COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

MONDAY, 28 OCTOBER 1996

THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—SECOND PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA CONTENTS

MONDAY, 28 OCTOBER

Ministerial Arrangements ...... 4545 Questions Without Notice— Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs . . . 4545 Lindsay By-election ...... 4546 Unemployment ...... 4547 Interest Rates ...... 4548 Unemployment ...... 4549 Youth Concert: Military Police ...... 4550 Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs . . . 4551 Trade ...... 4552 ATSIC: Special Auditor ...... 4553 Public Housing ...... 4555 Boobera Lagoon ...... 4556 Higher Education Contribution Scheme ...... 4556 Office Fit-outs ...... 4558 Questions On Notice— Question No 115 ...... 4559 Questions Without Notice— Boobera Lagoon ...... 4559 Gun Control: Advertising Contract ...... 4559 Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs . . . 4559 Petitions— Gun Control ...... 4566 Telstra: Privatisation ...... 4566 ABC: Funding ...... 4566 ABC: Funding ...... 4566 ABC: Funding ...... 4566 ABC: Funding ...... 4567 Medicare Offices ...... 4567 Radio Triple J ...... 4567 Medicare Provider Numbers ...... 4567 Medicare Provider Numbers ...... 4567 Notices of Motion— Assistant Treasurer ...... 4568 Sir Roland Wilson ...... 4568 Unemployment ...... 4568 Burma ...... 4568 Community Affairs Legislation Committee ...... 4568 Liberal Party Fundraising ...... 4568 Community Affairs Legislation Committee ...... 4569 Consideration of Legislation ...... 4569 Lindsay By-election ...... 4569 Lindsay By-election ...... 4569 Public Works Committee ...... 4569 Edmund Rice: Beatification ...... 4570 Lindsay By-election ...... 4570 Media Advisers ...... 4570 National Media Liaison Service ...... 4570 Order of Business— Economics References Committee ...... 4571 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee .... 4571 East Timor ...... 4571 DIFF Scheme ...... 4571 International Year for the Eradication of Poverty ...... 4571 Parliamentary Elections ...... 4571 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ...... 4572 Euthanasia ...... 4572 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Reconciliation ...... 4572 CONTENTS—continued

Superannuation Committee ...... 4572 Matters of Urgency ...... 4572 Euthanasia ...... 4572 Notices of Motion— Regulations and Ordinances Committee ...... 4579 Committees— Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Joint—Report ..... 4585 President of The United States of America— Consideration of House of Representatives Message ...... 4589 Notice of Motion ...... 4589 Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill 1996— Second Reading ...... 4589 Adjournment— Lindsay By-election ...... 4619 Mining Deaths: Memorial ...... 4621 Condolences: Sir Roland Wilson ...... 4622 Gun Control Campaign ...... 4623 Documents— Tabling ...... 4626 Questions On Notice— ABC: Funding—(Question No. 177) ...... 4627 Mr Philip Corrigan—(Question No. 202) ...... 4627 Sydney Airport—(Question No. 203) ...... 4628 Centre for Democratic Institutions—(Question No. 206) ...... 4629 Ministerial Staff—(Question No. 228) ...... 4629 SENATE 4545

Monday, 28 October 1996 Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator Evans for that question. Senator Evans, you are, I think, quoting pretty well exactly correctly from the speech I made. I would not The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. walk away from that speech for one minute. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., If I had an opportunity to make it again and and read prayers. again and again, I would continue to do so. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS You then lead in to the question of the so- called Wright family. Again, as has happened Senator HILL (South Australia—Leader of before—Madam President, I did indicate that the Government in the Senate)—by leave—I I would point it out to you every time it hap- inform the Senate that Senator Alston, the pens—an inference against a minister is Minister for Communications and the Arts, contained in a question. You say ‘by answer- will be absent from question time from today ing a Dorothy Dixer from Senator Ferris’, yet until Thursday inclusive. Senator Alston is in I think I have in this place or in other places India to participate in the Australia-India new indicated on plenty of occasions, or at least horizons promotion. The promotion has an one or two, that there was no arrangement for extensive visual and performing arts compo- Senator Ferris to ask any particular question nent. During his absence, I will take questions whatsoever. relating to the portfolios of Communications and the Arts, Transport and Regional Devel- If, Senator Evans, you want to set the opment, and Industrial Relations, as well as precedent in this place that when you ask a matters relating to the Public Service and the senator something and they stand up and give Sydney 2000 games. you the answer, you consistently, having been given that answer, allege that that answer is QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE untrue, that is up to you. But I think you are going down a very unfortunate road. You Minister for Employment, Education, have asked this question in previous sitting Training and Youth Affairs weeks and you have been given the answer, and I stand by that answer. Senator CHRIS EVANS—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, The second part of your question goes to Education, Training and Youth Affairs. In immediately following up and I answered that your speech to a higher education conference question last time, too. I gave you all the on 23 September entitled ‘The quest for material you could possibly want and indicat- truth’, you said that when parties to a debate ed in the answer when I gave that material compete for the exposure of their point of that what I wanted to do was ensure that the view ‘this political scenario often means the material I gave was correct. I in fact said last truth, the facts and the figures are lost’ and time in this place that I clearly did not leave ‘the headline, the grab and the spin take over time enough because, as late as 6 o’clock the from rational and informed debate’. You later night before I gave all that information in the added, ‘The distortion of information carried chamber, further information arrived from the to the voters distorts and damages the demo- department. cratic process.’ On the same day you attended a Senate estimates committee and raised the So let us not pretend that between when Mr Wright family as an issue by answering a Hollway advised me that the Wright family Dorothy Dixer from Senator Ferris. Have you was in fact not an actual family in itself, not contradicted your own words? In failing although it started off as an actual family, and to accept Mr Hollway’s advice to immediately when I signed the letter nothing was happen- correct the record, have you not carried ing. Advice was sought from the clerk. The distorted information to the voters and dam- letter was changed to make sure that it was aged the democratic process? Aren’t you distributed. I have seen some press coverage guilty of the most blatant double standards? since I have been away that I secretly wrote 4546 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 to the estimates committee. The estimates Lindsay By-election committee is the appropriate place to write. Senator COONAN—My question is direct- Do you know what the amendment was that ed to the Leader of the Government in the was made at the suggestion of the clerk? It Senate, Senator Hill. What message does the was put at the bottom of the letter to ask the overwhelming endorsement of the Liberal chairman to distribute it to Labor members. If member Jackie Kelly in the Lindsay by- that is trying to keep something secret— election say about the Howard government’s heavens above! What else would you do other policies? What does Jackie Kelly’s re-election than advise Labor’s members of the commit- reveal about the attitude of Lindsay voters tee? Senators are not only entitled but obli- towards the opposition’s obstruction of the gated to try and ensure that they have got the 1996-97 budget? Is this a further justification information correct. I did that. of the confidence in the coalition government that the voters of Lindsay gave on 2 March Senator CHRIS EVANS—I agree with the and reaffirmed seven months later on 19 minister that this question is about voracity of October? information given to the Senate. That is the Senator HILL—This was the one I was very point of the question. Minister, did you hoping to get from the Labor Party, but not not say in the same speech on 23 September today. It is a great victory and a great credit that it would be unwise to blame the media at to Jackie Kelly, too. There is within the large in public debates because ‘the media results some very serious messages, I believe, frequently face enormous difficulty in ascer- for the Labor Party and minority parties in taining the facts’. Would you agree that their this place. What it did was reaffirm that job is made even more difficult when voters, who threw Labor out in unprecedented ministers of the crown allow distortions and numbers in March, wish that the program they misrepresentations to take root in the public sought to be enacted actually does get enact- mind by not moving to correct the facts at the ed. There is no doubt about that at all. earliest opportunity? Labor tried to scare in that campaign. Labor Senator VANSTONE—I do agree that the tried to scare on the basis of the last budget— media sometimes have a very difficult task to a budget which you will remember was get the correct information and to get the written up as a fair go budget. But, again, facts. But let us understand one thing in this rather than listen, Labor went back and said, matter: the so-called Wright family was based ‘This is the by-election in which you the on an actual family. That turns out not to voters can send a message to the coalition mean that it was an actual family because government to hold back.’ The interesting children were added, et cetera. I think the first thing is that the voters said, ‘No, we want of the actual families tabled vis-a-vis being change. We are tired of Labor. We had it for cut out of Austudy by the means test was the 13 years. We had record unemployment, basis for the Wright family. They would have, record high interest rates, record debt. We other than the actual means test, got Austudy. voted for change and we expect that change Let us not pretend for one minute that those to be endorsed and supported.’ That is the key families would be able to access welfare message that came out of the Lindsay by- benefits. If you are walking away from that, election and it is a message that ought to be if you think people in million dollar houses listened to in this place. should be able to, then that is up to you to I will quote a couple of newspaper reports. raise. You are asking me whether the impres- I don’t do it often, but I think they are spot sion created in the media was wrong. If the on. The Daily Telegraph stated: impression in the media is that some people The win is rightly seen as an endorsement of were incorrectly getting Austudy, then no— government policies and a sharp reminder to other the impression in the media is not wrong. policies that its reform program cannot be impeded without angering voters. Mr Howard is justified in (Time expired) claiming the endorsement of last March has been Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4547 renewed while Labor leader Kim Beazley must why did you state on Meet the Press on 25 accept that the voters do not want obstruction of August that ‘Labor knew before the election the general government program. Voters do indeed that its target of five per cent by the year want to give Mr Howard a fair go in introducing changes that will produce fundamental improve- 2000 was unachievable’ and that Labor had ments to employment, productivity and efficiency. been told that when your department had already advised you that this was not correct? That is exactly what we were elected to do, Why did you repeat this in the Senate in exactly what we want to do. The message in answer to a question without notice on 10 it to Labor is to not obstruct in this place— September? Haven’t you, yet again, as in the Senator Cook—Rubbish! case of the Wright family, misled both the Senator HILL—Senator Cook again says, parliament and the Australian people? ‘Rubbish!’ Still he will not listen to the Senator VANSTONE—I thank you Senator wishes of the people. The people voted for Bolkus for that question because it does give change. They want to see the new program me an opportunity to reiterate for members implemented. They want to see the new opposite how many times they were told that government given a fair go, in the same way, their targets were askew and unlikely to be Senator Cook, they wanted to see Jackie achieved. It is wondrous how many times Kelly given a fair go. Will you listen? All he they were privately told. says is, ‘Rubbish!’ He will not listen to the people. The West Australian stated: Senator Bolkus—Are you trying to say you Mr Howard can rightly claim that it reinforces his are right now? mandate to implement the key policies on which he and his colleagues were elected—the part sale of Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus, Telstra and subsequent financial commitments to your job is to ask the question; my job is to the environment, the reformation of the nation’s answer it, okay?— how many times they were industrial relations law and the implementation of told that they were not on track and they were budget measures. not going to get there. In September 1994 Mr There can be no doubt at all, as these news- Ted Evans, the secretary to the Treasury, is papers have objectively reported, that by their reported to have said that ‘it will be extra- vote at the beginning of March the people ordinarily difficult to achieve the have endorsed a program that they wish to government’s target of five per cent unem- have effect. ployment by the turn of the century’. He went as far as describing that as ‘very ambitious’, The message is there for Labor. Since 1993 which are strong words indeed for the secre- in the seat of Lindsay, Labor’s primary vote tary to the Treasury. has dropped 20 per cent from the March election and now this by-election. Their In the same month—this is in 1994, so primary vote has crashed, but they still will there was plenty of time for this message to not listen to the people. There is an oppor- sink in—Dr Vince FitzGerald, who headed tunity for Labor to say, ‘The people have the Keating government’s national inquiry spoken clearly in March. The people have re- into savings, expressed concern that our endorsed their position in this by-election. We national savings rate would not be sufficient will give the new government an opportunity. to bring unemployment down to an acceptable We will be prepared to allow its budget level—five per cent or below—within the through. We will be prepared to allow its remainder of the present decade. You would funding base for the Natural Heritage Trust— have thought over 12 months or so that $1 billion to be spent on the environment— message would have sunk in. Dr John ’(Time expired) Quiggin, the professor of economics at James Cook University, described by one newspaper Unemployment as ‘a strident supporter of Working Nation’, Senator BOLKUS—My question is direct- said in June 1995 that the government had ed to the Minister for Employment, Educa- failed to allow for discouraged workers in its tion, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, forecasts and therefore unemployment would 4548 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 still be running at eight per cent in the year cabinet—I cannot even remember where he 2000. was—he does not understand that the employ- It is quite obvious that, if key advisers and ment portfolio is responsible largely for two commentators were speaking in these terms aspects relating to employment: one is labour and were in fact saying that you could not get market programs, training and getting people there, how could the government itself have job ready; and the other is employment been blind to these realities? Of course they services which match people with those jobs were not. Labor knew, as well as I did and its that are available. I welcome the opportunity advisers did, that, in the absence of appropri- to highlight the fact that the actual creation of ate macro-economic and micro-economic real jobs is an across government responsibili- policies, the achievement of its much touted ty, something that is clearly misunderstood by five per cent target was no more than a mere Senator Bolkus.(Time expired) fantasy. Interest Rates Senator Bolkus asks me as to some advice Senator GIBSON—My question is to the from the department, and I suspect that he is Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Last week not actually talking about advice. I think he several financial institutions cut their mort- is talking about one portion of an incoming gage interest rates, which is very welcome, of government brief, which the senator opposite, course. I ask the Minister to inform the I think, seeks to say or assert, concludes that Senate how much Australians will benefit the department offers advice to the incoming from these cuts and how does the government that five per cent was achievable, government’s budget further improve living and that is not the case, if that is what you standards? are asserting. Senator KEMP—I thank the senator for Senator BOLKUS—Madam President, I this important question which is of interest to ask a supplementary question. You know virtually all Australians. There is no doubt what I was asserting and you also know that that the big reductions in home mortgage you have not even tried to answer the ques- rates by half a percentage point or more tion in that respect. Isn’t it true, Minister, that announced on Friday is very good news for your bumbling and inept performance, as we most Australian families. The cuts announced have seen again today, as minister for em- by Westpac, St George, FAI and Aussie ployment has forced the Prime Minister to set Home Loans means that all these substantial up a cabinet employment committee to do the lenders now offer home loan rates below eight job that you are paid for and to do the job per cent. This is the first time in two decades that you have comprehensively failed to that variable home loan rates have been this perform? low. Not since the mid-1970s have families Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus, been able to enjoy such low interest rates in even I in my darkest moments in assessing paying off their most valuable asset—their your capacity did not think you would be silly homes. enough to ask that sort of question. You, The latest cut, for example, by Aussie having been a minister for so long, should Home Loans provides a benefit of roughly understand that the creation of real jobs is an $45 a month or over $500 a year for a family across government problem and responsibility. with a $100,000 25-year mortgage. Westpac, You know that as well as I do. as many senators will know, also substantially Senator Bolkus—What are you responsible cut its first option variable rate on Friday and for? announced that this provides a benefit of Senator VANSTONE—Senator Bolkus around $10,000 to customers over the life of inquires what am I responsible for, indicating their loan. that he does not seem to know what the In fact, since the election, variable home employment portfolio is all about. After so mortgage rates offered by the four big banks many years in government, perhaps not in have fallen by about 1¼ percentage points Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4549 and the rates now offered by Aussie Home ment rate was unachievable? Did the depart- Loans and others are even lower. I say to ment provide you with a draft press release or Senator Cook, who is trying to interject, that letter to the editor of the Australian to correct the interest rates, as I said, are great news for this misleading statement in the same way as Australian families. The Treasurer Peter they provided a press release to correct the Costello said on Friday, ‘This is a low infla- record on the bogus Wright family on 26 tion economy with interest rates falling and September, a day after the story appeared in this will be a great relief for those Australians the Daily Telegraph? Will you table the who are looking for loans and paying off department’s advice, as you did in the case of mortgages.’ the Wright family? Last week figures were released that Senator VANSTONE—I thank the senator showed that underlying inflation for the year for that question. It contains an incorrect to September was 2.4 per cent—well within assertion on your part. I am just trying to find our target of two to three per cent on average the Australian article of the 19th—I have over the economic cycle. Figures also showed found it. I assume that that is what you are a moderation in wage presses, with average relying on; it is headed ‘Regional jobless may weekly ordinary time earnings rising just 0.7 top 10pc, Crean warns’. You might help me per cent for the quarter. by indicating whether or not that is the article Let there be no mistake: these cuts are you are relying on. Is that right? possible because of the decisive action this Senator O’Brien—Yes. government took in the budget to rein in the Senator VANSTONE—That article, written deficit. By reining in the deficit, we have by David McKenzie, says: taken the pressure off interest rates. We have Senator Vanstone said that at the time of the March already seen one cut in official interest rates election, her department had advised Mr Crean, the and significant cuts in mortgage and business then employment minister, that unemployment by rates. This is in stark contrast to what hap- the year 2000 would have been, at best, 6.8 per pened under the Labor government. Over the cent. last 2½ years under Labor— This is perhaps an example of how careful Senator Sherry—Try the last six months. journalists have to be when they paraphrase press releases. The wording in the press Senator KEMP—the only way interest release of 18 August—which the article of the rates went, by and large, was up, Senator 19th is responding to, and which I presume is Sherry. what occasioned Mr Crean to speak out as Senator Sherry—That is not true. That is well—is this: not true. DEETYA has advised that at the time of the Senator KEMP—Up, up, up! Labor, election, on the information available to the previ- ous government, unemployment in 2000 would Senator Sherry, as you know—we can demon- have been between 6.8 and 7.3 per cent. strate this quite easily, Senator Sherry—is the high interest rate party. This government This matter has been dealt with by Dr Kemp wants to get interest rates down, and we have in the other place, and the situation is this: already shown that this is possible. questions were asked, obviously by us, as to what employment scenarios were around. Unemployment Those questions were asked not long after the Senator O’BRIEN—I ask the Minister for last election and were based, in part, on the Employment, Education, Training and Youth Treasurer’s statement of 12 March, I think. Affairs: what measures did you or your office Had your government not been so gutless, take to correct the record after your depart- had it been prepared to ask those questions, ment advised you that you had incorrectly that information would have been available to inferred in the Australian of 19 August that it as well. The fact that you did not choose to the department had advised the former Labor ask is probably the same reason you did not government that the five per cent unemploy- choose to release all the Treasury papers 4550 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 when we asked you to. The comment that I rule on a point of order in relation to whether have made is that at the time of the election it is in order or not. that information was available. You had a The PRESIDENT—I will listen to the whole department to get it from. If you did remainder of the question. not choose to ask the question, then, with respect, I suggest that that is your problem. Senator O’BRIEN—and that ‘any misconception caused inadvertently should be Can I give you another hint, Senator, as to corrected at the earliest opportunity’? Why why you probably did not ask? Let me give did you fail to follow these basic rules of you a few more names of people who were ministerial behaviour after clear advice from telling you that you were not on track. Helen your department’s secretary? Hughes, in September 1995, said: The PRESIDENT—I think the supplemen- The unemployment rate not 8.2 per cent would be tary is in order within the wide ranging way no better than seven per cent by the year 2000 if supplementary questions are being interpreted present growth levels were maintained. at the present time. Then John Quiggin, on 1 September 1995, Senator VANSTONE—If you are asking said: vis a vis the five per cent issue, I have had no There is no doubt, the government cannot possibly suggestion from the department, to the best of achieve five per cent under its current policies. my knowledge, that a press release should be This is the great fan of Working Nation. put out. The department did draw to one of my staffer’s attention the incorrect reporting. The target of Working Nation is not achievable with 3.7 per cent growth . . . then it is dishonest of Senator Bob Collins—That is not you. the government to maintain that the five per cent Senator VANSTONE—It is the office; I rate is its target. make no doubt about it. The report in the An Australian editorial said: Australian gave the impression that the . . . Mr Crean claims we are on track to cut department had so advised; that is true. But unemployment to 5 per cent. At best he is deluded there was no suggestion that a press release and at worst Mr Crean is not telling the truth. was put out. Senator, if every time a reporter If you did not ask the department whether you mis-paraphrases a press release, if every time could get there, I suggest the reason is that I had to correct something that one of your you knew the answer. people on the front bench—or perhaps even you yourself—or every other journalist got Senator O’BRIEN—Madam President, I wrong at the edge here, I would never do my ask a supplementary question. I asked a job. I would spend my time correcting errors question in relation to what the department in the paper. This is not an error created by provided by way of draft press releases, and myself. making assumptions, as I have had to because of the answer, I ask this: Minister, what do Senator Bolkus—Who got it wrong then— you understand is meant by the instruction in you or the journo? the Prime Minister’s guide on the key ele- Senator VANSTONE—The journo. ments of ministerial responsibility that a Youth Concert: Military Police minister should be ‘honest in their public dealings’— Senator WOODLEY—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Senator Hill—Madam President, on the Minister for Defence. How many members of point of order: it seems to me that this is not the Australian military police have been a supplementary question but a different issue. identified as present during a police raid on I therefore raise this for your consideration. a charity concert conducted by Brisbane Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on community radio station 4ZZZ in West End a point of order: I think that it would be a on 19 October? Was the presence of those reasonable thing for you to hear all of Senator army police at odds with military guidelines O’Brien’s supplementary question before you regarding their involvement in civilian inci- Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4551 dents? Is the government concerned that the department, you take the decisions but, you members of the Queensland police force know, if you really make a hash of it, well it’s a seemed to be under the impression that they very competitive world out there and we can have a few changes. can call in the army at their discretion even when doing so could be a breach of army Minister, is it not true that you have alienated guidelines? Does the defence minister con- your department because of your ill-judged sider the calling in of military police to assist cover-ups with both the bogus Wright family 60 members of the Queensland police force and the five per cent unemployment rate to move on a youth concert a case of over- target statement, you have alienated the kill? jobless by slashing $1.8 billion out of job Senator NEWMAN—Senator Woodley did creation programs and you have abused me the courtesy of alerting me just before parliamentary process on at least three occa- question time to the fact that he was going to sions by misleading on the Wrights, on the ask me a question about this matter. I have, Labor government’s job targets and on the therefore, approached the Minister for De- Democrats Internet messages? Do you think fence for a response. Senator Woodley, I am this could fairly be described as making a advised by the minister that military police hash of it and it is time for you to go? (Time were involved in the incident at Musgrave expired) Park in Brisbane on 19 October and that they Senator VANSTONE—If anybody made attended the incident because they were on a a hash of things recently, it was you people joint patrol with elements of the Queensland in the Lindsay by-election. Without a shadow police. I am informed that the involvement of of a doubt, what a hash. No wonder you are the military police at the incident was looking a bit quiet over there, a little bit minimal and that the matter has, in fact, been embarrassed. That was a punch badly thrown. formally investigated, and the investigating officer’s report will be passed to the Minister This question really does not deserve an for Defence shortly. answer but, since it has been asked, let me answer it. Senator Faulkner suggests that I Senator WOODLEY—Madam President, have alienated my department. I do not think I ask a supplementary question. If it is found that is true at all. I have worked very closely that military police in fact did not follow their with the department. The department have own guidelines and breached them, what apologised for creating the impression that the disciplinary action would be taken against Wright family was an actual family. They military police who were present at that deeply regret that, and we have done every- concert? thing we can—that is, I have and they have— Senator NEWMAN—The minister would, to set the record straight. in the normal course of events, receive recom- As to the five per cent, there has been no mendations with the report. I imagine he will misleading there. If you want me to repeat the be making decisions based on those recom- number of occasions on which you people mendations and the defence disciplinary were told that you were not going to get powers. there, I would be happy to do so if you would Minister for Employment, Education, give me more time to do it in. So I think you Training and Youth Affairs are out of the ballpark here. You have not plugged in. You have fallen out of your own Senator FAULKNER—My question is tree again. addressed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, Youth Affairs. Minister, are you aware that my supplementary question to Senator Van- the Prime Minister in his address to the stone is this: in the Prime Minister’s share National Press Club in February said: scandal press conference on 16 October, he I think it would be much better if we said to was asked whether you, Minister, should re- ministers: right you are the minister, you’re running sign for misleading the Senate and he replied: 4552 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

I will have to have a look at all of that. I have not Senator HILL—I think the senator in some really looked at it, so I will. way is trying to relate two unrelated matters. Minister, has the Prime Minister interviewed Our advice, and this is based on the former you about this particular matter? What action Industry Commission’s assessment, is that the was taken? round will add about 1.1 per cent—that is, $3.7 billion—a year to Australia’s income and Senator VANSTONE—The Prime Minister $5 billion a year to Australia’s exports when has available to him all the information you the commitments are fully implemented. We have. I have not had a conversation with the expect our balance of trade will improve as Prime Minister about this. It was mentioned the domestic economy improves and Austral- in passing at the end of a meeting about a ian business can be more internationally range of other matters simply querying how competitive. That is why we are implementing this happened. I told him how it happened, a lot of these changes. and I will repeat what I said to you in here. Senator Cook—You have slowed down the I do not believe for one minute that anyone domestic economy. in the department intended to mislead me just Senator HILL—No, the big change is, if as I did not intend to mislead the chamber. It we can take pressure off public expenditure, was a case of a notation at the bottom saying we bring interest rates down, which is already ‘based on an actual family’ and a number of occurring, and business can start to grow and people saying, ‘What does that mean?’ and be internationally competitive again. I remind people saying, ‘It’s an actual family.’ That is the honourable senator also that 43 per cent all it was. of Australia’s industrial exports will now face You can try to make something more out of zero tariffs, an average cut to agricultural it if you like, but I repeat here what I said last tariffs of 36 per cent was made—as agricul- time: I do not believe—and the Prime ture was brought more fully under the multi- Minister accepts my view—that anyone in the lateral rules and disciplines—and market department intentionally misled me. Not for access opportunities were opened and export one minute do I believe that. subsidies cut. I remind the senator also that multilateral Trade disciplines were extended to the services sector for the first time, protection was ex- Senator MARGETTS—My question is tended to intellectual property and the round addressed to Senator Hill, the Minister repre- provided for stronger rules, fairer dispute senting the Minister for Trade. The Uruguay settlement and greater transparency. In other Round of GATT and formation of the World words, there is a whole series of benefits from Trade Organisation was largely promoted in which Australian industry and Australia will Australia as providing immense benefits to the gain. economy. Magically, we would improve our balance of trade by greatly increasing our It is interesting to note also that, on top of exports relative to our imports. Australia was that, industry has encouraged the government supposed to come out $5.5 billion per annum to develop an ambitious and forward looking to the good, and our agricultural sector was agenda for further liberalisation to take to the to be the main beneficiary and generator of first biennial conference of members of the wealth. Yet, on Four Corners last week, we World Trade Organisation, which will take saw a program that highlighted the change in place in Singapore in December this year. Far investment regimes and ownership of various from being put off by what is occurring, sectors of the beef export industry that has not industry is in fact challenging us to go for- brought benefits while our balance of trade ward and build upon the gains and the ben- has deteriorated. What have the actual trade efits of the Uruguay Round. and investment outcomes of the GATT agree- Even in relation to the beef industry to ment been in terms of both economic benefits which the honourable senator refers, there and disbenefits? have been advantages secured. There has been Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4553 the removal of the US meat import law and Senator HILL—If there are updated its replacement with a much greater and more figures, I will seek them, but I suspect that, it certain quota of 379,000 tonnes, affirmation only being in the second year, it is very of the commitment of the European Union not difficult to provide the sort of detail that the to subsidise beef into the Asia Pacific market honourable senator wants. The point is that and the complete liberalisation of the Korean we actually want a trade field that is balanced beef market by the year 2001. in our favour. That is why the changes that Certainly, there are temporary difficulties in we are implementing are resulting in lower relation to beef exports. There is no secret interest rates and lowering inflation. about that, but the future, on the basis of what Senator Campbell—Lower communication has been gained to date, remains promising. costs. An important point to remember is that, apart Senator HILL—Increases in wages that are from the changes that we are implementing in maintainable and reasonable, lower transporta- terms of enabling Australian business to be tion and lower communication costs—as my more internationally competitive and taking colleague reminds me—will give Australian pressure off its outgoings, investment itself exporters a competitive advantage that they remains a key to enhancing our competitive- have not had in the past. As I said, far from ness. In that regard foreign investment into being pessimistic, there is now a great oppor- the beef industry has played a fundamental tunity for Australian exporters. The challenge role over the last decade in modernising the now is to get out into these markets which industry and developing better linkages with have been significantly opened up after the our customers overseas. Uruguay Round and get the benefit from I urge the honourable senator to not be so them. pessimistic. The changes that have occurred ATSIC: Special Auditor have enabled a better outcome in the medium to longer term. The important thing now is to Senator BOB COLLINS—My question is build upon them and to seize the opportunities to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres that they present us. Strait Islander Affairs. In question time on 16 October in reply to a dorothy dixer from Senator MARGETTS—Madam President, Senator Ellison you quoted from a number of I ask a supplementary question. It would seem newspapers in support of your decision to that there are no updated figures since 1993. appoint a special auditor to ATSIC. You I would be very happy if the minister could quoted inaccurate and highly prejudicial provide the basis if there have been updated claims from some of those articles, including figures, because that indicates he is answering a headline one that 90 per cent of Aboriginal the same questions that I asked in 1993 with organisations had mismanaged their funding the same answers. All of the basic elements according to the special auditor. of the Four Corners story have actually been highlighted by the Greens in the past. The You gave evidence to the Senate estimates previous government ignored the fact that the committee last week that you knew that these aggressive political trade policy of economi- newspaper articles that you quoted from were cally powerful governments, coupled with a inaccurate. Why then did you quote from strong support for what they see as strategic them and how does this fit with the Prime industries, would ensure that the trade field is Minister’s ministerial guidelines that ministers not level; the support of free investment and must be honest in their public dealings and foreign ownership would lead to transfer should not intentionally mislead the parlia- pricing and other distortions; and increased ment or the public, and any misconception foreign ownership by vertically integrated caused inadvertently should be corrected at transnationals would result in unfair trade the earliest opportunity? pressures on domestic producers. I ask: what Senator HERRON—I am somewhat is this government intending to do about this bemused by this question from Senator Bob and where are the minister’s updated figures? Collins when you consider all the important 4554 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 issues that are around, such as industrial Senator HERRON—That is correct. relations, Telstra, the inflation rate and inter- Maybe the message might get through to the est rate loans. We spent 20 minutes with this other side that they are out of touch with the the other day in estimates. Senator Collins has Australian public and the Australian people. become obsessed with this issue. For the The Labor Party is trying to project itself as benefit of other senators I might explain that an alternative government with a question like in the Senate estimates last week Senator that from Senator Collins. It is not often in Collins demanded to know why I had not put life that I start feeling sorry for the Labor out a media release correcting incorrect Party. I do not think I will ever feel sorry for information about the special auditor con- the Labor Party, but if that is the best they tained in the newspaper article he referred to. can do in question time—to project them- selves as an alternative government—it shows After consultation with an ATSIC officer, that they are still out of touch and ought to I informed Senator Collins that ATSIC had put on their dunces caps and sit over in the put out a media release correcting the infor- corner. Are you rising to a point of order, mation. I thought no more about it in fact Senator Collins? Madam President, he just sat until the weekend when I read a report in the down and he will be sitting on that side for a Melbourne Age which quoted Labor sources very long time until he gets in touch with the as suggesting that I had mislead the Senate on Australian public. that question. On checking this morning with ATSIC, I found out that what the officer had I note that even former Labor Senator told me was that ATSIC had put out a release Graham Richardson appears to have got the with the correct information. message. Graham Richardson states: The further decline in Labor’s vote . . . leaves the That is what Senator Collins is carrying on party looking at the certainty of six years in the about. That is the point, that somehow or wilderness, and the possibility that its exile may another I have misled the Senate. In estimates last considerably longer than that. I took it that the release corrected the infor- That was from former Senator Richardson. mation and, after discussion with ATSIC Even your leader Mr Beazley has conceded as today, I wrote to the chairman of the esti- much. He is on the record as saying: mates committee, Senator Ian Macdonald, "(The Lindsay result) does affect us in terms of our correcting that information. understanding of the reasons for our defeat at the last election"... I might add that Senator Collins is also in the Hansard as saying that he was aware of What Mr Beazley is saying, and what Senator the ATSIC media release correcting the Collins demonstrated so well today, is that information. That is in the Hansard. You Labor still does not understand. You have not cannot escape that. If you check the Hansard, got the message yet, Senator Collins and the he is quoted as saying that he was aware of Labor Party. an ATSIC information release that did not Senator Sherry—What about answering exist. This is such a petty matter, I feel that the question? Senator Collins would be better to focus on Senator HERRON—I have answered the the real issues of today. He would be better question. Labor is still out of touch. It is focussing on the downward movement of living in the rhetoric and politics of the past. interest rates under this government and the If you are going to be an adequate opposition, great news that that is for young home buy- you had better start thinking and getting in ers. He would be better focussing on the touch with the Australian public. disarray that his own party is in—the Labor Party which was wholeheartedly rejected by Senator BOB COLLINS—Madam Presi- the people on 2 March and again at the by- dent, I ask a supplementary question. I want election in Lindsay. to briefly bring the minister back to the question that was asked. Let me refresh your Senator Bob Collins—This is the Lindsay memory, Minister. At Senate estimates you by-election defence. not only claimed that ATSIC had put out a Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4555 press release correcting the incorrect reports I will read it out again. Are you listening, but you said that you had as well. You pro- Senator Collins? vided both of those press releases to the The PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, your committee. I see you nodding. Here are the time has expired. press releases, Minister, that you provided. Senator HERRON—Well, he had better You quoted from the newspaper articles on read it in the Hansard. 16 October in question time. The newspaper articles were, in fact, published on 15 Octo- Public Housing ber—the day before. You are nodding again. Senator HEFFERNAN—My question is to Both of these press statements were issued on the Minister for Social Security. Minister, you 14 October, Minister—the day before. In fact, will be aware that public housing tenants in you did not issue a press statement correcting the federal seat of Lindsay received letters the newspaper articles; neither did ATSIC from the New South Wales housing minister correct the newspaper articles. Both the press and the Labor candidate, Ross Free, which statements, Minister, that you tabled at Senate purported to outline government policy with estimates were, in fact, issued on 14 Octo- respect to public housing. You made it clear ber—the day before the newspaper articles to the Senate that this attempt to deceive the appeared. Why then did you mislead the voters of Lindsay was entirely inaccurate. As Senate estimates committee as well as this we can clearly see from the outstanding result chamber? in Lindsay, the people were not fooled by Labor’s tired old-style politicking. Senator HERRON—Senator Collins, you have an affliction, and I will gladly clean I understand the shadow Treasurer also put your ears out. I would refer you to the Hans- out a press release on the current public ard and the answer that I just gave you, housing reforms. Does this accurately reflect Senator Collins. You were too busy interject- government policy? For the benefit of those ing and you did not listen to what I said. I opposite—the true deceivers—will the would refer you to the Hansard and the minister please explain yet again the answer that I gave you previously. If he had government’s policy on public housing re- bothered to listen in the first place, Madam form? President he might understand the point that Senator NEWMAN—I think that very I was making by quoting from media reports good question was the senator’s maiden on the special auditor and by quoting from question. I congratulate him. Senator Knowles the ATSIC chairman, Lois O’Donoghue, who would also like it clearly understood that she said that ATSIC, the media, Aboriginal is no relation to the Minister for Housing of organisations and the public had all accepted the same name in New South Wales. Having the value and importance of the special said both of those things, I think it is once auditor process. The point I was making was again an example of just how, as Senator that only Senator Collins and his mate in the Herron has pointed out, the Labor Party has other place Daryl Melham are still trying to not learned how out of touch it is with the pretend the process was a waste of time. Australian people. We had the March elec- tion. You would have thought they had learnt Senator Bob Collins—You told a big fib, from that. We had the Lindsay by-election, Minister. and still they go on. Senator HERRON—I did not tell a big fib. There is an incredible unwillingness to Senator Bob Collins—It was 14 October. listen. We saw that with Senator Collins, but why is it that the Labor Party has become so Senator HERRON—Senator Collins, I will out of touch with what one would have just answer. As he is unaware of what I said expected once to have been their grass roots? in the answer to the first part, Madam Presi- It is an extraordinary thing that they now dent I will read it out again for you, Senator have to resort to cheap politicking—reckless Collins, because you did not listen last time. indifference of the concerns of the people— 4556 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 rather than considered policy. I would have produce. I would have thought that a quarter thought that in the past the Labor Party prided of a million low income earners currently itself on its policy development work. renting private accommodation, sitting on What we have seen now is a discredited queues and waiting lists for public housing is opposition which cannot get used to being in quite enough and reason for the reforms. opposition and has no ability to build on the Unless the Labor Party learns that this failure of the past, to learn from the failures. stupid, old-style scaremongering is unproduc- Now they have just had another failure. The tive and starts being honest with the Austral- shadow Treasurer recently put out a press ian people, they are going to become increas- release on the housing reforms, attempting ingly irrelevant and destined, as I said before, once again to frighten vulnerable people. He to spend a long, long, long time on the thinks somehow it is going to bring him and opposition benches. his party some electoral reward. It just is not so. The people of Lindsay saw through Boobera Lagoon Minister Knowles’s and candidate Free’s press Senator GIBBS—My question is directed releases and scare tactics. They have seen to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres through the shadow Treasurer Evans’s press Strait Islander Affairs. Can the minister releases and scare tactics, too. confirm whether he has received a report The Labor Party was wrong about the under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres abilities of the Australian people in March. It Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act from was wrong again in Lindsay. People are not Hal Wotton regarding Boobera Lagoon? If so, fooled. They know perfectly well that what on what date did you or your office receive they are seeing now is cynicism and opportu- the report? Does the government intend to nism from an opposition that sees itself in introduce legislation into parliament regarding opposition for many years to come, as former Boobera Lagoon? Senator Richardson has pointed out. I bet they Senator HERRON—I thank Senator Gibbs do not like that too much. for the question. I will have to get back to her The shadow Treasurer’s press release is regarding the date. Yes, I have received a fascinating, because it does not accurately section 10 report from Mr Wotton. I am still reflect government policy—although that is considering that report. No decision has been what it claims to do. It does not acknowledge made to date in relation to it, but I will get the government’s clear commitment that back to you with the date. existing public housing tenants will not be Senator GIBBS—Madam President, I ask disadvantaged by the housing reforms. The a supplementary question. Given that you did shadow Treasurer claimed in his press release not answer that part of the question dealing that the government’s policy defies logic. It with legislation, will you take that on notice is fascinating, because it is the shadow Treas- and get back to us with an answer? urer who defies logic. Doesn’t he realise that Senator HERRON—I did say that no the former government of which he was decision had been made, but I will certainly presumably a senior cabinet minister— get back to you with a written reply. although we know he was often out of the country, perhaps he missed this—was going Higher Education Contribution Scheme to implement exactly the same policy? I Senator STOTT DESPOJA—My question suggest that he and his colleagues should go is directed to the Minister for Employment, back and have a look at their housing policy. Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It was one of the few directions that the Minister, do you acknowledge the findings of previous government was taking which a World Bank study presented to this received bipartisan support because the morning’s Senate Employment, Education and reforms were long overdue. Training Legislation Committee hearing that He spoke in his press release of the longer shows that, after your government’s fee hikes, waiting lists that our reforms, he said, would individual student contributions to the cost of Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4557 public higher education in Australia will be course—that is, the benefit given by other the highest in the Western world and second taxpayers to that student in cash terms—and only to South Korea in the entire world? Are the private benefit that students receive from you also aware of evidence presented today higher education, which is largely reflected by by the architect of the HECS scheme, Dr the income that they get. That is why we Bruce Chapman, that your HECS changes propose to keep nursing, for example, which constitute the most radical changes ever to is an expensive course, in the lower band. As higher education and would shift the compo- you would well know, nurses do not achieve sition of the student body towards the weal- higher incomes for the rest of their lives. thier sections of our society? Given these facts, do you stand by your commitment, as To shift to a three-tiered HECS that purely reported in the Bulletin, to reconsider the reflected the cost of the course would, I higher HECS fees if they keep low income believe, be inequitable. But one that has a students out of universities? blend of that—that acknowledges some have lower incomes and some have higher in- Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator comes—is a good thing. In summary, what Stott Despoja for the question. The World we have done here is acknowledge that what Bank study does not immediately come to Labor did when it introduced HECS was mind and I was not at your committee meet- correct. We think it is correct that there is a ing this morning, but I will have a look at the public benefit in a well developed, higher evidence that was presented and get back to education student and it is without question you with a comment on that at a later time. that there is a private benefit to the students As to Dr Bruce Chapman’s view that the who participate. The HECS contribution is an proposed changes to HECS will skew the acknowledgment of that. university population towards those who are the most wealthy in the community, it is not We are maintaining the excellent aspect of a view that I share. I do not say that that is a HECS—that you do not pay as you learn; you fact simply because it is Dr Chapman’s view. pay as you earn. We think that is a fairer It is worth noting, Senator Stott Despoja, that system. Neville Wran, the former Labor in the time when university education was Premier of New South Wales, suggested not free to students—that means that other people charging everyone equally because everyone pay—the most disadvantaged people in the does not get an equal cost course and every- community got the least access. one does not get an equal private benefit. We are following his suggestion that it would be Senator Carr—Cut it out. more equitable to shift to a three-tiered Senator VANSTONE—Senator Carr does HECS. We think that is a much fairer way to not necessarily agree with me, but that is my go. view. When HECS was introduced, people said it would be the end of higher education. Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Madam It clearly was not and the numbers have President, I ask a supplementary question. grown steadily ever since. Thank you, Minister. I did ask you whether you would stand by an earlier commitment It is also my view that it is completely you made to review those changes if the unfair to ask of a teacher, who has a low HECS hikes kept students from lower socio- course cost and, relatively speaking, a lower economic groups out of higher education. income, the same contribution per annum that Given early evidence which suggests that you ask of a doctor, who has a high course enrolments for engineering and applied sci- cost and a higher income afterwards. I think ence courses are down in lower socioeco- that is completely unfair. nomic regions by as much as 50 per cent In the policy we have put forward we have in some cases, is this enough evidence for shifted the HECS arrangement from being a you now to review those changes? If flat charge where everyone pays the same to not, what exactly will make you reconsider more properly reflect both the cost of the those changes? 4558 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

Senator VANSTONE—I have consistently that I had when I came into the Senate 10 said, Senator Stott Despoja—whether or not years ago. I fitted it out by going to Myers’ I have said it to the Bulletin is another mat- sales, buying wholesale where I could— ter—that any government that introduces a Senator Bob Collins—Why did you go to policy and discovers that the policy in prac- Myer? Why didn’t you go to Woolworths? tice is not working for one reason or another, has some unintended consequence or has Senator Schacht—Where is Ollie’s office? adverse effects would naturally seek to change The PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too that policy. It would be completely irrational much noise in the chamber. to do otherwise. So we want to proceed with the policy as Senator Schacht—It sounds like question is. If that is clearly demonstrated—and I do time is going to be Days of Our Lives today. not think early advice on enrolment arrange- Senator NEWMAN—I hope the clock is ments is a clear enough demonstration—when being held back for me. I understand that, it is in practice, we will seek to change it. 10½ years ago, I spent $8,000 on the total fit- out of that office. Ten years later the carpet Office Fit-outs needed replacing. I also needed offices for my Senator DENMAN—I direct my question ministerial staff who visit Tasmania. The to the Minister for Social Security. Minister, amount of space has now been increased to do you think it is appropriate for the Minister the amount which a minister is allowed, and for Social Security, in these times of financial that required painting of the building down- stringency, to have spent $53,761 on fitting stairs, carpeting and new furniture for those out your ministerial office and $15,345 on offices. I was extraordinarily surprised by furniture? how inefficient the fit-out people were and by Senator NEWMAN—I have not been how— given any indication of what was spent on the Opposition senators interjecting— fit-out of my office, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to say something about The PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too the fit-out of my office because it demon- much noise in the chamber. Would people strates just what an awful shambles the please remain silent? Senator Bob Collins! Department of Administrative Services fit-out Senator NEWMAN—The taxpayers would people were running. If I can say by way be appalled to know how many times very of— clear instructions were ignored and work had Senator Bob Collins—You could buy a to be redone. As a Tasmanian, I am very house in Launceston for the same price. proud of the workmanship of our people who The PRESIDENT—Order! deal with wood, and yet a small meeting table delivered to my office could not even produce Senator NEWMAN—I find it fascinating a flat surface to work on. It had to be taken that the opposition has apparently got figures away and redone. The Department of Admin- which the person responsible has not ever istrative Services had not even looked at that been told of or seen. table. The amount of lighting that was put Senator Schacht—They are in the paper, into that office was not what I asked for. you fool! There was an excessive amount of lighting Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, and I find that a gross waste of taxpayers’ can I please get a word in edgeways? money as well. Senator Carr—Did you not know about Altogether, if ever there was justification this? for closing down that part of the Department of Administrative Services, that was a classic The PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, desist. example. If the opposition want to endorse the Senator NEWMAN—I fitted out that office waste of taxpayers’ money, if they want to 10 years ago. I have stayed in the same office endorse a Public Service that does not do its Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4559 job properly, then that is their affair, but I am that report was received in my office on 22 very happy— April this year and it was then sent to Senator Sherry—This is Tasmania. These ATSIC’s heritage branch. They sent a briefing are Tasmanian workers. They are Tasmanian back on 14 June. I then wrote to all parties electricians. asking them for submissions over 30 days. A number of parties wrote for an extension— The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Sherry! which I gave them—until 16 August this year. There is far too much noise in the chamber. Since then I have been considering the sub- Senator NEWMAN—I am very happy to missions and the report. make these facts known so that the people of Australia know that they were not getting Gun Control: Advertising Contract professional work from these people and they Senator VANSTONE—On 14 October were not getting professional supervision. It Senator Bolkus asked me a question on which was a total mess-up where the person in I undertook to get an answer from the Attor- charge— ney. I seek leave to have that answer incorpo- Opposition senators interjecting— rated in Hansard. Senator NEWMAN—I would be very Leave granted. happy, in fact, to supply the opposition with The answer read as follows— all the details of the stuff-ups that occurred in Senator Bolkus asked on 14 October 1996 whether the fit-out of my office so that they know the Attorney-General’s Department now had a copy what bad management we inherited from of a letter written by Mr Grahame Morris to the them. I think the taxpayers of Australia are Office of Government Information and Advertising entitled to know too. Actually I was going to requesting them to put DDB Needham Adelaide on their list to pitch for the gun buyback advertising write a letter to Minister Jull telling him that contract, why the A-G’s Department required a he should wind the organisation back when, copy of that letter, and will Senator Vanstone Table to my delight, he did it in the budget. the letter. Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask that The response is that: further questions be placed on the Notice On 15 October 1996 the Attorney-General’s Paper. Department informed the Attorney-General that on 10 October 1996 it was sent by the Office of QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Government Information and Advertising, unsolicit- ed, a copy of a faxed letter from Mr Grahame Question No 115 Morris. The letter was apparently received by Senator FORSHAW—Pursuant to the OGIA on 26 June 1996. order of the Senate of 28 September 1988, I As the advertising agency and public relations ask the Minister representing the Minister for consultancy selection process is managed within the Foreign Affairs for an explanation as to why Department of Administrative Services, the Attor- ney-General’s Department did not and does not an answer has not yet been provided to require a copy of the letter. question on notice No. 115. Therefore, if you wish further information, you Senator HILL—I am advised that the should speak to the Minister for Administrative minister has approved an answer to Senator Services. Forshaw’s question No. 115 which will go to the Table Office later today for inclusion in Minister for Employment, Education, tomorrow’s Notice Paper. I am trying to find Training and Youth Affairs out the reasons for the delay. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.07 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE p.m.)—I move: Boobera Lagoon That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training Senator HERRON—Earlier in question and Youth Affairs (Senator Vanstone), to a question time Senator Gibbs asked me a question in without notice asked by Senator Faulkner today, relation to a section 10 report. Senator Gibbs, relating to ministerial responsibility. 4560 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

I think what we have in relation to Senator That is my understanding—that the Labor Party Vanstone is growing evidence of a pattern of knew well that the target it was promoting as being behaviour from a minister which is totally achievable was not achievable . . . If you want to allege I am wrong, I am happy for you to do so, unacceptable. We have a pattern of behaviour and I am happy to check the matter out. with a minister playing fast and loose with the truth. We have a pattern of deceit from When asked the supplementary question by Senator Vanstone. I think we have from this Senator Bolkus: minister no understanding and no comprehen- Did you receive any other advice from your sion at all of the sorts of responsibilities that department to confirm your Meet the Press state- a minister has to tell the truth, both to the ment? parliament and to the Australian people. Senator Vanstone said: We now have clear evidence that Senator I have nothing further to add. Vanstone has again misled this parliament. During the estimates in October, the depart- First, it was the ‘Wright family’ exposed by ment detailed advice correcting the statement the Labor Party in this place. Now we have by the minister in her 19 August pronounce- exposed another very clear breach of Minister ment in the Australian, after being pressured Vanstone’s ministerial responsibilities. On 19 by the opposition. The First Assistant Secre- August in the Australian Senator Vanstone tary of the Economic and Policy Analysis stated that at the time of the March election Division of DEETYA, Mr Grant, said: her department had advised Mr Crean, the I have the Australian report in front of me. Certain- then employment minister, that unemployment ly the statement which caused us to advise the by the year 2000 would have been, at best, Minister’s office was the suggestion that the department had advised Mr Crean, when employ- 6.8 per cent. The department has confirmed ment Minister, that unemployment by the year 2000 that after this statement was published in the would have been at best 6.8%. We have no such Australian, the minister was informed by advice. DEETYA that Mr Crean was advised about: Mr Grant added that there was no way such . . . a range of conditions that would need to be a conclusion could be drawn from the advice met to achieve the former government’s 5 per cent given to Mr Crean. unemployment rate target by the turn of the centu- ry. There is a pattern from Senator Vanstone of deliberately misleading the Senate and the The department says it did not put any view Australian people. There is no other conclu- on the most likely outcome or suggest any sion any reasonable person could draw but particular level below which the unemploy- that it is a deliberate pattern of deceit on her ment rate was likely to fall. part—on a minister’s part. She simply has no When asked, this minister has categorically understanding of her responsibilities to the refused to make that departmental advice parliament and to the public as the minister available to the Senate. Of course, when it responsible for employment, education, was the case of the Wrights, Minister training and youth affairs in this government. Vanstone was forced to make departmental Minister, you ought to do the honourable advice available. I suggest, Minister, on this thing and resign. occasion, you will be forced to front up with Senator PATTERSON (Victoria) (3.12 the advice again. On 25 August, Minister p.m.)—I find Senator Faulkner’s comments Vanstone repeated her untruth on Channel totally unacceptable. I find it bizarre in the 10’s Meet the Press. She said: extreme that he can come in here and say that Labor knew before the election that its target of what we see and what has happened in terms five per cent by the year 2000 was unachievable; of what Senator Vanstone has done is a it had been told that. I know that’s absolutely true.’ pattern of deceit. Never once did I hear Then on 10 September in the Senate, Senator Senator Faulkner come in here when Carmen Vanstone repeated that untruth for a third Lawrence had one, two, three, four, five, six, time. In answer to a question from Senator seven, eight colleagues stand up and give Bolkus, she said: evidence to say that she knew about a petition Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4561 that was going before parliament. Not once When the minister discovered that, she tried did I hear Senator Faulkner talk about patterns to make amends and advise people. of deceit or about ministerial responsibility. On the other issue of unemployment, when No; he comes in here and totally misconstrues they say they did not know about it, Ted two situations. Evans, Secretary to the Treasury, said that Last sitting week when we were talking five per cent was very difficult and very about the Wright family, I did not have time ambitious. Vince FitzGerald said that savings to go through in detail the letter that Mr were insufficient to reach five per cent. The Hollway sent to Senator Tierney, the chair- Australian editorial said that Simon Crean is man of the Employment, Education and either deluding himself or he is lying regard- Training Legislation Committee. Just so that ing the five per cent. John Quiggin, who was senators on the other side get the message, I a very big supporter of Working Nation, said will repeat what the departmental secretary that the government was dishonest in saying wrote: that five per cent was achievable. They had been told over and over again that that five I am writing to you direct on the matter of the per cent was not achievable. In fact, the ‘Wright family’ because the fault clearly lies with Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) said the department. It was an incorrect characterisation of the case by the Department to the Minister himself that it was unwise to set targets. But which led Senator Vanstone in turn to describe the they had this target of five per cent and they Wright family as a specific example in the hearings were told over and over that they could not on the Committee on 23 September 1996. make it. I myself wrongly believe the Wrights to be an Senator Vanstone put out a press release actual case and, like the Minister, only became which said that the Department of Employ- aware of this and not so until after the Committee ment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs hearings. Nonetheless, as Departmental Head, I has advised that ‘at the time of the election, accept responsibility for the mistake. on information available to the previous Senator Vanstone has said that she was under government, unemployment in 2000 would the same misapprehension because the infor- have been between 6.8 per cent and 7.3 per mation came across as an actual family from cent.’ The interpretation the journalist put on the department. The departmental head also that was ‘Senator Vanstone said that at the said that he was under a misapprehension. March election her department had advised Senator Vanstone went about finding out Mr Crean, the then employment minister, that about it as soon as she was alerted to it. She unemployment by the year 2000 would have then came into the parliament and corrected been at best 6.8 per cent.’ That is how that it, unlike Senator Schacht—there is a stark has come about. contrast between the minister’s behaviour and To come in here and say that it is a whole Senator Schacht’s behaviour—in 1994 when pattern of deceit is absolutely outrageous and he was inadvertently advised by his depart- unacceptable. They ought to get their own ment and gave an incorrect answer in the house in order. They still have Carmen estimates committee. He did not set in train Lawrence sitting on the front bench. After a process to advise either the committee or eight of her colleagues said that she had told the department of the error. Parliament only an untruth, she is still sitting on the opposi- found out when Senator McMullan was asked tion front bench. No wonder the people of a question and Senator Schacht had to come Lindsay said no against them loudly and very in during the debate on taking note of an- clearly. swers and admit that he had made a mistake. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! We have totally different rules—there is Before I call Senator O’Brien, I remind one lot of rules for those on that side and one honourable senators that when they are lot of rules for us. Senator Faulkner was referring to members of this place or the other absolutely wrong. The ‘Wright family’ was a place, the correct forms of address should be family that was concocted in the department. used. 4562 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (3.17 responsible. In this case, there is no doubt p.m.)—As usual, Senator Patterson seeks to that the report, although based on Senator change the subject rather than debate the Ferris’s media release, was based on the motion before the chair. I think it is notable words of the minister and was so serious that that we are debating matters of public record her own departmental secretary had recom- relating to the performance of the Minister mended to her that a media release be issued for Employment, Education, Training and and, by implication, be issued forthwith. Youth Affairs (Senator Vanstone). I wanted The Prime Minister’s A guide on key to touch upon that ‘Wright family’ matter of elements of ministerial responsibility says: public record—in fact, a matter of public notoriety. Ministers must be honest in their public dealings and should not intentionally mislead the Parliament When we went through the exercise in the or the public. estimates committee and were given the inadvertent misinformation and a press release In this case the committee had been misled was produced by a member who sits opposite, and also the public. It goes on: Senator Ferris, based upon that answer, that Any misconception caused inadvertently should be press release gained a great deal of publicity. corrected at the earliest opportunity. In fact, many references had been made to the When was the earliest opportunity? The front page of the Daily Telegraph and the secretary to the department was in no doubt. headline ‘Millionaires on Welfare’. That was then and there. The secretary to the The minister was advised by her depart- department recommended to the minister that ment—it was tabled and recorded in Hansard a media release be issued and I suggest the that that was erroneous and that advice was implication is ‘then and there’. In relation to received by the minister on 26 September in the duty of the minister that the Prime a minute from the secretary to her department. Minister’s statement requires, it is clear that I do not think that it is ordinary for the the minister’s duty was to issue the media secretary to a minister’s department to formal- release and correct the misconception, which ly apologise for misleading, thereby giving the minister says was caused inadvertently, at the minister no cause for suspecting that the the earliest opportunity, not two weeks later. matter was not serious, and then making a That is what the minister did. recommendation in the minute that the We have an unintentional misconception, a minister issue a media release. With that breach of the Prime Minister’s code and a minute was enclosed a draft media release. case where the department has given the lead That was on 26 September. to the secretary to the department and the The secretary to the department was under minister has chosen not to take it. I suggest no misapprehension that it was the minister’s that this is a case of taking political advantage duty to correct the misapprehension—this out of the misconception, nothing less. The matter of public notoriety—that was in the media may not always get it right, but when public arena and to do it quickly. The way to it is not their fault, the party at fault—in this do it quickly was to release a media release, case, it is the minister—should accept respon- not to write to the secretary to the department, sibility for correcting the misconception. which may well have been another duty that Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) the minister had. (3.22 p.m.)—Senator Vanstone, in this par- The minister said in answer to a question ticular issue, as in everything, has acted with today that the media makes many little errors the utmost propriety. What the Labor Party of their own making and of the making of does not like about Senator Vanstone is that other people who advise them and that the she tells it to them how it is. They do not like minister is not responsible for correcting all the way that she can show the stupidity of of those misadvices and misreportages. But their arguments all the time. So they have to the minister is responsible to correct go on with the sort of rubbish that we have misinformation in the media for which she is been hearing today. Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4563

Do you remember Senator Faulkner and The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! those forest coupes back in the previous Senator Macdonald, it might be best to speak government? He could never get it right. He to the motion. continually misled the parliament. When he Senator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you, was called to account, he quoted as his source Mr Deputy President. I have been distracted some person called Natalie. Natalie was the by the Leader of the Opposition but that is all one giving Senator Faulkner his misin- he is good for—shouting out in his loud formation that he was passing on to the voice, until Senator Ray, of course, told him parliament. You talk about propriety. You that it did not look good and that he should have only got to go through a whole string of start asking his question in a very soft voice. Labor ministers of the time if you want to We all thought that was quite strange. What have a debate about propriety. My colleague I was saying was that the Labor Party has a Senator Patterson mentioned Dr Lawrence. Dr long history of impropriety of their ministers. Lawrence was proved by a royal commission For heaven’s sake, Mr Keating, the Prime to have lied but not only was she not sacked Minister, was barring imported pork into the over there before the election; she was re- country at the same time as he had a very instated to the front bench after the election. substantial interest in a piggery. He was We had the stupidity of Mrs Kelly and the borrowing money from the Commonwealth sports rorts affair. Bank when he was the Treasurer and the sole Senator Faulkner—I remember when you shareholder in that particular organisation. were on the front bench. And so the list goes on. You are swearing Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator over there, are you, Senator Faulkner, in Faulkner, you are only there, I might say, for typical fashion? Can I have it again. Let’s get as long as Senator Ray allows you to stay it on the record. there. You heard the other day when we said The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator to Senator Ray, ‘Come on down, Robert. Macdonald, continue. Show some leadership.’ Senator Ray said, Senator IAN MACDONALD—I will just ‘Don’t tempt me.’ I know Senator Faulkner say that Senator Faulkner, the Leader of the did not sleep that night because he knows— Opposition, thinks that it is smart to swear Senator Faulkner—Don’t you talk about across the chamber, so there we go. No being reinstated to the front bench. What is it wonder Senator Ray did not want to lead this like to be dumped unceremoniously? rabble and, when the Labor Party look like they have any chance at all, Senator Ray will Senator IAN MACDONALD—You and be back here looking into the leader’s posi- your little chatterbox behind you there—the tion. two of you in the Left of the party; I think you are the only two left on the Left, aren’t As my colleague Senator Patterson has said, you?—are only there while Senator Ray and on this particular issue Labor were told before his right-wing colleagues allow you to be the election. At the time they were running there. I can understand why Senator Ray did around—Senator Bishop and Senator O’Brien, not want to lead this rabble after the election. you might be interested in this—saying that He knows that it will be three or four elec- they would get unemployment down to five tions before the Labor Party is anywhere near per cent by the year 2000, they had already getting back into power. And he wants you, been told by Mr Ted Evans, the Secretary to Senator Faulkner, to take the rap. He wants to the Treasury, that five per cent was ‘extra- let you be the fall guy to look after this ordinarily difficult’ and ‘very ambitious’ and rabble. You thought you had something going yet your party, Senator O’Brien, kept confus- for you last week. You ran into the Lindsay ing and misleading the people of Australia on by-election. You thought you really had it some other figures.(Time expired) going for you, didn’t you? What did the Senator CARR (Victoria) (3.27 p.m.)— people of Lindsay say to you, Senator This is a proposition that calls for the Senate Faulkner? They said that seven per cent— to note Senator Vanstone’s appalling array of 4564 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 answers today. This is predicated on a whole Dr Volker—Again, Senator, we provided a brief series of gaffes that she has made, fundamen- which outlined the assumptions which would be tally geared to the issue of the quest for truth. needed to get there. Of course, Senator Vanstone’s quest for truth Senator CARR—But it did indicate that it was may never ever be achieved. She probably achievable? never will be able to find the holy grail that Dr Volker—If the assumptions were met. she seeks. The tangled web of fake families, This was said by Dr Volker on 23 September bogus babies, advices from the secretary 1996. In the supplementary round on 23 covered up, injudicious statements to the October, Mr Grant, from the same section of Senate and dorothy dixers have snared her in the department, was asked by Senator Chris her own failures to actually be able to re- Evans: spond. If you cannot get it right in an answer In your view is there any way that such a conclu- to a dorothy dixer, then you probably will not sion could be fairly drawn from the advice given be able to get it right as a minister. If you to the former minister, Mr Crean? cannot correct the record as quickly as pos- Mr Grant replied: sible, then you should not be a minister. That No, there is not. is essentially what is at stake here. There is no way a reasonable person could The pattern of deceit and the pattern of fast draw the conclusion that the department had and loose handling of the truth, of course, advised her that the five per cent unemploy- stems right back to the very beginning of this ment targets could be met. We see a similar government. This minister, in a press release pattern on 23 September in regard to the so- on 18 August, indicated this about her depart- called Wright family. The minister had a big ment: day on 23 September. She had already been down, before she arrived at the estimates . . . DEETYA has advised that at the time of the committee, to an education conference at election, on information available to the previous Darling Harbour in Sydney. In an address government, unemployment in 2000 would have been between 6.8 and 7.3 per cent. which was entitled ‘The quest for truth’ she told a distinguished audience: The minister quite clearly reinforced that view Unfortunately, this political scenario often means in an interview on Channel 10 on 25 August that the truth, the facts and the figures are lost. The and in this chamber on 10 September. Of headline, the grab and the spin take over from course, the department indicated its position rational and informed debate. As a politician I can very quickly, after the publication of these live with this. However, as a custodian of the nation’s higher education system I am perplexed views, in an answer to a question that was and concerned that important information about posed by the opposition. Mr Hollway indicat- such a vital sector is distorted and ignored. ed to us that the department had written to the She went on to say: office of the Minister for Employment, Edu- cation, Training and Youth Affairs to draw The distortion of information carried to the voters distorts and damages the democratic process. the attention of the office to the incorrect reporting in the Australian on 19 August 1996 That is precisely what she has done with the which implied that the department had ad- Wright family. She indicated quite clearly that vised the former Labor government that a five she has in fact misled this chamber. Some per cent unemployment rate was unachiev- pretty important issues arise from this. It able. strikes me, from one of the biggest and most important government departments in this That is quite clearly what the evidence was country, that such poorly constructed and before the Senate estimates committee as consequently useless information could in fact well. The officials there quite clearly indicat- be produced. How could that information find ed that that was not the advice that they had its way to the minister and into the Senate? given despite what the minister had said on The other important issue is: why did the three separate occasions. Dr Volker from minister take so long to correct her answer, DEETYA indicated this: quite clearly in breach of the ministerial Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4565 guidelines that her Prime Minister has set Senator TIERNEY—If you listen, Senator down? Carr, you might learn something for a change I repeat: Senator Vanstone’s quest for the because what I am doing is quoting the truth may never ever be achieved. She will minister’s press release and then quoting what probably never be able to meet the criteria the journalist wrote in the paper. Both are on and the standards set down in terms of rea- paper; both can be checked. Let me read the sonable ministerial behaviour. As a conse- journalist’s interpretation. quence, she ought perhaps now consider her Senator Carr interjecting— position and resign. (Time expired) Senator TIERNEY—You have been Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales) caught out on this issue and you know you (3.32 p.m.)—The two issues being considered are about to be skewered on it. So just listen. here this afternoon are the five per cent target The journalist wrote: and the issue of the Wright family. Let us just go back to the five per cent target. This, of Senator Vanstone said at the time of the March election her department advised Mr Crean, the course, was a myth that the Labor Party put employment minister, that unemployment by the around for some time—that we were going to year 2000 would have been at best 6.8 per cent. achieve a five per cent unemployment rate target by the year 2000. They kept saying it The press release said ‘information available before the election. There was a lot of com- to the previous government’ and the journalist mentary in the press at the time about the interpreted that her department had advised achievability of that target. Ted Evans, Secre- Mr Crean. That is not what she said in the tary to the Treasury, said that five per cent is press release. ‘extraordinarily difficult’ and ‘very I do not know what the fuss is about, ambitious’. Vince FitzGerald said ‘savings Senator Carr. It is quite obvious to everyone insufficient to reach five per cent’. The that this was an unachievable target before the Australian editorial stated: last election. All the people at the time said Simon Crean is either deluding himself or lying that. The previous government stands con- regarding the five per cent target. demned for trying to fool the Australian The only one we could find in the quotes that people into thinking that this was not a big actually supported the government’s position issue or a big deal. You tried to fool people was John Quiggin, saying that it was achiev- before the election that unemployment in this able. He is from James Cook University and country was not a big deal. You claim it was a big supporter of Working Nation. In the running between eight and nine per cent when Telstra debate, his evidence was found to be we all know, based on the inquiry you and I totally not credible. A witness we had before were on, that the real figure is at least double a Senate committee whose evidence was not that. Further to that, you tried to con the credible is the only person we could find people of Australia into believing that the being positive in relation to that. figure was going to drop to five per cent. What humbug! What hypocrisy! What has been said in the press about this matter has been completely misleading, Senator Carr, you are the great one for mainly because a journalist has misinterpreted targets, aren’t you? You are always saying, what the minister said. The minister’s press ‘Where are the government’s targets? Why release states: don’t you have a target for this? Why don’t DEETYA has advised me at the time of the you have a target for that?’ Let’s have a look election on information available to the previous at your target. Five per cent by 2000—never government that unemployment in 2000 would have achievable. You knew it was not achievable. been between 6.8 and 7.3 per cent. Every commentator knew it was not achiev- The journalist then interpreted that and said— able. Finally, the public condemned you for Senator Carr—How can you possibly say it and threw you out, which is what they that? It is a straight quote. Come on, John, should have done. you can do better than that. Question resolved in the affirmative. 4566 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

PETITIONS Senator Sherry (from 278 citizens). The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for ABC: Funding presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and Members of Gun Control the Senate in Parliament assembled: To the Honourable the President and Members of This petition of the undersigned citizens of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Australia draws to the attention of the Senate your The petition of the undersigned shows: petitioners’ appreciation of the vital role the ABC plays in the development of Australian culture and that the overwhelming majority of Australians in the provision of quality news and information support uniform, national gun laws and the services, including in regional Australia. associated compensation measures as agreed between the Prime Minister, State Premiers and Proposed alterations to the ABC charter and cuts the Chief Ministers of the ACT and NT. to its funding and staff levels will have an extreme- ly adverse effect on the ABC’s performance of Your petitioners ask that the Senate: these roles. continue to demonstrate its firm support for these measures; Your petitioners express their grave concern that the Government proposes to break its unequivocal take all possible action to expedite their election promise to maintain current levels of ABC implementation; and funding and proposes to redefine the ABC’s role so resist all calls for the control measures to be that it has a narrower focus and is more politically watered down or abandoned. acceptable to the Howard Government. by Senator Newman (from 253 citizens) Your petitioners request that the Senate ensures the current ABC charter, funding and staffing levels Telstra: Privatisation are maintained so that the ABC retains its inde- To the Honourable the President and Senators, and pendence and viability as an effective national to the Speaker and Members of the House of broadcaster. Representatives assembled in Parliament: by Senator Schacht (from 78 citizens). The petition of the undersigned citizens respect- fully shows that: ABC: Funding As members of the Australian community, This petition of certain citizens of Australia considering: draws to the attention of the House and the Senate the strategic important of Telstra in the your petitioners’ appreciation of the vital role the national economy; ABC plays in the development of Australian culture and in the provision of quality news and informa- the high levels of foreign ownership in the rest tion services, including in regional Australia. of the telecommunications industry; Proposed alterations to the ABC charter and cuts the growing importance of communications to its funding and staff levels will have an extreme- services to the lives of all Australians; ly adverse effect on the ABC’s performance of the threat that privatisation poses to the these roles. universal availability of both present and future communications services; Your petitioners express their grave concern that the Government proposes to break its unequivocal We believe that it is in the national interest for election promise to maintain current levels of ABC Telstra to be kept in full public ownership. funding and proposes to redefine the ABC’s role so We therefore call on the Federal Government to that it has a narrower focus and is more politically abandon its proposal to privatise Telstra, the acceptable to the Howard Government. nation’s chief telecommunications provider, and to Your petitioners request that the Senate ensures explore alternative means of funding its environ- the current ABC charter, funding and staffing levels mental policy. are maintained so that the ABC retains its inde- And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pendence and viability as an effective national pray. broadcaster. by Senator Brown (from 381 citizens) by Senator Schacht (from 146 citizens). Senator Forshaw (from 1,181 citizens), ABC: Funding Senator Lundy (from 73 citizens), To the Honourable the President and Members of Senator Schacht (from 437 citizens) and the Senate in the Parliament assembled. Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4567

The petition of the undersigned recognises the Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to vital role of a strong and comprehensive Australian retain the current level of funding for triple j. Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that: by Senator Schacht (from 819 citizens). 1. Coalition Senators honour their 1996 elec- tion promise, namely that "The Coalition will maintain existing levels of Common- Medicare Provider Numbers wealth funding to the ABC". To the Honourable the President and Members of 2. The Senate votes to maintain the existing the Senate in Parliament assembled: role of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly funded and publicly owned organi- The above signed are totally opposed to the sation. government’s intention to legislate to restrict the issuing of Medicare Provider Nos. to Doctors. 3. The Senate oppose any weakening of the Charter of the ABC. Those signed here request the same outlined on by Senator Schacht (from six citizens). the attached sheet. ABC: Funding by Senator Lees (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of Medicare Provider Numbers the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia. To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should recognise that the The petition of the undersigned shows: Coalition’s proposed cost-cutting measures to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will remove That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the broadcaster’s ability to properly provide ser- the Government’s intention to legislate to restrict vices to both its radio and television audiences— the issuing of Medicare provider numbers to particularly those in rural and regional areas. doctors. Your petitioners oppose any cuts to the ABC and We consider that such an action would cause request that the Coalition be held to its pre-election serious suffering, including a severe disadvantage promise to "maintain existing levels of Common- to women, rural communities and medical research. wealth funding to the ABC". We believe that it is the essential right of all Your petitioners request that the Senate reject Australian registered doctors to have access to any measures to downgrade the ABC’s budget. provider numbers that allow them to provide services to the community which attract Medicare by Senator West (from 240 citizens). rebates for patients. We believe that such restric- tions are an attack on the most defenceless and Medicare Offices vulnerable strata of the medical profession. We To the Honourable the President and Members of consider it to be a denial of natural justice and an the Senate in Parliament assembled: attack on Medicare. The petition of certain citizens of Australia. Your petitioners request that the Senate should: Your petitions request that the Senate, in Parlia- ment assembled, should recognise the value of undertake an inquiry into the proposed restric- maintaining existing Medicare offices in rural tions on the provision of Medicare provider num- Australia, and are opposed to the closure of any of bers and alternative measures to resolve the prob- these offices. lems facing Medicare and the Australian medical workforce; and Your petitioners request that the Senate reject any measures that would have the effect of remov- call upon the Federal Minister for Health, The ing any existing Medicare offices. Hon Michael Wooldridge MP, to not proceed with by Senator West (from 33 citizens). the proposed restrictions on the provision of Medicare provider numbers to doctors and to enter Radio Triple J into discussions with representatives of the medical profession to identify alternative measures to To the Honourable the President and Members of resolve the problems facing Medicare and the the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of Australian medical workforce. the undersigned shows that the potential funding cuts to Radio Triple J will drastically affect ser- by Senator Lees (from 5,536 citizens). vices and public broadcasts to the youth of Austral- ia. Petitions received. 4568 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

NOTICES OF MOTION Burma Assistant Treasurer Senator BOURNE (New South Wales)—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria)—I give shall move: notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall That the Senate calls on the Government to make move: representations to the Burmese State Law and That the Senate— Order Restoration Council calling for: (a) notes that the Assistant Treasurer (Senator (a) the immediate and unconditional release of Kemp) repeatedly failed to take questions U Kyi Maung and other political detainees; on notice when acting in a representational (b) the immediate cessation of intimidation and role in estimates hearings; harassment of members and supporters of (b) believes it is up to the portfolio minister to the National League for Democracy; refuse to answer a question on notice if he (c) the immediate lifting of all oppressive believes it covers areas of a confidential measures against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; nature; and (d) the current political and economic crisis in (c) condemns Senator Kemp for failing in his Burma to be solved through peaceful and duty as a minister. consultative means; and Sir Roland Wilson (e) a genuine and productive dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League Senator SHORT (Victoria)—I give notice for Democracy as the only means to solve that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: the economic and political crisis in Burma. That the Senate— Community Affairs Legislation (a) notes, with sadness, the death on 24 October Committee 1996 of Sir Roland Wilson KBE, Kt, CBE, Bachelor of Commerce, Doctor of Philoso- Senator PANIZZA (Western Australia)— phy (Oxford), Doctor of Philosophy At the request of Senator Knowles, I give (Chicago), Hon LLD (Tas), Hon FASSA; notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will (b) acknowledges with deep gratitude Sir move: Roland’s magnificent contribution to Aus- That the Community Affairs Legislation Commit- tralia in peace and war in a wide range of tee be authorised to hold a public meeting during capacities throughout a distinguished career the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 7 November of unsurpassed public service, including as 1996 from 3 pm, for the purpose of taking evidence Commonwealth Statistician, in the establish- on the provisions of the Health Insurance Amend- ment of the Commonwealth Department of ment Bill (No 2) 1996 and the National Health Labour and National Service, and as Secre- (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1996. tary to the Commonwealth Treasury, Chair- man of Qantas and Chairman of the Liberal Party Fundraising Commonwealth Banking Corporation; and Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria)—I give (c) expresses its sympathy to his wife, Joyce, at notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall Sir Roland’s passing. move: Unemployment That the Senate notes that: Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— (a) the promotional literature for the recently- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)—I held Liberal Party Council meeting prom- give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I ised meetings with Federal Ministers, State Premiers and their senior staff; shall move: (b) this literature was directed to those signing That there be laid on the table, by 5 pm on up for the business observers program at a Tuesday, 29 October 1996, by the Minister for cost of $3 500 each; Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Senator Vanstone), copies of any advice to (c) business people who signed up for the her from her department relating to unemployment program would have a separate lunch with projections up to the year 2000 and her statements the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Minister about the purported unachievability of the Aus- for Finance (Mr Fahey); tralian Labor Party’s target of 5 per cent unemploy- (d) this is a legitimate method of fund raising; ment by the year 2000. and Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4569

(e) in the past, when in opposition, the Coali- (d) calls on the minor parties in the Senate to tion criticised such fund raising, and now accept this rap on the knuckles by the stand condemned on the basis of double people and finally accept the mandate of the standards Howard Government’s reform program, including that the one-third sale of Telstra Community Affairs Legislation should not be obstructed. Committee Lindsay By-election Senator PANIZZA (Western Australia)— At the request of Senator Knowles, I give Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria)—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, she will notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: move: That the time for the presentation of the report That the Senate— of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee (a) notes: on the provisions of the Health Insurance Amend- ment Bill (No 2) 1996 be extended to 21 November (i) the claim by Mr Rodney Franich, 1996. Shooters’ Party candidate in the Lindsay by-election, that Senator Woods had sent Consideration of Legislation a fax suggesting that it would be wrong for the Shooters’ Party to proceed with its Senator MARGETTS (Western Austral- intention to direct preferences to the ia)—I give notice that, on the next day of Australian Labor Party when the New sitting, I shall move: South Wales Government was planning to stop issuing new firearms licences, That the government business order of the day relating to the Workplace Relations and Other (ii) Mr Franich’s claim that Senator Woods Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 be made an order said to him, ‘Do you want to change your of the day for 18 November 1996 and not be called preferences’, on before that date. (iii) Mr Franich’s response, when he said ‘That would be difficult because they Lindsay By-election would have to be re-printed’, and Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales)—I (iv) Mr Franich stated that Senator Woods give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I had said, ‘he had people ready to help us shall move: re-print our how to vote cards. There was an inference that they would pay for That the Senate— that’; and (a) congratulates the re-elected Member for Lindsay (Ms Jackie Kelly) whose stunning (b) calls on Senator Woods to give an explan- win in the by-election held on Saturday, 19 ation of these matters. October 1996, saw her two-party preferred Public Works Committee Liberal vote increase by 6.1 per cent, com- pared with a 7 per cent decline in the Senator PANIZZA (Western Australia)— Australian Labor Party vote; At the request of Senator Calvert, I give (b) notes that: notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will (i) the Member for Lindsay has now move: achieved a cumulative increase in the That the Joint Standing Committee on Public Liberal vote since 2 March 1996 of 16 Works be authorised to hold inspections and public per cent in the western Sydney electorate, hearings in the Riverina district during the sittings and of the Senate from 25 November 1996 to 27 (ii) further notes that the Australian Democrat November 1996, for the purpose of taking evidence candidate’s vote in the by-election fell by for its inquiry into the development of facilities for 5 per cent on the last general election the Army Logistics Training Centre and the Bandi- result; ana Logistics Group at Bandiana and Bonegilla, Victoria, and its inquiry into the development of (c) confirms that the Australian Democrat buildings and services in support of the Department candidate, Mr Stephen Lear, achieved 1.6 of Defence joint project 2043, High Frequency per cent of the vote in the Lindsay by- Modernisation Project. election, only marginally ahead of Mr Steve Grim Reaper who stood as an independent; I seek leave to make a brief statement in and relation to the notice I have just given. 4570 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

Leave granted. and its supporters in the minor parties in the Senate. Senator PANIZZA—Mr Deputy President, as 25 to 29 November is a Senate only week, Media Advisers I advise the Senate that the committee propos- es to form a subcommittee of the House of Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria)—I give Representatives and these members are to notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall conduct these inspections and hearings. It move: should not be necessary, therefore, for any That the Senate— senators to be absent from the chamber on (a) notes: those days. (i) that the Prime Minister appointed second Edmund Rice: Beatification media advisers to Ministers Jull, Ruddock, Vanstone, Williams, Smith and Senator COONEY (Victoria)—I give Reith, constituting an additional media notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall adviser in each of the six states, move: (ii) the answer by the Department of Admin- That the Senate— istrative Services to a question asked on notice in the Finance and Public Adminis- (a) notes the beatification in Rome on 6 Octo- tration Legislation Committee, that these ber 1996 of Edmund Rice, the founder in appointments were ‘a matter for the rel- 1802 of the Christian Brothers in Ireland; evant minister within staff entitlements’, (b) remembers the coming to Australia of the (iii) the answer given by the Minister for the Christian Brothers, at first in 1843 for a Environment (Senator Hill), in relation to period of four years, and then in 1868 from the second media advisers, that their which time they have given this country function was ‘to better reflect the generous and unceasing service; and Government’s goals and the whole of (c) expresses its appreciation of the outstanding government position’, work the Christian Brothers have done in Australia, particularly in the field of educa- (iv) that the Department of Administrative tion, and also expresses the hope that they Services withdrew its answer in the light will continue to serve the community in of the answer given by Senator Hill, perpetuity. (v) in announcing the appointment of her second media adviser, the Minister for Lindsay By-election Employment, Education, Training and Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queens- Youth Affairs (Senator Vanstone) made no mention of the ‘whole of government’ land)—I give notice that, on the next day of media functions outlined by Senator Hill, sitting, I shall move: and That the Senate notes the lessons of the Lindsay (vi) observes that these arrangements consti- by-election, in particular that: tute a revived National Media Liaison (a) the Member for Lindsay (Ms Kelly) and the Service; and Government she represents received a (b) condemns the hypocrisy of the Government stunning endorsement; in establishing covertly the media monitor- (b) the vote for the Australian Labor Party fell ing arrangements that it condemned in a massive 7 per cent from its already his- opposition. torically low base; National Media Liaison Service (c) the vote of the Australian Democrats was 1.67 per cent of the total vote, much less Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queens- than that of the Greens, half that of the land)—I give notice that, on the next day of Australian Shooters’ Party and less than sitting, I shall move: one-third of that received by the Australians Against Further Immigration group; and That the Senate notes that: (d) the people of Australia, as demonstrated (a) in 1995-96, under the previous Labor again in the by-election, want the Coalition Government, 22 people were employed in to implement its election promises without the Ministerial Media Group at a cost of obstruction from the Australian Labor Party $1.166 million; and Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4571

(b) a further 17 people were employed in the That general business notice of motion No. 220 National Media Liaison Service at a cost of standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, $1.729 million. relating to section 44 of the Australian Constitution, be postponed till the next day of sitting. ORDER OF BUSINESS Senator Faulkner—Mr Deputy Speaker, I Economics References Committee raise a point of order. I have no problem with Motion (by Senator Lundy)—by leave— the motion that Senator Brown has moved, agreed to: but where does that appear on the red? I am aware that notices of motion are listed under That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Lundy for today, placing of business, as is notice of motion No. relating to the reference of matters to the Econom- 182, but I wonder why they do not appear ics References Committee, be postponed till 25 under general business notices of motion November 1996. under discovery of formal business. Rural and Regional Affairs and Senator Margetts—It is a new format. Transport References Committee Senator Faulkner—Mr Deputy Speaker, I Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request am just asking you on a point of order why of Senator Woodley) agreed to: that is the case. I am not objecting to the That business of the Senate notice of motion No. process. I am just trying to get some clarity 1 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for about it. I just find it unusual that both Sena- today, relating to the reference of matters to the tor Brown’s motions do not appear on the red Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Refer- as general business notices of motion but that ences Committee, be postponed till 30 October. they do appear at placing of business. I East Timor merely wonder why that was the case. I am not opposing his motion for deferral. Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to: The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am in- That general business notice of motion No. 182 formed that it is probably because they are standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to East Timorese asylum seekers, be not new motions and they have been post- postponed till 31 October. poned earlier. DIFF Scheme Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the Senator PANIZZA (Western Australia) request of Senator Forshaw) agreed to: (3.53 p.m.)—by leave—It is the usual practice at the whips meeting—my colleague will That general business notices of motion Nos 271 support me on this—that when we know there and 272 standing in the name of Senator Forshaw for today, proposing an order for the production of is going to be a deferral of a motion at plac- documents by the Minister representing the ing of business, it is going to be deferred— Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Hill) and without objection, of course. It is as simple as requesting the attendance of the Minister for that. Foreign Affairs before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, be postponed till Senator Faulkner—I make the point that the next day of sitting. motions such as general business notice of motion No. 182, and the last one No. 276— International Year for the Eradication of Poverty Senator Brown—220. Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: Senator Faulkner—220, I apologise—but, for that matter, 276 might well be in the same That general business notice of motion No. 280 boat. They are noted at the placing of busi- standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the International Year for the Eradica- ness. Could someone perhaps at some point tion of Poverty, be postponed till the next day of explain why they actually do not appear in sitting. discovery as general business notice of mo- tion? I assume that they have been deferred Parliamentary Elections before, but none of this is really very clear Motion (by Senator Brown) proposed: from the red. It seems to me to be a little 4572 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 different from the way we have done this EUTHANASIA before. If I am wrong, I am happy to not The PRESIDENT—I present a remon- progress this at all. But, if what I am saying strance from the Legislative Assembly of the is right, we should make sure that the red Northern Territory relating to the Euthanasia reflects what is before the Senate, not altering Laws Bill 1996. I also present a letter from the fact that obviously Senator Brown has a the Government of Norfolk Island conveying capacity to defer those motions. If I am a resolution of the Norfolk Island Legislative wrong, Mr Deputy President, I am happy to Assembly relating to the same bills. take your guidance on that. Yesterday I was pleased to receive the The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—What I Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative should do is take the question and perhaps Assembly, who presented me with this remon- speak to the whips about it to see whether we strance, now visible to senators. He was can get an answer for you. Perhaps it will be accompanied by the Chief Minister of the an effort to make the red more informative, or Northern Territory and the Deputy Chief perhaps the red can be made more informa- Minister of the Northern Territory and other tive. I will make sure that the whips have a officers of the Northern Territory assembly. look at it. Mr Mike King, the head of government of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, was present and personally handed me the letter Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: that I have also referred to. That general business notice of motion No. 221 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, In attendance was the Chief Minister of the relating to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, be Australian Capital Territory, Mrs Kate postponed till 19 November. Carnell, and the Speaker of the ACT Legisla- tive Assembly, Mr Greg Cornwell. The Euthanasia remonstrance will be placed on public display Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to: in the public areas of the parliament on the That general business notice of motion No. 276 first floor. standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri- relating to voluntary euthanasia, be postponed till tory) (3.59 p.m.)—by leave—I simply wish to 30 October. note my support for the remonstrance that has Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander just been presented to the Senate. I know, Reconciliation Madam President, that it has your support as well and the support of Senator Grant Superannuation Committee Tambling and, indeed, Senator Lundy, as we Motion (by Senator Bourne, on behalf of are all senators of territories that are potential- Senator Kernot) agreed to: ly affected by the private member’s bill that That general business notices of motion No. 216 the remonstrance is remonstrating about. and No. 275, standing in the name of Senator Madam President, the action of the North- Kernot, for today, relating to the presentation of an ern Territory parliament, as I know you are address to the Governor-General and the reference aware, is not taken lightly. This is a rare of a matter to the Select Committee on Superannua- tion, be postponed till 30 October. event in parliamentary terms. In parliaments under the Westminster system around the MATTERS OF URGENCY world, it is something which is resorted to The PRESIDENT—A letter proposing an only very rarely, indeed. urgency motion was submitted by Senator The history of such remonstrances began in Bob Collins to me earlier today. I have 1641 with events that are rather famous in subsequently received notification from terms of the history of our Westminster Senator Collins that he does not intend to system. On that occasion in the year 1641 proceed with the proposed motion, and, Charles Stuart, who subsequently became accordingly, I shall not read the letter. Charles I of England, caused the House of Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4573

Commons to be invaded for the purpose of our Westminster system—that is, a conscience arresting five of its members whose actions he vote, something which is rarely exercised in was unhappy with. On that occasion, the Westminster parliaments under the two-party Speaker of the House of Commons delivered system around the world. It is a rare event in a remonstrance in such hard terms to the any parliament, but on this occasion it was a monarch that a monarch has not dared by conscience vote of the parliament and, again, tradition to set foot in the House of Commons a conscience vote in respect of the repeal bills ever since, except by invitation of that house. put before the Northern Territory parliament. The action is not unprecedented in respect I did everything that I possibly could to of the Northern Territory in that the Northern bring about the repeal of that act of parlia- Territory presented a remonstrance to the ment. I, along with the Chief Minister of the federal government in 1962, protesting then Northern Territory, interestingly enough, about the fact that it was not a self-governing believe that it will be repealed at some time. territory and that it should have been. The I, along with Shane Stone, the Chief Minister reason I note that, as the Chief Minister of of the Northern Territory, who is on the Northern Territory noted in the territory public record with a statement with which I parliament, of which I was privileged to be a agree, believe that when people find out just member for 10 years, is the action was in fact how obnoxious this law is in practice the bill a landmark action that assisted in the political will be repealed. But it needs to be repealed campaign that was being waged at the time by a Northern Territory parliament, not by an and culminated successfully in 1978 in the act of this parliament. granting of self-government to the Northern It is of some interest to note—and indeed Territory—a self-government which I believe the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has been exercised responsibly in the 18 years noted it in the debate on this remonstrance, that we have had self-government. which has been presented to this Senate—that As you know, Madam President, I do not the previous Prime Minister of Australia did say that lightly because it has been the Coun- in fact receive a petition, an inquiry, from a try Liberal Party that has been in operation constituent with regard to exercising the for the whole of those 18 years. I have a view federal government’s undisputed powers in that I have certainly expressed in the Northern respect of territories with regard to this Territory before, and can I say it is not a view particular legislation because the particular that has been entirely welcomed by every constituent did not like the legislation. The member of my own party: that is, having former Prime Minister of this country replied spent the first 10 years of my life in the to that constituent in the terms that it was in Northern Territory under the so-called delights fact a law of the Northern Territory, that it of centralised government and actually work- was in the province of the territory parliament ing under a Canberra administration—having as to whether the act remained or was re- experienced that for 10 years and having pealed. Therefore, he declined to give this experienced self-government for 10 years—I dreadful attack on the constitution of the would much prefer the Northern Territory to Northern Territory the support that the current be governed by the worst of all possible Prime Minister (Mr Howard), I regret to say, administrations in the Northern Territory, has given it, along with the extension of the which is precisely what we have, than the bill to the ACT. best of all possible administrations in Can- The original bill only applied to the North- berra. That is strongly my view. ern Territory. In an attempt, albeit well meant, I disagree very strongly with this euthanasia to accommodate the concerns of people like law. I think it is bad law. I believe the pro- me, Mr Andrews redrafted the bill and ex- cess that brought it to bear is even worse, but tended it to the ACT. In my view, that simply it is a law of the Northern Territory parlia- made the problem of the bill even more ment. I did want to make that point. It resul- glaring than it was before and made it more ted from, again, a most unusual practice in difficult. 4574 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

I simply want to conclude on that point by of my own party, the Labor Party, also voted saying that, as far as I am concerned, this is for and against the legislation. not a question of states rights at all. I have Therefore, as a territory senator, I believe said publicly on a number of occasions, and that on my part it would be a matter of utter I will say it in here again: if the Andrews bill betrayal of the parliamentary institutions of were presented to the federal parliament and the territory in respect of this particular matter precluded from all the parliaments of Austral- if I voted to support a bill which amends the ia voluntary active euthanasia, that particular constitution of the Northern Territory in such class of law—that is, the parliament of Aus- a way as to preclude an entire set of laws tralia giving a medical practitioner the legal from being passed in that parliament. There- right to kill a patient, and that is what this is; fore, I fully support the terms of the remon- this is not right to die legislation, we have strance that has been tabled in the Senate this had that in the territory for many years; this afternoon. particular act of the Northern Territory is in fact a right for doctors to kill—I would vote Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- in favour of it. tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Security) (4.08 p.m.)—by leave— So my position on this, as I am sure many Madam President, the remonstrance which senators in here would understand, is not one you have just presented to the parliament is of states rights. If the law applied equally to a very important and historical document. It the states, I would have no difficulty in seeing is a document that was signed by all 25 the vote on this matter—and it is an important members of all political persuasions in the vote—being a genuine vote on the question of Northern Territory Legislative Assembly; that euthanasia, but it will not be. For all those is, the fully elected parliament of the Northern people from New South Wales, Queensland Territory. As such, it has a very important and, indeed, from all the states who are voting place in the considerations that must come in this debate, it will be a vote that they can before the House of Representatives later take on this issue without the slightest impact today, when the euthanasia debate proceeds, in terms of their own constituencies. There- and here, if on any subsequent occasion the fore, it will not and cannot by definition be a same issue is pursued in this particular place. true reflection of the position of this parlia- ment on the question of euthanasia. I was pleased to be present yesterday at the procession by representatives of all three The fact is this legislation applies only to parliaments of the Northern Territory, the the territories of Australia discriminates only Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk against the territories of Australia. In the case Island at the front of this Parliament House of the Northern Territory, it discriminates when the Speaker of the Northern Territory against a parliament which has been operating Legislative Assembly, the Hon. Terry without let or hindrance for 18 years. That is McCarthy, made a particular declaration on what I profoundly object to, as much as I this important issue. We then subsequently object to this particular law of the Northern proceeded to present copies of the remon- Territory parliament. strance as passed by the Northern Territory It was a conscience vote that brought that parliament to both you, Madam President, in law about. It was not in fact a piece of legis- your private rooms, and also to the Speaker lation from the Northern Territory executive of the House of Representatives, Mr which was pushed through on the numbers. Halverson, in his rooms. As much as I dislike it, I cannot avoid look- It was very pleasing indeed that the repre- ing the facts in the face and I have to concede sentation in the procession and the presenta- that, rightly or wrongly, this was the true will tions yesterday was in fact bipartisan, that of the Northern Territory parliament. Mem- members of the Labor Party from the Austral- bers of the government, and indeed members ian Capital Territory and also from the Nor- of the executive of that government, voted folk Island parliament and members of the both for and against the legislation. Members Country Liberal Party of the Northern Terri- Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4575 tory were able to be part of and present for every other Australian enjoys and should that presentation. It is unfortunate that the expect in the participation that they have in leader of the Labor opposition in the Northern the parliamentary process. Therefore, I think Territory, Mrs Maggie Hickey, and Senator it is most incumbent on us to take very Bob Collins were unable to be present yester- carefully the sage advice that has been offered day at that very important and historic occa- in this particular way. sion, but I am pleased that Senator Collins Unlike Senator Collins, I hold a very has made clear to the Senate today his unequ- different personal view on the issue of eutha- ivocal support for the content and the intent nasia. It took me a long time to wrestle with of the remonstrance. my soul in the debate as it was processed and I was also very pleased that the remon- progressed through the Northern Territory strance proceeded, because I claim some parliament over a couple of years, led by the credit in that I proposed the issue of a remon- then Chief Minister, Mr Marshall Perron. As strance to the Chief Minister a month or so I said, I wrestled with my soul, along with the ago as an appropriate mechanism to make an community. I note that, in most of the urban expression in this particular way. I drew on centres of my electorate, there is widespread my own experience in that area because I was support for this particular legislation. I accept part of the presentation to this parliament in that, in many of the Aboriginal communities 1975 of a similar remonstrance on the issue and many of the other areas, particularly those of constitutional development of the Northern linked to both medical ethics and to a theo- Territory. At that time, I was a member of the logical point of view, there is strong opposi- Northern Territory Legislative Assembly tion to the social intent of this legislation, just myself, and we felt very strongly about the as Senator Collins has outlined for his particu- progress of constitutional development leading lar position. to self-government, which then subsequently The fact that this legislation should be came about in 1978 in the Legislative Assem- pushed in this parliament under the guise of bly. an attack on territories’ rights is indeed most As Senator Collins has already mentioned, unfortunate. I believe that euthanasia legisla- it is important that previously, in 1962, the tion is due and proper for consideration at this Northern Territory, under the aegis of, again, particular time right throughout Australia, but a cross-party line—with the leadership of that that debate ought to be progressed and people like Tiger Brennan, a very famous processed through the state and territory political character of the Northern Territory; parliaments where it is right and proper for Dick Ward, a strong Labor member of the the regional differences to be properly ex- Northern Territory parliament; and others posed—as they have been in this debate—on from my side of politics—made a similar a conscience vote issue. remonstrance. The fact that the remonstrance I think it is premature for the national has been presented is a very telling moment parliament to be paternalistic or in effect in the life of any parliament because it forces overriding the wishes of people of Australia us to dwell on and to look very carefully at without having heard the views and opinions both the processes of the Westminster system of all state and territory parliaments before we and the issues of the relationships and respect process this issue. Therefore, I think it is between parliaments and, in effect, places all incumbent on me to point out that the remon- citizens of Australia on an equal footing. strance, as presented today, is a very proper That is the most important part and that is and telling message between parliaments and what I think both Senator Collins and I find on behalf of Australian citizens who live in most objectionable about the legislation all territories throughout Australia. proposed by Mr Kevin Andrews. It strips Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.15 p.m.)— from territorians, whether they live in the by leave—I concur with the overall senti- Northern Territory, the Australian Capital ments of the previous two speakers, Senator Territory or Norfolk Island, the rights that Bob Collins and Senator Tambling, that this 4576 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 parliament is not the place to be overriding access to euthanasia under the conditions laid the legislation of the Northern Territory, out in that territory’s euthanasia legislation. which is world pioneering legislation on the I am a very strong supporter of the legisla- matter of euthanasia. It is essentially a matter tion in the Northern Territory. I see the of human rights to me. I agree with Senator artifice that is being brought into this parlia- Tambling that we, as a maturing society, ment to try to override that legislation. I ought to have room to extend that right support both the feeling in this remonstrance because, by not doing so, we are taking it and the initiating question, which is the rights away from people without their volition. of individuals to a good death when their life I must disagree with Senator Collins about is ebbing, they have no hope of remission and it being ‘right to kill’ legislation. It is nothing they wish to make that determination. I dare of the sort. It is a right of an individual who say that it is a matter we are going to hear a is dying, without hope of a remedy or remis- lot more about in this place. sion, to be able to say, ‘I do not want to In conclusion, I go back to a point that suffer unnecessarily or to suffer unnecessary Senator Tambling made. I do not think it is dignity, nor to visit that suffering on my going to be a case of this law being over- loved ones. I have a right, after a healthy and turned in the Northern Territory. I think it is productive human life on this planet, to be going to be quite the reverse—a case of this able to make that determination.’ law being a light of inspiration and hope It is a very important matter of individual spreading out to the other territories and states rights, but it is not yet, as far as I understand of this nation, and from here to other nations it—and I have not read up well on this—a around the world, to give a very important matter of universal covenant. I believe the right to human beings in search of dignity. time will come when it will be a matter of a Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- global covenant, and then maybe this parlia- tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister ment will have the anchor upon which to for Social Security) (4.20 p.m.)—I seek leave consider the matter with more force. Indeed, to have the contents of the remonstrance and this parliament quite rightly, for example, the letter of concern from Norfolk Island considered the matter of the Franklin River incorporated in Hansard. and its universal obligation to prevent the Leave granted. dam, which would have destroyed a World Heritage property if the state government had The remonstrance and the letter read as proceeded with that unnecessary and destruc- follows— tive dam in the last decade. THE REMONSTRANCE So the remonstrance is something I believe The Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory we ought to all take careful note of, and I with respect and humility addresses itself to hope it will be circulated so that we can study The Honourable The President and Members of it individually. It is, of course, a means of the Senate; and The Honourable The Speaker and drawing attention to the feeling of angst that Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. there is in the Northern Territory that this parliament, through a bill which is an artifice, Whereas:- The Commonwealth Parliament con- ferred by way of the Northern Territory might override the pioneering legislation for (Self-Government) Act S 978, a sub- euthanasia, which has such popular backing stantial grant of self-governing powers in the Northern Territory. The so-called on the Northern Territory with its own Andrews bill, which may come from the legislature (the Legislative Assembly of House of Representatives to the Senate later the Northern Territory) with a plenary this year, is an artifice. It is a wolf in sheep’s grant of legislative power for the peace, order and good government for the clothing. It is purporting to be protecting Northern Territory, with its own new states rights, but the real intent is to take body politic under the Crown with a away the hard-won individual rights of indi- wide grant of executive power (see viduals in the Northern Territory to have Northern Territory (Self Government) Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4577

Act Regulations) and with its own separate political, representative and administra- judicial system. tive institutions in the Territory and to give the Whereas:- In 1995 the Legislative Assembly of Territory control over its own Treasury:" (See the Northern Territory ~enacted the 4th preamble to the Northern Territory (Self - Rights of the Terminally lil Act and the Government) Act Administrator assented to that Act That Act created or recognised all three tradition- Whereas:- The Full Court of the Northern Terri- al arms of government (legislative, executive and tory Supreme Court held in Wake and judicial), and thereby granted the Northern Gondarra v Northern Territory that the Territory self government separate from the Rights of the Terminally lil Act was Commonwealth. within the legislative and executive The legislative arm of this grant, the Legislative powers of the self governing Northern Assembly of the Northern Territory was given Territory. plenary powers to make laws for the peace, order Whereas:- A Bill entitled the Euthanasia Laws and good government of the Territory (see s.6 Bill 1996 was introduced into the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978). House of Representatives by the Hon- The High Court has since recognised that the ourable Member for Menzies. This Bill grant of legislative power is not exercised as a seeks to restrict the plenary grant of mere delegate of the Commonwealth Parliament legislative power of the Legislative but is in fact exercised by self-governing Terri- Assembly of the Northern Territory tories in their own right. under the Northern Territory (Self- Government) Act 1978. The Legislative Assembly of the Northern Whereas:- The Euthanasia Law Bill 1996 consti- Territory is fully elected on democratic principles tutes a direct attack on the self to represent the people of the Northern Territory government powers of the Northern and has full power and authority to make laws Territory. on matters such as voluntary euthanasia. Whereas:- The Legislative Assembly of the North- Whilst the Commonwealth Parliament has ern Territory is fully elected on demo- constitutional power to make laws for the cratic principles to represent the people government of the Northern Territory and the of the Northern Territory and to act on Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory their behalf. can’t make laws that are inconsistent with laws of the Commonwealth which apply in the North- The Legislative Assembly of the Northern ern Territory, the Commonwealth Parliament has Territory presents its grievances to the Common- never before sought to take away any of the wealth Parliament. legislative powers conferred upon the Northern THE GRIEVANCES Territory’s Legislative Assembly. 1. The Northern Territory having been granted It is one of the conventions of self government self governing powers, the duly elected repre- in the Westminster tradition that once self sentatives of the people of the Northern government is granted to a political entity, it Territory are aggrieved that there should be should not thereafter be taken away except in the any attempt to diminish these self governing most extreme circumstances, for example, war or powers by the proposed enactment of the civil disturbance. See submission of the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996. Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department As Witness: to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Northern Territory, page 8 of Parliamentary The Northern Territory and its residents have had paper No.281 of 1974 where it also states that it a long history of seeking autonomy in control of would be politically unthinkable to take away their own affairs. However up until 1978 the such powers after they had been granted. Northern Territory was largely controlled by Commonwealth Ministers and public servants The Euthanasia Laws Bill as introduced in the from Canberra. House of Representatives seeks to directly This changed in 1978 with the passage of the diminish the plenary grant of legislative powers Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern in which the Commonwealth Parliament publicly Territory conferred by s.6 of the Northern recorded that it was desirable by reason of the Territory (Self Government) Act 1978. political and economic development of the The Bill if enacted would be in clear breach of Northern Territory, to confer self government on Ule above mentioned convention and would the Territory, and for that purpose to provide, constitute an undermining of Ule principles of among other things for the establishment of self government. 4578 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

2. The duly elected representatives of the people This is a point of fundamental constitutional of the Northern Territory are aggrieved that significance, with ramifications going well the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 would, if beyond the Northern Territory. enacted, terminate the future operation of a The second point of public importance is whether law already lawfully enacted by the Legisla- under existing constitutional arrangements in tive Assembly of the Northern Territory. Australia it is appropriate for the Commonwealth As Witness: Parliament to determine issues concerning The Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, if enacted, voluntary euthanasia. would have a dual effect. It would not only A third issue of public importance is the merits result in the diminution of the plenary legislative or otherwise of legally recognising voluntary powers of the Northern Territory Legislative euthanasia. Assembly as per 1 above, but it would also terminate the operation of an existing Northern These issues of public importance are matters of Territory law lawfully enacted and assented to, considerable public interest, which the represen- namely the Rights of the Terminally lil Act tatives of the Northern Territory consider if they 1995. are to be considered by the Commonwealth Parliament at all, should not be assigned to a The Commonwealth Parliament has never side chamber of the Commonwealth Parliament. previously enacted legislation to terminate a law of the Northern Territory lawfully enacted. The 5. The duly elected representatives of the people Euthanasia Laws Bill would in this respect also of the Northern Territory are aggrieved that be in breach of the conventions of self- the Commonwealth Parliament, in debating the government. Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, Is proposing to enact legislation for self governing Territories 3. The duly elected representatives of the people that constitutionally it could not enact for of the Northern Territory are aggrieved that existing States. the enactment of the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 will create uncertainty as to the operation As Witness: of other existing laws of the Northern Terri- Under s.51 of the Australian Constitution the tory. Commonwealth Parliament has no legislative As Witness: power in respect of the subject matter of volun- The Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 proposes to tary euthanasia. This is a ‘state type’ matter. diminish the legislative power of the Legislative Since the grant of self-government to the North- Assembly of the Northern Territory in respect of ern Territory in—1978 the Commonwealth certain forms of intentional killing and the Parliament as a general rule has not sought to assisting of a person to terminate his or her life. legislate for the Northern Territory in ‘state type’ It is not limited to preventing the enactment of matters except in respect of specific reserve a Rights of the Terminally lil Act powers. (See Regulation 4(2) under the Northern This has the capacity to create uncertainty as to Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978.) The the validity of a number of other existing North- subject of voluntary euthanasia is not such a ern Territory laws and possible future laws. For reserved power. example laws regarding criminal responsibility. The Commonwealth Parliament has no power to It is highly undesirable that there should be any either diminish the legislative power of a State uncertainty in respect of such laws. parliament or to terminate a State law. The only power of the Commonwealth Parliament is to 4. The duly elected representatives of the people enact laws on matters for which it has Federal of the Northern Territory are aggrieved, given responsibility under S.51 of the Constitution. the significance of the matter, that it is pro- Such laws would override a State law under posed to enact the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 S.109 of the Constitution to the extent of any through a separate but concurrent sittings of inconsistency. the House of Representatives in a side cham- ber, rather than with full debate in the normal 6. The duly elected representatives of the people Parliamentary Chamber. of the Northern Territory are aggrieved that the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 would, if As Witness: enacted, be inconsistent with the undertakings The Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 raises issues of that have already been given for a grant of great public importance. The most important of Statehood for the Northern Territory. these is the constitutional question of whether a parliament, having once granted self governing As Witness: powers to another political entity, can thereafter The Northern Territory is progressing along a unilaterally take back that grant in whole or part path of constitutional development. Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4579

The grant of self-government was an important I write to make representations on behalf of the step in that process but does not amount to a residents of Norfolk Island about the proposed grant of Statehood. With a view to facilitating Euthanasia Laws Bill 1966. the future grant of Statehood, the Commonwealth Our community has very legitimate concerns about already treats the Northern Territory as far as the implications which the passage of this legisla- possible as if it were a State, for example, for tion would have on the continued development of financial purposes through the Grants Commis- self government on the Island. sion process and the Loans Council. This community concern is reflected in the motion, The proposal for a grant of Statehood now has a copy of which is attached, which was passed general support from most Australian govern- unanimously at the most recent sitting of the ments including te Commonwealth, although no Legislative Assembly. time lines have yet been fixed. I urge you to take every step available to you to To now enact the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, ensure that the full democratic rights of the people being a Bill that deals with ‘state type’ matters of this Island are preserved and that the proposed under the Constitution, would be to act contrary Bill is not passed by the Senate or the House of to the general progression towards Statehood and Representatives. create future impediments to such a grant. I am also seeking your assurance that the motion Constitutionally the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, passed by the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly if enacted, could only operate in the Northern is laid on the table of the Senate. Territory up until the grant of Statehood but not beyond that date (subject to the terms and Yours sincerely, conditions under s.121 of the Constitution, Minister for Tourism and Finance although there are strong arguments that such terms and conditions could not be used to support the validity of the Euthanasia Laws Bill after a grant of Statehood). On this basis the EUTHANASIA LAWS BILL 1996—ENDORSE- Euthanasia Laws Bill if enacted would only be MENT BY NORFOLK ISLAND LEGISLATIVE of transitional effect. ASSEMBLY OF FINDINGS OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE SCRUTINY Given such a limited effect, the duly elected OF BILLS representatives of the Northern Territory are aggrieved that the Commonwealth Parliament Mr King (Minister for Tourism and Finance), should be used in this ad hoc fashion to under- pursuant to notice, moved mine the principles of self government and to THAT this Assembly create impediments to the future constitutional 1. endorses the findings of the Senate Standing development of the Northern Territory. Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills in relation The Prayer: to the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996; The Legislative Assembly of the Northern 2. notes that the effect of the proposed legislation Territory humbly prays that the Parliament of the would be to diminish the powers of the elec- Commonwealth of Australia give consideration tors of Norfolk Island to have their elected to the grievances herein set out and seek means representatives make laws for the peace, order to alleviate the distress of the people of the and good government of Norfolk Island Northern Territory by not proceeding further with 3. joins with the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996. the Northern Territory Government in con- And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever demning this attempt to disenfranchise the pray. people of the Territories by introducing this paternalistic piece of legislation. Debate ensued THE GOVERNMENT OF NORFOLK ISLAND Question put and agreed to unanimously. Old Military Barracks NOTICES OF MOTION Kingston Norfolk Island 2899 South Pacific Regulations and Ordinances Committee 25 October 1996 Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid Senator COLSTON (Queensland) (4.21 President of the Senate p.m.)—On behalf of the Standing Committee Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice CANBERRA ACT 2600 that, at the giving of notices on the next day Dear Madam President, of sitting, Senator O’Chee shall withdraw 4580 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 business of the Senate notices of motion Nos standard of belief by the ACCC, which would 1 to 3 standing in his name for the next day appear to indicate that review would be appropriate. of sitting. I seek leave to make a short state- There is another discretion provided for by r. 21(4). ment. The Committee would be grateful for your advice about AAT review. Here again there is an objective Leave granted. standard of belief. The subject matter of the discre- Senator COLSTON—On 12 September tion is confidential commercial information, which 1996, Senator O’Chee reported to the Senate may indicate that decisions about this sensitive and important subject should be reviewable by the on the committee’s concerns with these AAT. instruments, which included possible breaches The Committee notes that the decision of the of privacy, discretions which may not have Minister under r. 30 is reviewable by the AAT on been subject to merits review and unclear the application of either of the parties to the procedures relating to the import of firearms. dispute. The committee has now received replies Yours sincerely which have met its concerns sufficiently to Bill O’Chee allow removal of the notices. The committee will, however, be writing to the ministers Chairman again on aspects of each of the replies to ensure that it carries out its mandate to ensure that legislative instruments do not breach personal rights or parliamentary propriety. Senator Bill O’Chee Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and As usual, I seek leave to incorporate the Ordinances committee’s correspondence in Hansard. Parliament House Leave granted. CANBERRA ACT 2600 21 October 1996 The correspondence read as follows— Dear Bill AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION Thank you for your letter of 6 August 1996 con- REGULATIONS STATUTORY RULES 1996 cerning possible AAT review of certain provisions NO 72 in the Australian Postal Corporation Regulations, Statutory Rules 1996 No. 72. 6 August 1996 Senator the Hon Richard Alston The Department of Communications and the Arts Minister for Communications and the Arts has sought advice from the Attorney-General’s Parliament House Department (A-G’s) on the issues raised by the CANBERRA ACT 2600 Committee. A copy of that advice is enclosed. Dear Minister The A-G’s advice points out that the provisions in question are procedural in nature and that in the I refer to the Australian Postal Corporation Regula- case of subregulation 21(4) an aggrieved party is tions, Statutory Rules 1996 No 72. separately entitled to make application for disclos- Rr. 13(1)(b) and (c) and 23(1)(b) and 23(2) provide ure of relevant documents under the Freedom of that the Australian Competition and Consumer Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). For the reasons Commission must not undertake an inquiry (in the set out in the A-G’s advice, it is not proposed to case of r. 13) and must discontinue an inquiry (in amend the Regulations to provide for merits review the case of r. 23) if the ACCC reasonably believes of the provisions that the Committee has identified. that the dispute is trivial, misconceived or lacking I have, however, asked the Department to ensure in substance (under both provisions) or arose from that subregulation 21(4) is amended at the next negotiations where the complainant did not act in opportunity to make it clear that it is subject to the good faith ( in the case of r. 13). There is provision FOI Act. for the complainant to be given seven days to provide further information, but this does not I hope this clarifies the matter to your satisfaction. appear to be mandatory. Yours sincerely The Committee asks whether there is AAT review RICHARD ALSTON of these discretions and , if not, whether the Minister for Communications and the Arts exclusion is within the relevant guidelines of the Administrative Review Council. In this context both r. 13(1)(b) and r. 23(1)(b) provide an objective Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4581

CUSTOMS (PROHIBITED IMPORTS) 16 October 1996 REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT) Dear Senator O’Chee STATUTORY RULES 1996 NO 91 I refer to your letter of 6 August 1996 requesting 6 August 1996 my advice in relation to matters contained in The Hon Geoff Prosser MP amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs Regulations effected by Statutory Rules 1996 No. Parliament House 91. The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations CANBERRA ACT 2600 (the Regulations) control the importation of the goods specified in the various regulations or the Dear Minister Schedules to the Regulations, by prohibiting I refer to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regula- importation absolutely, or making importation tions (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1996 No. 91. subject to the permission of a Minister or a speci- The explanatory statement advises that the Regula- fied person. tions partly implement a number of resolutions of Following the Port Arthur tragedy, a special the special meeting on 10 May 1996 of the Austral- meeting of the Australasian Police Minister’s ian Police Ministers’ Council, following the Port Council (APMC) adopted a number of resolutions Arthur killings. It also advises that the Regulations aimed at more effective national firearm controls. introduce a new structure for the importation of all The implementation of these resolutions required firearms into Australia. the Commonwealth Government to impose a total New schedule 6 provides for a number of discre- prohibition on the importation into Australia of all tions to be scrutinised by the Attorney-General and self-loading rifles and self-loading and pump action by the State and Territory Police Commissioners. longarms. The importation of fully automatic The Committee would appreciate your advice on weapons was already prohibited under the Regula- whether those discretions are subject to AAT tions. While the importation of semi-automatic review and, if not, whether the exclusions are weapons was at that time subject to some controls within the relevant Administrative Review Council under the Regulations, controls on their importation guidelines. were tightened in New Part 3 of Schedule 6 provides for safety accordance with the APMC resolutions. These requirements for firearms. Item 1.6 provides in part amendments took effect on 14 May 1996 in that a firearm must not operate so as to discharge Statutory Rules 1996 No. 59. if dropped under specified conditions from a height of not more than 45 centimetres. The Committee Soon after these amendments, a new and simplified asks whether this should be not less than 45 structure within the Regulations for the control of centimetres. As the provision stands at present the the importation of all firearms into Australia was test could be satisfied by dropping a firearm from introduced by Statutory Rules 1996 No. 91. The a height of, for instance, one centimetre. Of course, previous structure was introduced in 1990 but, as if the provision was for a height of not less than 45 a result of several amendments being effected to centimetres, the firearm could be dropped from any the Regulations since 1990, the controls were height greater than that, which also would not spread across 6 regulations and 3 Schedules of the appear to be the intended effect. The Committee Regulations. This resulted in great difficulties in asks why the provision does not simply provide for identifying the import control that applied to each drops of 45 centimetres. If such precision is not type of firearm, and led to inconsistent interpreta- required or is not attainable, could there be provi- tion and administration of the controls. The new sion for a drop of 40 to 50 centimetres? structure introduced by Statutory Rules 1996 No. 91 has consolidated the import controls under one The Committee notes that the subject matter of regulation (regulation 4F) and a single Schedule these Regulations is particularly important and (Schedule 6) of the Regulations. The amendments sensitive. also introduced tighter controls on the importation Yours sincerely of firearm accessories, parts, magazines and Bill O’Chee ammunition. Chairman Regulation 4F provides that the importation of a firearm a firearm accessory, a firearm part, a firearm magazine or ammunition is prohibited unless the article is an article to which an item in Senator Bill O’Chee Part 2 of Schedule 6 applies and the importation is Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and in accordance with the requirements set out in that Ordinances Part. In particular, placing both the firearms and the Parliament House requirements for their importation in the same CANBERRA ACT 2600 Schedule is the core of the simplified 8—structure 4582 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 as it enables the immediate identification of the the relevant State or Territory. Similar to the firearm, etc and the requirements with which the specified purposes test, this test is a direct carry- importation of the firearm, etc must comply. over of an import control under the previous These requirements fall into 4 broad categories or Regulations. "tests": (1) the official purposes test, (2) the The type of test with which the importation of the specified purposes test; (3) the specified persons article must comply depends on the article itself. test; and (4) the Police authorisation test (items 1 For example, most of the articles which are includ- to 4 of Paright 1 of Schedule 6 refer). The require- ed in Schedule 6 to the Regulations, including, ments of three of the four tests (numbers (1), (2) firearms, can be imported if they comply with any and (4)) are a substantial carry-over of previous of the four abovementioned tests. While any of the requirements for the importation of firearms. The four tests can be complied with, in practical terms fourth test, the specified persons test, contains a the importation of an article to which the tests new set of requirements which arise from the apply is allowed where the least stringent Police APMC Resolution of 10 May 1996. This new test authorisation test is complied with. recognises the need of certain persons to possess However, certain firearms can only be imported semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of their under more limited circumstances. For example, all occupation. Under the official purposes test, the self-loading, semi-automatic firearms above a importation of an article to which the test relates is certain magazine capacity, as well as their parts and prohibited unless the Attorney-General (AG) is accessories, can only be imported if they comply satisfied that the article is for the purposes of the with one of the first three tests. Not only must the government of the Commonwealth, a State or possession of these firearms be permitted in a Territory and that the relevant government will relevant State or Territory, but their importation retain ownership of the firearm. This test is a carry- will only be permitted if it is for one of the speci- over of the previous "official purposes test" for the fied purposes set out in the first three tests. All importation of firearms. other firearms and their parts and accessories which The specified purposes test also provides that the are not expressly identified in Schedule 6 (which importation of an article to which the test relates is includes all fully automatic firearms), can only be prohibited unless the permission of the AG has imported in accordance with the first two of the been given. Under this test permission may only be four tests. given where the AG is satisfied that the firearm is In your letter, you seek my advice as to whether not available in Australia and is to be used in either the discretions which are exercisable by the AG or the production of a film or in the development of the relevant Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or mountings for a laser target designator. Also, the Chief Police Officer of the police force of a State importer must hold a licence or authorisation to or Territory under the above tests are subject to possess the article in the State or Territory in which review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. it is to be used. The specified purposes test is a direct carry over of two tests for the importation of Firstly, in relation to the discretions exercised under firearms under the previous Regulations (previous the fourth test by the Commissioner, Chief Com- regulations 4D, 4DA and 4DB). missioner or Chief Police Officer of the police force of a State or Territory, these directions are Under the specified persons test, the importation of exercised under the relevant law of a State or an article to which the test relates is prohibited Territory. The licensing or authorising of the unless the permission of the AG has been given. possession of a firearm, etc is dealt with in State Under this test, permission may only be given and Territory legislation and therefore, cannot be where the AG is satisfied that the importer is a the subject of merits review by the Common- person who carries out the specified occupation and wealth’s AAT. However, it is appropriate to note who holds a license or authorisation to possess the that one of the purposes of the APMC itself is to article in the State or Territory in which it is to be promote a uniform, national approach to gun used. While this is a new import control test it is control amongst the States and Territories. Consis- in the same form as import control tests, such as tent and coherent administration of firearm licens- the film test, which were in the previous Regula- ing laws amongst the various administrations tions. therefore is given an opportunity for regular Under the Police authorisation test, the importation discussion and review. of an article to which the test relates is prohibited In relation to the discretions exercised by the AG unless the importer of the article has been given a under the first three tests, the decision by the AG statement, in an approved form from the relevant to refuse to grant a permission to import an article Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or Chief Police under any of the tests is not subject to merits Officer of the police force of the State or Territory, review by the AAT. This is because the matters of that the importer holds a licence or authorisation to which the AG must be satisfied before he or she possess the article in accordance with the law of can grant a permission are based on the high Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4583 government policy considerations of public safety. ledged this exception in the identical circumstances As referred to above, the types of articles to which under the import controls on firearms in the only these tests apply include all fully automatic previous Regulations. firearms and semi-automatic firearms above a I also note your comment in relation to one of the certain capacity as well as their parts and accesso- requirements for safety testing of firearms con- ries. Therefore, the AG must first be satisfied of the tained in item 1.6 of Part 3 of Schedule 6. Under limited use to which the articles will be put. The this requirement, a firearm that is dropped 3 times fact that the permission can only be granted in from a height of not more than 45 centimetres on respect a such limited uses will ensure that articles to a rubber mat must not discharge. While I such as firearms will not enter into general circu- concede the point made by the Committee that the lation. Also the fact that the AG must be satisfied present wording of this requirement would allow a of the limited use to which the articles will be put firearm to be dropped from any height less than 45 is necessary because, without the AG’s permission, centimetres, I am advised that, in practice, a such articles would otherwise be prohibited im- firearm is dropped from a height of 45 centimetres. ports. However, the Committee has identified an inadver- In respect of the second and third tests, the AG tent loophole in the present wording which is must also be satisfied that the importer holds the acknowledged. In order to ensure that a firearm is relevant State or Territory licence or authorisation always dropped from a reasonable height, subitem to possess the article in the relevant State or 1.6 will be amended to provide that the firearm can Territory in which article is to be used. In the only be dropped from a height between 35 and 45 interests of public safety, the AG cannot grant a centimetres. I thank the Committee for drawing this permission to import an article to which the tests matter to my attention. apply that an importer is not licensed or authorised I trust that the above comments are of assistance to to possess. the Committee. Therefore, if the AG is not satisfied of these GEOFF PROSSER matters, permission to import the article would not be granted and the refusal would be based on the high government policy grounds of public safety. It is not considered desirable to have merits review MIGRATION AGENTS REGULATIONS by the AAT of refusals of permissions when based (AMENDMENT) STATUTORY RULES 1996 on high government policy grounds such as this NO 79 one. This position is also taken in respect of the control on the importation of goods under regula- 2 August 1996 tion 4 of the Regulations (Importation of certain The Hon Philip Ruddock MP dangerous goods in Schedule 2) and regulation 4R Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (importation of radioactive substances). The high Parliament House government policy ground of giving effect to CANBERRA ACT 2600 international treaty obligations is also another example for excepting refusals to grant import Dear Minister permission from merits review under regulations I refer to the Migration Agents Regulations 4QA (importation of goods of Iraqi origin presently (Amendment), Statutory Rules 1996 No. 79. under United Nations sanctions). New cause 27 of the Code of Conduct requires Under the three tests, the decision maker who agents to keep records of applications and of might refuse to grant an import permission is written and oral communications between the agent restricted to the AG. This restriction is seen as the and clients. New clause 27A then requires an agent necessary corollary to the exemption from merits to make these records available for inspection on review of decisions made on grounds of high request by the Migration Agents Registration government policy. In short, the final decision can Board. The Committee would appreciate your only be taken by the Government’s relevant policy advice on what protection exists for the privacy of Minister. clients and whether the Privacy Commissioner was The exception of decisions to refuse import consulted on the present Regulations. The same permissions from merits review under the above question applies to clients’ financial details under circumstances has previously been acknowledged clause 28A. by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations New clauses 28, 28A and 28B provide for the and Ordinances, as has the corresponding control financial duties of an agent. New clause 28 requires in such circumstances that restrict the refusal of the agent to keep separate accounts for the agent’s permission power to the Government’s relevant operating expenses and for monies paid by clients policy Minister. I am advised that in respect of the to the agent for fees and disbursements. Cause 28A first and second tests, the Committee has acknow- provides for records of clients’ accounts. Clause 4584 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

28B provides that nothing in these provisions complaints because a failure on the part of some affects the duty of a migration agent who is also a agents to adequately document their dealings with legal practitioner and who acts in that capacity, their clients. New Clause 27 of the Migration from the usual financial responsibility of a legal Agents Code of Conduct (the Code) is designed to practitioner to clients’ funds. This last requirements address this problem by requiring that agents would, among other things, require a legal practi- maintain case files which fully document their tioner to comply with trust account provisions, dealings with clients. which would give substantial protection to clients’ As it stood, the wording of the former Clause 28 money. The Committee asks why an agent who is of the Migration Agents Code of Conduct did not not a legal practitioner does not appear to need to impose on all agents a requirement to operate keep proper trust accounts? What happens if an separate accounts for client monies and an agent’s agent who is not a legal practitioner goes bankrupt? business operating expenses. Rather it provided Is the clients’ money at risk? The earlier Code of examples of the type of accounts agents should Conduct provided for trust accounts, although in a operate, including trust accounts. This resulted in permissive rather than mandatory fashion. some agents maintaining a single bank account for Yours sincerely client and agent monies. In its report on the review Bill O’Chee of the Migration Agents Registration Scheme, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration recom- Chairman mended at recommendation 32 that, "Clause 28 of the Code of Conduct for migration agents be amended to clarify a migration agent’s obligation Senator William O’Chee to maintain client and agent funds in separate Chairman accounts. Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and New Clause 28 of the Code of Conduct implements Ordinances Parliament House this recommendation. The Clause is also designed CANBERRA ACT 2600 to ensure the separation of an agent’s business operating funds and monies paid to the agent by 22 October 1996 clients to cover application and agent’s fees which Dear Senator O’Chee can only be accessed once the agent has completed Thank you for your letter of 2 August 1996 in the relevant service and billed the client. which you sought advice in relation to aspects of Legal practitioners’ obligations in relation to the the Migration Agents Regulations (Amendment), operation of trust accounts are the subject of State Statutory Rules 1996 No.79. The delay in replying legislation. New Clause 28B requires legal practi- to you is regretted. tioners who are agents to continue to operate a trust The Migration Agents Registration Scheme (the account for the deposit of client monies. However, Scheme) requires the registration of persons because non-lawyer agents were and continue to be providing immigration advice and assistance and beyond the reach of State trust fund legislation, the includes a complaints investigation mechanism Code now requires that they operate a separate which may result in disciplinary action by the client account, albeit in a form similar to a trust Migration Agents Registration Board (the Board). account. The combined effect of new Clauses 28 The Scheme establishes minimum requirements for and 28A, therefore, offers clients greater protection qualification for registration as a migration agent because the separation of client and agent’s operat- and establishes the boundaries of ethical and ing funds is now mandatory for all agents, as well professional conduct within the migration advice as requiring agents to maintain detailed financial industry. By so doing, the Scheme provides a high records which are open to scrutiny by the Board. level of consumer protection for people who You have asked about the consequences of a non- receive immigration advice from incompetent or lawyer agent being declared bankrupt. Section 303 unscrupulous advisers. The amendments to the of the Act provides that, where an agent is declared Migration Agents Regulations are designed to bankrupt, whether a legal practitioner or not, the enhance the objective of consumer protection. Board may caution the agent or suspend or cancel Section 308(1)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (the the agent’s registration. In such circumstances, it is Act) provides that the Board may, at any time, then open to any client of that agent to seek require an agent to provide the Board with speci- recovery of monies under existing bankruptcy fied documents or records relevant to an agent’s legislation. registration. The Board has exercised this power in In relation to the privacy issues you have raised, the past, particularly in relation to complaints made the members of the Board are acutely aware of the against registered agents. However, in many confidential and sensitive nature of information instances, the Board has experienced difficulty in obtained by agents in the course of their dealings establishing the veracity of issues arising from with clients. The Board is subject to the provisions Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4585 of the Privacy Act 1988 and has, therefore, imple- raised with or by the subcommittee during the mented procedures designed to protect information familiarisation program. provided by agents to the Board in the exercise of its statutory powers. Given that the amendments to We were particularly interested in seeing the Code are aimed at strengthening powers which what has been undertaken through the APIN the Board has exercised in the past, pursuant to project, the army presence in the north pro- paragraph 308(1)(c) of the Act, rather than intro- ject, which has been developing mainly at ducing new provisions, it was not considered Robertson Barracks in Darwin since 1989 and necessary to consult with the Privacy Commis- sioner. will continue until the final phase of the project in the year 2001. Fully realised, APIN Yours sincerely will see the relocation of some 2,300 soldiers Philip Ruddock and 2,600 family members to Darwin. APIN represents a departure from the traditional COMMITTEES home location of elements of the Australian Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Defence Force in southern capitals and towns, Committee: Joint and emphasises instead the establishment of quick response operational units which are Report self-sufficient and trained for remote areas. Senator MacGIBBON (Queensland) (4.23 APIN represents a major commitment to p.m.)—I present the report of the Joint Stand- increasing Australia’s defence capabilities in ing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence the north as well as a considerable financial and Trade entitled Defence Subcommittee investment. It is a clear example of tailoring Visit to Queensland and the Northern Terri- modern accommodation construction tech- tory, 5-8 August 1996. I seek leave to move niques to meet the demanding climate of the a motion in relation to the report. tropics. The overall cost of the project has Leave granted. been estimated at around $500 million and Senator MacGIBBON—I move: there are significant flow-on effects for the Northern Territory economy. That the Senate take note of the report. We learned that defence is directly spending The report I am tabling today is the record of at present an average of $2 million per week a short tour of inspection which the Defence in the Northern Territory. With construction Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Commit- added, it would be closer to $4 million per tee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade week not including construction and mainte- undertook in August this year. The program nance expenditure by the Defence Housing of familiarisation visits, inspections and Authority. In eight years of operation in briefings encompassed key defence establish- Darwin, the authority has injected $27.3 ments in Brisbane, Townsville and Darwin. million on average each year into the local The program placed appropriate emphasis economy. The relative effect of direct and on the subcommittee’s interest in learning first indirect defence expenditure is expected to be hand of the activities of the ADF. Although maintained at around 10 per cent of the gross short, the program of visits and meetings territory product from 1995 to 2001. provided very useful information for members One of the features of APIN which im- of the subcommittee, particularly those who pressed the subcommittee was the continued joined the subcommittee during this parlia- partnership with private industry in the design ment. and construction of facilities and amenities During the program we had many oppor- and in the associated tendering processes tunities to discuss topical defence issues with which were designed to encourage the partici- commanding officers and service personnel. pation of small as well as large contractors. We gained invaluable insights into capabilities The Defence Housing Authority has also and requirements in the north. However, the participated in successful joint ventures with report we have presented does not pretend to private sector developers. We attended the be an exhaustive discussion of all the topics opening of Fairway Waters, the latest col- 4586 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 laborative project at Palmerston, south-east of Since the prospective area of operations for Darwin. It provides high-quality housing for Australian Defence Force troops will be either defence personnel as well as for private in the northern part of Australia or in South- purchasers. East Asia, the acclimatisation of those troops Another area of major interest to the sub- is a matter that takes time and is a very committee during the northern visits was the important adjunct in their training and prepar- Army 21 review, the proposed blueprint for edness. At the same time it exposes their the army for the 21st century, which had been equipment and, to a certain degree, their presented to the Minister for Defence (Mr doctrine, the way they operate, to the require- McLachlan). This has now been overtaken by ments of the climate as well. It tests them in the Restructuring of the Army statement by a way that would not be possible to do at the Minister for Defence in the last sitting Holsworthy or Puckapunyal in the southern week. part of the continent. However, given the significance of Army Undeniably, it is a very high cost program 21 as a paper for the future of Australia’s because you are supporting a large establish- defence as it was then, the subcommittee was ment a long way from its source of supplies. surprised that the broad thrust of the proposals The evidence given to the committee and did not appear to be widely disseminated recorded in this report from army was that, through the army’s chain of command. Also just off the top of their head, they estimated there has been much media speculation in it was costing between $15,000 and $16,000 recent months about the new direction pro- per soldier per annum as a consequence of the posed for Australia’s army of the future. The location. subcommittee has sought a briefing from the Clearly, the original reason for the deploy- Minister for Defence on the restructuring ment to the north taken by the Labor govern- proposals for the army and looks forward to ment was wrong. It was based on the Dibb receiving the briefing now that the minister concept of defending Australia by lining the made his defence policy statement in the beaches with troops shoulder to shoulder—a parliament on 15 October. philosophy which, sadly, still lives on, par- In conclusion, I would like to thank the ticularly in army today in many quarters. But Minister for Defence, and the military and there are some advantages in it. civilian personnel who assisted in ensuring Professor Dibb’s basic philosophy is quite the success of the subcommittee’s familiari- wrong. What is absolutely crucial is for the sation program. I also thank the secretariat of Australian Defence Force and the Australian the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign nation to know what is going on in that area. Affairs, Defence and Trade, who worked It is also terribly important for us to demon- closely with defence personnel to develop a strate our sovereignty over the territorial areas program of visits, briefings and inspections that we claim as our own: on the land, in the which has provided so much valuable infor- air and at sea. If a nation does not demon- mation to subcommittee members about strate its sovereignty then people do not defence requirements and capabilities in respect that sovereignty. We must know what northern Australia. is going on in and through the airspace, over The central part of the visit was to see the and under the water and on the landmass development that has taken place in recent there, but that does not mean that you put years of the presence of the Australian De- your armed combat force units in that area. fence Force in the north—the APIN or army Nevertheless, it has happened now. Whatever presence in the north program. This is a very the reasons, we have got a major financial important program as well as being a very investment in the north that we simply cannot expensive one. The importance of it lies in walk away from. We have got to make the the fact that it acclimatises troops who were most of it and use it as effectively as we can formerly in Victoria and in the southern part for the benefit of the Defence Force and for of New South Wales to life in the tropics. the benefit of the country. Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4587

I will be very interested to read the report was organised to familiarise members of the being prepared by the Australian National Defence Subcommittee with a range of de- Audit Office into the cost of the army pres- fence establishments in northern Australia. I ence in the north. The ANAO has just started want to confine my remarks to that area of to prepare the report. I say that because it is northern Queensland with which I am most important in these times of restricted budgets familiar. for Defence that we know precisely what everything is costing us. I do not think that The committee met with Brigadier Mike should be the sole determinant of what we do, Smith AM, the commander of the 3rd Bri- what capabilities we should acquire or what gade, and his officers. Lavarack Barracks is force structures we should have—far from it. the headquarters of the 3rd Brigade and Defence is not a business: it is not something incorporates two infantry battalions—1 RAR that presents a balance sheet and pays a and 2 RAR. The capability of the brigade is dividend in a monetary sense every year. Its enhanced by the Townsville based allocated great dividend is the peace and security of units, which are the 5th Aviation Regiment, this country, and that is a matter that cannot the 2nd Field Logistic Battalion, No. 35 be quantified. Squadron RAAF and the Operational Support Group RAAF. The 3rd Brigade is held at the I do think it is important that we get a very very highest degree of readiness for oper- accurate handle on this instead of making the ations and is the major combat component of assumptions that we have to make at the the Australian Defence Force’s Ready De- present time about the cost of the army ployment Force. A large proportion of the presence in the north. I look forward to the brigade’s exercise training schedule involves audit office report being available to the joint training with the RAN and the RAAF. parliament in a year or so. It also participates in combined exercises with Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) United States and Indonesian forces. These (4.32 p.m.)—I wish to speak to the motion exercises are of value in gaining new skills moved by Senator MacGibbon. Like all other and ideas and in developing teamwork and residents of North Queensland, I am particu- understanding between defence forces of larly proud of the Australian defence forces neighbouring countries. in the North Queensland area. I want to support my colleague Senator MacGibbon in The army presence in Townsville contri- his remarks on the report of the Joint Stand- butes very significantly to the local communi- ing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence ty and the economy. I have to say that small and Trade entitled Defence Sub-Committee business generally benefits greatly from the Visit to Queensland and the Northern Terri- presence of the army at Lavarack Barracks in tory, 5-8 August 1996 which was tabled Townsville. The army provides an enormous today. Senator MacGibbon was, of course, the amount towards employment in the northern chairman of the Defence Subcommittee and city. As well, the defence forces play a major was actually the leader of the group that community role. Many of the soldiers and completed this report. The work of the com- airmen in Townsville are fully integrated in mittee is very obvious. I am also a member of a very significant way within the local com- the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign munity. Affairs, Defence and Trade, but unfortunately Importantly, the Defence Subcommittee I was not able to be involved in this particular raised in discussions the role of army com- trip. munity service in minimising the negative I am a North Queenslander and, like all impacts of overseas service—as in the case of others who live in the north, I am very proud Somalia and Rwanda—on service personnel of the army, navy and air force as they are and families, the army’s relations with the established in North Queensland and the wider Townsville community, and the impact tremendous role they play in the community. of the transfer program when service person- The particular visit which this report records nel and families are transferred either to or 4588 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 out of Townsville to other bases Australia- Committee on Public Works was also in wide. Townsville last week and it heard that mainte- The committee also met with Wing Com- nance costs would blow out to over the mander Graham O’Brien, Wing Commander allocated $1.4 million per aircraft unless Geoff Lydeamore and Wing Commander action was taken quickly to correct the corro- Richards at the Townsville RAAF Base. The sion. Corrosion in those aircraft can seriously RAAF Base accommodates the Headquarters reduce the life of the helicopters. I understand of the Operational Support Group, No. 84 that the government has announced that steps Wing, 5th Aviation, the Combat Survival will be taken to properly house those helicop- Training School and 323 Air Base Wing. Air ters so that the maintenance problems are Base Wing and No. 84 Wing are staffed by minimised. 390 service personnel and 33 civilian person- Also, the Defence Subcommittee visited the nel and comprise a number of different units. Jezzine barracks, the headquarters of the 11th The role of No. 84 Wing is to provide safe Brigade, and were briefed by the brigade’s and effective short-range fixed-wing transport commander, Brigadier Neil Weekes. Eleventh support to meet the requirements of the Brigade is the only reserve formation in an Australian defence forces. area which stretches from Thursday Island The 5th Aviation Regiment was established and within three kilometres of the Papua New as an army unit in 1987 and now operates Guinea border, west to the Queensland border more aircraft than any other operational ADF and south to a line joining Mount Isa and unit. It provides air mobility and battlefield Ingham. Although Townsville is the headquar- support to 3rd Brigade and it works closely ters of the brigade, it does not actually lie on training exercises with the SAS. Further, within the brigade’s tactical area of oper- 5th Aviation Regiment gives community ations. assistance in search and rescue and flood The brigade is an independent brigade relief operations and in relation to most group trained for protective operations. Its civilian calamities—particularly the cyclones regional surveillance task is to examine and that we experience all too often in the north. monitor civil infrastructure capabilities which The regiment plays a major and very benefi- would support military operations protecting cial role in that regard. vital assets. These vital assets include the port The Townsville community was shaken by of Weipa and RAAF Scherger, Thursday the Black Hawk accident at the high range Island, Horn Island, Mount Isa, Cairns, the training area in June this year. It affected all port of Karumba, the Prince of Wales Chan- ranges of people across the Townsville com- nel, Endeavour Passage and the Carpentaria munity. Within my office two of my staff— Mineral Province. The 11th Brigade has three through family and close friends—knew of army reserve battalions and support forma- people who were either killed or seriously tions—31 Battalion RQR based in Townsville, injured in that accident. 42 Battalion RQR based in Rockhampton, and The Black Hawk helicopters were engaged 51 Battalion FNQR headquartered in Cairns on a Special Air Service Regiment training but moving right up Cape York and into the exercise when the accident occurred. Eighteen Torres Strait islands—and it has a signals service personnel were killed and others were squadron, a field battery and brigade adminis- seriously injured. The army has taken action trative support. to counsel and support the service personnel As well, the Commonwealth is currently and their families. Just this week, the inquiry involved in expenditure in the high range into the Black Hawk helicopters crash is army area west of Townsville, where a lot of being convened in Townsville. the training work for our defence forces takes The Defence Subcommittee also learned place. It is interesting that the army have about the levels of Black Hawk serviceability appointed senior level officers with appropri- after the major maintenance problems experi- ate qualifications to keep an eye on the enced in 1995. The parliamentary Standing environmental consequences of training in Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4589 some parts of Queensland that are very (4) That the foregoing provisions of this resolu- environmentally sensitive. It is, indeed, tion, so far as they are inconsistent with the pleasing to see that the army have, at high standing and sessional orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the level, taken an interest in the environmental standing and sessional orders. aspects of their training. Ordered that consideration of the message All in all, it was good to have the Defence be made an order of the day for the next day Subcommittee visit the north to see what the of sitting. defence forces do, and it raises again the tremendously good relationships which the Notice of Motion defence forces have with the local communi- Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— ties and gives us an opportunity to highlight Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the the very effective and necessary work that our Environment and Parliamentary Secretary to defence forces do in North Queensland. the Minister for Sport, Territories and Local Senator CALVERT (Tasmania)—I seek Government)—by leave—I give notice that, leave to continue my remarks later. on the next day of sitting, I shall move: Leave granted; debate adjourned. (1) That the Senate: PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (a) invites the President of the United States of America to address the Senate, on OF AMERICA Wednesday, 20 November 1996, at a time to be fixed by the President of the Senate Consideration of House of and notified to all senators; Representatives Message (b) accepts the invitation of the House of The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Representatives to meet with that House (Senator Knowles)—A message has been for that purpose; and received from the House of Representatives (c) concurs in the provisions of the resolution forwarding a resolution relating to a proposed of the House relating to the conduct of joint meeting of the Senate and the House of that meeting. Representatives. (2) That this resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives message— House of Representatives by message. The House of Representatives transmits to the TELSTRA (DILUTION OF PUBLIC Senate the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day and OWNERSHIP) BILL 1996 requests the concurrence of the Senate therein: Second Reading (1) That the House invites Mr William Clinton, President of the United States of America, Debate resumed from 18 October, on to attend and address the House, on Wed- motion by Senator Newman: nesday, 20 November 1996, at a time to be That this bill be now read a second time. notified by the Speaker. (2) That the House invites the Senate to meet Senator COONEY (Victoria) (4.43 p.m.)— with the House in this Chamber for this When I last addressed this bill, I said that the purpose. second reading speech is an interesting speech (3) That, at the meeting of the two Houses for for this reason: not only does it allege various this purpose: facts—which is common to second reading speeches, to form a basis for doing what the (a) the Speaker shall preside at the meeting; legislation purports to do—but also the (b) the only proceedings shall be an address proposition that has been put alleges facts by the President of the United States of America, after which the Speaker shall which, to a large extent, would go against that forthwith adjourn the House and declare proposition, which is that one-third of Telstra the meeting concluded; and should be sold. Many of the things that are (c) the procedures of the House shall apply contained in the second reading speech, as I to the meeting so far as they are applic- see it, would justify not the sale of Telstra but able. the keeping of it. 4590 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

I said on the last occasion that there was a The strange thing about that is that that statement in the second reading speech which sentence contemplates that the present situa- suggested that the onus should be on those tion does give a transparency to the way who want to resist the sale of Telstra to show things are done. We are going to have a why it should not be sold. I was saying that privatisation of Telstra and then to obtain that is looking at things from the wrong what we lose as a result of that; we are going angle. To sell Telstra, a most successful to have legislation to make transparent what company, which, I recall, according to the is already transparent under the present second reading speech, is the biggest tax scheme. paying company in Australia, and put at risk This legislation attempts to privatise a that payment of tax to the Commonwealth government corporation and then to provide seems to be a strange course to adopt. The a great deal of legislation to attempt to bring first page of the second reading speech says: Telstra back to the very situation it is now in. This proposal is not about marrying an ideological The second reading speech says that the attachment to private ownership with the necessity regulation of this company will now be to balance the books. Partial privatisation of Telstra tighter. I hope I have remembered the words is one element of a broader telecommunications policy aimed at giving Australians a world-class correctly. It said that the provisions to have telecommunications industry in terms of not only that in the new legislation will be much more technology but also pricing and quality of service. strict than the regulation that was put into place under the former government. Much is made of the universal service obliga- tion. It is difficult to see how selling one-third It seems extraordinary that we are going to of Telstra can obtain that object. As the vote on a bill on the basis of a second reading second reading speech points out, the govern- speech which, in effect, when it is read ment will retain the majority shareholding. properly, is aimed more at keeping Telstra in Page 7 of the second reading speech says: its present ownership. It would be more The government will also entrench a provision in readily understood if the whole thing was Telstra’s constitution to enable the Commonwealth being sold off, but clearly that is not happen- to appoint directors in proportion to its ing and there are no plans to sell this com- shareholding. pany off. We seem to fall between two stools. Firstly, we have a company that is only one- It will continue to be able to control Telstra third privatised. Nevertheless, that comes with into the future. The reality is that the sale of a lot more regulation of this company. Sec- one-third of Telstra will make very little ondly, we go down a path that would seem to difference. No doubt, the minority sharehold- be privatisation, with the benefits that can ers, as is pointed out in the second reading bring, but we really do not—we really are speech, will be able to go to annual general chasing a dream. On page 13, under the meetings and ask questions. No doubt, they heading ‘Customer service guarantee’, the will be able to put some pressure on the second reading speech says: directors of Telstra. But it will not fundamen- tally change the present situation where the The coalition has long been concerned about government is subject to questions in this declines in many aspects of service, particularly chamber to ensure that Telstra is properly run. where there is a lack of competition such as in areas of rural and remote Australia. It seems a great effort to go through the process of selling one-third of Telstra simply But there is no explanation of how the sale of to have some minority shareholders in a one-third of Telstra is going to bring about position to ask questions at the annual general any more competition in rural or remote meeting. Page 7 of the second reading speech Australia. It is a statement that was made and also says: just left hanging in the air. Indeed, the pres- umption is that there will be no more compe- Placing reporting obligations in legislation is the most transparent means of retaining access to tition because of the sale of one-third of information on a basis comparable to the current Telstra. The only thing that would happen is arrangements. that it may well be that the minority share- Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4591 holders object to the company spending conveyancing, if you like, of that sale. What money in non-productive activities in rural an extraordinary situation it is where, on the and remote Australia. If that is so, the effect belief that government and parliament cannot of selling one-third of Telstra will bring some adequately run vital sections of public affairs, pressure to bear on the company not to we actually have the payment of hundreds of provide as good a service as it might in areas millions of dollars in order to sell that instru- which do not return as big a profit as might mentality into private hands. be desired by the shareholders. Those areas If that was not warning enough, on this are likely to be rural and remote areas. occasion we have before the Senate, in mon- We had a vote on this when we were last etary terms, a much bigger sale and, in mon- here. Much consumer legislation is going into etary terms, a much bigger loss inherent in place in this bill. That legislation is necessary this sale of Telstra. I have seen the figures— because the government perceives that peo- they are debatable—that the goodwill and the ple—Australians, the customers of Telstra— actual wherewithal of Telstra sold on the should be better treated. The whole purpose market as the government proposes would of privatisation and this one-third sale is lead to losses of up to $20 billion or $30 supposed to be to make services better billion. We are actually going to pay to take through competition. If that is so, why does out of national control such an essential this second reading speech go through the service as telecommunications because, for process of saying that we need all these other reasons that have not yet been able to be regulations to obtain in effect what competi- brought home because they have not been tion, as it is expressed in this bill, cannot provided by the government, it is thought obtain? that, in private hands, Telstra will be a better Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.54 p.m.)— entity than it has proved to be in public The Australian Greens are totally opposed to hands. That is muddle-headed and it is wrong. the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) The silly argument brought forward by the Bill. We stood strongly against it during the government—that the Castro government is election campaign and there has not been doing this and therefore that justifies our anything in the public debate or the Senate doing it—shows the absurdity that attends the debate that I have heard since to change our government’s argument. minds. It is simply bad doctrinaire policy by The sale of the third of Telstra is said to the new government. It is doctrinaire because bring in some $8 billion to the public coffers, it is an extension of the idea that anything and $1 billion out of that over the next five that the Stock Exchange can decide is better years or so will be put towards what is called than anything that the parliament can decide. the Natural Heritage Trust. There are two This is the fundamental principle of economic things about that. Firstly, the monetary side. fundamentalism itself—economic rationalism, What the government is proposing to do will if you like—which is practised by this effectively knock out one of the biggest government with such zeal that it even puts income earners that it has got. The sale of the a shine on the efforts of the previous Labor whole of Telstra—and that is the intention of government, which, as we all know, was busy the government in the medium to short privatising such great Australian institutions term—would mean a loss of income of over as the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and the $1 billion per annum. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. One of the reasons the public of Australia On the latter, of course, I have seen the are opposed to this legislation is that they figures from the Australia Institute which have the savvy to know that that money can show that it actually cost the Australian be made up only through either an increase in public over $600 million to sell the Common- taxes or further cuts in public services. It wealth Serum Laboratories into private hands. means that the average Australian is going to That is the long-term cost of government be either hit in the pocket or further deprived having to buy back services and the actual of essential services such as health, education 4592 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 and security. When it gets to the hidden or ring every vista in the great Australian indirect costs, they are legion. Many of them countryside. But they can do that without fear have been pointed to by previous speakers, so or favour because this parliament was, I think, I will not go into the legion. Suffice it to say, remiss enough to say, ‘We will not extend however, that people on lower incomes and environmental laws to the extension of tele- people in remote rural areas of Australia are communications in the future.’ That was going to be hardest hit. There is no doubt that presumably done because it was thought that Telstra’s ability in public hands to deliver that would be a monetary cost. basic and essential telecommunication ser- That is because successive governments vices to those two categories of Australians is have put all on the altar of monetary costs going to be trammelled by its sale into private and none on the altar of other values in life, hands. including environmental and aesthetic values, No matter what temporary legislation which the Australian public holds in higher safeguarding the poor and the people living in kudos than the average member of cabinet has remote areas is passed by this parliament, the done in this place for a long time. ineluctable pressure of the private corporation But then comes the grand duplicity, the which arises out of this sale will be in the greenmail that is involved in this legislation. opposite direction. It is going to be a great The government says that it is going to put $1 penalty on the pockets of remote consumers billion aside out of the sale to provide for in Australia as we go down the line. They are funding the Natural Heritage Trust. When we going to find it harder to get some equality of look at that, we find that, in effect, the service, let alone to get it at some equality of government has taken a much wider brush cost as the burgeoning communications world, and is saying in essence, ‘If you want to have the world of information, means that they too, a good environment in the future, you’ve got like urban dwellers, rely more and more on to support this legislation to flog off Telstra the services that Telstra does provide and into the private domain.’ It is blackmail by which it ought to be providing into the future. old standards, greenmail by the new stand- It would be much better for the government ards. to be legislating to have a single underground If we were to accept that, then every time cable system for all major providers in this an environmental consideration is to be made country and for the cost of that to be borne by the government it will see its opportunity not just by Telstra but by all providers than to play off some other totally unrelated for the government to be bringing this legisla- consideration with those people in this place tion into this parliament with the end effect of who hold the environment at the top of the deteriorating services to the public at greater scale of importance in the decisions we make. cost to its pocket. I am referring there not to What will it be next? Will it be the the big end of town but to the public in the privatisation of tertiary education around the main, spread out in the regional and rural country to raise money to protect our forests? areas of Australia, or those people struggling Who knows. There would be no end to it. to make ends meet in the cities. Once you give in to greenmail, you are The second point, of course, is the environ- caught forever. ment. This parliament has already legislated I have told the minister on a number of to exclude Telstra and Optus from environ- occasions that he can say what he likes about mental considerations in expanding their the need to fund the various things listed in networks. That has led to an enormous public his Natural Heritage Trust legislation but he reaction in what is arguably the most is selling himself out in his responsibility as environmentally sensitive country in the Australia’s premier environmentalist when he world. People simply do not like cables being says, ‘I won’t do that unless we sell off rolled out through their leafy suburbs at the Telstra and get the assent of the Senate to do whim of Optus any more than they like either so.’ What a disgraceful philosophy. What a company sticking towers on every hill, mar- disgraceful way to behave as minister for the Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4593 environment. That is the failure of Senator The misfortune for the environment is that Hill, who purports to be the minister for the Senator Hill has a fair degree of savvy about environment but in fact repeatedly acts as him. He has tried very hard to obfuscate his minister against the environment. He says, obligation to the environment by putting it ‘I’m not going to look after woodlands, I’m across to, in large measure, his zeal for selling not going to look after the restoration of the Telstra. We do not have to have much imagi- health of our rivers, the coasts can go jump nation or intelligence and Cape York is not a matter of consider- Senator Newman—Selling shares in ation to me, unless you flog off the tele- Telstra. phones.’ That is where he is at. Senator BROWN—For selling Telstra, as It is a travesty of his obligation as Minister I said. The reality is, as I said, that the for the Environment that Senator Hill is not minister’s device and the government’s device fighting for each of those issues on their has failed to impress the Australian people. It merit. It is a comment on the bankruptcy of is certainly not impressing the Australian wider ethics and values in this place, or at Greens. It is certainly not going to get the least in the realm of government thinking, that support of the Australian Greens in this place. this greenmail is put before the Senate and the So there we have it. Telstra should remain Minister for the Environment gets up and in public hands. Telstra is a great Australian backs it. He has certainly done so publicly public institution. If we have ever needed outside and with me in private as well. We Telstra in the past, we are going to need it are not buying that. As Greens, we never that much more in the future as telecommuni- could and we never would. cations and the purveying of information When you look at this bankrupt argument becomes an even greater component of not by the government that they need to sell only entertainment, education and information Telstra to protect part of the environment, you exchange but our ability to make opinions actually see that at the same time they are without fear or favour based on that informa- draining previous funding from environmental tion. It is a very dangerous move on financial efforts and obligations. In other words, they and democratic grounds to be giving up this are not only creating the myth that they great Australian institution and placing it into cannot get money from elsewhere to protect the hands of the Stock Exchange because that the environment, but they are also creating the happens to be a doctrinaire viewpoint taken myth that that spending—this was a commit- by the government in 1996. I totally oppose ment by Prime Minister Howard before the it. election—coming out of the sale of Telstra Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- would be for new environmental goods. It is tralia) (5.10 p.m.)—I also rise to discuss the not. It is going to be put into past environ- Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill. mental commitments on the broad scale. We I would like to start with a quote from Bob will not have a bar of that. Walker, Professor of Accounting at the University of New South Wales. He argues: The efforts of this government to come to grips with its environmental obligations are Privatisation can have a serious impact on Govern- ment finances. Hence it can be argued that govern- going to be fought out in this place, as far as ments should be more open about privatisation I and the Australian Greens are concerned, on arrangements, to ensure that major financial the merits of the environmental product that transactions are subject to prior Parliamentary and the government comes up with. To date, it is public scrutiny. Claims about the need to maintain the most abysmal performance by a minister ‘commercial confidentiality’ concerning proposed for the environment that we have seen in privatisations seem anomalous when contrasted with the more demanding disclosures required of recent decades. When you look at some of the listed companies facing takeover bids or contem- performances of ministers for the environment plating the sale of major undertakings. Listed over the last few decades, that is indeed companies which propose to sell their major saying something. business undertaking must first seek ratification of 4594 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 the proposal by shareholder in general meeting . . . role in developing Australia’s high technology Further, shareholders must be provided with reports infrastructure and in nurturing Australia’s from ‘experts’ when certain transactions are future telecommunications researchers. contemplated: ...... Dr Mark Sceats, who is the head of the Australian Photonics CRC, has emphasised However, when governments signal their intention that: to privatise particular agencies, equivalent informa- tion has not been made available to members of With Telstra as a government owned corporation, parliament, or to the community. Telstra Research Laboratories has conducted and sponsored much of the R&D required for the The proposed partial privatisation of Telstra national interest. In effect, TRL was Australia’s is no exception to Professor Walker’s argu- equivalent to the CSIRO for public R&D in ments. When the Democrats originally sug- telecommunications. gested that this bill should be the focus of a By Australian standards, Telstra has invested Senate inquiry, properly scrutinised by an large sums in R&D. Last year Telstra was inquiry, the government was up in arms ranked the largest corporate investor in R&D proclaiming this to be an outrageous squan- in Australia in absolute terms, investing a dering of public resources. I am appalled to total of over $200 million. By global stand- think that the government could consider that ards, however, and by the standards of its such scrutiny and such a reasoned investiga- competitors, it is a long way down the scale. tion into the proposed sale of the Telstra’s expenditure on R&D amounted to government’s most profitable business enter- only 0.5 per cent of revenue, which is prise is a waste of money. minuscule compared to the 4.7 per cent of Yet throughout the entire debate over the revenue invested by the leading Japanese sale of Telstra, the government has failed to company and Telstra’s competitor in global produce any convincing studies or analysis of markets, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph. the domestic situation which reveal any Privatisation, however, is not likely to genuine gains to the community from the generate an increased flow of funds to re- proposed partial sale. The government’s case search, but, in fact, more likely a reduction. seems to rest fundamentally on an ideological The majority report of the Senate Telstra belief that public is bad and private is good. inquiry reflected the legitimate fear of many The financial implications of the sale, researchers that a privatised Telstra would not however, are only a subset of the factors retain the same commitment to research and relevant to decisions concerning whether development and to training and supporting public assets should be privatised or should telecommunications scientists and researchers be retained. Today I would like to canvass a as it has in the past. A purely profit driven number of issues, some of which I think have Telstra would not retain the same commitment been largely overlooked in this debate, such to long-term strategic research in the national as the likely impact of the sale of Telstra on interest. But it seems that in the lead-up to research and development in the telecom- privatisation senior management is intent on munications industry. winding back the expenditure at TRL to make The Senate committee’s report revealed that Telstra appear even more profitable and the government has not given sufficient—if therefore more attractive, presumably, to indeed any—consideration to the impact future investors. which privatisation of Telstra will have on the Telstra has announced it proposes to cut Telstra Research Laboratories, the TRL, and staff at TRL from the present 530 staff mem- through this on the research capacity of bers to 380 by the end of this year. This is a Australia’s telecommunications industry. TRL cut of 150 employees, or around 30 per cent is not only Australia’s leading telecommuni- of staff, which already comes on top of a cut cations research facility; it is the largest such of 50 researchers and support staff who were facility in the southern hemisphere. It is a given voluntary redundancies or early retire- national asset which has played a significant ment over the past year. Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4595

As a result of this, it is not surprising that penditure on R&D to gross national product researchers are saying that morale amongst remains one of the lowest. The cuts an- staff has absolutely plummeted and that there nounced by the government will ensure that is a climate of fear and uncertainty which, of it stays this way. course, undermines people’s ability to under- take research. Management has claimed that The Democrats believe that encouraging these cuts are not being driven by privati- strong investment in R&D is essential for sation and that in fact staff numbers and ensuring the development of internationally reductions are deemed necessary to improve competitive industries—those industries that focus and productivity in the lead-up to open are able to cope and able to reduce our competition in the telecommunications indus- excessive dependency on commodity exports try next year. as well as counter the detrimental impact which increased manufactured exports are If this is the case, then the government— having on our balance of payments and perhaps more specifically the minister as the domestic employment. representative of the current owners of Telstra, the people of Australia—should be In our view, increasing the competitiveness taking a closer interest and asking why. Why of Australian firms should be focused on is Telstra slashing staff at its principal re- increasing their capacity to innovate, to search facility as a means of increasing its undertake research and to draw out the best competitiveness? Why is it pursuing this in their human resources. It should not be strategy when the leading global telecom- about reducing wage and labour standards. munications companies see investing in R&D Wage reductions will not increase employ- as a means of increasing competitiveness? ment levels, at least not the kind of jobs that we should be talking about or seeking to It is clear that in the lead-up to privatisa- encourage in this country. It will not foster tion, TRL is mimicking the strategy pursued the development or the growth of high wage, by British Telecom post-privatisation and high skilled industries. In fact, further reduc- focusing on adapting supplied technology to tions in real wages will entrench an already local requirements. But this is a strategy that existing brain drain that is occurring in this involves little more than the purchase and country. It will induce our brightest and our installation of equipment designed and built best to flee to countries where job opportuni- overseas. However, if Telstra no longer ties and better remuneration exist. invests in new product or hardware develop- ment, there will be an overall net reduction in Last week the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) the level of research conducted in Australia, announced his new jobs committee—a com- and the end result of that will be a loss of mittee whose task it will be to investigate the such jobs to this country. Even if this is of no impact of policy measures on employment concern to a purely profit driven Telstra, it is and unemployment levels. I would be very of concern to the Australian research com- curious to know what this new government munity and it should be of concern to this committee thinks about the telecommuni- government. cations policy—a policy which is responsible for Telstra confirming it will shed 22,000 The detrimental impact which the sale of staff at least while announcing a $2.3 billion Telstra is likely to have on telecommunica- profit, the biggest annual profit in Australia’s tions research in this country is exacerbated corporate history. I would like to know what by the government’s decision to slash assist- that committee thinks of the government’s ance for industrial research and development industry policy which is driving industry and in the budget, and there are a range of meas- jobs offshore, but I doubt the committee will ures in this budget that have attacked and get the chance to revisit any of these ideologi- slashed R&D spending. Australia’s private cally driven policies. sector has been notoriously poor in investing in research and development and, by OECD Senator Newman—It’s a committee of standards, Australia’s ratio of business ex- cabinet, Senator. 4596 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Through what they did, and you would know this you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have had better than anyone, Mr Acting Deputy Presi- assurance that it is a cabinet committee, but dent, was create a scare campaign similar to I do not see how that precludes it investigat- the one on GST. Except this time it failed and ing the likely impact of such telecommunica- failed miserably, and it failed again at the tions policy on employment levels in this Lindsay by-election only last week. country. On that note, this whole measure is Former government members and senators an ideologically driven one. It is one that for marched around Australia at the last election only a politically strategic reason has been saying, ‘Keep your hands off Telstra,’ with linked to the establishment of an environ- campaign banners and ribbons. They tried to mental trust fund. That alone is an offensive scare the Australian public, just like they did aspect of this policy decision. It is ideologi- in their GST campaign. They might have got cally driven and it is a measure that the away with it once, but not twice. They under- Australian Democrats will not be supporting. estimated the intelligence of the Australian Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (5.22 voters, who, in turn, delivered a landslide p.m.)—The senators opposite who are partici- victory to the coalition. pating in the debate on this Telstra bill are I recall all too well—the Minister for Social participating in probably one of the most Security (Senator Newman), who is in the cynical exercises yet seen before this Senate. chamber, will recall it too—the disgraceful Their opposition is not based on fact, nor is tactics of the Labor candidates who circulated, it based upon the evidence which was placed amongst other things, fake Telstra bills in before the Senate Environment, Recreation, rural areas. These bills bore no resemblance Communications and the Arts References to fact—to any fact at all—but were designed Committee. Their opposition is a blatant case only to scare and intimidate. I note that even of political opportunism. now other Tasmanian senators, and Senator We know that the present Leader of the Mackay in her speech, are still trying to scare Opposition (Mr Beazley) was previously a the people in rural Tasmania and regional supporter of the privatisation of Telstra. We areas about the so-called increased costs that know that the opposition, which now proudly would occur if Telstra is partially privatised. defends the public ownership of Telstra, is the I also recall the predictions of massive in- same opposition which, when in government, creases in phone accounts, which we know, was quite happy to sell Qantas and the through the evidence placed before the com- Commonwealth Bank—having said that they mittee, was another aspect of the opposition’s were not going to sell the Commonwealth imagination. Bank, of course. This bill is about making Telstra more Senators opposite have not been able to efficient. It is about improving the quality of justify, nor will they be able to justify, why telecommunications services, and it is about it was all right to sell the Commonwealth ensuring that our future telecommunications Bank and Qantas and to try to sell ANL— industry is based on the most sound economic they could not sell that, because it was grounds. There is no doubt that when this bill broke—but it is not all right to partially sell is passed it will make a positive contribution Telstra. They have locked themselves into a to employment within the telecommunications position, a position which I would suggest is industry and provide other spin-offs which linked to their scare campaign during the last will occur as part of the employment rational- federal election. isation process. I note that Senator Stott In reality—given their performance, I do Despoja has left. She was talking about the not blame the previous Labor government for 20,000-odd people who will be leaving wanting to manufacture an issue on which to Telstra over the next few years, as announced base an election campaign; they must have by the chief executive. known that any election based on their record Senator Carr—Twenty-three thousand— would have led to a landslide victory to us— one-third of the company. Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4597

Senator CALVERT—Okay, 23,000. communications go, but there would be a lot Whether or not Telstra is privatised, or par- more if Telstra was partially privatised and it tially privatised—you know this, Senator became more efficient. Carr—the evidence from Telstra management Senator Newman—And we could buy is that changes will be made— shares. Senator Carr—Nothing like 23,000, Senator CALVERT—That is the other nothing like one-third of the company. aspect that you do not hear about from the Senator CALVERT—How many thou- other side, of course. I remember very well sands have gone before? When you talk about Senator Burns—the former colleague of those losing all these jobs, you do not allow for the opposite—when we were talking about it people who are leaving Telstra and going into privately one day, saying, ‘I don’t mind if private enterprise, into small communications they put them on the table. I would be the companies, just like they are now. You only first one to queue up and get telecommunica- have to go around my own capital city to see tions shares because I reckon they would be that there are quite a few private providers a damn good investment, just like the installing mobile phones and doing all the Commonwealth Bank shares I bought were.’ work that Telstra had to do itself before. So So there you go. there is no doubt that it will encourage more You would let us believe, try to make out employment in the private sector. and convince the Australian public that all Also, I believe that this bill will increase these shares and this one-third, partial sale of economic activity in rural and regional Aus- Telstra are going to be sold to overseas tralia. This is a very important aspect in my interests. What a lot of codswallop! I will bet home state of Tasmania. I frequently receive that if this comes about, you guys will line up complaints from constituents who do not have and buy yourselves a few shares. You know access to the most up-to-date telecommunica- that it is a great opportunity for the ordinary tions options. It is evident that Telstra has not Australian to be able to be part of a national been able to update its equipment as quickly company. At the present time it is owned by as it would like to, because of the economic the government. I will tell you what: the constraints of public ownership. Once these previous government had not done a great economic constraints are removed, I have no job, either. doubt that Telstra will be able to provide a Senator Carr—Look at all the millionaires much improved service to its Tasmanian on the front bench. customers. Senator CALVERT—That does not bear I had the pleasure of taking the current responding to. That is just politics of envy, Minister for Communications and the Arts, just because some people can make a quid. Senator Alston—then the shadow minister— on a tour of the west coast of Tasmania. That Senator Carr—Look at all the millionaires part of Tasmania has been ignored by on the front bench supported by the taxpayers. Telecom for years and years and years, as my Senator CALVERT—What a joke! Any- colleague in the chamber would know. What way, on a national level this bill is going to did the previous government do about it? provide an increase in our public sector Absolutely nothing. I took the then shadow savings by giving an opportunity to the minister along the west coast, and he was government to clear $7 billion of public debt absolutely appalled at what was going on. and at the same time remove an annual Since we have been in government, the interest bill of around $660 million. In the last west coast has been connected to a digitalised few days we have seen what a difference it mobile service. Changes have been made to makes when you start reducing your debt and television reception because a lot of places come out with a debt reduction budget. could not receive any television at all. As the We have the lowest interest rates this minister here would know, there is a fair bit country has seen for 20 years—the sorts of of action going on in Tasmania as far as things that help the so-called battlers you are 4598 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 supposed to be representing out there. They though this campaign was totally dishonest, know what is going on, and they proved that it did cause a lot of concern, particularly at the Lindsay by-election. They are not going amongst the elderly. I received many calls to be hoodwinked by the stuff you guys have during the election campaign from people been saying around the place during the who had been misled on this matter. I just conduct of this Telstra debate. want to reaffirm to those people who did We all know that by retaining two-thirds of contact my office over a long period of time Telstra in public ownership the government that this bill does not take away the Austral- will also be retaining its access to two-thirds ian ownership of Telstra. of the Telstra dividends. That was the subject I repeat—and it has been repeated in this of another lie that has been promoted by the place by people on our side time and time opposition. We know that by retaining two- again, but just in case somebody has missed thirds of the Telstra dividend the government it—that under the bill the Australian govern- has structured the Telstra privatisation to ment and, just as importantly, the mum and provide the best of both worlds for both the dad investors who choose to put their savings Australian public and Telstra. in Telstra by becoming shareholders will When you listen to the opposition senators, control 88.3 per cent of Telstra, foreign you would be tempted to think that they had ownership will be kept to a minimum of 11.7 some experience in telecommunications per cent and individual foreign holdings can management, but the fact is they do not. The be no more than 1.7 per cent. This govern- person who has the experience in telecom- ment is about ensuring not only that the munications management, in this country ownership of Telstra remains in Australian anyway, is the Telstra Chief Executive Offic- hands but also that Telstra’s chairmen and the er, Mr Frank Blount. I do not hear you saying majority of its directors are Australian citi- too much about his qualifications, but he is zens. the Telstra chief executive. He has the experi- Like many of my fellow government sena- ence. He is the one responsible for the very tors, I viewed the investigation into this bill good profit result they had this year. It is his by the Senate Environment, Recreation, skills that have brought that about. Communications and the Arts References Again, we have this ironic situation where Committee with grave concern. It is evident the experts on the other side of this chamber from the examination of the evidence that the are claiming that the public ownership of one- opposition and Democrat senators participated third of Telstra will provide no benefits and in that hearing with closed minds. For in- at the same time the Chief Executive Officer stance, we know that before the committee of the organisation is welcoming the oppor- even sat the Leader of the Australian Demo- tunity to participate in the positive changes crats (Senator Kernot) said they were going which this bill will provide. In other words, to oppose it. The opposition was of the same you are saying that if we sell Telstra we will view. What was the point of spending hun- not be so well off. The guy who has turned dreds of thousands of dollars on tripping Telstra into a money making machine is around the country supposedly taking evi- saying that selling a third of it will make it a dence? lot better. He is welcoming what we are From what I could see in this particular trying to do. You experts over there know report, they were not prepared to consider the better. You would rather sit there and poke overwhelming majority of evidence that was fun at people on this side of the chamber who placed before the committee. It is evident that over their lives have worked hard and made the process commenced from the start when a few dollars. the opposition and Democrat senators com- We also know that, as part of the scare bined to refer the bill to this particular com- campaign during the election, a call was often mittee because they knew they had the num- made by the then government that we should bers to control it. You, Mr Acting Deputy keep Telstra in Australian ownership. Al- President, know that in the same position we Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4599 would not have done anything like that. When Senator Carr—Which one was that— we were in opposition and had the numbers Chile? on the references committee, we were not Senator CALVERT—I already pointed responsible for doing anything like this to them out—Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Korea promote opposition to matters that were of and New Zealand. It also indicated that a such importance to the people of Australia. World Bank study showed that the benefits to Like many who have read the submissions, British consumers following the sale of I came to the conclusion that many of the British Telecom amounted to over £4,000 submissions and views that were put to the million, whilst in New Zealand deregulation committee—and I did view some of the work and privatisation led to benefits through price when it was going on in Hobart—were in no reductions passed on to consumers of $NZ575 way related to the issue of public ownership million per year—not an insignificant amount. of one-third of Telstra. Even you, Senator These are the facts that the opposition will Carr, would have to admit that. not mention and cannot mention because they Senator Carr—What wasn’t? know that they highlight the lack of substance in their arguments. A move to partially Senator CALVERT—Matters such as privatise Telstra will also have a significant cabling, mobile phone towers and mobile effect on the performance of our national phones may be of concern to a lot of people telecommunications carrier. Again, evidence in the community, but that is a separate issue. before the committee showed that Telstra has They are in no way related to this bill. As a around 135 access lines per employee whereas result, the conclusions of the majority report the two privatised carriers, such as British on this bill should be viewed with the credi- Telecom and Telecommunications Corpora- bility they deserve—that is, it was simply and tion of New Zealand, are both much more purely a political exercise for those involved. efficient at around 200 lines per employee. Senator Knowles—They’d already made On its own admission, Telstra has indicated up their minds before they started the hear- that it is 25 per cent below world’s best ings. practice and if it does not manage to keep up Senator CALVERT—I just said that, with its competitors that would rise to as Senator Knowles. It is a fact. It has been much as 40 per cent. A gain of 30 per cent in interesting to listen to those senators opposite efficiency would deliver savings of around not because of the information they have put $1.6 billion to the Australian economy. before the Senate but rather because of the There is no doubt that the partial privatisa- information which they failed to put before tion of Telstra will bring real benefits to the Senate. I refer to the evidence before the customers, particularly in the rural areas, committee relating to the ownership of the while reducing the government’s exposure to telecommunications carriers around the world. increasingly risky industry. It will ensure that That evidence showed that in Europe the Telstra becomes more efficient which will, as overwhelming majority of national carriers are a result, improve the quality and reduce the either privatised or about to be privatised. It cost of telecommunications services around showed that the major Latin American tele- Australia. communications carriers have been privatised. There is one final point that I want to make In the Asia-Pacific region, the governments of again and I believe it is a critical element in Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, Korea and New this debate. During the last election, there was Zealand have privatised or partially privatised no more widely debated issue than the aspect their telecommunications carrier. I suppose of the partial privatisation of Telstra. There you are going to turn around and say, could hardly have been a voter in Australia ‘They’re not as advanced as we are.’ I have who did not go to the polling booth in March, news for you, Senator Carr: you only have to this year, who did not watch the television go there and have a look at what they are commercial, for a start, who would not be doing. aware of the differences in the position of the 4600 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 then Labor government and the coalition on amounts of voluntary time to programs such this issue. The electors of Australia made as landcare. We have a lot to be grateful for their choice; they provided a huge mandate in regard to the work those people are doing. for this government to carry out its election Given that, it gave me an interest in the promises. There is no mandate and no justifi- Telstra bill itself. I think one of the things I cation for these Opposition senators and the would like to put on the public record to start Democrats and the Greens to participate in a with is the fact that the Labor Party goes process of frustrating the government reform around constantly saying that we are going to agenda. sell Telstra. Now, we need to knock that on The people of Australia have made their the head and say, ‘one-third of Telstra’. choice. They realise the benefits which will Senator Knowles—Senator Brown said it flow from the partial privatisation of Telstra. again today. Those within Telstra recognise the benefits and the only ones who do not seem to are the Senator PATTERSON—Did Senator political opportunists opposite. As the Prime Brown say it again today, Senator Knowles? Minister said, for goodness sake get out of the Well, they are loose with the truth, really, so way and let us get on with what we are trying often. You know, don’t get in the way of a to do for Australia. This bill will shape the good story, just tell it not how it is. Just future of our telecommunications industry in remember how it was with Fightback—15 per the next decade and provide Australian cent on everything; they didn’t bother to tell consumers with the sorts of benefits which people there was 20 per cent wholesale sales those overseas have enjoyed for many years. tax on some items; there was 15 or 10 per cent on other items. They went on and on and Senator PATTERSON (Victoria) (5.40 on, just playing loose with the truth. p.m.)—I rise to speak on the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) Bill 1996. As chair of Senator Cook—Come on, Kay. Be reason- the Environment, Recreation, Communications able. Your leader said you were going to sell and the Arts Legislation Committee, I went it. around the country and also our committee Senator PATTERSON—Mr Acting Deputy received submissions from people about the President, Senator Cook had his name on the natural heritage bill. Of course, the implemen- list. He has chosen not to speak. If he wants tation of that bill is dependent upon the sale to speak, he can get up but I ask him not to of one-third of Telstra. And, of course, the interrupt me while I am speaking. So the committee reported unanimously, except on guarantee is that only a third of Telstra will that issue. Of course, we knew that was going be sold. There are limitations on the foreign to be a bone of contention. But the need was ownership. It is limited to 11.6 per cent. So absolutely obvious, as we went around, for us they go around saying it is going to go into to put capital funding into repairing the foreign hands. Well that is just another furphy damage that has been done to our environ- but we have got used to them. They cannot ment. actually lie straight in bed, so how would you I have to say that one of the things that expect them to tell the truth on this issue? impressed me enormously was the commit- Telstra won’t be broken up. There will not ment which was there on the part of a large be timed, local calls imposed on business and number of people who are doing things to residential customers. The community service rehabilitate the environment and to increase, obligations will be maintained. There will be and maintain, biodiversity. In particular, I cross subsidies for regional Australia and they mention the farmers who were involved in will remain. There will be a reduction in that and how many of them had done things telephone bills. Australia’s local tariffs are the on their own properties. Most probably they highest in the world, and that is a demonstra- did not need to be as generous with their time tion of the fact that the company is not as but believed that they could assist others and competitive as it ought to be. One billion assist their areas and were giving enormous dollars of the proceeds will pay for the envi- Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4601 ronment and we do not have the resources Also, senior executives of Telstra said that available otherwise because of the debt left by foreign companies would take $750 million the last government. And we have to con- from Telstra’s revenue unless it is partially stantly remind Australians that we pay $10 privatised. billion in interest on our mortgage every year. On 4 June this year, an AGB McNair poll Just think if we had not chalked up that showed a 10 per cent increase in support for debt paying for things we could not afford; the partial sale of Telstra. When it was pub- what we could have been doing in the envi- lished in the Sydney Morning Herald, I think ronment; what we could have been doing with voter support was around 51 per cent. We are carers; what we could have been doing in unlike Labor, which went to the election in aged care; what we could have been doing in 1993 saying that they would not privatise the a whole raft of other areas including homeless rest of the Commonwealth Bank. In fact, the youth. But, no, that government chose to then Treasurer had written in the foreword of spend, spend, spend and, in fact, spend the the prospectus that that would not happen. next generation’s money because that is who What did Labor do? They turned around and will be paying it back if we do not turn this went back on their word. around. And that is what we have every We went to the Australian public telling intention of doing. This is one of the ways we them that we would privatise one-third of believe we could fund what is desperately Telstra. We were honest and up-front before needed to rehabilitate the environment—the the election, and we told them. The public biggest funding program for the environment made a decision on 2 March that we had a set in the history of this country, costing $1 of policies they wanted to support. I have to billion. The people on the other side, because say that the Lindsay by-election confirmed suddenly they have become pure when they that and confirmed, with even a stronger have gone to the other side, now do not message, that the track we were on was a believe in privatisation but they privatised track they wanted to take. They wanted to see almost everything that moved while they were Australia pay its way. They did not want to in government. Now they have become purists see us leave a debt for the next generation and would let the environment suffer. Also it that they could not jump over. They thought is a fact that a large proportion of the funding there was some fairness in making sure that from the partial sale of Telstra will go into we paid back some of the debt. retiring debt. Senator Stott Despoja comes in here and So there are two very important reasons. goes on about young people, about represent- The first is the environment and the second is ing youth and about students in universities. retiring and getting rid of some of the debt to I have to say to her that one of the issues that reduce that mortgage bill. It has a double is going to be a major issue throughout the purpose. That is unlike what the Labor Party world will be intergenerational issues and did. When they privatised something, the responsibilities. I, as a member of my genera- money went into general revenue and was tion, feel I have a responsibility to the next spent. We saw no benefits from the fact that generation not to leave them with a huge they chose to sell CSL and they chose to sell amount of debt. That means all of us have to the Commonwealth Bank. take some share in the pain, and all of us The National Farmers Federation has come have to look for ways in which to solve this. out in support of the partial sale of Telstra. One of the ways that we believe we can do About 66 per cent of their members thought it is through the partial sale of Telstra. The the partial sale was a good idea, and nearly world is not going to come to an end. The 71 per cent of farmers believed that services way the Labor Party is carrying on, you could be improved through the partial sale of would think that we would not have a tele- Telstra. Telstra chiefs themselves warn ‘Priva- phone left in Australia if there were a partial tise or lose $750 million’. That was in a sale of Telstra. That is not the case. If you report in the Australian on 4 July this year. look at history of Labor, they promised, as I 4602 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 said, that there would be no sale of the But, oh no, what did they do over on the Commonwealth Bank. Then they sold it. other side? They play by different rules, not What about the Federal Airports Corporation? by gentlemen’s rules. They play by totally What were they going to do before the elec- different rules. We are the mugs, because we tion of 1993? They sold it. Then there is did not do it when we were on the other side. Qantas, and the list goes on. We did not send it off to a references com- So I do not know how they can sit in this mittee because we controlled the numbers. chamber now and turn into puritans. It is No, we did not do it, because we have a view duplicitous; it is two-faced; it is hypocritical. about honour and about convention, but You could just go on with as many words to people on the other side do not have a view describe them as the thesaurus would give about honour and convention. Their view is, you. I do not know how they can sit there and ‘Play the game as hard and as dirty as they rail against the partial sale of Telstra when, in can. Just laugh at them because they play by fact, they privatised anything that moved. the rules.’ I find that despicable; I find it distasteful; and I think it is downright disgust- If you read former Senator Richardson’s ing. Whatever it takes, you will find that Mr Senator Knowles—So do the people of Keating himself had no objections to selling Australia. Telstra. When I was reading it, I thought hooley-dooley. Here they are. Here was the Senator PATTERSON—I think the people leader of the Labor Party himself saying that of Australia think that too. There are rules they would sell it. and conventions in here and they were not kept. So that legislation went off to a refer- The other thing I wanted to mention was ences committee chaired by an opposition that, when they sold the Commonwealth Bank member, not, as it should have, to a legisla- and the Federal Airports Corporation and tion committee. But, as Senator Robert Ray Qantas, they allowed significant foreign used to say, we will remember. ownership of those enterprises. Suddenly, they have become the purists. They are going to That had to be one of the shoddiest things rail against the fact that we are going to sell that Labor did when they first got into oppo- one-third of it, and they are going to rail sition. But that is typical of the way the Labor against the fact that it will be in foreign Party ran government. It was shoddy. We ownership. They will introduce all the fur- could not have expected anything more from phies they can think of. it than the shoddy deal on the way that bill was dealt with. In typical Labor style, they tried to sell Telstra by stealth. They tried to sell off the Senator Knowles—That’s why they got Yellow Pages and MobileNet before the 1995 thrown out. budget. I think it was on the Lateline program Senator PATTERSON—You are right, some time in 1994 that, when Kerry O’Brien Senator Knowles. They got thrown out be- asked Mr Keating whether it mattered if cause the Australian public realised that they Telstra was publicly or privately owned, Mr have a different set of standards and play by Keating said, ‘Not of its essence, no.’ a different set of rules from what the Austral- Labor’s born-again disciples to government ian public ask of us. ownership did something that I found totally They stand up here, as they did today, and distasteful and totally inappropriate: they talk about ministerial responsibility and go on broke the conventions of this house in regard about all other sorts of pious things. Yet, to this bill. We started a concept of having when the crunch comes, they will lower legislation committees and references commit- themselves as low as they can to play as dirty tees back in, I think, 1994. The convention of as they can and not comply with conventions. the house was that legislation went to legisla- That is just how they are. I suppose they will tion committees and references went to the not change, so we should not expect anything references committees. more of them. Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4603

I suppose Senator Kernot has been a bit one consumer’s comment on British Telecom. preoccupied with industrial relations lately. Senator Alston went on to say: When she was talking about the bill dealing BT comprehensively refuted claims by the Demo- with the privatisation of Telstra, again you crats that consumer charges have increased in the would have thought the world was going to UK since the privatisation of the company and that come to an end. On 22 May she issued a there was mass sacking of staff. press release saying do not sell public owner- "BT told Senator Kernot that from the date of ship short. Senator Alston responded to that privatisation in 1984 until November 1995, the press release—and I think it needed to be price of inland calls in the UK had been reduced responded to. His press release states: by 53 per cent in real terms while international calls had fallen 46 per cent... The Democrats have been caught short with misleading and deceptive comments about the true "These reductions have resulted in business calls in effects of privatisation in the United Kingdom . . . the UK being 34 per cent cheaper and residential calls 33 per cent cheaper than Australia in 1995. "From the outset the Democrats have tried to confuse the debate on Telstra by using scare tactics "They also offered studies to show staff reductions which have now been demonstrated to be false . . . had occurred through voluntary redundancy pro- grams and not through sacking staff. He went on to say: "But despite this information being forwarded to British Telecom wrote the Leader of the Democrats her the day after the publishing of the article, about material in an article published under her Senator Kernot has failed to publicly correct the name in the Australian newspaper on May 22. information she gave to the Australian people and In the letter British Telecom said: "It would have presumably failed to apologise to British Telecom. been preferable if you had taken the opportunity to I do not know whether she has since because check the facts with BT before making some that was in May. I hope that Senator Kernot incorrect and misleading statements concerning our Company." has taken the opportunity to correct that information. BT comprehensively refuted claims by the Demo- crats that consumer charges have increased in the Senator Newman—She should. UK since the privatisation of the company and that Senator PATTERSON—Senator Newman there was mass sacking of staff. is saying that she should correct it. The way I just want to stop here for a moment and tell the opposition are going on in here about our you about a friend of mine whose husband people correcting things you would think that, got a job in the United Kingdom. She is if she is wrong, they would be putting some English. She had lived out here for some time pressure on her to correct what she said. and she went back to England after British Senator Alston says: Telecom was privatised. Senator Kernot chooses to ignore the success of the She said to me, quite unsolicited, when she UK experience to justify what is purely an ideo- came back to live in Australia—they were logical opposition to the partial sale of Telstra . . . only there for a year; they were going for "Only with the crucial assistance of the Democrats good and did not stay there for personal can the sale of Telstra be blocked by the Australian reasons—that she could not believe the Labor Party—- the same crowd Australians threw difference in British Telecom since she was out of office less than three months ago... there a couple of years earlier. She said she I think that demonstrates the fact that some- could get through, people would answer the times the reason for people opposing this is telephone and you did not hang on for ages. based on totally false assumptions. As a user she said to me in an unsolicited Opposition senators have mischievously way how tremendous it was and what a tried to link the partial sale of Telstra with the difference there was in trying to shift a family retention of the universal service obligation. and all sorts of things. They are wrong. I say it again: wrong. The BT have said that there have been enor- ownership of Telstra is a matter quite separate mous improvements from the point of view of from, and independent of, obligations imposed consumers in Britain. I know that one swal- on Telstra as a carrier, such as those relating low does not make a spring. But that is just to universal service. 4604 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

The universal service obligation is specified I wanted to quote that comment basically under the Telecommunications Act. Telstra is because of the information and the debate that designated under that act as the universal has been put through the Senate by the Labor service carrier for all of Australia. The Party, the Greens and the Australian Demo- government is committed to retaining the crats. legislatively required universal service obliga- The partial privatisation of Telstra is what tion—that is, the obligation to make the we are debating. Today I sat in this chamber standard telephone service and payphones and listened to the contribution of Senator reasonably accessible to all Australians on an Brown, from Tasmania, who talked incessant- equitable basis. ly about the entire sale—the whole The sorts of scare tactics that the Labor privatisation—of Telstra. He knows—as do Party are using are wrong. The fact that they those opposition senators who have made the have become purists is hypocritical. The fact same claim—that that is totally and utterly that they try to portray themselves as wrong. There is no substance to the claim; in environmentally friendly is also hypocritical fact, it is quite the reverse. We gave a com- in that the partial sale of Telstra would have mitment that we would go to the people and enormous benefits. It would see the national to the parliament if we ever sought to sell vegetation initiative of $318 million over five more than one-third of Telstra. That is more years, the rehabilitation of the Murray-Darling than the Labor Party ever did when in govern- Basin of $163 million over five years, a ment. national land and water resources audit of $32 I was a member of the committee that went million over five years, a comprehensive on an expedition right around Australia: a national reserve system of $80 million over committee that was inspired by the opposition four years, the coasts and clean seas initiative parties, at huge expense to the taxpayer, when of $100 million over four years and an ongo- the opposition parties had already made up ing fund with the residual. They are the their minds on the outcome of the inquiry. I benefits. found it objectionable then and I find it This money will not be like the money objectionable today to hear them still talking from the sale of the Commonwealth Bank about the bill that is before us today being a which was whistled into the wind, put into total privatisation of Telstra. consolidated revenue and lost forever. This If time allows I will come back to some of money is going to retire debt and will be used that information, but there are two issues that to put capital, money and investment into our I wish to cover today: one is the duplication environment. of cables and the other is the question of Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia) cabling. Partial privatisation within the regula- (6.00 p.m.)—I would like to take the oppor- tory framework that this government is cur- tunity to speak in support of the Telstra (Dilu- rently putting in place will ensure real ben- tion of Public Ownership) Bill 1996. In so efits for consumers. The bulk of international doing I wish to restate a couple of paragraphs evidence suggests that privatisation, when from the second reading speech of the linked with competitive reforms and consumer Minister for Communications and the Arts safeguards, provides significant consumer (Senator Alston). The minister said: benefits such as lower prices and an increase In marked contrast to the approach taken by the of services as carrier efficiency and respon- former Government in the cases of the Common- siveness improves. Something that came out wealth Bank, Federal Airports Corporation and consistently throughout the committee’s QANTAS we have sufficient regard for the elector- inquiries was that Telstra is so far off the ate to be up-front about our intentions. pace that only this type of initiative would see We made crystal clear in our election policy that it become truly competitive in the world if elected we would introduce into Parliament at the market. earliest opportunity legislation to sell one-third of the Commonwealth’s equity in Telstra by way of There a number of recommendations which a share float. appear in the majority report. I emphasise that Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4605 the majority report is the report put together Secondly, the government is aware of by the opposition senators on the Senate concerns that there may be significant dupli- committee on the partial sale of Telstra. The cation of Australia’s broadband cable infra- recommendations are not directly related to structure and suggestions that the government the merits of whether this bill should proceed should act to minimise this duplication—and or not. Part of the plan was to divert the thus the investment—in infrastructure. How- committee down a track that was not really ever, facilities based competition, under which part of the bill. For example, the majority each carrier builds its own facilities to carry report recommends that the government at least some part of its services, has been undertake a number of actions in relation to central to the development of open telecom- what the report calls ‘duplication of munications markets in most countries. In infrastructure’: that the government urgently Australia in the case of telephony, competi- review the strategy of allowing dual hybrid tion has delivered lower prices for consumers, optical fibre-coaxial cable roll-out— greater investment in equipment and a wider particularly having regard to evidence that range of choices of services for consumers. It such networks will be obsolete within a has also provided much needed pressure for decade—and immediately take action to improvements in efficiency. ensure that carriers enter negotiations with a Network deployment decisions—what to view to arriving at an arrangement whereby build, when to build and where to build—are the carriers in future combine their competing matters for the commercial judgment of the broadband cable systems into one national carriers and their associates. Additional network. infrastructure investment will not occur unless Firstly, it should be acknowledged that the there is an expectation of user demand for the rules that govern the roll-out of telecommuni- additional capacity and a commercial judg- cations facilities were established by the ment about the need for a carrier to control its Labor government. They are currently being own facilities rather than simply interconnect- examined by this government. When the ing with those of another carrier. opposition parties started this inquiry, the It should not be assumed that competing coalition government had only been in office telecommunications facilities necessarily for four short months. The way they per- duplicate each other. The rapid changes in formed like trained seals about the whole technology and customer demand that charac- issue of dual cabling and underground and terise the telecommunications industry provide overhead cabling would lead anyone to significant incentives for carriers and service believe that it was all on our initiative. We providers to continually explore new and are following on from the Labor government’s differentiated product applications and there- 13 years of mismanagement and miraculously fore different, but in some cases superficially they blame us four months down the track for similar, forms of infrastructure. their inadequacies. The argument that duplication is wasteful Senator Newman interjecting— is usually made on a fairly simplistic level. If you have two sets of cables each costing $4 Senator KNOWLES—That is exactly billion and you only need one, then you are right, Senator Newman. In the course of this wasting $4 billion. This argument does not examination the government will undoubtedly hold up well when subjected to more detailed seek advice on the capabilities of the tech- analysis. As a BZW report explains: nologies the carriers are employing for their As an indication of the benefits and costs, the cost respective roll-outs. However, it should be of duplication is a part of the $3 billion that Optus noted that this government favours a technol- Vision is spending to roll out its network . . . However, this is a long life cycle investment lasting ogy-neutral approach towards telecommunica- 10 to 20 years. So the annual cost of ‘duplication’ tions regulation in order to accommodate the is measured in $100s of millions. It is much lower rapid rate of technological change endemic to than the annual revenue measured in bills for which this industry. the cable companies and service providers will 4606 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 compete. The competition benefits—lower operat- of obsolete aerial cabling, and at least man- ing costs, lower prices, more services, greater dating co-location of cabling where technical- carrier responsiveness, more choice and a leading ly feasible. role in emerging services—means the benefits far outweigh the costs. This last recommendation seems to be a If a new investor decides it is not commer- recognition of the difficulty of implementing cially feasible to build a new and separate the other three recommendations and that co- infrastructure, then the current regulatory location of telecommunications cabling is not framework and that envisaged for post-30 always feasible. Certainly, the preliminary June 1997 facilities—interconnection general- audit of existing duct capacity that Austel ly on a commercial basis but subject to conducted at the government’s request earlier appropriate competitive safeguards; and the this year indicate that this was the case. sharing of sites, that is, co-location, where it The Austel report indicated that the availab- is technically and economically feasible— ility of Telstra duct space for anyone else’s would allow that investor to go into business. cable averages less than 30 per cent and is The OECD has recently concluded that fragmented in such a way that useable con- governments should not aim to establish a tiguous duct spacing represents only a very single—that is monopoly—infrastructure small fraction of the total network route provider but rather seek to promote the length. The audit also indicated that the development of applications and an efficient difference in costs between overhead and market which requires not only competing underground cabling for a new network are fixed-link structures but competing technolo- very significant and any business case must gies and networks. Without competition, the strongly favour aerial deployment. development and diffusion of new technolo- It must be recognised that the issue of aerial gies and applications will be restrained. There cabling is a difficult one. Nobody denies that. is also the risk that the monopoly provider No-one on the committee, on either side, could charge monopoly prices and restrict denied that. But we need to be up front about access to infrastructure. Thus, the government what this bill contains. On one hand the is unlikely to favour the establishment of a government is well aware of the concern single infrastructure providing authority or within the community about the visual impact carrier. of aerial cabling. On the other hand, the The issue of cabling was raised before the government is also aware of the desire within committee. The opposition parties made sure the community to have access to enhanced that they wheeled in witness after witness to services and cheaper phone calls, those quite genuinely express concern about the services which are delivered by new cabling issue of cabling. It was portrayed by the infrastructure and are likely to be delivered opposition parties that cabling was contained faster and cheaper by aerial cabling. That was within this bill and that this bill was somehow an interesting factor which was brought before going to facilitate the policies that had been the committee. The people decided that they put in place by the previous government. did not want that cabling but, in the main, There are a number of recommendations, they wanted the facilities that the cabling once again, which appear in the majority provided. report of the Senate committee inquiry on the It also must be recognised that it is not just partial sale of Telstra which are not directly telecommunications cabling which is deployed related to the issue of whether or not Telstra aerially. Much of Australia’s power cabling should be partially sold. To give a further has also been deployed aerially. While these example, the majority report recommends a issues are not simple, the government is range of measures to force cabling under- endeavouring to address them. The govern- ground. It recommended legislating for all ment undertook a review of the rules govern- cabling to be placed underground, the devel- ing the manner in which telecommunications opment of a long-term program for all exist- networks were rolled out. From the outset, it ing cabling underground, mandatory removal was evident that any new scheme would need Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4607 to strike a balance between the need for early ALGA, about the proposed post-1997 powers availability of advanced communications and immunities regime for the telecommuni- services and the right of local communities cations carriers and the development of a and their representatives to be consulted on long-term strategy for the undergrounding of the installation of facilities. all overhead cabling. The government issued a draft revised In summing up, I quote from the minority telecommunication national code and a draft report—the government senators report—of new land access code in July 1996 and the committee: directed Austel to conduct a public inquiry We do not see any basis for recommending any into both codes and report back. The minister action beyond that which is already under consider- is currently examining Austel’s report and ation by the Government. We also stress, yet again, carefully considering the feedback which the that these issues are in no way related to the part government and Austel received from a privatisation of Telstra. number of interested parties on the form of I think it is important that the record be set the new telecommunications national code. Of straight as to the issues that were raised in the particular benefit has been considerable committee that the opposition parties purport- discussion with the Australian Local Govern- ed to be part of this legislation and to put into ment Association, which has given the the minds of so many people who were minister the views of local councils concern- dragged before our committee as witnesses, ing a number of aspects of the draft telecom- basically under false pretences, that we are munications national code. doing something about the very issues that concern them. A decision on the implementation of the new code will be made once the minister is It was interesting, once again, to listen to satisfied that proper account has been taken the input from senators in relation to the of the comments received. The government concerns expressed by rural and regional does not believe it is appropriate to complete- areas. Once again, I just happened to be ly change the rules applying to the carriers absorbed today by the misinformation that and require them to drastically reconfigure Senator Brown put to the Senate. He was their networks. However, the government does talking about the way in which rural and recognise community concerns about aerial regional Australia will be badly affected by cabling. It has included measures in the draft this legislation. Sadly, Senator Brown was not telecommunications national code which at the committee meetings to hear witnesses, would require carriers to put cabling under- not only the National Farmers Federation, to ground where there is no existing aerial whom Senator Patterson referred, but also, for cabling of any kind unless local councils example, Mrs Ann Lewis, the Western Aus- agree otherwise. Remember, there is a local tralian State President of Australian Women input there then. It is not just the council; it in Agriculture. She said: is the people and the community of that We rural Australian business people need a tele- particular area. It would also require carriers communications provider who is considerate of the to put aerial cabling underground when all customer’s needs and is prepared to discuss with us the technology available. We see private enterprise other cabling is placed underground, again, as being more receptive to our needs. Therefore, unless local councils agree otherwise. the partial privatisation of Telstra could be of great The minister has also written to state and benefit to us. territory ministers on the issue of whether They have selectively and religiously quoted there are any state initiatives relating to and misquoted people who came before the undergrounding of power cabling and possible committee, including people like Mrs Lewis scope for participation in these initiatives by and the National Farmers Federation, saying telecommunications carriers. In addition, I that people in rural and regional Australia will understand that the minister has recently be worse off. In fact, the reverse is true. We agreed to further discussions with the peak had representatives of two rural South Aus- body for local government in Australia, the tralian councils—Mr Brazel, of Roxby Downs 4608 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

Council, and Mr Hemming, of Cooper Pedy repeated it that often that I started to believe Council. When they were questioned about it too. But we are back to a new week now. the NFF survey, they agreed that part- By now they should realise that we are only privatisation could only increase the levels of selling one-third of Telstra. That is what the service to customers in the bush. Mr Brazel, bill is all about. in response to a question that I put to him, As Senator Calvert pointed out early in his said: delivery, the two-thirds that remains with the It is my perception and my opinion that if they felt government and the shares that are going to that that may give them access to service equiva- be sold amount to a figure of about 88 per lent to those in the urban areas then they may agree cent—I may be wrong, so please correct me with that mechanism. if I am—but very little will be owned by That was the partial privatisation. Mr Hem- interests outside this country. Please everyone, ming said: get it through your heads that we are selling I think I made a comment earlier about the fact that only one-third of Telstra. I heard Senator I do not think that people in the bush are concerned Conroy say it for a start. about the ownership issue. Let us compare this with that broken prom- I endorse what Mr Brazel said—that if their ise of the previous Labor government on the thinking was that it might shake up Telstra Commonwealth Bank. They claim that it was and unlock more services, that might have not a broken promise because they did not been a motivation. I urge the Senate to sup- mention it leading up to the previous election. port this legislation. I suppose they could go down that line and Senator PANIZZA (Western Australia) say, ‘No, we never promised not to sell it; we (6.20 p.m.)—I rise with pleasure to support just did not say anything about it.’ I come the Telstra (Dilution of Public Ownership) back to the point that, leading up to the Bill 1996, although my turn came much election, we were out there saying that we sooner than I expected today. We have obvi- were going to sell a third. We said that $1 ously had a sudden loss of interest from those billion would go into a foundation for the on the opposition benches to speak on this environment and the rest would be used for bill. Perhaps after the Lindsay by-election— retiring debt and not recurring expenditure. Senator Carr—There is a lot of interest. Let us compare the sale of Telstra with the Senator PANIZZA—Don’t start. Perhaps sale of the Commonwealth Bank. As I said, they got the message from the by-election that the Labor government of the time, contrary to was held the weekend before last. I am not former promises—even though they did not going to harp on that one for too long. I think mention it leading up to the election—sold off the message was there hot and strong that this 30 per cent of the Commonwealth Bank. They government was given a mandate and it went sold 249 million shares at $5.40 each, which out there before the election and told Austral- brought in $1.344 billion. At that time, this ia exactly what it was going to do, which was gave the Commonwealth Bank a total value quite contrary to what happened with the of $4.4 billion. Commonwealth Bank, but I will come to that In September 1991, just six weeks later, the later. Anyway, the time has come for me to share value of each of those shares that were do my part. As I said, it is a pleasure to speak sold off reached $6.46. As I remember, six to this bill. weeks later, that 30 per cent grew to $1.608 Let us get a few things straight. To my billion. So the $1.344 billion grew to $1.608 knowledge, those people responsible are not billion—that was the privatised part—in a in the chamber now, but time and time again maximum of two months or something like as I sat here the Friday before last doing the that. That already gave a total value of $5.361 whip’s duty most of the day, I heard senators billion. from the opposition benches, the Democrats However, in September 1993, when the and the Greens—one of the Greens spoke government of the day decided to sell another today—talking about the sale of Telstra. They 20 per cent, at that time those shares were Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4609 valued at $7.79 per share. That original 30 cerned. I can remember a person who worked per cent was now worth $1.939 billion, which for Telstra somewhere in Australia, not also gave the Commonwealth Bank a total necessarily Western Australia, who had a value of $6.463 billion. The point I am private enterprise mentality about him. His getting at is that whatever the government got job as a technician was to do certain installa- at the time in that first share issue was far tions. He was given a list of jobs to do for outstripped by the increase in the total value that week on a Monday morning; he came of the Commonwealth Bank. back at lunchtime and said that he had done In other words, the 80 per cent that was left such and such. They said, ‘You have done at the time in the hands of the Commonwealth what? You have done three times the alloca- government grew back in no time, in a matter tion that you were supposed to have done this of about two years, and it went beyond the morning.’ He had to appear in front of a total value in 1991. In other words, it went superior who told him to slow down a bit. I past the 100 per cent value. Of course, there just throw that in to show you that those was a certain amount of inflation in that. But, things are still going on. That is the compari- unless the government at the time want to say son I have made with the Commonwealth that they let inflation run rampant, the infla- Bank. I cannot see why the same cannot be tion did not make up for that. So you can see repeated in Telstra with the two-thirds that that by part-privatising a government entity, remain. it does not take very long to make up for Senator Conroy from the opposition said what has been sold. that Telstra was a high performer. I agree that In two years, the Commonwealth Bank it is a high performer, except for a few of the grew to $2 billion, which was far in excess of things I have just mentioned. I believe that it that original sale of $1.344 billion. You ask: will be a higher performer still with a private why does that happen? It happens because, enterprise mentality and management. when you go into part-privatisation, you also get private enterprise management. You get Senator Conroy went on to say that Telstra private enterprise thinking in management. made $2.3 billion in profits. I believe that those profits will certainly increase. The way Senator Kernot—You get a loss of ac- he said it, I thought the $2.3 billion was countability. going to disappear. Two-thirds of that, if the Senator PANIZZA—Senator Kernot, you profit is the same—I think it will be higher— do get that; it does happen. That is why I can will still be there. Does he not know and do see the same thing happening with the bal- others in the chamber not know that the ance of Telstra which is 66.66 per cent dividends going out from that privatised recurring. In no time down the track, this will section will be taxed? Has he forgotten that? be worth as much to the government as it is Have others forgotten that? Another thing is today, having already picked up in the mean- that it will probably be taxed at a higher rate. time whatever the value is in cutting down Most of those shares will be, I hope, held by the debt and certainly not using it on recur- ordinary Australians like you and me. ring expenditure. This includes that $1 billion that is going into the foundation, the income Senator Kernot—We already own it. from which—this is something that those on Senator PANIZZA—Yes, we already own the other side did not fully address—will go it, but in a different way. This way, it will be to the environment along with other alloca- much more efficient. It will probably be taxed tions from the budget. at a higher rate than it is at the moment— Why will it make Telstra a little meaner higher than the company rate. So there will be and leaner with private enterprise manage- more taxes flowing into the coffers so that ment? Even though Telstra operations around Australia can proceed at a faster rate. I ask the country have improved a lot over the Senator Conroy to think about that. That $2.3 years, there is still a lot to be done as far as billion is definitely not going to disappear. work practice and attitude to work are con- Two-thirds will be there and the other third 4610 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 will probably be taxed at a higher rate. Per- more remote areas of Australia than I do. haps he did not think of that. From what I have read of the bill and from Senator Conroy also mentioned—I hap- what I see of Telstra, I cannot see that we pened to be in the chamber at the time—that will be any worse off. You never know, we Telstra paid rates and taxes and all those sorts might be better off. of things that a corporation pays. Is that not I live in a place—there are not too many of going to be the same under a part privatised these places—where we have no facilities for Telstra? They will be paying exactly the same mobile phones yet. You can use mobile if the figures are the same. Those rates, taxes satellite phones, but of course it costs you and whatever else they pay will still be being about $8,000 to buy a set and it costs you paid. Let us not say that those things are about $1 a word to speak on it. That is not a going to disappear altogether and that those real alternative. I believe that with part government entities will not be getting what privatisation and the shake-up in management, they are getting out of Telstra. we might do better. I am from a remote area In my office a bit earlier on I heard Senator and I cannot see anything wrong. Stott Despoja from South Australia talking We heard a few other red herrings from the about the efficient suppliers of materials from other side of the chamber. Senator Mackay Australia to Telstra, as if we were going to from Tasmania was telling us how Tasmania lose the opportunity to supply that high has been neglected. I have not spent too much quality electronic equipment to Telstra. time in Tasmania, but any time I have wanted Where is Telstra all of a sudden going to get to communicate with someone in Tasmania I those supplies? Are they going to go overseas have always been able to do it just by picking just as a matter of course? No, they will not up the phone and dialling. I was on an inquiry be going overseas as a matter of course. They into communications towards the year 2000. will be buying where they have the quality of That is the only time I went to King Island— equipment they are buying now and where it is competitive. Australian manufacturers of Senator Kernot—Should we cross-subsi- electronic gear are doing pretty good now, so dise them to make them work properly? I cannot see for one moment how Australian Senator PANIZZA—We will leave that suppliers are going to lose the opportunity of debate for another day. Yes, there were supplying that equipment to Telstra, as they certain recommendations made, but I do not are now. think Tasmania is any further behind the rest An operator the size of Telstra has to have of Australia. I don’t think Tasmania and reliability of supply, the ability to have those Senator Mackay have anything to worry supplies brought in quickly in case of break- about. down. These days, with international flights I want to quickly address the subject of you can get parts from Singapore, New overhead cables. As Senator Knowles has Zealand and other places fairly quickly, but already said, this has nothing to do with the there is nothing like having them here on our partial sale of Telstra—nothing whatsoever. doorstep. I can assure you that there will be When I am driving along the road or walking no change at all. They will still be buying down the footpath, I don’t necessarily look Australian, and good Australian gear. upwards; I look forwards to see where I am I turn to the matter of community service going. If you put a new cable up, Senator obligations. From what I have been hearing O’Brien, you will notice it for a while. But from the opposition and other benches, you when you already have power cables there, would think that by the sale of a small por- especially three phase power with four heavy tion of Telstra community service obligations cables, and if an extra one is added overnight, are going to go out the door. On my reading I defy anyone to notice the extra one. of the bill, I think it is pretty well covered. I can tell you that the further overhead I believe there are not many people in this cables extend into the bush the better because place or in the other place who come from it means that civilisation is coming closer to Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4611 you. I might be peculiar in that I don’t hap- actually makes to this country. Instead, it is pen to see those cables overhead, but I defy far easier to do this time honoured little anyone to say that they will see the extra ones trick—fiddle the books, sell off public as- if there are cables already there. In suburbs sets— where the cabling is already underground Senator Panizza—That’s not fiddling. then, by all means, I believe they should follow suit. In time, I also believe that all Senator KERNOT—I’ll tell you why it is, power cables and other communication cables Senator Panizza—and attempt to convince the will go underground. That will come in time. Australian public that it is in everyone’s best All these good things come if you wait long interest to keep selling off assets. ‘We’re enough. taking the tough decisions,’ they say. I believe that the government, having told So much of this rationale is based on the people of Australia—and it was reaffirmed economic theory. I make this point because I last Saturday in the by-election— am sick and tired of certain economists and the economic cheer squad of this country Senator Kernot—Did you campaign on behaving as if they have some God given Telstra? monopoly on the truth when it comes to Senator PANIZZA—How did your vote go current economic theory. I am sick and tired there? With all the noise you have made, how of them telling the rest of us to treat what are did your vote go? The by-election was a often not much more than political or eco- chance to judge the government on its per- nomic fads as though they contain some formance. They didn’t agree with you. We compelling central truth which cannot be have been elected to govern. That is our denied. I am really glad that finally, after policy and that is the policy we’ll go down almost a decade, we are having an extended the track with. public debate on privatisation, although we Senator KERNOT (Queensland—Leader are still being told by the government that of the Australian Democrats) (6.40 p.m.)—For privatisation of our key public assets is so many months now we have heard the good for the community that it cannot be government’s rationale for the privatisation of questioned or delayed. Telstra. It has been like privatisation debates, I have to say that being told that we should very short ones, that we have had previously privatise Telstra because nearly every other in this place. The rationale is driven largely country has done so is not an argument. by two concerns. One is to provide an im- ‘Behave like lemmings,’ they say. This is mediate source of short-term revenue for the nothing more than an appeal to fashion—an government. Secondly, the sale is being appeal which seeks to deny Australians the driven by the ideological belief that private right to make up their own minds, irrespective enterprise is inherently more efficient—I see of what any other country is doing, about you nodding, Mr Acting Deputy President whether partial or full privatisation of our Chapman, a captive of the ideology—and national carrier is in our best interests, is in accountable than public sector counterparts. Australia’s best interests. There is no intrinsic I would like to look very closely at those merit in blindly following what other count- two assertions because I just don’t believe ries have done. Every country has its own they stack up. I don’t believe they provide unique geographical, historical and cultural sufficient justification for turning Australia’s circumstances. most profitable publicly owned asset into Senator Panizza talked a lot about new Australia’s second biggest private corporation. investors paying tax and how the profit and This government, like the government before, loss columns will stack up. I would like to has not had the imagination or the political talk about the financial implications of the will to devise better ways of improving our sale in some detail. Eminent Australian national savings. For ideological reasons, they economists—such as John Quiggin, Professor just won’t formally acknowledge the signifi- of Economics at James Cook University, and cant contribution that public investment Dr Allan Brown from Griffith University in 4612 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

Queensland, both of whom have undertaken were adopted, the partial sale of Telstra would painstaking research into this field—have result in an increase in the deficit computed on a warned that the proposed privatisation of whole of government basis. Telstra will result in a substantial loss to the This is a respected economist. He is not the net worth of the public sector. We all know only one to have spoken in this debate. the coalition does not place a high value on Senator Panizza—I bet he has not been out the net worth of the public sector, but other in the real world. people do and taxpayers might be interested to know. These two economists argue that the Senator KERNOT—You do not like what interest savings in public debt from selling he says. The coalition government does not Telstra will be significantly less than the like what he says and its only response has profit stream forgone. been to attempt to impugn his professional reputation and denigrate him as a disreputable In his submission to the Senate Telstra economist. inquiry, Professor Quiggin estimated the value of Telstra in public ownership to be $54.4 But there are other facts we can put on the billion. This estimate is based on comparing record, such as the underpricing of public Telstra’s after-tax profits with the net sale assets, which is one of the hallmarks of proceeds that would be required to generate privatisation in this country. It happened with similar savings in public debt interest. the Commonwealth Bank; it happened with Qantas; it happened with the Commonwealth This is $30 billion more than the market Serum Laboratories. And what that means is price that analysts believe Telstra will realise that a relatively small number of people—the if sold. One of the reasons argued for this is new shareholders and those involved in the that private equity holders demand a far actual transaction—make a gain at the ex- greater rate of return on their investments than pense of the rest of the taxpayers in Australia. the real rate of return on government debt. What guarantee do we have that that will not According to Professor Quiggin, it is only happen with Telstra? under the most unrealistically pessimistic profit scenarios that the government’s partial But what if we assume the financial situa- privatisation scenario appears attractive. tion of the government is not adversely Moreover, Professor Quiggin pointed out to affected by the sale. What then? The fact is the Senate Telstra inquiry that, in attempting that we would not be any better off. The to estimate the value of Telstra—the one that government would simply have realised the they are telling the Australian public when value in cash terms of an asset valued at that they are weighing up what we win and what amount and the underlying budget balance we lose—the Department of Finance made: would remain unchanged. . . . the elementary error of comparing the public So where is value to the nation in that? debt interest savings arising from privatisation with Where is the good economic policy in that? the dividends paid by Telstra rather than the Under this scenario, it can equally be argued earnings of Telstra including retained earnings. This that it is better to retain Telstra in full public procedure is defended on the basis of fallacies that ownership and use the cash flows generated were refuted decades ago, such as the view that into consolidated revenue to repay public debt retained earnings are ‘locked up’ and therefore of no value. This claim is erroneous since reinvested and fund existing programs or new ventures. earnings will generate a higher stream of income However, when assessing the impact of in the future, and are just as valuable as dividends privatisation on the net worth of the public . . . Once the error of comparing interest flows with dividends rather than profits is corrected, the sector, we also have to take into account the Department’s own analysis would show a loss costs of actually floating Telstra—namely, the arising from the partial sale of Telstra. More fees for the lawyers, accountants, stockbrok- precisely, if whole of government accrual account- ers, analysts and advertising agents. The ing along the lines proposed by the Commission of Department of Finance told the Senate inquiry Audit— that it estimates these costs will be in the Treasurer Costello’s Commission of Audit— order of $160 million. That is a lot of money. Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4613

That is $160 million coming out of the 1995 study by the Industry Commission found pockets of taxpayers for the wonderful privi- that Telstra: lege of losing ownership of their valuable . . . reduced its prices since 1989-90 by 16 per cent public asset. in real terms, while doubling— What it all adds up to is that the sale of and I want to repeat that— Telstra involves selling off our highest in- come earning public asset for what is most while doubling labour productivity and increasing payments to the government by over 60 per cent likely to be no net economic gain. In fact, it since 1990-91. is true that Australian taxpayers could be paying for the sale like hire purchase—they We should not just blindly dismiss this could be paying for the sale for many years record. It is a record that is worth pointing to. to come—and I do not see any good public It is just propaganda to claim, as Telstra policy in that either. management and the government do, that The government has relied very heavily on partial privatisation offers some magic recipe the claim that selling a third of Telstra will by which Telstra will automatically make make it more efficient because private busi- these significant efficiency gains. It has nesses are inherently more efficient than their nothing to do with privatisation. As I said, it publicly owned counterparts. This is undeni- is about technological development. It is ably true in some industries in some areas, about management. It is about a commitment but it is not a truth in itself. I do not see any to providing a service, and I think Australians reason to anticipate efficiency gains beyond should be seriously questioning the commit- those that would have occurred anyway ment of the government and the capacity of without a change in ownership. The perform- Telstra’s current management to deliver the ance and efficiency of government owned sort of services Australia wants and needs, enterprises can and has been extensively irrespective of whether Telstra is sold or not. improved under public ownership. Telstra Even if efficiency gains are made under itself has improved its performance and of private ownership, there is no reason to course it can continue to do so, irrespective assume that the benefits of those gains will be of who owns it. passed on to consumers in the form of lower A significant amount of research has been prices rather than captured by shareholders in undertaken which indicates that efficiency and the form of profits. The government has consumer responsiveness is not inherently acknowledged this by bringing forward dependent on ownership, but rather depends legislation to put in place new regulations for on a combination of good management, consumer protection. effective competition, technological progress, If privatisation is going to deliver automatic regulation and consumer pressure. A 1995 consumer protection, then why do they need Bureau of Industry Economics study revealed to bring forward this legislation? It is because that Iceland, operating under a state telecom- they know that it is regulation, not munications monopoly, had the world’s privatisation, which is the key to safeguarding lowest prices for a national basket of call consumer interests. Unfortunately, the pro- charges and that Switzerland, another state posed consumer protection legislation does monopoly, was the world leader both in terms not go far enough in protecting the most of revenue per employee and revenue per line, vulnerable consumers—residential customers, which is an important measurement used by those in remote localities and those with Telstra. disabilities. If this is not remedied, and if So I do not accept that there is a direct and other privatisations are anything to go by, all inevitable association between economic that we are likely to see post-privatisation is performance and type of ownership. The fact a sharp rise in the salaries of Telstra’s senior is that the performance and efficiency of executives, efficiency measured in how many government owned enterprises has been jobs can be ditched, and no great leap forward extensively improved in public ownership. A in residential customer outcomes. 4614 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

We all know the code. What has efficiency private enterprise focus and that that would be and improved efficiency really equated to in a good thing. But he does not talk about the this country in recent years? Improved effi- inevitable tension between the one-third of ciency really equals cutting down on staff and shareholders hell-bent on profit maximisation, forcing workers to undertake greater duties which would be natural, and the two-thirds and longer hours or suffer poorer terms and still in government ownership. He does not conditions. Only a few months ago Monash talk about whose view prevails. He does not University published the results of a massive talk about the example of AIDC, where one study on the effects of privatisation. There of their recent decisions was to massively were over 200,000 case studies of enterprises increase the salaries of the directors, and the and agencies world wide. The conclusion is government stood by as the major shareholder one the government does not like to hear: no and said nothing. There is a huge problem efficiency benefits from contracting out in the when you have this one-third, two-third split, name of privatisation. I think that the South and there is a loss of accountability in the Australian Auditor-General just recently long term. pointed out this very fact in an analysis of The Australian Democrats believe that it is asset sales in South Australia. So let us not be time to call for an end to Australia’s decade- duped by the repetition of the mantra about long obsession with economic rationalism. efficiency. There are times when private is not better I am certain that we would all remember than public, when asset sales are not in the that it was only recently that Telstra an- long-term national interest, and when it is nounced the biggest annual profit in Austral- better for all of us to own and control some- ian corporate history—$2.3 billion—while at thing rather than deliver it into the hands of the same time confirming that it would shed a few. For this reason, for the economic over 22,000 jobs in the next three years. I am reasons, the Democrats—it is no secret—will not saying that there is no room for any staff be voting against the sale of one-third of reduction at Telstra, but I challenge the depths Telstra. We are doing this on the basis of a of those cuts. Recent employer surveys, both consistent record. We have assessed in de- here and overseas, show that large-scale bates that we have had in this chamber in the downsizing not only has failed to deliver high past, in the case of the Commonwealth productivity—that is one of the claims they Bank— made—and improved customer service but Senator Ian Macdonald—You were wrong also has had a devastating effect on morale, there. staff commitment and motivation. Senator KERNOT—I do not believe that The fact is that downsizing, like privatisa- we were wrong, Senator Macdonald. We will tion, is a current economic fad. While this trace the future of banking policy in this particular fad has been in vogue in America, country. Give us another few years, and I will and is currently in vogue in Australia, the tide bet you that we can draw different conclu- has changed in the United States. Earlier this sions. We all know the influence of the ANZ year, the so-called guru of downsizing, Mr Bank on banking policy and the coalition. We Stephen S. Roach, had a great public confes- will vote against Telstra, as we voted against sion to make: I got it wrong. ‘Open-ended the sale of Qantas and the clayton’s sell-off downsizing and real wage compression were of our federal airports. We will vote against recipes for industrial extinction,’ he said. the sale of Telstra because, in simple terms, There is a growing number of commentators, it is not in the long-term economic interest of analysts and academics who are reaching this nation. What is worse, we all know that similar conclusions. This is something that we the coalition intends to sell the lot of it should be addressing in this country before anyway. the situation is irretrievable. Senator MacGIBBON (Queensland) (6.59 Senator Panizza says that one-third privati- p.m.)—The Senate is spending an inordinate sation would make the board have a more amount of time on what should have been a Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4615 very simple proposition and something that At the end of the day there is no system of should have got universal support. All we are censure, and there is no reward possible for talking about is selling one-third of Telstra, public servants when they run something like and we would do that with the aim of creating an airline, a bank or Telstra. In fact there is a modern, efficient communications system, an inverse reward in the public service: if you available to the Australian community at its lose $1 million or $1 billion on an enterprise, lowest price and with more than adequate the reward for that is you get an increased consumer protection. The consumer protection departmental allowance next year and more that will be granted under this legislation is staff because, obviously, it cannot cope with far wider than anything that exists at the the situation. The cost of that to the Austral- present time. That is the point that I want to ian community, or the community at large, is come to after I have made a few opening really quite tragic. remarks. I suppose one of the reasons why people I have listened to this debate, and I am at oppose this one-third sale of Telstra is they a total loss to understand what the argument have never lived under another system. They from the opponents to this sale is about. Most cannot imagine any other way of phoning a of what they are saying is just plain wrong. friend other than through a government There is no factual basis at all to it. Some of owned enterprise. Therefore, they have no the stuff that we are getting out of the Demo- standards to compare what other services crats, of course, is in the category of ghost might be provided. stories designed to frighten the children. I Over 25 years ago I had the privilege of really wish that they could attract some living for some while in the United States. I educated members to that party. was enormously impressed then by what the individual state based, privately owned tele- A lot of things in Australia now are really phone companies provided compared with quite complex. If you are going to go around what was provided by what was then the with people who are like modern day Lud- PMG in Australia. You had a courteous and dites—the new Democrat senator from Vic- prompt relationship with the operators if you toria believes that mobile phones give you had any problem. When you dialled someone, brain tumours, rather bad news for you, you got correct connections; you did not get Senator Macdonald, because I have often seen wrong numbers. It was a rapid connection and you with two phones in use simultaneously— you got very clear voice communications, we really have to get some education into the none of the static and the other business that Democrats, even if it takes years to do so. All we had in Australia in those years. You had we hear from Senator Kernot and members of free local calls. You paid a very affordable her party is that somehow or other the most and very low monthly rental. Even 25 years efficient way of running businesses is by ago, you were billed for STD calls and they owning them, owning them as a government. were minutely itemised—the number called, We have had a lot of experience in this the time of the call and the rest of it—so country with government ownership. There is there was never any argument about the no case for government ownership of com- account. mercial enterprises where that service can be In those days, you were not allowed to delivered by private industry because private touch anything in the Australian telecommuni- industry delivers it more efficiently and at less cations system under pain of being thrown cost than any government enterprise. The into gaol. If you moved into a new house or reason for that is really very simple: not flat, you waited many months to get con- everyone is endowed with business acumen. nected to the exchange, whereas, in the Under the public service system, we are United States where I was living, Michigan looking for different sorts of people— Bell used to advertise on TV, ‘When you go impartial public servants different from the from one apartment to another, take a pair of sorts of people we are looking for in business. scissors, cut the cord and take your phone 4616 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 with you. We will do the connection the day believe, as Senator Panizza said, that we can after you arrive, if you have the phone with have bigger profits in the years ahead if it is you.’ It was a totally different concept of run efficiently. Profitability is one thing and service from what happened in Australia at the enterprise has to be profitable to cope the time. That was 25 years ago and I do not with new technology coming on and the rest want to dwell on the past. I do make the of it. point, though, that there are incentives for But at the end of the day, we have to have private industry to perform that government an affordable and efficient service. I would industry just simply can never meet and, argue that there would be room through therefore, the consumer suffers in most cases. efficiency to lower the cost to both the indi- If we look at the history of Telstra in viduals and business in Australia, and both of Australia, go back to when it was Telecom those are very worthy and essential aims. and before that the PMG, you come to an- In conclusion, I want to briefly deal with other conclusion—that is, there has been a some of the myths that are around the place. gross abuse of the monopoly powers that were If you listened to our opponents on this invested in it. The only time we have seen subject, they would lead you to believe that any improvement in telephonic communica- Telstra was beyond reproach, that no-one had tions in this country was when the Labor any complaints about it. I can remember a government quite correctly introduced some few years ago in Cunnamulla in western competition into the scheme. Surely to good- Queensland being assailed by a property ness, in the light of that experience now and owner who owned two properties with his the benefits this minuscule competition that wife and it was essential for them to have has come in has brought consumers, introduc- phones on each property, but they could not ing more competition now, more private get one phone. ownership is clearly the way to go because we are still left with the legacy of all those I was mixed up for many years in the rural inefficient years. telephone subscribers organisation in rural Queensland, which came into being because The previous speaker, Senator Kernot, was of the poor service that Telstra provided to saying that Telstra was going to sack 22,000 the bush. While someone might say that we employees. I do not know what the present are going back into the past, we are not going employee strength of Telstra is, but I guess it back very far; we are only going back about is somewhere around 80,000 people. six or eight years. Let us look at the recent Senator Carr—It is 76,000. past at the organisation known as CoT, Senator MacGIBBON—Some 76,000, and Casualties of Telecom. This group, particular- for the service, the workload on those people, ly in Brisbane, have spent huge amounts of a reduction of 22,000 would probably be a money on FOI finding out why their busines- modest achievement with respect to efficien- ses have suffered through the incompetence cy. of Telstra. Senator Carr—One-third. The compensation claims that they are lodging through insolvency of their business Senator MacGIBBON—It might well have run into half a million to a million dollars— to go to a half. The whole problem with amounts like that. That is really big money. Telstra is that it has been in the grip of the Only last week I had two new cases come union movement all its life. It was the techni- into my office in Brisbane. It is a very tragic cians union that featherbedded Telstra and story of two middle-aged women who started made it the inefficient operator it is today. a business, and Telstra just messed them We have to improve it much further, and around to such a degree that they have lost a we can improve it if it is privatised. Oppo- very large amount of money—I presume a nents to privatisation are quite dazzled by the significant part of their life savings, if not all sort of deathbed conversion to profitability of it—purely because of Telstra’s technical that Telstra has had in the last 12 months. I inefficiencies. I think they have put in a claim Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4617 for about half a million dollars in compensa- As recently as a month ago, when my wife tion. came back to Brisbane—she spent most of this year up on the property—she picked up Whether they will get it—or any of it—I the phone and rang the Telstra complaints have no idea. All I know is, from talking to section in Brisbane. She said that she wished them, that Telstra denies all responsibility. to record a complaint with the phone at These people have been involved in consider- Lillianvale. The person at the other end of the able expense up to the present time, and the line who took the call said, ‘I can’t take the emotional stress of dealing with an absolutely call.’ My wife mildly said, ‘ Why can’t you?’ insensitive and uncaring bureaucracy has to Telstra said, ‘The subscriber’s got to make the be seen to be believed. complaint.’ My wife said, ‘But I am the I was very interested to hear Senator subscriber.’ They said, ‘How are you com- Woodley for the Democrats waxing lyrical plaining about the phone not working when about the great service Telstra gives to the you are phoning us?’ My wife said, ‘The bush and saying that, if Telstra were sold, no- phone is in the country and I cannot do it one in the bush would get a phone. With the from the property because the phone is not greatest respect to Senator Woodley—and I working.’ They said, ‘You should have gone am sorry he is not here—I think I do know to the neighbour and phoned from the the bush a bit better than he does. As I neighbour’s house.’ My wife said, ‘That is a understand it, his experience of the bush is two-hour or three-hour drive over bad roads living in a manse in a small country town. and I do not really feel that that is practical. That is really quite different from living out I am ringing you from here.’ At that point— where the dingoes howl at night. and my wife is a person of impeccable man- ners, unlike me!—the person from Telstra I will just give an example of my own taking the complaint just slammed the phone experience within the last month. My wife down on my wife. and I have a cattle property in Central Queensland. While we have mains electricity So do not give me any of the stories that onto it, the phone is supplied by some sort of Telstra are giving a Rolls Royce service to the solar powered system. I do not quite know consumers of Australia; it is simply not true. how it works. All I do know is that it does They will do a lot better when they get a not work much more than about 40 per cent profit motive coming from one-third of their of the time. Maybe it gets to 50 per cent of shareholding being held by Australian citi- the time, but the serviceability of that phone zens. With those few words, I wish the bill a would never be above 50 per cent. That is an speedy passage. enormous frustration, because we do not have the property as a weekend retreat or some- Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) where to get a suntan. It is a business, and the (7.12 p.m.)—Like Senator MacGibbon and all business is selling cattle—whether fat cattle, of my colleagues, I support entirely the steers, stud bulls or herd bulls. government’s proposal for the sale of one- third of Telstra. I do it because I know it is It is very frustrating and it costs us a huge good for Queenslanders and I know it is amount of money when a buyer rings up and particularly beneficial to people up in the he cannot get connected to the property. north, where I come from. There is a real safety element involved, because trauma and accidents are part and It is no surprise that the coalition parties are parcel of rural life. You try to avoid them as putting this proposal forward. It was one of well as you can with correct management the very clear aspects of our election policy practices, but the phone has a very real safety and it was a policy that the Labor Party, the factor to it. We have suffered enormously Democrats and the Greens urged the elector- with this. We protest to Telstra, and nothing ate to judge us on at election time. Of course happens. They just do not want to know about the electorate did just that and gave us a us out there in the bush. massive majority both in the House of Repre- 4618 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 sentatives and even in the election for one- would not understand that that is what the bill half of the Senate. says. The bill will enable remedial action to I am excited about the sale of one-third— be taken where there has been a contribution and I emphasise again, one-third—of Telstra. of the ownership limits and other require- Listening to the Labor Party, the Greens and ments, including applications by Telstra or the the Democrats spokesmen, you would think minister for Federal Court injunctions. it was the total sale of Telstra. But it is a sale So it will remain. It is Australian now, and of one-third only—not like the Labor Party it will remain totally Australian. There will be when they promised one thing in relation to shareholder oversight in that the bill provides privatisation and did exactly the opposite. It for the power to require Telstra to give the is the sale of one-third of Telstra. I am excit- minister the financial statements. There will ed because the sale will provide a better be a notification by Telstra of significant service for people in all parts of Australia, but events that might take place. There is an particularly in rural and regional Australia. As obligation on the Telstra board to keep the well, the proceeds of the sale will enable the minister informed of ongoing operations, and greatest investment ever into the environment there is a requirement to prepare, update and capital of our nation, and that can only be of provide corporate plans to the minister. benefit to all of us, but particularly to those So the bill has covered it very well. There in rural and regional Australia. are consumer safeguards, and these are quite Of course the other aspect of the sale is that clearly set out in the bill. The new consumer the bulk of the moneys received from the sale safeguards introduced by the government will of one-third of Telstra will be used to reduce be in addition to the continuation of several our debt. When our debt is reduced it has the important mechanisms. The universal service effect down the line of reducing interest rates. obligation reaffirmed in the bill will continue Of course the reduction in interest rates, as to require a standard telephone service to be we have seen since this government has been offered to all Australians. Untimed local call in power—and the reduction in interest rates obligations already guaranteed by legislation that is anticipated by the markets—can only will be retained for residential consumers. be wonderful news for home owners and There will be price capping, which requires small business people right throughout Aus- prices for a basket of Telstra’s main services tralia. to reduce, on average, 7.5 per cent annually. Having listened to some of the absolute Then there are the prices for individual rubbish that has come from those on the other services to residential customers. General side of the chamber on this debate, perhaps it prices surveillance will apply. All of those is necessary to reiterate that the bill provides things are in the bill. It is quite obvious that that Telstra will remain Australian. The bill no-one in the Labor Party or the Democrats restricts aggregate foreign ownership to an or the Greens has been bothered to use it. 11.6 ownership stake in Telstra; that is, 35 per I mentioned earlier that my interest was the cent of the one-third of Telstra equity that can interest, of course, of my constituents. I want be held by persons other than the Common- to briefly elaborate on where some of the wealth. It restricts foreign ownership in money will go. One billion dollars of the Telstra to 1.6 per cent, and it imposes related proceeds of the sale of one-third will go to offences and anti-avoidance and enforcement the environment. I am absolutely amazed provisions. It will ensure that Telstra’s head about the reaction from parties like the Greens office base of operations and incorporation and the Democrats, which claim to have some remains within Australia and that its chairman environmental constituency. I might say that and the majority of its directors are all Aus- nobody really believes that anymore. tralian citizens. I think the Lindsay by-election has shown Mr Deputy President, having listened to that the Democrats, in particular, have become some of the old European-type centralists on quite irrelevant in the political scene, and the the other side talking about these things, you Greens are not much better. When you, Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4619 regrettably, have these ridiculously stupid the ALP. So there was a 13 per cent gap parties of the Right—the Australians Against there. Further Immigration, the people that the The bottom line is that there was a five per Labor Party gave their preferences to, and the cent swing to the Liberal Party even though Shooters Party—getting more votes than the Ross Free, the previous member, should at Greens and the Democrats, you can see that least have had a very high profile. I think the the Greens and the Democrats are on their problem was that his profile was such that way out. But $1 billion of the sale of one- people knew how incompetent he was in third of Telstra is to go into Australia’s terms of what he did for the electorate. They environmental infrastructure, and $318 million saw more of him during the election cam- will go for a major national vegetation initia- paign than they had seen in the last 10 years. tive to tackle the problems of land and water degradation. Let us look at the vote for the Democrats. It fell from 6.4 per cent in March to 1.67 per I know the Labor Party are not interested in cent. It is a terrible shame there are no Demo- this. You are only interested in the environ- crats in the chamber now. That is a miserable ment when it involves chaining yourself to a 1,179 votes alone. That is a few big families. tree in the rainforest. When it is the real If you have a few big families, you have the environmental issues, you are not interested. whole of the Democrat vote. The Democrats That is why you are refusing to give the were out-polled by the Shooters Party, the government this money to put into that AAFI, Call to Australia, the anti-airport initiative on national vegetation. There will be candidate and the Greens. It is the lowest vote $163 million to implement the Murray- on record that I can find for the Democrats in Darling project. a by-election. Debate interrupted. The last by-election the Democrats ran in I think was Warringah. If my memory serves ADJOURNMENT me correctly, they got something like 16 per The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It cent of the votes in Warringah. In Mackellar, being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question: they got six per cent. When we go back a few years to Menzies, four or five years ago, they That the Senate do now adjourn. got around 20 per cent. This is a disastrous Lindsay By-election vote for the Democrats. Over the last 14 or 15 years it is the worst vote I can find. Senator WOODS (New South Wales—Par- liamentary Secretary to the Minister for What does this mean? What is the message Health and Family Services) (7.20 p.m.)— from all this? Clearly, it is a reaffirmation of This afternoon in the other place I had the the directions that the Howard government is exquisite pleasure of seeing Jackie Kelly taking. It is support for the directions that we sworn in as the new repeat member for the have been pushing this country in, support for seat of Lindsay in Sydney’s west. I wanted to a budget which has been widely seen, particu- touch upon a few of the issues which that by- larly in areas like Lindsay, as a tough but fair election result raises. Let me just first of all budget, a fair-go budget. point out a few of the raw facts. Not only it is a reaffirmation of the direc- In terms of primary votes, the Liberal Party tion the Howard government is going in; it is got 49 per cent of the primary votes. The also a message for the opposition parties. ALP had a seven per cent drop from March There is a simple message there. The first to 33 per cent of the primary votes. That is a message is: let us get on with the job because 16 per cent difference between the two parties that is what the population want. They want on primary votes. This is in the seat of to see the government carry on in the direc- Lindsay—a Labor heartland. In the two-party tion it has been going. preferred votes, it is not much better. It was There is also a message there about the 56 per cent for the Libs and 43 per cent for ALP. How out of touch can you get? Clearly, 4620 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 if there was a honeymoon for Kim Beazley, your negative opposition for the sake of that period is now over. I am not sure there opposition, has turned out to be completely ever was. This is an illustration of how out of irrelevant to the population of Lindsay and, touch the whole of the ALP structure is. In indeed, for the population of the country. If terms of calling on the by-election, of making the opinion polls around the rest of the the protest in the first place, what sort of country are anything to go by, the rest of the blame must you sheet home to John Della country is feeling exactly the same way as the Bosca? What sort of misjudgment can you good people of Lindsay. possibly make to do this? The people of Australia are saying, ‘We The Leader of the Opposition in the other want government. We do not want blockage. place said on 21 October on Daybreak, ‘If We do not want the hypocrisy that we are there is one place you would want to run if seeing with issues like public housing.’ On you are a Liberal candidate, Lindsay would be the public housing issue essentially the thrust it.’ Really? Lindsay for 51 of the last 55 years of our positive policy was your policy, yet in has been a Labor seat. a hypocritical way the Labor Party turns Senator West—It is only a new seat, you around and says, ‘No, we oppose this.’ Craig dill. Knowles, the minister responsible in the state government, sent out an incorrect letter—let Senator WOODS—The area there is Labor us be polite—to the public housing tenants heartland. There is no point in you pretending making all sorts of ridiculous claims, which anything else. You are just indicating your had no foundation whatsoever, in a simple absolute abysmal ignorance of the population attempt to scare those who are most vulnera- of Lindsay. How out of touch can you get? ble in our society. But the population of Senator Robert Ray interjecting— Lindsay saw through it. Senator WOODS—Okay, let us accept We also said that this is a reflection on the Senator Ray’s proposition here that what Kim budget. The Labor candidate, Ross Free, Beazley said is right—it is a Liberal seat. If himself said that this will be a referendum on it is such a Liberal seat, why on earth would the nasties—that is the word he used—in the you want to mount a challenge so that you budget. That is an indication of what the can be disgraced and ridiculed? Why, if it is election was about according to your own such a Liberal seat, did he go to such lengths candidate. I am happy for once to accept Ross and spend so much money on a court appeal Free’s word about this—that this was a so that you can have a by-election where you referendum on the budget. Indeed, if that is have been made to look like fools? Kim the case, there was an overwhelming endorse- Beazley, Gary Gray or John Della Bosca is ment of the budget directions. out of touch—the truth of it is the whole One of the other issues here is the impact Labor Party is out of touch. of this on the Democrats. Stephen Lear, the Then we had the pleasant sight halfway Democrats candidate, said on 20 October on through of the gloating that came when Bob the ABC that the Democrats face many Carr announced that suddenly he had found problems. He went on to say, ‘We are really the money for the motorway tolls to be chasing our tails like a small dog at the back removed. You could see the gloating going on of the pack.’ There is no question about the in the Labor Party in Lindsay. The bribery facts of that. I think the Democrats them- attempt, which is really what it was, was seen selves will support that that is the fact. through by the population of Lindsay. The For once one of the Democrat candidates population of Lindsay said, ‘No, we don’t has come clean. They face an enormous want short-term bribes. We want a genuine dilemma. The Democrats have had a five per government which is prepared to make the cent swing against them. It is a clear sign that tough decisions.’ the people want the Democrats to be construc- The message there for the Labor Party and tive and not destructive. They do not want for the Democrats is that your spoiling tactics, them to be spoilers; they want genuine con- Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4621 structive working together to improve the although John Tingle, apparently, was aware country. They do not want the cynicism that of them. the ALP shows, they do not want the hypocri- The question of preferences was first raised sy; they want them genuinely to keep the by Mr Franich and not by me. When he bastards honest and not to keep the bastards claimed it would be difficult to reprint his dishonest. how-to-votes, I pointed out that there must In passing, since Senator Ray is in the surely be supporters of the Shooters Party chamber, I note the notice of motion moved who would organise this. I made a point of by Senator Ray in regard to this by-election saying that the Liberals would not be in- this morning. volved in this. Obviously, I hoped that the Shooters Party would come to their senses Senator West—I thought you were going and change their preferences, but I at no time to come in and explain your actions. offered to reprint their how-to-votes or to pay Senator Robert Ray interjecting— for such an action. My end of the conversa- tion was witnessed by my adviser. Senator WOODS—That is exactly what I am going to do. If you just keep your mouths Senator Robert Ray interjecting— quiet for a little while, you will be able to Senator WOODS—My advisers, unlike hear what exactly happened. yours, are men of integrity, which is more than I can say for most of the people on your On the Friday before the by-election I side of politics. I also inform the Senate that received information from an impeccable I am seeking legal advice on this matter with source, which was subsequently confirmed, a view to initiating defamation claims. that the ALP government under Bob Carr was planning to stop the issuing of firearm licen- If you want to talk about potential sleazy ces and would not recommence issuing them deals, let us talk about the deal you did with until the new year. This meant that, where the AAFI. The Labor Party and the AAFI did those licences expired, they would not be a sleazy deal. These are the people you say renewable until some vague time in the are racists and bigots. You say we should not distant future. This was correct and was touch them with a barge pole. You did a deal supported by Shooters Party MLC John to swap preferences. You should be ashamed Tingle, who said: of yourself. . . . the Firearms Registry did advise some Shoot- Mining Deaths: Memorial ing Associations that they wished to discontinue issuing Shooters Licences in Category "A", which Senator WEST (New South Wales) (7.30 is the only sort you can have now, but the Minister p.m.)—Tonight I rise to address an issue has countermanded that and has directed that which is of more importance and certainly Licences must continue to be issued until Decem- more significance to a group of people in the ber 21 this year. area of Broken Hill. Yesterday they held a The facts here are borne out; only the timing memorial service for the miners who lost their is in doubt. It is clear that this information lives on the Line of Lode. So far 704 names was of relevance to the shooters organisations have been recorded. Many more are known to and I communicated— have died there and their names are yet to be recorded. Senator Robert Ray interjecting— This is a project that is being conducted Senator WOODS—Are you interested in with local support from the Line of Lode this or not? Why don’t you keep your mouth Association and the Broken Hill Family and quiet and listen and I will tell you the facts of Sports Picnic Committee. Architectural stu- the matter. Your bluster and nonsense have dents from the University of South Australia been shown up for what they always are. I have created a design for a memorial which communicated those facts to the Shooters will sit on top of the highest peak of the Line Party candidate, Mr Rod Franich, who of Lode. The memorial will overlook the city, claimed at that time to be unaware of them— the railway station, the town hall and the post 4622 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 office. It will provide a stark and moving recognise the significance of this dangerous reminder to everybody who visits that city occupation and that this memorial will be an and that community that mining is an ex- important milestone. When it is built it will tremely dangerous occupation. To date, we be an important symbol which will stand over know of 704 people who have died on the the city. Those who know Broken Hill will Line of Lode, including two whose bodies appreciate that the dumps and tailings stand have never been recovered from the mine and very high as a permanent reminder that whose resting place is in the mine itself. mining is a dangerous occupation, but having I say that there are many more names to be a monument that will stand out and be visible recorded because I learnt yesterday from for many miles around will, of course, be an talking to the officials that, in the early days, ever present reminder to the people there that if somebody was injured on the Line of Lode this is a dangerous occupation. It will be an they were removed to hospital or to their ever present reminder to anybody visiting the home for their final care. So their death area that mining is a very dangerous occupa- ensued away from the Line of Lode and was tion. The monument will also ensure that, for not recorded as a death on the line; it was those people who go there, industrial occupa- recorded as a death somewhere else. Officials tional health and safety issues will always be are now having to go through a lot of the of the utmost significance. history and the records of the community to To those people who were involved in the try to ascertain the names of all those who memorial service and to those families which have lost their lives in this industry. I would have lost loved ones on the Line of Lode, I guess that from the time when the mine first extend my condolences and thoughts. I really started there will be many names that will did appreciate that memorial service. I ap- never ever be recorded. preciated the fact that the unveiling of the plans for the memorial was conducted by the It was a very moving and fitting time to grand daughter of someone who lost their life hold this memorial service: it was held in on the Line of Lode and by someone who had conjunction with the family sports and picnic been involved with the University of South day. It is a reminder of the poignancy, the Australia School of Architecture in designing care and the love in these mining communi- the memorial. To all those involved, I wish ties. It is a reminder of the importance to you well. I found it a very moving tribute. I these mining communities of the traditions of found the camaraderie and the friendship that mining and their awareness of the dangers existed in that community—in spite of the that go with mining that, at a family sports tribulations and the trials that they have had and picnic day, people actually take the time to live through—very rewarding as well. I to hold a memorial service. There to provide wish them all the best. the music and the hymn singing was the Victorian Welsh Male Voice Choir. They, of Condolences: Sir Roland Wilson course, also appreciated from their ancestral Senator WATSON (Tasmania) (7.35 roots the importance and the traditions of p.m.)—In the past I have risen to honour the mining. They sang two very beautiful hymns memory of many of Australia’s finest econo- and songs: Amazing Grace and I am a Work- mists, the last one being a highly respected ing Man. That song, for those who do not statistician. Tonight I would like to spend a know it, is about someone who values seeing moment of the Senate’s time reflecting on the the light of day as they are actually able to extraordinary life of Sir Roland Wilson— leave the pit. They remember their colleagues arguably Australia’s finest statistician—who, who do not get to leave the pit. sadly, at a great age, passed away last Thurs- I would like to send my best wishes to day. everybody who is involved with the project to Roland Wilson will long be remembered as set up this memorial to those who have lost one who made an exceptional contribution to their lives. I am sure that my fellow col- Australia in the field of applied economics. leagues here would like to do so as well and He was a man of remarkable intellect and Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4623 independence of thought, who was never Once Australia became involved in World afraid to speak his mind. These attributes War II, he was appointed to establish the sometimes brought him into conflict with his Department of Labour and National Service peers and colleagues, but they also brought and he became its head. Following the war, innumerable benefits to the field of economics he served the United Nations as Chairman of here in Australia. the Economic and Employment Commission. This appointment came just four years after It gives me great pleasure to highlight the the establishment of the United Nations in fact that such a distinguished economist was 1945. It is interesting to note in passing that born and bred in my home state of Tasmania. his death occurred on the day observed by all In fact, he was born in Ulverstone, a beautiful around the world as United Nations day. little town of some 11,000 people on the As a consequence of these appointments, central north-west coast. After being educated his time as Australia’s Chief Statistician was at Devonport High School, Sir Roland gained fragmented. Finally, in 1951 he was appointed his first degree—Bachelor of Commerce—at Secretary to the Treasury, a position he held the University of Tasmania. He eventually re- until his retirement in 1966. This was not the turned to the University of Tasmania to end of his career, as he served both the lecture in economics after undertaking studies Commonwealth Banking Corporation and at Oxford University as Tasmania’s Rhodes Qantas as chairman until the mid-1970s. This scholar. May I add that Sir Roland Wilson distinguished Australian provided a model for was actually the first boy from a Tasmanian all public servants in his unstinting and government high school to win such an selfless commitment to the good government award. of our country. Even in his retirement, al- though never one to mince words, he refused Later as a Commonwealth Fund Fellow he to speak out publicly on economic policy and completed his PhD at the University of practice. Chicago. As the Canberra Times reported In 1989 the Distinguished Fellow Award yesterday, it was the entry into the Public was conferred on him by the Economic Service which caused considerable friction on Society of Australia for his exceptional one occasion because he was recruited as a contribution to Australia. I am sure there will professional statistician at a time when doc- be many who would wish to emulate him as tors and lawyers were the only graduates in an outstanding Australian public figure. the Public Service. Bringing a new academic discipline to the job, his new colleagues at the Gun Control Campaign statistician’s office were incensed at the threat Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (7.40 his appointment posed to their job security. p.m.)—I rise tonight to again raise the ques- Remembering this was in 1932, during the tion of John Bevins Pty Ltd and remarks depths of the depression, those in the made in this Senate some weeks ago. I statistician’s office were very much afraid that thought I would read onto the record the their jobs were on the line. People usually correspondence on this particular matter started at the bottom of the ladder as an which involves both John Bevins, Ian inkwell filler or messenger boy, not as a McDonald and Senator O’Chee and let the Doctor of Philosophy in Economics. They record speak for itself. The circumstances decided to go on strike for a day to make were Senator O’Chee made some allegations their point. However, to their honour, it was in this chamber which prompted this corres- these same colleagues who, four years later, pondence. The first letter is from Mr John were the first to congratulate him when he Bevins, Executive Chairman of John Bevins was appointed Commonwealth Statistician and Pty Ltd, and it reads: Economic Adviser to the Treasury, the young- Senator, est man ever to hold that position. They now I am deeply concerned that you claimed, in the endorsed him as the best person for that Senate tonight, that my agency had offered a position. lucrative contract to a public servant employed in 4624 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 the Commonwealth Government’s Office of then got around to asking for her C.V. a week Government Information and Advertising (OGIA). after it The clear implication of your comments was that and/or this was an improper inducement—intended to affect the impartiality of a public servant charged ii. we asked for and received her C.V. several with the responsibility of independently assessing weeks after—according to your theory—we tender documents submitted for the National Gun had already offered her a job. Control Public Education Campaign. Accepting that a C.V. is normally a critical input Your claim is entirely false. Check the facts, you to any executive appointment, perhaps you will will find this to be so. detect something not quite right with each of those? I would like to believe that you inadvertently For the record, the agency has never offered— misled parliament. If you are an honourable man, then you will correct the record and apologise for Ms X— the damage that you have done to our reputation any ‘position’, any ‘contract’, any consultancy, or and that of the public servant who has been drawn anything otherwise. We have the very highest into this matter. regard for her professional abilities and for her If, on the other hand, you wish to maintain your exemplary personal conduct, but that is nonetheless current position and leave this falsehood uncorrect- so. ed, then I challenge you to repeat the defamatory John wrote that, if you are an honourable man, you statements without the protection of parliamentary will correct the record. May I add that if in the face privilege. of all indications to the contrary you still believe Then in a further letter to Senator O’Chee of that we have acted improperly, then if you possess 17 October, Ian McDonald, an employee of the courage of your beliefs you’ll repeat them John Bevins, said: outside parliament. Either course would provide us with something to respect. Senator, Senator O’Chee responded on 18 October in A week ago my partner, John Bevins, wrote to the following terms: inform you that statements which you made in the Senate last Thursday evening relating to our agency Dear Mr McDonald, had no basis in fact. Separately, you have since I refer to your letter and that of your colleague Mr received from Mr Simon Longstaff a copy of his Bevins. Statutory Declaration in which he states his belief that your assertion was ‘without foundation’ as was I note your protestations, and had been intending the ‘imputation that any of the parties acted to make a statement on the adjournment this week, improperly’. however before I could do so Senator Ray spoke on In his letter, John asked that you check the facts the matter on Monday night. I can only assume this and correct the record. contribution was based on material you had provid- ed him. To this point we are not aware of any action which you have taken to do either. Nor have we had the My intention had been to state to the Senate your courtesy of a reply. disagreement with my speech last week. Since you chose an adversarial and alternative route to Accompanying this note is the fax header sheet achieve your objectives I considered myself re- of— lieved of any ethical obligation I had previously felt Ms X’s— towards you. C.V (which she sent to me last month at my Finally, I have no intention of taking up your request). puerile and trite suggestion that I set myself up for a defamation action. I am already involved in two I use the name ‘Ms X’ because I do not want such cases because I have had the integrity to stand to reveal the name of the public servant at up for my constituents (where, of course, truth is this stage. The letter continues: no defence) and I do not feel compelled to need- You will note that it is dated and fax date-stamped lessly involve myself in another to oblige someone 17 September—a week after the DDB appointment whose interest is purely self. was announced. For your assertion of a ‘lucrative Yours sincerely, position’ being offered to hold true, one would then Bill O’Chee. have to accept that: i. we offered her a position several weeks before The final piece of correspondence comes from the ‘Guns Amnesty’ agency decision date and Mr Ian McDonald. He says: Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4625

Senator, At one stage a query was raised from the minister’s May I acknowledge my receipt this morning of office about those intentions. your 18 October letter. I then asked Ms Moore: Its content was much as I had expected it might be but I must admit to some surprise at three com- Was that in writing or by way of phone? ments which you’ve made within it: Ms Moore said: 1. That we chose "an adversarial and alternative I had a phone call. route": Seriously! What would you expect us to do when we had been defamed in a most I asked: cowardly manner yet could gain no response, let alone satisfaction, from yourself? Clearly From whom? our initial choice was to attempt to resolve the Ms Moore replied: situation with yourself—but to no effect. From Miss Farnsworth— 2. That you’ve found that "truth is no defence": In the context of anything which you’ve Mr Jull’s media adviser— uttered in The Senate on this issue, where does "truth" enter into this? asking me if I heard these rumours or discussions and if I could clarify them. 3. That you would not "oblige someone whose interest is purely self": In that an individual’s I asked: reputation is about as "self" as you can get, I What did you respond? agree with you as to our motivation. But I can’t follow the logic which allows you to Ms Moore said: believe that our defence of our reputations means you can absolve yourself of any "ethi- I clarified them along the lines that the secretary cal obligation" to either correct your untruth has said. or to otherwise test its validity? So I put to Ms Moore that she not only Parliamentary privilege is both a necessary and a clarified them but she also told Minister Jull’s wonderful thing. It can achieve much in the hands office that the officer concerned had declared of honourable and conscientious parliamentarians a potential conflict of interest. She says, ‘Yes, who understand that the power and freedom which Senator.’ it grants to them comes at the cost of an absolute obligation to use it honestly. So what appears to have happened is this: But Bill, I’m sure that you don’t need me to tell rumours circulate that there was a potential you that! Only you can truly say whether you’ve conflict of interest in OGIA, the minister’s met that brief in this instance. We can do no more office rings and gets those confirmed and then than hold an opinion. apparently briefs a senator or senators in the I did not really enter the chamber tonight to coalition who come into this parliament and tackle Senator O’Chee. But in a previous dump on this particular officer. Who speaks adjournment speech I wondered how this for that officer is the question I ask? As internal information out of DAS got into the ministers, your first requirement is to defend hands of Senator O’Chee. So I pursued this your department and the officers in the de- matter at the estimates committee. I asked the partment. It is not to have them slandered in Secretary to the Department of Administrative this particular chamber. Your job as a Services how this knowledge got out. I went minister and Minister Jull’s job is to defend on to say: his own. There was no contact with Minister Jull’s office on If it is ever proved that Minister Jull’s this subject to your knowledge? office initiated these defamatory statements in I was answered: the Senate, he should give the game away. It Contact with Mr Jull’s office in relation to what, would be one of the greatest betrayals by a Senator? minister I have ever seen if that is the case. I said: I ask Mr Jull here in this chamber to deny Potential conflict of interest by an OGIA officer? whether his office passed the information on He said he would have to defer to Ms Moore, to Senator O’Chee. the Assistant Manager. But he did confirm: Senate adjourned at 7.49 p.m. 4626 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

DOCUMENTS Defence Act—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determination Nos 22 and 23 of 1996. Tabling Health Insurance Act—Health Insurance (Pathol- The following documents were tabled by ogy—Licensed Collection Centres) Determina- the Clerk: tion (No. 7). Acts Interpretation Act—Statements pursuant to Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Order under subsection 34C(6) relating to the extension of section 68—Order No.— specified period for presentation of a report— M76/96. Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Report for MQ69/96. 1995-96. National Health Act—Determination—PHI Christmas Island Act—Casino Control Ordi- 14/1996 (in substitution for document previously nance—Application for approval of a casino tabled on 8 October 1996). operation agreement under section 62. Public Service Act— Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regula- tions—Civil Aviation Orders— Locally Engaged Staff Determinations 1996/30-1996/32. Directive—Part— Public Service Determinations 1996/176, 105, dated 10, 11[2], 14, 15 and 17[2] 1996/181, 1996/188, 1996/195-1996/199, October 1996. 1996/201 and 1996/202. 106, dated 16 October 1996. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Exemptions—CASA 18/1996 and CASA Act—Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence 19/1996. Tax) Determination No. 1 of 1996. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—Utilities and Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Services Ordinance 1996—Determination dated Act—Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence 4 October 1996. Tax) Determination No. 1 of 1996. Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4627

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

ABC: Funding Australian Minister of Primary Industries and Energy details of the nature and outcome of each (Question No. 177) of the charges under the Australian Public Service Senator Schacht asked the Minister for Act against Mr Philip J Corrigan who, at the time Communications and the Arts, upon notice, in question was head of operations at the British on 20 August 1996: Meat Hygiene Service: How many letters, telephone calls and personal (1) Is this Mr Corrigan the same person who was inquiries regarding the Government’s decision to employed as a member of the senior executive drastically cut funding for the Australian Broadcast- service in the Australian Quarantine and Inspection ing Corporation have been received by: (a) the Service (AQIS) in 1993. Minister; (b) the Prime Minister; (c) the Treasurer; (2) Was Mr Corrigan head of operations in the and (d) other Government Ministers. Meat Hygiene Service in the British Ministry of Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the time when BSE-contaminated cattle were being allowed to able senator’s question is as follows: enter the human food chain and the ministry was (a) As at 14 October 1996, 17 086 letters have informing the general public that the meat was safe been received by or referred or copied to my office to eat. concerning ABC funding. Of that total, 7,745 were addressed to me of which approximately 44 per (3) Is this Mr Corrigan the same person who is cent have been ‘form’ letters. currently working as the Meat Industry Council Project Director for the pilot study entitled ‘The 9314 were addressed to the Prime Minister of evaluation of Quality Assurance based company which approximately 87 per cent were form letters. inspection as an alternative to traditional meat Twenty seven were addressed to the Treasurer of inspection in Australian export abattoirs’, common- which none was a form letter. ly known as ‘Project 2’. It should be noted that a significant number of (4) Is this Mr Corrigan the same person who, respondents have written to more than one from March to July 1996, travelled extensively Minister, therefore, the total number of letters overseas on official business on behalf of the Meat received does not equate to the number of individ- Industry Council. ual members of the public who may have written. (5) What was the purpose of Mr Corrigan’s (b), (c) and (d) Collecting detailed information overseas travel on behalf of the Meat Industry in relation to telephone calls and personal inquiries Council. in respect of (a), additional letters, telephone calls and personal inquiries in respect of (b) and (c); and (6) Did the purpose of Mr Corrigan’s travel all letters, telephone calls and personal inquiries in include promoting Project 2 to Australia’s major respect of (d) would be extremely resource inten- trading partners and convincing them of the safety sive. Resources are not available to determine the aspects of meat produced under the company source of all letters or to document telephone calls inspection arrangement proposed in Project 2. or personal inquiries. (7) Did Mr Corrigan secure the agreement of the United States (US) Department of Agriculture that Mr Philip Corrigan the Australian meat processing establishments (Question No. 202) participating in Project 2 would continue to main- tain market access in the US for the duration of the Senator Margetts asked the Minister for participation of those companies in the Project 2 Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, trial. on 18 September 1996: (8) Have markets for Australian meat in the With reference to the question asked of the Middle East agreed to allow those meat processing British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, establishments which have been selected to partici- on 28 March 1995, in the House of Commons pate in Project 2 to maintain access to their Middle whether he would seek to obtain from the then East markets for their products for the duration of 4628 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996 the participation of those companies in the Project mented to achieve equivalent food-safety outcomes. 2 trial. Comments from each market on the Project Outline (9) Has the Japanese Government agreed to allow will be welcomed. Observation of the implementa- those meat processing establishments which have tion of HACCP based systems in Australia has been selected to participate in Project 2 to maintain been invited. access to the Japanese market for their products for (11) Yes. He was authorised to do so by the the duration of the participation of those companies Meat Industry Council Steering Committee estab- in the Project 2 trial. lished to oversight Project 2. Korea, along with the (10) Has the European Union agreed to allow majority of other markets, is implementing HACCP those meat processing establishments which have based systems in its meat processing industry. been selected to participate in Project 2 to maintain Officials will be able to be briefed first hand on full access to European Union markets for the such processes in Australia and view progress in duration of the participation of those companies in Project 1 (HACCP model sites), Project 2 and other the Project 2 trial. sites where full QA systems are already operating successfully. (11) On 27 or 28 May 1996 did Mr Corrigan invite a South Korean Government official to travel (12) A copy has been forwarded to Senator to Australia in November 1996, at Project 2 Margetts. expense, to view the Australian initiatives at first hand; if so, who authorised Mr Corrigan to issue Sydney Airport such an invitation and, if Project 2 is not scheduled (Question No. 203) to commence until February 1997, what Australian initiatives is it anticipated the South Korean Senator Sandy Macdonald asked the Government official will view. Minister representing the Minister for Admin- (12) Will the minister table the detailed copy of istrative Services, upon notice, on 20 Septem- the scientific evaluation protocol for the Meat ber 1996: Industry Council, Project 2 (’The evaluation of With reference to the advertising and publicity Quality Assurance based company inspection as an for the Sydney Airport noise insulation program alternative to traditional inspection in Australian which says it is ‘owner driven’: export abattoirs’). (1) To what extent is it truly owner driven and Senator Parer—The answer to the honour- to what extent is it price driven. able member’s question is as follows: (2) Is an owner given any real choice as to what (1-4) I will not answer questions seeking person- goes into his or her house. al information about Departmental officers which have no relevance to the subject matter of the (3)(a) How is the department going about giving questions. the owners a choice; and (b) are owners being given any option, other than in aesthetic areas such The inference in Question (2) is that the British as what style of windows to have. Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), established on 1 April 1995, was responsible for allowing BSE (4)(a) How many owners of the 240 houses affected cattle into the food chain. BSE was first insulated to date have been given the option of, or detected in 1987-88. even told that there is an option of, wool batts in their ceilings; and (b) are owners encouraged to Mr Philip Corrigan is Project Director for the take polyester or other insulation because it is half Meat Industry Council’s trial of HACCP Based QA the price. Systems for the Australian Meat Export Industry (Project 2). Senator Kemp—The Minister for Adminis- (5) To advise relevant authorities in major export trative Services has provided the following markets of progress with the implementation of answer to the honourable senator’s question. HACCP based Quality Assurance systems in (1) The residential insulation scheme carried out Australia and the development of Project 2. by the Sydney Aircraft Noise Insulation Project (6) Mr Corrigan presented the Project 2 Outline (SANIP) is owner driven to the extent that: to relevant authorities. the owner elects to participate in the scheme (7-10) Major export markets have been fully at the time of invitation by the Project apprised of the implementation of HACCP and the owner authorises the preparation by the Project 2 and have expressed considerable interest Project of a scope of works for his/her home in the trials. Under the terms of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the WTO the owner chooses the type of windows and alternative processes and systems may be imple- the type of soft fibre insulation to be used Monday, 28 October 1996 SENATE 4629

the owner chooses three builders from the and Trade to Parliament in November 1994 which accredited panel to quote the work found merit in the academic structures: Given the the owner chooses the builder he or she wishes committee’s recommendation ‘that AIDAB (now to undertake the work following quotations AusAID) undertake a feasibility study, including a full evaluation of funding options, to establish a the owner manages the builder on a day-to-day human rights centre for dialogue and cooperation basis (with the SANIP staff providing support) in Australia as part of a publicly funded and part the owner signs a certificate of completion at privately funded non-government institution’: the end of the job and the Project inspects the (1) What has the Minister done to direct AusAID work to ensure that it has been completed in to progress the evaluation study. accordance with the scope of work. (2) When is the process expected to be com- The scheme is price driven to the extent that: plete? builders compete for the work; Senator Hill—The Minister for Foreign some quotes are negotiated where they are Affairs has provided the following answer to outside the Project estimate by more than 10%; and the honourable senator’s question: the Government has established a $45,000 (1) The Joint Parliamentary Committee on upper limit on assistance. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JCFADT) recommendation was to the previous government, (2) Homeowners may choose: which responded that while it agreed that such a fully ducted airconditioning or a mechanical centre would be useful, in the fiscal climate at that ventilation system; time the Government was unable to commit itself from a range of different window types; to a significant long-term budget obligation to develop a human rights centre. from a variety of soft fibre ceiling insulation materials; (2) The present Government is committed to encouraging the establishment of a Centre for from two types of lining used in ventilation Democratic Institutions which will focus on the ductwork. promotion of democracy and assist in the promo- (3)(a) Information pamphlets sent to each house- tion of human rights in the Asia-Pacific region. holder set out the areas where ‘owners choice’ However, as the activities of such a centre would exists. This choice is reinforced in briefing sessions not necessarily qualify as Official Development for homeowners and set out in more detail in the Assistance (ODA), a requirement for AusAID Homeowner Manual provided at briefings on the support, Mr Downer has therefore tasked the scheme. Current arrangements are that homeowners Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) are given product description sheets for approved to develop detailed proposals for the Centre. This products which also contain contact details for work is currently under way. manufacturers and display centre locations. The homeowner is requested to choose between alterna- Ministerial Staff tive products prior to the visit to the home by the (Question No. 228) Project’s technical staff at which the scope of works setting out insulation treatments is prepared. Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for (b) See answer to Part (2). Communications and the Arts, upon notice, on 8 October 1996: (4)(a) All homeowners have been advised of the availability of wool insulation since it was first (1) What staff, other than staff employed under approved for use in the scheme in November 1995. the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, were There are currently six suppliers of accredited wool employed in or attached to the office(s) of the insulation products. Minister and each of his or her Parliamentary Secretaries as at Tuesday, 8th October 1996. (b) No. At present wool insulation is slightly cheaper than polyester. (2) What were the total salary costs of such staff. (3) What was the financial cost to the Common- Centre for Democratic Institutions wealth of the employment of such staff. (Question No. 206) (4) What were the titles, roles and duties of such Senator Bourne asked the Minister for staff and what public service (or equivalent) Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 25 classifications did they carry. September 1996: (5) Under what programs were they employed. With reference to the report of the Joint Parlia- Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- mentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence able senator’s question is as follows: 4630 SENATE Monday, 28 October 1996

(1) Two staff, other than staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, were employed in my Office as at Tuesday, 8 October 1996. (2) The total salary costs of these two staff were $72,321. (3) The financial cost to the Commonwealth of these staff was $4,364. (4) The two staff members are Departmental Liaison Officers. Their roles and duties are to liaise and coordinate between my Office and the Depart- ment. One officer is a Senior Officer Grade B and the other is a Senior Officer Grade C. (5) They were employed under Sub-program 1.1.