. I have read that President. We are continuing to encourage document, and I think that is an excellent women to be involved in the Liberal Party idea. I will certainly do that because I think and to aim for places in the three levels of there is an enormous amount of ignorance in government. As to how our policies will assist the population, some of it of course perpetuat- women generally, let me remind you that our ed and pushed by elements of the media, and emphasis has been on economic independence in particular I refer to the attack today on for women, whether it is through a focus on salaries of ATSIC executives. The salaries are jobs; whether it is through a focus on retire- in line with standards across the service in ment income; whether it is through a focus on terms of responsibilities, and are no different the alleviation of poverty caused by family from any other band in the Public Service. break-up—and you know that we have put As you said yourself, Senator Bob Collins, preventative measures in there through mar- it was a poor attempt at journalism. Particu- riage education, et cetera; whether through the larly the headlines that were given were not alleviation of poverty caused by high housing commensurate with the articles that appeared. costs. There are too many things, Madam I particularly found reprehensible the attack President; I could go on for hours. (Time on Patricia Turner who is one of the most expired) outstanding public servants in this— Aboriginal Affairs Senator Bolkus—And Lois. The PRESIDENT—I call Senator Bob Senator HERRON—It was an attack on Collins. public servants, Senator Bolkus, more particu- larly, and an apparent linkage that in some Senator Newman—Here is one of the old way there was nepotism involved in her boys. appointment. Since having this portfolio, I Senator BOB COLLINS—Thanks old girl. have been particularly impressed with her My question is addressed to the Minister for professionalism and her management of Aboriginal Affairs. ATSIC, and grateful for the advice that I have Government senators interjecting— received from her. She has worked unstinting- ly in the best traditions of the Public Service Senator BOB COLLINS—Oh, you are in the time that I have been responsible for allowed to say ‘old boys’, but you are not this portfolio. allowed to say ‘old girls’, are you? Come on, you mob. The fact of the matter is that those salary increases were as a result of Australian Public Senator Hill—Come on; just ask the Service-wide wage increases which applied to question. all Commonwealth public servants. I have Senator BOB COLLINS—Madam Presi- been advised that there has been no increase dent, my question is addressed to the Minister in the number of senior executives employed for Aboriginal Affairs. Minister, are you by ATSIC. The increase in salary costs is as aware of the previous government’s produc- a result of APS-wide wage increases for all Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5187 staff, including senior executives, resulting in strategy and, given that the states are clearly an increase in the number of senior executives unhappy about taking the power the way it is whose salary packages now fall within the being handed over, does not the potential $110,000 to $120,000 range and thereby unravelling of your plan at next Monday’s within the reporting arrangements for the first COAG represent a ‘silver bullet’ to your time. Similar wage movements have resulted budget strategy? If these arrangements do not in movements within the bands in the report- work, what is plan B? What will you do if 30 ing arrangements. For example, there is now per cent of your budget outlays are not one person in the $170,000 to $179,999 available to you? range, and one person in the $180,000 to Senator KEMP—I am happy to have again $189,999 range where previously, prior to the chance to respond to the issues that salary increases, there was none. Senator Kernot has raised. Senator Kernot, the So the headlines, as you correctly men- major threat to the budget, I would have tioned, were totally inconsistent with the thought, came from people who were not article itself. As you quite rightly pointed out, prepared to accept that the budget measures this is the sort of myth that gets perpetuated. which were announced mid-August by the I am certainly using every opportunity to Treasurer, were extremely well received. Day refute that myth. I accept your suggestion that after day we are treated to comments in the such myths should be refuted in the wider press— community. I am referring to many of the Senator Cook—Go and tell industry that! urban myths that seem to exist, such as the They don’t believe you. one that the Aboriginal people are not the most disadvantaged in our society. That myth Senator KEMP—Go and tell the public should be laid to rest once and for all. Un- that, Senator Cook! Remember Lindsay? The questionably, on any criterion, whether it be budget is now coming before this chamber. housing, health, education, employment or, We are seeking to ensure that the budget, particularly, life expectancy, the Aboriginal which has widespread public endorsement, is people are the most disadvantaged in our passed in full by this chamber. So I am society. The longer and the more frequently surprised with you, Senator Kernot, standing that all of us within the Senate itself speak up and arguing that you have particular out in the wider community, the more we will concerns about the budget strategy, because get that message through so that the various we all now have a chance to vote on the myths that seem to be perpetuated can be budget strategy. We have put our budget overcome by bringing out the truth. down and we are looking forward to receiving your support. But that is not clear in every Senator Bob Collins—Thank you, measure, if I can judge by the press reports. Minister. In relation to the discussion with the states, Federal-State Responsibilities you will be aware that there were meetings Senator KERNOT—My question is direct- with the states in which the states recognised ed to the Assistant Treasurer. Yesterday I that something had to be done to address the asked the minister what I thought was an major budget deficit—the black hole that was important question on the progress of govern- left by Mr Beazley and the Keating ministers ment plans to shift expenditure in areas like that this government had to deal with. The housing, health and aged care to the states. states, from my memory, approached that The most charitable description I could give through a constructive arrangement and to his response was that he waffled on long agreements were reached. enough to make it seem as though enough As you point out, Senator Kernot, there will time had passed and he could comfortably sit be discussions with the states on a range of down. So I am asking you again, minister: issues. I am confident that they will be con- given that this cost shifting strategy amounts ducted in a very constructive and successful to almost 30 per cent of budget outlays and manner. We will not pre-judge those discus- is a significant part of your deficit reduction sions but we are confident that the states will 5188 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 come to the table in a very constructive Are you aware that your department has now manner. indicated in response to a question given on The problems with the budget rest not so notice at estimates that there were no savings much with the states. The public is now from this measure? How do you explain this focused on ensuring that the budget is given discrepancy, minister? a fair go by this Senate. I can understand you Senator NEWMAN—I have lived long being sensitive on that issue and trying to enough to know that, if Senator Mackay asks pass it away. But, Senator Kernot, that is the a question like that, it is best to go and get issue which we now have to turn our minds the detail of a response for her because I to in this Senate to get this budget through cannot be sure that the facts on which she is and we look forward to your support. relying are the true and the entire facts. Senator KERNOT—Minister, is it not true Senator Hill—It will be hard to get a that this 30 per cent of budget outlays is your supplementary out of that. agenda and plan? These are your conservative Senator MACKAY—I ask a supplementary state premier mates. It has nothing to do with question, Madam President. I appreciate that the Senate. This is your ideological high you may have to go and look at it, but might ground that you were going to deliver on. I suggest that in future you would better off What is plan B? Is not Jeff Kennett’s call for leaving all the answers to your departmental all-party tax reform at the heart of this im- officials, who clearly know something about passe? Is this government going to address what is going on in your portfolio. Jeff Kennett’s call for all-party talks on future tax reform? But what is plan B if you do not The PRESIDENT—That is not a supple- get this through next Monday? mentary question. Senator KEMP—Madam President, I am Perth Airport at a loss to see how that could follow on from Senator MARGETTS—My question is the first question. Senator Kernot, the public directed to the Minister for the Environment, gave you a message to give this government Senator Hill. I refer the minister to the recent a fair go. That is the message which this legal challenge by the Federal Airports Corpo- government has given you and that is plan ration to the listing of high conservation A—and over the next three or four weeks, bushland and wetlands at the Perth airport on you will have that chance. The public are the Register of the National Estate. What is turning their minds to you and they were very the basis for the legal challenge? Does it have unimpressed with the Democrat performance your support? Does it have the support of the in Lindsay because they felt that you were Minister for Transport and Regional Develop- being a little bit obstructionist, Senator Ker- ment or other cabinet ministers? Does the not, and we look for a more positive attitude minister consider it appropriate that the from you. Federal Airports Corporation is taking this Pensioners action during the leasing process for Perth airport, and does he consider that such an Senator MACKAY—My question is action could be seen as an attempt to maxi- addressed to the Minister for Social Security mise the revenue from the lease of the Perth representing the Minister for Health and airport at the expense of the important bush- Family Services. Do you recall justifying to lands and wetlands that are contained within the estimates committee your government’s the boundaries of the airport land? decision to exclude Commonwealth seniors health card holders from eligibility for hearing Senator HILL—I am aware of the action services on the basis of the savings this would that has been taken by the FAC, which has generate? If I can remind you, you said: submitted an application for review under the decisions had to be taken that were not always the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) ones we would have chosen to take. Nevertheless Act 1977. Basically, they are arguing that the this was one area where there were some savings AHC has in some ways made a determination to be made and we regretfully took them. in contravention of its obligations under the Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5189 act. As I understand it, it is quite complex and ever holds the lease, whoever runs the air- there are a number of different grounds for ports, to manage the area? What we are the action as alleged. seeing is the exact opposite: an attempt to I think that it is not appropriate for it to be downgrade the listing and then perhaps have supported by any minister, and certainly not that area used for other purposes. Is this not by me. In fact, whilst it is their right to bring exactly the argument that was badly countered the action, I somewhat regret it. It is unhelp- during the debate on the bill? ful in the sense that it ends up costing the Senator HILL—I regret that I do not taxpayer money—and others as well. I would remember the whole of Senator’s Margetts’s have liked to think that bodies such as the contribution to that debate. But the principle FAC and the AHC could find an amicable is that we want to preserve the conservation resolution to any difficulties they might have. values whilst at the same time recognising the To date, they have not and, as you know, airport as a major commercial facility. In fact, because I would like to see a constructive one step forward that we are seeking to take resolution rather than a litigated resolution, I is the negotiating of a management agreement have asked Senator Campbell, my parlia- whereby both objectives can be achieved. If mentary secretary, to communicate with the Senator Campbell is successful in bringing parties and, with the provision of his good that to pass, then it will be something that I offices, to see whether there is a way forward, am sure that we all would applaud. short of this matter having to be concluded Legal Assistance through the courts. Such a way forward would of course have to protect the natural heritage Senator McKIERNAN—My question is values which have been recognised by the directed to Senator Vanstone, representing the AHC and for which the nomination was Attorney-General. Minister, was Justice accepted for listing. Michael Kirby of the High Court correct when he said that studies showed Australia I know you know it, Senator Margetts, was already, by world standards, a low spend- because I know you and Senator Campbell ing country in the field of legal assistance? and conservation groups have visited the Was he correct when he said that Australia airport together— spends $13 per person per year on legal Senator Campbell—And the member for assistance as compared with New Zealand Swan. spending $16, Canada $18, the Netherlands Senator HILL—And the member for Swan $22 and the United Kingdom $65? Was he as well—and have looked at the conservation correct when he said that the withdrawal of values that we are seeking to protect. It is just this type of funding would cause attacks on a matter of our working through this sensibly the legal system? and rationally to see whether we can sort it Senator VANSTONE—Senator out, short of an ultimate litigated outcome. McKiernan, Justice Kirby’s comments have Senator MARGETTS—I ask a supplemen- not been drawn to my attention. I did, inci- tary question, Madam President. Senator Hill dentally, see him briefly in India participating may recall that, during the debate on the in a legal conference, which was part of the Airports (Transitional) Bill, Senator Campbell Australia-India New Horizons conference that indicated that he understood that the bushland so much news has been generated about and had been recognised by the Australian Heri- so many questions asked of Senator Alston tage Commission and listed on the national yesterday. I take the opportunity to point out register. It was indicated at that time that to you how successful the education section there were problems in management. Does of that conference was. that not justify the concerns that I expressed I did not have a long discussion with him at that time that not only did there need to be there. He did not raise these remarks. I am statements in the bill about the environment; unaware of them. I do not know if he made there needed to be a commitment from who- them before he went to India or when he 5190 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 came back. But since you, Senator McKier- But other programs are just as good. The nan, in your committee work, are, generally coastcare program—another community action speaking, almost as charming as Senator program—is estimated to have engaged some Cooney, I will get you an answer quickly too. 144,000 Australians over the last year. It was found that the Fortech review of remanent Environment vegetation this year and the save the bush Senator TROETH—My question is ad- program involved in excess of 85,000 Austral- dressed to the Minister for the Environment. ians. Minister, the Australian community is deeply Senator Carr—Oh, another one. concerned about the state of the environment Senator HILL—Senator Carr, you might and is getting more and more involved in not think it is important but we think the hands-on activities to restore the health of our community that is out there working to restore natural heritage. This is evidenced by the the health of the environment is something growing number of people involved in volun- vitally important and is something that tary community conservation groups. Will the ought— minister inform the Senate of environmental remediation programs sponsored by his Senator Carr—Put it in the budget. Put portfolio to assist these groups to monitor and your money where your mouth is. repair our environment; the estimated number Senator HILL—to be applauded by both of people participating in those programs; and sides in this chamber—by Labor as well, the funding provided to those programs in the Senator Carr. Some 85,000 have worked 1996-97 budget. through the save the bush program in the last year; another 65,000 have worked through the Senator HILL—I would like to take the one billion trees program. There are hundreds opportunity to recognise the unsung heroes of of thousands of Australians going out there the environment: the literally hundreds of and contributing to improve the health of their thousands of Australians who are out there environment. making the difference. What they do will far exceed that which is done by both govern- Yes, it is true that the Commonwealth ments and the high profile conservation government is supporting these programs organisations. It is something that has occur- financially. I remind you that in this last red particularly in the last decade or so and budget we announced funding for the national something that I think in the end will make corridors of green program of $1.36 million; the difference. the River Murray corridors of green, $200,000; the urban forest program, $350,000; It was only a week or so ago that we save the bush, $1.5 million; one billion trees, concluded Waterwatch week, which basically $1 million; and coastcare, some $3 million. involved community groups, quite often We will do our bit; we will provide what school children, joining together to monitor funding support we can. We will provide a the state of their streams and waterways and lead, but really the community picking up the if they find any problems they engage local challenge, working as a community in small government and others to seek remedial groups together, working on land degradation, action. I understand that, although that pro- working on the health of coasts and streams, gram started only some three years ago, there working on salinity problems, is what really are about 35,000 Australians active now on a will make the difference to improving an continuing basis in that program. That will environment that has been allowed to become help make the difference. I was pleased to degraded and that needs much greater com- announce funding of just over $1 million munity support to return it to the state of from the Commonwealth to facilitate their health that we would all wish to see. work—‘facilitate’ is the right word because we help fund facilitators to ensure that the Housing Affordability maximum benefit is obtained from the work Senator WEST—My question is addressed they do. to the Minister for Social Security. Minister, Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5191 given your answer to yesterday’s question the meeting last Friday. We all want to about housing affordability that private sector achieve housing reform. investment is dependent upon the progress of the COAG reforms on housing, were there Rent Allowance any tangible outcomes at last Friday’s meet- Senator WOODLEY—My question is also ing of Australian housing ministers or is it directed to the Minister for Social Security. I true, according to an article in today’s Aus- draw the minister’s attention to her govern- tralian Financial Review, that Victoria pro- ment’s proposal to reduce the maximum rent posed a radically different model, New South allowance for single people by one-third when Wales wants a moratorium on changing the they are in shared accommodation. Can the existing system and Queensland and Western minister advise how many disabled persons Australia are particularly opposed to the receiving the maximum rent assistance who private rental aspect of the reforms? Has you are also accommodated in shared housing will housing policy process ground to a halt? be affected? By reducing the rent assistance to these people by $24.60 per fortnight, how Senator NEWMAN—I am grateful for the much does the government expect to save? opportunity to answer that, Senator, because What are the unmet housing needs for people obviously the author of that article is practis- with disabilities and how will this measure ing for the Miles Franklin. There is not very assist in meeting those needs? Did the much truth in the entire article. I do not really minister consult with disability consumer think it deserves a detailed answer. groups on this matter? Senator WEST—Madam President, I ask Senator West—I can answer the last one. a supplementary question. Do you at least The answer is no. have any time frame for the resolution of the impasse between the Commonwealth and the Senator NEWMAN—As to the last one— states on housing policy? Can you tell the which Senator West is so ready to answer for Senate when exactly a housing agreement will me—this was a budget measure and, there- be achieved and how will these unfortunate fore, in the normal process there is not a great delays impact upon the framework of the deal of consultation no matter who is in 1997-98 and 1998-99 budgets? Are you government. As far as the details and statistics reconsidering, for example, whether the states are concerned, I will get them for you and should be provided with further capital funds bring them back to you. for public housing construction after 1998, I would like to make it clear that the struc- extending existing housing arrangements for ture of rent assistance, until now—and still another year? now—is such that couples receive consider- ably less rent assistance than do single people Senator NEWMAN—The housing reforms who are sharing. With the reforms to rent are a cooperative exercise between the terri- assistance proposed in the budget, two single tories, the states and the Commonwealth. people sharing will still be something like $30 Perhaps that message has not yet got through better off than a couple in the same circum- to the opposition, who started the reforms. It stances. It is not a harsh measure. It might be will depend very much on the cooperation of a measure that people are not keen about but all parties to achieve the results because we it is— are not imposing a solution from Canberra, Senator West. As most Australians do not like Senator West—It is a harsh measure. You the solutions that your government imposed should go and ask the people affected. from Canberra when you were in government, Senator NEWMAN—If it is a harsh we are taking a more cooperative approach. measure, one has to ask why the previous So the solutions to housing reform will be government did not do something about very much dependent upon the support of the relative rent assistance rates between singles states. I might say that the housing ministers and couples. I recognise that people with continue to sign on to communiques and disabilities usually—not always, but frequent- resolutions—one of which was released after ly, certainly—have greater need of public 5192 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 housing than private housing because of the been increased by at least $10,000 since Mr need to change houses to accommodate their Max Moore-Wilton was appointed chair? Is disabilities. That is a very important consider- this acceptable behaviour from a person who ation which is being taken into account in the is heading up the Commonwealth public negotiations between the states and the service? Commonwealth in the housing reforms. It is Senator HILL—I do not know the detail, intended by the Commonwealth that these and I do not think that you would expect me reforms should go ahead with continuing to know the aspect relating to Southern Hydro strong consultation by the Commonwealth, and whether fees have increased. But I will state and territory governments with organisa- take that on notice and seek the information tions like the disability ones. you have sought. In relation to the issue of Senator WOODLEY—I thank the minister principle, I understand that disclosure was for her answer. I have had representations made to the Prime Minister— from groups like Unicare in Brisbane, which Senator Bob Collins—Did he declare his are very concerned because they have assisted conflict of interest before he started? in the deinstitutionalisation of many of these people and moved them into group homes Senator Cook—He has three jobs. where they provide assistance on a very tight The PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, resume budget. It really would be a problem for them your seat. There are too many interjections on to have any reduction in that assistance. I my left. Senator Hill, I do not know whether wonder whether you might advise the Senate you have finished your answer but— whether you are able to consult with groups Senator Faulkner—He sat down. such as Unicare in Brisbane? The PRESIDENT—I asked him to sit Senator NEWMAN—I have not met with down while the chamber came to order. Unicare in Brisbane. My door is very widely Senator Hill? open to all community groups that have an Senator HILL—I was saying that I under- interest in this portfolio. I might say that the stand that disclosure was made to the Prime women’s organisations are now saying that Minister, and that is what counts. this government is giving greater access to them than they ever achieved under the Senator FAULKNER—I have a supple- previous government, and the same thing goes mentary question, Madam President. This is for welfare organisations, for which I have an a serious matter and I ask the minister: can abiding interest and concern. I think you will you assure the Senate that Mr Max Moore- find that, if I am not available, my parlia- Wilton’s multiple sources of remuneration do mentary secretary or staff in my office are not create a serious conflict of interest? I available. But there is a continuing availabili- further ask: is Mr Max Moore-Wilton a ty of this government to listen, which is more suitable person to be investigating conflict of than you can say for the arrogance that interest among ministers in the Howard preceded us. government? Senator HILL—In my judgment, he is Mr Max Moore-Wilton particularly suitable and able to hold down Senator FAULKNER—My question is that position. Obviously, if he made full directed to Senator Hill, representing the disclosure to the Prime Minister, the circum- Prime Minister. Minister, is it a fact that the stances were accepted. Prime Minister confirmed today that the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Information Technology Minister and Cabinet received $50,000 as Senator O’CHEE—My question is ad- head of a Victorian transport committee? Is it dressed to Senator Alston, the Minister for also a fact that Mr Max Moore-Wilton re- Communications and the Arts. Minister, is it ceived $30,000 as chairman of Southern true that industry figures have criticised the Hydro? Can you inform the Senate whether former Labor government for its inaction over the chairman’s fees of Southern Hydro have issues related to the information and com- Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5193 munications revolution? Can you please the government on the implications of net- advise the Senate what this government is work services and technologies for service doing to fill the policy vacuum that was left areas on factors affecting their take-up by so embarrassingly by the previous govern- businesses within the sector, and steps which ment? the government can take to remove impedi- Senator ALSTON—Yes, it is true that ments to the deployment of such services on there has been significant criticism of the the most productive basis. previous administration’s tokenistic approach I am very much looking forward to an early to the challenges of the information revolu- report from that committee, which is being tion. There are so many things that need to be very ably chaired by Dr Terry Cutler. He has addressed—on-line services, multimedia provided a number of landmark reports, applications, the challenges of electronic particularly Commerce in content, which was commerce. All of these things were in despe- available to the previous government some 18 rate need of attention over the last couple of months to two years ago. It is therefore very years. It is fair to say that Jeff Kennett, as disturbing that Dr Cutler’s introductory Premier of Victoria, has led the way in this remarks to IPAC on Monday night effectively country, until now, by encouraging the estab- commenced with the following address to the lishment of something in excess of 400 multi- members, who are a very illustrious group: media software developers in the Southbank To begin with, we need to have a sense of urgency. precinct in Melbourne. That is why— We need to make up for 18 months of lost time. Senator Carr—Is that funded by the Our predecessor body NISC— Commonwealth government? that is Mr Keating’s National Information Senator ALSTON—No, funded by the Services Council— Victorian government and substantially by the met only once and did nothing. Many, many people private industry. It is a critically important have commented to me that we have to make up area. That is why we established an Informa- for lost time. tion Policy Advisory Council, which had its It is an absolute tragedy that even someone first meeting last Monday, to bring together like Mr Keating, who pretended to have an leaders in the industry and the community to interest in this subject, was only prepared to discuss the future of our country in the infor- go to the point of establishing a committee as mation age. The main focus of the meeting pure window-dressing and then to have no was not only a discussion on the overall follow-up at all. To the extent that Mr ongoing role of IPAC and its priorities for Keating was not able to be involved, we had action but also a concentration on practical Mr Lee who chaired the telecommunications outcomes. advisory panel. But whenever you asked any I have already given the council two refer- members of that panel how it was going, they ences. The first relates to the investigation of said, ‘Mr Lee never says anything.’ When Bill on-line infrastructure and services develop- Gates was out here about 18 months ago, he ment in rural and regional Australia. There is spent about an hour with Mr Keating. On his growing demand for on-line services and new way out he said to one of his aids, ‘Who was network technologies in regional Australia. that little boy sitting in the corner who did Telstra is upgrading its nationwide network nothing?’ The bloke said, ‘Don’t worry about and a growing number of Internet service him. He is just Michael Lee, the Minister for providers are operating services to non- Communications.’ metropolitan users. Nonetheless, rural industry The fact is you are a standing joke in this and users continue to be constrained in their area. You have no commitment to the elec- access to services at affordable prices. tronic age. You are not interested in multi- IPAC will also investigate the deployment media services. You were not prepared to of information and communications services bring together a body of leading talents in the and technologies with the services sector of industry. We are. We only have to have two the economy. It will investigate and advise meetings to double your achievement. The 5194 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 second meeting will be held very shortly. That offer was refused on the basis that if the (Time expired) AMA could not appear separately it was not interested in appearing at all. Australian Medical Association: The Committees of the Parliament are forced every Medicare Provider Numbers day to make such decisions which inevitably result in the exclusion of people who would wish to Senator NEAL—My question is addressed appear. to the Minister representing the Minister for The views of the AMA have always been appreci- Health and Family Services. Why has the ated and therefore if you have additional material AMA and its national representative on you wish to place before the Committee then the training been prevented by the government Committee would, I am sure, be very pleased to members from addressing the public hearing accept a supplementary submission. of the community affairs committee on That is a letter dated 5 November from Medicare provider numbers; further, what has Senator Knowles, the chairman of the com- Dr Wooldridge done to encourage the coali- munity affairs committee to the Federal tion members to allow the AMA to be heard? President of the AMA. I think it speaks for Senator Patterson—Do you like this, Meg? itself. Senator NEAL—Madam President, I ask Senator NEWMAN—The Labor Party a supplementary question. Do you, Minister, being the advocates for the AMA is a lovely consider that it is appropriate for the chair of turn of events. I think the answer to this the committee, Senator Knowles, to attempt question is best given by reading the letter to prevent the AMA from addressing the which the chairman of the community affairs committee on this particular matter? committee, Senator Knowles, sent to Dr Woollard, the Federal President of the Aus- Senator NEWMAN—I do not know tralian Medical Association. She says: whether Senator Neal needs a redundancy, but it is certainly a pretty redundant sort of Further to our conversation of today’s date I question. You have all the detail in the letter. thought it necessary to confirm to you the reasons for the Committee’s decision to, on this rare The committee decided that. It was Senator occasion, not include the Australian Medical Lees herself, the deputy chairman, who Association on the list of those who will provide negotiated with the AMA, and they turned the formal oral evidence to the inquiry. committee’s offer down. The Committee considered that the submission Training Programs provided by the AMA was particularly comprehen- sive and that the AMA has stated its position Senator TIERNEY—My question is clearly and unequivocally since the announcement directed to the Minister for Employment, relating to Medicare Provider Numbers. Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can The Committee therefore believed that it was the minister outline to the Senate the range of important (within the limited time available) to training programs that this government has in learn the views of other interested parties whose place to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait opinions have not had such extensive coverage. Islander Australians to achieve greater partici- (The Committee has four bills before it for con- pation levels in the work force; can the sideration in two days and has already sought the minister give the Senate examples of these unusual step of seeking permission of the Senate to meet while the Senate is sitting, to accommodate programs being put into action; and what sort the workload). of results does the government hope to achieve with these initiatives? Because of the time constraints [the Deputy Chair- man] Senator Lees offered representatives of the Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator AMA an opportunity to provide one witness who Tierney for his question. It deals with just one could appear before the Committee together with, part of my portfolio that is of great import- for example, the NSW Resident Medical Officers ance to me as it is to other senators on this Association. side of the chamber as it deals with a part of I see Senator Lees nodding in agreement. It the community who are, unfortunately, some goes on: of the least privileged in our community. It is Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5195 helpful to make known to honourable senators is not a 26-week turning mousewheel that we that, despite the budget position, left to us by put people through. This is a real job. the previous government, with the $8 billion The government is working with a major Beazley bankcard black hole, we have main- employer to ensure that indigenous people get tained the level of funding for the training of an opportunity to access employment with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander program, real, genuine, career prospects: in other known as TAT, at the level equivalent to the words, these people—on the day they com- previous government’s forward estimates for mence work under this strategy—are recruited this financial year. One important element of to a real job. At the same time, we will the TAT program is employment strategies ensure that the appropriate support is in place where we join in partnership with enterprises so that as many as possible of these recruits to introduce special career development and stay in the work force and progress in the recruitment arrangements. TAT can provide work force. This is the sort of model that is funding for agreements that put into place the very much consistent with the principles of sort of strategies that I have just referred to. this government. It is the sort of partnership Senator Tierney’s question is particularly that we will be pursuing in future years with timely because only today my department was employers and particurlarly with private sector involved in the launch of an important TAT employers throughout the country to advance project which is a major venture with the the opportunities in employment for indigen- New South Wales Department of Land and ous Australians. Water Conservation. This project, in which Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask that the Commonwealth will be spending approxi- further questions be placed on the Notice mately $2.7 million over the next five years Paper. on top of approximately $3.5 million which will be provided by the New South Wales Telstra state government, will create 110 positions for Senator CARR (Victoria) (3.04 p.m.)—I Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people move: over that period. At the end of the five-year That the Senate take note of the answer given by program, it is anticipated that there will have the Minister for Communications and the Arts been created 16 cadetships, 60 traineeships, (Senator Alston), to a question without notice asked five apprenticeships, 10 professional staff by Senator Carr this day, relating to the public rela- positions, 15 clerical staff positions and three tions activities of Telstra. labourers’ positions. The jobs—and these we Three weeks ago, Elaine Brown, administrator anticipate to be real jobs as we are not talking of the war room at Telstra, in the commercial about a 26-week training program here—will and consumer division, wrote to a series of be spread out through regional New South executives outlining Telstra’s strategy for Wales in such areas as Dubbo, Orange, public opinion manipulation and the identifi- Tamworth, Grafton, Wollongong, Wagga cation of a number of journalists that were Wagga and Albury. causing Telstra a few difficulties. She also In addition to these jobs, the program also identified critics and sought to marginalise includes a range of measures to ensure that critics of Telstra and in so doing establish not there are good retention rates achieved for just a small question arising out of discussion these recruits and also to ensure that they are about the Internet services but an opening of provided with training and development a window on the way in which Telstra is opportunities so that they can advance within currently operating. It is operating in such a the career structure. They will start with a real manner as to facilitate the government’s job and advance within the career structure political priorities and its political objectives and they will not simply remain at the entry while, at the same time, advancing its busi- levels within the department. The very im- ness interests in the lead-up to privatisation. portant thing about this project is that it is not Everything that occurs in Telstra in the simply about training for training’s sake. This current environment is aimed at the ultimate 5196 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 objective of privatisation. Already, without a attention is being diverted away from the motion being passed by this Senate and issues which go to the effect of the business without a law being enacted by this parlia- operations of Telstra, particularly within the ment, the actions of this government are context of privatisation. We are concerned distorting all the actions of Telstra throughout that this now follows a pattern. We have its every business unit. This document high- already seen, in terms of the Senate inquiry, lights that all actions of a politically sensitive project mercury being established and fol- nature now have to be cleared with the lowed through. We have also seen project minister’s office. This document highlights straw man with regard to the research labora- the fact that, in the run-up to privatisation, tories in Melbourne. We now have the war quite clearly they are concerned about the room. opposition. It says: A report in this morning’s Herald-Sun by In the run-up to privatisation the opposition will be seeking opportunities to demonstrate that Telstra’s Clinton Porteous reveals that a secret strategy behaviour as a fully commercially focused entity to counter the media and industry criticism will place commercial before public interest. It is has been established. A war room has been therefore imperative that Telstra advises the established to manage information and to seek minister’s office in advance of initiatives that may to distort it in such a way as to protect the be politically sensitive. government from any action that might What we see from these documents is that, surprise the government during the Telstra quite clearly, Telstra has entered into the privatisation debate. This article identifies that political debate. A publicly funded corpora- the war room is expecting not only to not tion, run for public benefit, is involving itself achieve a full 100 per cent cessation of in the political debate on the issues that are hostilities between Telstra and its Internet before this parliament in such a way as just service providers but also to manipulate not to present a public interest but to present opinion in such a way as to marginalise any the commercial interest of the statutory critics. It is singling out and diverting atten- corporation and in a manner that seeks to tion away from the key issues. For a public identify critics, to marginalise them and to corporation to be involved in such practices highlight—in a politically unethical manner— is in itself totally inappropriate. devices by which public opinion can be manipulated and the interests of Telstra and Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) the government can be advanced in so doing. (3.09 p.m.)—I rise to support the motion moved by my colleague Senator Carr regard- It just so happens that they have identified ing the answer given by Senator Alston, the four specialist journalists in terms of this Minister for Communications and the Arts, to particular document. John Hilvert of the him at question time today. First, it was clear Australian, Peter Young of Computer World, from the minister’s answer that he either did Charles Wright of the Australian Financial not know, or he made out he did not know, Review and Sue Lowe of the Sydney Morning of the existence of this document, which has Herald have been identified. This document come into the possession of the opposition clearly sets out the strategies that are being and is now being made available. It is an pursued, seeking to isolate, to marginalise, to interesting document. It is dated 22 October identify what they regard and this government and is headed ‘From Elaine Brown, War obviously regard as unreasonable critics and Room Administrator’. If you were dealing to specify manners by which their opinions with the Department of Defence, you might can be marginalised and corralled in such a have a war room, or if you were an aficiona- way as to advance the interests of Telstra. do for the movie Dr Strangelove, you may This document clearly demonstrates that have one. However, there really is something Telstra has now entered the political debate in culturally wrong in an organisation such as a manner that will seek to advance their Telstra, which is government owned, creating position, often while inaccurate and mis- something called a war room and naming an leading propaganda is being presented. Public officer as the administrator of it. It gives quite Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5197 an unhappy presentation to the public about This is a further justification for maintain- how Telstra sees the way it should handle its ing Telstra in public ownership. If Telstra public relations. were privatised, with its dominant market As Senator Carr said, over the last seven or power being around 90 per cent, and let loose eight months since the new government came with this sort of approach to running its into office, we have had these new develop- business in Australia without reference to the ments of Project Mercury and Project Straw Australian public other than through the Stock Man. They are projects aimed at overcoming Exchange, the national interest would be a difficulty or promoting a new arrangement seriously weakened. That is one reason why that advantages Telstra. They want to advan- we strongly support Telstra being publicly tage Telstra by achieving the political, ideo- owned. Because it has 90 per cent of the logical end of this government, which is the business of telecommunications in Australia, privatisation of Telstra. it ought to be responsible to the people of Australia. The document, though mentioning issues relating to the Internet, is really about Telstra should not get involved in the sort marginalising those who criticise Telstra. of grubby exercise that is outlined in this Telstra may be somewhat successful, because document, which refers to a war room admin- they are a very big player in the communica- istrator. It should not finger particular journal- tions network of Australia. They hold around ists who have to be lobbied or, if they are not 90 per cent of the business. successfully converted to Telstra’s view, marginalised. It is not an acceptable level of Senator Alston would say that that is what ethics for any organisation in Australia, you get from a government-owned institution. particularly for a government-owned enter- He is the minister. He has the power to direct. prise. We believe that this is one case where You would have thought he would set out the the minister should openly state that this is ethics for the operation of Telstra when they unacceptable and tell Telstra to get on with start developing these sorts of projects. But, the job of running a successful telecommuni- no— cations business in an open and transparent Senator Carr—They are briefing him. way. Senator SCHACHT—At the moment, they Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital are briefing him. The document identifies the Territory) (3.14 p.m.)—I also rise to support key stakeholders as the minister’s office and my colleague Senator Carr in taking note of Mr Paul Fletcher, the person who should be the answer given by the Minister for Com- contacted and involved in discussions over munications and the Arts (Senator Alston) at Telstra strategy. This means that the minis- question time today. It is quite interesting to ter’s office is directly involved in commercial see this document that Senator Carr has activities, which affects relations with journal- circulated, because it really confirms all the ists. You cannot convince this opposition that fears about the privatisation of Telstra that there is not a political intent in the involve- have been expressed by both me and my ment of the minister’s office in these arrange- colleagues in this chamber. It also expresses ments. all the fears and concerns that were quite well If the minister were open and transparent, articulated in the inquiry report that was com- he would knock on the head these sorts of pleted only a few weeks ago. projects and say to Telstra, ‘Get on with There is one issue that really needs address- developing your commercial interests in an ing straight up, and that is whether the open and transparent way with reasonable and minister’s ignorance of this issue is in fact decent ethics.’ That is not what this minister feigned or real. This begs the question. The has been about. He has been happy to be document states that the briefing to the key involved in the discussion about this. Certain- government and regulatory authorities, which ly his office has been identified as being are specifically listed in the document as involved. including the minister’s office as well as the 5198 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

ACCC, the broadcasting authority, and the wholesale provider of bandwidth to Internet department, all occurred in mid-September. I service providers but in fact a retail competi- put on the record that there is still a question tor of such services, the endorsement, ac- hanging over whether or not the minister’s knowledgment or approval of the ACCC is in office has had the brief. fact quite fundamental to this whole strategy. That takes me to the next point, which is if This whole strategy, to me, is about Telstra the minister’s office has had a brief, has it positioning itself to make money, to make a taken the time and the opportunity to fill the profit, and to define and secure the market minister in on these very important issues. My share of Internet usage. colleague Senator Schacht highlighted, quite It is no surprise to anyone in this chamber correctly, what sort of culture has been bred that Internet usage is on an exponential within Telstra. Quite obviously, Telstra is in growth curve. Whoever positions themselves the complete mind-set of moving towards full in quite a secure way over the next short privatisation. You will notice that this docu- period of time, particularly in the lead-up to ment does not refer to partial privatisation; it the July 1997 changes, will do so in the refers to privatisation. knowledge that they will secure a solid Certainly, this is nothing new to us, as income stream from their particular service members of the Labor opposition. It just provider. confirms the position we have taken on it. But So, back to the question of where this it really exposes the position taken by the leaves the Internet service providers, the government, that the partial privatisation is in current ISPs. The bottom line is that Telstra fact, as we know, the first step to full has got these service providers, these busines- privatisation. ses that have set themselves up to on-sell There are a couple of other issues that are bandwidth, where they want them. This is worthy of extracting and highlighting from unfortunate for them, and it is unfortunate that this document. With regard to this Internet the privatisation of Telstra will lead to the strategy, Telstra not only is the provider of reduction of competition in that sector. (Time the wholesale bandwidth of the Internet expired) service providers but also it has been posi- Question resolved in the affirmative. tioning itself for quite some time as a retail provider. Telstra is looking to establish itself Australian Medical Association: as an Internet service provider. Medicare Providers Numbers This document represents the re-positioning Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (3.21 they have had to do since they first got such p.m.)—I move: a negative response in taking on the Internet That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman), service providers generally. It is a very to a question without notice asked by Senator Neal interesting point that the ACCC is so high up today, relating to the appearance of representatives on their list of briefings. In fact, straight after of the Australian Medical Association before the the minister’s office you have the Department Community Affairs Legislation Committee. of Communications and the Arts. One would There was some mirth expressed by Senator hope that they were considered important Newman in response to this question on the enough to be briefed. basis that she seemed to think it was some- The next one in line is in fact the ACCC. how humorous that the opposition, the Aus- The ACCC would need to be dealt with pretty tralian Labor Party, should defend the right of early on if this strategy were to be implement- the AMA to speak to a committee in relation ed, because it raises very serious issues about to a matter that they were concerned about. how Telstra positions itself with respect to Frankly, I find that amusement really quite competition policy. To have what is a public out of place. It certainly has been the view of entity in the considerable position of market the ALP, whether or not they agreed with the domination now manoeuvring itself in antici- views of those members of the community, pation of privatisation to become not only the that they should always have the opportunity Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5199 to address an issue that is going to affect inappropriate or would not assist patients at them quite severely, and certainly this is the large, but the difficulty is that most medical case in this instance. graduates, after having spent six years train- The Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. ing, will not be able to receive any remu- 2) 1996, which is presently being considered neration unless they are able to obtain a by the committee, has a major effect not only position in a hospital. A position may or may on medical practitioners at large but particu- not be available to them in their area. larly in relation to medical graduates who I am of the view that these changes are have undertaken their course and who, in particularly unfair in that they take effect future, may well have their right to practice immediately. The changes are not deferred adversely affected by the changes that are until present medical graduates have come contained in this bill. I am certain that a through and received their provider numbers. number of practising doctors in this chamber, They take effect immediately. Just for one on both sides, would be very aware of that moment put yourself in the position of medi- and would certainly be very aware of the cal undergraduates who have done, say, five anger and upset in the community, particular- years study and are waiting to do their intern ly by those trainee doctors and medical year next year and suddenly discover that undergraduates. In fact, I understand that at before they can practise they may have to do the moment—and this has been happening somewhere between three and five years throughout the week—industrial action is further training. being taken in a number of places to express There are three areas where it has particular those views. impact. One relates to graduates who may In light of the very strong feelings that have want to supplement their incomes while they been expressed through this industrial action do their training. That is quite a common and by way of submissions that a number of occurrence. They may fill in in out of hours people made to me, I feel very strongly that clinics or with a doctor who is going away on it should have been appropriate for the com- holidays. They may also do late night sec- mittee to allow the AMA to address it. I was tions. They cannot do that under the new provided with a copy of the letter that was regime. (Time expired) sent by the chairman of the committee to the Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia) AMA. I was grateful to receive that. But, in (3.25 p.m.)—I wish to respond not to the my view, it is not sufficient or satisfactory to substance of the legislation that Senator Neal say that an exhaustive submission in a written was just talking about but to the question that form to a committee is a satisfactory substitu- Senator Neal put to Senator Newman at tion for the opportunity for a group to put, in question time. It goes to the heart of why the person and orally, their views and to express Australian Medical Association was not on strongly their emotions about how it is going this occasion called to give evidence before to affect them. the Community Affairs Legislation Commit- There has been a lot of dispute and differ- tee. I have been on this committee for eight ent views expressed about the number of or 10 years—I am not too sure of the exact medical graduates who are going to be affect- time. ed by this change. In my view, medical This would be one of the rare occasions, if graduates are going to be affected. The not the only occasion, that the Australian change to this legislation means that graduates Medical Association has not been called to will no longer be able to do their intern year, give evidence on an issue that relates to the then go out to practice and receive a medical profession. The interesting thing is Medicare provider number until they have that, on this occasion, we have so many done a general practitioner course, which will submissions in relation to not only this bill take them, in most cases, a number of years. but also the other three bills that the commit- I suppose on the face of it that is appealing. tee is addressing in the next two days—and No-one would argue that further training is all the bills have been referred to the commit- 5200 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 tee by the opposition parties—that we are one that has effectively said to me, ‘We will trying to accommodate as many views as take this further and you mark my words.’ possible. The others have accepted the rationale that we I spoke to Dr Woollard, the National Presi- cannot hear everyone and that it is important dent of the AMA, for 28 minutes yesterday. that we get the broadest cross-section of I told him that the reason we did not include opinion possible. the AMA on this rare occasion was that their I am hoping that the Australian Medical submission was exceedingly comprehensive. Association, in the light of day, will see that It is interesting that Senator Neal is actually this is one rare occasion when they have not leaving the chamber and is not interested to been called. That does not mean to say that hear the explanation that I am giving. The the committee will not take into consideration explanation is particularly significant. I have their excellent submission or the views that to admit that Dr Woollard failed to accept that they have repeatedly expressed in every explanation. As I said to him and as I said in section of the media since the announcement the letter, the AMA provided a very compre- regarding Medicare provider numbers. hensive and detailed submission. There is no It is unquestionably a very representative question about that. body of the medical profession. It is in no Senator West—They are the key union. way intended as a slight upon them in any They are the main representative body for way, shape or form. It is simply a fact that doctors. the opposition parties have seen fit to put bill Senator KNOWLES—Would you mind after bill before one committee. There are stopping chirping like a canary, Senator West. four pieces of legislation for the committee to You really sound like a chicken in a chicken consider in two days. We cannot hear every- coop. one. We are seeking to get the broadest possible representation and consultation Senator West—That shows the respect you available. hold them in. Senator COONEY (Victoria) (3.30 p.m.)— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There are two points that are raised in this Disregard the interjections, Senator Knowles. matter. The first relates to how a committee Senator KNOWLES—As I explained to Dr should be run. I think that is a matter for each Woollard yesterday, the fact remains that his committee to decide. I do not want to go into submission was exceedingly good and his the pros and cons of what has happened on views and the views of the AMA are hardly this occasion. However, having listened to unknown to the committee. Therefore, the Senator West, I think she was saying this: on committee made a judgment that, given the a matter such as this, where medical students limited time, we would actually seek the and medical people generally are very much opinions of those that were less well known affected, the AMA, which represents all those to the committee so that we had the broadest groups across the board, would be a good opinion on which to base the committee’s candidate to be considered as to whether or decision and judgment. It was the view of the not they ought to give evidence. I leave it at committee that it was important to hear as that. I think it would be wrong for me, as a many voices as possible. To ensure that that person who believes heavily in the committee is possible, we will hear from all types of system, to interfere in any way with the students who may be affected, whether they workings of a committee. I simply translate to be resident medical officers, doctors in train- the people listening what Senator West was ing or others. There are so many who want to saying. be heard. There is the issue that has been raised about In addition, I have probably had six or eight the provider numbers themselves. I must phone calls from other organisations that also confess that I have a big personal interest in wish to be heard. Interestingly enough, the this matter. The deputy clerk has often said Australian Medical Association is the only that financial interests are one basis upon Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5201 which you might have a conflict of interest on years of hard, slogging work. I can assure things. I think other issues are as well. On you, Mr Deputy President, it is hard, slogging this occasion the fact that I have a daughter work. At the end of that time, at five minutes who is in the middle of the situation that has to midnight, they are deprived of the expecta- been created by this legislation is a good tion which they have reasonably had until illustration of how you can be affected. now. That is the real problem in all of this. Having declared my interest, I think it is a Question resolved in the affirmative. point that ought to be considered very much COMMITTEES by all people who are approaching this issue, because the issue on this occasion seems to Membership me to be driven not by interests in people’s The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The Presi- health, but by interests in the budget’s health. dent has received a letter from the Leader of This legislation does not prevent any of these the Opposition in the Senate (Senator people who will be deprived of provider Faulkner) seeking to vary the membership of numbers, in circumstances where they other- committees. wise would not have been, from practising. It Motion (by Senator Campbell)—by does not stop them treating people. In other leave—agreed to: words, it is not legislation which prevents the That Senators be discharged and appointed to people it affects from treating patients. What committees as follows: it does is stop those patients claiming back from Medicare what has been charged to them Community Affairs Legislation Committee by these people who will now be without Participating members: Senator West provider numbers. That is something that Senator Lundy for 8 ought to be understood by all those people November 1996 who are considering this legislation. It is not legislation about health; it is legislation about National Crime Authority—Joint Statutory Commit- money. tee For that reason this may well have been a Appointed: Senator Gibbs. bill that could have gone to the finance Discharged: Senator Bolkus. committee instead of the committee to which NOTICES OF MOTION it did go. It seems to me to be harsh that the people who will be affected by this financial Economics Legislation Committee measure are people who have in no way Senator FERGUSON (South Australia)— contributed to the financial problems, such as by leave—I give notice that, on the next day they are, within the health system. These are of sitting, I shall move: young students who have never had the That the time for the presentation of the report chance to claim on Medicare, so they are of the Economics Legislation Committee on the being punished, as it were, for what other provisions of the Bounty Legislation Amendment people have done. Bill 1996 be extended to 21 November 1996. It has been alleged that there have been BOUNTY LEGISLATION rorts within the Medicare system. So what do AMENDMENT BILL 1996 you do? You do not punish those who have Report of Community Affairs Legislation committed those rorts; they are left with their Committee provider numbers. You punish the patients Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia)— who will go to these people who are now I present the report of the Community Affairs coming through and who, until this time, have Legislation Committee on the provisions of had the reasonable expectation of getting a the Social Security Legislation Amendment Medicare provider number. (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1996, I conclude on this point: these people have together with submissions and transcript of gone through their courses, they have done proceedings. their schooling, they have done up to six Ordered that the report be printed. 5202 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— proposed. It was not just the peak groups such Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.37 as the Australian Council of Social Service p.m.)—by leave—This report deals with the and the National Welfare Rights Network who Social Security Legislation Amendment made valuable contributions to the committee. (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1996, a bill Community neighbourhood centres, concerned that gives effect to a large proportion of the citizens and small organisations whose re- social security measures—largely harsh sources are already stretched took the time to ones—announced by the coalition government write to the committee and make us aware of in the 1996 budget. As mentioned in the their concerns. minority report contained in the documents tabled by Senator Knowles, Labor’s response A concerned individual, Mr Stephen Mor- to this legislation and, indeed, to all the row from Newtown in Sydney, wrote to the measures announced in the 1996-97 budget, committee about the measures affecting is based on how the measures weigh up unemployed people. He commented: against three principles: does the measure I understand that this Bill will increase penalties betray a promise; is it equitable; and does it from two weeks to anything up to thirteen weeks, contribute to national savings? for alleged breaches of the Department of Social Security procedures by recipients of unemployment When we looked at this bill in detail— benefits. I believe this measure is unjust and particularly at the committee stage—we felt inappropriate. It will obviously have a significant that, in a great many respects, the proposed and serious impact on unemployed people, and it legislation falls sadly short of meeting these will in turn have a negative impact on the wider three principles. Not only does it betray many community in which these citizens live. The current economic situation means that there are increasing promises, not only is it inequitable, but some numbers of unemployed people. As a society, we of the measures contained within it will have a moral obligation and an economic interest certainly not contribute to national savings. in ensuring that these people will remain within the We pointed out in our report that the bounds of community. The proposed Bill will impoverish these people even further and alienate coalition went to the last election making very them from the community. We cannot afford this. strong commitments to the people of Austral- ia. In particular, John Howard promised that Those are Mr Morrow’s comments. I do not his government would protect the poor, the think I could have put it any better. needy and the most vulnerable in our com- The measures contained in this bill, de- munity. This bill includes measures that, far signed to cut people off payments and reduce from fulfilling those commitments, specifical- their benefits, will have the effect of exiling ly harm those whom John Howard singled out certain people beyond the bounds of our for protection. The removal of a massive $1.5 community, relegating them to destitution and billion over four years from the social security despair. While this may satisfy the ideologi- safety net alone underlines that betrayal. cally driven Howard government, it will This, we believe, is John Howard’s most inevitably have a negative impact on the cynical broken promise because it was a wider community. promise that meant so much to the community The proposed legislation does not reflect a and so many believed it. We in the Labor commitment to protect the poor, the needy or Party will not stand by and allow Australians the most vulnerable in the community. In fact, to be betrayed. it is an attack on many of those people. Many Examining the proposed legislation in detail of the measures contained in the proposed through the committee confirmed that certain- legislation will actually worsen the plight of ly we in the Labor Party are not the only ones unemployed people and other social security who believe that the proposed legislation is recipients. Rather than addressing the issue of not equitable. Submissions received by the unemployment, the government has chosen to committee, and evidence given during the implement measures that will slash the range hearings, revealed that there is a great deal of of benefits to unemployed people and income concern in the community about the measures support recipients more broadly. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5203

As we said in our minority report, the I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert proposed legislation is based on the premise Digest No. 11 1996, dated 6 November 1996. that unemployed people are seeking to rort Ordered that the report be printed. the system. The reality is that the majority of unemployed people are honest, genuine job GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE seekers. The excessive measures to tighten the PARK ZONING PLANS activity test and expand the breach provisions, Debate resumed. coupled with the abolition or tightening of a number of schemes that actually assisted job Motion (by Senator Ferguson) proposed: seekers, makes this bill very anti-unemployed. That further debate on the motion (Senator Lees’s) Labor believes that the government’s efforts be adjourned. should be devoted to reducing unemployment (Quorum formed) rather than cutting people off payments. However, this proposed legislation is attempt- Question put: ing to do just that. That the motion (Senator Ferguson’s) be agreed There is very little in the proposed legisla- to. tion that the Australian community can be The Senate divided. [3.50 p.m.] happy about. The concerns raised in many (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret submissions to the committee have not been Reid) taken on board in the report. For this reason, Ayes ...... 53 Labor felt it was important to submit a Noes ...... 9 minority report, and these views were shared —— by the Australian Democrats. Majority ...... 44 Labor is determined to amend portions of —— the bill to reflect a commitment to equity and AYES to attempt to fulfil John Howard’s commit- Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. Bishop, M. Boswell, R. L. D. ment to protect the poor, the needy and the Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. most vulnerable in our community. Labor Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P. cannot and will not stand by and allow the Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A. most vulnerable in our community to pay the Colston, M. A. Conroy, S. price for the coalition’s ideological obses- Coonan, H. Cooney, B. sions. I thank the Senate. Crane, W. Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I take the Faulkner, J. P. Ferguson, A. B. opportunity of reminding the Leader of the Ferris, J Gibbs, B. Opposition in the Senate that proper forms of Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B. address are helpful when referring to a Prime Heffernan, W. Herron, J. Hill, R. M. Hogg, J. Minister. Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. Senator FAULKNER—What did I say? Lundy, K. Macdonald, I. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—‘John Macdonald, S. Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. Howard’ rather than ‘Mr Howard’. Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J. Senator FAULKNER—I thought I was Newman, J. M. O’Brien, K. W. K. fairly moderate considering what I could have O’Chee, W. G. Panizza, J. H. * said. Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M. Sherry, N. COMMITTEES Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Scrutiny of Bills Committee Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M. Woods, R. L. Report NOES Senator COONEY (Victoria) (3.43 p.m.)— Allison, L. Bourne, V. * I present the 10th report of 1996 of the Senate Brown, B. Kernot, C. Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Lees, M. H. Margetts, D. 5204 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

NOES rest breaks, notice periods, variation of hours, Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N. superannuation and outworkers. Woodley, J. Secondly, it further expands the operation * denotes teller of allowable matters in 89A(5) to pick up Question so resolved in the affirmative. incidental matters necessary but not essential Motion (by Senator Calvert) agreed to: for the effective operation of the award. Ordered that the resumption of the debate Thirdly, it clearly ensures that the commis- be an order of the day for Monday, 18 sion has the power to set minimum consecu- November 1996. tive hours that a part-time worker can work and the regularity of such hours, thereby WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND preventing the further casualisation of part- OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT time work. BILL 1996 Fourthly, it allows arbitration outside In Committee allowable matters in 89A(6) for exceptional matters. The combined effect of these changes Consideration resumed from 5 November. is to broaden the powers of the commission The CHAIRMAN—The committee is enormously and to ensure that the commission considering the bill as a whole and Senator has sufficient power to prevent workers being Margetts’s amendment No. 5 to government disadvantaged in a harsh or unjust manner. amendment No. 19. The list of allowable matters will now Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) clearly pick up all important aspects of hours (3.54 p.m.)—When we concluded last eve- of duty, skill development and career paths ning, I was in the middle of quoting from the and superannuation. The coverage of superan- Labor document Working Nation at page 33 nuation by awards may be reviewed again and I continue: next year but only if the government’s free- It is a key element in the Government’s strategy for dom of choice legislation clearly guarantees achieving its overall objectives for enterprise that industry super funds will not be under- bargaining and industrial relations reform... mined and that workers will not be made This bill, I am sure the government will be worse off under the new legislation. horrified to hear me say, is far less radical in Mention was made of superannuation. I am these respects than Labor’s proposals with a glad that Senator Sherry is in the chamber much more extensive list of award matters. because this is his area of particular expertise. The Democrats have persuaded the govern- It is a bit rich for the Labor Party to stand ment to include superannuation as an allow- up and talk about how far awards have been able award matter. We have provided a letter stripped back when their own long-term plan to the government outlining our position on for the labour market had this clear and public superannuation. That letter has been released intention. As I outlined earlier to the Labor publicly and I would like to refer briefly to it. ranks, it is the implementation that may The Democrats have said that we can see differ; it is certainly not the intention between some merit in having one piece of legislation the two sides of the chamber. dealing with superannuation. The situation This amendment which the government and where the first three per cent of compulsory Democrats have put, to which there are super is award based and the other six per opposing amendments, is particularly import- cent is by superannuation guarantee charge ant; it is the most important in this schedule. legislation is untidy. I do not think it is It does a number of things to change the radical to state that we would be prepared to content of awards. The government and review this. Democrat amendment No. 19 firstly expands But we then go on in our letter to outline the list of allowable award matters in 89A(2) the preconditions the government will need to to expressly include skill-based career paths, meet for such a piece of legislation to get our Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5205 support. Firstly, it must ensure that workers an improvement, but, in real terms, they never are not worse off. That affects, for instance, go forward either. So award based super the award regulation of casual workers earn- clauses are not the massive benefit that the ing less than $450 a month or $900 a month ALP claims they are, and we will support under the coalition’s policy. retention of those conditions at this time but Secondly, the legislation, particularly if it only because half a bird in the hand is better includes freedom of choice provisions or than none at all. retirement savings accounts, should not be used to undermine industry funds. The Demo- The other remarks I wish to make about crats are strong supporters of the industry this award section are as follows. In lobbying funds which we believe provide good value about this section, unions have sought to for money for most award employees. Much pressure us to include issues such as accident of the argument which the AIRC hears about make-up pay, occupational health and safety superannuation at present is about which and staffing. Accident make-up pay, accord- union preferred fund super will be sent to. ing to expert legal advice, is clearly covered under 89A(2)(j), allowances, and I will be We make it clear in our letter that if agree- asking the minister to confirm that interpreta- ment is reached on these issues, we will tion. Occupational health and safety is, ac- support the removal of superannuation from cording to our advice, more properly dealt awards simply because it will no longer be with under state law and specific federal laws necessary. The award coverage of superannua- dealing with workplace health and safety. tion ceased to be comprehensive in 1991 Most occupational health and safety award when the then ALP government moved to clauses, such as protective clothing, would circumvent the 1991 national wage case likewise come under 89A(2)(j). outcome they did not agree with by imple- menting it in legislation. It was the ALP Staffing issues, we believe, will be picked which chose to move superannuation advance- up under the exceptional matters orders. ment out of awards into legislation in 1991. Staffing disputes shall be subject to the The Democrats supported the passage of the agreement in the first instance, as staffing is SGC legislation in 1992 because we felt that at first pass an issue for the business to compulsory savings were essential to increase determine. But where staffing is so inappro- our declining national savings rate. The main priate that the workloads are in themselves people disadvantaged by the repeal of award harsh or unjust, then the commission should super clauses would have been those exempt- have the power to intervene to remove that ed from the SGC, that is, those workers harshness—and these provisions will allow for earning less than $450 a month. that. It is worth noting that, notwithstanding all The part-time employment provisions reflect the grandstanding by Labor in favour of those the Democrats’ view that part-time employ- 20,000 to 50,000 workers affected, these ment must be encouraged. Too many awards workers were disadvantaged under Labor’s contain too many restrictions on part-time super legislation. This is because the fees that employment. These restrictions were often put super funds were taking out were bigger than in awards as part of bargaining deals, with the super money going in. unions wanting to preserve the bargaining In 1994, the government finally introduced chip of restricting access to part-time employ- its small amounts legislation, but it was a ment to gain future advantages. We believe paltry solution because, instead of moving that the use of access of such work as a small amounts to a single super fund with bargaining chip is inappropriate—and hence government picking up the administrative our opposition to quotas and maximum hours. costs, it allowed the union sponsored funds to But we do believe that part-time work does keep the money so long as fees were not require regulation of minimum hours to higher than interest income. In nominal terms, prevent employers seeking to casualise part- the accounts do not go backwards, which is time work with a minimum call-in period. 5206 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

Hours must also be predictable, and we have not include the exceptional matter. And that allowed for that. is really the key criterion in determining We have sought independent legal advice whether a party can access this jurisdiction. on the scope of section 89A. Two of So it is quite clear that 89A(6) establishes a Australia’s most prominent and eminent very important jurisdiction for the commis- industrial lawyers have advised us that section sion, a very important protection for avoiding 89A clearly covers all of the most important harsh or unjust outcomes; that is a wide and employment conditions of current awards. The important but still well targeted jurisdiction. clause will give the commission the authority Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) to actually proceed to develop a real and (4.05 p.m.)—Senator Murray indicated that effective award simplification process—and occupational health and safety, which was one that is something which we support. This of the concerns of the Greens (WA) in the list amendment is an important part of accelerat- of what is available as scope for industrial ing Labor’s completely log jammed 150A action—which, as I have said before, should award modernisation process, and I commend be read as ‘limits to industrial action’—is it to the Senate. more appropriate under state laws. I find it a The exceptional matters orders are a vitally nonsense to suggest that. If you actually have important part of this new clause, and this in the federal law that that is the limitation clause has been inserted to make it quite clear which in fact says that you cannot have that the commission does have the power to industrial action for health and safety reasons, prevent harsh or unjust outcomes. Its arbitral then what does that mean is going to be in powers will ensure that employers are unable this law? Does it mean that the state laws will to take advantage of the weak bargaining overrule this? I do not think it is the case. position of employees to impose their will in Perhaps the Minister for Industrial Relations a harsh or unjust way. (Mr Reith) or Senator Murray can explain To access the exceptional matters jurisdic- that. It sounds a lot like the government tion, there are a number of conditions. The speaking. It sounds a lot like what the govern- first is that the party has made a genuine ment said to us: ‘This is more appropriately attempt to reach agreement. The second is handled by the state government. This is not that there is no reasonable prospect of agree- our fault. This would be the state govern- ment from further conciliation. Those two ment.’ basically are the pre-conditions for arbitration If you look at occupational health and now. The third condition is that it is appropri- safety issues as they have been dealt with by ate to settle the matter by arbitration. That the state government in Western Australia, I means that the commission has a discretion would have to say that the standards seem to whether to arbitrate or not. be getting worse and worse. There are issues The fourth condition is that the issues there such as what constitutes ‘disablement’— involved are exceptional issues. I do not how much of a person’s body has to be act- believe that is a major barrier. The Concise ually rendered inoperative before a person can Oxford Dictionary defines ‘exceptional’ as claim proper compensation—and issues like ‘forming an exception’. ‘Exception’ is defined the ability of the employer to sue someone as ‘thing excepted; thing that does not follow when they get injured. Really interesting the rule’. The rule in this section is quite clear things are happening in Western Australia, from 89A(6) where it says that 89A(1) does and I would have to say that, if it is con- not exclude an exceptional matter. So the rule sidered to be more appropriate to deal under which is excepted is the rule that arbitration state laws, it is a pretty scary thing for work- is limited to section 89A(2), allowable mat- ers. ters. If there is any issue that should be allow- The fifth condition is clearly the most able under industrial action, I would think it important one, and that is that a harsh or is occupational health and safety matters, and unjust outcome would apply if the dispute did sometimes that is the only thing that workers Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5207 can do when they realise things have got too per cent rising to nine per cent. It is currently tough and that somebody may die or be six per cent. The administrative charges are seriously injured if those issues are not being generally fixed—they are a fixed money dealt with immediately. amount. So when superannuation first came Our amendment, which we will be dealing in at three per cent, if it was $1 a week with, is to go back to paid rates awards and charge that $1 a week charge was a very high to get rid of this whole section which limits proportion of a three per cent contribution. As what can be allowable for industrial action the contributions go up to nine per cent—I and the scope of industrial action. Given the hope 15 per cent, depending on what the Western Australian experience, to say that it government does with the government co- is more appropriate that it should be under contribution and the employee contribution— state laws and to restrict the ability for work- that dollar a week, if that is the fixed charge, ers to take action for valid health and occupa- does not go up with it. Over time, the admin- tional health and safety reasons I really think istrative charges are a declining proportion of is an appalling step in the wrong direction contribution. and is really going backwards in terms of Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) basic human rights. (4.10 p.m.)—I just wanted to ask Senator Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy Murray if he would please answer the ques- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.07 tion that I put to him yesterday. I think in part p.m.)—I anticipate that we will move to a he tried to respond by claiming that the Labor division on the Green amendment shortly. We government, in its Working Nation policy and have not said a lot about superannuation in also in various speeches by the then Prime this debate—I have to say it is one of the few Minister and then minister, had expressed times I have not—and I do not want to support for simplification of awards and, provoke an extensive debate on this matter. indeed, awards containing fewer clauses and Mr Chairman, through you, could I ask covering only the essential elements of a Senator Murray: did I hear you right, Senator contract of employment. No-one on this side Murray, when you referred to the provision of the chamber denies that the system that for opt out of superannuation for people came into operation following the amend- earning between $450 and $900 a month and ments by the Labor government was about you mentioned the figure of 25,000 or 35,000 award simplification. employees who could potentially opt out? But the point that you, Senator Murray, do Senator Murray—My notes are 20,000 to not seem to wish to acknowledge and face up 50,000 employees. to is that it was a very different process—it was a process whereby that would be done by Senator SHERRY—This is for future use: the commission—and that, as we know, the the figure is actually a minimum of half a government itself has an unfettered right to million. There are half a million to one intervene in any proceedings to make submis- million people, depending on casual and part- sions to the commission about what can or time people, earning between $400 and— cannot be in awards. That is the big distinc- Senator Murray—Maybe it is a typo and tion between the position that we adopted and they left off a nought. the position that the government adopts and Senator SHERRY—I suspect so. I make that you now support. only one point on this, Senator Murray. You I go back to my question: can you please referred to the earnings of people in superan- tell us why it is that you quite correctly nuation of between $450 and $900 a month. concluded that the 18 allowable matters was One of the factors—and it is a critical fac- a severe limitation and a severe measure in tor—that affects their accrual in superan- terms of legislative prescription to remove nuation, whether they are in an industry fund award entitlements and you then went on to or an in-house employer fund, is that they agree that only two matters should be added? started off with contribution levels of three What happened to all the others and why 5208 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 were you not prepared, if you were prepared we could in the circumstances. We are satis- to recognise the principle, to recognise that fied that we fulfilled our own brief. other award provisions could be included in We also agree, as strange as it may seem, the 18 allowable matters? with both you and the government that mod- I also put to you: why did you not consider ernisation and simplification of the allowable the proposition of leaving the act as it was— awards area is absolutely vital for further even if it required amendment—and recognis- progress and modernisation and evolution of ing that the commission would be empowered our industrial relations system. We thought it and encouraged, and whatever words we appropriate to try to improve upon the work could find, to bring about award simplifica- you began in section 150A which, in our tion through the processes that it already has consideration of the evidence before us at the under the conciliation and arbitration power, public hearings, was not working effectively. rather than being prescriptive as to what is in Question put: and what is out? Could I get an answer to the question that I asked yesterday, please. That the amendment (Senator Margetts’s)be agreed to. Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) (4.13 p.m.)—I am sorry if I either forgot or The committee divided. [4.20 p.m.] omitted to answer you as requested. But, in (The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston) the age-old fashion, I first ask a question Ayes ...... 29 myself: were you in the chamber when I Noes ...... 41 addressed the chamber earlier? —— Senator Forshaw—I came in halfway Majority ...... 12 —— through but I was listening and checked what you said. AYES Bishop, M. Brown, B. Senator MURRAY—I ask that deliberately Carr, K. Childs, B. K. because I deliberately read into the record my Collins, J. M. A. Collins, R. L. notes on this area and my understanding of Colston, M. A. Conroy, S. the entire issue. I cannot give you a better Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. answer to your first question than that I have Evans, C. V.* Forshaw, M. G. already read into the record. We not only Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. undertook to examine this from the point of Hogg, J. Lundy, K. view of our own understanding, but we took Mackay, S. Margetts, D. as much advice as we could from, as I men- McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. tioned yesterday, the ACTU, from various Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. legal advisers in the area and others who are Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. also concerned. So I cannot really add sub- West, S. M. stantially to what I have already said. I am NOES sure you do not want me to read that all out Abetz, E. Allison, L. to you again. If the government with their Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D. advisers over there wish to substantiate what Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C. I have said, they may. Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. Your second question was why did we not Crane, W. Eggleston, A. leave the act as it was. This was not our bill, Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. and this was not your bill. You took the Ferris, J Gibson, B. F. decision at the early stage to oppose the thing Heffernan, W. Herron, J. pretty well outright and then came in with all Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. your amendments. We took the decision to Kernot, C. Knowles, S. C. attempt to claw back as much as we could to Lees, M. H. Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. make it a far more balanced, a far fairer bill, McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. against a set of principles we laid out. We Murray, A. O’Chee, W. G.* believe we have met that task as admirably as Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5209

NOES way—that is, working with equipment that Short, J. R. Stott Despoja, N. has worked beyond its ratings, working in a Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. way which short cuts on safety procedures Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J. and so on. I talked to a number of people in Woods, R. L. a number of different areas. The areas that PAIRS particularly spring to mind are remote rural Faulkner, J. P. Parer, W. R. and regional areas of Australia. In Western Foreman, D. J. Panizza, J. H. Australia, the mining industry also springs to Bolkus, N. Newman, J. M. mind. * denotes teller We are talking about the ability to take Question so resolved in the negative. legal industrial action on such basic things as Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) vocational training and language and literacy. (4.25 p.m.)—I move: Included in that is occupational health and (6) At the end of subsection 89A(2), add: safety, the timing and method of the payment ;(u) vocational training and language or of wages, anti-discrimination measures, equal literacy training, including education- employment opportunities and affirmative al leave; action, minimum ordinary time hours of work, (v) occupational health and safety; distribution of hours or work, starting times, (w) the timing and method of payment of length of shifts, trade union training and wages; accident make-up pay. (x) anti-discrimination measures; I return to occupational health and safety. (y) equal employment opportunity and This is the opportunity for both the govern- affirmative action; ment and the Democrats to retrieve what is an (z) minimum ordinary time hours of appalling situation. It is absolutely outrageous work, distribution of hours of that workers in Australia may be threatened work, starting times or length of with fines or worse for taking industrial action shifts; for legitimate health and safety disputes. I (za) trade union training; invite any of them to stand up here and argue (zb) accident make-up pay. why that is a reasonable position to take. Our amendment No. 6 is not our preferred It will be illegal for legitimate health and option. We have just seen a debate and a vote safety reasons for people to be fined for which, if it stands, will result in it being taking action. Tell me whether or not it is illegal for workers to take action on such better for them to be injured or killed later or things as occupational health and safety, even whether it is better and responsible for them if their lives are in danger or if they have to take industrial action when they know they been asked to conduct work in a way which are being asked to do the wrong thing or they know will put their lives in danger. If when they know that the activities in which you do not think it happens, talk to the people they are taking place are likely to lead to in Port Hedland and Karratha. Talk to people injuries or accidents even if they fit into driving trucks and providing courier services whatever codes that exist. who are being asked on a regular basis to When you think of the Western Australian carry loads that are too great. Talk to people situation, look at the adds on television. They who are being asked to operate equipment in say, ‘It is up to you.’ Those ads are about a way that they know is contrary to the putting the onus back on the worker: ‘It is up operating instructions of that equipment and to you to say something. It is up to you to see if it is not happening on a regular basis take action.’ throughout the work force in Australia. What a farce it makes if you say, ‘It’s up to Given that, when an accident happens, find you but, if you take action because you know out how many employers are willing to accept it is dangerous, it will be illegal. You can be the responsibility for requiring their workers fined or worse.’ What are we doing to the to work in what is known to be a dangerous lives and the health of workers in Australia if 5210 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 this is the situation we are going to be voting amendment is also called ‘scope of industrial on today? Here is an opportunity to change disputes’. So if it is not about industrial the situation. We have an amendment which disputes, what is it about? puts some of those basic issues back into Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister for allowable issues that can be the basis of Communications and the Arts) (4.32 p.m.)—I industrial action. am told that it is not about industrial action. While I am waiting for an answer, perhaps We will deal with industrial action under we could get some definition of what ‘indus- schedule 14. You know what industrial action trial action’ is. It could simply be not doing is. those things which are dangerous. That, as far as I can see, could be classified as industrial Senator Margetts—Do I? Tell me. action. Would that be allowable or not allow- Senator ALSTON—It generally involves able? What if workers decide not to do those strikes but there are variations on the theme. things which they believe to be dangerous; is The particular matters about which you that considered to be industrial action? Later express concern, where action is taken be- on, we will come into the situation of whether cause of occupational health and safety issues, people can be paid if they take some sort of will be explicitly covered there. Industrial industrial action. I am very keen to hear an action will be so defined as to permit that sort answer from the minister. I would also be of action to be taken where there is an im- happy to hear a response from the Democrats mediate apprehension of danger. on this issue. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister for Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.33 Communications and the Arts) (4.30 p.m.)—I p.m.)—I would like to refer to our amend- hope Senator Margetts enjoyed working ments 1 and 2 which, in a similar way to the herself into a lather on the matter. Section Greens, will insert ‘training including training 89A does not regulate industrial action. It is leave’, ‘occupational health and safety’ and quite misconceived to be putting those views ‘anti-discrimination’. It is nice to see you in at this point. Section 89A regulates the mat- here too, Minister, after six or seven days. ters in respect of which the commission can arbitrate. That is what we are concerned with Senator O’Chee—It’s not nice to see you today. Matters of whether industrial action in though. respect of occupational health and safety Senator SHERRY—You are your usual would be permitted will be dealt with under gratuitously insulting self, Senator O’Chee. If schedule 14. you do not know anything about industrial I can assure Senator Margetts that, when we relations, why don’t you keep your mouth come to that part of the bill, she will discover shut. Health and safety is a very serious issue. that industrial action taken where there is an You show your ignorance, Senator O’Chee. apprehension of immediate danger will not be You know absolutely nothing about it, except regarded as industrial action. There are many throwing insults around while we are discuss- state and territory laws that regulate unsafe ing this very serious issue. buildings, unsafe vehicles and the like, which Senator O’Chee—I’m not throwing insults will be quite unaffected by this legislation. around, Nick. I am just reflecting on your— Senator Margetts’s apprehensions are com- pletely misconceived and are not relevant to Senator SHERRY—You reflect on your this schedule. lack of knowledge of industrial relations and your lack of respect for health and safety Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) matters by your silly, boyish interjections. (4.32 p.m.)—I thank the minister for his comment, but it is very difficult for him to Senator O’Chee—Madam Chair, I raise a hold up that argument when 89A is called the point of order: it is quite clearly an unparlia- ‘scope of industrial disputes’. Do you deny mentary reflection to suggest that any honour- that that is what 89A is called, Minister? The able senator here would not be concerned Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5211 about people’s health and safety. I find it The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, I offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. think it is important to allow things to take The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- their pace. I was telling you why I ruled the tor Crowley)—There is no point of order. way I did. This now seems to have caused you to call another point of order. Senator SHERRY—In respect of our two Senator O’Chee—Madam Chair, it is amendments— obvious that you did not correctly hear what Senator O’Chee—On a point of order: can Senator Sherry said. Senator Sherry said that I ask you to clarify your ruling, Madam I did not care about people’s health and Chair. You are saying that, if an honourable safety, which is different from saying— senator finds a reflection offensive, he or she erroneously—that I did not know about health cannot ask for it to be withdrawn and that the and safety. That is quite clearly an offensive chair will not recognise that request. remark. Given that it is an offensive remark, Senator McKiernan—Speaking to the I ask for it to be withdrawn. point of order: there is no point of order The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— before the committee. You have ruled on an Senator O’Chee, lots of people in this place area called on a point of order. If the honour- are very regularly told what they do not care able senator wants to take the matter further, about. It is a very precious point of order. he can do so using the standing orders of the Senator Sherry, as it is within the standing chamber. Calling another point of order is not orders that are you now reflecting on Senator using the standing orders of the chamber. O’Chee, I ask that you withdraw. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Senator SHERRY—I withdraw. Senator Senator O’Chee, there is no point of order O’Chee does not know anything about health before the chamber. If you are disputing my and safety and he does not care about health ruling or if you are seeking clarification, and safety. which might be a better way to go— Senator O’Chee—You have just done it Senator O’Chee—That’s what I did. again. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You Senator SHERRY—No, I have not. You did call it as a point of order, Senator were not listening. I said that you do not care O’Chee, and that I think may have led to the about the issue of health and safety. You do confusion that Senator McKiernan is address- not care about health and safety. You exhibit ing. As I understood it, what you were object- that by your inane interjections in this cham- ing to was Senator Sherry suggesting that you ber. If Senator O’Chee had bothered to be did not know anything about occupational here for any part of the industrial relations health and safety. debate, he would realise that Senator Murray has taken on the chin considerably worse than Senator O’Chee—No. what Senator O’Chee is complaining about The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That today. is a matter that you may well dispute with Senator O’Chee—You just don’t care him, but it is not a matter of a point of order. about decent conduct in the chamber. So at this stage I will— Senator SHERRY—We should calm Senator O’Chee—Can I take another point Senator O’Chee down. He is filibustering. He of order, which is— is doing a much better job of it than any of us The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— could do. Senator O’Chee, you are now on your feet; Senator O’Chee—I am not filibustering. you have effectively interrupted me. I have You are just being rude and offensive. not even concluded my comments. Senator SHERRY—You are doing the best Senator O’Chee—I thought you had job of wasting time that I have seen so far. I finished; I am happy to sit down. will make the following points about our 5212 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 amendments Nos 1 and 2, because they deal 14, item 2, which I have immediately looked with the issue of health and safety. I have to up. Subsection 4(1) of item 2 of schedule 14 refer to Senator Murray again. I hope he does states that, at the end of the definition of not call three or four points of order. Page ‘industrial action’, the following should be 333 of the report—I assume Senator Murray added: contributed to the writing of this area of the or (g) action by an employee if: report—states: (i) the action was based on a reasonable con- The Democrats share the concern of the Majority cern by the employee about an imminent report in relation to the restrictions on the content risk— of awards. Awards must be capable of regulating all important conditions of employment. In particu- That is not about a risk in the future or lar, we believe that matters such as meal breaks, concerns about ongoing risks, but an immi- rostering, occupational health and safety— nent risk to his or her health and safety. What I emphasise occupational health and safety— does that mean about uranium, asbestos and so on. They would have to prove imminent anti-discrimination, superannuation and training are risk. It refers to the one, isolated employee. If fundamental parts of the employment relationship and should be capable of determination by the there is a risk that somebody in the workplace AIRC. is being asked to undergo risk, it does not The next sentence states: necessarily mean that the workers around that person can think it is reasonable to stop work However, we share the concern of the Government until that risk has been reduced, addressed or that the award modernisation process under section 150A of the current act has failed to deliver a more redressed. It also states: simplified and flexible award system. (ii) the employee did not unreasonably fail to comply with a direction of his or her em- Presumably by the Democrats doing a back- ployer to perform other available work . . . flip on their views a couple of months ago, Senator Murray has come to the conclusion If people think the risk is strong enough that that, in the name of simplification—that is, they should stop work until it is being dealt that accidents are so much simpler than they with, they can be told to work in another used to be—there is no need for occupational section. In effect, they can still be told that health and safety to be covered in the same they cannot choose to stop work if there is a way. Presumably workers are a lot more risk that might affect some or all of them. It flexible when they run up against a machine. has once again isolated the worker. Section 2 Apparently the flexibility has not been en- of schedule 14 is not a remedy to what we hanced enough under the old provisions, see is being taken away under the scope of because they do not believe we should have the limitation of industrial action. It is not a reference to occupational health and safety. remedy. It does not mean that workers can support their fellow workers if they find that I draw the Democrats’ backflip to the their lives are being put at risk or they are attention of the Senate. It is a matter of great being asked to do something which is obvious regret. I think Senator Murray will find, as to most of them will lead to future problems Senator Margetts has outlined, that occupa- in worker health and safety. tional health and safety is a very passionate area. On a number of occasions, I have Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) attended at accidents. There is at times spon- (4.43 p.m.)—I should indicate that it is really taneous industrial action, which is often very offensive for Senator Sherry to draw attention difficult to resolve. I know Senator Murray’s to the state of my face being a consequence approach to this matter should be condemned, of my being unable to avoid punches. because it is grossly irresponsible. Senator Sherry—I didn’t even know you Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) had ever been punched. (4.40 p.m.)—I am jumping in now because I Senator MURRAY—Your inference was want to respond to something the minister that I have had to take a lot of punches and said. Perhaps we can then all get back into that I am not ducking them too well. To the rhythm. The minister referred to schedule continue the analogy, Senator Sherry picks Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5213 out occupational health and safety as being a The commission should have the right to glass jaw issue. Those on that side of the make or vary awards in relation to these fence, both from discussions during the hear- issues. Experience from Western Australia has ings and from our report, believe that occupa- highlighted the manner in which part-time tional health and safety is an area that we are workers can lose control of their lives and particularly concerned about. I will freely have their family life totally disrupted by admit that we argued long and hard with employers who use individual contracts to government about occupational health and impose totally unreasonable demands on safety in terms of the allowable award mat- employees, especially in the hospitality ters. They persuaded us after many hours that, industry. by and large, under all the state laws and In addition, in amendment 20, we add a specific federal laws dealing with workplace provision to the section in the act dealing health and safety, they were properly dealt with the making and publication of awards, with. Senator Margetts does properly pick up section 143, to the effect that the parties to the danger that some states may have lower paid rates awards are able to incorporate the standards than others. I am sure that the terms of their enterprise agreements into the federal government will pay attention to that. award. Proposed section 143(5) seeks to We also, as I outlined earlier, were given ensure that paid rates awards remain exactly advice that most occupational health and what they say they are—awards reflecting safety award clauses, such as protective actual rates of pay and conditions of employ- clothing, would come under 89A(2)(j). I know ment. The commission would have the discre- that the government is very concerned with tion to include enterprise agreements within this issue and I am sure that they will con- paid rates awards. This would ensure that paid tinue to pay attention to it. rates awards are easier to understand, are Amendment negatived. reflective of the conditions which the parties have agreed to, and are appropriate to reflect The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- the terms of the award. tor Crowley)—Senator Margetts, I believe that we are to consider amendment 7 on your This amendment is consistent with, and revised 217 document. further develops, decisions of the full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Com- Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy mission in the airline industry award, where Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.46 paid rates awards have recently been adjusted p.m.)—I will just indicate Labor’s position. by consent of the parties to include recently We support this amendment. We have a expired enterprise bargaining rounds. This similar amendment in respect of part-time amendment ensures that the award based no work. I will make a few more comments at disadvantage test has real meaning for all paid that time, when we get to our amendment. rates award workers. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— (4.47 p.m.)—Madam Temporary Chairman, I Senator Margetts, can I just make it clear that have located the explanatory notes in relation I am advised that you may move your amend- to amendment 7. Amendment 7 on revised ment 7 to include your previous amendment sheet 217 replaces amendment 17 on page 17, but you cannot actually ask that it include 183 and amendment 20, which were to be your previous amendment 20 because it is an moved together. We delete the clause which amendment to a government amendment. I states that the commission’s power to make would like you to be clear that, when we or vary an award does not include ‘the power move this amendment of yours, it does not to set maximum or minimum hours of work include your present amendment 20. for regular part-time employees’. This is an important area of concern for regular part- Senator MARGETTS—That means we can time workers who need to have some certain- move amendment 20 later. ty in their lives in relation to either minimum The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— or maximum hours of work. Separately, yes. 5214 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

Senator MARGETTS—I move: If we go to page 349 of this well-read (7) Omit paragraph 89A (4)(b). report, Senator Murray, it refers to part-time (Replaces amendment (17) in document 183) and casual employees. On pages 349 and 350 the Democrats make clear their support of the Amendment negatived. general reasoning of the majority report as to Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy the adverse effect the proposals on part-time Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.50 employment might have. I am not going to p.m.)—by leave—I move: read out both pages because of the time but, (1) After paragraph 89A(2)(h), insert: if we look at the recommendation of the (ha) training, including training leave; Australian Democrats on page 350, our amendment is modelled virtually word for (2) After paragraph 89A(2)(s), insert: word, Senator Murray, on the Democrats’ (sa) occupational health and safety; recommendation in respect of part-time (sb) anti-discrimination; employment. This is a very, very important I have already spoken on our amendments 1 issue. I know we have canvassed the issue of and 2. The issues have been widely canvassed part-time employment. I started my work and I will not make any further comment. career as a part-time employee at Wrest Point. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Senator Childs—A good one too. (4.50 p.m.)—I indicate that the Greens (WA) Senator SHERRY—Thank you. It was a will support the ALP amendments. great job, they were a great employer and I Amendments negatived. enjoyed it. It has turned me off gambling, but not alcohol. There was reference in the debate Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy yesterday to the growing number of part- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.51 timers and casuals in the work force. I want p.m.)—We will withdraw our amendment 3. to make one comment about that for the I move: record. Senator Campbell referred to our (4) Subsection 89A(4A), omit the subsection, failure because of the growing proportion of substitute: part-time and casual people in the work force. (4A) Paragraph (4)(b) does not prevent the Commission from including in an Senator Campbell—No, I didn’t say that. award: Senator SHERRY—I am not quoting you (a) provisions setting maximum and exactly, Senator Campbell. You related the minimum hours of work for regular growth in part-time and casual employees to part-time employees, subject to the our bill. The growth in part-time and casual following: work in the economy began earlier than 1983 (i) minimum hours shall not be more when we were elected to office. If you look than 20 per cent of the hours of a at the statistics—I did not get a chance to do full-time employee in a given week it overnight—you will find that the proportion and shall not be less than 3 consecu- tive hours on any given day; of part-time and casual workers has been growing since the late 1960s. In part, it is due (ii) maximum hours shall not be more than 80 per cent of the hours of a to the areas of the economy that are growing full-time employee in any given most significantly. Hospitality is a very good week; and example. Job numbers in the hospitality (b) provisions facilitating a regular pattern industry have doubled from 1983 to now. The in the hours worked by regular part- employment in that sector is predominantly time employees. part time and casual. Our amendment 4 goes to this issue of part- Senator Harradine made a very good point time regular work. We have debated this issue that it is very important that part-time and to some extent to date. I would just like to casual employees have as much security and draw to Senator Murray’s attention, yet predictability of employment as possible. again—I think for the fifth or sixth time—that These people often have a range of family we have dubbed this the Murray amendment. and financial responsibilities. It is very hard Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5215 to get a loan if you are a part-time or casual employment. You cannot be a part-time employee, even if you have regular hours, employee working full-time hours. which is a common occurrence. Amendment negatived. The AIRC should not have a fettered ability to deal with part-time and casual hours indus- Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy try by industry. Circumstances change from Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.58 industry to industry. There are differing p.m.)—I move: employment conditions from industry to (5) Subsection 89A(6), omit the subsection and industry. The AIRC should not be restricted the heading, substitute: in any way. We are moving this amendment (6) Subsection (1) does not exclude a matter as a fall back. It should not be restricted in from an industrial dispute if the Commis- any way to dealing with the very great con- sion is satisfied of the following: cerns of part-time and casual employment (a) a party to the dispute has made a genu- relating to security of their employment. ine attempt to reach agreement on the Regrettably, from this day forth when we matter; move off this provision, and subject to the (b) there is no reasonable prospect of proclamation of the bill, part-time and casual agreement being reached on the matter employees in this country will have less by conciliation by the Commission; and certainty and less security of employment. (c) it is in the public interest to settle the They can blame the Australian Democrats and matter by arbitration. the Liberals. I would like to draw the attention of the Senator McKiernan—And the Nationals. chamber to page 334 of the Senate Economics References Committee report. I think this is Senator SHERRY—And the Nationals. the seventh Murray amendment. We will Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) move off Senator Murray’s amendments soon (4.56 p.m.)—I am sure Senator Sherry would and onto Senator Stott Despoja’s amendments. like me to respond to his remarks. He is quite We are again reflecting the Democrats’ right that this was an area of great concern position on page 334 of that report under during the hearings and he correctly itemised section II entitled ‘Powers of Arbitration’. the concerns expressed in our supplementary The committee recommended: report. There are a number of critical matters . . . even if section 89A is to be retained, the AIRC which we secured and which we felt were must retain the power to arbitrate on matters vital. outside of the section 89A list where agreement The first is that part-time workers may not cannot be reached and resolution of the matter by work full-time hours. The second is that part- arbitration would be in the public interest. time workers will get the pro rata entitlements While there has been some improvement with of a full-time employee, which was not the respect to the government’s amendments there case under the existing act. The third is that are still 10 hurdles for the commission to they should get regular hours. The fourth is jump over to determine an industrial dispute that they should get minimum hours. As you by arbitration. Our amendment simplifies that rightly said, we selected a percentage. We process considerably by presenting three were persuaded in discussions with the criteria to be met for the commission to be government and their advisers that it would satisfied with respect to determining an be better for the minimum hours situation to industrial dispute. We believe that that is a be identified on an award by award basis simpler, more effective mechanism for the because industry conditions vary and therefore commission to deal with disputes in the a particular percentage would not be appropri- circumstances we outlined in parts (a), (b) and ate. (c) of the amendment. Senator Sherry—Why not maximum then? Question put: Senator MURRAY—The maximum we That the amendment (Senator Sherry’s)be believe should not be greater than full-time agreed to. 5216 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

The committee divided. [5.04 p.m.] (6A) Subsection (1) does not exclude a matter from an industrial dispute if the (The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston) Commission is satisfied that the subject Ayes ...... 29 matter of the proceeding is of such Noes ...... 41 importance that, in the public interest, —— it should be dealt with by a Full Bench, Majority ...... 12 consistent with Section 107 of the Act. —— Senator Murray and Senator Kernot are here AYES and a number of the other Democrats as well. Bishop, M. Bolkus, N. Brown, B. Carr, K. Senator Woodley—We knew you were Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A. going to speak, Senator Sherry. Collins, R. L. Colston, M. A. Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. Senator SHERRY—I frankly am not Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A. interested in whether you want to hear me Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. * speak or not. I would just like a vote occa- Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G. sionally. Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. Hogg, J. Margetts, D. It is very important that the commission McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. should at least have the capacity, if it believes Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K. a matter is of such importance and there is a Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. public interest, to deal with that matter in Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. front of a full bench. I plead with Senator West, S. M. Kernot and Senator Murray—I almost go NOES down on my hands and knees—and say that Abetz, E. Allison, L. this is not an unreasonable position to take if Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. the commission is of that view. There have Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. been a number of test case provisions where Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. Crane, W. the commission has recognised that there is a Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. significant public importance and interest and Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J that it should deal with the issue. Unfortunate- Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W. ly, the Democrat-government deal does not Herron, J. Hill, R. M. allow the commission, if it believes the matter Kemp, R. Kernot, C. is of significant public interest, to pick it up. Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H. Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. This is a very important issue. If an applica- MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. tion is made, the president must make the Minchin, N. H. Murray, A. determination. The president must conclude O’Chee, W. G. Panizza, J. H. * Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E. that the subject matter is of such importance Short, J. R. Stott Despoja, N. that, in the public interest, it should be dealt Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. with by a full bench, and the full bench must Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. then hear and determine the matter. It is not Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J. a substitute for the exceptional matters provi- Woods, R. L. sion. It is in addition to the exceptional PAIRS matters provision. It really is a matter of very Foreman, D. J. Parer, W. R. great regret and—I would have to say— Lundy, K. Alston, R. K. R. astonishment that the Democrats did not Mackay, S. Newman, J. M. include this within the package that they * denotes teller agreed to with the government. Question so resolved in the negative. I would urge the Senate to support this Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy provision. It is very important and critical, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.08 particularly on any new and emerging issues p.m.)—I move: in industrial relations as the nature of employ- ment and the economy changes, that the (6) After subsection 89A(6), insert: commission have this power. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5217

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Question so resolved in the negative. (5.09 p.m.)—I just rise to indicate that I will The CHAIRMAN—The question now is be supporting this amendment. that government amendment No. 19 be agreed Question put: to. That the amendment (Senator Sherry’s)be Amendment agreed to. agreed to. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) The committee divided. [5.17 p.m.] (5.19 p.m.)—I move: (The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston) (20) Schedule 5, after item 30, page 32 (after Ayes ...... 29 line 24), insert: Noes ...... 41 30A At the end of section 143 —— Add: Majority ...... 12 (5) Nothing in this section prevents the Com- —— mission from allowing a provision which AYES enables the parties to paid rates awards to Bishop, M. Bolkus, N. incorporate the terms of their enterprise Brown, B. Childs, B. K. agreements into the award. Collins, J. M. A. Collins, R. L. I have spoken to the amendment. It adds Colston, M. A. Conroy, S. * Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. provision to section 143 in the act, which Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. deals with the making and publication of Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G. awards, to the effect that the parties to paid Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. rates awards are able to incorporate the terms Hogg, J. Lundy, K. of their enterprise agreements into the award. Mackay, S. Margetts, D. I commend my amendment to the Senate. McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.20 Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. p.m.)—We support the amendment. West, S. M. Amendment negatived. NOES Abetz, E. Allison, L. The CHAIRMAN—The question now Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. before the chair is that item 11 stand as Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. printed. Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy Coonan, H. Crane, W. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.21 Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J p.m.)—The opposition opposes item 11 of Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W. schedule 5. Very regrettably, this bill repeals Herron, J. Hill, R. M. the provisions which would have prohibited Kemp, R. Kernot, C. the commission after 22 June 1997 from Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H. prescribing junior award rates. We wish to Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. delete this repeal. The basic reason for doing Minchin, N. H. Murray, A. this is that junior rates should be abolished O’Chee, W. G. Panizza, J. H. * next year because they permit discrimination Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E. between two workers, simply on the basis of Short, J. R. Stott Despoja, N. age, even though they are doing the same Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. work and have the same experience. Compe- Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J. tency-based rates are being developed in Woods, R. L. many industries which provide a more appro- priate basis for wage differentiation between PAIRS young people. We are particularly concerned Carr, K. Newman, J. M. Evans, C. V. Alston, R. K. R. about this aspect of the legislation and also Foreman, D. J. Parer, W. R. the confirmation of this particular part of the * denotes teller act in the Democrat-government deal. 5218 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

I will not pick on Senator Murray on this ours that we have named after you. We look occasion. Senator Woodley is here. It is a pity forward to you crossing the floor and voting Senator Stott Despoja is not here because we with Labor on this matter. And Senator Stott call this the Stott Despoja amendment No. 1. Despoja went on in her speech in respect to We do that because Senator Stott Despoja has this matter on a number of occasions. been roaming the country, a bit like Boadicea, The Australian Democrats do have a capaci- trying to hold back the Roman imperial ty for a free vote. I remember at least two industrial hordes, trumpeting grand support occasions when one of the senators from New for the youth of this country. I do not have South Wales did not vote with the Australian any criticism of that; she does it very well. Democrats and crossed the floor. In fact, But I am critical of her duplicity. Senator Karin Sowada did not vote with us on I hope she is listening to this debate. I those two occasions. would like to see her in the chamber and, on We are appalled that Senator Stott Despoja behalf of the Australian Democrats, explain went on the record in this way. I am sure she why Senator Stott Despoja, who has taken up will say that she has argued the case in the the title of the Boadicea of youth in this Democrat caucus, and I am sure she will say country, is not supporting this amendment we she has not changed her mind. But the fact is, are moving today. It is because the approach if she does not cross the floor and vote with of the Australian Democrats on youth wages us, she will vote directly against everything is nothing more than a sell-out. It is a sell-out that she has said on this issue. to everything that Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Kernot have said on this issue. I draw Regrettably, Senator Kernot herself went on the Senate’s attention to Senator Stott the record on section 89A in a speech to the Despoja’s speech in the second reading debate Australian Education Union that I referred to on this legislation when she said: and enunciated similar sorts of principles to Senator Stott Despoja. She said: The government is telling us and some employers have told us that junior rates are necessary to Other areas in the Bill with which the Democrats ensure that young people have employment pros- are concerned include the abolition of paid rates pects and that, if we get rid of them, more young awards and the maintenance of age-based youth people will be out of work, contributing to the 27 awards. per cent youth unemployment level that we current- I would like Senator Kernot to come down ly have. I still find it very difficult that people persist with this notion that there is some causal here and exercise her conscience and her free connection between lower wage rates for young vote and live up to the principles that she has people and increased employment opportunities. In been enunciating around this country time and fact, we have had little evidence provided to us that time again. supports this assertion other than the prejudice of some employers. We have moved no less than nine or 10 amendments reflecting Democrat positions. Ah, she is here! Good to see. Senator Stott No less than nine or 10 Democrat positions Despoja is here to explain why, after her have been clearly and publicly put on the contribution in the second reading debate, she record. It is about time that the Australian will change her position in this chamber today Democrats stood up for the principles they when she votes for the government-Democrat have been stating time and time again. We deal. Senator Stott Despoja went on to say: hope that on this occasion Senator Stott The Democrats are opposed to the continuation of Despoja crosses the floor and votes with us junior rates. on this amendment, which is directly based on They are opposed to the continuation of Democrat policy in the lead-up to the last junior rates: election. We believe the parliament must amend this bill to Senator Woodley—You have not made me make it clear that junior rates have to go. an offer yet. We look forward, Senator Stott Despoja, to Senator SHERRY—I hope you cross the you voting with Labor on this amendment of floor too, Senator Woodley. I hope you have Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5219 been convinced by the public position of made the decision to oppose that three-year Senator Stott Despoja and by the public period. Anyone who cares about trying to find position of Senator Kernot, the leader of the an arrangement which will ensure that young Democrats. I hope the majority of you cross people are not further disadvantaged in what the floor on this issue. It is about time! I hope has been over a number of years a very weak that on at least one occasion in the 30-odd employment market for young people and that hours of debate one Australian Democrat has they come to an industrial relations system the guts and the courage to stand up for what which is non-discriminatory was hoping that, they have been trumpeting very grandly over that three-year period up to 22 June around this country on many occasions and 1997, some replacement that did not expose vote with Labor on this very critical area. young people to risks that may be high or Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— may be low could be put in place. That Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the scheme, that framework, has not been found. Environment and Parliamentary Secretary to There is a lot of evidence out there. The the Minister for Sport, Territories and Local Retail Council of Australia is of course but Government) (5.29 p.m.)—The interesting one voice in the debate, but it estimates that thing about Senator Sherry’s contribution to if we got rid of this there would be a couple this debate on his amendment on age discri- of hundred thousand young people who would mination is that, as I recall the debate in most be lost to the industry if those junior wage of 1993, I did not hear Senator Sherry get up rates were replaced. They may or may not be and speak with the passion he just did on the right, but I think it is a risk that a lot of decision of the previous government, of which people do not want to take. he was a member and indeed a parliamentary What we are proposing is to extend these secretary, when that government decided to provisions and to constructively ensure that do exactly what this bill will do. That is, the the commission is required to look into this Brereton bill came out in 1993 and proscribed and report to this parliament. We think that is age discrimination and then the government a constructive approach, and that is this amended its own bill to extend this deadline government’s position. The previous govern- to June 1997, a three-year period in which ment of course amended its legislation to put most people who had an interest in the de- this three-year extension to 22 June 1997 in bate, and I am sure Senator Stott Despoja— place. Senator Sherry—That was the Australian I remind the members of the previous Democrats, not us. government, those sitting opposite, members Senator CAMPBELL—And you did not of the Labor Party, that these junior rates speak against it, Senator Sherry. Or if you awards have been in existence for, I believe, did, it must have been very quietly because I something like 70 years. The previous govern- did not hear it. Certainly not with the passion ment, Labor, in power, did nothing, with the that you just put into it then. exception of the Brereton bill, which was then amended to extend it, to get rid of the junior Senator Sherry—You weren’t in the rates. So it is a little bit rich for Senator chamber. Sherry to come in here and start attacking the Senator CAMPBELL—I might have been Democrats or indeed the new government in sitting in my room listening to you. And, relation to this issue. We believe we are Senator Sherry, when I see you stand in taking a constructive approach. We believe debate I listen. I drop what I am doing and I that having the commission report to the listen because you make some great contribu- parliament after a comprehensive review of tions, especially on superannuation and those junior rates allows all members of the Senate sorts of issues. to make a contribution to how we move Quite seriously, this was exactly the deci- forward on this issue. sion that was taken by the previous govern- We ask Senator Sherry to perhaps address ment. The previous government could have the following issue: after 13 years in power, 5220 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 during the last three of which he was on the It is not surprising that employers have frontbench, why do they consider that all of always used periods of high unemployment a sudden things should change after 22 June such as we have seen to press for reductions 1997? Why does this date have such magical in rates of pay and conditions. What we are importance, particularly considering that no- seeing now is no different. What we are one has proposed any sensible transitional seeing now, with respect to the Liberal ap- replacement measures? That is exactly what proach with Democrat support on this bill, is the government, with the support of the the pursuance of one of the oldest industrial Democrats, is proposing with this comprehen- tricks in the book. What do you take? What sive review reporting to the parliament in two is the ultimatum that is being put to the years. Democrats? Is it less pay, or is it fewer jobs? Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital I need only refer to some of the comments Territory) (5.33 p.m.)—I also rise to support about the outcomes of this bill and where the the amendment moved by my colleague jobs are going to be arising out of this. It Senator Sherry with respect to removing the really raises the question of what comes first. repeal of the amendment that requires the The evidence of the trick that is being played extension of junior rates up until June 1999, out here is on the basis that quite clearly jobs as the government and Democrats have put. are not going to come out of this workplace The Democrats have explicitly agreed to relations legislation, so the threat hanging perpetuate junior rates, as opposed to moving over the heads of the Democrats and the one to the competency based system that support- that has been used to secure their support is ing our amendment would result in. the fact that, if this provision is not removed and if it sticks around and junior rates are Our amendment removes this provision to perpetuated, then somehow that will mean extend the period of time for junior rates and that employers will not be forced to sack really highlights the nonsensical approach of many young people. the government-Democrat agreement to just perpetuate junior rates without moving quick- So we are not even talking about some ly and sensibly to a competency based sys- advantage to young people and the number of tem—a competency based system that has jobs they have available; what we are talking developed with the cooperation of trade about is a threat by employers in stating their unions and employers over the last decade. It case and their argument that, if this provision is a competency based system that has had is removed, that will result in fewer jobs, vast resources put into it—whether it be because we know that it certainly will not through the industry training advisory boards result in more if it stays in. And they have or through industry itself just getting together said that. with the trade unions and nutting out the best We have had Ian Macfarlane, the Independ- approach to establish comprehensive and ent Governor of the Reserve Bank, say that meaningful career paths for young people. the passage of the bill will not reduce unem- The only result of all of this of course is ployment, that it will not create jobs. That that the credibility of the Democrats in advo- was endorsed by a leading labour market cating on behalf of youth has been tarnished expert, Professor Bob Gregory. He said it in permanently in the eyes of young people. a nutshell, that what the bill really means is They have lost for good the opportunity to much lower pay without extra jobs. Access prove their commitment to young people. I do Economics, who are former Treasury officials not think the Liberal Party had any commit- and have quite a dry reputation, said that ment in the first place so they did not have unemployment will go above nine per cent too much to lose. We are opposing this and remain that high into the next century if amendment and we will remain the only the workplace relations bill is passed. political party which is not prepared to com- Even Mr Howard was forced in the end to promise the principle of a fair day’s pay for concede that employment creation was not an a fair day’s work. outcome this bill was expected to deliver. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5221

Essentially, that reduces this to a question of pay for a fair day’s work. To see this agree- blackmail, hanging over people’s heads the ment emerge now is devastating not only for threat that ‘if you do not support this, the the young people that believed what the employers have said they will reduce the Democrats were saying but also for the young number of jobs for young people’. people who do not care about politics, who do What good is a job if you cannot earn a not care about what goes on in this chamber. living wage? That is my question. Young They are the ones who are going to suffer. people at the moment are marginalised and Senator Campbell—Why don’t you tell forced, in many cases, to work a number of Bob Carr this? part-time jobs to survive. If they are undertak- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! ing tertiary education, they are required to take out part-time employment to supplement Senator LUNDY—It is all those people out their incomes or to get an income. I do not there that are going to be affected by the fact believe this is fair. I do not believe junior that junior rates are now going to be perpetu- rates do equate to a fair day’s pay for a fair ated unnecessarily. day’s work. Senator Campbell—You should tell Bob Senator Campbell—Why did you vote for Carr this. it in 1993? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator LUNDY—And this issue—Senator Senator LUNDY—You have got to remem- Campbell seems to be quite insistent on ber, too, where junior rates came from. referring to the past—just proves— Senator Campbell—I hope Bob Carr’s Senator Campbell interjecting— listening. Senator LUNDY—You don’t think any- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! thing has happened in the last three years? Senator Campbell! What about the progress that has been made Senator LUNDY—When they were first on putting career paths in place, in competen- inserted into the awards years ago they were cy based training? Are you so stuck in the inserted because they were a transition, a past, Senator Campbell, that you cannot even trainee rate to move on to adult wages. They see the progress that has been made on were not envisaged to be abused the way competency based training in the last three employers abused them. They are being years, which have now put us in an entirely abused now. Show me an employer where the different scenario where we are ready as a number of young people employed on junior country to move forward and to base rates on rates— competency, not on age discrimination, which Senator Campbell—Do you blame Jeff is what you are seeking to perpetuate, in Shaw? collusion with the Democrats. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Campbell—How many people got jobs in the last three years? Senator LUNDY—Show me the statistics, Senator Campbell, of employers who employ Senator LUNDY—I also say with respect people on junior rates and what percentage of to the Democrats coming in behind this that those people move up the ladder and move on I am not only disappointed but also pretty to adult rates. saddened and surprised that they have taken this position. All the evidence of their posi- Senator Campbell—Have you told this to tion, the statements that have been made by Jeff Shaw in New South Wales? Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Murray The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— quite unequivocally in the context of the Senator Lundy, would you resume your seat industrial relations inquiry report on this for a moment? I am now going to call Senator matter, shows that they have been committed Campbell, whom I have called to order on to the protection of young people and their five separate occasions. If you want to speak, right to earn rates of pay that are a fair day’s Senator Campbell, you can have the call now. 5222 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

If you don’t take the call now, I will ask you recognition. It seeks to amend it in such a to desist from interjection while Senator way that what we are debating right now, this Lundy is speaking. issue of junior rates, is but one issue as part Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— of a whole raft of amendments that undermine Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the the whole status and basis of industrial rela- Environment and Parliamentary Secretary to tions and the rights of working people in this the Minister for Sport, Territories and Local country. For Senator Campbell to make such Government) (5.42 p.m.)—I do apologise to points on this specific issue really is over- the chamber for these interjections, but I will shadowed by the overwhelming changes that make this point because I am frustrated that this government is seeking to put in place. Senator Lundy refuses to admit things in her The point I am making is that the issue of contribution. I admit that she is arguing a case junior rates is part of a whole structural and she is obviously not going to give away change of workplace relations. It will now points that make the opposite case, but it is allow the transition from age discrimination very important for the chamber and anyone based rates to competency rates in the context interested in this debate to understand that of the work the industry has done. It is the there is absolutely nothing in this bill which work that the industry has done in this area precludes parties from implementing compe- which has been treated with such appalling tency based wages where they are able to be disdain and disregard by this government. developed. It is not surprising—it was interesting to Another important point I was making by hear a number of other senators refer to this, way of interjection, which was entirely unpar- as I know Senator Stott Despoja did in her liamentary, I understand, was in relation to first speech—that young people regard politi- age discrimination. Every state government cians with such distain and cynicism. In the that has age discrimination legislation has context of this debate we are seeing a funda- provided exemption for junior rates. I under- mental change and, once again, be it young stand that that is all but Tasmania and it in- people, women, older people or migrants, cludes the Labor government in New South certain people are being marginalised. Wales, which I am sure Senator Lundy would It was interesting to note that Senator Stott be familiar with. This was legislation put in Despoja, in her first speech, raised the notion place by the Carr Labor government and by of intergenerational equity, the notion that, no Jeff Shaw, the minister for industrial relations matter what your age, you have the opportuni- in that fine state. Every state, including New ty to contribute to society in a way that gets South Wales—your own Labor Party in New a fair return. That is all we are talking about South Wales—has provided for exemption for here. It is a matter of principle. Senator junior rates. They are two very important Campbell can argue the technical point all he points which Senator Lundy chooses to likes but the point here is the principle of ignore. I should not have made those points choosing whether we, as legislators, perpetu- by way of interjection and I appreciate you, ate junior rates which discriminate on the Mr Temporary Chairman, and the chamber basis of age. giving me the opportunity to make those points. Labor is clearly stating their position on this matter. We will not perpetuate it because it is The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I now not fair. We will not perpetuate it because call Senator Lundy and ask that Senator there is an effective alternative. We will not Lundy be heard in silence. perpetuate it because it is quite clear that this Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital government’s agenda goes far beyond some Territory) (5.44 p.m.)—I would like to con- of the idiosyncratic technical arguments they tinue my remarks and put them in context. have put in an attempt to substantiate this What we are talking about here is the federal move. We will not perpetuate it because the Industrial Relations Act. The workplace line that employers are running—that they relations bill seeks to amend that act beyond will sack young people if junior rates are not Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5223 perpetuated—is not a good enough reason for to do something meaningful for young people. doing it. I urge them to take it up. We all have a responsibility to make the Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) choice of whether we take that view, not only (5.51 p.m.)—I pick on three things to begin. on this technical matter, but also in our The first is that we all know that sometimes broader commitment to young people. Wheth- the louder the voice, the weaker the argument er they like it or not, the Australian Demo- and the weaker the case. I heard that a couple crats are faced with a dilemma. For as long as of times. The second thing is that I think I I can remember, they have stood on a plat- have just witnessed extraordinary Labor form of youth advocacy. But at the first opportunism. They have said, ‘Aha, let’s try opportunity to make a tangible difference to to get some votes. Never mind the 13 years young people’s ability to earn a living we were in government. Never mind what we wage—a wage on which they can sustain did not do. Here’s a chance to get some themselves—at the first opportunity in the votes.’ area of industrial relations to make a state- The third thing I would say—it is not a ment, they are choosing not to do it. The criticism—is that this bill and the amend- Democrats are choosing to back the govern- ments are exceptionally complex. It is quite ment on this measure. To me, that does not clear that some senators have not yet got say much about their commitment to young across the full range of the bill. There are people. Once again, Labor is left to support many areas on which they have made remarks what really counts under this legislation. where it is quite apparent that they have not fully grasped—this is the very point Senator There is a range of issues here. As I said Campbell made—that competency based before, those issues demand consideration of wages are fully available and fully estab- their long-term effects on working people. But lished. few issues demand comment as much as this issue of the perpetuation of junior rates and The original bill allowed junior rates to go age discrimination by the Democrats. I go without review forever. The Democrats have again to Senator Stott Despoja’s first won an amendment to prevent that occurring. speech—she is a great source of words when We are prepared to support the repeal of it comes to standing up for young people— section 90AB in relation to junior rates only where she said: because of the new section 120B and 143(1D). We believe the exemption we sup- No group in society has been more consistently ported in 1993 of excluding junior rates from subject to structural change and its cruel and age discrimination prohibition until June 1997 cutting edge, and for a longer period, than the young. simply has not delivered the outcome which we sought. We wanted to see the parties, the With respect to the Democrats, here is one unions and employers develop a non-discrim- opportunity to follow through on those senti- inatory wages system for young people, and ments in a way that will mean something they failed. tangible to young people. Senator Sherry—Why? In closing, I want to raise one other issue. Senator MURRAY—Why? At the end of It has long been a platform of the Democrats last year all that a joint union, employer and that they are independent and not bound by Labor government working party came up the caucus position. On this issue, where the with was to replace the current age based platform of the Democrats has so strongly junior rates in awards like the retail industry been advocacy of young people, they should with virtually exactly the same wage rates but take advantage of an unbound caucus. Hope- with the references to age replaced by refer- fully, with at least five of them, it might make ences to schooling and years since school. a difference to young people in the years to Very smart! Very, very slippery! So a 17- come because this is the only tangible oppor- year-old in the retail industry no longer gets tunity that the Democrats have with this bill paid 30 per cent less than an adult because 5224 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 they are 17 years old but because they are the Most young workers are not paid on age first year out of year 11. related wages in the federal system. Some That ingenious Claytons ALP solution industries—that is, those involving physical would have had the young people of Australia or labouring work—pay young people stan- dancing in the street. Do you think they are dard award wages or full competency based mugs? That was all that was going to be wages. The 100,000-odd young people who delivered as a result of section 90AB. The this year will commence apprenticeships or Democrats will not be party to a sham solu- traineeships will be paid according to progress tion. We would prefer the transition to a non- through their training, not on the basis of their discriminatory wages system for young people age. Young people who finish training or to take a little longer rather than not to apprenticeships move to qualified rather than happen at all. Section 90AB was destined for age based rates of pay. In fact, junior rates a sham solution under Labor. We have decid- apply to only about 220,000 of the 590,000 ed to terminate the process that was leading workers aged under 20. to that solution and institute instead a pro- About 70 per cent of junior rates workers active test case to progress the issue. are employed in the retail industry. Full-time While federal industrial relations law has employment amongst this category has not been amended to act on wage discrimination grown significantly in two decades. Virtually against young people, no state industrial all new youth jobs are casual or part time, relations law has followed. Since 1993 the including about 80 per cent of retail jobs. Arnold Labor government in South Australia, This makes young workers even more vul- the Goss Labor government in Queensland, nerable to the whims of employers. Only the Carr Labor government in New South about one in six are unionised; a key reason Wales and the Labor Green majority in the why there has been no significant review of Tasmanian parliament could have but have junior rates, even during the review of award not abolished junior rates. Where is this sham salary systems under the award restructuring passion of yours? Where is this great princi- process. They just did not matter enough to ple? For 13 years the Labor Party have done you. nothing and are still doing nothing even in the A test case will require employers and the states where they have the power. The prob- government to put up or shut up on the lem with them is that they do not have the argument that abolishing junior rates will cost soul and the philosophy they used to have. jobs. It will allow interested parties outside That is why they are starting to lose out in the the union who represent only one in six political war. They have lost their soul. young people and employers to make propo- We could be left with a bizarre situation in sals. It will allow the AIRC to fundamentally 1997 where federal awards might have junior review the unwritten assumption in current rates removed but state awards, under which awards that young people should always be the majority of young people are employed, paid less than adult employees. It will give would not. Further, employers in states the AIRC a clear instruction from parliament deemed by the new federal act to have satis- to give the industrial problems of young factory vetting of employment agreements in workers the priority they have been denied Queensland, New South Wales and South due to lack of interest from both unions and Australia could avoid the federal ban on employers. junior rates by entering into a state employ- Most importantly, the test case will develop ment agreement. In short, in the vitally principles for the replacement or modification important industries where young people are of junior rates capable of adoption by each of employed—retailing and hospitality—only a the state industrial commissions. Then we will small minority would be likely to benefit from not have to rely on any Labor government the provisions standing alone in the federal who will not do it. Through the mechanism act. You are damned by your record in the of a test case, we can achieve the review of states and federally. junior rates in both federal and state awards. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5225

By way of precedent, in 1993 the Democrats bench? Or if the full bench says there ought moved an amendment to the Industrial Rela- not be full wages, what are the union or the tions Act requiring the AIRC to commence a employees going to do about it? In any event, test case to examine the issue of leave to care where does the full bench get its jurisdiction for sick members of a worker’s household. on this point? I take it that this would be in That test case reported two years later. It the settlement of a dispute. But it is not the was adopted by all state commissions and is settlement of a dispute. It is giving advice to now being implemented into awards. It was government when that very government might a highly successful process which offered a well be a litigant before that very bench. It real and comprehensive solution to the then seems to be a most extraordinary process to vexed questions of carers leave. We believe undertake. it can and will do the same on junior rates. It If the Industrial Relations Commission would have been easy for us to adopt the should be anything, it should be independent. principled but wasteful and hopeless idea that It should not indicate its mind before a we can just carry on as we were before. But decision is made. It seems to me that, were we have taken a hard decision to go the right you to ask it to give an opinion—because that route to get this age discrimination overturned is what this will be: provide an opinion to a through a mechanism that we believe will minister, copies of which to be tabled in each work in both federal and state arenas, because house of parliament and debated—how can we cannot rely on Labor and we have never that lead to an appreciation of the commission been able to. being an independent body? Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.00 p.m.)— Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— What concerns me a bit about the solution put Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the forward by Senator Murray—he puts the Environment and Parliamentary Secretary to argument very lucidly, as he always does—is the Minister for Sport, Territories and Local that he relies to a large extent on proposed Government) (6.03 p.m.)—I think the points section 120B, which is the requirement for the made by Senator Cooney are important ones commission to report on junior rates of pay. that deserve debate in the chamber—as they I would ask both him and the parliamentary usually are when Senator Cooney raises secretary about the propriety of 120B, given them—but they are matters that would fit that the full bench of the commission is under debate on government amendment No. required to report to the minister in 1999 23 which goes into those details. The quick about its views on junior rates. It directs the answer is that the commission is the body that commission as to what it ought to take into is dealing with these matters at the cliff face account in making its assessment. on a daily basis. The government with the It seems extraordinary to me that a body support of the Democrats believes that the that is meant to be an arbitrator or a concili- commission is the body that is in the best ator—to stand above the fray, as it were—is position to advise on this issue. Senator now invited to express an opinion about Murray in his contribution also made that matters which are absolutely germane to the case out. Senator Cooney, we will have more sorts of things that might be brought forward to say when we move government amendment in an industrial dispute. That is the first No. 23, which deals in detail with the point question. I would like an answer to that. It is you raised. a bit like asking the Federal Court or the High Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (6.04 Court to give its opinion about a particular p.m.)—I came in here because I heard a very constitutional issue, and then have people go reasonable challenge from Senator Sherry before that court to debate that issue. which I thought ought to be accepted. The Perhaps I can explain myself further. If the challenge was that perhaps some of us might full bench comes down in favour of youth cross the floor and vote with Labor. So I wages, what is an employer going to think thought one should come and listen to the about it when he or she goes to this full proposition and understand what is being said, 5226 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 because there may have been a reasonable so and have made it into a very personal argument to do that. I listened carefully to debate. I am not surprised they are playing for Senator Sherry and Senator Lundy, but you the person in this debate, because they do not did not say anything. You really left me with have the ball. having wasted quite an amount of time The most disappointing feature of this because you did not argue your case. debate is that, yes, like Senator Woodley, I I agree with Senator Campbell that Senator have been waiting to hear alternatives being Cooney did ask some important questions. proffered. I too support the move to a compe- But what are the answers? It is easy to ask tency based training system. I too support a questions, but that did not advance my ability shift in emphasis from people’s age and rates to decide whether or not I should cross the to their experience, their training levels and floor. I was a bit concerned that there was a their skills. I do not support the notion of certain amount of personal—I will not call it youth wages; I do not support the notion of abuse but it was certainly attack. That never exploitation of young people simply because impresses me in debate. They did yell a fair they are young; and I do not support the idea bit, especially Senator Sherry; so did Senator of proffering the notion of what Senator Lundy. That surprised me because I had not Lundy referred to as a living wage. Senator heard her yell before. Murray has just countered that argument. Senator Jacinta Collins—And Senator I know that government and opposition Murray. advisers as well as members are aware that, Senator WOODLEY—Senator Murray, did in effect, the national training wage—the you yell? scheme that has been put forward—is a de facto aged based system. It is one thing to Senator Murray—I am very sorry. come in here and do political and petty point The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- scoring. No wonder young people are cynical tor West)—Order! There is supposed to be about politics and politicians. The youth poll only one speaker here. surveys that we conduct every year—I might Senator WOODLEY—I think I should tell add that no other political party surveys you a story about an old preacher who used young Australians every year—show that 98 to write all his sermons and speeches in full. per cent of young people do not trust us as far He would leave a margin down the left-hand as they could spit a rat. The point is that they side of each page where he would write do not trust sham solutions either. comments such as: gesture with the left hand, I have been waiting for months and gesture with the right hand, gesture with both weeks—in fact, for the three years since I was hands. One day a colleague found the manu- seconded to the office of former Senator script, and written in the margin was ‘argu- Robert Bell, who, I might add, was respon- ment weak—shout’. You did not convince sible for initiating amendments that ruled out me, Senator Sherry. I will still be voting with discrimination on the basis of age—for practi- my Democrat colleagues. cal and workable solutions. I oppose the Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- notion of youth wages. I also oppose the tralia) (6.06 p.m.)—I too have listened with notion of a de facto wage based scheme that interest to the contributions made by the will still see young people and their efforts opposition and the government in this debate. underpaid and under-rewarded. Madam Chair, as you know and as your Unfortunately, the notion of discrimination reading of my first speech and other speeches on the basis of age—there is breathtaking that I have made in this place attest, this is an hypocrisy in here this afternoon—is some- issue which I have a great deal of interest in, thing that both old parties in this place have a great deal of commitment to and one I feel been comfortable with for 60 or 70 years. For very passionately and strongly about. Mem- over 60 years, both Liberal and Labor govern- bers of the ALP have referred to me on a ments, be they federal or state, have done number of occasions in the last half hour or absolutely nothing about it. In 1993— Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5227

Senator Jacinta Collins—And the Demo- then seen a solution that did not necessarily crats just waited. turn out to be a de facto age based system. Senator STOTT DESPOJA—We did not It is important that we get on record the wait. disappointment we feel towards previous and Senator Jacinta Collins—You just said current state and federal governments. As you did. You said you just waited, waited, Senator Murray said, there are state govern- waited. ments, both Liberal and Labor, which have Senator STOTT DESPOJA—We waited had an opportunity to do something about the for a solution. We did not wait to do anything issue of youth wages. We have had to ac- about it, because Senator Robert Bell initiated knowledge that, unfortunately, the transition this process in 1993. He did it with the from a junior wage rate system to a non- former Labor government. I do not seem to discriminatory wage based system will take a recall anyone here remembering the process little longer than we had hoped. We have of private negotiations, discussions and pushed for a proactive solution through an consultations that took place between former AIRC test case. We are hoping that an IRC Senator Robert Bell and the then industrial test case will, once and for all, progress and relations minister, the member for Kingsford- resolve this issue. Smith (Mr Brereton), as part of the negotia- Junior rate provisions in awards have never tions that the Democrats were involved in been reviewed. However, section 120B re- back in 1993 on their IR bill. quires that the IRC conduct a full test case Let us not misread the political realities within two years; that is, it should report back here. This is not my preferred position. This to the parliament within two years on the is not a perfect solution. I do not for one feasibility of replacing junior rates with non- minute imagine that the coalition government discriminatory alternatives. This report will would incorporate my preferred position in also include an assessment of the desirability law. What is the alternative in a political of replacing junior rates with non-discrimin- sense? The political alternative is that we—I atory alternatives, the consequences for youth suspect that the people on the sidelines, the employment and the utility of junior rates for ALP opposition—would see this nation go to different types of employment in different a double disillusion, in which I have no doubt industries as well as the school to work that the coalition would ram through legisla- transition. tion that would not necessarily treat young The particularly positive feature of such a people kindly. So it is within that political test case, much along the same lines as the reality that the Democrats have indicated they carer’s leave test case—which was again will oppose the amendment put forward by initiated by the Australian Democrats—is that, the ALP or support the repeal of section when it comes up with a solution that is 90AB, and it is within that political context practical and fair, this will then flow on to that they have done so. state commissions. This will happen in the The Australian Democrats are in the same same way that the carer’s leave case was position that we were in in 1993. We are left adopted by all state commissions and is now with the responsibility of coming up with a being implemented. I imagine that the IRC workable solution. In 1993, we had to come case will pick up those state commissions. up with a workable solution, or at least The reality is that the majority of young initiate a process that would see junior wage workers, as we know, are employed under rates phased out and replaced with non- state awards rather than federal awards. exploitative wage levels. As Senator Murray Seventy per cent are in the retail industry and referred to, in the last three years, we have 75 per cent are in casual or part-time work. seen very little action. We have seen a joint The federal abolition of junior rates would not union-employer-government body. Perhaps the necessarily have flowed through to state Australian Democrats should have been awards and agreements. No other state present on that working party. We might have government, Liberal or Labor, has moved to 5228 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 abolish junior rates, despite the opportunity to inely agree and that the employees will not be do so and despite the fact that a majority of disadvantaged in comparison with their young people are employed under state award; giving the IRC and the Employment agreements. Advocate an express duty to have particular I am concerned about the IRC time line. I regard to the interests of young workers in all have expressed my disappointment with that. their functions; expanding government report- I think three years is too long. I acknowledge ing requirements on the impact on enterprise that, for a test case to be done properly—such bargaining on vulnerable groups to include as the carers leave test case—it does take young people as well; or expanding the rights time. But I would hope that this parliament of unions to enter workplaces to investigate and individuals—certainly Senator Kernot has award breaches, such as under-payment, pledged that she will be writing to the IRC— without the need for a written invitation from urge that this determination be brought down a young worker capable of being seen by the as quickly as possible so that, finally, a employer. There are a number of references workable and appropriate solution is imple- and I am sure that Senator Murray will mented. continue to refer to them throughout the bill. I mentioned the political realities. This is We have made and negotiated these gains the only reason that the Australian Democrats within the context of a regressive piece of would agree to defer an amendment which legislation. It is against this political back- was of their initiation. This proposal—Senator drop—this political reality—that my party has Murray used the word ‘sham’—actually offers agreed to the repeal of section 90AB. I a workable solution as opposed to a sham understand this rationale and understand that solution. It is about bringing about real it was the best and only option available to change for young Australians. the Australian Democrats. Senator Murray, all Senator Jacinta Collins—Even his ‘sham’ my colleagues and I remain opposed to the was not an accurate representation. notion of discrimination on the basis of age. For that reason, we find this decision a Senator STOTT DESPOJA—‘Sham’ is an difficult one. accurate representation. The proposal that we are talking about is a sham solution. By But I think I found it more difficult this allowing the cut-off date to exist as it current- afternoon to listen to members of the opposi- ly does, there is no workable solution at the tion championing their commitment in this moment to ensure that young people are no place to young Australians; to have one longer exploited or that their wage levels are honourable senator say that this is the first non-discriminatory. You are merely taking and only opportunity to show a tangible away the reference to age but not providing commitment to young Australians. You could young people with something that Senator reel off a list of incredibly regressive and Lundy referred to repeatedly, and that is the negative things that their party did for young notion of a living wage. people—whether it was cutting eligibility of The Democrats have secured benefits for the dole, introducing higher education fees, young people in this bill. It was a draconian making Austudy harder to access or reducing piece of industrial relations legislation. I do those payments. It is just extraordinary. not shy away from that. The Democrats have This is not the only opportunity that this made it marginally better. chamber has had to do something tangible for There are a number of positive things that young Australians. But what this opportunity the Democrats have secured for young Aus- is about for one particular party in this cham- tralians in the context of this bill, whether it ber today is petty political point scoring. It is is requiring all enterprise agreements seeking about attacking individuals and attacking my to change apprenticeships and traineeships to party because we are trying, yet again, to be approved by the IRC or the Employment come up with a workable solution in a posi- Advocate to ensure that the employees genu- tion where the two parties have failed for the Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5229 past 60 years, but more previously, in the last You might think this is petty political point three years. scoring, Senator, but it does not say anything All my colleagues are opposed to discrimi- about a test case. I do not know whether you nation on the basis of age. All my colleagues understand the difference or not, but there is oppose the exploitation of young people, and a pretty fundamental difference between a that means that we oppose young people report from the full bench to the minister— being paid 40 per cent less than adult workers who I do not think will do anything about it, simply because they are young. This remains necessarily—and a full bench test case. our view whether you dress it up as a national A full bench test case, once that decision is training wage; whether you dress it up as handed down, carries legal weight. It is a final CBT; or whether you do what Hewson did in decision. But a report from the full bench to advocating a regressive $3 an hour youth the minister carries, we would submit, not a wage—and the ALP quite rightly attacked great deal of weight at all. When you talk him for this—while at the same time advocat- about sham, Senator Stott Despoja, that is ing a training wage and training benefits that what 120B is. This is a sham provision. It were 40 per cent of adult rates for the same does not mean very much at all. work done as adult workers. I will give the Democrats a good reason The Democrats remain opposed to discrimi- why the hospitality industry, which is one of nation on the basis of age. This is not the first the largest industries in this country, should opportunity that we have had to come up with no longer have junior rates as of today. Seven a workable solution. It is not the best. I am or eight years ago the parties in the hospitali- not happy with the time line proposed by the ty industry—and I was involved in this at a IRC. But this is not about scoring political national level—sat down and worked out, points. It is about a principle. It is a principle with respect to federal and state awards, to which we are all incredibly strongly com- competency based training, career structures mitted. It is a principle that requires a work- and training modules that were fully transport- able, appropriate and fair solution. able and fully articulated. They commenced Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy that work nationally seven or eight years. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.21 Senator Murray keeps making the point that p.m.)—I do not apologise for shouting and state awards are more important than federal getting passionate about this issue. There are awards in the context of junior rates. A lot of two reasons for that. One was to engage the state awards have a nexus with state awards. Democrats—and I am pleased to see that at This is true in the hospitality industry. Some least a number of them are in here responding seven or eight years ago we commenced the to at least one of the issues on which they work in the hospitality industry. That work on have done a deal with the government. But career paths, training modules and competen- there is a second and much more important cy based training for all employees was reason for my being passionate. I will explain completed some three or four years ago. We this in some detail. It is in respect of the took a set of outmoded classifications which hospitality industry and the work that is being referred to barmaids, cooks, breakfast cooks, done in respect of competency-based training bar attendants and cellarmen and ripped them in that industry, about which I have some up and started again and inserted a range of detailed knowledge. career streams with gradings based upon competency, training and skill. But, in terms of accuracy, Senator Stott Despoja, I think you should read 120B. Look What will happen in the hospitality industry at it now. Look at what it says, Senator Stott as a result of this provision that the Demo- Despoja. It says: crats and government have agreed to? Even Before 22 June 1999, a Full Bench must prepare a though this work in the hospitality industry— report for the Minister on the feasibility of replac- an industry employing some 250,000 or ing junior rates with non-discriminatory alterna- 300,000 people—was completed some two or tives. three years ago junior rates of pay will con- 5230 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 tinue. The important thing, Senator Murray, I certainly hope on that occasion that you do about the completion of that work with not give them another three-year extension. respect to federal awards is that state awards Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) in the hospitality industry, which exist in (6.28 p.m.)—I have looked carefully at this restaurants and clubs and cover some hun- provision. I was looking at a speech in 1994 dreds of thousands of people, have a nexus on the ALP government’s proposal to change with federal awards. The changes in the the laws to increase that deadline to 1997. I federal award flow through to state awards. am on the record at that time as opposing that We have an industry where all of the require- provision. It is amazing how a deadline can ments that you want to see have been met. move people into action. The reality is that, The Democrats have talked about the retail if those deadlines are reached, it will be a industry. The difficulty is that when you keep requirement that an agreement is in place. We moving the deadline unfortunately some have not reached that deadline yet. The state employers take advantage of that. What of the current agreement should not be used happened in the middle of last year? The as the rationale for why we will not be requir- retail industry took what it regarded as a ing agreement to be met by 1997. realistic view—and the election result subse- I believe the repeal of 90A and 90B should quently confirmed this—that we were going be opposed. If we repeal the exemption from to lose the election so they downed tools and the discrimination clauses we will at least by went on strike. They did nothing. That is 1997 be able to have—and the parliamentary what happened, as I understand it. For doing secretary may like to indicate if I am wrong— nothing, the employers in that industry will be a test case. If by 1997 the agreements are still rewarded with at least another three-year discriminatory then a real test case could take extension, and probably longer because of the place. I am sure there would be one quick industry by industry assessment by the com- smart if that were the case. mission, and a report from the full bench to the minister which the minister does not have It is amazing how a deadline can move to do a thing with. people to act. I believe that the election stopped the process. I said in 1994 that I If it was a full bench test case which would thought the whole aspect of youth wages was be binding on the parties I would have a little based on the NIMTO principle—the not in more confidence in the solution, Senator my term of office principle. That is what we Murray, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator have done here. We have actually seen that a Woodley. You put that position to us three process which should have gained momentum years ago. It was a reasonable compromise at by next year will now be pushed to a time the time. I remember former Senator Bell outside the current term of office of this explaining it in the chamber. It was reason- government. able to say, ‘Give it another three years and That means it will not be an election issue let the parties get together.’ It was not a again but it will be decided just after when- matter of the then Labor government going ever the next election occurs. We will go along and knocking their heads together. It through this process again. I think it is time does not work like that. The parties had to sit we bit the proverbial bullet. I think all the down and try to work it out. arguments that were given in 1994 by the I have given one example of an industry Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition that did that. I can give you all the paperwork remain. Social needs are the same, youth are in the world to show you the work that was less productive and less competent, lower done there. I am happy to give you that and wages provide an incentive for young people to show that what I say is correct. When you to remain in training, increasing youth wages keep moving the goal posts unfortunately could cause an increase in youth unemploy- employers in some industries will take advan- ment—they have all been refuted. Those tage of that. I am sure in three years time arguments are no less valid today than they they will come back and do the same thing. are now. To say that whatever has been Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5231 agreed or not agreed today, in November NOES 1996, is a reason for saying that we will Bishop, M. Brown, B. forget about moving towards that deadline in Carr, K. Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A. Collins, R. L. 1997 is nonsense. Colston, M. A. Conroy, S. We finally heard that it is not the Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. Democrats’ preferred position and that it is Crowley, R. A. Evans, C. V. * basically to avoid a double dissolution. What Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. Hogg, J. does that mean for the Telstra bill? What does Lundy, K. Mackay, S. that mean for any of the budget bills? What Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. does that mean for any of the bills that are Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J. coming up that are so important, including O’Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F. those relating to the HECS provisions or Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. Austudy—the ones that we will get to vote Sherry, N. West, S. M. on? What does that mean for them if the basic PAIRS reason is to avoid a double dissolution trig- Alston, R. K. R. Bolkus, N. ger? I can only wait with horror, if that is the Newman, J. M. Foreman, D. J. Parer, W. R. Denman, K. J. major reason for a non-preferred position Short, J. R. Faulkner, J. P. being taken, a step backwards in this area, to * denotes teller see what we have to look forward to with the other bills coming before the Senate which, Question so resolved in the affirmative. if people operate on that principle, could be Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy used as a double dissolution trigger. This is Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.40 not the basis upon which good decision p.m.)—I seek leave to withdraw opposition making should be made in the Senate. amendment No. 29. The CHAIRMAN—The question is that Leave granted. item 11 stand as printed. Amendment withdrawn. The committee divided. [6.36 p.m.] Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— (The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Ayes ...... 40 Environment and Parliamentary Secretary to Noes ...... 28 the Minister for Sport, Territories and Local —— Government) (6.41 p.m.)—I move: Majority ...... 12 —— (20) Schedule 5, page 27 (after line 16), after item 13, insert: AYES Abetz, E. Allison, L. 13A After section 98 Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. Insert in Division 1: Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. 98A Commission to avoid technicalities and Coonan, H. Crane, W. facilitate fair conduct of proceedings Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. The Commission must perform its functions in Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J a way that avoids unnecessary technicalities and Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W. facilitates the fair and practical conduct of any Herron, J. Hill, R. M. proceedings under this Act. Kemp, R. Kernot, C. Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H. This amendment inserts a new section, 98A, Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. the purpose of which is to emphasise that the MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. commission must perform its functions in a Minchin, N. H. Murray, A. way that avoids unnecessary technicalities and O’Chee, W. G. Panizza, J. H. facilitates the fair and practical conduct of Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E. proceedings under the act. The proposed Stott Despoja, N. Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. Troeth, J. provision emphasises the government’s Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. objective of providing access to simple, Woodley, J. Woods, R. L. speedy and cost-effective proceedings which 5232 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 do not impose unnecessary procedural bur- body that over the years has acted very well dens on the parties. and upon which many very honourable men Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy and women have sat and dispensed fairness Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.41 and justice. p.m.)—You put such a compelling case, we Amendment agreed to. will support it. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.44 (6.42 p.m.)—This is a very important provi- p.m.)—The opposition opposes items 15, 16 sion, from our point of view, to improve the and 18 of schedule 5. In respect of amend- operation of the AIRC. The Democrats, as the ment 31, the bill provides for allowable award chamber knows, have been strong defenders matters to be dealt with by the full bench. As of the independence and authority of the a consequence of our amendment 27, which AIRC. In doing that we do recognise, as I am deletes allowable award matter provisions, we sure you do, that they are not a perfect body. also delete this provision. Further, we re- Unions and employers have complained that instate the existing provision concerning the AIRC is far too legalistic; that lawyers are matters to be dealt with by the full bench. allowed to prolong proceedings in far too Item 15, 16 and 18 agreed to. many cases; that commissioners do not pro- ceed matters as practically and as quickly as Progress reported. they should. One case was reported to us where the Federal Court criticised the AIRC GUN CONTROL CAMPAIGN for not fulfilling its statutory obligation Senator KEMP (Victoria—Assistant quickly, as it is required to do under section Treasurer) (6.46 p.m.)—I table three boxes of 98 and section 111(1)(d), for example. documents sought under order 310 and seek This small provision is a very important leave to make a short statement. statement from the parliament to the AIRC to Leave granted. clean up its act. The AIRC must operate, as far as possible, as a sensible, practical and Senator KEMP—Order 310 requires that non-technical layperson’s tribunal. It should all records relating to the tendering out and aim to get to the nub of the problem, not awarding of the advertising and public rela- cloud it in technical and legalistic difficulties. tions contracts made in the course of the national gun control public education cam- The amended bill will create an awful lot of paign be laid on the table. The documents extra work and extra conditions for the AIRC tabled have been identified as a result of a to deal with. The AIRC will not be able to search of the office of the Minister for Ad- deal with this workload and will not be able ministrative Services (Mr Jull) and the depart- to make sense of the new conditions on the ment. exercise of its powers unless it does so in a practical and fair manner that avoids unneces- From the documents identified, the Minister sary technicalities and log jams. for Administrative Services does not intend to table those which contain tender information, I commend this amendment to the Senate. comments or assessments which could have In particular, I commend it to the AIRC a detrimental effect on the activities of the members themselves. I hope that they take firms involved in the tender process. It would this provision to heart and use it proactively be unfair for all the firms involved, it could to prevent attempts by union or employer damage the tender process and it would be representatives to complicate proceedings against the public interest. Nor does the which should be kept practical and fair. I minister intend, in accordance with well support the motion. established precedents, to table cabinet docu- Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.43 p.m.)— ments, legally privileged documents, docu- I would hate it to be thought that what Sena- ments which are regarded as commercial-in- tor Murray was saying was a criticism of a confidence or advice prepared for him. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5233

In tabling these documents, I am advised by to conceal what has gone on in this instance the Minister for Administrative Services that and exemptions which indicate a cover up. they include a version of the proceedings of We are not dills, Senator Kemp, because we the ministerial committee on government can see that the firm that got the contract at communications which, in at least one area, the end of the day was not even on the list of is factually incorrect. In particular, the 1,000 which the government would normally minister places on record the fact that the look at. We are not dills because we saw that recording of attendees’ votes is not accurate. the firm that was short-listed was not even on Specifically, it errs in respect of the vote of that list of 1,000. We are not dills because we Mr Grahame Morris and omits to record the are the ones who maintained at the last sitting vote of the proxy of the Attorney-General (Mr of the estimates committee that that firm, Williams). The person who wrote the note DDB Needham, would not have been on the was not in the room when the vote was taken. short list had it not been for the intervention Senator Bolkus stood up this morning and of Mr Morris. Senator Kemp, you and your made further allegations to the effect that officers are the ones who denied this, and you there has been some form of political fix. I had to come back into this place very soon believe he said it was of ‘Fine Cotton afterwards and eat humble pie and acknow- proportions’. The Minister for Administrative ledge that we were right and you were wrong. Services answered this forcefully in response We are not dills because, having spent to his first question on this matter in over a $90,000 on research to work out which was month of messing around by the opposition. the best tender, the government, in a closed He said: meeting—having kicked out the public ser- vants at close to midnight—decided that they I think it is absolutely amazing that in the Senate would change the focus of the meeting with- we have had these accusations of a political fix to look after mates. It is absolutely amazing that we out any research in respect of that. We are not must be so hard up to look after our mates that we dills. meet in committee from 5.30 in the afternoon until I must say to you, Senator Kemp, in closing 10 past midnight. We must be so stupid that we invite the New South Wales Labor Minister for on this particular point because we are run- Police to come along and have a vote . . . If you ning out of time, that there are precedents for reckon we are trying to rig under those circum- commercial-in-confidence documents. We stances, frankly, you’re a bigger pack of dills than insist that you apply them. There are prece- I ever took you for. dents for legal advice. Flexibility should be given there. In terms of submissions to As to the allegations of a cover-up, I have ministers, so many of them were made avail- just tabled on behalf of the Minister for able to the Senate in the term of the last Administrative Services three boxes full of government that we expect the same here as documents. The slight delay in complying well. We will keep on chasing this. with the order is solely due to the unrea- sonably broad nature of this order. Even given DOCUMENTS these factors, the minister has provided three boxes of documents with more than 24 hours Family Law Council to spare before the commencement of Thurs- Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia) day night’s special estimates hearings. (6.51 p.m.)—I move: Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.49 That the Senate take note of the document. p.m.)—by leave—In respect of the comments In rising to speak on this report from the just made by Senator Kemp on the gun Family Law Council, I stand here a broken control campaign, there are several issues in man—broken because, during question time a broad sense that we contest. First of all, today, when I addressed a question to the there are exemptions being sought by the Minister representing the Attorney-General government which just do not stand up— (Senator Vanstone), the minister kindly took exemptions which indicate that they are trying the question on notice and promised to come 5234 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 back to me with a reply but then sealed my announced its decision to end the current fate forever with some complimentary words funding arrangements for legal aid on 30 June that she had to say. next year. The Commonwealth will cut Senator Murphy—What were they? something like $111 million from its contri- bution to legal aid in Australia. Senator McKIERNAN—I do not know exactly, but they have certainly damned me The Senate Legal and Constitutional Refer- forever. She referred to me in the same breath ences Committee has a wide ranging inquiry as my colleague Senator Cooney. into legal aid matters in Australia with some nine specific points of reference. Point No. 9 Senator O’Brien—‘The charming Senator is ‘the capacity of the legal aid system in the McKiernan’. proposed funding arrangements to provide for Senator McKIERNAN—‘The charming separate representation of children where such Senator Cooney’, more like it. It may be that, assistance is essential in the pursuit of because I have sat beside Senator Cooney for justice’. That inquiry is ongoing. The closing a number years, some of his graciousness has date for submissions is some time around the rubbed off on me. I am not so certain of that. end of this month. I am not so certain that there are members on The Family Law Council at 7.43 on page the other side— 44 has this to say: Senator Harradine—Ha, ha! The rationalisation and savings option. Itisa Senator McKIERNAN—I note Senator matter of concern to Council that the question of Harradine is in the chamber, and he has from legal aid funding for separate representation, which has been seen in crisis for some time, has not been time to time had some not so complimentary addressed to date. words to say about me. I just feel a broken man tonight after those words from the Not only has it not been addressed to date but Minister representing the Attorney-General. the government, through the Attorney-Gener- al, Mr Daryl Williams, has decided that it will I was reminded that a similar shadow be slashed further. Although the impact of the Attorney-General some years ago made some cuts will not come into being until 1 July next complimentary remarks in the other place at year, the legal aid commissions are actually the presentation of a report of an inquiry into cutting back now not only in separate repre- the Family Law Act of Australia. Mr Andrew sentation for children but in all legal aid Peacock said that I ought to be on the front funding right throughout the Commonwealth bench. Two elections have followed since of Australia. then and Mr Peacock sealed my fate with that statement in the House of Representatives, Who have been hurt? The needy, the bat- and I suggest that Senator Vanstone might tlers, the people who are getting into some have done a similar thing today in the Senate. legal difficulties who need legal assistance and who are not in a position to get it. I hope On a very serious note, this report from the that the presentation of this report will focus Family Law Council, Involving and repre- the community’s attention on the Senate senting children in family law, in recommen- Legal and Constitutional References Commit- dation 11 at 7.51 states: tee’s inquiry into legal aid so that the com- The Government should ensure that adequate munity and the legal profession will let their funding is available to the Legal Aid Commissions views be known to the committee to properly for the provision of separate representation. report to parliament on the requirements of A specific, dedicated fund should be provided for the legal aid system.(Time expired) the purpose of separate representation in each of the Legal Aid Commissions. The separate represen- Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.56 p.m.)— tation fund should be reviewed annually and I endorse, as I must, due to propinquity for a existing legal aid funds should not be depleted to start but also through agreement, the matters pay for separate representation. put forward by Senator McKiernan and all This report has come down in the context that he said. Legal aid is a very big issue. We where the Commonwealth government has have a wonderful and very rich country. The Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5235 legal system within which we operate is should be under the general supervision of the essential to the quality of life here. For judges of that court. example, I have just been to a display by the Question resolved in the affirmative. Tasmanian growers of salmon, the Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association, which showed ADI Ltd us how the salmon industry in that fine state Senator BISHOP (Western Australia) (7.01 is going from strength to strength and the p.m.)—I move: need to ensure that diseases do not come from That the Senate take note of the document. outside. Included within that is the issue of our legal obligations to people overseas and I rise to make a few remarks about the annual the legal obligations that operate here. No report 1996 of Australian Defence Industries. matter where you look there is a great need The end of the 1995-96 financial year marks for the law to operate and to operate well. the completion of Australian Defence Industries’ six-year restructuring program. The Family Law Council report, Involving This program was created to place the com- and representing children in family law,is pany, fully owned and operated by the very important as it deals with the issue of Commonwealth government, on a commercial children’s legal rights before the Family Court footing. and proper aid so that they are independently When the program started, ADI were losing represented. I note with some sadness on page around $300 million per annum. This year, v of this report a tribute to the late Justice they have reported an operating profit before Brian Treyvaud of the Family Court. He was abnormals and tax of $4.7 million. Whilst this a very eminent solicitor, then a very eminent is better than prior to 1989, it is still far less barrister at the Victorian bar and then a quite than in previous years. There was also a $34.5 outstanding judge. He died suddenly on 3 million write-off in abnormals this year. March this year and I bring forward his name However, this is in line with ADI’s budget at this time to commemorate the great work and the 1995-96 financial year was always he did. intended to be one of significantly lower The Family Court bench is quite outstand- profits, due to the end of the corporatisation ing, well led by Chief Justice Nicholson. A process. This is due in large part to the lot of unfair criticism is made of the court, substantial restructuring of the munitions which needs to be corrected from time to time business, which culminated in the opening of and I take this opportunity to do that. For the world-class new munitions plant at Benal- example, there is the issue at the moment of la, Victoria, in August of this year. whether or not the Family Court should retain One query did strike me as I flicked mediation on a basis where the litigants do through the report. I refer particularly to page not pay. There is a suggestion that a fee be 37 where, consistent with the corporations imposed for people using that mediation code, the remuneration paid to directors has service. been outlined. It is noted, for interest, that the I think—and there is plenty of support for remuneration to, presumably, the chief exec- this opinion—that mediation should be part of utive officer of the corporation is in the range the system that is available to people who are of $460,000 to $469,000. I trust that the usually in the most anguished of circum- Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) is stances, where there is a marriage break-up or aware of this; that there are good reasons for a threat of a marriage break-up. Those people such high payments; and that he is aware that, should be accommodated by the court in all particularly in a year when all indicators of sorts of ways, with a view to mending the the company have shown it to be performing relationship or to separating the relationship poorly, the salary and other allowances paid in the most humane way, so that those sorts to the CEO are so high. I just note that in of things are properly dealt with. The court passing. does need mediation to enable it to do that. ADI is working on a number of important Mediation should be left with the court and it projects, the biggest of which is its building 5236 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 of six minehunter ships for the Royal Austral- the successful completion of Papua New ian Navy. This project is worth around $1 Guinea’s primary cellular telephone network; billion in revenue. the recovery and recycling of coal tar sludge One of Australia’s best assets is our human at the Australian Gas Light Company’s resources talent in research and development. Mortlake site in Sydney; the emergency ADI’s employees are no exception, and this docking of MV Aurora Australis and work on is reflected in their construction of the Huon MV Iron Monarch; the repair of soil contami- class minehunter, the most advanced ship of nation; and a contract to supply eight 140- its type under construction anywhere. It boasts tonne cylindrical reactor vessels for the BHP a variable depth sonar system, remotely Port Hedland hot briquetted iron project in controlled mine disposal vehicles and an my home state of Western Australia. advanced tactical data system. The ship also One of the unfortunate sides to ADI’s has multifunctional control consoles which restructuring has been their staff reductions, can deliver all navigational and mine warfare with over 500 more employees leaving. data concurrently to the command team Indeed, their staff complement has reduced operators. This is advanced technology indeed from something over 9,000 in 1985-86 to a and a reflection of the worth of those who little over 3,000 in this financial year. (Time have been contributing to this very worth- expired) while development. Senator SANDY MACDONALD (New ADI are also building a substantial export South Wales) (7.06 p.m.)—I would like the market. Recent defence export successes opportunity, in noting the ADI annual report include: sales of ADI’s live-fire training 1996, to say something about ADI Lithgow, system to the USA, Thailand and the United formerly the Commonwealth Small Arms Arab Emirates; a contract for installation of Factory. The annual report says about ADI C3I—or command, control, communications Lithgow: and intelligence—software at the five-power The Company’s small arms business was a good air defence headquarters in Malaysia; the sale contributor to profits in 1995/96. There is a con- of ADI’s eye safe laser rangefinder to Canada, tinuing demand for spares and components for with units trialled in Malaysia and France; Steyr rifles, as the contract to manufacture these rifles draws to a close. The contract to supply and the use of the AMASS minesweeping and Minimi light support weapons to the Australian support system by overseas navies, with a Army has about one year to run. Thereafter, ADI’s recent sale to the US navy for testing. Indeed, continuation in the small arms business will depend if that program should be successful in the US on exports or on any further orders from the and implemented throughout the US navy, Australian Defence Force. significant additional revenues can be antici- ADI Lithgow has a very proud record. The pated. ADI Lithgow facility was one of the assets As I speak, ADI is completing the building sold to the company by the Commonwealth and manufacturing of two of its most import- in May 1989. The property is now owned by ant contracts in terms of the contribution to ADI Ltd. Australia’s continued security. These are the The Lithgow facility was built in 1912 for world famous Steyr rifle and the Collins class the manufacture of small arms for the Austral- submarine, one of the world’s most advanced ian Army and at that time the major product submarines. produced at the facility was the Lee Enfield ADI has also successfully moved into using 303 repeating rifle. Since then the company’s its defence knowledge and capabilities for primary purpose has been to manufacture civilian applications, sold both here and small arms. It did so during both world wars overseas. These include: major sales of and beyond. cellular telephone and trunked radio systems Over the years several attempts have been in China, India, Russia and Papua New made to introduce other products to take up Guinea; environmental clean-up operations in excess capacity when defence orders were Germany, Australia and the Czech Republic; down. Such products included golf clubs, Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5237 sewing machines, kitchen mixers and a as a very important part of our defence variety of other products, but regrettably none infrastructure. were made at a profit. ADI’s recent efforts to diversify into commercial products have not Senator WEST (New South Wales) (7.10 been successful for a number of reasons. The p.m.)—In taking note of the ADI annual economics and competition from nearby report, I also want to look at the small arms centres such as Newcastle, Sydney and Wol- factory in Lithgow. The factory has had a longong simply made their efforts uneconom- significant history. The factory has made a ic, which is a great shame. contribution to the people of Lithgow, to the economy of Lithgow, and it continues to be of the utmost importance to the area. It is an The Department of Defence and local, state industry that has a synergy with the other and federal politicians in the area are aware industries in the town and the history of the that when the current production of the Steyr town. rifle ceases, which it will do shortly, there will be a continuing problem for ADI Lith- Lithgow was the first community in this gow in keeping its present work force of 200 country that had a steelworks. When we think people. I understand that, as the current of iron and steel production in this country contract has virtually ceased for the Steyr and we think of Newcastle and Wollongong, but there are only a number of spares to be we should be thinking of Lithgow because produced and the continuation of the Minimi that is where it started. It is an area that has light machine gun, there is a great risk that coal mining and there is a heavy emphasis on the present work force of 200 will be reduced. electricity production. It is only commonsense In 1989, ADI Lithgow had 2,000 employ- to have manufacturing industries in that area ees. In 1996 it has 200 and I have very with the electricity that is there and the fact serious concerns about the number of people that the natural gas pipeline now runs to the that will be employed there in 1997. It is a area. very important facility for the township and area of Lithgow. The small arms factory is The number of people employed at the part of our folklore and the continuation of facility has been decreasing in the last number the facility is vitally important. of years and that is of concern. What is of concern now is the future of the industry. A number of possible contracts are in the That is something which the government has wind. One is the Thai contract for the Steyr; to seriously address—where do we go with another is the Philippine contract for the ADI; where does ADI take its manufacturing Steyr; and there is also the possibility of a industry in Lithgow in future? The work force service pistol for the New South Wales Police of that community is capable of not just Force. The world of weapons manufacture is producing the Steyr rifle and the machine gun a particularly competitive one. No-one knows but of a lot of other things as well. whether the facility at Lithgow will be suc- Lithgow is close to Sydney and is on the cessful or not. I might say that we would railway line. Therefore, it has infrastructure have been much closer to getting the Thai and transport is not a major problem. The contract had it not been for the rather clumsy facility has a very highly skilled work force. footed efforts by the previous foreign In recent times the work force has had to minister, Gareth Evans. change its work practices because the old 303s were basically a metal and wood compo- It is regrettable that ADI has not been able nent and the Steyr is made of moulded plastic to find further contracts and a further role for and is state-of-the-art. It has required signifi- ADI Lithgow. It is a world-class facility. It cant changes in technology and in work has a very skilled work force and work practices for the work force to be able to practices have improved. I do not know change from the metal manufacturing and whether enough initiative has been shown in fabrication that they were doing for the old promoting it as a facility for its continuation Lee Enfields through to the plastics manufac- 5238 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 tures that they are now doing for the Steyr ments without affecting the integrity of such rifle. documents, the office of the Attorney-General It is a rifle that is very popular with the has done so. I reiterate: we are tabling these Australian Defence Force and the armed documents under protest. I endorse the com- services. Because it is shorter in length than ments made by Senator Hill, Senator the old 303 it has led the ADF to have to Vanstone and Senator Kemp when they tabled modify their drill and marching procedures documents earlier today. and presentations because they are not able to ADJOURNMENT perform the same manoeuvres with the Steyr The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT that they could with the old 303. However, (Senator Patterson)—Order! It being near to that was a challenge that the ADI took up. I 7.20 p.m. I propose the question: have not heard one complaint from any officer or member of the Australian Defence That the Senate do now adjourn. Force as to the value of the Steyr rifle—the Hon. David Yeldham QC fact that it is a very lightweight rifle but is Senator COONAN (New South Wales) also capable of rapid fire. (7.16 p.m.)—I rise this afternoon to speak on The community has a desperate need for abuse of parliamentary privilege and the this facility to continue. It is incumbent upon recent tragic death of retired New South this government to work closely with ADI to Wales Supreme Court judge, the Hon. David look at other alternatives and to encourage Yeldham QC. David Yeldham served the Australian industry into its manufacturing people of New South Wales in a long and area. But this government is cutting research distinguished legal career as one of the and development. That will have an impact on leaders of the Sydney bar from 1955 until all industry, particularly this one. 1974, and as a judge of the Supreme Court of I have had the chance to only briefly look New South Wales from 1974 until his retire- at this report but I would request ADI to look ment in 1990. Since his retirement, he has carefully at the future of this plant. They need deployed his considerable skills as a mediator to continue to have negotiations and discus- and as an arbitrator in private practice. sions with the local council. I know from my I knew and admired David Yeldham—the discussions with the mayor, Gerard Martin, man and the lawyer—for over 15 years. I had that there is a number of options they can put the privilege of appearing before him as to ADI from the people in the industry in that counsel during his tenure as a Supreme Court area. It is incumbent upon ADI to take up judge. He was quick and decisive, commer- those offers and work in close consultation cially astute, and impatient of humbug. with industry in the area. I seek leave to Litigants appearing before him were treated continue my remarks later. fairly and without fear or favour. He embod- Leave granted; debate adjourned. ied the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, and developed a formidable reputation GUN CONTROL CAMPAIGN for hard work, and quick turnaround and dispatch of reserve judgments. Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister David was also a widely liked and respect- for Social Security) (7.16 p.m.)—On behalf of ed figure among his brother judges, the other Senator Vanstone, I table additional docu- members of the judiciary in New South ments, as Senator Vanstone indicated this Wales. I was gratified to see reported in the morning, other than those subject to a claim Sydney Morning Herald today expressions of of privilege. I seek leave to make a short affection for David Yeldham by former statement. colleagues, including the former Chief Justice Sir Laurence Street, the present Chief Justice Leave granted. Murray Gleeson, the present New South Senator TAMBLING—Again, where privi- Wales Governor the Hon. Gordon Samuels, leged material could be removed from docu- Justice Ian Sheppard of the Federal Court, and Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5239

Justice John Clarke of the New South Wales of parliamentary immunity with the right of Court of Appeal. an individual not to be unjustifiably attacked. To those expressions I can add those of my Perhaps the most effective safeguard, husband, the Hon. Andrew Rogers QC, a however, is for all of us who have the right former Chief Judge of the Commercial Divi- to claim parliamentary privilege for our sion who is temporarily absent overseas. utterances to keep at the forefront of our Eminent members of the senior bar in Sydney minds the profound and irremediable effect have added their voices in tribute, including such statements can have on those attacked. Tom Hughes QC and Chester Porter QC. I believe that there is a line to be drawn David Yeldham’s former colleagues and between compelling evidence on the one hand friends will miss his humour, his enthusiasm and mere suspicion, rumour, innuendo and and his professional approach to his work. smear on the other. In the end, we parliamen- David was a family man. I well remember tarians have to sharpen our judgments on his face breaking into a broad smile as he where to properly draw this line. Outside detailed the latest exploits of his beloved parliament, the law requires it. Inside parlia- grandchildren or the latest success of one of ment, the test of conscience should be no less his children. David was devoted not only to rigorous. his own family but also to other people’s families. His community service included Impulse Airlines work with the Child Accident Prevention Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) Foundation Australia and for the National (7.23 p.m.)—Before I turn to the specific Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse issue that I wish to raise tonight, I would like and Neglect. to congratulate Senator Coonan on her re- I say this to his wife Anne, his children and marks. Where you have both the responsibili- grandchildren: as you grieve, may you be ty for enacting laws and the privilege of being comforted by the high regard in which your able to speak freely in the parliament, you husband and father was held by those who have to bear those observations in mind. were associated with him. As a community, I rise tonight to speak of a matter of grave we are the poorer for his passing. concern which, if not resolved, will severely Ironically, his tragic early death has provid- impact, if not destroy, the operations of a ed a timely opportunity for debate on the significant airline company in New South proper use of parliamentary privilege. It is Wales. Impulse Airlines is a medium sized now useless to speculate on whether the airline company based in New South Wales naming of David Yeldham by Mrs Franca which provides both passenger and freight air Arena in the New South Wales Legislative services to a number of New South Wales Council, under parliamentary privilege, as cities and locations in southern Queensland. potentially the recipient of favoured treatment It is a very successful airline. It employs over by the New South Wales Wood royal com- 220 people. Most recently it won an award mission in its paedophile inquiries, was from the Australian Federation of Travel causally connected to his decision to end his Agents for its excellent service and the all- life. The relevant inquiry, I suggest, is how to round quality of its airline operation. ensure that the important and fundamental It is therefore very disturbing to see that right of parliamentary privilege can be used this company is threatened with closure by a responsibly and fairly. major multinational company; namely, British The Senate provides an opportunity for a Aerospace. The particular circumstances of person who has been adversely referred to in this issue are these: in April 1994 Impulse the Senate to have a response incorporated in Airlines entered into negotiations with the parliamentary record without the need for Jetstream Aircraft, a subsidiary of British exhaustive inquiry by the Privileges Commit- Aerospace, for the purchase of a number of tee or undue technicalities. This is one pos- aircraft, in particular, 29-seater Jetstream 41 sible way to balance the competing interests aircraft. These aircraft were intended to 5240 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 replace the existing fleet of Beech aircraft to negotiate any mediation of these proceed- operated by Impulse Air. ings. Impulse Air, as I said, operate both a What we now have is a situation which passenger and freight service. During the day, unfortunately so often arises in litigation they transport passengers up and down the between small companies and large companies coast of New South Wales and into southern and, as I have said on other occasions, be- Queensland and, of an evening, they run a tween unions and big employers. That is, the very important freight service to many region- big company can simply outlast the small al centres. I am advised, if you get a copy of enterprise. It can drag the legal proceedings the Sydney Morning Herald in any major New out and refuse to ever come to the party and South Wales country town, it will be because mediate, as has been recommended on a it has been delivered during the evening by number of occasions throughout the proceed- Impulse Air. Some of us may not quite like ings. reading the Sydney Morning Herald at times, We therefore have a situation where this but this is a very important service provided company has lost substantial income. In fact, by this company. this saga had a disastrous impact upon the Between July and December 1994 some business of Impulse Airlines. Arthur five Jetstream aircraft were provided by Andersen, the major accounting firm, has British Aerospace or by Jetstream, its subsid- estimated that the failure of the aircraft iary. All aircraft had to be returned because supplied by Jetstream to live up to what was they suffered from mechanical failures and promised cost Impulse Air in the vicinity of simply were not capable of delivering what $4.2 million in profit during the 10 months had been contracted for between Impulse Air that they operated with those aircraft. That and Jetstream. I am further advised that so contrasted with the promise through the serious were some of the defects and prob- business plan which British Aerospace pre- lems with these aircraft that, on one occasion, sented to Impulse that they would in fact there was a double engine failure on a regular make a $2.4 million profit if they used those passenger service carrying 12 senior BHP aircraft. managers between Melbourne and Newcastle. What does all this have to do with the That resulted in an emergency landing at Senate and indeed the public? It has a lot to Sydney airport and a consequent inquiry by do with it, because here we have a very the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. successful Australian enterprise providing a The aircraft had to be returned, and Impulse very necessary service to the people in region- entered into negotiations for the return of the al New South Wales and Queensland. If the aircraft and/or for compensation. At this time company goes under because of the procrasti- British Aerospace sold its Jetstream division nation and deliberate delaying tactics by to another European consortium. Impulse Air British Aerospace, then many people in took legal action against British Aerospace regional Australia will suffer besides the and on 6 November 1995 was granted permis- company. sion by the then Attorney-General Michael At the same time, this same company, Lavarch to take proceedings under the Aus- British Aerospace, is one of the major com- tralian trade practices legislation. panies being considered by the Australian The proceedings commenced and, whilst I Department of Defence for the supply of do not wish to debate at length the complete equipment and in particular the lead-in fighter saga of those legal proceedings as they are project. A decision on which company will continuing, it is clearly on the record that get to supply that lead-in fighter will be made despite many proposals for mediation between before Christmas this year. Whilst no doubt the two companies as well as proposals by proper consideration will be given to the Justice Einfeld, who is hearing the proceed- competing merits of the companies who are ings, British Aerospace has simply refused to in the race to supply extensive defence equip- come to the table. It has refused point blank ment, it is a matter of grave concern that, at Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5241 the same time, one of these companies not rights, and little experience and little ability only has failed to honour its commitments to contend with the rigours of dealing with an made in the past to Impulse Airlines but also employer. has treated a local enterprise with such con- tempt. The government needs to give very The interesting thing is that, over this serious consideration as to whether or not this period of time, we saw entrenched in the is the sort of practice that we want to see in minds of management the concept of the use Australia, where a company can literally drive of casuals, their disposability and their inabili- a small or medium sized Australian enterprise ty to branch out and adopt any other form of to the wall in such circumstances and at the employment. Ultimately, about 25 per cent of same time gain business from the Australian young people employed in the retail industry government. (Time expired) are under the age of 18. This is true in many other industries now, such as the fast food Employment: Casual and Part-time industry. If you look at other service indus- Senator HOGG (Queensland) (7.33 tries, again you will find a predominance of p.m.)—I rise this evening in the adjournment young people being employed in those jobs. debate to mention what will probably become My concern is their ability to bargain and familiar in this chamber as a hobby horse of their ability to secure reasonable employment. mine, and that is the issue of employment and the issue of dignity of people. But, in particu- One thing that we were able to achieve lar, this evening I want to refer to the issue of through the enterprise bargaining process was casuals—casualisation—and part-time em- an undertaking from the employers for pre- ployment. I find that these two areas are very dominantly more secure permanent employ- much misunderstood in the community at ment through part-time employment with large and are very much abused by employers daily minimums and maximums, weekly in general. minimums and maximums and regular rosters, so that people could have some predictability I want to make particular reference to my in both their lifestyle and income and a lengthy experience as a trade union secretary reasonable expectation of income. This was in the retail industry—as the secretary of the very important because, to my knowledge, it SDA. Over a long period of time I was able led to a real distinction between part-time and to see the balance of employment tip from casual employees for the first time in about being full-time employment down to being 15 years. To make part-timers more attractive, predominantly casual. Whilst my association they were given the right to flex up their with the SDA went back as far as 1976, in hours. The employers accepted that this the early part of that decade we saw the additional flexibility made them far more introduction of extended trading hours. I desirable than casual employees. believe that, as a direct consequence of those extended trading hours, we saw the introduc- The unfortunate thing in this situation was tion in fairly large proportions of casual that, whilst we went to great lengths to employees—predominantly junior casual explain this to the employees and whilst employees—who replaced more senior people senior management was able to grasp the who were employed in the industry at that concept, middle and lower level management time. were not able to come to grips with the When I joined the SDA in about 1976, the concept. This is part of the problem within mix was about 60 per cent full time and 40 Australian industry. Senior people in manage- per cent casual; by the time I left, the mix ment are able to grasp the concept, but they had changed to about 20 per cent full time cannot necessarily translate it into the lower and 80 per cent casual, with the vast majority levels of management. Hence our very good of those casuals being people who were under concern to promote more permanency in the age of 21. Of course, they were people employment through part-time employment with little experience of the world, little ex- and to offer additional flexibility was not perience and little ability to bargain for their necessarily taken up at the rate that it should 5242 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996 have been. Instead, people were left hanging ment.It is only then that people will ultimately with casual employment. be able to achieve their dignity. The trend to- Whilst casual employment may suit some wards casualisation has shown no signs of people, casual employment is a very demean- stemming in some industries. This must be a ing form of work if one is trying to get grave concern for all in the community, sufficient income by which to sustain oneself. because this will mean that created in our If one is given the certainty of employment society will be an underclass with few rights through a part-time contract without the need or little ability to survive. to be constantly at the beck and call of the Senate adjourned at 7.43 p.m. employer, and with a guaranteed roster and guaranteed hours, there is the chance that one DOCUMENTS can step along the road to achieving dignity. Tabling This is a very important factor in giving The Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) young people an opportunity to see that they tabled the following government documents: are something worth while. Audit Act—Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Casualisation was definitely not the respon- Authority—Report for 1995-96. sibility or making of the trade union move- ment. It evolved over time, because the ADI Limited—Report for 1995-96. employers saw the use of casual labour as a Australian Horticultural Corporation Act— very efficient and effective means of running Australian Horticultural Corporation—Report for their business. Whilst that was their short- 1995-96. term view, in the longer term I believe that Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth many employers are now forming the opinion Authorities) Act—Equity and diversity pro- gram—Airservices Australia—Report for period that part-time employment, where it offers 8 July 1995-30 June 1996. stability, is something that people will take up. Just as underemployment, be it part time Family Law Council—Reports— or casual, is a curse, it is necessary to have Family law appeals and review: An evaluation people see that, with the availability of per- of the appeal and review of family law deci- manent employment, there is an opportunity sions, June 1996. for them to obtain some form of dignity. This Involving and representing children in family is a fundamental issue. However, neither part- law, August 1996. time nor casual employment, unfortunately, The following documents were tabled by will give people the opportunity to have a the Clerk: career or, in the end, a very stable lifestyle. Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regula- When they go into a bank, credit union or tions—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemption— finance corporation and seek to get some form CASA 20/96. of finance facility, they find that they are Life Insurance Act—Actuarial Standard 1.01— turned to one side because they are in part- Valuation of Policy Liabilities, dated October time or casual employment. That is a sad 1996. thing. Public Service Act— Whilst part-time employment is a step away Locally Engaged Staff Determination 1996/33- from casual employment, it is desirable to 1996/35. make things better for younger and older Public Service Determinations 1996/194 and people. The ultimate goal is full-time employ 1996/205. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5243

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

geographic Areas to spend on all three brokered programs (JobSkills, LEAP and NWO) rather than New Work Opportunities Program for individual programs. Areas have the flexibility (Question No. 176) to determine their mix of individual programs within this group. A total of $180.5m was allocated Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for for the three brokered programs for the first quarter Employment, Education, Training and Youth of 1996-97 to cover both expenditure on new Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1996: places and expenditure on commitments entered into in 1995-96. (1) What funds have been spent or earmarked for expenditure under the New Work Opportunities As at 30 September 1996, total expenditure since Program from 1 July 1996 to 30 September 1996. 1 July 1996 under the New Work Opportunities (2) To which federal electorates do those funds (NWO) program amounted to $84.3m. go and how much goes to each. (2), (3) and (4) LMP allocations are based on the (3) How many places under the New Work Department of Employment, Education, Training Opportunities program have been filled in each of and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) Area structure and those federal electorates. not Federal electorates. The following table shows (4) What is the current rate of unemployment in by each DEETYA Area: each of those areas in which those funds and places have gone. the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (5) On what basis was the money allocated to Regional Labour Force Estimates data for July these particular areas and not to others. 1996 converted by DEETYA into the Department’s Area structure; (6) Was the level of unemployment in the local area considered in the decision to allocate these the amount of funds allocated for the three funds; if not, why not. brokered programs for the first quarter of 1996- Senator Vanstone—The answer to the 97; and honourable senator’s question is as follows: the number of brokered program places filled (1) In the period 1 July 1996 to 30 September in the period 1 July 1996 to 30 September 1996 1996 funds were allocated to my Department’s by each Area.

UE RATE AND BROKERED PROGRAM ACTIVITY BY AREA IN 1996-97

Unemployment Rate (as at 30 July Brokered Program Brokered Program AREA 1996) Allocation Commencements ACT/ILLAWARRA 7.7% $8.47m 165 COASTAL 9.7% $14.31m 350 HUNTER NORTHERN 9.8% $13.46m 1,203 MELBOURNE WEST 10.3% $14.46m 673 MELBOURNE EAST 4.3% $5.12m 43 NORTHERN AUSTRALIA 7.0% $3.99m 80 QUEENSLAND CENTRAL 9.8% $18.19m 1,093 QUEENSLAND NORTH 7.8% $8.85m 319 SA NORTH 5.7% $9.12m 599 SA SOUTH 7.5% $6.85m 55 SYDNEY EASTERN 7.1% $9.78m 85 5244 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

Unemployment Rate (as at 30 July Brokered Program Brokered Program AREA 1996) Allocation Commencements SOUTH WEST SYDNEY 10.2% $9.73m 211 TASMANIA 8.2% $7.84m 129 VICTORIA COUNTRY 10.4% $9.18m 608 VICTORIA SOUTH EAST 8.7% $9.59m 407 WA NORTH 9.0% $6.29m 206 WA SOUTH 7.6% $8.67m 255 WESTERN NSW 7.5% $10.88m 368 WESTERN SYDNEY 5.8% $5.68m 386 TOTAL 8.1% $180.46m 3,858

(5) and (6) LMP funds for brokered programs in (1) One Departmental Liaison Officer was the first quarter of 1996—97 were allocated to attached to the office of the Minister for Resources DEETYA Areas to: and Energy. (i) cover projected financial commitments to (2)-(3) The salaries of staff, including ministerial brokers and clients that were entered into in allowances, together with administrative expendi- previous financial years; and ture, totalled $24,438 to 8 October 1996. This (ii) allow the contracting of around 5,000 new figure makes up the bulk of the financial cost to the places. Around 3,000 of these places were specifi- Commonwealth of the employment of the staff. cally set aside for DEETYA Areas with Regional Offices that operate in rural and remote localities. To obtain information on other overheads Each Area’s share of national total of rural and associated with the employment of these staff, such remote Very Long Term Unemployed (ie +18 as superannuation and property operating expenses months unemployed) clients was used as the basis would involve considerable research, and I am not for allocating funds. prepared to authorise the time and resources entailed in collecting the information. The remaining 2,000 places were distributed on the basis of the number of Unemployed (client) (4) The officer’s title is Department Liaison Placements each Area is expected to achieve as Officer and the roles and duties of the position part of its 1996-97 Area Operational Plan. include: Ministerial Staff: Resources and Energy managing one or more major issues or projects for the Minister’s offices; (Question No. 242) in consultation with the Senior Adviser, play Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for a major role in managing the relationship be- Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 tween the Minister’s office and the Department; October 1996: ensure effective communication is maintained (1) What staff, other than staff employed under between the Minister’s office and the Depart- the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, were ment; employed in or attached to the office(s) of the Minister and each of his or her Parliamentary monitor and maintain the flow of paper Secretaries as at Tuesday, 8 October 1996. between the Department and the Minister’s office (2) What were the total salary costs of such staff. and assist in identifying and resolving any particular or ongoing inefficiencies; and (3) What was the financial cost to the Common- wealth of the employment of such staff. advise Departmental staff on the requirements (4) What were the titles, roles and duties of such and procedures of the Minister and his staff. staff and what public service (or equivalent) The Public Service classification of the officer is classifications did they carry. Senior Officer Grade B. (5) Under what programs were they employed. (5) The officer was employed under Program 4— Senator Parer—The answer to the honour- Corporate Policy and Management of the Depart- able senator’s question is as follows: ment of Primary Industries and Energy. Wednesday, 6 November 1996 SENATE 5245

Palm Beach, Rockingham ‘The Cockburn Sound beaches, particularly those in the Rockingham area, were subjected to (Question No. 252) detailed analysis in order to determine any Senator Margetts asked the Minister effects of the Causeway construction. All representing the Minister for Defence, upon methods of analysis, including a statistical study notice, on 8 October 1996: of beach widths, comparison of aerial photo- graphs (1954—1972), sediment tracking, sedi- (1) Is the Minister aware of a March 1994 report ment analysis and a calculation of the net yearly by the Western Australian Department of Transport sediment movement, showed that the recreational on the erosion of Palm Beach, Rockingham, which beaches between Rockingham and the Causeway attributes the loss of this foreshore to the Navy were dynamically stable. Dynamically stable causeway to HMAS Stirling. means that in the short term (one to five years) (2) Does the department agree that the causeway they may show extensive accretion or erosion but has prevented the sand nourishment of the Palm in the long term the beaches will have basically Beach coastline and has consequently caused the a constant alignment, sand volume and cross erosion of this shoreline; if so, will the department section. The contribution of ocean swell wave be providing financial assistance or any other energy to these beaches was always small and assistance to the City of Rockingham to artificially was eliminated by the Causeway.’ resupply the affected shoreline with sand; if not, The causeway has reduced the wave energy why not. approaching the beach from the west and may have (3) Will the department be taking any other also reduced the amount of sand moving along the remedial action to prevent the ongoing loss of beach. It is suspected that this has a positive result public amenity in the interests of the ratepayers of in maintaining the beach width. Thus, there is no Rockingham. conclusive evidence that the causeway has affected the nourishment of Palm Beach. Senator Newman—The Minister for De- fence has provided the following answer to Recent severe storms in Western Australia—the worst for 20 years—have affected the whole the honourable senator’s question: coastline between Albany and Geraldton, and in all (1) I am aware of the March 1994 report by the probability caused the beach erosion at Palm Beach Western Australian Department of Transport east of the causeway to Garden Island. entitled ‘Cape Peron—Rockingham, Management Accordingly, my Department advises that it does of Siltation at The Entrance to the Boat Ramp not agree that the causeway has been responsible Basin’. for the erosion of the Palm Beach coastline and (2) The beaches at Rockingham have always therefore will not be providing any assistance to the been very narrow with no dune and sand reserves. City of Rockingham. Consequently, considerable protection works have (3) In response to the third part of Senator already been undertaken in the Palm Beach Hymas Margetts’ question, the Department of Defence will Road area since at least 1966. not be taking remedial action. The design of the road link from the mainland at Point Peron to Garden Island was a compromise Mining: Garden Island between two conflicting requirements. During the (Question No. 253) late 1960s planning process for the causeway, which was completed in 1973, the Fremantle Port Senator Margetts asked the Minister Authority favoured a full breakwater which would representing the Minister for Defence, upon provide protection to a future outer harbour to be notice, on 8 October 1996: built on the southern flats of Cockburn Sound. For (1) Is the Minister aware that a mining company environmental reasons the Commonwealth favoured has lodged an application to open a lime sands a bridge. The compromise design was of a rubble quarry on Garden Island, the site of the HMAS mound breakwater with two bridged openings to Stirling Naval Base in Western Australia. assist the movement of water into the sound. The opening closer to the mainland enables water flow (2) Is the Minister aware that his predecessor to the southern shoreline of the sound. received and rejected a similar request in 1995. Prior to the causeway construction the environ- (3) Is the Minister also aware that lime sands are mental impact of the structure on Cockburn Sound relatively abundant in Western Australia but the was assessed. A recently completed report commis- flora and fauna of Garden Island are regarded as sioned by the Department of Defence titled ‘Re- highly significant for native conservation. view of the Impact of the Garden Island Causeway (4) Will the Minister give an assurance that he on the Cockburn Sound WA Environment’ states will maintain the Commonwealth Government’s that: opposition to mining on Garden Island. 5246 SENATE Wednesday, 6 November 1996

(5) What will the Minister’s response be to the the Commonwealth Department responsible for Western Australian Minister for the Environment’s such applications, has not received the forecast letter asking the Federal Government to review its request from Precious Metals Australia. decision not to allow lime sands mining on Garden (2) The Minister is aware that the previous Island. Minister for Administrative Services received a similar request in 1995 and rejected it in 1996. This Senator Newman—The Minister for De- rejection was based upon objections submitted by fence has provided the following answer to the previous Minister for Defence. the honourable senator’s question: (3) Yes. (4) It is not the responsibility of the Minister for (1) The Minister is aware that the Western Defence to maintain the Commonwealth Govern- Australian Minister for Mines has written to the ment’s position on matters of this nature. This is Minister for Administrative Services in support of more properly a question for the Minister for a bid by Precious Metals Australia to conduct Administrative Services. exploration for lime sands on Garden Island, WA. (5) No ministerial correspondence on this issue As yet, the Department of Administrative Services, has been received by the Minister for Defence.