Senate Official Hansard No

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

Senate Official Hansard No. 13, 2005 MONDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2005

FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

INTERNET The Journals for the Senate are available at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/work/journals/index.htm

Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives, the Senate and committee hearings are available at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

For searching purposes use http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au

SITTING DAYS—2005 Month Date February 8, 9, 10 March 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 May 10, 11, 12 June 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23 August 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18 September 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 October 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 November 7, 8, 9, 10, 28, 29, 30 December 1, 5, 6, 7, 8

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

CANBERRA 103.9 FM SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM GOSFORD 98.1 FM BRISBANE 936 AM GOLD COAST 95.7 FM MELBOURNE 1026 AM ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM HOBART 747 AM NORTHERN TASMANIA 92.5 FM DARWIN 102.5 FM

FORTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD

Governor-General

His Excellency Major-General Michael Jeffery, Companion in the Order of Australia, Com- mander of the Royal Victorian Order, Military Cross

Senate Officeholders President—Senator the Hon. Paul Henry Calvert Deputy President and Chairman of Committees—Senator John Joseph Hogg Temporary Chairmen of Committees—Senators Guy Barnett, George Henry Brandis, Hedley Grant Pearson Chapman, Patricia Margaret Crossin, Alan Baird Ferguson, Michael George Forshaw, Stephen Patrick Hutchins, Linda Jean Kirk, Philip Ross Lightfoot, Gavin Mark Mar- shall, Claire Mary Moore, Andrew James Marshall Murray, Hon. Judith Mary Troeth and John Odin Wentworth Watson Leader of the Government in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh Minchin Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Manager of Government Business in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Christopher Mar- tin Ellison Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate—Senator Joseph William Ludwig

Senate Party Leaders and Whips Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia—Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia—Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh Minchin Leader of The Nationals—Senator the Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell Deputy Leader of The Nationals—Senator John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) Macdonald Leader of the Australian Labor Party—Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party—Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Leader of the Australian Democrats—Senator Lynette Fay Allison Liberal Party of Australia Whips—Senators Jeannie Margaret Ferris and Alan Eggleston Nationals Whip—Senator Julian John James McGauran Opposition Whips—Senators George Campbell, Linda Jean Kirk and Ruth Stephanie Webber Australian Democrats Whip—Senator Andrew John Julian Bartlett Leader of the Family First Party—Senator Steve Fielding

Printed by authority of the Senate

Members of the Senate State or Terri- Senator tory Term expires Party Abetz, Hon. Eric TAS 30.6.2011 LP Adams, Judith WA 30.6.2011 LP Allison, Lynette Fay VIC 30.6.2008 AD Barnett, Guy TAS 30.6.2011 LP Bartlett, Andrew John Julian QLD 30.6.2008 AD Bishop, Thomas Mark WA 30.6.2008 ALP Boswell, Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle QLD 30.6.2008 NATS Brandis, George Henry QLD 30.6.2011 LP Brown, Carol Louise(4) TAS 30.6.2008 ALP Brown, Robert James TAS 30.6.2008 AG Calvert, Hon. Paul Henry TAS 30.6.2008 LP Campbell, George NSW 30.6.2008 ALP Campbell, Hon. Ian Gordon WA 30.6.2011 LP Carr, Kim John VIC 30.6.2011 ALP Chapman, Hedley Grant Pearson SA 30.6.2008 LP Colbeck, Hon. Richard Mansell TAS 30.6.2008 LP Conroy, Stephen Michael VIC 30.6.2011 ALP Coonan, Hon. Helen Lloyd NSW 30.6.2008 LP Crossin, Patricia Margaret (3) NT ALP Eggleston, Alan WA 30.6.2008 LP Ellison, Hon. Christopher Martin WA 30.6.2011 LP Evans, Christopher Vaughan WA 30.6.2011 ALP Faulkner, Hon. John Philip NSW 30.6.2011 ALP Ferguson, Alan Baird SA 30.6.2011 LP Ferris, Jeannie Margaret SA 30.6.2008 LP Fielding, Steve VIC 30.6.2011 FF Fierravanti-Wells, Concetta Anna NSW 30.6.2011 LP Fifield, Mitchell Peter(2) VIC 30.6.2008 LP Forshaw, Michael George NSW 30.6.2011 ALP Heffernan, Hon. William Daniel NSW 30.6.2011 LP Hill, Hon. Robert Murray SA 30.6.2008 LP Hogg, John Joseph QLD 30.6.2008 ALP Humphries, Gary John Joseph (3) ACT LP Hurley, Annette SA 30.6.2011 ALP Hutchins, Stephen Patrick NSW 30.6.2011 ALP Johnston, David Albert Lloyd WA 30.6.2008 LP Joyce, Barnaby QLD 30.6.2011 NATS Kemp, Hon. Charles Roderick VIC 30.6.2008 LP Kirk, Linda Jean SA 30.6.2008 ALP Lightfoot, Philip Ross WA 30.6.2008 LP Ludwig, Joseph William QLD 30.6.2011 ALP Lundy, Kate Alexandra (3) ACT ALP Macdonald, Hon. Ian Douglas QLD 30.6.2008 LP Macdonald, John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) NSW 30.6.2008 NATS McEwen, Anne SA 30.6.2011 ALP McGauran, Julian John James VIC 30.6.2011 NATS McLucas, Jan Elizabeth QLD 30.6.2011 ALP Marshall, Gavin Mark VIC 30.6.2008 ALP ii

State or Terri- Senator tory Term expires Party Mason, Brett John QLD 30.6.2011 LP Milne, Christine TAS 30.6.2011 AG Minchin, Hon. Nicholas Hugh SA 30.6.2011 LP Moore, Claire Mary QLD 30.6.2008 ALP Murray, Andrew James Marshall WA 30.6.2008 AD Nash, Fiona NSW 30.6.2011 NATS Nettle, Kerry Michelle NSW 30.6.2008 AG O’Brien, Kerry Williams Kelso TAS 30.6.2011 ALP Parry, Stephen TAS 30.6.2011 LP Patterson, Hon. Kay Christine Lesley VIC 30.6.2008 LP Payne, Marise Ann NSW 30.6.2008 LP Polley, Helen TAS 30.6.2011 ALP Ray, Hon. Robert Francis VIC 30.6.2008 ALP Ronaldson, Hon. Michael VIC 30.6.2011 LP Santoro, Santo (1) QLD 30.6.2008 LP Scullion, Nigel Gregory (3) NT CLP Sherry, Hon. Nicholas John TAS 30.6.2008 ALP Siewert, Rachel WA 30.6.2011 AG Stephens, Ursula Mary NSW 30.6.2008 ALP Sterle, Glenn WA 30.6.2011 ALP Stott Despoja, Natasha Jessica SA 30.6.2008 AD Troeth, Hon. Judith Mary VIC 30.6.2011 LP Trood, Russell QLD 30.6.2011 LP Vanstone, Hon. Amanda Eloise SA 30.6.2011 LP Watson, John Odin Wentworth TAS 30.6.2008 LP Webber, Ruth Stephanie WA 30.6.2008 ALP Wong, Penelope Ying Yen SA 30.6.2008 ALP Wortley, Dana SA 30.6.2011 ALP (1) Chosen by the Parliament of Queensland to fill a casual vacancy vice Hon. John Joseph Herron, resigned. (2) Chosen by the Parliament of Victoria to fill a casual vacancy vice Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Alston, resigned. (3) Term expires at close of day next preceding the polling day for the general election of members of the House of Representatives. (4) Chosen by the Parliament of Tasmania to fill a casual vacancy vice Susan Mary Mackay, resigned.

PARTY ABBREVIATIONS AD—Australian Democrats; AG—Australian Greens; ALP—Australian Labor Party; CLP—Country Labor Party; FF—Family First Party; LP—Liberal Party of Australia; NATS—The Nationals Heads of Parliamentary Departments Clerk of the Senate—H Evans Clerk of the House of Representatives—I C Harris Secretary, Department of Parliamentary Services—H R Penfold QC

iii

HOWARD MINISTRY

Prime Minister The Hon. John Winston Howard MP Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister The Hon. Mark Anthony James Vaile MP Treasurer The Hon. Peter Howard Costello MP Minister for Transport and Regional Services The Hon. Warren Errol Truss MP Minister for Defence and Leader of the Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Government in the Senate Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Alexander John Gosse Downer MP Minister for Health and Ageing and Leader of the The Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP House Attorney-General The Hon. Philip Maxwell Ruddock MP Minister for Finance and Administration, Deputy Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh Minchin Leader of the Government in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry The Hon. Peter John McGauran MP and Deputy Leader of the House Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Senator the Hon. Amanda Eloise Vanstone Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs Minister for Education, Science and Training The Hon. Dr Brendan John Nelson MP Minister for Family and Community Services and Senator the Hon. Kay Christine Lesley Patterson Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources The Hon. Ian Elgin Macfarlane MP Minister for Employment and Workplace The Hon. Kevin James Andrews MP Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service Minister for Communications, Information Senator the Hon. Helen Lloyd Coonan Technology and the Arts Minister for the Environment and Heritage Senator the Hon. Ian Gordon Campbell

(The above ministers constitute the cabinet)

HOWARD MINISTRY—continued Minister for Justice and Customs and Manager of Senator the Hon. Christopher Martin Ellison Government Business in the Senate Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Senator the Hon. Ian Douglas Macdonald Minister for the Arts and Sport Senator the Hon. Charles Roderick Kemp Minister for Human Services The Hon. Joseph Benedict Hockey MP Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs The Hon. John Kenneth Cobb MP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer The Hon. Malcolm Thomas Brough MP Special Minister of State Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz Minister for Vocational and Technical Education The Hon. Gary Douglas Hardgrave MP and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister Minister for Ageing The Hon. Julie Isabel Bishop MP Minister for Small Business and Tourism The Hon. Frances Esther Bailey MP Minister for Local Government, Territories and The Hon. James Eric Lloyd MP Roads Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister The Hon. De-Anne Margaret Kelly MP Assisting the Minister for Defence Minister for Workforce Participation The Hon. Peter Craig Dutton MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Dr Sharman Nancy Stone MP Finance and Administration Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Warren George Entsch MP Industry, Tourism and Resources Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health The Hon. Christopher Maurice Pyne MP and Ageing Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Teresa Gambaro MP Defence Parliamentary Secretary (Trade) Senator the Hon. John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) Macdonald Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) and The Hon. Bruce Fredrick Billson MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister The Hon. Gary Roy Nairn MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer The Hon. Christopher John Pearce MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the The Hon. Gregory Andrew Hunt MP Environment and Heritage Parliamentary Secretary (Children and Youth The Hon. Sussan Penelope Ley MP Affairs) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Patrick Francis Farmer MP Education, Science and Training Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Senator the Hon. Richard Mansell Colbeck Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

SHADOW MINISTRY

Leader of the Opposition The Hon. Kim Christian Beazley MP Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Jennifer Louise Macklin MP Minister for Education, Training, Science and Research Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Shadow Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Shadow Minister for Family and Community Services Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Julia Eileen Gillard MP Opposition Business in the House Shadow Treasurer Wayne Maxwell Swan MP Shadow Attorney-General Nicola Louise Roxon MP Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Stephen Francis Smith MP Industrial Relations Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Kevin Michael Rudd MP and Shadow Minister for International Security Shadow Minister for Defence Robert Bruce McClelland MP Shadow Minister for Regional Development The Hon. Simon Findlay Crean MP Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Martin John Ferguson MP Resources, Forestry and Tourism Shadow Minister for Environment and Heritage, Anthony Norman Albanese MP Shadow Minister for Water and Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House Shadow Minister for Housing, Shadow Minister Senator Kim John Carr for Urban Development and Shadow Minister for Local Government and Territories Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Kelvin John Thomson MP Shadow Minister for Human Services Shadow Minister for Finance Lindsay James Tanner MP Shadow Minister for Superannuation and Senator the Hon. Nicholas John Sherry Intergenerational Finance and Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services Shadow Minister for Child Care, Shadow Minister Tanya Joan Plibersek MP for Youth and Shadow Minister for Women Shadow Minister for Employment and Workforce Senator Penelope Ying Yen Wong Participation and Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility

(The above are shadow cabinet ministers)

SHADOW MINISTRY—continued Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs and Laurie Donald Thomas Ferguson MP Shadow Minister for Population Health and Health Regulation Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries Gavan Michael O’Connor MP Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Shadow Minister for Joel Andrew Fitzgibbon MP Revenue and Shadow Minister for Small Business and Competition Shadow Minister for Transport Senator Kerry Williams Kelso O’Brien Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation Senator Kate Alexandra Lundy Shadow Minister for Homeland Security and The Hon. Archibald Ronald Bevis MP Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Alan Peter Griffin MP Shadow Special Minister of State Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Senator Thomas Mark Bishop Procurement and Personnel Shadow Minister for Immigration Anthony Stephen Burke MP Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Senator Jan Elizabeth McLucas Carers Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs and Senator Joseph William Ludwig Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Robert Charles Grant Sercombe MP Island Affairs Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Peter Robert Garrett MP Reconciliation and the Arts Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of John Paul Murphy MP the Opposition Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence and The Hon. Graham John Edwards MP Veterans’ Affairs Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education Kirsten Fiona Livermore MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment Jennie George MP and Heritage Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Bernard Fernando Ripoll MP Infrastructure and Industrial Relations Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Ann Kathleen Corcoran MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury Catherine Fiona King MP Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Senator Ursula Mary Stephens Water Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern The Hon. Warren Edward Snowdon MP Australia and Indigenous Affairs

vii CONTENTS

MONDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER Chamber Business— Consideration of Legislation ...... 1 Suspension of Standing Orders...... 1 Business— Consideration of Legislation ...... 8 Questions Without Notice— Telstra ...... 19 Workplace Relations...... 20 Telstra ...... 21 Distinguished Visitors...... 23 Questions Without Notice— Illegal Fishing...... 23 Telstra ...... 24 Family Law Reform ...... 25 Federal Election Pamphlet...... 26 Money Laundering ...... 28 Fuel Prices ...... 29 Structural Taxation Reform ...... 30 Private Health Insurance...... 31 Whale Protection ...... 32 Family Services ...... 33 Deputy President...... 36 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers— Workplace Relations...... 36 Questions Without Notice: Take Note of Answers— Telstra ...... 36 Federal Election Pamphlet...... 41 Condolences— Dame Nancy Eileen Buttfield DBE...... 42 Petitions— Forestry Policy ...... 48 Education: Austudy ...... 49 Education: Student Fees ...... 49 Notices— Presentation ...... 49 Leave of Absence...... 58 Notices— Postponement ...... 58 Matters of Public Importance— Private Health Insurance...... 58 Documents— Tabling...... 70 Workplace Relations...... 71 Committees— ASIO, ASIS and DSD Committee—Report ...... 71 Treaties Committee—Report...... 72 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Joint—Report ...... 73 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Joint—Report ...... 73

CONTENTS—continued

Membership...... 75 Workplace Relations Amendment (Better Bargaining) Bill 2005— First Reading ...... 75 Second Reading...... 76 Postal Industry Ombudsman Bill 2005— Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 78 Human Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2005— Assent ...... 78 Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Issues) Bill 2005, Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Future Proofing and Other Measures) Bill 2005, Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment (Industry Plans and Consumer Codes) Bill 2005 and Appropriation (Regional Telecommunications Services) Bill 2005-2006— Report of Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee...... 78 Committees— Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—Report ...... 85 Business— Consideration of Legislation ...... 92 Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005 and Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Issues) Bill 2005— Second Reading...... 95 Adjournment— Millennium Development Goals ...... 140 Brisbane Traffic Tunnels ...... 143 Documents— Tabling...... 145 Departmental and Agency Contracts ...... 146 Questions on Notice Regional Development Council—(Question No. 248)...... 147 Minister for the Arts and Sport—(Question No. 697) ...... 147 Defence: Customer Service—(Question No. 837) ...... 148 Minister for Transport and Regional Services—(Question No. 869) ...... 151 Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads—(Question No. 895)...... 152 National Missile Defence—(Question No. 1053) ...... 153 Envirofund Program—(Question No. 1066) ...... 153 Radioisotopes—(Question No. 1077)...... 154

Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 1

Monday, 12 September 2005 duct of this inquiry. The fact that the Senate ————— was holding this inquiry was advertised for The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. one day, in one newspaper, on the day before Paul Calvert) took the chair at 12.30 pm and the only day of hearings to be held. The gov- read prayers. ernment’s promotion of this inquiry was so rushed that the word ‘Senate’ was misspelt in BUSINESS the advertisements. Witnesses had less than Consideration of Legislation 24 hours to prepare and submit submissions Senator CONROY (Victoria) (12.31 on five complex pieces of legislation dealing pm)—I seek leave to move a motion to defer with arrangements surrounding the sale of consideration of the Telstra bills. $30 billion in taxpayers’ assets. Given the Leave not granted. limited promotion that this inquiry received, and the ridiculously short time allowed for Suspension of Standing Orders submissions, Australians—particularly in Senator CONROY (Victoria) (12.31 rural and regional Australia—were effec- pm)—At the request of the Leader of the tively excluded from being able to have a say Opposition in the Senate, Senator Evans, and during the inquiry. pursuant to contingent notice, I move: Further, the terms of reference for this in- That so much of the standing orders be sus- quiry were limited in an unprecedented man- pended as would prevent Senator Evans moving a ner. The fact that a Senate committee, inquir- motion relating to the conduct of the business of ing into the terms of five pieces of legislation the Senate, namely a motion to provide that further consideration of the Telstra (Transition to designed to facilitate the privatisation of Tel- Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005 and a related stra, was prohibited from inquiring into the bill be made an order of the day for 4 October question of privatisation itself was high 2005. farce. Those witnesses who were dedicated Labor is seeking extra time for the considera- enough to make themselves available at 24 tion of the Telstra privatisation bills because hours notice were surprised to find that gov- we believe that it is clear that, to date, the ernment senators were prepared to prevent terms of these bills have not even been able them from expressing their views on the to be properly reviewed, let alone their full question of privatisation. Even Senator Joyce consequences considered. So far, the bills expressed frustration at the hearing that wit- have moved straight from introduction to the nesses were unable to say whether he should second reading debates. Senators rising to support the privatisation. The fact is that the speak on these bills at the commencement of terms of reference for this inquiry prohibited the second reading debate were given just them from speaking their minds on the issue. minutes to prepare their comments on bills This is not good enough. The people of outlining a complex regulatory package and Australia deserve better. They deserve better providing for the sale of $30 billion worth of than having bills to sell off a national icon, the Australian public’s assets. This was with far reaching consequences, being clearly an inadequate process. rammed through parliament in less than 24 On top of this, the Senate inquiry that has hours for the inquiry and less than a week in been held into the terms of these bills was total for the debate. It is not good enough. farcically rushed. It is worth noting for the There is an opportunity to revisit this issue record a few pertinent facts about the con- now—right now. There is no need for the

CHAMBER 2 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 bills to go forward this week. They can come time.’ It is hardly a radical proposal. It is back in two weeks time. hardly a sign of an obstructive Senate, to use What is it that the government are afraid the old jargon. If you look at the flipside of of? What is it that they are hiding? Is there the argument, the simple question is: what is extra information that the government are the urgency? Why do the Telstra sale bills privy to that the chamber is not and that the have to be debated and passed this week, as Australian public do not have? Why is the has been insisted by government members Prime Minister so desperate to force the bills for the past week? What is their urgency? through this week? That is the question that I The only urgency I can see is that the am hoping a speaker from the government Prime Minister is losing control. We have will answer, though I did hear a moment ago seen that in newspaper columns over the the order, ‘No speakers.’ The government are weekend and today. All of Mr Costello’s not even prepared to participate in this to supporters are starting to leak things to peo- defend their actions. So what is it that they ple in the gallery, saying: ‘Mr Howard’s un- have got to hide, Senator Boswell? What der pressure. He’s performing badly. He’s extra information have you got, that the losing it. It’s going off the rails.’ The only Prime Minister has got, and that Telstra have reason we have to sell Telstra is to help Mr got, that this chamber and all of the senators Howard in his endless struggle with Mr in this chamber do not have? What is going Costello over the leadership of the party. on? An explanation is deserved. Surely it is time—particularly in the Sen- The Australian public deserve better than ate—to rise above those things in order to what this government and the executive are look at the national interest and the public forcing down this chamber’s throat. All Aus- good. tralians would like to know the answer to There has been a lot of commentary about these questions. What is it that John Howard Senator Joyce. I wore my Queensland tie has got to hide? What is it that the cabinet especially today to encourage him to stick have got to hide? Why are we being forced with that Queenslander spirit and look after to have this debate finalised by the end of the interests of Queensland. As I said last this week? There are threats, I understand, of week, I think Senator Joyce has put himself sitting on Friday. How bizarre. We have two in the position where all of the pressure is on sitting weeks coming up in two weeks time, him. To some extent, that is his doing, but at and the government are saying, ‘We’re going least he has had a go. My message to him is to make you sit all night on Thursday, and to keep having a go. You always feel when you’re going to sit on Friday.’ How bizarre. you come down here that you have everyone What have you got to hide? (Time expired) in your ear and instant pressure is going on Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) but, as he would have found when he went (12.36 pm)—This is an important matter. If back to Queensland over the weekend, peo- passed, this motion will enable the Senate to ple would much rather he take his time. It is defer debate on the Telstra legislation until 4 not just a matter of putting up with people October, which is the next sitting fortnight. It putting unnecessary pressure on you; you is not an attempt to put it off forever. It is not have to live with your decisions for the rest an attempt to drag out debate until next year; of your life. it is just an attempt to say, ‘Let’s just wait Senator Joyce turned up at the Senate until we come back in a couple of weeks committee inquiry on Friday and did make

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 3 the effort to ask some questions. He wanted whole political process into contempt with to ask some questions of a crucial, key wit- this farcical rush. ness, the ACCC, right at the start and was Senator ALLISON (Victoria—Leader of told: ‘Sorry, there is no time. Government the Australian Democrats) (12.41 pm)—I too senators have had their allotted time.’ It was support this motion to shift the bills off from 12 minutes for all government senators, 12 debate until 4 October. I was looking at the minutes for Labor senators and six minutes original report on the first sale of Telstra. We for the rest of us. That was that. Senator Alli- took three months. That was absolutely nec- son nobly slaved away on behalf of the De- essary, and we were not dealing with a com- mocrats. Any suggestion that those time lim- plicated package like the one we are dealing its are sufficient to question the regulator— with today and this week. The real point I the ACCC—that is going to have the respon- want to make is that we were not in a posi- sibility for overseeing a whole batch of this tion to even inquire into the bills on Friday. regulatory regime, or sufficient for it to give As everyone has already said, we had one its opinion on this batch of legislation that, day for them, having started the debate be- remember, it had only seen in the 24 hours fore we even had the inquiry. Since Friday, before is farcical. It was quite clear, even the committee has received about 12 submis- from the ACCC’s limited evidence, that it sions so far. They are good submissions. believed that there are still significant gaps They are submissions that look carefully into there, and there was plenty more evidence of the legislation—more carefully than we have that through the course of the day. been able to do. It is critically important that As I said last week, if you are going to the views expressed in the submissions can support this, you have a greater obligation be taken on board. At the present time, there than the people who are opposing it to make is no opportunity to question these people. sure that it is done properly. From either Unless we ring them all up one by one and side—whether you are for or against the sale ask them how this would work, why they of Telstra—I think we all have an obligation said that or so forth, there is no opportunity to make sure that there is proper scrutiny of to examine what they had to say. Impor- what is before us. As the person that had to tantly, those who did come to the hearing on get up and kick off the second-reading de- Friday said as one, ‘There is not enough time bate on these two bills currently before us for us to give you our considered view.’ one minute after they were tabled, I say that Senator Brandis—That is not the truth. it is a farcical situation. What is proposed Senator ALLISON—It is indeed the here is to simply give a bit of integrity to the truth. I will clarify that. Perhaps the depart- debating process in this chamber, to allow ment did not say that they needed another just a couple of weeks to look at all the legis- four weeks, but pretty much everybody else lation and to get feedback. Even if we cannot did, including the ACCC. Even the ACCC do it in the proper way through a formal said that there are some problems. In fact, committee process, we should at least do it they said that there are problems in five areas informally through examination and consul- in these bills and that they are not certain tation with the experts and come back here about how some things will pan out and how and do the job properly. If we are going to they will work. pass the legislation, let us at least do the job properly. Do not put the Senate and the Witness after witness argued that aspects of the bill could potentially have negative

CHAMBER 4 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 consequences for the industry and, ulti- stra legislation through the Senate is un- mately, for consumers. I want to run through seemly, to say the least, but we all know why a couple of those. Whether it was AAPT or it is happening. We know it is so that no-one whether it was the Consumers’ Association, is given a chance to change their mind or to they all said a four-week review of the legis- raise questions that might be embarrassing or lation would give adequate time to properly awkward or might not substantiate the gov- examine the legislation and sort out those ernment’s case that the sale of Telstra is in potential problems. Ms Corbin from the Australia’s interests. We know it is not: the Consumers’ Association said that there was selling of Telstra was never in Australia’s no time for consumer input and no consulta- national interests. We now have this added tion. She said: complication of a package which is supposed I note that we are the only consumer organisa- to be the sweetener for the sale; as far as we tion represented here today. That is a huge con- can see, there is no support for that being cern. I spent most of the day yesterday on the preferable to the status quo. So, in order to telephone, speaking to all those consumer organi- explore that further, another four weeks is sations that will not have a chance to present to absolutely essential. this hearing. So there is definitely a need to have more time. Generally speaking, the rule is at least Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (12.46 four weeks for consultation when you get a new pm)—I support Senator Conroy’s motion bill or discussion paper or something like that, before the Senate, particularly because the and generally speaking we hear cries from indus- Australian community has not yet seen the try and consumer organisations that that is inade- family impact statement on the sale of Tel- quate. So a bare minimum at this stage would be stra. Australians will recall during the last to follow previous practice. election campaign the famous or infamous If members of this place need further evi- deal between the Prime Minister, John How- dence, witnesses told us there was not ard, and Family First, where Family First enough time. We are in agreement that there agreed to spend, I believe, $1 million attack- has not been enough time. My staff have ing the Greens in return for a preference spent the whole weekend pulling together deal. The agreement was that family impact our report on the basis of what we heard. statements would be made on every major But, as submissions keep flowing in, we are cabinet submission. If Telstra is not a major not able to cope with them because the time cabinet submission, I do not know what is. for finishing our report is coming fast— People throughout Australia were told that whereas if this motion is agreed to then we these family impact statements would be will have time for a considered report. As there for all to see, so we should be able to Senator Joyce has already mentioned, there see what the sale of Telstra means for fami- are a whole lot of things that he wants to re- lies in Australia. solve and talk with people in Queensland Such a statement would also give us some about. I actually think the people in Victoria insight into what constitutes a family for the are just as interested in this issue as those in purposes of family impact statements. Does a Queensland are; they are going to want to single mother in the bush with two or three know what the impact on them is as well and children constitute a family for the purposes I would like to be able to report to them on of family impact statements? This family that. impact statement would be quite insightful— So this process has been cobbled together. and there is obviously no way that Senator The government’s haste in pushing this Tel- Fielding of Family First could possibly sup-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 5 port legislation for the sale of Telstra if the tion’s obligation to Family First to proceed family impact statement had not been deliv- with this. ered, was not adequate, was not detailed Senator Brandis—Don’t tell us about our enough or the community had not had a obligations. chance to assess it. Clearly, this delay that is Senator Bob Brown—Someone’s got to. being asked for would give the Australian community an opportunity to look at the The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator family impact statement in relation to the Brandis and Senator Brown, Senator Milne sale of Telstra and give us some insight into has the call. what is going on. Senator MILNE—Senator Brandis was It is very clear that the Prime Minister has part of the coalition that made this election reinforced to Family First many times since commitment, which was a preference com- the election his commitment to provide fam- mitment that was also about spending money ily impact statements. It was reported on 16 to campaign against another political party in October 2004, for example, that Peter Harris order to secure these family impact state- of Family First took a telephone call from ments. I think the voters of Australia will John Howard and, according to Mr Harris, want to see comprehensive family impact the Prime Minister congratulated him on his statements and I am looking forward to see- party’s success, chatted about the likely Sen- ing them myself. ate result and undertook to pursue the coali- There is no way you could put the question’s pre-election commitment to Family tion on the sale of Telstra in this house with- First regardless of the Senate outcome. The out such a family impact statement unless commitment was to provide family impact you want to make a complete mockery of statements for all future coalition policies, Family First’s deal with the coalition in and that is what we want to see. terms of that preference arrangement and the We also know that, since the election, Mr money that was spent on the advertising Harris and Senator Fielding have had nu- against the Greens. I am very keen to see the merous meetings with Mr Howard. They comprehensive family impact statement that have also met with the Treasurer, Peter went to cabinet. That should be available to Costello; the Deputy Prime Minister at that the public, because it will enlighten us on the time, John Anderson; the Minister for Em- impact of the sale of Telstra. It will also ployment and Workplace Relations, Kevin enlighten us on what Family First thinks is a Andrews; the Minister for Health and Age- family for the purposes of family impact ing, Tony Abbott; and the Minister for Fi- statements for any legislation coming before nance and Administration, Nick Minchin— this chamber. and I would be very interested to know Senator BRANDIS (Queensland) (12.51 whether, in the course of these family impact pm)—No sooner does the week get under statement revelations, they have also had way than we hear another nauseating effu- meetings with Senator Coonan. You would sion of Greens pieties. Through you, Mr think that they would have met with her on President, let me tell Senator Milne how con- such a major issue as the sale of Telstra, to cerned her party, the Greens, were about the clarify what needed to be in the family im- scrutiny of the Telstra legislation at the Sen- pact statement in relation to the sale of Tel- ate Environment, Communications, Informa- stra. So it would be a breach of the coalition Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee hearing on Friday. There were 11

CHAMBER 6 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 senators present at that hearing, which There has been a lot of criticism of the started at eight in the morning and finished at brevity of the hearing. The hearing was a five in the evening. They sat for eight hours one-day hearing. It was a full eight-hour and worked very hard. hearing. Contrary to what Senator Conroy— Usually, when there are journalists, televi- who, if I may pay him a compliment, han- sion cameras and newspaper photographers dled himself with his usual aplomb in that around, you can see Senator Brown there; hearing and I think managed to get quite a bit like a fly to the sticky paper comes Senator of information out of the witnesses—said a Brown whenever the media is around. But, moment ago, the bills were not exhaustive unusually, Senator Brown was notable for his bills. It is a package of five but there are only absence. There were no representatives of two bills that had an immediate bearing on the Greens there, although they are all par- the matters before the committee. One of ticipating members of the committee. I them was about 19 pages long and the other thought to myself: ‘That’s peculiar. Where was about 12 pages long. It was not evident on earth is Senator Brown? Perhaps he’s to me, I must say, in seeing the line of ques- down in Tasmania pursuing some other tioning pursued by Senator Conroy, Senator Green agenda; perhaps he is in inner city Lundy and Senator Allison, that they were Sydney or inner city Melbourne talking to not across the issues. As I said a moment his constituent groups there. He obviously ago, they did very well. The hearing was a isn’t in Canberra today or he’d be here under thorough hearing, unlike a lot of Senate hear- the glare of the television arc lights.’ ing committees in which one hears unfo- cused stream of consciousness questions Imagine my astonishment when during the from certain senators. Perhaps because of the course of the morning I walked out of the discipline imposed by the brevity of time, the committee room to see none other than Sena- questions were focused and relevant and tor Brown sitting in the couches outside the bore upon the issues before the committee. committee room talking away on his mobile phone. I reported the fact to my friend Sena- This is more than we can say for the Aus- tor Ronaldson, who joined me on the com- tralian Labor Party. When they privatised the mittee. He went for a walk a little bit later, Commonwealth Bank, contrary to an elec- came back and said, ‘It’s funny; I just saw tion commitment, did they have a Senate Bob Brown outside too.’ The Greens were so hearing at all? No, they did not, and the bills concerned about proper legislative scrutiny went through the chamber in one day. When of these bills by the Senate committee that they privatised the Commonwealth Serum Senator Brown could not even bother to walk Laboratories, did they have a Senate commit- 10 feet from the lounges outside the committee hearing? No, they did not. When they tee hearing room into the committee room privatised Qantas, did they have a Senate itself to make one of his usual cameo ap- committee hearing? No, they did not. pearances. So, Senator Milne, do not give us So, Senator Conroy, you did very well for the usual nauseating Greens pieties. Senator yourself on Friday. You took advantage of Brown, do not give us this mock outrage, of the process, which is more than we can say which you are the leading aficionado in this for Senator Brown. It was a full, thorough parliament. You could not even be bothered process that examined a very narrow legisla- to walk 10 feet so that you could participate tive scheme, which has been a matter of pub- in the proceedings of the committee. lic debate in this chamber and in the Austra- lian community now for nine whole years.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 7

Senator FIELDING (Victoria) (12.56 minutes to ask questions of the ACCC. pm)—I rise to talk on this very important Whether you like it or not, a huge proportion issue. The Telstra bills are too important to of the impact of these bills, particularly relat- rush. More time would be prudent at this ing to competition and consumer protection, stage to make sure that full consideration is involves the ACCC. What we also know is given. You think about people buying a that previous legislation by the government house. They spend more time than we have relating to competition and consumer protec- in this Senate looking at Telstra. I do support tion that has been passed by this chamber the issue that is being put forward here. with the support of the crossbench has not Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- worked. That is a prima facie case of why ritory) (12.56 pm)—I note Senator Brandis’s intense scrutiny is required with that one contribution to this debate. He spent three particular witness alone. We need to be able minutes talking about another political party, to explore all of those issues in full, and yet only two minutes on the issue itself and no we were absolutely denied that opportunity. minutes at all on the substance of the prob- The committee hearing was structured in lem we face as a Senate, which is the detail such a way that the chair did try to allocate about these bills. There are several things equal question time to both parties. The bot- wrong with the way the government has tom line was that that resulted in single- handled this, and I think unfortunately it is a figure numbers of minutes at times to actu- sign of the arrogance that will pervade this ally ask questions. As there were many sena- chamber whilst ever the government has tors at the table, I certainly was one who felt complete control. the frustration of not having any time to ask One of the problems, of course, was the the questions that I had prepared, and I know terms of reference and the limitations. This that other colleagues were in the same posi- was not an inquiry that they were prepared to tion. allow on the issue of privatisation. The terms The main issue with these privatisation of reference were limited to the technical bills is that we know it is a complex matter. bills that accompanied the privatisation, and It is flippant and arrogant of the Howard that was done deliberately to obfuscate this government representatives in this place to chamber’s opportunity to explore the full say that there have been a multitude of pre- issue and impact of privatisation. We have vious inquiries and you should know your heard from other senators in this place al- position. That is not true. More than anything ready what devastating impact that has had else, that stands as evidence as to why a on citizens who were wanting and, indeed, comprehensive inquiry is needed. What we needing to express themselves about their need with these five bills because they are views on the privatisation of Telstra. They incredibly complex—they talk about the set- have been specifically denied their democ- ting up of funds, the competition rules, the ratic right to express a view on this issue. technical application of the sale and so The other part of the inquiry that is a farce forth—is the time to go through each of the beyond the terms of reference, as we have issues in as much detail as we feel that we heard, is its timing. It is so short—eight need. Prior to the government taking control hours, as Senator Brandis has pointed out. of the Senate, that is in effect what happened. That meant that several witnesses were very Prior to the government having all power time limited. The opposition had a mere 12 under the sun in this place, the Senate was able to put in place comprehensive inquiries

CHAMBER 8 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 that went for more than one day, a week or Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. even a month; they went for months to make Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. sure that everyone had the democratic right Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. to say their piece, express a view on not just McEwen, A. McLucas, J.E. Milne, C. Moore, C. the technical aspects and the operation of Murray, A.J.M. Nettle, K. funds et cetera but the issue of privatisation O’Brien, K.W.K. Polley, H. itself. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. The government have come in here and Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. arrogantly not even bothered to participate in Webber, R. Wong, P. Wortley, D. this suspension of standing orders debate to allow the reporting times to be extended. We NOES also know that the government have failed Abetz, E. Adams, J. dismally in articulating any reason why they Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. would want to shut it down in this way. Fi- Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. nally, the issue before us is one of needing to Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. extend this inquiry so that people can have Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. the opportunity to express their democratic Ferris, J.M. Fierravanti-Wells, C. views on this matter. The government clearly Fifield, M.P. Heffernan, W. have something to hide, otherwise they Humphries, G. Johnston, D. would not all be sitting across this chamber Joyce, B. Kemp, C.R. Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, I. with smug looks on their faces, thinking that Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. they can use the numbers to ram through this McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. piece of privatisation legislation with no ap- Nash, F. Parry, S. propriate level of scrutiny. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. The PRESIDENT—Order! The time for Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. the debate has expired. Vanstone, A.E. Watson, J.O.W. Question put: PAIRS That the motion (Senator Conroy’s) be agreed Ray, R.F. Eggleston, A. to. Sherry, N.J. Ronaldson, M. The Senate divided. [1.06 pm] * denotes teller (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Question negatived. Calvert) BUSINESS Ayes………… 35 Consideration of Legislation Noes………… 36 Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Majority……… 1 Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (1.10 pm)—At the request of Senator AYES Kemp, I move: Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. (1) That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to Bishop, T.M. Brown, B.J. (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Brown, C.L. Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. Conroy, S.M. following bills, allowing them to be con- Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. sidered during this period of sittings: Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 9

Telecommunications Legislation debate in relation to the five bills. Those Amendment (Future Proofing and senators who will speak today on the Telstra Other Measures) Bill 2005 legislation will have two bills to discuss dur- Telecommunications (Carrier Licence ing the second reading debate. The other Charges) Amendment (Industry Plans three bills are currently being debated in the and Consumer Codes) Bill 2005 House, as I have said. Effectively what that Appropriation (Regional Telecommu- means for those senators who speak prior to nications Services) Bill 2005-2006. that tacking motion is that they can, if they (2) That, after the motion for the second read- choose to do so, make another speech in the ing of the bills listed in paragraph (1) has second reading debate after those bills are been moved, they be taken together for made cognate—in other words, after they their remaining stages with the following have been tacked and brought together. bills: Senator Bartlett—I could speak again. Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005 Senator LUDWIG—Yes, you could Telecommunications Legislation speak again, if you were minded to. I have Amendment (Competition and Con- been outlining the convoluted process that sumer Issues) Bill 2005. this government has adopted in relation to Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (1.10 this debate. The reason it has been a convo- pm)—Of course, again, another procedural luted process is due to the inordinate rush motion has been moved by the government. that the government has sought to impose This motion effectively means an exemption upon the Senate in relation to this legislation. from the cut-off—that is the shorthand way In so doing, it has made a number of trips of saying it. It is also a tacking motion. For along the way: some have meant that the the benefit of the Senate, it might be worth- bills will not all be available for debate and while explaining exactly what this motion some have meant that senators can make does. The government has five Telstra bills another contribution in the second reading in total. Two have currently been introduced debate if they so desire in relation to the re- into the Senate. Three are in the House of maining bills. Representatives and are there for debate to- A far better process would have been the day. To be dealt with by the Senate, of one outlined by Senator Conroy and which course, they have to be introduced into this we moved last week: that all the bills be house, and the government has sought an moved into a committee to report back exemption from the cut-off to ensure that within a very short time. That would provide they can be introduced into this house. That a reasonable ability for the senators on that cut-off is normally given when a bill is de- particular committee to examine the legisla- clared urgent so that the matter can be pro- tion and deal with it. Following that, the ceeded with by the Senate. The cut-off is cognate bills would be introduced into the coupled with a tacking motion. The legisla- Senate for debate. Whatever happens from tion cannot obviously be dealt with because there happens, of course. That would at least it is with the committee at the moment and, allow those senators who participated in the in fact, it is also in the House. When the debate to be aware of what was said in the three bills in the House are available for de- committee inquiry and of the report. If peo- bate in the Senate, they will be tacked onto ple choose to speak early in relation to the the existing two and we will have a cognate Telstra legislation, they will not have the

CHAMBER 10 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 committee report because it is not available agreement, if not with the opposition then at until this afternoon. If they wait to speak least with most of the opposition and the mi- until after the report is available, they will be nor parties. Sometimes the minor parties do able to exercise their right to speak once be- take an opposing view on an urgency motion. cause the bills will then be cognate or tacked That is their right, of course, but in these together. instances the government manages to get Last week this government ensured that most of the chamber to agree on procedures the debate would continue for some time. so it can then proceed. Without substantive consultation and without The government has now indicated that a the agreement of this house, they changed mere majority gives it the right, procedurally, the hours of business so that we will sit late to effect changes with little or no discussion tonight and Tuesday night to allow the de- on how it wishes to proceed with the debate bate to be proceeded with. It is certainly an on any particular bill. The government has issue, as I have said in earlier procedural demonstrated, this week and last week, that it motions, that this government have not been is also prepared to break principles that have able to organise their program well. They been established in this house as to how we have not allowed sufficient time. They have should proceed with these types of bills. For not acceded to our practical request that the what, we might ask. One of the reasons that matter go to a committee and that it be dealt has been suggested in this house is that the with in a sensible way. That would allow for National Party have their conference next witnesses to be able to go to a committee, weekend and we have to finish the debate on submissions to be made, and the committee the Telstra legislation before then. Why, you report to be developed in detail and pre- might ask? Maybe the government knows sented to this house so that the debate could something that we do not. Maybe it knows be properly informed by the committee’s that the National Party are going to play up findings in its report. at their conference. Maybe it knows that the We have also not talked about the convo- National Party are not happy with the coali- luted process that the government has tion, the way this debate is to be proceeded sought to impose upon this house in a rushed with and the way in which the bush is going manner, without any sense of a time line, of to be treated once the sale of Telstra goes proportion or of how this debate should be through. proceeded with in a sensible and logical way. I will not repeat statements made earlier The government has sought to use a blunt by Senator Hill, as it is not my intention to instrument and bludgeon the Senate into the take up the full 20 minutes allowed to me in process which it has designed. From any per- this debate. I have already spoken on many spective, the process which the government of these issues in relation to the exemption has designed and sought to impose upon this from the cut-off for the two bills that were house is illogical. It does not have any co- introduced earlier and I do not intend to re- herency about it and it also fails, in a number peat all of those phrases and terms. But it is of respects, to create situations in which worth while going back to the 1993 debate in people can debate. The government has al- which Senator Hill, the then Leader of the lowed debate on the one bill only twice Opposition in the Senate, said that this rather than allow the ordinary processes to be chamber was constantly frustrated by large adopted in which you would introduce the numbers of bills being introduced at the end bills, cognate them and in most cases get of a session. That is the purpose of the ex-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 11 emption from the cut-off. It is designed to light to work, rather than the 12-hour shifts ensure that at the end of a session we do not they had to work. And, rather than just on have a full list of bills waiting to be gone one day, they would work those hours for through which we have to rush through at the four or five days in a row, depending on the end. nature and requirements of the business. We are now seeing the government using In terms of the adequacy of time, no-one this blunt instrument to ensure that it can could agree that a one-day hearing with very manage its program according to the way it little notice and very little ability for wit- thinks it should be managed. We find that it nesses to be examined was enough. We have is now using an exemption from the cut-off already heard that the ACCC representatives more as a tool in its armoury rather than as a had about 12 minutes to have questions sensible way of managing the program at the asked of them about this issue. If anybody end of a session—and we are a little way out thinks that that is an adequate examination in from the end of this session. In the 1993 de- a committee hearing then I think they need to bate Senator Hill went on to say that it would review the transcript of the proceedings to result in legislation being passed with greater see how little opportunity each senator had to haste than during the early parts of a sitting, examine the issues—even though the hearing leaving inadequate time for proper consulta- did run from 8 am until 5 pm—let alone the tion. In proposing the cut-off in 1993, Sena- inadequacy of the notification and the inade- tor Hill said: quacy of time for submitters to draw up rele- All that is being proposed in this motion today is vant submissions dealing with substantive the setting up of a structure that would enable issues. both houses of this parliament a reasonable time We are talking here about a significant to consider the government’s legislation. sale; we are not talking about a procedural That is what Senator Hill said. I notice that change. The legislation outlines a complex he has not spoken in the debate on exemp- regulatory package providing for the sale of tion from the cut-off, and I enjoin him to $30 billion worth of Commonwealth assets. come and explain to me what has changed That is what the one-day hearing was about. since 1993 in terms of the principles that he One cannot argue that this was more than espoused back then. Has he abandoned those what was provided the last time this matter principles and decided that, for expediency, came before this house. It was a different those principles can be swept under the car- time, but it may also have been the case that pet? That appears to be what Senator Hill is the government did not want a hearing and now a party to. We have a government that is that the opposition at the time—which would intent on concealing and covering up. We have been the Liberal Party—did not ask and have a government that does not want scru- did not remonstrate for a hearing. It may tiny or public examination of the bills. have been agreed by the parties that the mat- We ended up with only one committee ter could proceed. It was an entirely different hearing on the bills. There was a spirited position from what is being confronted to- defence from the coalition against the one- day, when the opposition does think that day committee hearing into the bills, based there is a need for more than simply a one- on the view that 8 am to 5 pm was a long day hearing. day. Some of the workers with whom I was a There is an argument for delaying the union worker would find 8 am to 5 pm a de- committee report, there is an argument for

CHAMBER 12 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 ensuring that the bills are scrutinised prop- in relation to the cut-off motion. The core of erly, and there is an argument for allowing it—as was explained last week and, to some the committee to develop the process further extent, in Senator Ludwig’s contribution—is than it did in the one-day hearing— quite simple but nonetheless extremely im- especially given that Senator Joyce ex- portant: any piece of legislation should be pressed frustration at the hearing that wit- properly scrutinised by the Senate before it is nesses were unable to say, even at that stage, passed into law. whether he should support privatisation. I am Despite all of the political drama sur- sure Senator Joyce can speak for himself, but rounding this issue, all of the political posi- when you examine the reports where he tioning within the coalition, and the manoeu- moved from a green light to a yellow light— vring between Mr Howard and Mr Costello Senator McGauran—Notice the way he for leadership of the Liberal Party, we should voted last time! not forget that, beneath all of that, the core of Senator LUDWIG—I hear the interjec- what we do in this place is to pass legislation, but that was on a procedural motion; it tion. We consider legislation, amend it if was not on the substantive motion of whether necessary, and ensure that bills that become the sale of Telstra should go ahead—and I laws become good laws. This simple stand- remind the Senate that that is not before the ing order is, at its heart, just a mechanism to chair today. These are procedural motions, try to increase the chances of making sure and I have indicated that I am not going to that the Senate actually passes laws that are take up the full time. I am simply explaining good ones rather than bad ones. that the process followed by the government Whilst we exempt legislation from that in this respect is pitiful, woeful and inade- mechanism from time to time, we should quate. never do so lightly, and we certainly should Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (1.24 not do so with crucial pieces of legislation or pm)—It is appropriate to put the Democrats’ with legislation that has, as in this case, ap- view about Senator Ellison’s motion on the peared just in the last few days. It sends a record. As Senator Ludwig has said, this mo- wider message about the approach this gov- tion attempts to exempt three pieces of legis- ernment is taking now that it has control of lation relating to Telstra from the normal the Senate. It is about much more than just process of consideration. It is what is known the sale of Telstra, the wider regulatory re- in the jargon as an ‘exempting from the cut- gime and the funding mechanisms attached. off motion’. Given that Senator Joyce has put It is about how the government approaches the spotlight on Queensland and engendered its responsibility of ensuring the Senate does some latent parochialism in me, it is worth its job of preventing bad laws and its respon- making the point that the cut-off motion was sibility to ensure proper scrutiny of what the the genesis of former Queensland Senator government does. Michael Macklin—my Democrats predeces- The process that we see in this motion sor in this position—back in the 1980s. I am from the government and the actions of the not sure if subverting the cut-off motion government that we saw last week show that makes people anti-Queensland, but if we are not only are they willing to pursue these looking for other issues for Senator Joyce to mechanisms but they do not even bother concern himself with from a Queensland making an attempt to consult in advance. perspective, he could think about the history Even from the point of view of decent man-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 13 agement of time around these issues, the Again, that is possibly no surprise. It is a government could consult with other parties reflection that the government is simply say- in this place and say: ‘This is what we are ing, ‘We’ve got the numbers now and we’ll going to end up doing and this is the time do what we want; we don’t even need to frame we are looking at. How about we bother talking to you and we don’t even need manage things in this way?’ Instead we have to attempt to try to reach agreement, but we had, with no consultation at all, the introduc- will just do what we want and at the end of it tion of bills and then debate starting on them all, if need be, we’ll just guillotine debate straightaway. Even after pledges from the through.’ It probably suits the government Minister for Communications, Information not to have time spent even debating the leg- Technology and the Arts during question islation proper because, the more time that is time that there would be a normal committee spent focusing on the legislation proper, the inquiry into this legislation, we have, with no more obvious its flaws will be. For the same consultation, motions saying that the legisla- reason that it is quite clearly in the govern- tion would be introduced one day, the comment’s interest to prevent a proper Senate mittee hearing would be held the next day, inquiry into it, it is in the government’s inter- and it would be voted on the next week. est to prevent a proper debate on it. It is a ridiculous mechanism to actually You would think that the people who were start debate on the bills before a committee actually in favour of this stuff—the ones who inquiry is held. Apart from anything else, it thought it was good for the country—would is just a waste of the Senate’s time. We all be wanting to get it looked at properly, knew that we were going to have a debate would be wanting to sell the message and this week on this, and we all knew that there would be wanting to hear all the praise from was going to be a Senate inquiry. Why not people saying how good it was. But of get on with other business first and then have course we are getting exactly the opposite. the debate when we need to have it? Instead, Maybe the government are just assuming the government has moved all these proce- that, once it is through, they can do what dural motions to try to subvert the process, they do with every other measure that is con- and then non-government senators are re- troversial: they will just steal the money quired to stand up and express their opposi- from the taxpayers and pay billions of dollars tion to the subversion of the procedural proc- to the media to screen advertisements saying ess in order to make clear just how appalling how wonderful the sale of Telstra is. They the government’s attitude is. know they do not need to bother to win the This would be about the fourth different argument anymore because now they can just procedural debate on different aspects of the dip into the bottomless pit of taxpayers’ Telstra legislation in the last few sitting days money and keep funding advertising to tell that I have participated in. Leaving aside people it is good for them, whether they like actually being able to debate and examine it or not. Undoubtedly we will see some of the legislation, we are having to continually the $2 billion of the supposed future- debate all these procedural motions from the proofing trust fund being used to tell people government that are aimed solely at subvert- how good the Telstra trust fund is. ing the process so that they can rush this I make this important point about the mo- through. We are not even getting to use the tion before us that enables debate to start Senate’s time effectively. straightaway without proper scrutiny. We saw last week that it is not good enough for

CHAMBER 14 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 this government to grab two pieces of legis- the $2 billion trust fund was another sleight lation and push them into debate straight- of hand: the good old ‘up to’ $2 billion trick away; now they want to grab three more that that the government has tried many times were introduced at the same time and mush before—sometimes with success, I might all of them into the same pile as well and sadly say. I emphasise that you could have have all of them pushed through as one great ‘$2’ instead of ‘$2 billion’ and still meet the big unscrutinised mass of legislation. terms of the legislation. When it comes to whether the legislation So that process in itself already pulled out is complex, the issue is not how many pages that one sleight of hand. But how many oth- are in it. We heard Senator Brandis earlier on ers are there that we have not had a chance to today saying: ‘There are only 17 pages in find out about? By allowing these sorts of one of these bills. You can read that pretty motions to pass, you dramatically reduce the quickly. What’s the problem?’ It is not what chances of finding any of the other sleights is in the legislation. Reading it in itself is not of hand and things that are not even deliber- the be-all and end-all; it is what the conse- ate dodgy behaviour, dodgy drafting and de- quences of it will be. If you are amending liberate loopholes but just errors— things like the Trade Practices Act, setting up inadvertent unintended consequences. When a trust fund of money and introducing other you are dealing with the Trade Practices Act, measures and other mechanisms, it is not when you are dealing with areas to do with reading the words on the bit of paper in itself competition and consumer law, it is an area that takes up the time; it is exploring the con- that is complex in its implementation. We sequences of what is in it that takes up the saw that from the ACCC’s evidence last Fri- time. It is the most extraordinary furphy to day. There are still some major gaps there. say, ‘It’s only a short bill, so you don’t need So, by proceeding with the legislation much time to look at it and you don’t need immediately, as is being proposed by the much time to debate it.’ That is typical of the motion the government has put forward, we sorts of continual attempts of the government are basically letting those loopholes, those to totally distract from the real question—to drafting errors, those unintended conse- continually put up all these red herrings. quences, and the vast blank cheque that is It is worth emphasising that, whilst I am still sitting there in terms of all the other sure that there are many conscientious sena- measures the government says it is still going tors amongst us, it is possible that not every to do and has not got around to yet, go single senator will read every single page of through without any proper scrutiny, without every single bill, and possibly not all of us any proper attempt to identify them and will read every single page of the Hansard without any opportunity to seriously get it on from the single day’s hearings. I am sure the record. When the Senate committee re- Senator George Campbell will, because he is port is tabled later this afternoon, we will very conscientious—he reads all these once again have a crucial point in this to date things. I see him all the time, reading very appalling process. conscientiously. But the report of the Senate Most senators will at least read the report. committee inquiry is being tabled later on They rely on others, as we all have to, to do this afternoon. That one-day farcical inquiry some of the work, to distil the key pieces of still did produce some evidence. A question information and to report to the Senate. That from Democrat Senator Lyn Allison pro- is what the process is for. But we will have duced the simple piece of information that

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 15 this process whereby the report comes down government to subvert even the most basic and we are meant to start debate on it attempt at due process by exempting these straightaway, despite all the issues that will other Telstra bills from the normal process of be identified in that report. Senator Joyce scrutiny that is required. One of these bills himself was quoted—in numerous places, I contains the dodgy subterfuge that has been am sure, but there are a couple that I have spoken about regarding the trust fund. Who seen, including the widely read Northern knows what else is hiding in the rest of the Territory News—emphasising that Friday’s legislation? one-day Senate inquiry into the sale bill was It is a clear example of inappropriate inadequate. As he said, the Senate is not do- process and it is a crystal-clear demonstra- ing its job. He said: tion of the complete arrogance of the gov- ... what I am concerned about is doing the job that ernment and their total contempt for proper we were sent down to Canberra to do and you process. It has only been a month since the can’t do that in one day and I’m not going to. Senate sat for the first time following the Unfortunately, Senator Joyce, you are going government gaining control of the Senate. In to; you have allowed it to happen. You, as an that short space of time they have already individual, were in a position to stop it, and shown in a crystal-clear fashion their total you did not. You will have another opportu- disregard for any attempt at due process, any nity this afternoon, when the Senate commit- attempt at reasonable consultation and any tee report is tabled, to fix that mistake and attempt even at giving a pretence of allowing enable a more extended examination of the the Senate to do its job properly. There has legislation to occur. It has been widely fore- been an instant transformation into a giant shadowed that that is going to happen—that rubber stamp—a rubber stamp that is an effort will be made, when the report is wielded instantaneously, with things being tabled, to recognise that the one-day hearing railroaded through without proper scrutiny. was inadequate and that we need a more The rubber stamp is wielded straightaway so comprehensive inquiry. Until that issue is that we can get on to the next thing and get resolved, I think it is completely premature all the difficult issues off the agenda. That is to pass this motion that will allow the debate a totally unacceptable process and it is an to start straightaway without proper exami- extremely sad day for democracy and for the nation of the legislation. Senate. The Democrats will continue to op- Senator Joyce is quoted in the media—I pose these actions every time they occur. presume accurately—as saying that the one- Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (New day hearing was not enough and that the South Wales) (1.40 pm)—I also want to Senate has not been doing its job by allowing speak to this motion which has been identi- that process to occur; that senators have not fied by my colleague Senator Ludwig as an been doing the job that they are sent to Can- exemption from the cut-off for legislation. berra to do and that it is unacceptable, inap- He, along with Senator Bartlett, gave an ex- propriate and inadequate. If he is on the re- planation of its background, so I will not deal cord as saying that, we need to wait and see at any length with the basis upon which the whether his comments will be reflected in exemption from the cut-off was introduced the way he votes later today on the matter of or the purpose for which it is there, other whether to have a proper committee process. than to say that its principal use has been to Until such time as that is made clear, I think ensure that bills before the parliament that it is premature to be once again allowing the are urgent can be dealt with expeditiously

CHAMBER 16 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 and legislation can be enacted in order to senators are going to be given to look at the deal with specific situations. bills that are being introduced today. The One has to say that the proposal that is be- likelihood is that we will probably get back fore us, which seeks to exempt three bills to the debate on the second reading of this that are related to the sale of Telstra from the legislation sometime later on this afternoon. I cut-off, does not meet that criterion in any presume that, because it is a cognate debate, measure. Five bills will be presented to this senators in their speeches in the second read- chamber over the next couple of days, all of ing debate will have to cover all five bills. To which interact with each other and all of some degree they will be lucky because they which go to the sale of Telstra in one form or will be able to refer to all five bills if they another—the sale of an asset worth some $30 have the time and the opportunity to read the billion that belongs to the Commonwealth. detail and content of them. But those sena- This chamber will be asked to pass that leg- tors who have already made their speeches in islation with little or no scrutiny. the debate on the second reading will not have had the opportunity, and will not get the I have been a senator for eight years, and opportunity, to comment about the three bills this is the most disgraceful process I have that are being introduced today. seen in that time. It is the most disgraceful way in which bills have been dealt with on We do not know what the interaction of an issue of major significance to the Austra- those three bills is with the two bills that lian people. Legislation was introduced into have been introduced into the Senate already this chamber last week and was then sent to a and which were the subject of the inquiry on committee on Friday for a one-day hearing. I Friday. At the very least, all five bills should am told that we were allocated something have been subjected to scrutiny by that like 12 minutes to question the ACCC about committee, but they were not. The reality is the impact the legislation would have on the that the government have gone through a regulation of the industry—12 minutes to farcical process. They are not concerned talk about regulation of the dominant com- about whether or not this parliament has ade- pany in our telecommunications industry. quate opportunity to scrutinise the legislation That is an absolute farce. What is worse, this it has before it. They are not concerned about chamber had commenced the second reading ensuring that they get the best public policy, debate on the legislation before the inquiry that they get legislation that has a minimum had taken place. In fact, the second reading of loopholes in it and has been subject to debate commenced as soon as the bills were rigid scrutiny and is, therefore, hopefully the introduced. Senators were forced to stand up best that the parliament can produce. They in this chamber and speak about two bills are not concerned at all. What they are con- which they had not even had the opportunity cerned about is quickly getting a decision in to read, let alone comprehend and under- respect of the selling of Telstra into their stand. The situation is similar with the three back pocket for use in the future. bills referred to in this motion. Everyone in this building knows that, if I understand that when the bills are finally the decision is taken this week to sell the brought before this chamber they will be remaining 51 per cent of Telstra, it will not joined with the other two Telstra bills and go onto the market for some considerable that we will be engaged in a cognate debate time. We are not talking about a decision that on the five bills. I do not know what time will be put into effect once the parliament decides it; the Minister for Finance and Ad-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 17 ministration has already said publicly on a while he is in Canberra; he has been watched number of occasions that there will not be that closely by colleagues in the National any move to sell Telstra until at least 2006. Party who have no concern for regional and The market conditions at the moment for rural Australia in the same way that Senator floating Telstra are appalling. Look at the Joyce has. And they never have had concern. drop in the share price of Telstra. No-one in Senator McGauran on the other side of the their right mind, including this government, chamber thinks regional Australia is just out- would even contemplate floating those side East Melbourne, because that is about as shares on the stock market in the current en- far away as he gets from the centre of Mel- vironment in which we are dealing with this. bourne every weekend when he goes back So the issue of urgency with these bills is a there. But Senator Joyce does have a concern farce. There is no urgency at all in terms of about regional and rural Australia and has having this legislation passed. But we are in been trying to grapple with the implications fact being asked to endorse legislation now of this legislation for that part of our com- to sell our largest asset at sometime in the munity. He has been well and truly watched future and in a set of circumstances which at and frogmarched while he is in Canberra to this point of time are unknown. We are being ensure that he does not get out of step with asked to buy a pig in a poke—or, to put it the rest of The Nationals when it comes to into better terms, we are being asked to set making a decision to sell off this major asset. up the circumstances to sell a pig in a poke. We will have the committee report this af- But we cannot know at this point in time ternoon, and I am sure there will be a debate what the circumstances surrounding Telstra on the committee report. I do not know what will be when it is eventually floated. It is is in it, but we will probably have the debate absurd to have a debate in that type of envi- at around five o’clock and within half an ronment. hour of that report being considered we will The reality is that this is a clear demon- be back into discussing Telstra. No-one in stration of the government’s arrogance of this chamber will have the opportunity to power. They have the numbers, they want to look in detail at the issues that have been sell Telstra and they are going to do it irre- dealt with in that report and the rationale for spective of the logic or the issues that might any outcomes that the committee might have be associated with it. There is one senator on developed out of Friday’s hearing—not that I that side of the chamber that at least is show- expect that there will be that many, given the ing some mettle in terms of his concern circumstances that have led up to this inquiry about the data being right at the end of the being conducted. day: Senator Joyce, who, interestingly As I said initially, I do not want to take the enough, when he left this building and got a full 20 minutes to speak. I do not want to go thousand miles away from Canberra and sat over the areas that Senator Ludwig covered down and had a chance to reflect on the leg- in terms of the background to the exemption islation, changed his mind. He has done it on other than to again say that the way in which the past couple of weekends and he has this whole process of the bills relating to the started to raise some real concerns. But, Telstra sale and the inquiry has been dealt when he gets back here, the heavies come in, with is an absolute disgrace to this govern- sit beside him shoulder to shoulder and hover ment. It should be sheeted home to this gov- over the top of him. He has probably been ernment. It is an abrogation of democracy lucky to be able to go to the toilet by himself

CHAMBER 18 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 and it is another step in limiting the democ- have had to engage in this ridiculous process ratic rights and processes of the Australian over the last few days? parliament. Let us look again at the way this legisla- Senator KIRK (South Australia) (1.53 tion has been dealt with since it was intro- pm)—I rise also this afternoon to speak in duced. The legislation was introduced last relation to this motion. I do not want to re- Thursday, just a few days ago. Then, before peat what has been said by Senator Ludwig we knew it, we found that we had an inquiry, and Senator George Campbell before me, but yet an inquiry that was of merely one day’s I do want to take the opportunity to put on duration. Labor’s view in relation to the leg- the record what other senators have said, islation was that it should be referred to a namely that it is an appalling abuse of proc- Senate committee inquiry but that the com- ess that this government is engaging in in mittee should have a period of just over one relation to the Telstra bills. The debate today month to consider the legislation. Our view is in relation to the bills being exempted was that the committee should have adequate from the cut-off. As Senator Ludwig said, time and be required to report by 10 October. this process is usually only entered into This would have allowed for one month of where the bills that are being debated are inquiry and debate on the legislation. We urgent—bills that urgently need to be passed were only asking for one month. Some peo- through this Senate. Of course we know that ple would say that one month is not nearly the Telstra bills that we are debating this long enough to properly look at the terms of week are not of this character, yet the gov- this complex legislation, to gain the views ernment is making use of this process in or- and opinions of the Australian public and to der to serve its political ends. allow experts in the market and those others As Senator George Campbell said, we in the market who will be affected by the know that this is not urgent. We have heard sale to put their views forward in a full from the Minister for Finance and Admini- sense. stration that the earliest that Telstra shares So what did we get? We got a one-day in- are going to be sold will be next year, 2006. quiry. A number of speakers have mentioned We know that there is no urgency for the this today. We hear that the Senate commit- sale. The share price as it is at the moment is tee sat for a period of eight hours. It was a hardly conducive to the sale of the remaining very long day for some senators. But during shares in Telstra. This is simply not going to this time, as other speakers today have said, happen any time soon. Yet what do we have there were numerous speakers who came happening here in the Senate? We have legis- along—numerous people wished to make lation that will make possible the sale of Tel- submissions in relation to this most impor- stra, which we know is a Commonwealth tant matter—and the time that they had was asset—an asset that belongs to the Australian truncated. They had virtually no time at all to people—valued at some $30 billion. This is get their views across. an enormous asset and an asset which, as I On Friday, executives appeared from Tel- said, belongs to the Australian people. And stra, Optus, AAPT, the National Farmers what do we see here? We see this govern- Federation and the Australian Competition ment trying to push through this legislation and Consumer Commission. All of these so that it has in its hand the ability to sell the witnesses said at the committee that they remaining shares in Telstra when it sees fit. needed more time before they could be sure But what is the urgency? Why is it that we

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 19 of their view in relation to the legislation. Fund will no longer be funded with the pro- Well, that is hardly a surprise, is it? Like us, ceeds from the sale of Telstra? If the $2 bil- they only saw the legislation the day before. lion required for the fund is not coming from They had less than 24 hours to prepare their the proceeds of the sale of Telstra, can the submissions to appear before the Senate finance minister now indicate where this committee and to be able to express their money is coming from, and over what time views to the Senate committee. This is an period? absolute farce; it is a total fraud. Senator MINCHIN—Mr President, wel- All I can say is that this is clearly the way come back. The government’s position in this government thinks is appropriate to deal relation to the Communications Fund is that with bills. There is not a bill that is more this is a very, very important part of the important than this legislation. As I men- package which the government has presented tioned before, this is legislation that is going comprehensively to facilitate the ultimate to affect the sale of an asset worth $30 bil- sale of the government’s remaining shares in lion. If this is the approach that the govern- Telstra. The establishment of the fund, how- ment takes in relation to an asset of this size ever, is not contingent upon the actual sale and of this amount, how is it going to deal occurring but upon passage of sale legisla- with legislation in the future? Is this what we tion. The government will proceed to estab- are going to see from now on? Are we going lish this fund upon passage, regardless of to see legislation introduced on the Thursday when or if the actual sale occurs. and have a one-day inquiry on the Friday for It had been the government’s position that report on the Monday? Not to mention how the fund, which will have a value of $2 bil- this must be affecting those in the secretariat, lion, the earnings of which will be available who I am sure would have had to work all of for investment in regional telecommunica- the weekend just to enable them to complete tions, could be constituted either by cash or the report and have it ready for tabling this by shares, and once the sale bill passes, of afternoon. Mr President, I just wish to say course, then it would be possible. The gov- that if this is democracy under Prime Minis- ernment would then have the authority ter Howard then I do not look forward to the granted to it by parliament to transfer some next three years. of its Telstra shares into such a fund. How- Debate interrupted. ever, as announced by the Prime Minister QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE and Senator Coonan, the government has revised that position, which will be reflected Telstra in amendments to the bill to make it clear Senator SHERRY (2.00 pm)—My ques- that the fund will be constituted by cash and tion is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for not by a transfer of shares. Finance and Administration. I refer the min- The government, as Senator Sherry would ister to press reports this morning where the know, has reserves available to it. It is one of Minister for Communications, Information the fortunate things about this government Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, that, unlike its predecessors, we are able to stated that the proposed Communications run surpluses. We do not run deficit budgets Fund will be funded, started up, with $2 bil- and the government has available to it re- lion in cash as soon as possible. Can the min- serves which are available to be transferred ister confirm that the government has now into the Communications Fund. We have reversed its policy that the Communications

CHAMBER 20 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 made it clear that that is how the Future Fund answer, over what time period these so- will operate. We have already said that it is called reserves—the budget surplus—will be the government’s intention, subject to the transferred over. passage of legislation relating to the Future The PRESIDENT—There is no point of Fund, that we would transfer approximately order. You know that I cannot instruct a min- $16 billion from our reserves into the Future ister how to answer questions. I would just Fund. The Communications Fund would op- remind the minister that there are 20 seconds erate in a similar fashion. left. Senator SHERRY—Mr President, I ask a Senator MINCHIN—Senator Sherry is a supplementary question. I thank the Minister very impatient young man, isn’t he? for outlining the government’s latest revised Senator Sherry—Twenty seconds; we’ve position on the financing of the Future Fund. been pretty damned patient. Is it not correct that these reserves the minister has just referred to are in fact the budget Senator MINCHIN—I have 20 seconds surplus? The only place the $2 billion can be to say to you that, as soon as this has execu- obtained from is from the existing budget tive approval, the Governor-General’s ap- surplus. Can the minister confirm that? And proval in Council, we will then be in a posi- can he confirm—he did not answer one part tion to transfer the funds to the Communica- of my question—over what time period the tions Fund, and I would imagine that that moneys will be transferred into the fund would be immediate. from the budget surplus? And is this not just Workplace Relations another example of policy on the run—the Senator CHAPMAN (2.05 pm)—I direct minister has admitted it is significantly re- my question to the Special Minister of State vised policy—and an example of the gov- as the Senate representative of the Minister ernment’s gross incompetence surrounding for Employment and Workplace Relations. the sale of Telstra? Will the minister outline to the Senate the Senator MINCHIN—No, it is nothing of benefits that reforming Australia’s overly the sort. We had said that the government complicated industrial relations system will would make a decision about a mix of shares bring to Australian workers and their fami- and/or cash into the Communications Fund. lies? Has the government considered any Now, for the purposes of facilitating the pas- alternative policies? sage of the bill, we are very happy to bring Senator ABETZ—I thank Senator forward that decision and to make the deci- Chapman for his question and also acknowl- sion that it will be cash. Because the gov- edge his longstanding interest in reforming ernment has been running surplus budgets, the overcomplicated Australian workplace despite the attempts of those opposite to pre- relations system. The most significant bene- vent that occurring, we have, I think, some fits to Australian workers and their families $25 billion in reserves at the Reserve Bank. of reforming our overly complicated indus- We have a savings account. Now that money trial relations system will be more jobs and can be transferred into the Communications higher wages. There is another significant Fund. benefit in improving the industrial relations Senator Sherry—Mr President, I rise on system. That is allowing Australian workers a point of order going to relevance. The min- to actually understand and have an input into ister has not yet explained, or bothered to their own working conditions. I have here a

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 21 copy of the National Building and Construc- order to ensure that he is in receipt of his tion Industry Award. It is only 677 pages and entitlements. only weighs three-and-a-half kilograms. We as a government want to simplify the Now let us see, for example— Australian workplace agreements. Let us Senator Sherry—I hope you’ve read it! have another ‘who said it’. For all the oppo- Senator ABETZ—Yes, I have read parts sition’s interjections, I wonder who said this: of it, Senator Sherry, and an interesting Labor is absolutely not opposing managers hav- part— ing the prerogative to organise workplace practices and decide how the job gets done. The PRESIDENT—Order! Minister, ignore the interjections and address your re- Who said that? marks to the chair. Senator Forshaw—Phone a friend! Senator ABETZ—An interesting part Senator ABETZ—Senator Forshaw says, that I want to draw the Senate’s attention to ‘Phone a friend.’ In fact, it was his own party is the full page devoted to the definition of a leader, Mr Beazley, talking to the American painter. How is this for exactitude? Chamber of Commerce. What it shows is Painter means an employee engaged in any that Labor know what the problem is. They manner whatsoever in: know what needs to be done, but they do not ... painting and/or decorating ... commercial, resi- have the backbone to fix it. We are commit- dential, industrial or otherwise ... ted to making it simpler for Australian work- ‘Or otherwise’; then, without limiting the ers so we can have more jobs and higher generality of the foregoing, wages. ... the work of painters includes: Senator Chris Evans—Mr President, on a point of order: I ask that you invite the ... the mixing of and/or application of and/or fixing of paint or like matter or substitute or mix- minister to table the documents he referred to tures or compositions or compounds texture or in answering that question. plastic coating and finishes or other decorative or Senator ABETZ—I am not sure the table protective coating and/or finishes, or putty, stop- over there would be strong enough. ping or caulking mixtures, compositions or compounds, oils, varnishes— The PRESIDENT—The minister is not tabling the document. et cetera. And, just in case none of those are included, it specifies ‘and/or other materials’. Senator Chris Evans—How do you as- Now that is the sort of exactitude you get sume that, Mr President? He did not answer after 677 pages. the question. Will the minister table the AWA and the award that he quoted from? I doubt that any painter in Australia, let alone the trade union officials opposite, The PRESIDENT—He has indicated that would have actually read this document and he will not. understood it. In contrast to the 677-page Telstra document, I have in front of me a very sim- Senator CONROY (2.10 pm)—My ques- ple 16-page AWA for the construction indus- tion is to Senator Coonan. try. It is a framework that is easily under- Honourable senators interjecting— standable. That is what the average Austra- lian worker will be able to read, will be able Senator CONROY—I cannot hear for to comprehend and will be able to refer to in Senator Abetz.

CHAMBER 22 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

The PRESIDENT—There are interjec- increase in the fee pool would also more tions on both sides. I ask the chamber to closely align the board’s remuneration with come to order so that we can hear Senator market comparisons. In that context, I also Conroy’s question. note that it has been two years since a mod- Senator CONROY—Is the minister est 15 per cent increase in the fee pool was aware that, under the Corporations Act, com- agreed to at Telstra’s 2003 AGM. There have panies are required to put their remuneration been no other increases since 1999. The pro- reports, which include performance hurdles, posed increase would also provide for addi- termination payments and the salaries of the tional directors to be appointed to the Telstra top 10 executives, to a shareholder vote at board in the future. their annual meeting? Is the minister also With regard to the government’s voting in- aware that the Prime Minister has described tentions, the government will be supporting the behaviour of the current Telstra manage- the non-binding resolution that will be ment as a disgrace? As joint shareholder moved at the annual general meeting seeking minister for Telstra, can the minister inform endorsement of the remuneration paid to Tel- the Senate whether, given the government’s stra directors and senior executives in the displeasure with the performance of the Tel- previous financial year. The government stra management, it intends to vote against takes the view that the question of the CEO’s the multimillion-dollar packages awarded to remuneration is something for the board to Telstra’s new management team at the annual determine and it is certainly not something general meeting in October? that the government interferes in. Of course, Senator COONAN—I thank Senator we do not know what the Labor Party would Conroy for his question. I think it was a few do about any of these matters. In August, days ago that the Prime Minister said that the Senator Conroy described Mr Trujillo as ‘un- government retains confidence in the board. trustworthy’, as ‘a dinosaur’ and said that he In fact, that probably ought to answer the should stop talking. A month later, he and Mr whole question. However, in response more Beazley were, for their own opportunistic broadly to Senator Conroy’s question, there reasons, praising Mr Trujillo as an honest is an implication as to whether or not the whistleblower. What position does Labor government will be supporting the increase maintain? As usual, Labor tries to walk both in the Telstra directors’ fee pool, for instance. sides of the fence. At the same time, the real The government will be supporting the pro- telecommunications spokesman, Mr Tanner, posal to increase the directors’ fee pool at the was accusing Mr Trujillo of being a typical annual general meeting in October. new CEO talking down the company circumstances and accused him of gilding the As Telstra has made clear, the bulk of the lily. The government’s position and voting proposed increase of $680,000 is due to the intentions on this are quite clear: we will be board’s decision to increase separate retire- supporting the proposals. ment benefits for directors. These retirement benefits are currently outside the fee pool Senator CONROY—Mr President, I ask and, in the 2004-05 year, totalled about a supplementary question. After reading the $550,000. The inclusion of these benefits in completely wrong brief for the question, I the fee pool would make the board’s remu- was wondering if the minister can confirm neration more transparent and in fact align it that, according to Telstra’s remuneration re- with the ASX guidance. The balance of the port, its CEO, Mr Trujillo, is entitled to a termination payment of at least $6 million if

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 23 he is fired before July 2006. Is the Howard protect our fish stocks; then we want to man- government so desperate to stop Sol Trujillo age a very special and sensitive marine eco- from telling the truth about Telstra that it system; we take quarantine very seriously; would support a payment of $6 million just and, of course, the broader border protection to have him sacked and get rid of him? issue is one that the Howard government is Senator COONAN—This is the man that very strong on. The Australian government Senator Conroy now thinks is extremely has been active on two fronts combating ille- trustworthy, having called him a dinosaur gal fishing—in the northern area, around previously. The matter of remuneration is Darwin and across the top of Australia and, clearly a matter for the board. The Labor on the southern front, in the Southern Ocean Party wants to sit in on these kinds of deci- around Heard and McDonald Islands and sions; it would like to be looking over the around Macquarie Island. Our Navy, our shoulder of every corporate AGM, trying to Customs, our Fisheries officers, our quaran- get a view as to what the Labor Party should tine officers and our immigration officers do do. The Labor Party should stick to branch- a fantastic job in the way they help to protect stacking, something it might know about. Australia’s sovereignty. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Indicative of the international leadership position on illegal fishing is the Howard The PRESIDENT—Order! I would like government’s five-year commitment of al- to draw the attention of honourable senators most $220 million to the Southern Ocean to the presence in the President’s gallery of a patrols. We have taken a very tough stance in delegation from the parliament of Ghana. On the Southern Ocean against patagonian behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm toothfish pirates, and that was highlighted by welcome to Australia and in particular to the the 21-day chase of the Viarsa. I am pleased Senate. to announce along with Senator Ellison that Honourable senators—Hear, hear! just last week the Australian patrol vessel QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Oceanic Viking came into contact with a ves- Illegal Fishing sel flagged to Cambodia, the Taruman, sus- pected of illegally fishing in Australian wa- Senator SCULLION (2.15 pm)—My ters around Macquarie Island, and that vessel question is to the Minister for Fisheries, For- has now been escorted into Hobart where estry and Conservation, Senator Ian Mac- further investigations can be undertaken. We donald. Will the minister update the Senate are particularly grateful to the government of on how the government’s substantial alloca- Cambodia for the cooperative way in which tion of resources to combat illegal fishing in they approached this matter; they in fact Australia’s northern waters and Southern gave us permission to board that vessel on Ocean is paying dividends? Is the minister the high seas. This is the first boarding that aware of any alternative policies? the Oceanic Viking has undertaken and the Senator IAN MACDONALD—The Aus- first time in many years that there has been tralian government takes a very hard line on any boarding on the high seas. Investigations illegal fishing in our exclusive economic are continuing and, if offences are proved, zone. Senator Scullion, as one who well un- charges will be laid later. derstands matters marine and fishing, real- I might add—and Senator Scullion will ises that there are four reasons for the very understand this well—that our officers strong line we take. First of all, we want to boarded that vessel in difficult conditions

CHAMBER 24 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 and, not long after they were on board, the nications regulatory package, the launch of sea state blew up to sea state 5. For those the ASIC investigation into Telstra, Telstra’s who know, those are very rough conditions, share price plummeting to $4.35 and Telstra and it shows the great job that our officers ruling out undertaking a share buyback to do. In the north so far this year there have support the sale process? Given recent de- been 127 arrests of vessels and 196 legisla- velopments, can the minister inform the Sen- tive forfeitures. The patrolling is by our eight ate whether the government will now have to Bay class vessels from Customs, our 15 undertake a second scoping study to facili- Coastwatch aircraft and our naval vessels, tate the sale? varying in number from time to time. We Senator MINCHIN—I cannot confirm spend a lot of money on protecting our re- the exact amount, but the figure Senator sources and we intend to continue to do so. Hogg used sounds approximately right for There is a lot of diplomatic work happening the fees that were paid for the conduct of the as well. scoping study. But I am happy to confirm the I am asked about alternative approaches. exact figure. The government was very up- The Labor Party have had five different ap- front in its position on this. Yes, we did do a proaches to illegal fishing and border protec- comprehensive scoping study. I am happy in tion since I have been minister. Over the this chamber to formally commend those same time, they have had five different responsible for the scoping study on its ex- groups of shadow ministers. Senator O’Brien cellence. It was an outstanding scoping has figured in a couple of them, but their study. It was deliberately designed and timed shadow ministers keep changing as much as to inform the government in the framing of their policies do. I have no idea what they the relevant sale legislation. stand for. Mr Beazley has been leader now It was very important that we had expert for something like 10 years, I think, and we advice on the important provisions in the sale still do not know what his policies are on this bill to ensure that the government had the particular matter or indeed on any other mat- requisite flexibility—if I speak too slowly ter. It is quite clear, however, that the How- for Senator Conroy, I am sorry, but I want to ard government is absolutely determined to make sure that Senator Conroy understands protect our borders and our fish stocks and every word I say; if I speak too fast he will will continue to do that in the years ahead. miss it—to structure the sale in order to Telstra maximise the government’s opportunity to Senator HOGG (2.20 pm)—My question rid itself of ownership of this company. This is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Fi- is something which the government, of nance and Administration. I refer the minis- course, has had as policy for the whole time ter to the Telstra sale shambles. Can the min- that it has been in office. It has been clear ister confirm that, earlier this year, the gov- government policy. We very strongly believe ernment paid UBS, Caliburn Partnership, that it is quite wrong and nonsensical for the Gavin Anderson, and Freehills $2.5 million government to own 51 per cent of Australia’s to conduct a scoping study into the govern- biggest domestic company. ment’s plans to sell Telstra? Can the minister So the scoping study was critical in terms confirm that study occurred before the com- of its timing. It was critical in informing the pletion of Sol Trujillo’s operational review, government how best to structure the sale the release of the government’s telecommu- bill to ensure that we had the requisite flexi-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 25 bility. It has been an invaluable scoping payers $54 billion. By their cynical oppor- study. We have said that, if the parliament tunistic blocking of the full sale of Telstra in does pass the sale legislation, we will then 1999, the ALP has cost Australians $54 bil- move to the appointment of joint global co- lion. That is the scandal. ordinators, who will then give us specific Family Law Reform advice. The first such advice would be, of Senator HUMPHRIES (2.25 pm)—My course, a report to us in the first quarter of question is to the Minister for Family and next year as to whether a sale is achievable Community Services and the Minister Assist- in the calendar year 2006, which I have said ing the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues, is the window of opportunity the government Senator Patterson. Will the minister inform has remaining to it in this term of office. the Senate how the Howard government is So that is the clear timetable. The scoping looking after the best interests of children in study was a very good investment by the separating families? government with a view to removing our- Senator PATTERSON—I thank Senator selves from the share register, which I think Humphries for his question. The Australian is critically important to the future of Telstra government realises and recognises the im- itself. As I said before, what is terribly dis- pact of family breakdown on hundreds of appointing is the way in which the Labor thousands of children each and every year, Party continues to cynically use Telstra as a and not only the impact on the children but political football in this country. Telstra is a the impact on the community as a whole. I vitally important corporation to this country. am extremely concerned to find that in a re- There are thousands of men and women who cent Australian Institute of Family Studies work in it every day doing their best to pro- publication it was reported that over a quar- vide Australians with telecommunications, ter of non-resident parents have little or no and they are being rubbished every day by contact with their children. There may be those opposite. It is a disgrace. They say they significant issues in some cases preventing stand up for the workers. The workers at Tel- this contact but I am still concerned that the stra are ashamed of what you do every day, figure is far too high. The Howard govern- trashing their company. This is a great Aus- ment is committed to tackling this difficult tralian company and it about time you woke issue to ensure that the best possible out- up and stood up for the workers of Telstra. comes are achieved for children, and the best Senator HOGG—Mr President, I ask a outcome for a child is to have contact with supplementary question. Given that the gov- both parents, if at all possible. That is why ernment’s haste has already resulted in the we are a introducing the most comprehensive waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ reforms to the family law system for the last money on a useless scoping study, does it 30 years. now recognise that it needs to allow more Every picture tells a story, a report of the time for the consideration of the issues sur- Joint Standing Committee on Family and rounding the sale? Does the government ac- Community Affairs on the inquiry into child cept that trying to rush this process will in- custody arrangements in the event of family evitably result in more mismanagement and separation, highlighted the need for reform. incompetence? In this year’s budget, we announced a $397 Senator MINCHIN—What is scandalous million investment in the family law system. is the fact the ALP has cost Australian tax- The centrepiece of the package is the estab-

CHAMBER 26 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 lishment of 65 family relationship centres. In evaluation of the cost of children bench- July this year, the Attorney-General an- marked against international studies. nounced sites for the first 15 of these. The I would like to acknowledge that the re- family relationship centres will provide a port received broad public support. I would doorway to people seeking to strengthen like to thank Professor Parkinson for his family relationships and prevent separation dedication and professionalism. The gov- and will assist parents to resolve conflict ernment is currently considering the complex after separation. We are also expanding me- and interrelated recommendations of the re- diation and contact order programs to assist port. Any changes to the child support sys- highly conflicted parents so that children tem must, as I said before, be in the best in- maintain relationships with both their par- terests of the children. Through our family ents. Let me just say here that the whole fo- law reforms, this government is helping cus of the reforms is about children. separating families ensure that the best pos- The package also recognises that some sible outcomes are achieved for children. families need extra help to stay together. Federal Election Pamphlet Therefore, the government is significantly Senator BOB BROWN (2.29 pm)—My expanding early intervention services, in- question is to the Special Minister of State. cluding up to 40 new premarriage and family Will the minister investigate a pamphlet relationship education centres, 35 relation- headed ‘Keep Howard in Bennelong: what ship counselling and skills services to assist John Howard promises, he delivers’—and people achieve and sustain relationships, and the first item is lower interest rates, believe it 45 men and family relationship services to or not—that was circulated in Bennelong help men manage relationship difficulties during the last election campaign and had an with partners and children. authorisation from an address of MET Every pictures tells a story also high- School, 32 See Street, Meadowbank by S. lighted community concerns regarding the Hale? Would he investigate whether that is child support scheme. A recent study by the an Exclusive Brethren church, whether it is Australian Institute of Family Studies found funded by taxpayers and whether any tax- that almost two-thirds of separated fathers payers’ money directly or indirectly found its and half of separated mothers felt the current way to supporting the Prime Minister’s cam- scheme was not working well. Similar pro- paign? I also ask the minister: will he estab- portions of separated mothers and fathers lish whether the Prime Minister met with Mr also felt that the system was unfair. In re- Bruce Hales, the world leader of the Exclu- sponse, this government established a minis- sive Brethren church, which advocates that terial task force, chaired by Professor Patrick people should not vote? Parkinson, to examine the child support for- Senator ABETZ—I think we have just mula. The task force was aided by a refer- witnessed for all to see the extent of toler- ence group made up of representatives from ance in the Green dictionary. Tolerance is advocacy groups of payers and payees, and only meant for those that actually agree with professionals with experience in parenting the Greens. If you happen to pursue a differ- after separation, relationship mediation and ent ideology or a different religion such as social policy. Professor Parkinson has deliv- the Exclusive Brethren, you are then to be ered to government a detailed set of recom- pilloried in this chamber by the likes of mendations based on a comprehensive Senator Bob Brown. The sort of tolerance

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 27 that the Greens preach has just been exposed of it nothing has been disclosed in the bro- once and for all by Senator Bob Brown by chure that might somehow be in breach of that stunt. In relation to the brochure, if it the law. made the claim that Mr Howard has been I think most senators would be aware that responsible for low interest rates and if the the Exclusive Brethren hold to a view that brochure was produced by the Exclusive they do not vote, and that is their religious Brethren, can I say the Exclusive Brethren view. They have certain other religious views were spot on. They were absolutely right, with which, I respectfully say to them, I do and the vast majority of Australians fully not agree. I understand the Jehovah’s Wit- accept that because of the stewardship of this nesses similarly take a view that they should country’s finances we do have lower interest not be engaged in worldly activities. That is rates. The person who presides over all of why Exclusive Brethren do not belong to any that, apart from the Treasurer, is of course worldly organisation, as they put it, and that the Prime Minister. That is why the Prime is a view that one would have thought those Minister does deserve credit for the low in- that preach tolerance, like Senator Brown, terest rates. might be willing to accept and respect. Even It is within the province of every individ- if you do not agree with them, at least accept ual citizen of Australia to make a complaint it and respect it. I hope Senator Brown does to the Australian Electoral Commission if ask me a supplementary question, because they believe that a document may somehow undoubtedly that will give us a further in- breach the Commonwealth Electoral Act. sight into the Greens’ approach. (Time ex- Nothing that Senator Brown has disclosed in pired) his question would suggest that there has Senator BOB BROWN—Mr President, I been any breach whatsoever of the Com- ask a supplementary question. Was Mr Bruce monwealth Electoral Act, so why on earth Hales, who may or may not have met the would I seek to refer that brochure 10 Prime Minister and who heads up this months or so after the event— church, associated with the authorising of Senator Barnett interjecting— that leaflet in John Howard’s electorate? Is it Senator ABETZ—Thank you for that, the same Bruce Hales who orchestrated Senator Barnett—when it is so patently $500,000 to support the campaign of George truthful when it talks about the low interest Bush last year and is that the same Exclusive environment that we enjoy in this country? It Brethren church which now in an interna- might surprise Senator Brown but it also tional conspiracy— gives us an insight into Senator Brown. I do Government senators interjecting— not go around as Special Minister of State The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on trying to track down everybody that happens my right will come to order. to authorise political material. The sugges- Senator BOB BROWN—and a shadowy tion that I, as Special Minister of State, conspiracy have turned up in New Zealand should undertake such an activity shows yet with a $500,000 campaign against Labour again the sort of Stalinist approach that could and the Greens using brochures with the ex- well be taken by the Greens if they ever got act same template as those that were used in the numbers in this place. That is the sort of Tasmania during the last election campaign behaviour that you would expect from a to- and supporting Mr Brash, the leader of Na- talitarian regime, especially when on the face tional, who at first lied about the existence of

CHAMBER 28 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 this support but then had to back down? in both the Pacific and South-East Asia. We (Time expired) have also been working at home. In 2003, Senator ABETZ—I thought Pauline Han- FATF, the financial action task force, which son’s bid to get into the Senate had been is the leading international group in relation thwarted but instead of wearing a dress she to the fight against money laundering, issued now seems to be wearing a suit, because the 40 recommendations. We set about imple- talk of international conspiracies was exactly menting these recommendations and work- the sort of talk that One Nation used to en- ing with industry. This year, FATF finalised a gage in. Isn’t it strange that the political further nine recommendations which went to spectrum seems to be a circle where the ex- terrorist financing. We have been working treme Right meets with the extreme Left and with the financial sector in particular in rela- you really cannot tell much difference be- tion to the implementation of these recom- tween One Nation and the Australian mendations. Greens? If we are onto international con- I can report to the Senate that just last spiracies, the Australian Greens might like to week I held the fourth in a series of roundta- explain to the Australian people whether they ble meetings with the financial sector. I am had ever benefited from international funds happy to say that we agreed on a way for- coming to the Australian Greens, in particu- ward and that we should have an exposure lar from the Swedish Greens, from a country draft bill. We agreed on basic principles in where there are no disclosure laws for politi- relation to the fight against money launder- cal donations. So Senator Brown might like ing. In approaching this, we realise that, if to explain that to the Australian people be- this is to succeed, we need the cooperation of fore he makes these ridiculous assertions the financial sector of Australia. I want to about people that are genuinely Christian acknowledge the constructive assistance that Australian citizens. (Time expired) we have had from that sector. Mr Tony Money Laundering Burke, a director of the Australian Bankers Association, has co-chaired these meetings Senator FERGUSON (2.37 pm)—My with me. question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison. Will the minister In relation to the package as a whole, it update the Senate on measures being taken will require us for the first time to look at by the Australian government to address the lawyers, accountants, real estate agents and global problem of money laundering and jewellers—they are all included. We have terrorist financing? been looking at the experience gained in the United States, the United Kingdom and Can- Senator ELLISON—I thank Senator ada and they too are on the same path of im- Ferguson for what is a very important ques- plementation that we are. We have decided to tion in today’s environment. Australia has a do it on a phased basis; that we will look at very good name internationally in the war the financial sector first and then move on to that we wage against money laundering—in those other sectors after that. That is an ap- particular, our international efforts are rec- proach which is not out of sync with what is ognised. We are a founding member of the being done by our counterparts overseas. Asia-Pacific Group on Money Laundering. In fact, we have been working in the region What is important out of the series of to set up financial intelligence units which roundtable meetings that we have held is that can tackle money laundering in our region— we now have a basic in-principle agreement

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 29 to move forward. AUSTRAC will play a key rol prices is directly related to the price of role in relation to the implementation of this oil. It is a world-traded commodity and we, new regime. We realise that it will be com- like everyone else in the world, pay a world prehensive. It will cover a wide range of ac- price for oil. In this case, unlike other epi- tivities and there will be time needed for sodes of high oil prices, the high prices consideration of this exposure draft and for largely result from excessive demand rather implementation. There will be rules and than particular restrictions on supply, and guidelines which will be put in place in con- China’s enormous growth has been a real sultation with industry. But we are not going driver of the rise in world oil prices. That has to over-regulate so that we strangulate and been compounded, of course, of late by hur- emasculate the financial sector of Australia, ricane Katrina, which has badly affected re- because that would not achieve our objective fining capacity in the United States. That has and, of course, would result in over- restricted supply and therefore put up general regulation. We are willing to work with the refining prices around the world. We are oil financial sector to achieve Australia’s obliga- price takers in the case of petrol prices. tions, and we will do just that. Internation- While the government does have consider- ally, Australia can stand very tall in the fight able sympathy for ordinary Australian fami- against money laundering, and we do that lies in relation to what is for many a basic through a number of different things we have necessity, there is really nothing that any- done in the South-East Asian region, the Pa- body can do about that in the current circum- cific region and, more importantly, in a stances. global context, in the fight against money In relation to the question of the role of laundering. the ACCC, under our Trade Practices Act the Fuel Prices role of the ACCC is to monitor, expose and Senator CROSSIN (2.41 pm)—My ques- act upon any activity which is monopolistic, tion is to Senator Minchin, the Minister for profiteering, exploitative or manipulative. I Finance and Administration. Is the minister am advised that the ACCC is constantly aware of reports suggesting that profiteering monitoring petrol, diesel and auto LPG by oil companies has contributed to the sharp prices around the country. Where there is jump in petrol prices over the last few weeks evidence of any collusion or anti-competitive and that retail prices have increased before behaviour, the ACCC has acted and will act the increased cost of crude oil prices has against that behaviour. It did most recently flowed through? Has the government sought act against price fixing in Ballarat in Victoria an ACCC investigation to determine the ex- and the Federal Court imposed a fine of $23 tent to which this practice is occurring? If million in that particular case. not, why not? Indeed, if particular evidence were Senator MINCHIN—I am surprised it brought to the government’s attention of any has taken this long for a question on petrol such activity, we would immediately refer it prices, but I do acknowledge and the gov- to the ACCC. If the opposition has such evi- ernment acknowledges the level of commu- dence, we would be happy to receive it and nity concern about petrol prices. No-one happy to refer it to the ACCC. I am not likes petrol prices being as high as they are. aware of the government having been given As anyone in this chamber, I think, would any such specific evidence, but it is certainly rightly acknowledge, the reason for high pet- a very easy political jibe to immediately assume that retailers, wholesalers or refiners of

CHAMBER 30 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 petrol are profiteering. I think that is unfair Senator MINCHIN—As other members in the absence of real evidence to that effect. of the government have said repeatedly, this But if there is such evidence, we would be government is very proud of its record on happy to receive it. I am sure Graeme Sam- taxation. We have endeavoured at every op- uel would be happy to receive it, and the portunity to reduce the tax burden on Austra- ACCC has a strong record of acting in this lians, but we have consistently said that the area, as I just cited. country’s options in relation to taxation are a Senator CROSSIN—Mr President, I ask function and a derivative of ensuring respon- a supplementary question. My question did sible fiscal management, of ensuring that not go to price fixing; it went to the question while the economy is growing we are proof retail prices increasing well before the ducing surpluses, and of ensuring that we cost of crude oil has flowed through. Has the have a tax system which generates the reve- government seen last week’s comments by nue needed to ensure that we meet all those the Chairman of the ACCC, Mr Graeme services and functions which are expected of Samuel, that referred to a significant increase the government—and they are never ending. in margins by oil companies? Why hasn’t the The demands from this chamber itself for government taken any action to protect the more and more government spending are Australian public from being ripped off at never ending. This chamber has opposed on the petrol pump? any number of occasions government proposals to restrain the growth in government Senator MINCHIN—Frankly, I regard spending, and therefore restricted, by the that as an irresponsible aspersion upon peo- actions in this chamber, the government’s ple in the retailing of petrol. To just come in capacity to reduce the tax burden on Austra- here and slander everybody who is involved lians. in the petrol-retailing business is very unfair and unfortunate. If you have any evidence of Frankly, the hypocrisy that emerges from such activity, the opposition should take it to other parties on this question in saying, the ACCC and they will act upon it. ‘Don’t you dare suggest that we should do anything to restrain the growth in govern- Structural Taxation Reform ment programs—and, by the way, we want Senator MURRAY (2.45 pm)—My ques- you to cut tax substantially,’ is just nonsensi- tion is to Senator Minchin, the Minister rep- cal and is what leads, in some countries and resenting the Treasurer. Minister, are you under previous administrations, to massive aware that last week the Labor Party, the budget deficits. This government puts a pri- Democrats and the Greens supported—and mary focus on responsible management and the coalition opposed—a motion calling on delivering strong fiscal outcomes, and that the government to produce a white paper on task is going to become increasingly burden- structural tax reform that would outline de- some on this country, as anyone who has tailed tax reform proposals or alternatives? read the Intergenerational report will realise. In view of the approach that has been made It is going to become increasingly difficult to by the Premier of Victoria, Mr Bracks, in ensure that we do balance our budgets and calling for structural tax reform, and in view pay for the services which the community of the national debate well under way, will expects, given the ageing of the population. the government reconsider its opposition to We are very conscious of the desirabil- providing Australia with detailed tax reform ity—and this is a fundamental tenet of our proposals and alternatives in a white paper? parties—of keeping the tax burden on ordi-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 31 nary Australians to the bare minimum but many contributions to make on the tax re- commensurate with those other responsibili- form debate, and it is the job of government ties. I remind the Senate that the very first to corral all those together and to come back bill passed by this new Senate was the bill to with a considered structural tax reform give effect to the government’s $22 billion in view—not the bit-by-bit approach it has been income tax cuts over the next four years— taking to date? something that those opposite strongly op- Senator MINCHIN—We did respond, I posed all the way through and that was only think, to each of those items in the course of possible because the Australian people gave the debate on the recent tax changes in which this coalition a majority in the Senate at the Senator Murray, for example, advocated a last federal election. Our record on keeping substantial increase in the tax-free threshold, taxes to a minimum is a proud one, and we to which my response was to point out the will endeavour at every opportunity in the cost of such a proposal. The government, in normal budgetary process to look for oppor- the course of its annual budget process, ac- tunities to reduce the burden of taxation. tively seeks and receives from many interests As to this proposition that there should be in the community submissions in relation to wholesale tax reform, we are a government both expenditure and revenue. In every an- that has brought about the biggest tax reform nual budget process there is government con- in this country’s history through the ANTS sideration of all the proposals put to us by all package, which was also violently opposed interests in the community about its revenue by the Labor Party. It was the most signifi- and expenditure. If Senator Murray or the cant structural reform of our tax system. Democrats wish to put a comprehensive pro- Wider reform inevitably involves, particu- posal to us in the course of the annual budget larly if it involves reductions in the tax bur- round, they are welcome to. den, facing up to the question of what ex- Private Health Insurance penditures you are going to cut. You cannot Senator McLUCAS (2.51 pm)—My deal with the issue of tax reform—that is, tax question is to Senator Patterson, the Minister reduction—without addressing the expendi- representing the Minister for Health and ture side of the ledger. I have seen no pro- Ageing. Is the minister aware of proposals to posals from any other party for substantial offer no-claim bonuses to young Australians cuts in expenditure which would pave the to encourage them to maintain their private way for substantial cuts in taxation. health insurance? Won’t a side effect of in- Senator MURRAY—Mr President, I ask troducing a no-claim bonus system be that a supplementary question. I thank the minis- young Australians will simply use public ter for his answer. Why will the government hospitals, even if they do have private cover, not respond in detail to whether the tax-free in order to maintain their no-claim bonus? threshold should be raised considerably, Instead of addressing the fact that nearly whether the tax rates should be indexed, how 50,000 Australians under the age of 55 the base should be broadened, how the tax dropped out of private health insurance last and welfare intersects should be reformed year, won’t a no-claim bonus system simply and, only after all that, address where the tax put more pressure on the public hospital sys- rates and top thresholds should apply? Why tem? Can the minister now indicate whether does the minister and the government not the government will support the introduction recognise that parties around this chamber and persons throughout the community have

CHAMBER 32 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 of a no-claim bonus for private health insur- ernment approved an average premium in- ance? crease of 7.96 per cent—the highest increase Senator PATTERSON—That is a hypo- in four years? Can the minister indicate why thetical question that Senator McLucas has the government continues to rubber-stamp asked me and it ought to be ruled out of or- large premium increases without doing any- der. Let me say that, when Labor was in gov- thing to ensure that Australians who pur- ernment, we saw an absolute bleeding of chase private cover get real value for money? membership from private health insurance Senator PATTERSON—I do not accept funds—to the point where the then health the premise of the last part of the question at minister, former Senator Richardson, said all, because a number of measures were that it was not sustainable at the levels it was taken—for example, with prosthetics—to dropping to. That is the sort of private health ensure the viability of private health insur- insurance that Labor presided over. What we ance. Let me just say that Labor’s record was did was to introduce a private health insur- that in one year there was something like a ance scheme to encourage young people to 17 per cent increase—I cannot remember the participate and join private health insurance exact figure—in private health insurance, funds; and, if they did not, there would be a and that was in one year alone. The average two per cent increase in their costs each year increase in private health insurance under after they reached the age of 30. Our meas- Labor was higher than the average increase ures to ensure a balance between our public in private health insurance under our gov- health system and our private health system ernment. I have indicated that we would have made us the envy of countries around work to make sure that we kept downward the world. pressure on private health insurance. There We have seen Labor never making a will always be increases in private health commitment to whether they would continue insurance because of the cost of services de- with the 30 per cent rebate, and we have in- livered by health services, but we have main- creased that rebate for people over 65 and tained a lower pressure on increases in people over 70 to assist them to pay for their prices, while Labor had, in one year alone, private health insurance. We have ensured an increase of 17 per cent. that the viability of private health insurance Whale Protection is maintained. Labor did not take that posi- Senator TROETH (2.55 pm)—My question but left private health insurance schemes tion is to the Minister for the Environment just about on their knees when we came into and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell. Will the government. We are about ensuring that we minister update the Senate on the Howard maintain a healthy balance between private government’s continuing efforts in whale health insurance and private hospitals and protection and conservation? Is the minister the public hospital system. aware of an alternative approach? Senator McLUCAS—Mr President, I ask Senator IAN CAMPBELL—I thank a supplementary question. I note that Senator Senator Troeth for a question that I know is Patterson went nowhere near answering the very important to many Australians across question. Does the minister recall promising the length and breadth of this beautiful na- in 2001 that the government’s policies would tion. We are doing a whole range of things to ‘lead to reduced premiums’? Is the minister protect whales both domestically and, of aware that, in February this year, the gov- course, very importantly, internationally.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 33

Senator Troeth will be interested to know have asked that Australia help with develop- that, within Australia, we have put in place a ing whale-watching guidelines there. comprehensive protection regime through We also host disentanglement workshops. the federal government’s environment law— Disentanglement is an increasing problem as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity the numbers of migrating whales around the Conservation Act. Under that act, we have Australian coastline increase. Senator Troeth established a recovery plan for whales. and other honourable senators would have There are a number of threats to whales noticed in the press lately reports of whales around the Australian coast. A few weeks entangled in shark nets off the Queensland ago I announced a protection plan to amelio- coast. Entanglement with fishing nets is a rate some of those risks. We have also put in problem, and Australia is leading the world place a process to develop a set of national in trying to find methods to safely disentan- guidelines for whale watching. As many gle whales from nets. We are also funding Australians would know—and you would science and research, with record amounts of know yourself, Mr President—whale watch- money—millions of dollars—going into re- ing in Australia is an expanding business, search. As I said earlier, internationally we and that is for a very good reason. Back in are working with like-minded nations who 1979, the Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm are supporting Australia’s leadership in seek- Fraser, and the Fraser government put in ing to save whales. Countries like the United place a ban on whaling in Australia and States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, worked internationally to create a morato- France and Germany are working with Aus- rium on whaling. As a result, the humpback tralia through the IWC to try to convince whale species, which had been hunted to countries like Iceland, Norway and Japan to such an extent that around 97 per cent of its stop their so-called scientific whaling and, of population had been wiped out—so you can course, to stop commercial whaling. imagine a population down at three per Senator Troeth asked about alternative cent—has seen a massive build-up in num- policies. Although most towns and local bers since 1979 right around the coast of councils throughout this country were taking Australia, which, of course, has enabled an my lead and writing to Japanese sister cities expansion of whale-watching businesses in and so forth to urge them to stop their whal- many tourism areas. ing, one member of this parliament—the Working constructively with the state member for Brand—decided that he would governments, we are putting in place a set of encourage his local constituents to write to national guidelines. During my visit to South me and urge me to stop whaling. He missed Pacific nations to lobby them to vote with out on the news that Australia stopped whal- Australia at the International Whaling Com- ing generations ago and leads the world in mission, I met with officials from South Pa- the global fight to stop whaling for all time. I cific nations and invited them to be part of call on the member for Brand to get serious the guidelines. For example, in Tonga they about whaling and stop playing cheap poli- have a whale-watching business that is just tics. starting. They have had their first couple of Family Services seasons of visits by very small families of Senator MOORE (3.00 pm)—My ques- whales, and they now have a multimillion tion is to Senator Patterson, the Minister for dollar business helping to make that South Family and Community Services. I refer the Pacific economy more sustainable. They

CHAMBER 34 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 minister to reports that nearly 40 per cent of A recent study by a Treasury officer has the wealthiest two per cent of Australian demonstrated that this government’s tax and households receive an average of $680 in family policies have resulted in significant family payments each year. Hasn’t this gross increases in real disposable income and ef- inequity only occurred because of the gov- fective tax thresholds for all family types ernment’s flawed system, which saw 352 since 1996. The report showed that not only families with annual incomes of over is the Howard government’s responsible $500,000 receive obligation-free family economic management seeing an increase in payments last year? Does the minister recall wages but the government’s targeted assis- indicating last month that she would review tance through family payments— the system to try to address this problem? Is Senator Chris Evans—Mr President, I the minister also aware of a subsequent rise on a point of order. I draw your attention comment by the Prime Minister on 29 Au- to the question of relevance. The minister is gust: one of a number of ministers who increas- ... I want to make it clear I’m opposed to chang- ingly just want to read out whatever brief ing the family tax benefit system ... they have. It is generally about the Labor Does the minister stand by her earlier com- Party or some offence from the 1980s. There mitment to review the system or is she now is no attempt at all— in line with the Prime Minister and opposed Senator Ferguson interjecting— to changing the same system? Senator Chris Evans—Senator Ferguson, Senator PATTERSON—I thank the hon- you may think it is an appropriate abuse of ourable senator for her question. It gives me question time, but there is no attempt to an- the opportunity to talk about the family tax swer the question at all. She was asked spe- benefit and the fact that Australia has high cifically about quoted comments by the and rising living standards. The benefits of Prime Minister regarding family tax benefit this are being shared widely across the com- B. She has sought in no way to address those munity. I think the senator mentioned an ar- issues. ticle that talks about the issue that she raised. The PRESIDENT—You know the story But it is typical of Labor, which only tells about questions, but I will remind the minis- you half the story. The article says that the ter of the question. main winners in the government system are low-income and large families. These are the Senator PATTERSON—The Labor Party very families that Labor, under its election does not like the answers because I am talk- commitment before the last election, was ing about the benefits for families—all fami- actually going to make worse off—that is, lies. The report shows that not only has the the lower your income and the larger your Howard government’s responsible economic family, the worse off you were. It was the management seen an increase in wages but most unbelievable policy that you have ever the government’s targeted assistance through imagined. Then it went around saying that family payments is benefiting those most in the $600 additional family tax benefit for need. Single-income families can now earn families for each and every child was not $11,000 more than they could in 1996 before real. The Australian public knew what was they were effectively paying tax, largely due real and what was not real and knew how to to the family tax benefit. evaluate Labor’s policy. Changes this government has made to family tax benefit, the age pension and the

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 35

Medicare levy mean that low- and middle- Low-income families stand to make fur- income earners have up to 30 per cent more ther gains under measures announced in the in their pockets. The ABS income distribu- last budget. From July next year, the income tion data shows that the benefits of Austra- tax free area for more than minimum rates of lia’s strong economic growth under this gov- family tax benefit part A will be increased by ernment have been widely and evenly $4,000 a year and family tax benefit B re- shared. The average disposable income of cipients will receive an ongoing $300 extra low-income households increased in real from the 2005-06 financial year. It is no terms by 22 per cent since this government wonder that the head of ACOSS has said that was elected. The findings reinforce the currently the family tax benefit scheme is analysis undertaken by NATSEM, which has very good, at least providing income parity highlighted the important gains for low- for people who have children. (Time expired) income families as a result of the Howard Senator MOORE—Mr President, I ask a government’s support for families, including supplementary question. I remind the minis- the More Help for Families package. ter that my question was about high-income As the key purpose of family tax benefit B families, but I will try again with the sup- is to provide extra assistance for single- plementary. Can the minister confirm that a income families, it is not income tested for total of 107 families with annual earnings of sole parent families. For couple families, over $1 million received family payments in family tax benefit B is available where the 2003 and 2004? Can the minister now ex- secondary income earner has low adjustable plain why she has done precisely nothing to taxable income. The government considers it stop these 100 millionaire families from be- important to provide extra help for couples ing paid up to $3,372.60 each in mutual- who choose to have one partner remain at obligation-free welfare over the last two home until their youngest child reaches years? Who is right—the minister when she school. FTBB has been specially designed to says that the system needs to be reviewed or assist those families who face both the nor- the Prime Minister when he attempts to de- mal costs of raising young children and the fend the indefensible? indirect costs of reduced work force partici- Senator PATTERSON—What I have in- pation. dicated is that I have asked my department to One purpose of FTBB is to compensate give me detailed profiles of the sorts of peo- single-income families for the fact that they ple in that category. They have increased only have access to one tax-free threshold, slightly. What Labor have to understand— something the Labor Party does not mention. and they would not understand this, because Dual income families benefit from access to they ran the social security system appall- two tax-free thresholds, and they also benefit ingly—is that sometimes, when imposing a from the lower rates of taxation applicable to limit, it costs more to eliminate those few their incomes under the graduated tax scales. families than it does to pay for them. I am It is quite possible for certain families with having a look at that and, if I feel it is of varied incomes to legitimately receive family concern, I will raise that with the Prime Min- tax benefit B. It is also possible that a cus- ister. I do not know the details of the profiles tomer with a high annual income can be le- of those families. I have asked the depart- gitimately entitled to income support for part ment to give me that information. of the year and will therefore be eligible for family tax benefit A.

CHAMBER 36 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Senator Hill—Mr President, I ask that Legislation Committee had the opportunity further questions be placed on the Notice on Friday to listen to the evidence that was Paper. placed before the committee, which was in- DEPUTY PRESIDENT quiring into the legislation. It was a very short and pathetic effort at exposing the de- The PRESIDENT—Order! Before sena- tails and the concerns that people had; never- tors leave the chamber, I would like to take theless it was a process that raised many the opportunity to sincerely thank my deputy more questions than it answered. for standing in for me last week. I understand he did a fine job, and I thank him very much. On top of that, on Friday afternoon Tel- stra’s annual report was released, which told QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: us quite a lot about what is going on inside ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Telstra. We know, first of all, that last year Workplace Relations Telstra executives awarded themselves an Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Special extraordinary pay rise. Between them, they Minister of State) (3.07 pm)—During ques- are now taking home more than $25 million, tion time, a suggestion was made by Senator just as the company’s share price rose by Evans that I table the documents that I was 4c—4c for the mum and dad investors and referring to. Rather than carrying over 3½ $25 million for the company executives. We kilograms of documents back to my office, I know that Mr Switkowski was paid $6.7 mil- table them. lion, including his retirement benefits, and QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: that Donald McGauchie, the man picked by TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS the Prime Minister to preside over the board as non-executive chairman, had his package Telstra tripled, an increase of $497,000. All of this Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) was happening at the same time as one in 10 (3.08 pm)—I move: of the company’s phone lines were faulty. So That the Senate take note of the answers given the 10 directors and senior executives almost by the Minister for Finance and Administration doubled their collective pay. It just goes to (Senator Minchin) and the Minister for Commu- show what really is important in the land of nications, Information Technology and the Arts Telstra. (Senator Coonan) to questions without notice asked by Senators Sherry, Conroy and Hogg to- So that we understand what is important day relating to Telstra. for the people outside Telstra who are trying What we really heard today in those answers to use those services, I refer to a survey un- to questions was a blindly ideological debate dertaken by the New South Wales Farmers which beggared belief and put reason abso- Association in July this year, which covered lutely on the backburner, because there most of the farming population of New seems to be no rationale for the activities that South Wales. It found that 80 per cent of are going on regarding Telstra. We need to be farmers were opposed to the sale of Telstra, very mindful of the situation that has been more than half said that telecommunications occurring. We have been debating the proc- were not meeting their needs, 63 per cent ess of the Telstra legislation all day today, as said that their mobile phone lines were unre- well as for most of last week. Some members liable, and 60 per cent said that their internet of the Senate Environment, Communica- speed was unsatisfactory. The survey also tions, Information Technology and the Arts found that services were significantly worse beyond the Great Dividing Range, with over

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 37 a third of people unable to rely on their basic which I am a little surprised about. I, along landline telephone service. with others, including Senator Wortley, Sena- During the weekend I drove to Bathurst. tor Adams, Senator Brandis and Senator That is not very far from here; it is about a Conroy, attended the hearing of the inquiry 3½-hour drive. I have to say that for three held by the Senate Environment, Communi- hours of that 3½-hour drive there was no cations, Information Technology and the Arts mobile phone service. The people of Crook- Legislation Committee on Friday. Senator well, Trunkey Creek and Perthville might Brown is a member of that committee. Sena- consider that access to mobile phone services tor Brown’s nameplate was there, which led is important, but access to internet services is us to believe that he was ready to involve very important as well. We need to know himself in the inquiry on Friday. We were who is actually providing those services in due to start at eight o’clock and go through regional New South Wales. The former Tel- until five o’clock. The night before, Senator stra chief, Ziggy Switkowski, famously said, Brown, who has been carrying on for ‘If you see a competitor’s van in the bush, months, probably years, about a Telstra sale, it’s lost.’ And that is the reality, really. Telstra sent his apologies because he had to be in the has the responsibility for providing those city. The committee said, ‘Well, if you can’t services, and it is just not happening. be there, it’s a great pity.’ If he had matters of great import— The National Farmers Federation gave a verbal submission to the inquiry last Friday Senator Marshall—Is that what the in which they expressed their concerns. They committee said? said that there were huge service problems in Senator RONALDSON—Yes, it is actu- the bush and that they were problems that ally in the Hansard. The committee said that must be fixed. They said that the repair time if he had matters of great import and he frames are in fact getting worse and that could not be there, then that was to be. Sena- networks are breaking down more fre- tor Bob Brown, the member of the commit- quently. They said that telecommunications tee, the man who has been carrying on for services in rural and regional Australia are months and months about the Telstra sale still not at a level that they think is satisfac- and about regional and rural Australians, was tory. actually in Parliament House. He was wan- Those findings are backed up by the kind dering within 15 metres of where this com- of anecdotal stories that we all hear in our mittee was being held, talking on his mobile electorates. Recently, I received an email phone—presumably getting very good ser- from a constituent named Theresa who lives vice because he was on it for a long time. in Nimmitabel in the electorate of Eden- Did he venture once into that committee? Monaro. She explained that her community Not once. And there, sitting lonely, in front has struggled and, finally, after 12 months of of the secretary of the department, was the lobbying, they have a commitment that a name ‘Senator Brown’ on one of those big, mobile phone tower will be built. (Time ex- white bits of cardboard, waiting for him to pired) come in and ask questions to a number of telecommunications carriers, the department, Senator RONALDSON (Victoria) (3.13 Telstra—a roundtable of people that had pm)—I was interested to hear the comments been invited. Did he take that opportunity to of Senator Stephens. I note that, perversely, come into the committee of which he is a Senator Bob Brown is in the chamber today, member and ask the questions? No. There

CHAMBER 38 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 was not one single question from him, not it, because the Labor Party do not know what one minute of attendance at a Senate com- happens in regional and rural Victoria. They mittee that went from eight o’clock in the do not know what happens in regional and morning until five o’clock at night. rural Australia. Senator Marshall can sit I think it would be extraordinary for Sena- down there in Melbourne and flick through tor Bob Brown to stand up during the week reports. He has no idea, and his shadow min- and give his typical speech on Telstra. He ister has no idea. (Time expired) forfeited the right to talk on this on behalf of Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) the Australian Greens. He forfeited any right (3.18 pm)—What a sad performance and to participate in this debate until the passage contribution to the debate that was. I fail to of this legislation. I cannot believe he had the understand, Senator Ronaldson, how an gall or, quite frankly, the stupidity to apolo- abuse of process comes about when you ac- gise and then to be within earshot of that tually speak on legislation. I am sure Senator committee and not to ask one single ques- Bob Brown will speak many times this week tion. Senator Brown, you stand condemned on the legislation, and he is quite welcome to for apologising to that committee and then do so. Contributions will be fine; they are not being within earshot of the proceedings. I am an abuse of process. What is an abuse of sure everyone who was there, everyone who process is this. Let us have a look at this was listening and everyone since will be ab- quote: solutely horrified that you chose to abuse the ... the legislation’s turned up on Thursday, we had process. No doubt you will further abuse it a review on Friday and we’re supposed to vote this week by speaking on this legislation. for it on Monday ... the Senate is not doing its job On Friday, in the committee hearing, and I’m not so concerned about my political ca- Senator Adams went to some length to talk reer, I don’t quite know whether it’s worth it actually but what I am concerned about is doing the about this government’s response to the job that we were sent down to Canberra to do and number of inquiries that have been held by you can’t do that in one day and I’m not going to. the Senate and others. While I respect Sena- I will not even give you a dollar to guess tor Stephens’s right to talk about the matters who said that. It is the king of the Telstra she did, it is just as well that she was not on sham these days, Senator Joyce. You want to this side of the house talking now, in 2005, talk about an abuse of process. The abuse of because the Australian Labor Party’s contri- process is this. You have five bills tabled last bution to telecommunications infrastructure week; you hold an inquiry for one day, on and policy in the last 10 years has been neg- Friday; you try and give people 24 hours to ligible. In fact, when they left power in 1996, even just look at the bills and present evi- they had effectively taken away from the dence before the Senate committee about the great bulk of constituents in regional and impact of those bills; the report will be ta- rural Victoria the opportunity to use a mobile bled today; and the bills debated this week. phone, because they had removed the analog That is an absolute abuse of the process of a service. democracy and an abuse of the parliamentary Senator Marshall—Reintroduce it, then. process in the Senate, as far as I am con- Go on, put it back, then. cerned. Senator RONALDSON—Senator Mar- I do want to say this in my contribution. I shall is sitting there thinking, ‘I don’t under- was tempted on Friday night to send a fax to stand this.’ Of course he does not understand the Australian for their back page. I wanted

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 39 to say, ‘Good on you, Telstra, for sending the look after their telecommunications prob- girls in to front that committee on Friday lems and that it would be in their best inter- when the boys weren’t able to do it.’ I no- ests. The bottom line would be that the ticed that when the heat in the Telstra kitchen shareholder would be looked after and peo- got a bit too hot with this government, it was ple in the bush would have to pay big dollars a woman who was sent in to try and defend to get telecommunications that they now ex- Telstra’s position—and a good job I think pect and enjoy from Telstra. she did too of trying to highlight to this gov- I just say this, Senator Barnaby Joyce: you ernment that selling Telstra is not exactly know, those who fly highest at the beginning what should be on the cards at this point in of their political careers have the furthest to time. fall, and what a hard fall it will be. This de- If Senator Barnaby Joyce cared to spend a bate on the sale of Telstra is an absolute little more time in the pub with his mates sham. There is no urgency for this. The Aus- having a drink or two, he might find that in tralian public, shareholders and people who Queensland there would be very few people are interested in this debate need much who want Telstra sold. In fact, I would say longer to have a look at this. Senator Field- that nobody in the Northern Territory has ing is still waiting for his family impact ever canvassed me about getting in there and statement on what the sale of this company selling Telstra. Nobody in the Territory— means. But this is going to be rushed through from the Cattlemen’s Association to pastoral during this sitting fortnight. If there has been property owners to Indigenous people in re- any abuse of process in this Parliament mote communities, let alone those on out- House then the debate of these bills is cer- stations—that I have spoken to has said to tainly it. (Time expired) me: ‘Get in there, Crossin. Get down to Can- Senator ADAMS (Western Australia) berra and get that company sold.’ Nobody (3.23 pm)—The government has continually wants the company sold. Nobody believes stated the importance of ensuring adequacy that selling Telstra is going to deliver a better of services now and into the future before service for rural and regional Australia, par- Telstra is sold. The Estens inquiry made 39 ticularly if you are out bush. Everybody be- recommendations to improve services in re- lieves that a privatised Telstra will walk gional Australia, and the government is away from the bush, will walk away from its committed to implementing all of them. Ser- obligation to ensure that some of these com- vices have already improved as a result of munities even have a payphone. the government’s response to the Estens rec- If you go to a remote Indigenous out sta- ommendations, and 32 recommendations tion in the Northern Territory where there have been implemented. may be 50 Indigenous people or fewer, you As someone who lives in rural Western will see that some of them struggle to have Australia, in the last 30 years I have had the even one telephone line that works. Gener- experience of looking at how communica- ally, there is nothing. They have to wait till tions in rural areas have improved. We went they get to a main centre for telecommunica- from having no telephone to having a tele- tions or they take satellite phones or a radio phone that you rang up on the exchange. Our with them. So services out bush are not up to call sign was dot-dot-dash, so it was really scratch. In fact, in some places they are not tricky trying to work out with the other five even there. And nobody believes that a priva- families whose phone was ringing. We had a tised Telstra would sidle up to the bush and

CHAMBER 40 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 telephone service for four hours in the morn- ernment has the job of setting the rules for all ing and two hours between four o’clock and phone companies while at the same time six o’clock at night. We then moved on to having a direct financial interest in Telstra’s another party line with three people on it, commercial success. then further on to having our own phone line, Senator WORTLEY (South Australia) and then we finally got a fax. As I said the (3.27 pm)—Despite the growing concerns of other day, the first fax machine I had was as the Australian people, despite the current the secretary of the country race club, and it investigation by ASIC and despite the con- was like a suitcase as big as me. We have cerns among its own members, this govern- now moved on from that to having a proper ment is pushing ahead with the sale of Tel- fax. And, having had a dial-up service from stra. In doing so, it is challenging the parlia- nine to 26.4, I have now gone to the HiBIS mentary system in the process. The one-day satellite, and I can assure you that is abso- Telstra inquiry held last Friday demonstrated lutely brilliant. So things are moving on, and nothing but contempt for the Senate, the par- money is being spent in rural and regional liamentary process and the people of Austra- Australia. lia. It went some way in undermining the The government has not set any specific Senate’s legitimate role as the house of re- time for any further privatisation of Telstra view. It was an attempt by the government to but has consistently stated that any further reduce the role of the Senate to being noth- sale is conditional on the following regula- ing more than a rubber stamp, despite reas- tions being met: all Australians, in particular surances from the government in this cham- people living in regional Australia, having ber that this would not occur. access to adequate telecommunications ser- The message from the one-day inquiry vice; the passage of sale legislation by the was clear: there are faults with the legislation parliament that removes the obligation for as it stands. And very soon we will be asked the government to own a minimum of 50.1 to pass this legislation without real consulta- per cent of Telstra shares; and market condition—without interested parties having a real tions being conducive to achieving an appro- opportunity to scrutinise the bills and put priate return for taxpayers from the sale. The their point of view. This is not the Australian government considers the sale of Telstra to way. This is not a fair go. And now we hear be in the interests of the company itself, its that the minister is prepared to put some shareholders, the wider telecommunications guarantees in place in an attempt to satisfy industry and, most importantly, all Austra- Senator Joyce’s genuine concerns about the lians. money for the bush. What else is missing? There are a number of reasons for sup- What other consequences, gaps, deliberate porting the sale of Telstra. The private sector omissions or deceptions are lurking in the is better placed than the government to make legislation that the inquiry was given only judgments about the risks of share owner- hours to consider? ship. It will allow Telstra to realise its full A privatised Telstra is all about profits, not potential as one of Australia’s most impor- people. And even then it does not seem to be tant companies in the information age and to about honesty to its shareholders, as illus- make operational and investment decisions trated by the withholding of information on the same basis as its competitors such as about where its dividends come from. Telstra Optus and AAPT. It will remove the inherent has not been up front with the shareholders, conflict of interest that exists when the gov-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 41 and its major shareholder, the government, It is not only our remote areas which are appears to be complicit in its deception of suffering. Major cities in Australia suffer how Telstra is operating. Labor is continuing black spots in telecommunications. Join any to take up the fight, representing the vast group of people, mention Telstra and listen majority of Australians who oppose the sale as the horror stories spill out. Last year, Tel- of Telstra—the thousands of Australians who stra was the subject of almost 27,000 com- have taken the time to write to their parlia- plaints to the Telecommunications Industry mentarians, government and opposition, say- Ombudsman. The complaints came from ing categorically they do not want Telstra rural and metropolitan Australia, and it is no sold. ‘Fix Telstra, don’t sell it,’ is the mes- secret that, since the government com- sage coming across loud and clear. menced its privatisation agenda, services How can the people of Australia trust a have plummeted and prices have increased. fully privatised Telstra to look after services? Labor regards telecommunications ser- A fully privatised Telstra will desert commu- vices as essential services. They should be nities where it cannot make a large enough accessible and affordable to all Australians. profit. No amount of money thrown in the In government hands, and with the proper direction of Telstra after the sale has gone adherence to parliamentary procedures, in- through can be guaranteed to be spent in the vestment in the infrastructure needs of Aus- areas where it is needed. Telstra CEO Sol tralia and therefore its economy can be en- Trujillo admitted that Telstra has under- sured. invested in its telecommunications network Question agreed to. and estimated that it will cost over $5 billion Federal Election Pamphlet to even get the network anywhere near up to scratch. Currently, 1.4 million Australians Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (3.32 have a faulty telephone line because Telstra pm)—I move: has underinvested in its network. That the Senate take note of the answer given The telecommunications sector has the by the Special Minister of State (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Bob distinction of being the most complained Brown today relating to election pamphlets. about to the ACCC. The services to remote, rural and regional areas of Australia are in- The answer given by Senator Abetz in rela- adequate. Even if the billions of dollars tion to electoral spending by certain entities which lured the Nationals to the sale do should be noted. A question has arisen in eventuate, will future technological ad- New Zealand about the funding of pamphlets vancements be embraced? What happens if which have been dropped nationwide in the telemedicine, remote education and other run-up to that country’s elections on Satur- forms of e-health and e-education beyond day. I was in New Zealand two weeks ago what we can imagine today do not generate and warned that some of the dirty-tricks desired profit under a fully-privatised Tel- campaign that was used in the election cam- stra? Will Telstra deliver? Already, Australia paign here in Australia might surface there. I is falling behind the rest of the world in in- had no sooner left the country than, on Sat- frastructure investment. Out of 30 OECD urday a week ago, a pamphlet was dropped countries, Australia ranks 21st in the use of nationwide condemning the Green Party in broadband. New Zealand, which, of course, has nine members of parliament and will have a lot to

CHAMBER 42 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 do with who forms government after the tional campaign to have right-wing govern- election on Saturday. ments elected. It has spent some $500,000 on The following day, a pamphlet was advertisements in the United States on behalf dropped nationally about the Labour Party, of what was called ‘Thanksgiving Commit- and more have followed since. To cut a long tee 2004’, to support the re-election cam- story short, after a lot of denials by the leader paign of President Bush. It emerges that here of ‘National’ as it is called there, the leader in Australia a pamphlet, or a number of pam- of the opposition, Dr Don Brash, it has now phlets indeed, that circulated in Prime Minis- surfaced that he had known that a series of ter Howard’s own electorate of Bennelong pamphlets was in the making, and that these were authorised from an address in Mead- were being funded by the very shadowy Ex- owbank, which I gave during question time, clusive Brethren church. in See Street, which turns out to be a school of the Exclusive Brethren. A couple of days ago, seven businesspeo- ple who are members of that sect admitted The question, which was not answered by that they were behind the pamphlet drop. It is the minister but which should be answered, interesting that one of the seven, Greg Ma- is whether that was a legitimate use of that son, according to the New Zealand Herald, address and whether the S. Hales who used said on Sunday—that is, the Sunday before that address is related to the Mr Bruce Hales last—that the pamphlets were created from who is the world leader of the Exclusive scratch, without overseas inspiration. How- Brethren. ever, that is not true. I find this very difficult All I say is: let this information be out in to believe—that somebody, on behalf of a front of the public. It is quite wrong for a church which does not vote and looks Christian church, one which believes in tell- askance at politics, should be so clearly able ing the truth, to not be telling the whole to deceive people on the public record. truth. They might look at the ninth com- A pamphlet that was distributed in Tasma- mandment, because it is important that the nia, and authorised by one M. William public not be misled on the way to the ballot Mackenzie of 11 Baden Powell Place, North box. If people are authorising pamphlets on Rocks, New South Wales, in October of last behalf of a religious group, or an organisa- year, against the Greens, was the template for tion of any sort, they ought to say so, and not the pamphlet that has now been used in New deceive people into believing that individu- Zealand against the Greens. In other words, als, of their own vocation, are authorising Mr Mason was not telling the truth. The fact and funding these pamphlets, when in fact is that the information from Australia has that is not the case—it is the Exclusive been injected into the election campaign in Brethren church. I will have more to say New Zealand to try to ensure the election of about this because I intend to pursue the mat- National against the election of Labour ter with the Electoral Office. (Time expired) and/or the Greens in New Zealand. Question agreed to. Why should this matter? Well, everybody CONDOLENCES has a right to take part in election campaigns, Dame Nancy Eileen Buttfield DBE even if they do not vote—and of course in The PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret New Zealand voting is not compulsory. But that I inform the Senate of the death on 4 what is emerging here is that the Exclusive September 2005, of Dame Nancy Eileen Brethren is in fact orchestrating an interna- Buttfield, a senator for the state of South

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 43

Australia from 1955 to 1965, and 1968 to until 1965 and was re-elected in 1968, serv- 1974. ing until 1974. Senator HILL (South Australia—Leader Dame Nancy was a tireless advocate for of the Government in the Senate) (3.38 the interests of her home state and a woman pm)—I move: who served her state and the Liberal Party That the Senate records its deep regret at the with dignity, dedication and a great sense of death, on 4 September 2005, of Dame Nancy public duty. Dame Nancy was an early advo- Eileen Buttfield, DBE, former senator for South cate for women’s rights. She lobbied fer- Australia, and places on record its appreciation of vently for equal pay for women and the end- her long and meritorious public service and ten- ing of the marriage bar for women in the ders its profound sympathy to her family in their Public Service. With the encouragement of bereavement. Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies, Dame Nancy Buttfield was born into the famous Nancy also demonstrated her feisty ap- Holden family on 12 November 1912 in proach, breaking down long-established bar- Adelaide to Ted and Hilda Holden, later Sir riers at Old Parliament House by becoming Edward and Lady Hilda May. She was edu- the first woman to drink at the previously cated at a private school in Girton, Wood- male-only members’ bar. Dame Nancy was a lands Church of England Girls’ Grammar member of the Commonwealth Immigration School in Adelaide and at finishing school in Advisory Council and served as a member of Paris. As a part-time student at Adelaide uni- several Senate and joint committees, includ- versity, she studied psychology, music, logic ing being chairman of the Senate Standing and economics. She became heavily in- Committee on Health and Welfare. After volved in charity work, especially in relation politics, Dame Nancy continued her service to migrants, child-welfare, handicapped per- to the public by involving herself in a variety sons and maternity hospitals. She married of arts and charity work, with a particular Frank Buttfield on 19 February 1936. focus on helping young people. She was cre- Dame Nancy’s interest in politics began ated Dame Commander of the Most Excel- after she joined a model parliament where lent Order of the British Empire, in January members learnt to speak in public and to 1972 in recognition of her public service. On think on their feet. After seeking advice from behalf of the government, I extend to her two family friend Robert Menzies, she became a sons, Ian and Andrew, and her family and member of the Council of the South Austra- friends our most sincere sympathy in their lian Liberal and Country League. She won bereavement. Liberal Party endorsement in 1954 to contest Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Aus- the federal seat of Adelaide and, although tralia—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- achieving a swing towards the Liberal Party, ate) (3.41 pm)—I also want to make a few was defeated at the polls. The following year, remarks in the condolence motion for Dame Dame Nancy was nominated by the South Nancy Buttfield. As Senator Hill said, she Australian parliament for the vacancy left was quite a remarkable woman. I did not after the death of Senator George McLeay. In know her personally, but she was obviously a doing so, Dame Nancy became the first woman of great achievement. I think the South Australian woman in the Australian word that has been used most commonly to parliament and the fifth woman to serve in describe her is ‘feisty’. the Senate. Dame Nancy served as a senator

CHAMBER 44 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

She served as a senator from 1955 to 1965 ‘To the horror of my male colleagues, I duly and from 1968 to 1974, so she was a long- fronted up there.’ serving senator and the first South Australian She was also at the forefront of lobbying woman in the Australian parliament. Dame for equal pay for women and the abolition of Nancy was married to Frank Buttfield, and that terrible marriage bar on Public Service they had two sons. Her father is famous as employment. I gather some of her activity on the principal founder of the Australian auto- those issues did not make her necessarily motive industry. Before she entered parlia- popular with her party, but she was a woman ment, she was very much involved in charity of strong convictions. I also note for current work during the Great Depression and had Liberal senators that she crossed the floor six wide philanthropic interests, including with times during her parliamentary career. regard to people with disabilities, immi- Senator Hill—Shame! grants, children’s welfare and maternity hospitals. Senator CHRIS EVANS—Yes, she must have been a true liberal! In 1955, Dame Nancy was appointed to the Senate under section 15 of the Constitu- Senator Stott Despoja—That’s why she tion following the death of Senator George lost the ticket! McLeay. She served on a number of Senate Senator CHRIS EVANS—Yes, as a re- committees, including the Senate Standing sult, I notice, she was bumped down the Committee on Health and Welfare, which she ticket at the next election. It is recorded that also chaired, and on the Joint Committee on she was placed third on the South Australian Foreign Affairs. She also travelled quite Liberal ticket in 1964 and, despite getting widely and had an interesting travel history, 25,000 more primary votes than the second including travelling both to China and to the candidate, she failed to gather enough pref- Soviet Union during the Cold War. She made erences to be returned. However, she was re- five visits to Papua New Guinea during her elected to the Senate in 1967 and she retired time in the Senate. from the Senate in 1974. After retirement, As Senator Hill said, Dame Nancy was a she continued to devote herself to commu- strong advocate for the rights of women. She nity and philanthropic activities, including was the first woman to drink in the members’ setting up a youth venture club which pro- bar at Old Parliament House. I hasten to add vided leadership training for more than that the members’ bar has closed. It has all 10,000 young people. She became a Dame gone now. We lead a much more chaste exis- Commander of the Most Excellent Order of tence these days. According to the State Li- the British Empire and published an autobi- brary of South Australia, at the time it was a ography in 1992, the foreword to which was very important place to be seen and to get written by her friend the ALP’s Clyde Cam- involved. They say it took the support of eron. Prime Minister Menzies to sanction her right Dame Nancy passed away on Sunday, 4 to drink at the shrine of male chauvinism, the September. She is survived by her two sons members’ bar at Old Parliament House. He and their families, including five grandchil- was quoted as saying: ‘That is where politics dren. On behalf of the Labor opposition, I are discussed. You should certainly have the want to pass on my condolences to her fam- right to drink there. It is a members’ bar and ily. She was obviously a remarkable woman you are a member.’ Dame Nancy recalled, who lived a very full and active life. We wish her family all the best and we acknowledge

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 45 the contribution she made to the Senate and I spoke at the Janine Haines memorial lec- to public life in Australia. ture the week before last, we were comment- Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- ing on how, in the 1980s, Senator Haines tralia) (3.46 pm)—On behalf of the Austra- was asked some outdated questions. The lian Democrats I would also like to support questions that Dame Nancy Buttfield was the condolence motion on the death of Dame asked and recorded in her book were things Nancy Buttfield that has been moved today like ‘How do you expect to cope with family by the Leader of the Government in the Sen- and do a political job? What sorts of meals ate. I would also like to express, on behalf of are your family eating these days? Does your the Democrats, our condolences to her fam- family live on tinned food?’ ily and in particular to her sons, Ian and An- Senator McLucas—I am still getting drew. You have heard a bit about her back- those questions. ground leading up to politics, her schooling Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Senator and indeed her lineage; of course, the Holden McLucas says she is still getting those ques- family is a well-known name in this country. tions. I think it is very important for us to But I do want to place on the record the spe- acknowledge here today Dame Nancy’s role cial place that this woman has in our his- as one of the first female politicians. Some of tory—our ‘herstory’ might be more apt! my colleagues would be aware that in 1994, Dame Nancy was one of the first women the Centenary of Women’s Suffrage in South in the federal parliament but, most notably Australia, we took the opportunity to ac- for the state of South Australia—my home knowledge the achievements and the work of state and that of Senator Jeannie Ferris, female pioneers such as Dame Nancy. Senator Robert Hill and others in this She first ran for office in 1954, in an un- place—she was the first South Australian successful campaign for the seat of Adelaide. woman to enter any parliament when she She was the first female Liberal preselected became a senator. For those of you who have for 28 years. Ironically, the previous one was seen or read her autobiography, to which Agnes Goode, who also lost when she ran for Senator Evans referred, it is actually quite a the seat of Adelaide. Yes, she did record, I lively read. It provides a bit of an insight into think, a three per cent swing for the Liberal her experiences as a woman in a male- Party, but unfortunately she lost that cam- dominated parliament and profession but it paign, despite doorknocking around 6,000 also gives some insights into all the key is- houses and having made about 56 speeches sues of the day, from the Petrov affair as part of her campaign. The other interesting through to her personal and political views thing for any Democrats here is that the per- on Menzies as Prime Minister, Gorton as son that she defeated in that preselection— Prime Minister, McMahon as Prime Minis- by one vote, I might add—was Robin Mill- ter, the ‘night of the long prawns’—you house, the first Democrat elected to a par- name it, it is in there. liament. So that was her first campaign and it I think her book also reminds us of some brought her some insight into how she as a of the experiences of women who entered female politician was going to be treated. parliament in those days, in the fifties—she By October 1955—I think, 11 October— became a senator in 1955—are not so differ- she was appointed a senator. On 18 October, ent from the experiences of women in par- she was sworn in. She recorded her experi- liament today. Certainly, Mr President, when ences at that time. She was then in the Senate

CHAMBER 46 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 for about six weeks, I think, before an elec- her relegation: firstly, being female, and she tion was called and then of course she had to talked about the similar fate that befell the fight to get re-elected to the Senate from WA ALP member Dorothy Tangney; and, third position on the ticket, not from fourth secondly, some of her infamous clashes and position which she had when she was origi- conflicts with Sir Thomas Playford. She does nally preselected. On 11 October, when she make some interesting points about our for- did become a senator, she was one of five mer premier in her book as well. Forgive me female senators, including Liberals Anna- for taking up the Senate’s time, Mr President, belle Rankin and Ivy Wedgwood, Country but she was an important woman for women Party Senator Agnes Robertson and of course in South Australia. She talks about the fact the ALP Senator Dorothy Tangney. that she was not a women’s libber—she goes In Dame Nancy’s book, she records some to great lengths to emphasise that, I must of the difficulties she had fighting to get into say—or ‘an up girls and at ’em type’. I can- the Senate from the No. 3 position, despite not think what she means by that. the fact that she was theoretically an incum- Senator Boswell—Have a look at your- bent. She served several terms, as we have self! heard, between 1955 and 1974, and had the Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Look at experience of losing—for a variety of rea- myself! I take that interjection as a promising sons, I might say. I do want to make the remark. You will be calling me strident point that, in her own words, she talks about again, Senator Boswell, if I am not careful! the difficulties she had because she was a She said she believed in a fair go, which, she woman but also the difficulties she had said, ‘often meant that I supported many within her own party. She maintained that women’s issues or tried to advance women’s she was treated differently because she was a causes wherever I could’. She went on to talk woman, her status on the Senate ticket was about some of those experiences. Yes, we affected because she was female and, by im- have heard about the marriage bar in relation plication, there was no elevation to the min- to the Public Service. There is a bit of an istry. If anyone wants to know Clyde Cam- interesting debate about equal pay for eron’s comments in this regard, even though women, which some senators may be aware he was a political opponent he thought she of as well. But one that got her into, I think, should be in the ministry. Dame Nancy ob- a bit of trouble on one occasion was where serves: she was advocating that women perhaps … the Liberal Party was never very loyal to me could fill the vacancy when it came to a lack through most of my time in politics. Normally a of male shearers. sitting Senator, particularly one with 9 years experience, would be given preference over any But she realised her political life was af- newcomer and placed either in the safe first or fected by being a woman. In the 1973 prese- second positions on the ballot paper leaving the lection campaign she was again preselected newcomer to fight for the uncertain third seat. third, despite her vote and experience. Her So when in the 1963 preselection she was ability to attract personal votes was even again relegated to the third spot on the Sen- used against her—that is, the argument that ate ticket, despite being perceived externally she was third on the ticket; therefore, she and internally as a hard worker and a good should be in a better placed position because campaigner, she was ‘devastated’. She talks of her personal vote to get elected. As she about what may have been the reasons for said:

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 47

The LCL male dominated Council never did that Four women senators, vigilant and free, to the men. I was expendable. Retirement cut down Wedgwood and then So, 10 months after that preselection, with there were three. grace and dignity, she made a decision to Three women senators, feeling rather few, resign. I think the irony is that she would Our Annabelle went to Auckland and then have been elected had she run in that election there were two. campaign. Two women senators basking in the sun, Mr President, as you have heard, her in- Buttfield took a powder and then there was terests spanned areas including tourism, im- one. migration—she was on the Commonwealth One woman senator, our story is not done, Immigration Advisory Council but not for Stick to it Guilfoyle, or else there’ll be none. long because she was shortly selected to the Senate—PNG and overseas travel. I will not Thanks to the work of those pioneering reveal our family friend Stewart Cockburn’s women, there are more women in parliament ditty about her experiences in PNG. There is today. I pay particular tribute to this woman a very funny story for those who want to who meant a lot for my state of South Aus- read her autobiography. She understood the tralia. I did not always agree with some of power and influence of the media. She had her decisions and some of her views but I her own radio show, Fair go. She had a tele- think today we could not let this moment vision career. She not only understood the pass without the recognition of those pio- power and influence of the media but used neering women who have paved the way for television because she recognised that it was many of us to follow. accessible to people who normally were not Senator BOSWELL (Queensland— in contact with politicians and politics. I Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (3.55 think that is an incredible point about how pm)—I would like to associate the National modern a politician she was. Party with the condolence motion moved by She had a supportive family and a suppor- the Leader of the Government in the Senate tive husband, whom she pays particular trib- for the former senator for South Australia, ute to in her autobiography. In fact, she Dame Nancy Buttfield, who passed away on makes some funny comments about how the 4 September at age 92. Dame Nancy was the spouses of female politicians were treated first South Australian woman to serve in an during those times. After her decision to re- Australian parliament and the fifth woman to tire, the Courier-Mail in 1973 published a serve in the Senate. She was a member of the poem on the announcement of her retire- Senate for 17 years, which is a pretty good ment. If I may, I will read it to the chamber, span, serving as a Liberal senator for South hopefully very quickly: Australia from 1955 to 1974. I was not around at the time but I am aware of her Seven women senators, very cluey chicks, strong character. Listening to Senator Stott Robertson retired and then there were six. Despoja pay tribute to her, she must have Six women senators, very much alive, been a pioneer for women entering parlia- Tangney went to third place and then there ment. For that reason alone, we pay her great were five. respect. Five women senators holding the floor, She was a contributor to parliament and Breen faced retirement and then there were she was dedicated to her state and her party. I four. am told that she entered parliament because

CHAMBER 48 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 she wanted to do something, and she cer- This petition from the undersigned respectfully tainly did that. She was a member of the very points out that there is an increasing and urgent famous Holden family, which I suppose demand from the people, to protect all remaining would have been a big thing for her in South high conservation value forests which support Australia. As we have previously heard, she flora and fauna unique to Australia, thus comply- ing with the United Nations Biodiversity Conven- was an advocate for women’s rights, lobby- tion to which Australia is a signatory. We have a ing for equal pay for women and ending the responsibility to future and present generations, marriage bar for women in the Public Ser- and the necessary reasons, knowledge and tech- vice, which is something I am old enough to nology to act now on the following achievable remember. When women got married, that solutions. was the end of them. They went home and Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate did not participate in the work force. That, I legislate to: think, stopped around the late sixties. • immediately stop all logging and woodchip- I think one of her more famous escapades ping activities in high conservation value na- was that she was the first female member to tive forests; go down and have a drink in the Old Parlia- • ensure intergenerational equity by planning ment House members’ bar. She took seri- for the rights of future generations, and pro- ously the need to have the voice of women tecting in perpetuity all biologically diverse represented in parliament, opening many old-growth forests, wilderness, rainforests doors, particularly for women who followed and critical habitats of endangered species; her. She was against the women’s lib move- • facilitate rapid transition of the timber indus- ment. She once said that a woman’s home try from harvesting high conservation value native forests to establishing mixed species may be a centre but it does not have to be a farm forestry on existing cleared and de- boundary. graded lands, using non-toxic methods to She was a woman of vision. She pio- protect ecological sustainability; neered and paved the way for many other • maximise use of readily-available plantation women to come into federal parliament. Af- timber for industry needs, using appropriate ter her retirement she was involved in the forestry techniques and progressive minimal- arts and charity work, with a particular inter- waste processing methods, such as radial est in helping young people. She had a pet sawing, and wherever possible, reuse and re- project, a Youth Venture Club, that she and cycle wood and paper products; her husband devoted more than a decade to • support incentives for nationwide employ- on their grazing property in the Adelaide ment in composting, soil remineralisation Hills. She is survived by two sons and their programs, and the planting of trees and an- families. On behalf of the National Party in nual fibre crops, inter-grown with appropriate fruit and nut trees and medicinal plants; the Senate, I extend my condolences to them. • encourage sensitively-managed, environ- Question agreed to, honourable senators mental education tourism in appropriate for- standing in their places. est areas, with full respect for natural ecosys- PETITIONS tems, Aboriginal cultural heritage, sacred The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged sites and other sites of significance; for presentation as follows: • progressively transfer expertise and resources from the military sector, to help im- Forestry Policy plement these tree planting solutions; and to To the Honourable the President and Members of motivate the international community to fol- the Senate in the Parliament assembled: low this example.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 49

by Senator Bob Brown (from 108 citi- (c) these services are particularly important zens). in regional and rural areas, where student organisations may be the only or- Education: Austudy ganisations providing them. To the Honourable the President and Members of Your petitioners, therefore, request that the Senate the Senate in Parliament assembled. oppose the Government’s legislation to abolish The Petition of the undersigned draws to the at- universal student union fees. tention of the Senate concerns that Austudy re- by Senator Stott Despoja (from 117 citi- cipients currently do not have access to Rent As- sistance, which means that thousands of students zens). around Australia are missing out on up to $98 Petitions received. each fortnight simply because of their age. NOTICES Your petitioners believe: Presentation (a) the costs faced by students aged 25 and over are usually equal to—if not greater Senator Hutchins to move on the next than—those faced by younger students; day of sitting: (b) there is no rational basis for excluding That the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade older students from the extra assistance References Committee be authorised to hold a that Rent Assistance can provide; and public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 13 September 2005, from 4 pm, to take (c) Austudy recipients should be eligible to evidence for the committee’s inquiry into Austra- receive Rent Assistance. lia’s relationship with China. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate urge Senator Hutchins to move on the next the Government to make Austudy recipients eligible for Rent Assistance. day of sitting: by Senator Stott Despoja (from 35 citi- That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Refer- zens). ences Committee on Australia’s relationship with Education: Student Fees China be extended to 10 November 2005. To the Honourable the President and Members of Senator McLucas to move on the next the Senate in Parliament assembled. day of sitting: The Petition of the undersigned draws to the at- That the Senate— tention of the Senate concerns that abolishing (a) notes: universal student union fees will disadvantage students—particularly poorer students and those (i) that there are 2.5 million carers in Aus- in rural and regional areas. tralia who look after family members or friends with a disability, a mental Your petitioners believe: illness, a chronic condition or who are (a) student organisations play an important frail aged, role in protecting students’ academic (ii) the contribution carers make is not only and social rights, and it is essential this to the people they care for, but also to advocacy role is not compromised; the community and to the economy (b) poorer students will be hardest hit by so- more broadly, called voluntary student unionism, as (iii) it is estimated that carers save the Aus- many will not be able to afford the full tralian economy approximately $20 bil- cost of services currently subsidised by lion annually through unpaid work, and student associations—such as counselling, child care and advocacy; and, (iv) that on 13 September 2005, Australian carers are conducting a national day of

CHAMBER 50 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

action, the ‘Walk a Mile in our Shoes’ Senator Siewert to move on the next day campaign to raise awareness of issues of sitting: of concern that affect carers and those That the Senate— they care for and to request an inquiry into disability and mental health sup- (a) notes the ‘Walk a Mile in our Shoes’ gath- port services and a review of the ering on the lawns of Parliament House on Commonwealth-State/Territory Dis- 13 September 2005 to demonstrate sup- ability Agreement which they believe port for the family carers of Australia; has failed to meet even the most urgent (b) acknowledges the work that Australia’s needs of disabled citizens; and 1.6 million unpaid family carers do to (b) calls on the Government to: look after the frail, the sick and the aged, and those with dependent disabilities; (i) provide greater recognition for carers in government policy, (c) recognises that: (ii) provide greater support in the work- (i) in many cases this work is done at great place to manage competing priorities of personal cost to carers’ physical and paid and unpaid work, and mental health, marriages, other family members’ welfare, and employment (iii) consider the special and varied needs of and retirement, and carers when implementing policies across a range of portfolio areas that ul- (ii) were it not for this voluntary family timately affect carers’ participation in care the wider community would be community life. faced with substantial additional costs; Senator Trood to move on the next day of (d) acknowledges the increased burden on sitting: these carers caused by shortfalls in avail- ability of support services to those need- That the Senate notes: ing care; and (a) the plight of the endangered Australian (e) calls on the Government to address the native marsupial, the bilby; unmet need for support services for those (b) the first official National Bilby Day was needing care and their carers. commemorated on 11 September 2005 in Senator WATSON (Tasmania) (3.59 Charleville, Queensland; pm)—I give notice that at the giving of no- (c) before European settlement, bilbies cov- tices on the next day of sitting I shall with- ered approximately 70 per cent of the Aus- draw business of the Senate notices of mo- tralian mainland but can now be found tion Nos 1, 3 and 4 standing in my name for only in a small area in south west Queen- sland and isolated areas in the Northern nine sitting days after today for the disallow- Territory and Western Australia; ance of the Export Control (Meat and Meat Products) Amendment Orders 2005 (No. 1), (d) the decline of bilbies is due to the loss of habitat through land use change, overgraz- the Modification Declaration No. 1 and the ing, hunting and predation from intro- Vet er a ns’ Entitlements (Veterans’ Children duced species, such as foxes and feral Education Scheme-Scholarships, Statistics, cats; and MRCA) Instrument 2004-Instrument No. (e) the Save the Bilby Fund has been raising R11/2004. I seek leave to incorporate in awareness of the plight of the marsupial Hansard the committee’s correspondence for many years and has established a 25 concerning these instruments. square kilometre wildlife enclosure near Leave granted. Charleville to try and protect the species. The correspondence read as follows—

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 51

Export Control (Meat and Meat Products) 16 August 2005 Amendment Orders 2005 (No. 1) The Chairman 16 June 2005 Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- The Hon Warren Truss MP nances Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Parliament House Suite M1.26 CANBERRA ACT 2600 Parliament House Dear Senator CANBERRA ACT 2600 Thank you for your letter of 16 June 2005 from Dear Minister Senator Tsebin Tchen, the previous Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Or- I refer to the Export Control (Meat and Meat dinances, regarding the Export Control (Meat and Products) Amendment Orders 2005 (No. 1) made Meat Products) Amendment Orders 2005 (No. 1). under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982. The Committee raises the fol- The intent of subclause 12.4 is to require the oc- lowing matters with regard to these Orders. cupier, in a situation where the occupier is an individual or partnership, to provide information First, new subclause 12.4, which is inserted by to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, item [40] of this instrument, requires an occupier Fisheries and Forestry if a person within the or- of a registered establishment to give the Secretary ganisation who manages or controls, is convicted written notice if the manager or controller of op- of a serious offence. There are no penal provi- erations carried on at the establishment is con- sions in the event that notification is not provided, victed of a serious offence. It is not clear whether however, appropriate sanctions may be applied. this subclause is intended to create an obligation The Orders do not place any obligation on the on the part of the occupier to inquire about any occupier to formally inquire about convictions convictions that a manager or controller may have nor do they place any onus on the managers or or, conversely, whether there is an onus on man- controllers to advise the occupier of any convic- agers or controllers to inform occupiers about tions. They simply require that this information such convictions. The Committee seeks your ad- be provided to the Secretary if known by the oc- vice on the effect of this provision. cupier. Compliance with this requirement of the Secondly, items [73] and [74] omit two items in Orders would be considered part of good man- Schedule 10, Table of Contents and substitute two agement practice. others. The Committee notes that the substituted I am advised the Department proposes to amend items seem identical to the items omitted. subclause 12.4 to read: The Committee would appreciate your advice on 12.4 If: the above matters as soon as possible, but before 29 July 2005, to enable it to finalise its considera- (a) the occupier of a registered establish- tion of these Orders. Correspondence should be ment is an individual or a partnership; directed to the Secretary, Senate Standing Com- and mittee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room (b) a person who manages or controls the SG49, Parliament House, Canberra. operation carried on at the establishment Yours sincerely is convicted of a serious offence; Tsebin Tchen the occupier must give the Secretary written notice of the conviction within 7 Chairman days after the occupier becomes aware ————— of the conviction. Appropriate sanctions that may be applied by the Secretary in the event of non-compliance with subclause 12.4 are described under clause 30 of

CHAMBER 52 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Schedule 1 of the Orders which allow for revoca- the Committee remains concerned that the tion or suspension of registration. amendment proposed will not have this result. With regard to the amendments inserted by items While the amendment refers to the occupier ‘be- [73] and [74], I appreciate the Committee bring- coming aware of the conviction’ it does not ex- ing this to my attention. I am advised the error plicitly address the situation of whether there is has been identified and will be corrected by any obligation to become aware. This issue is amendments presently being prepared for my significant because sanctions may be applied in approval. the event of non-compliance by an occupier. The wording will be amended to read respec- On 17 August 2005, the Committee gave a notice tively: of motion to disallow these Orders to give it more time to resolve this issue. 16. Clauses to apply in lieu of Divisions I and II of Part 10 of these Orders, and The Committee would appreciate your further advice on the above matter as soon as possible, 30. Clauses to apply in lieu of Divisions I but before 6 September 2005, to enable it to final- and II of Part 10 of these Orders. ise its consideration of these Orders. Correspon- Thank you again for bringing the Committee’s dence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate concerns regarding these Orders to my attention. I Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- trust that the information provided is of assis- nances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Can- tance. berra. Yours sincerely Yours sincerely Peter McGauran John Watson Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Chairman ————— ————— 18 August 2005 6 September 2005 The Hon Peter McGauran MP The Chairman Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- Suite M1.26 nances Parliament House Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister Dear Senator Watson Thank you for your letter of 16 August 2005 in Thank you for your letter of 18 August 2005 con- relation to the Export Control (Meat and Meat cerning the Export Control (Meat and Meat Prod- Products) Amendment Orders 2005 (No. 1) made ucts) Amendment Orders 2005 (No. 1) (the under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Amendment Orders) made under regulation 3 of Regulations 1982. the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982. I Subclause 12.4 of the Orders requires an occupier appreciate your patience and am pleased for the to notify the Secretary if a person in a managerial opportunity to provide further clarification to you. position is convicted of a serious offence. In your The Committee is concerned about subclause letter you state that the Orders place no obligation 12.4 of Schedule 1 of the Export Control (Meat on an occupier to formally inquire about any con- and Meat Products) Orders 2005 (“the Meat Or- victions, or on managers to advise occupiers of ders”) which was inserted by the Amendment any convictions—the Orders simply require that Orders. The Meat Orders regulate the preparation this information be provided to the Secretary if and export of meat and meat products from Aus- known by the occupier. tralia. The Orders are made under the Export The Committee appreciates the amendment which Control Act 1982 (the Act). you have proposed to clarify this intent. However,

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 53

Subclause 12.4 imposes an obligation on the oc- This substitution activity posed a serious threat to cupier of a registered establishment, if the occu- the future of Australian food exports to the United pier is an individual or a partnership, to give the States and to the United Kingdom and resulted in Secretary written notice within seven days of the the enactment of the Act in 1982. The Act contin- conviction for a serious offence of a person who ues to play a crucial role in protecting the interna- manages or controls the operations carried on at tional reputation of Australia’s food exports. the establishment. I appreciate the Committee’s concerns about the The purpose of the amendment is to impose the ambiguity of the occupier’s obligations in the same notification obligation on an occupier who current formulation of subclause 12.4. In response is an individual or a partnership as that which to those concerns, I propose to replace subclause already applies to an occupier that is a corpora- 12.4 with a new subclause which imposes a direct tion under subsection 4.18 of the Export Control obligation on a person in management or control (Prescribed Goods—General) Order 2005 (the to notify the Secretary within seven days of being PGGO). Subclause 12:1 requires compliance with convicted of a serious offence. As well, I propose this section of the PGGO. The occupier has the to place an obligation on the occupier to inform, same notification obligation in the event that the in writing, all persons in management or control occupier is convicted of a serious offence. of this notification requirement. A fine of 10 pen- These notification obligations are significant in alty units (equal to $1,100) would apply if the the context of the overall regulatory framework person in management and control were to be for the export of meat and meat products. They convicted of failing to notify the Secretary. If the provide the Australian Quarantine and Inspection occupier failed to inform the person in manage- Service with the information it needs to satisfy ment or control of the obligation to notify the the Secretary that an occupier and a person who Secretary, no penalty would apply but the Secre- manages or controls the operations carried on at tary would have a discretion to suspend or revoke the establishment continues to be ‘fit and proper’. the occupier’s approved arrangement under sub- The ‘fit and proper’ test is set out in section 4.05 clause 20.1 of Schedule 1 of the Meat Orders. I of the PGGO. undertake to make this amendment at the earliest opportunity. Section 4.05 of the PGGO is incorporated by reference to the Meat Orders. Under subclauses Thank you again for bringing the Committee’s 5.1 and 18.1 of Schedule 1 of the Meat Orders, concerns to my attention. I trust the information the Secretary may refuse to register an establish- provided is of assistance. ment or may suspend or revoke the registration if Yours sincerely an occupier or a person who manages or controls Peter McGauran the operations carried on at the establishment is Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry not or ceases to be ‘fit and proper’. In addition, under subclause 18.2 of Schedule 1 of the Meat ————— Orders, the Secretary has the discretion to sus- Modification Declaration No. 1 made under pend or revoke the registration of an establish- section 177 of the Retirement Savings Account ment if the occupier or a person in management Act 1997 and control at the establishment is convicted of an 16 June 2005 offence. The Hon Mal Brough MP The ‘fit and proper’ test as set out in the section 4.05 of the PGGO is in substantially the same Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer form as it existed in the now repealed 1985 ver- Suite M1.22 sion of the PGGO. The need for the ‘fit and Parliament House proper’ test arose from concerns about the integ- CANBERRA ACT 2600 rity of some participants in the export trade following an incident involving the labelling of kan- garoo and horsemeat as beef in the early 1980s.

CHAMBER 54 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Dear Minister The Committee would appreciate your advice on I refer to the following instruments made by the the above matters as soon as possible, but before Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. 29 July 2005, to enable it to finalise its considera- • tion of these Declarations. Correspondence Modification Declaration No 1, made under should be directed to the Secretary, Senate Stand- section 177 of the Retirement Savings Ac- ing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, count Act 1997 Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra. • Modification Declaration No 24, made under Yours sincerely section 332 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1997 Tsebin Tchen The Committee raises the following matters with Chairman regard to these instruments. ————— First, the Committee notes that section 17 of the 5 September 2005 Legislative Instruments Act 2003 directs a rule- Senator John Watson maker to be satisfied that appropriate consulta- Chairman tion, as is reasonably practicable, has been undertaken particularly where a proposed instrument is Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- likely to have an effect on business. Section 18 of nances the Act provides that in some circumstances con- Parliament House sultation may be unnecessary or inappropriate. CANBERRA AC 2600 The definition of ‘explanatory statement’ in section 4 of the Act requires an explanatory state- Dear Senator Watson ment to describe the nature of any consultation I am writing in response to the letter from the that has been carried out or, if there has been no Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- consultation, to explain why none was under- nances (the Committee) dated 16 June 2005 (ref: taken. The Explanatory Statement that accompa- 102/2005) concerning the making of Modification nies each Declaration makes no reference to con- Declaration No. 1, under section 177 of the Re- sultation. The Committee therefore seeks your tirement Savings Account Act 1997 (RSA Act), advice on whether consultation was undertaken and Modification Declaration No. 24, made under and, if so, the nature of that consultation. section 332 of the Superannuation Industry (Su- The Committee also seeks an assurance that fu- pervision) Act 1993. The letter requests advice as ture explanatory statements will provide informa- to whether consultation was undertaken in the tion on consultation as required by the Legislative making of the two instruments. The letter also Instruments Act. seeks an assurance that no person has been disadvantaged by the commencement of the instru- Secondly, both Declarations commence on the ments and that future Explanatory Statements will date they are signed, being 2 May 2005. The in- provide information on consultation as required struments were registered on 6 May 2005. The by the definition of ‘Explanatory Statement’ in consequence of subsection 12(2) of the Legisla- section 4 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 tive Instruments Act 2003 is that where an instru- (LIA). ment takes effect before the date it is registered, the Committee requires that the Explanatory It was an oversight on the part of the Australian Statement give an assurance that no person other Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) not to than the Commonwealth is disadvantaged by the include a reference in the Explanatory Statements retrospective commencement. The Explanatory as to whether consultation had been undertaken. Statement accompanying each instrument does Subsection 18(2) of the LIA provides that an in- not give such an assurance. The Committee there- strument that is of a minor or machinery nature fore seeks an assurance that no person has been and that does not substantially alter existing ar- disadvantaged by this retrospective commence- rangements is an instrument for which consulta- ment. tion is unnecessary or inappropriate. The Ex-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 55 planatory Statements did advise that Regulation Veterans’ Entitlements (Veterans’ Children Impact Statements were not necessary because Education Scheme-Scholarships, Statistics, the Modification Declarations were of a minor or MRCA) Instrument 2004-Instrument No. mechanical nature, however, it should also have R11/2004 been made clear that consultation was not re- 12 May 2005 quired for the same reason. Explanatory State- The Hon Phillip Ruddock MP ments provided by APRA will in future provide information on consultation as required by the Attorney-General LIA. Suite M1.21 The Modification Declarations commenced on 2 Parliament House May 2005, the date they were signed, and were CANBERRA ACT 2600 registered on 6 May 2005. The Explanatory Statements noted that the instruments commenced Dear Attorney-General on the date they were signed but did not give an I refer to the Veterans’ Entitlements (Veterans’ assurance that no person (other than the Com- Children Education Scheme-Scholarships, Statis- monwealth) would be disadvantaged by their tics, MRCA) Instrument 2004-Instrument No. commencing before the date of their registration. R11/2004 made under section 117 of the Veterans’ As the Modification Declarations implemented Entitlements Act 1986. transitional provisions and provided relief in the This instrument was made on 9 December 2004. 2004-05 financial year from the operation of Clause 2 of the instrument states that it com- amended regulations, it was considered that their mences on its approval by the Minister for Veter- commencement before the date of registration ans’ Affairs. That approval was given on 4 Janu- was not capable of disadvantaging any person. ary 2005. The instrument was registered on the Future Explanatory Statements provided by Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 5 APRA will, where statutory instruments com- April 2005. mence prior to registration, advise why the earlier Section 55 of the Legislative Instruments Act commencement date is not contrary to subsection 2003 [the Act] has the effect that where a legisla- 12(2) of the LIA. tive instrument was made before 1 January 2005, I note that you, on behalf of the Committee, gave but was not published in the Gazette before that notice on 17 August 2005 that 15 sitting days date, the instrument is to be treated as if it had after that date, you would move that Modification been made on 1 January 2005 and thus comes Declaration No. l made under section 177 of the under the requirements of the Act. It does not RSA Act be disallowed as the Explanatory State- appear that this instrument was published in the ment that accompanied this Declaration made no Gazette before 1 January 2005. If that is the case, reference to the issues raised by the Committee. I the instrument is subject to the Act. apologise for not responding to you by 29 July Subsection 12(1) of the Act provides that a legis- 2005 as requested. However, I hope that the lative instrument may take effect from a day, or a Committee will find the above explanation satis- day or time, that is specified in the instrument for factory as to the issues raised and not move to the purposes of commencement (or, which is not disallow the Modification Declaration. relevant here, from the day or time of the com- I trust this information will be of assistance to mencement of an Act). In any other case, the in- you. strument takes effect from day after registration. Yours sincerely In the present instance, the instrument refers only Mal Brough to commencement upon approval by the Minister. It does not specify a day or time. It is arguable, Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer therefore, that the instrument commenced on 6 ————— April 2005. The Committee therefore seeks your advice as to whether a commencement provision of the type found in this instrument amounts to

CHAMBER 56 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 specifying a date for the purposes of subsection fied in the instrument. I consider that the Minis- 12(1). ter’s approval could constitute such an occur- The Committee would appreciate your advice on rence. the above matter as soon as possible, but before As mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum 17 June 2005, to enable it to finalise its considera- to the Legislative Instruments Bill 2003, the abil- tion of this instrument. Correspondence should be ity provided by subsection 12(1) to commence a directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Com- legislative instrument by reference to the occur- mittee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room rence of an event (the example given in the Ex- SG49, Parliament House, Canberra. planatory Memorandum was the entering into Yours sincerely force of a treaty) is an expansion from the existing provisions in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 Tsebin Tchen and ensures maximum flexibility. Chairman Your letter also mentions section 55 of the LIA. ————— As I understand it, there is no requirement in the 15 June 2005 Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 for these particu- Senator Tsebin Tchen lar instruments to be gazetted so section 55 would not seem to apply in this case. Chairman Yours sincerely Standing Committee of Regulations and Ordi- nances Philip Ruddock SG49 Attorney-General Parliament House ————— CANBERRA ACT 2600 12 May 2005 Dear Senator Tchen The Hon De-Anne Kelly MP Thank you for your letter dated 12 May 2005 Minister for Veteran’s Affairs seeking my advice on commencement provisions Suite M1.19 of the type found in the Veterans’ Entitlements Parliament House (Veterans’ Children Education Scheme- Scholar- CANBERRA ACT 2600 ships, Statistics, MRCA) Instrument No. R11/2004. Dear Minister In relation to that particular instrument, I under- I refer to the Veterans’ Entitlements (Veterans’ stand that you have also written to the Minister Children Education Scheme-Scholarships, Statis- for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon De-Anne Kelly MP, tics, MRCA) Instrument 2004–Instrument No. seeking her advice on the date of commencement R11/2004 made under section 117 of the Veterans’ of that particular instrument and her assurance Entitlements Act 1986. that the instrument does not adversely affect per- This instrument was made on 9 December 2004. sons in accordance with subsection 12(2) of the Clause 2 of the instrument states that it com- Legislative Instruments Act 2003 (the LIA). I mences on its approval by the Minister for Veter- understand that the Minister will be responding to ans’ Affairs. That approval was given on 4 Janu- you on these matters. ary 2005. The instrument was registered on the In relation to your question on commencement Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 5 provisions, you raised your Committee’s concern April 2005. with the meaning of subsection 12(1) of the LIA. Section 55 of the Legislative Instruments Act Subsection 12(1) explains when instruments cov- 2003 has the effect that where a legislative in- ered by the LIA take effect. Paragraph 12(1)(c) strument was made before 1 January 2005, but provides that an instrument (made on or after 1 was not published in the Gazette before that date, January 2005) may be expressed to take effect the instrument is to be treated as if it had been from the day of the occurrence of an event speci- made on 1 January 2005 and thus comes under

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 57 the requirements of the Act. It does not appear Dear Senator Tchen that this instrument was published in the Gazette Thank you for your letter of 12 May 2005 in rela- before 1 January 2005. If that is the case, the in- tion to the legislative instrument entitled Veterans’ strument is subject to the Act. Entitlements (Veterans’ Children Education If this instrument is taken to have commenced on Scheme- Scholarships, Statistics, MRCA) Instru- the date of the Minister’s approval (4 January ment No.R11/2004. 2005), and the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 You will recall that my advice was sought about applies, an issue may arise under subsection 12(2) the date on which the instrument commenced and of the Act. That subsection provides that an in- you also sought my assurance that the instrument strument which purports to take effect before the did not adversely affect persons in the terms of date it is registered has no effect if it adversely subsection 12(2) of the Legislative Instruments affects the rights or liabilities of a person other Act 2003. than the Commonwealth. While it appears that The legal advice from the Department of Veter- this present instrument does not have any adverse ans’ Affairs (Department) is that the instrument effect on persons other than the Commonwealth, commenced on the date when I approved it in no such assurance is given in the Explanatory accordance with the requirements of subsection Statement. Indeed, the Explanatory Statement 117(3) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ie. indicates that there is no retrospective effect. The 4 January 2005. Committee therefore seeks your advice about the proper commencement date of this instrument and The above commencement date has resulted in an assurance that it does not adversely affect per- the instrument having retrospective effect in rela- sons in accordance with subsection 12(2) of the tion to the date on which it was registered under Act. the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. However, I am advised that the instrument is entirely benefi- In the meantime, the Committee has written to the cial in nature and does not adversely affect any- Attorney-General seeking his advice on the com- one. Indeed, the instrument widened eligibility by mencement provisions in the Veterans’ Entitle- removing the prohibition on recipients obtaining ments Act 1986 as they relate to those provided benefits if they also received other Common- for in the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. wealth benefits and enabled the Veterans’ Chil- The Committee would appreciate your advice on dren Education Scheme Boards to deal with the above matter as soon as possible, but before claims under the similar scheme established under 17 June 2005, to enable it to finalise its considera- the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act tion of this instrument. Correspondence should be 2004. directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Com- I acknowledge that the Explanatory Statement mittee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room incorrectly stated that the instrument did not have SG49, Parliament House, Canberra. retrospective effect. However this error was Yours sincerely caused by delays arising from the Christmas/New Tsebin Tchen Year period. Chairman When the Explanatory Statement was prepared in ————— December 2004 it was believed that the instrument would have been made prior to the com- 26 August 2005 mencement of the Legislative Instruments Act Senator Tsebin Tchen 2003 (1 January 2005). Unfortunately, that time- Chairman table was unable to be met and the Explanatory Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordi- Statement was not revised to reflect the changed nances circumstances. Parliament House Although the instrument was lodged for registration on 4 March 2005 and registered on 5 April CANBERRA ACT 2600 2005, some three months after the date I approved

CHAMBER 58 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 it, I am advised that this should not be a cause for today, relating to ethanol in petrol, post- concern in relation to the legality of the instru- poned till 13 September 2005. ment. General business notice of motion no. 252 There is no specific time limit in the Legislative standing in the name of Senator Milne for Instruments Act 2003 for the lodging of new in- today, relating to the Nuclear Non- struments other than that the instrument must be Proliferation Treaty, postponed till 13 Sep- lodged “as soon as practicable” after it is made. I tember 2005. understand that the Attorney-General’s Depart- MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ment has advised that the Department may law- fully administer beneficial legislative instruments Private Health Insurance (eg. the present instrument) before they are regis- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The tered. President has received a letter from Senator I apologise for the error in the Explanatory McLucas proposing that a definite matter of Statement and trust that the above information is public importance be submitted to the Senate of assistance to addressing the concerns of the for discussion, namely: Committee. The failure of the Howard Government to en- Yours sincerely sure that private health insurance is affordable, De-Anne Kelly MP provides cover for needed services and provides Minister for Veterans’ Affairs real value to Australian families. LEAVE OF ABSENCE I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (4.00 pm)—by leave—I move: More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in That leave of absence be granted to Senator Allison for the period 7.30 pm, 12 September to their places— 15 September inclusive on account of parliamen- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I under- tary business overseas. stand that informal arrangements have been Question agreed to. made to allocate specific times to each of the NOTICES speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to Postponement set the clock accordingly. The following items of business were Senator McLUCAS (Queensland) (4.02 postponed: pm)—I thank the Senate for agreeing that we Government business order of the day no. should be debating this matter of public im- 1 (Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibil- portance today. People reading the Austra- ity in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) lian newspaper this morning would have Bill 2005), postponed till 13 September 2005. found out that the government is firming in its intention to sell Medibank Private but is Business of the Senate notice of motion no. also considering instituting a series of reward 1 standing in the name of Senator Bob Brown for today, proposing the reference schemes, including no-claim bonuses, for of matters to the Community Affairs Ref- young Australians who have private health erences Committee, postponed till 14 Sep- insurance. These two revelations in today’s tember 2005. media indicate to me and those on this side General business notice of motion no. 238 of the chamber that the government has standing in the name of the Leader of the completely failed in its commitment to de- Australian Democrats (Senator Allison) for

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 59 liver on a sustainable private health insur- The government have actively encouraged ance sector in this country. more older Australians to take out private Mr Acting Deputy President, you would health insurance with the increased rebate for remember that at the introduction of the 30 older Australians. There is nothing wrong per cent private health insurance rebate the with anyone being able to take out private government promised to drive premiums health insurance, but by putting in the incen- down. They promised to make private health tive, the increased rebate to older Austra- insurance sustainable by getting more and lians, the government have made a decision more young Australians, so they said, into to encourage older Australians into private private health insurance. They have failed on health insurance, with a net lack of benefit both counts. They have failed because Minis- for younger people who have private health ter Abbott simply ticks off on private health insurance. insurance premium increases every year. We The solution to the mess that the govern- used to have a system where the private ment has got itself into on private health in- health insurance sector had to bring their surance is simple. Firstly, just as with Telstra, proposals for increases to the minister of the rather than selling Medibank Private today it day, but that has changed. That has changed should be fixing it so that it is a market because the minister felt a little bit of heat leader and it is delivering value for money when private health insurance premiums products. Secondly, if the government is con- were going up, so he simply pushed it to one templating allowing rewards schemes for side and basically said, ‘Whatever you ask younger Australians, these must not include a for you will get.’ He does not make the pri- no-claim bonus policy. If they are done on vate health insurance sector explain anymore that basis, it will simply mean that younger why it is that they need premium increase Australians who take out private health in- rises. surance will continue to use the public sys- The other reason that I put to the Senate as tem so that they do not end up breaching or a reason why the government have failed in losing their no-claim bonus. It is of no net making the private health insurance sector advantage to the health system to have peo- sustainable is that they have missed an op- ple take out highly subsidised private health portunity with Medibank Private. Medibank insurance and then use the public system in Private is a publicly owned private health any event. insurer. In that, it provides the government If you have taken out your private cover with a fantastic opportunity to set a bench- on the basis that you will get some form of mark for the rest of the sector, to use their reward or discount if you do not use it and ownership of Medibank private to show the then you need access to the health system, rest of the industry what can be done to de- you are obviously going to use the public liver sustainable, quality private health in- system. For example, if a young person with surance to the community. But instead of a sporting injury is going to lose access to using Medibank private as a market leader, rewards or be faced with increased costs if as a benchmark, Minister Abbott has taken a they rely on their private health insurance, completely hands-off approach to the man- they are much more likely just to turn up at agement of this company. A great opportu- their public hospital. What we are trying to nity has been lost. do with private health insurance, particularly given how heavily subsidised it is, is to use it to lift the burden off the public system.

CHAMBER 60 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Clearly, with a no-claim bonus rewards sys- Minister repeatedly said that the introduction tem such as mooted in today’s press, that of the 30 per cent private health insurance simply will not happen. rebate would put, in his words, downward You cannot compare private health insur- pressure on private health insurance premi- ance with, say, car insurance. Let us take a ums. Earlier this year, though, we know that situation where a person has had a car acci- Minister Abbott approved an increase of 7.96 dent which is not significant and the bill for per cent on average to private health insur- fixing the car is not huge. That person is ance premiums. This is the fourth consecu- faced with a couple of options. If they use tive annual premium increase for private their car insurance, they will lose their no- health insurance funds. claim bonus. The other option is to pay for The latest increase follows rises of—and fixing the car themselves. That is a sensible, these are averages—7.58 per cent in 2004 logical decision that a person could make. and 7.4 per cent in 2003. The increase this But you cannot compare car or house insur- year of almost eight per cent is the highest ance with private health insurance. Let us a increase since the government implemented say person has a sporting injury that is not the private health insurance rebate changes serious. The options for that individual are four years ago. Private health insurance is very different. The first option is to pay for it now 33 per cent more expensive than in themselves, which is highly unlikely in to- 2001, completely wiping out the 30 per cent day’s climate. The second option is to access rebate that was instituted in that year. The their private health insurance and potentially 7.96 per cent average increase in premiums lose their no-claim bonus. The third option, will cost the government this year at least and it is this option that a young person in $200 million more due to the 30 per cent this situation will always take, is to turn up at rebate. The increase in premiums is also on their local public hospital. After a car acci- top of the increase in gap fees and exclusions dent, you do not have the option of a pub- in policies by the providers. Gap payments to licly funded panel beater or mechanic, but doctors increased by 19.2 per cent in 2003- you do have an option when it comes to 04, according to the Private Health Insurance health in this country. That option must stay Administration Council. there. But, if a no-claim bonus policy is As I said, in 2001 the Prime Minister and brought in in this country, that option will the Treasurer promised downward pressure never be of benefit; it will do the worst. If on premiums and that private health insur- the private health system will pick up the ance would be more affordable and attractive slack for people who are opting out of using to consumers. That simply has not happened. their private health insurance because of a We have had a 33 per cent increase over four no-claim bonus, they will always take that years and the industry has changed the pack- option. age of offerings that it has for the commu- Irrespective of the protestations and com- nity. On top of that, we have had increases in mitments that the government gave, espe- gap fees. The gap fees keep rising. In July of cially during the 2001 election, private health this year Minister Abbott launched a report insurance premiums keep on rising. Back in that confirmed that 44 per cent of hospital 2001 Senator Patterson, along with the Prime visits attract a gap of $720 on average. Aus- Minister, gave an absolutely unequivocal—I tralians will not be surprised by that news, suppose we could say ‘ironclad’—guarantee because they know that after nine long years that premiums would be reduced. The Prime of the Howard government private health

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 61 insurance is costing them more but that, if got out. That means that the number of peo- they use it, they face increased gap fees and ple with private health insurance only went exemptions. There could be no clearer ex- up by 2,846 since December 2004. And it is ample of this than the game that the private not surprising that health funds have paid out health insurance sector is involved in to a record amount in benefits—an 8.2 per cent avoid paying for insulin pumps for children increase from last March. That simply high- with diabetes. It means that privately insured lights the point that people over the age of 55 families can still be up for around $8,000 for tend to be net drawers from private health an insulin pump because their private health insurance, whereas those younger than that insurance fund is not going to pay up. are net contributors. It is inevitable that pre- Minister Abbott did not know anything miums are going to continue to creep up be- about gap fees until he personally experi- cause those in the insurance sector are older enced them in October of last year. In Febru- and are requiring the use of their insurance at ary he promised to do something about them. a greater rate. The majority of those with- But all these months later nothing has been drawing from private health insurance are done, and Minister Abbott’s only response to younger people and, consequently, so are date has been to say that he will sit down their children. Many younger people and with doctors and the private health insurance their families simply can no longer afford to sector and have a chat about it. Minister Ab- pay for private health insurance, because the bott, it is time to stop chatting and start doing minister for health has failed to ensure value something. He has the power to force private for money. health insurers to get this problem fixed. As There are a number of other points that I minister for health he has the power in the know my colleague Senator Polley is going first quarter of every year to approve or not to cover in this debate, but let me simply approve increases in private health insurance reiterate that the failure of the government to premiums. Private health insurance is also ensure that private health insurance is afford- subsidised by almost $3 billion every year able is a reality. We have watched while from taxpayers. After nine long years of this Minister Abbott in particular has had his government, private health insurance costs hands off the steering wheel. He should not keep going up while gap fees skyrocket and leave the private health insurance sector to more exclusions creep into the system. After do what it wants. Unfortunately, Minister nine long years of the Howard government, Abbott has power that he has not been able Australians are paying more and getting less. to use. He has not kept downward pressure The Howard government seniors rebate, on premiums. We have seen increases of 33 as I have mentioned, is an unsustainable pol- per cent over the last four years. We have icy that will eventually cost Australian fami- seen gap fees rising exponentially. We have lies more. The latest figures, from the March seen the private health insurance sector 2005 quarter, for private health insurance bringing in exemptions and developing membership and benefits paid prove that the packages that are unsustainable. At the same Howard government seniors rebate is an un- time, we are encouraging older Australians sustainable policy that will cost Australians, into private health insurance and therefore and especially Australian families, more and discouraging younger Australians from going more. Around 24,000 people aged over 55 into private health insurance. I think the ar- took out private health insurance in that gument is very clear. This is an absolute case quarter; around 21,000 people aged under 55

CHAMBER 62 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 of mismanagement and incompetence. (Time Of course, not only are we spending more expired) on providing for public health in this country Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capi- but we are also spending substantially on tal Territory) (4.17 pm)—I want to take issue private health. The centrepiece of our in- with much of what Senator McLucas has vestment in private health is the private said in today’s debate on this matter of pub- health insurance rebate, and $2.7 billion is lic importance. In particular, I want to em- expended to achieve that centrepiece of gov- phasise how important it is that the govern- ernment policy on health care. Very simply, ment federally pursue policies that commit to it ensures that private health insurance in this a balanced health system which provides a country remains affordable to thousands place for both public and private sector in- more Australians than otherwise would be volvement in the health system. In doing so, the case. Indeed, at the present time, some- the present government, the Howard gov- thing like 8.7 million Australians have some ernment, have done more to sustain the af- form of health insurance, very largely as a fordability of private health insurance than result of the policies which provide for it to any other government in Australia’s history, be within their reach through a rebate on the even though we live in an age when the cost cost of private health insurance. In those fig- of health care is rising at a greater rate in this ures, it is significant that approximately one country, as indeed it is everywhere else in the million Australians on incomes below Western world, than the general rate of infla- $20,000 a year—self-funded retirees, people tion. It is vitally important that any govern- on low incomes, students et cetera—are able ment have a balance in the health system to afford private health insurance as a result between the roles of the private sector and of this government’s policies. the public sector, and that they invest in both Why do we invest in providing for people of those sectors. That is precisely what the to take out private health insurance? Why is present federal government have done. that important in running a good health sys- In the years since it came to office the tem in this country? There are three reasons government has increased expenditure on principally. First of all, it adds to the health Australian health very dramatically in both system a large number of dollars which private and public health care. In the 2004- would not otherwise be there, because Aus- 05 budget, about $40.5 billion was spent fed- tralians are encouraged to spend from their erally on the health of Australians. That own pockets on the maintenance and im- represents a very substantial increase in both provement of their own health care. It is very the dollar amount and the proportion of GDP important to recall that if we did not have a that was spent formerly by the Labor gov- private health insurance rebate we would not ernment at the federal level. It also repre- have that money being spent by Australians sents a very substantial increase in spending on private health insurance, and that burden on health, above and beyond increases that would fall back on the public sector. Sec- have been sustained in recent years by state ondly, the private health insurance rebate, Labor governments. Let us be clear: it is the and the expansion of private health insurance federal Liberal coalition government that has generally, provide for pressure to be taken invested heavily in the quality of health care off the public hospital system, and that is for Australians, and it continues to do so. extremely important. The then President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Bill

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 63

Glasson, said to the Senate select committee are measures such as Lifetime Health Cover, inquiry into Medicare in 2003: which this government has put in place, and The only reason the public hospitals are surviving increases in that private health insurance re- to any extent that they are at the moment is be- bate in recent years for people above the cause of the 30 per cent private health insurance ages of 65 and 70. rebate ... The third reason that it is important to That assessment was borne out by the figures have subsidies or support for private health that were produced to that committee, which insurance is that every person who takes out demonstrated that a huge number of cases private health insurance is an empowered are being diverted from overworked, under consumer who is able to demand more from pressure public hospitals into private facili- the health system, and that is a very impor- ties, which is making it easier for Australians tant point. Those who are paying for those who do not have or cannot afford private services are able to say, ‘I demand this level health insurance to use those public facilities. of quality in what I personally am paying For example, in 1999, after the rebate was for.’ Without that kind of signal within the introduced, there was a very substantial re- health system, we run a risk that quality duction in the number of public hospital measures will not be adequate to keep rises separations that took place in Australia. In in the standard of health care at a level that 2000-01, although there was an increase of Australians have come to expect. just over 12 per cent in private hospital sepa- This debate is taking place in the absence rations, there was actually a small decline in of any clear alternatives from the Australian public hospital separations in this country. Labor Party. They criticise the policies of the Such a decline in the number of public hos- government, but they have not put any of pital admissions is probably unprecedented their own policies on the table in the course since records were first kept. of today’s debate. I invite Senator Polley or Everybody has to concede that that is a any of the other speakers in this debate to good thing, because we know that we cannot indicate what Labor’s policies actually are. I continually add pressure to public hospital do not know what they are. We had criticism waiting lists, emergency departments and so today of a measure which has been consid- forth without seeing the system under very ered by a consultant to the government re- considerable stress. The sorts of cases that garding ways of being able to improve pri- are being diverted into private hospitals and vate health insurance uptake. That does not facilities are not, as has been suggested by seem to sit well with the Labor Party. Great. some people, those lower acuity, more lucra- Tell us what you would do. Tell us what your tive matters that otherwise would not be very alternative is. We are a year out from the last profitable. They are measures like malignant election; it is about time some policies were breast conditions, chemotherapy, and cardiac developed. We would like to know where valve and hip replacement procedures— you stand on those issues. things that are pretty important and pretty Of course private health insurance rebates high-volume matters for Australians that are costing more. They will always cost more would otherwise have to be pursued in a because health will cost more. The cost of public hospital, where in most cases waiting health rises more rapidly than other costs in lists are very considerable and people have to the community—that is, the health inflation wait a long time to get those services. Of rate is, sadly, greater than the general infla- course, that is not the only measure. There

CHAMBER 64 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 tion rate because of the onset of new tech- We have seen private health insurance nology and the greater capacity of medical premiums rise on average by around seven science to solve or deal with more problems per cent in each of the past four years. In than was the case in the past. So it is really 2002 they went up 6.9 per cent. in 2003 they disingenuous politics on the part of the Labor went up 7.4 per cent, in 2004 they went up Party to say, ‘Health costs have risen and 7.82 per cent and in 2005 they went up eight private health insurance premiums have risen per cent. If you add all that up, it comes to very quickly under this government, there- more than 30 per cent since 2001, which ef- fore the government cannot be trusted with fectively wipes out the government’s 30 per private health insurance.’ There is nothing cent private health insurance rebate. And that the opposition could do in government, these are only the average increases. Some even if they had ideas, to prevent those sorts premiums have risen by 10 to 20 per cent a of increases from taking place. If there is year, far overshadowing any relief that may something they could do, I would like to hear have come from the government’s rebate—a it in the course of this debate. The measures rebate which is costing the Australian com- we have put in place are effective and have munity more than $2.5 billion a year. And made health insurance affordable for mil- because the rebate is tied to the annual cost lions of Australians, and millions of Austra- of premiums, the cost to the taxpayer is lians have taken out private health insurance guaranteed to escalate. If the government for that very reason. That is why this policy keep rubber stamping premium increases for should be pursued, and to make hay over the private health insurance, as they have done fact that those costs have increased is very in the past, then we can expect those costs to cheap politics indeed. grow and grow. Senator ALLISON (Victoria—Leader of It is certainly true that the failure of state the Australian Democrats) (4.27 pm)—The and federal governments to adequately fund Democrats say that it is time for the Howard the public health system has meant that more government to come clean on its failures in people feel that they are not going to get the the area of private health insurance instead health care that they need unless they have of, as we have seen in recent times, trying to private health insurance. Even though they hide the bad news. Since 1996, this govern- may believe that private health insurance is ment has introduced a lot of measures that almost a necessity, many ordinary Austra- have pushed people into private health insur- lians are starting to realise that the governance, and it consistently promised that these ment’s private health insurance incentives measures would mean that private health are structured in such a way that more bene- insurance would be more affordable. What a fits go to the wealthy than to those who are joke we know that to be. We know that pri- on modest incomes. vate health insurance fees have increased A recent paper by the Australia Institute enormously over the last four years. We found that fewer than one in four Australian know this even though the health minister families with incomes below $25,000 have has tried to bury this information by releas- private health insurance, while more than ing notification of premium hikes on the two-thirds, or 69 per cent, of families with same day as interest rates have gone up, hop- incomes over $100,000 have private health ing that bad news in one area would over- insurance. So not only are these people more shadow bad news in another. likely to have private health insurance but they can also afford more expensive forms of

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 65 a private health insurance and receive an sector. For every dollar going into private even larger rebate. health insurance, I am sure we would get far Even if you can afford private health in- greater value if those dollars went into the surance, you get stuck with huge out-of- public sector. pocket hospital costs costs. The Minister for Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (4.33 Health and Ageing recently released figures, pm)—A tank of petrol or private health in- based on a survey of more than 4,000 private surance? For the majority of young Austra- hospital insurance claimants, that showed lian families, there is no choice. Today’s that 44 per cent of patients were left facing newspapers show that the government is extra bills on top of what they had already clearly positioning itself to sell off Medibank paid for their private health insurance cover. Private. The latest grand health insurance On average, they faced a cost of $720 per scam this government is considering is a re- hospital stay. According to this survey, after ward scheme for young Australians. Doesn’t paying of the order of $1,000 to $2,500 in this suggest that the government has com- premiums, some patients were paying up to pletely failed to deliver on private health an extra $1,250 for their treatment. insurance? Didn’t the Howard government Australians are paying more and more for promise to drive premiums down? Didn’t it their premiums and the government, through promise to make private health insurance its rebate, is also paying more and more. And more sustainable by getting more young all of that money is going towards the very Australians into the scheme? It has failed. expensive private hospital sector, rather than How about delivering some of the incen- into funding essential public health and tives they promised at the last election? After medical services. We do not think that is sus- nine long years, the Howard government still tainable. We also do not think it is fair. have not managed to get premiums down. One of the other aspects of private health After nine long years, they still have not insurance is that there is an effective public transformed Medibank Private into a market subsidy of 30 per cent on premiums that leader. It has all become too hard. Rather cover allied health services. If you want to than fix Medibank Private, they want to ‘do a go to a psychologist or a physiotherapist or a Telstra’ and sell it off. They should be fixing podiatrist, you can get cover for it that is it. I guess you can say they are consistent: if subsidised by the government. Yet, if you are they cannot fix it, they sell it. not part of private health insurance then— Incentives? No-claim bonuses? What will apart from some small programs that operate happen to the overburdened public health through GPs—there is no federal funding system when a young footballer decides to which flows into those areas. In the public present at a public hospital with a corked sector, there is no entitlement to receive a thigh rather than lose his private health in- rebate for those services surance no-claim bonus? Younger Austra- Unless the government is committed to in- lians will continue to use the public system troducing an Americanised health system so that they do not end up breaching the con- into Australia where only the rich get access ditions of their no-claim bonus and losing the to health care, it cannot continue to cut the bonus altogether. It is of no net advantage to legs out from underneath Medicare while the health system to have people take out a throwing billions of dollars towards the pri- highly subsidised private health insurance vate sector. As I said, it is a very expensive product and then use the public system any-

CHAMBER 66 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 how. What we are trying to do with private pump because private health funds will not health insurance, particularly given how cough up. heavily subsidised it is, is lift the burden. Is it any wonder that, when it comes time Clearly, a rewards system is not the answer. to choose, young Australian families are top- Bring costs down? Nonsense. The average ping up their petrol tanks and dropping their health insurance premium rose by 7.9 per health insurance? Who would not, when cent earlier this year after Minister Abbott health insurance premiums skyrocketed this approved yet another increase. In each of the March anywhere from 7.9 per cent to 20 per last four long years we have seen rises aver- cent? It is time for the health minister, Minis- aging 7.58 per cent. That makes private ter Abbott, to get tough with the private health insurance 33 per cent more expensive health insurance industry and force them to than it was in 2001. You might have blinked deliver value for money. He has the power to and missed the 30 per cent private health force private health insurers to fix the prob- insurance rebate as it raced out the back lems. He has the power to approve or veto door, gone forever. increases in private insurance premiums. And what about gap fees? According to This industry is subsidised by almost $3 the Private Health Insurance Administration billion a year by mum and dad taxpayers. Council, gap payments to doctors have gone Why should they not get value for money? up by 19.2 per cent. In July, Minister Abbott Why should they have to find more and more launched a report which confirmed 44 per money each week to meet their health insur- cent of hospital visits attracted a gap of $720 ance premiums? We all know what impact on average. What young family can afford the next round of health insurance premium that? That is half the average monthly mort- increases will have on health fund member- gage payment. Why should they struggle to ship—just remember to shut the door on find that gap when they are already paying your way out. The average wage earner does hefty private health insurance premiums? not have any more dollars left to prop up Australians will not be surprised to learn Medibank Private. Under this government, that, under the Howard government, private mum and dad taxpayers will exercise their health insurance is costing more, they are personal right to veto and opt out of this un- getting less and the gap payments are grow- derperforming scheme. ing out of control. Nine long years ago, John It is astounding to consider that, while Howard’s election policy booklet Heading in 24,000 people aged over 55 took out private the right direction promised that his govern- health insurance, around 21,000 under 55 ment’s policies would lead to reduced pre- dropped out. That means that, since Decem- miums. ber 2004, just 2,846 Australians have taken And what about the service loopholes? out private health insurance. If they were My fellow Tasmanian, Senator Guy Barnett, offered value for money, young families should look closely at the disadvantages his would embrace private health insurance. In- diabetic constituents face under the Howard stead, the price goes up, the gap gets greater, government. Insurers still refuse to pay for exclusions are on the rise and value for insulin pumps for kids with diabetes— money has never been realised. Why should incredible! Privately insured families can Australians pay more and get less if they still be up for nearly $8,000 for an insulin choose private health insurance?

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 67

And what about our senior Australians? replacements. As technology moves on these The March quarter figures show that the sen- things have to be replaced more and more. iors rebate is an unsustainable policy that The cost is being kept under control as best it will end up costing Australian families more can, but people must not be denied this tech- and serves no purpose for most of their nology. It is unrealistic to think that private needs. The Howard government promised health insurance can be isolated from these cheaper private health insurance when they price increases, particularly if we as a nation introduced Lifetime Health Cover—another want to continue to enjoy the benefits of the broken promise, after nine long years. It is latest technologies. no stretch to claim that Minister Abbott has Australia has a world-class health system. failed to deliver a market leader through It is a mixed system, with a strong public Medibank Private. Instead, he is chickening sector and a strong private sector. Both sec- out and opting for the sale—just like with tors cooperate to give Australians choice and Telstra. access to high-quality, affordable health care. Senator ADAMS (Western Australia) Nearly nine million Australians now have (4.40 pm)—When speaking about the af- private cover and can choose to receive fordability of private health insurance, it is treatment in private hospitals, freeing up the very interesting to note that, in June 2004, resources in public hospitals for public pa- 8.627 million Australians had private health tients. Government incentives, including the insurance cover and, in June 2005, this num- 30 per cent rebate, have encouraged Austra- ber had increased to 8.7 million. When Labor lians to take out private cover, lifting mem- left office, as at June 1993, the number of bership to approximately 43 per cent of the Australians covered by private health insur- population in March 2005 from 30.1 per cent ance was 6.967 million. In 1992-93, under in December 1998. The 30 per cent rebate Labor, before the rebate was introduced, the makes private health insurance more afford- cost of private health insurance, expressed as able for Australian families. It contributes a percentage of average annual earnings, was around $850 every year to the health care 3.7 per cent. As a result of the Howard gov- costs of millions of Australian families—but, ernment’s rebate, the cost of private health for many, the benefit is over $1,000. It also insurance as a percentage of average annual helps families on low incomes. Over one earnings dropped to 3.1 per cent. If the 30 million Australians on incomes less than per cent rebate were scrapped, this cost $20,000 per year have private cover. would blow out to 4.5 per cent of average The higher rebates for older Australians annual earnings. I have a graph of the pre- make private health insurance more afford- mium rises from 1985-86 to 2005-06. It is able for older Australians. The higher rebates interesting to note that in 10 years under La- of 35 per cent for people aged 65 to 69 years bor the average increase was 11 per cent and and 40 per cent for people aged 70 years in 10 years under the coalition the average were introduced from 1 April this year. The increase was 5.6 per cent. higher rebates will help to keep premiums We cannot deny that the cost of health affordable for the over one million older care is rising across the health care system. Australians with private health insurance. This is largely due to increasing technology Couples and families eligible for the higher costs, rising wages for nurses and other rebates will save between $100 and $200 per health professionals, and the use of prosthe- year on top of the savings they already re- ses, such as cardiac pacemakers and joint ceive from the 30 per cent rebate. Many of

CHAMBER 68 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 these people have held private health insur- increases, was wrong. The government and ance throughout their lives, and this measure insurers also said that the rebate would take rewards them for maintaining that cover. pressure off public hospitals and, yet again, Critics of the rebates claim that, by sup- we see that this is not the case and that the porting private health, the government fails public health system remains stretched to the to support public health. This argument ig- limit. Last year, a study by Canberra Univer- nores the extensive funding that the govern- sity health economist, Ian McAuley, found ment is providing to the state and territory the government subsidies to the private governments for public hospitals. This argu- health insurance industry were not resulting ment assumes that, if the money provided for in the expected increases in work done in the private health insurance rebate were private hospitals but were putting pressure given to public hospitals, there would be no on public hospital staffing levels. The only waiting list. This is plainly wrong. When the thing that is clear from these two examples is government helps people choose to go to a that both this government and the self- private hospital, it takes pressure off the pub- serving private health insurance industry lic hospitals. Private hospitals are treating cannot be trusted on this issue. more patients. The long-term trend shows As premium costs rise, so does the corre- that private hospital separations are growing sponding 30 per cent publicly funded private more quickly than public hospital separa- health insurance rebate subsidy that is hap- tions. More than 50 per cent of all surgery is pily handed over by this government to the now provided in private hospitals. Private private health insurance industry each year. hospital separations increased by 16 per cent Recent research by the Australia Institute in the three years to 2002-03, while public shows that seven in 10 people with incomes hospital separations increased by eight per over $100,000 have private health insurance, cent. while for those earning under $25,000 a year Senator NETTLE (New South Wales) the figure is substantially lower at one in (4.45 pm)—As I have said before in this four people with private health insurance. chamber, the Howard government’s private This clearly shows that the 30 per cent pri- health insurance rebate policy is a failure. vate health insurance rebate amounts to noth- We have seen the average private health in- ing short of a scandalous transfer of public surance premium rise nearly eight per cent funds to the well-off. These funds would be over the last 12 months. That is similar to far better spent on the strained public health premium increases that we have seen over sector. As the Greens have said repeatedly, it the last four years and it is well above the is the public health sector that is best placed consumer price index. The Howard govern- to provide the most efficient and equitable ment told us that the private health insurance health services to all, based on medical need rebate would take pressure off health insur- not an ability to pay for services. ance premium increases and, unsurprisingly, The private health insurance scheme does the private health insurance industry backed not provide cover for needed services in re- the call for more public funds to be given to gional areas where private health insurance their industry in the form of the private cover is particularly low. Low rates of pri- health insurance rebate. The continual private health insurance in regional Australia vate health insurance premium increases are hardly surprising when some areas have show that the government’s argument, that no hospitals and no specialists, and their de- the rebate would take pressure off premium livery of health services and of health out-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 69 comes are worse. Consequently, there is no The failure of the Howard government to ensure perceived need for people in these communi- that private health insurance is affordable, pro- ties to take out private health insurance. vides cover for needed services and provides real value to Australian families. The government is now considering allowing further incentives to attract young, The government rejects this so-called matter healthy Australians into private health insur- of public importance out of hand. We do that ance. The Howard government has tried to with a backdrop that the previous govern- attract these fit, young Australians before, ment speaker, Senator Adams, rightly men- with the Lifetime Health Cover policy, but tioned when she said that we have a world- the trend continues to be clear—young peo- class system in Australia; a world-class ple are leaving private health insurance in health system on any benchmark or analysis. droves. The latest Private Health Insurance Australia has much to be proud of and we are Administration Council figures show that able to confirm that we have one of the best between June 2001 and June 2005 108,000 health systems in the world, if not the best. young people under the age of 30 abandoned You would have to question the genuine- private health insurance while 130,000 peo- ness of the opposition in bringing forward ple over the age of 55 signed on. Why should this matter of public importance today, given we believe that this time the government and that at no time since the election have we the private health insurance industry will be debated this matter. You would imagine that able achieve what they are trying to do with if this were a bubbling concern to those on this second proposal, to try to attract these the opposite side we would have got at least young, fit and healthy Australians into buy- a question during today’s question time at the ing private health insurance? very latest. But we have heard nothing from The government’s current private health them. They have taken no opportunity in any insurance policy is part of this government’s previous forum to raise this issue at all. So agenda to push Medicare into the corner what has happened? while promoting a two-tiered health system: What has happened today is that, bereft of one standard and set of rules for the wealthy, ideas and policy—no speaker from the oppo- and a safety net based welfare system for sition brought any policy issue to this de- those who cannot afford private health insur- bate—they have simply picked up the Aus- ance. The government uses public funds to tralian newspaper and read about this on the give ever increasing subsidies to the private front page and decided that it is now a matter health insurance industry. The Greens want of public importance. The opposition is so to see an end to this transfer of public funds media driven, so bereft of ideas and so lack- to a private industry away from our fair and ing in imagination and political wit that they equitable public health system. That is the rely on the media to give them today’s issue. best way to ensure that quality public health What the Minister for Health and Ageing, care is delivered to all Australians on the Mr Abbott, said in the Australian today was basis of their medical needs rather than their something worth saying. He said that the capacity to pay for a private form of health government is looking at various options for insurance, as this government advocates. improving loyalty rewards, no-claim bonuses Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (4.50 and similar rewards. That statement has pm)—I join the debate on this matter of pub- come on the back of the release of new fig- lic importance which states: ures by the industry regulators showing that

CHAMBER 70 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 there has been a drop in young people taking had not taken the actions we did when we up membership in private health insurance. first came into government—to which those But there has been an even greater increase on the other side objected every step of the in the number of older people taking up way. We have the Greens over there—as we health insurance. There is nothing surprising heard in Senator Nettle’s contribution—still about that. These have been concerns of the objecting to the government’s successful 30 industry for some years, going way back— per cent rebate. even to when the Labor Party were in gov- When we came into government the take- ernment. Australia has an ageing population up of private health insurance was as low as and this is something we have to come to 30 per cent. When Labor came into govern- grips with. We put these reforms in place to ment they enjoyed in 1983 the subscription meet these challenges when we first entered of some 63 per cent. In their term in gov- government in 1996, and they will be ongo- ernment it collapsed from 63 per cent to 32 ing challenges with the need for ongoing per cent. I remember the health minister at reforms. the time, former Senator Richardson, just If those across the other side were not so prior to his resignation, was so concerned lazy they would not have had to rely just on about the collapse of the private health insur- the Australian newspaper today. Julia Gillard ance system that he said that if take-up fell as is their shadow minister. If she were really low as 25 per cent the system would col- on the ball and really concerned, she would lapse. That is the legacy we were left with. have noted that Mr Abbott, the health minis- To that end we introduced reforms: the pri- ter, made the same comments back in June vate health insurance rebate and the life this year to an open and public forum of health cover initiative, which time does not those in the industry at the fourth private permit me to go into. But the reforms are health insurance summit in Sydney. This is there and we reject this motion out of hand. what he said in his address: The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Health insurance premiums have risen about 8 (Senator Brandis)—Order! The discussion per cent annually over the past three years. Loy- on the matter of public importance is con- alty bonuses which don’t compromise commu- cluded. nity-rating and ‘no claim’ bonuses which don’t become self-defeating are strategies worth pursu- DOCUMENTS ing to try to keep premiums down. They might Tabling help attract and hold younger members and are The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT usually easy to explain to people familiar with (Senator Brandis)—Pursuant to standing insurance products. order 166, I present the document listed be- Our minister made this statement back in low which was presented to the Deputy June, to which you have just come on board. President since the Senate last sat. In accor- I do not know what your shadow minister dance with the terms of the standing order, has been doing but she has not been on the the publication of the document was author- ball at all, which just shows the lack of genu- ised. ineness in the motion we have here today. Health and Ageing—Pregnancy counselling and As I said, we know that the nation faces family planning [Received 9 September 2005] problems in this area, in particular because of our ageing population. That situation is manageable and would be way worse if we

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 71

Workplace Relations Other amendments were initiated to create consis- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT tency of oversight. The Act governing the powers of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Secu- (Senator Brandis)—I present a letter from rity will be changed to include scrutiny of DIGO; the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of and the Office of National Assessments Act 1977 the Northern Territory, Ms Aagaard, trans- will also be amended to reflect the changes rec- mitting a resolution of the Assembly relating ommended by Mr Flood. to the Commonwealth government’s indus- A second review into the intelligence agencies trial relations legislative agenda. was coordinated by the Department of Prime COMMITTEES Minister and Cabinet following a recommendation in the Annual Reports of the Inspector- ASIO, ASIS and DSD Committee General of Intelligence and Security. This review Report sought to fine tune the accountability mechanisms Senator EGGLESTON (Western Austra- of the agencies. lia) (4.58 pm)—On behalf of the Parliamen- Finally, at the end of the last Parliament, after the tary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and experience of the operation of the Act over one DSD, I present a report on the Intelligence parliament, the Committee itself reviewed its role Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, as specified in the Act. The result was a letter to and seek leave to move a motion in relation the Prime Minister from the Chair of the Commit- to the report. tee, Mr David Jull, suggesting some amendments to change the structure, name and powers of the Leave granted. Committee. These recommendations have been Senator EGGLESTON—I move: taken up in the current amendments, with the exception of a suggested amendment to section 7, That the Senate take note of the report. narrowing the scope of the restrictions on disclo- I seek leave to incorporate a tabling state- sures to Parliament. ment in Hansard. The Committee’s current review has sought to Leave granted. evaluate the implementation of all these recom- The statement read as follows— mendations in the legislation currently before the Senate. The amendments change the definition of The Minister for Defence referred the Intelligence ‘intelligence information’, which has been wid- Services Amendment Bill 2005 to the Committee ened. Section 11 has been amended to allow this for inquiry and report on 16 June 2005. This bill intelligence to be communicated to appropriate results from a number of reviews of the opera- Commonwealth and State authorities, or to au- tions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001. thorities of approved other countries. In respect of The first review of the intelligence services agen- this change, the Committee expressed the view cies, conducted by Mr Philip Flood, was a result that ‘while the removal of barriers to cooperation of a recommendation of this Committee made in between government agencies may be helpful, it March 2004. In his report, Mr Flood recom- would be prudent to draw attention to the implica- mended that the mandate of the Joint Parliamen- tions for the administration of a whole range of tary Committee be extended to encompass three government policies of this increased communi- additional agencies, ONA, DIO and DIGO, on the cation.’ same basis as it currently oversights ASIO ASIS Other amendments relate to the collection of in- and DSD. He also recommended that the func- telligence by ASIS and DSD: clarification of the tions and accountabilities of DIGO be formalised roles and functions of these agencies, and clarifi- in the Intelligence Services Act on a basis compa- cation of the ministerial authorisations necessary rable with that which applies to DSD and ASIS. before the production of any intelligence on Aus- The bill achieves these recommendations. tralians. Consideration was given, in particular to Item 22. The amendment is intended to have the

CHAMBER 72 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 effect of protecting Australians in Australia in the Report 67 contains the findings and recom- same way as the existing Act protects Australians mendations of the Committee’s review of two who are overseas. treaty actions tabled in Parliament on 21 June The Committee noted in the report that ‘it is the 2005. The proposed treaty actions relate to social case that the foreign intelligence gathering agen- security benefits between Australia and Ireland cies can currently be authorised to obtain intelli- and cooperation on scientific balloon flights with gence on Australians inside Australia regarding the United States. I will comment on both treaties. the capabilities and intentions of persons outside Mr President, the Committee examined an Australia. The Committee, therefore, approved Agreement on social security between the Gov- the proposed amendment at Item 22, but re- ernment of Australia and the Government of Ire- quested additional provisions, to ensure consis- land which provides access to certain Australian tency in the requirements on all agencies, domes- and Irish social security benefits. The Agreement tic or foreign intelligence gathering. is part of a network of bilateral social security In particular, the Committee recommended that, agreements that Australia has with other coun- ‘as the regime moves from Ministerial direction tries. to legislated Ministerial authority as proposed in The Agreement makes the following changes to Item 22, it should generally replicate the provi- the existing agreement: sions of and have identical authorisation to those • The Disability Support Pension (DSP) is that apply to ASIO’. restricted to people who are considered to be I hope that these recommendations will be given severely disabled or people assessed as hav- due consideration in the debate over the passage ing no capacity to work or no prospects for of the bill. rehabilitation within two years of being I commend the report to the Senate. granted a DSP. Senator EGGLESTON—I seek leave to • The rate of benefit will remain the same for continue my remarks later. the first 26 weeks for temporary visitors to Australia. When a person departs Australia, Leave granted; debate adjourned. on a temporary basis, the rate of benefit will Treaties Committee remain the same for the first 26 weeks of their absence. Report • Senator WORTLEY (South Australia) Double coverage provisions have been included to ensure that employers in both (4.59 pm)—On behalf of the Joint Standing countries do not make two superannuation Committee on Treaties, I present the 67th contributions for an employee working in ei- report of the committee entitled Treaties ta- ther country temporarily. bled on 21 June 2005, together with the The Agreement provides for shared responsibility Hansard record of proceedings and minutes in the provision of benefits between the Parties of proceedings. I seek leave to move a mo- and also allows people to lodge claims from ei- tion in relation to the report. ther Australia or Ireland. The Agreement will Leave granted. overcome restrictions on portability of payments between Australia and Ireland and provide for Senator WORTLEY—I move: mutual administrative assistance to determine That the Senate take note of the report. entitlements for recipients. The Agreement also I seek leave to incorporate a tabling state- allows for the recognition of periods of working ment in Hansard. life residence in both countries in determining a claimant’s benefits. Leave granted. The changes bring the Agreement into line with The statement read as follows— Australia’s other revised bilateral social security agreements and are intended to reduce the inci-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 73 dence of overpayments to pensioners who under- entitled Australia’s human rights dialogue take temporary visits between Australia and Ire- process and seek leave to move a motion in land. relation to the report. The Committee was informed that the Australian Leave granted. Government is currently negotiating a number of bilateral social security agreements with other Senator PAYNE—I move: countries, including Norway, Switzerland, Japan That the Senate take note of the report. and Korea. Preliminary discussions have also I seek leave to continue my remarks. occurred or are taking place with Greece, Hun- gary, Latvia and Sweden. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The second treaty examined by the Committee Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade will allow for the continued cooperation between Committee: Joint Australia and the United States of America on Report scientific balloon flights. Since the expiration of the previous agreement in 2002, balloon flights Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) have continued under a non-legally binding ar- (5.00 pm)—On behalf of the Joint Standing rangement between the Commonwealth Scientific Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Trade, I present the report of the committee and the National Aeronautics and Space Admini- entitled Reform of the United Nations Com- stration (NASA). Over 100 flights have been mission on Human Rights and seek leave to conducted from the Alice Springs Balloon move a motion in relation to the report. Launching Station. The fruits of the collaboration feature significant scientific findings over the last Leave granted. ten to fifteen years such as the discovery of the Senator PAYNE—I move: first gamma ray emission from a spinning neutron That the Senate take note of the report. star, the discovery of a gamma ray annihilation line from a black hole at the galactic centre, ob- As Chair of the Human Rights Subcommit- servations of 1987A, a supernova star that ex- tee of the Joint Standing Committee on For- ploded in 1987 which have not been repeated eign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I wish to since, and high resolution images of the centre of make some brief comments on the commit- Our Galaxy. This Agreement will enable Australia tee’s two reports: Australia’s human rights to continue to contribute to international research dialogue process and Reform of the United in astronomy with increased potential for further Nations Commission on Human Rights. In significant scientific discoveries from its vantage 1997 the Australian government initiated a point for viewing the Milky Way. high-level bilateral dialogue on human rights Mr President, in conclusion, the Committee be- with China. Similar formal talks commenced lieves it is in Australia’s interest for the treaties with Vietnam and Iran in 2002. The aim of considered in Report 67 to be ratified. the dialogues is to hold frank and construc- I commend the report to the Senate. tive discussions to demonstrate the commit- Question agreed to. ment of each country to the talks and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade overall strengths of their bilateral ties with Committee: Joint Australia. Since 1997 there have been nine Report rounds of talks between Australia and China, three between Australia and Vietnam and one Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) with Iran. (4.59 pm)—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and In March 2004 an inquiry was established Trade, I present the report of the committee to review Australia’s human rights dialogue

CHAMBER 74 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 process to date. Clearly, electoral matters technical cooperation activities which are intervened in the consideration of that refer- associated with the dialogues. The Australia- ence. But I am pleased to say in tabling this China Human Rights Technical Cooperation report today that the committee has come to Program makes a very practical contribution some very interesting conclusions. The to protecting and improving human rights committee examined five areas: parliamen- through capacity building and institutional tary participation and oversight, involvement strengthening activities, with its focus on of non-government organisations, the role legal reform, women’s and children’s rights and obligations of participating agencies, and ethnic and minority rights. At this stage reporting requirements and mechanisms, and the Vietnam and Iran dialogues do not have a the monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. similar dedicated program. However, the While the committee received the bulk of its Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Com- evidence on the Australia-China dialogue, mission has sponsored study tours to famil- which is the more established of the three, iarise delegates from those two countries the focus of the inquiry was on process with Australia’s institutional structure for the rather than specific dialogues. promotion and protection of human rights, It is, however, worth noting the evolving and has helped partner countries to identify developments of the Australia-China dia- areas in which Australian expertise might logue because they do illustrate the potential usefully contribute to their priorities for of the dialogues for bilateral engagement on promoting and protecting human rights. human rights concerns. The committee was Although the committee notes the pleased to hear from the Australian govern- achievements of Australia’s bilateral human ment and NGOs alike that the Australia- rights dialogues, it is of the view that there is China dialogue these days is characterised by scope for improving the transparency and an increasing degree of openness and trust. accountability of the process as a whole. For Over the years, delegations from China and that purpose, the committee has made five Australia have expanded to include represen- recommendations in its report which will tatives from a number of different agencies, build on and enhance the existing level of and discussion takes place on a widening parliamentary participation and oversight, range of human rights concerns. I have seen the involvement of NGOs and also reporting the development in that process myself, hav- requirements and mechanisms. ing participated in several of the dialogues in I now turn to the committee’s most recent recent years. Also in recent years, the Austra- inquiry, into the reform of the United Na- lian delegation has been invited to visit prov- tions Commission on Human Rights. On inces outside Beijing and also in Tibet. In Wednesday of this week more than 170 2004, for the first time, Australian NGO rep- heads of state and government, including resentatives were able to meet with Chinese Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, government officials in advance of the offi- will attend the 2005 world summit at the UN cial talks to discuss human rights concerns. headquarters in New York. At that three-day That meeting went well, as recorded by both gathering, world leaders will review progress parties. Subsequently, the Chinese govern- which has been made since the Millennium ment invited the NGOs to attend future dia- Declaration was adopted by member states in logue sessions in China. 2000. The agenda is based on the UN Secre- The committee also wants to acknowledge tary-General’s report In larger freedom, the important complementary role of the which contains a range of recommendations

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 75 for strengthening the three pillars of the UN: weakened form. It would be of great concern development, security and human rights. if the summit this week did not reach a reso- One of the more significant proposals is to lution on this matter and the current Com- replace the Commission on Human Rights mission on Human Rights remained in some with a Human Rights Council. In that con- state of limbo as a result. It is very important, text and as a result in part of a visit I made to if change is not preferred, that the current the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva commission continues to operate, obviously earlier this year, the committee decided to with the potential for further reform. I am convene a roundtable public hearing on 12 grateful to all those who gave evidence to August this year to discuss the current hu- both of the inquiries. I wish to thank my col- man rights reform agenda and to hear views leagues for their participation, the Depart- for and against the establishment of a Human ment of Foreign Affairs and Trade and, of Rights Council from Australian stakeholders. course, the secretariat for their assistance. I The committee invited a range of witnesses commend the reports to the Senate. from the Australian community to participate Question agreed to. in our discussions at Parliament House. Par- Membership ticipants included UN representatives, The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT NGOs, and human rights and legal experts (Senator Brandis)—The President has re- both from Canberra and more broadly. ceived a letter from a party leader seeking to The committee was very pleased with the vary the membership of a committee. level of interest generated by the inquiry. Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queen- Many witnesses commented during the pro- sland—Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and ceedings on the importance of these topics Conservation) (5.08 pm)—by leave—I being debated in the parliamentary environ- move: ment. It seemed clear to me that they appreciated the opportunity to address them in that That Senator Carol Brown be appointed to the roundtable format. The committee certainly Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. found the discussions engaging and hopes Question agreed to. that the report and the hearing can contribute WORKPLACE RELATIONS to informed debate on UN reform within the AMENDMENT (BETTER parliament and the Australian community. BARGAINING) BILL 2005 At this stage it is difficult for the commit- First Reading tee to comment on the suitability of the Hu- Bill received from the House of Represen- man Rights Council proposal. Details remain tatives. vague for the implementation of the proposal Senator COLBECK (Tasmania— and views are varied: we determined that Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for during our roundtable hearing. Nonetheless, Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (5.09 the committee will follow the outcomes of pm)—I move: the September summit with interest. Irre- spective of whether member states adopt the That this bill may proceed without formalities Human Rights Council proposal at the sum- and be now read a first time. mit, the committee wishes to see this very Question agreed to. important human rights body continue to Bill read a first time. function in a strengthened rather than a

CHAMBER 76 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Second Reading tion is threatening to cause significant harm to a Senator COLBECK (Tasmania— third party. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for No industrial action before expiry of agree- Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (5.09 ment pm)—I table a revised explanatory memo- The parties to a certified agreement should be randum relating to the bill and move: bound by its terms and conditions – including the dispute settling provision. Under the proposed That this bill be now read a second time. provisions, parties to a current certified agree- I seek leave to have the second reading ment will be required to use their agreed dispute speech incorporated in Hansard. settling procedure to resolve workplace disputes, Leave granted. rather than by resorting to industrial action. Accordingly, this bill ensures that industrial ac- The speech read as follows— tion taken during the life of a certified agreement The Workplace Relations (Better Bargaining) Bill is not protected industrial action. Preventing in- 2005 proposes to amend the bargaining provi- dustrial action during the life of a certified sions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). agreement is vital to ensure that parties keep to This bill is consistent with Government policy the bargain they have struck, and enjoy the cer- and reinforces the object of the Workplace Rela- tainty that a certified agreement is meant to pro- tions Act that the primary focus of negotiations vide. should be at the enterprise level between employ- Measures against pattern bargaining ers and their employees. Government policy promotes bargaining directly The Government is committed to the measures at the enterprise level to ensure that agreements proposed by this bill to provide a fairer bargain- are tailored to meet individual business needs. ing framework. They are underpinned by good However, unions typically engage in pattern bar- policy and represent worthwhile reforms that will gaining that imposes common outcomes on em- ensure Australia’s economic prosperity. The Gov- ployers across an industry or part of an industry, ernment supports collective bargaining at the with all resulting agreements having identical enterprise level. It is this approach to bargaining nominal expiry dates. In pursuing common out- that ensures that the needs of employers and their comes, unions organise protected industrial action employees are met. The measures in this bill will on an industry-wide basis. facilitate workplace bargaining, and they come at a very important time in the bargaining cycle. Pattern bargaining is the antithesis of genuine enterprise negotiation. Pattern bargaining takes The measures in this bill are required to facilitate the negotiation, consultation and decision-making bargaining at the enterprise level during the next away from the control of the parties at the work- intensive round of negotiations. Between 1 June place. 2005 and 31 March 2006, 62 per cent of all federal certified agreements will expire, including 84 It is predominantly the construction unions, and per cent of agreements in the building and con- to a lesser extent, the manufacturing unions, that struction industry and 42 per cent of agreements are driving pattern bargaining. in the manufacturing sector. In many cases, the threat of industrial action is The measures proposed by this bill will: provide enough to lock employers into inflexible work- remedies against pattern bargaining to wind back place agreements. industry-wide negotiations back to the enterprise Pattern bargaining’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach level; facilitate enterprise bargaining by ensuring may lead to businesses being required to pay real that industrial action is not used inappropriately; wage increases without any accompanying in- and allow for limited ‘cooling off’ during periods crease in productivity. It reduces enterprise nego- of protected industrial action to assist negotiating tiation to a mere formality and centralises deci- parties reach agreement, or where industrial ac- sion making processes away from the workplace.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 77

Pattern bargaining robs employers and employees Industrial action taken in concert is unpro- of choice in agreement making. The Government tected believes that Australian employers and employees This bill will also clarify that industrial action is should have the ultimate choice about their work- unprotected action where it is taken in concert ing arrangements – whether that be through Aus- with employees of different employers. This is tralian Workplace Agreements, or collective consistent with Australian Government policy to agreements that have been genuinely negotiated promote workplace bargaining at the enterprise at the enterprise level, not the industry level. level. The unions have exploited a loophole in the legis- Protected action and related corporations lation that undermines the spirit of the legislation. Likewise, the bill also provides that two or more These proposed provisions will ensure that the related corporations cannot be treated as a single spirit of the legislation and the spirit of enterprise employer for the purpose of identifying certain negotiation is respected. action as protected action. The proposed measures are required circumvent pattern bargaining, including any industrial action Cooling-off periods taken to support pattern bargaining, during the In some cases, negotiations for a new certified next intensive round of negotiations. agreement become heated, protracted and generally lose their focus. Cooling-off periods allow The proposed provisions will strip protected negotiating parties to take a step back from indus- status from industrial action that is taken to sup- trial conflict and refocus on the real issues in dis- port claims by a negotiating party that is engaging pute. in pattern bargaining. The bill will allow the commission to suspend a The proposed provisions will also provide addi- bargaining period for a period of cooling off if it tional remedies to counteract pattern bargaining would assist the parties in resolving the issues in by requiring the Australian Industrial Relations dispute. Anything done by a negotiating party or Commission to suspend or terminate a bargaining any other person during the period of suspension period if pattern bargaining is occurring in rela- in respect of the proposed agreement would not tion to the proposed agreement. An ‘appropriate be protected action. court’ may also order an injunction to stop or prevent industrial action that is taken to support The duration of a cooling-off period is a matter claims by a negotiating party that is engaging in for the commission’s discretion. The commission pattern bargaining. would be able to extend the cooling-off period once only, on application of a negotiating party, These proposed provisions will provide benefits and after giving the other negotiating parties the to employers and employees alike. The pattern opportunity to be heard. bargaining measures will promote bargaining at the enterprise level, which will enable employees Suspension for third parties to genuinely bargain about the terms and condi- The bill recognises that industrial action may tions of employment that affect them. Through have an unintended detrimental affect on third this process, employees will gain a greater under- parties to an industrial dispute. It allows an or- standing of the way their workplace operates. ganisation, person or body directed affected by Businesses will be more productive and operate the industrial action, other than a negotiating more efficiently, because negotiated agreement party or the minister, to apply to have a bargain- will be tailored to meet individual business needs. ing period suspended. Such a suspension may be The Government firmly believes that employers extended in a similar manner to the extension of and their employees are the best placed to effec- cooling-off periods under the bill. tively and efficiently manage their workplaces. The commission would be required to consider a These reforms will ultimately return choice of number of factors to determine whether suspen- agreement-making options back to employers and sion is appropriate, including whether the action their employees at the enterprise level.

CHAMBER 78 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 is threatening to cause significant harm to any (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER person other than a negotiating party. ISSUES) BILL 2005 This measure will provide for cooling off to pro- TELECOMMUNICATIONS tect third parties from significant harm, while still LEGISLATION AMENDMENT maintaining the existing rights of employees to (FUTURE PROOFING AND OTHER take protected industrial action. MEASURES) BILL 2005 Conclusion TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CARRIER The measures in this bill will provide a fairer bargaining framework in time for the next inten- LICENCE CHARGES) AMENDMENT sive round of negotiations. It will facilitate bar- (INDUSTRY PLANS AND CONSUMER gaining at the enterprise level, and ensure that CODES) BILL 2005 protected industrial action is not used inappropri- APPROPRIATION (REGIONAL ately. It will also allow for ‘cooling off’ to assist TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES) negotiating parties reach agreement, or where BILL 2005-2006 industrial action is threatening to cause significant harm to a third party. Report of Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Debate (on motion by Senator Colbeck) Legislation Committee adjourned. Senator EGGLESTON (Western Austra- POSTAL INDUSTRY OMBUDSMAN lia) (5.10 pm)—On behalf of the Environ- BILL 2005 ment, Communications, Information Tech- Consideration of House of Representatives nology and the Arts Legislation Committee, I Message present the report of the committee on the Message received from the House of Rep- provisions of the Telstra (Transition to Full resentatives returning the Postal Industry Private Ownership) Bill 2005 and related Ombudsman Bill 2005, informing the Senate bills, together with the Hansard record of that the House has agreed to the bill with an proceedings and documents presented to the amendment and requesting the concurrence committee. of the Senate in the amendment made by the Ordered that the report be printed. House. Senator EGGLESTON—I seek leave to Ordered that consideration of the message move a motion in relation to the report. in Committee of the Whole be made an order Leave granted. of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator EGGLESTON—I move: HUMAN SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2005 That the Senate take note of the report. Assent I would like to commence by extending my thanks to the committee secretariat for their Message from His Excellency the Gover- dedication and extensive efforts throughout nor-General was reported informing the Sen- this inquiry. In particular, Louise Gell, Jac- ate that he had assented to the bill. quie Dewar, Sophie Power, Robyn Clough TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL and Di Warhurst should be acknowledged, as PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 2005 should the exceptional effort of my own staff TELECOMMUNICATIONS member, Bob Wallace, who worked through LEGISLATION AMENDMENT the weekend to produce this report. The report is much appreciated by the committee.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 79

Five bills were referred to the committee propose to focus only on operational separa- for inquiry and report. The committee adver- tion and the Communications Fund: two is- tised for submissions and, in response, re- sues which have generated a lot of discus- ceived 24 submissions, as well as nine sion. emails and letters which were accepted as One of the most significant changes correspondence. An extensive hearing, en- brought about by the competition and con- compassing a broad range of witnesses, was sumer issues bill, which was the subject of held on Friday. The hearing involved repre- the most discussion during the inquiry, is the sentatives from all of the major parties, ex- requirement for the operational separation of cept the Greens, and from relevant govern- Telstra. This is a vital reform because of Tel- ment agencies, including the Department of stra’s dominant market position and its con- Communications, Information Technology tinued monopoly over the customer access and the Arts, the Australian Competition and network, which its competitors need to be Consumer Commission and the Australian able to access. All of Telstra’s competitors Communications and Media Authority. The supported the concept of operational separa- telecommunications sector was represented tion of Telstra. However, Ms McKenzie, of by Telstra, the Competitive Carriers Coali- Telstra, described operational separation as tion, Optus, AAPT and Vodafone. Other or- ‘a solution looking for a problem’ and, at a ganisations that appeared at the hearing in- later point, stated: cluded the Australian Telecommunications We— Users Group, the Communications, Electri- cal and Plumbing Union, the National Farm- meaning Telstra— ers Federation and the Australian Communi- certainly do not support the operational separation cations Industry Forum. provisions ... Given that the proposed sale of the re- The government is determined to pursue op- mainder of Telstra in public ownership has erational separation of Telstra so as to ensure been inquired into several times, including that its wholesale customers, who are actu- two Senate reports into previous Telstra sale ally its competitors, are treated fairly and bills since 1998, that the future-proofing bill transparently in comparison with Telstra’s was the subject of a recent committee inquiry retail business units. The ultimate objective and that all parties in the Senate have well- of operational separation is to provide established positions on the sale of Telstra, it equivalence and transparency to Telstra’s was decided that it would be unproductive to wholesale customers, and thus permit com- once again traverse all of the old ground, so petition to flourish for the benefit of the peo- the committee was required to focus on the ple of Australia. It should be noted that there new elements of the bills. was a strong view expressed to the committee that operational separation will bring real Under its terms of reference, the inquiry benefits to Telstra’s competitors, consumers dealt with the following four matters: firstly, and the economy as a whole. the operational separation of Telstra; secondly, the role of the Australian Competition The competition and consumer issues bill and Consumer Commission; thirdly, the role provides the framework under which details of the Australian Communications and Me- of operational separation will be agreed and dia Authority; and, fourthly, the establish- implemented by Telstra. There are key element of a perpetual $2 billion Communica- ments that the government has insisted must tions Fund. Given the short time available, I be part of the operational separation plan,

CHAMBER 80 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 which include: Telstra must provide equiva- Committee’s regular reviews of the adequacy lent standards of service to its retail business of telecommunications services in regional, units and its wholesale business units; the rural and remote areas of Australia and will services covered must include all the essen- provide greater certainty that funds will be tial services relied upon by the company’s available to implement the government’s competitors; Telstra must develop contrac- response to the recommendations of the tual arrangements for the supply of services RTIRC. Significantly, the fund will exist in from Telstra’s network business units to its perpetuity, thereby ensuring that a source of retail and wholesale business units; separate revenue will always be available to imple- business units must have separate staff incen- ment the government’s response to the rec- tive programs, separate premises and secure ommendations of the RTIRC. information systems; and Telstra is required In general, witnesses welcomed the Com- to establish a director of equivalence to munications Fund. A range of witnesses monitor and report to the board on Telstra’s pointed to the government’s ability to lever- performance against its operational separa- age the fund to generate additional invest- tion obligations. ment from telecommunications companies, Telstra’s role in developing the draft op- as well as state and territory governments. erational separation plan was a source of With respect to the Communications Fund, consternation to some witnesses, but the the government’s consistent policy has been draft plan will be submitted to the minister that it will be valued at $2 billion, irrespec- for approval and will be subject to a process tive of whether this is initially in cash, shares of public consultation, which will provide or a combination thereof. Nevertheless, the other telecommunications companies with an committee has determined that the future opportunity to put their views forward. An- proofing bill would provide for greater cer- other source of concern was the enforceabil- tainty if the fund is valued at $2 billion by ity of the operational separation plan. Optus, specifically requiring that cash of that value in particular, argued that the requirement for be transferred to the fund, rather than shares the minister to issue a rectification plan when or a combination of cash and shares. The Telstra had breached the operational separa- committee has therefore recommended action plan added an additional unnecessary cordingly. step before enforcement action is taken The policies of the Howard government against Telstra. However, the department have revolutionised telecommunications in argued that Telstra should be given an oppor- Australia. The first step was to deregulate the tunity to rectify its behaviour, and only if it industry. As a result of deregulation, there failed to comply with the rectification plan are now over 100 telecommunications com- would it be in breach of its licence condi- panies in this country. Competition has re- tions and subject to enforcement action. Es- sulted in lower prices and the range of ser- sentially, the point for the Senate to note is vices offered vastly increasing, and the that the operational separation plan will be Howard government has greatly improved enforceable. services available to those living in regional Another issue that I wish to touch on Australia. The last step in the process of re- briefly is the $2 billion Communications form is to end the government ownership of Fund that will be established by the future Telstra. There is an inherent inconsistency proofing bill. It will be tied to the Regional about the government being both the owner Telecommunications Independent Review and the regulator of the biggest telecommu-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 81 nications company in the country. The legis- the government some wriggle room so they lation enabling the sale of Telstra will end could avoid their responsibilities and break that anomalous situation, while recognising their promises in telecommunications once the special need to protect the interests of again. those living in regional Australia. I commend The issues surrounding the Communica- the committee’s report to the Senate. tions Fund and, indeed, the $1.1 billion to Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- support communications programs—in other ritory) (5.21 pm)—It is strange how such an words, the bribe this time round that the gov- interpretation can be gleaned from the same ernment is putting forward to try to buy off set of hearings that was attended last Fri- votes to support the full sale of Telstra—did day—brief as they were. Part of the tabling not get the scrutiny that they deserve. We of this report today is the Labor senators’ know that out of previous expenditure in minority report that identifies just a few of rural and regional Australia particularly— the profoundly complex issues that these five and over $1 billion of taxpayers’ money has bills raise. Such was the nature of the How- been flung at the area—most of those pro- ard government’s efforts to limit this inquiry grams were finite and therefore next to use- to prevent people from exercising their de- less, because all of the problems experienced mocratic right in having the time, let alone in rural and regional Australia either have not the opportunity, to express their views about gone away or have got worse. How much of it, we found ourselves at a very brief hearing that grant funding previously under Social with absolutely minimum time provided for Bonus, Networking the Nation, RTIF et cet- scrutiny of these bills before having wit- era was wasted as a sop at the time, leaving nesses before us. those people who needed those services What should be noted is the incredible without access to them? The regional con- impost upon people who were invited to nectivity centres which provided public ac- submit to this inquiry and those who were cess to the internet are a great example of brought forward as witnesses. To have such a how the money was spent but then taken short amount of time—for most of them less away when it ran out. I have been following than 24 hours—is too much to ask. It is un- the way that funding has been held back, fair and it was unreasonable in the circum- restricted, stopped or come to its natural end stances. The government report that is being following those grant programs arising out of tabling here today is a completely political previous tranches. contrivance as far as their view of this issue There is nothing in this proposal that is goes. Of course the government senators going to make it any different, so it will not recommend that the bills all pass, albeit hav- change the medium- to long-term experience ing been forced to concede that there was a of rural and regional Australians. It provides fundamental flaw associated with the Com- a prop for the National Party to say, ‘Look, munications Fund, and they have already we are doing something,’ but they know that, placed in this report their intention to amend if they look at the evidence of how money it. One of the concerns about the fund pro- like this has been spent in the past, it will not viding only up to $2 billion was one ex- make a long-term difference. It will not bring pressed by Senator Barnaby Joyce, and it the bush up to scratch as far as communica- was a concern not lost on any Australian fol- tion services go. We did not even have the lowing this debate. It was just another nasty time to make an assessment of these grants little con inserted in the legislation to give and their impact, or to talk to people in rural

CHAMBER 82 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 and regional Australia, outer metropolitan in the market. The legislation fails even in its Australia or, indeed, suburban Australia flimsy framework because it does not allow about the impact of this expenditure in the that straight-up relationship to exist between past. I can tell you, the evidence we would Telstra retail and their competitors with the have heard would have said exactly what I same unit inside Telstra. So the legislation have said today: that it was not any help in gets that fundamentally wrong. the long term. It solved problems and al- But wait. It gets worse. Not only have lowed plenty of photo opportunities for Na- they set up a framework that will institution- tional Party and Liberal Party senators to alise unfair treatment, they have also cut the stand out there and bask in the reflected ACCC out of the picture. If you read the fine glory of a cheque being handed over, but the print of this legislation you will see that it is services still are not up to scratch. We do not ministerial discretion that has the authority to need to go any further than Mr Corish from approve the operational separation plan the National Farmers Federation to find evi- which Telstra is charged with the responsibil- dence of that. If anyone would know—and ity of creating. It is only on a subsequent the National Farmers Federation to their problem with that plan when the minister credit have been participating in this debate may make a finding and issue an order for a for a very long time—they would know. For rectification plan—that is, a second-tier the National Farmers Federation to say that, process—that the ACCC are permitted under you know that something has got to be these bills to even get involved. So the prin- wrong. So we did not get the opportunity to ciple of operational separation is thwarted in explore this crucial aspect. the very first instance. But there were other aspects that we only Secondly, the ACCC itself says that there touched on in the inquiry. One that is particu- are so many unanswered questions. In our larly important is the operational separation report the opposition quote what Graeme regime. We know that the regime put for- Samuel said, because it is such a strong ward in this legislation is not a regime; it is a point. I will now read that section of our re- framework for a regime. These bills do not port into the Hansard again: give any detail as to how the operational As noted by the Chairman of the ACCC, Graeme separation of Telstra will be managed. We Samuel, during his evidence: know that the government’s model will have “Issues for further examination as the operational a wholesale, a retail and a networks division. separation plan is developed by Telstra and the That is not what the ACCC recommended government include the following: first, the pre- originally. That will fundamentally entrench cise details of the operational separation plan and or institutionalise Telstra’s differential treat- Telstra’s obligations in relation to that plan— ment of competitors from their own retail so we do not know what they are; the bill section, and that is exactly the problem that does not say what they are— operational separation is supposed to resolve. second, the scope of services that will be subject The ACCC cannot do their job as competi- to the operational separation plan; third, the en- tion regulator unless they can see transpar- forcement regime associated with compliance or, ently that Telstra are charging competitors more importantly, noncompliance with the opera- what they are charging themselves. The tional separation plan; fourth, the powers to in- whole purpose of operational separation is to vestigate whether or not compliance has occurred; give the ACCC what they need to see that and, fifth, the development by the working party everyone is being treated equally and fairly proposed—that is, the working party of Telstra,

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 83 the ACCC and the department—of the internal On behalf of the Australian public, the wholesale pricing and the pricing equivalence witnesses and submitters to this inquiry, I regime.” would once again like to voice objection to None of those details has been worked out. the farcical way in which this inquiry process Without those details and without the ACCC has been conducted by the government. having the power to be involved in that, the These bills contain significant changes to the very operation of parts XIB and XIC of the telecommunications regulatory framework, Trade Practices Act, which have managed which, witnesses told us, has serious flaws anticompetitive behaviour and given the and significant risks, particularly for compe- ACCC powers and the pricing and access tition. From the media coverage you would regime, is fundamentally undermined. think that the only issue related to these bills Once again, we see the Howard govern- was the discovery—since rectified by the ment pretending to take a step forward with minister, apparently—that only ‘up to $2 the regulation of the telecommunications billion’ rather than ‘the sum of $2 billion’ system. But, through looking at the fine print was to be placed in the Communications and the ridiculous framework that they have Fund. I might add that it was not, in fact, put up for this operational separation model, Senator Joyce who discovered this; it came we find the government doing what they did out in answer to one of the questions that I last time, which is taking six big steps back- put, which was prompted by one of the very wards. Any perception that this takes us for- late submissions to the inquiry. ward is absolutely incorrect. You do not need So many other complaints were raised at to go past the evidence of the ACCC or in- the hearing. Mr Havyatt, from AAPT, after deed any of the other witnesses to see that— explaining to the committee the negative and not to mention the hundreds of witnesses costly consequence of a previous so-called who were denied an opportunity to partici- minor amendment to the telecommunications pate democratically in the committee inquiry. legislation, said: (Time expired) That was an unintended consequence of a very Senator ALLISON (Victoria—Leader of minor change to the telecommunications legisla- the Australian Democrats) (5.31 pm)—I also tion. For anybody to say that changes to this leg- rise to speak on the tabling of the report of islation are easy to understand, based upon the the Senate Environment, Communications, number of pages, is patently misleading and not in the interests of Australians. Information Technology and the Arts Legis- lation Committee on the Telstra bills. With a Mr Forman, from the Competitive Carriers notional majority in the Senate, the govern- Coalition, said that he supported the aim of ment has now moved very quickly and arro- the legislation, but: gantly to realise its ideological position and, ... my remarks are qualified by the fact that we armed with a hastily cobbled together pack- are still going through the detail of the bill. As we age of new sweeteners, will divest itself of go through that, there become apparent more and one of the most important public assets in the more issues of grave concern to us. country. It allowed the Senate inquiry just Mr Samuel, Chairman of the ACCC, was at one day to hear from those who wished to pains to state that, if certain things were tell us their views. This process is manifestly done, the operational separation model could inadequate for public and expert input and meet the government’s aims. The ACCC serious analysis to occur. were reluctant to say that they thought the model was a good one or that they were sat-

CHAMBER 84 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 isfied with the model. I will quote from the Other witnesses were a bit more straight- Hansard. Senator Brandis asked Mr Samuel: forward and criticised various aspects of the Mr Samuel, to draw this together, may this model. The following were some of those committee take it that the ACCC’s position and criticisms: that Telstra is able to develop the advice to this committee is that it is satisfied with plan itself and that the minister and not the the government’s operational separation model? ACCC will oversee the development and Mr Samuel responded: implementation of the plan, that the opera- I have indicated that there are about five out- tional separation plan is not a licence condi- standing issues that need to be developed. It tion, and that the enforcement of a breach of would depend on the satisfactory development of operational separation by the ACCC is not those issues, which are quite significant issues, available until after a rectification plan has including compliance, investigatory powers and been developed. Another criticism was that the like, before I could give an opinion on that. there is no requirement for the ACCC to be That is hardly a ringing endorsement by our involved in the development of the draft plan competition watchdog. Mr Samuel went on and no requirement that the minister take to say: advice from the ACCC with respect to the There are some process issues which may draft plan. Further criticisms included that merit further examination by the government so the legislation does not allow the minister to as to ensure that the model reflects the govern- designate new services and that there is an ment’s intentions to have a robust set of equiva- absence of a formal advisory role for the lence obligations. Issues for further examination ACCC in the internal wholesale pricing and as the operational separation plan is developed by pricing equivalence regime. The possible Telstra and the government include the following: length of time involved in setting prices was first, the precise details of the operational separa- also criticised, as was the interaction be- tion plan and Telstra’s obligations in relation to that plan; second, the scope of services that will tween XIA and XIB and the operational be subject to the operational separation plan; separation plan. third, the enforcement regime associated with A representative from the department ex- compliance or, more importantly, noncompliance plained that the enforcement regime was ap- with the operational separation plan; fourth, the propriate because it gave Telstra an opportu- powers to investigate whether or not compliance nity to rectify its behaviour. The representa- has occurred; and, fifth, the development by the tive said: working party proposed—that is, the working party of Telstra, the ACCC and the department— The philosophy, if you like, is this: this is about of the internal wholesale pricing and the pricing Telstra’s internal operation, let’s give them a equivalence regime. chance to get it right in the first instance. If they don’t get it right in the first instance then we These would appear to the ACCC to be the come in and be quite prescriptive about how they principal issues that will need to be resolved to should do it, and then that will be a breach of the determine if the operational separation provisions license conditions if they do not get it right in that will deliver increased transparency and equiva- circumstance. lence and thus make it easier for Telstra, its competitors and the ACCC to determine whether or The Competitive Carriers Coalition, in a fol- not Telstra is engaging in anticompetitive con- low-up submission, said: duct, which might then lead to the ACCC apply- ... it can be confidently predicted that failing to ing the telecommunications specific provisions of make compliance with the operational separation part XIB of the Trade Practices Act. plan a licence condition will create opportunities for gaming by Telstra that will be exploited.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 85

The other critical issue raised in the in- and data services that meet the needs of rural and quiry was the adequacy of the future proof- remote Australians – not just repair potholes and ing measures. The government’s key re- black holes. In today’s world, telecommunica- sponse to the issue of future-proofing, as we tions underpin the delivery of health and educa- all know, has been to establish a regional tion services, as well as business and family activity, and more so in rural and remote areas. review committee which will undertake reviews every three years and a Communica- Mr Williams, Director of Meridian Connec- tions Fund of up to $2 billion from which tions, argued: recommendations from those reviews will be A far more economical and efficient process is funded. The government also pledged an continual improvements to one national system, additional $1.1 billion to be spent on broad- one national system of roads, rail, power genera- band and mobile coverage over the next few tion, water, the advanced cable system that Tel- stra has and is not using for the public. years; however, it is not clear whether the funding will be targeted only to regional and Mr Kevin Morgan’s submission delivered a rural Australians. Mr Cooper of the CEPU compelling argument as to why competition summed up key problems: cannot be sustained in parts of regional and rural Australia and why the government’s In putting forward this package, the Government claims it is “future proofing” regional and rural package is inadequate. There were also sub- Australia’s communications services (presumably missions from private citizens, who raised against those commercial forces which the Gov- their concerns about the full privatisation of ernment itself has unleashed through its own pri- Telstra, something which the committee was vatisation policies). The CEPU considers these not able to take evidence on. claims ill-founded. While the specific measures I will conclude by restating how disgrace- proposed here may confer modest benefits on ful this process of scrutiny—you could those who live in these areas, they cannot, in our view, provide answers to the long-term invest- hardly call it scrutiny, really—has been. ment needs of the community. There was no reason to rush the bill through the parliament. This is not a national security Nor will the operational separation of Telstra do anything to help “the bush”. The chief beneficiar- issue and there is no impending sale. While ies of this measure will be companies whose the Democrats oppose the full privatisation prime targets are high spend commercial custom- of Telstra, we can see that the reality is that it ers and the metropolitan mass market. Thin rural will go through. Because it will go through, and regional markets will continue to hold few we will move a raft of amendments in re- attractions for profit driven firms, irrespective of sponse to the evidence that could be gathered the structural experiments of policy makers. in such a short time frame. (Time expired) I want to finish on a few of the very late Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (5.42 submissions. Women with Disabilities Aus- pm)—I seek leave to continue my remarks tralia and People with Disability Australia later. made submissions. The Democrats agree Leave granted; debate adjourned. with the key issues raised in their submissions and the need to ensure that adequate COMMITTEES protections for people with disabilities are Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade maintained and strengthened. The National References Committee Rural Health Alliance argued: Report Funding announcements should be evaluated Senator HUTCHINS (New South Wales) against their ability to deliver telephony, internet (5.42 pm)—I present the report of the For-

CHAMBER 86 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 eign Affairs, Defence and Trade References ney. However, the overenthusiastic staff did Committee entitled Mr Chen Yonglin’s re- contact the embassy and asked if Mr Chen quest for political asylum, together with the Yonglin worked there. It was clear in the Hansard record of proceedings and docu- hearings that those staff had other means of ments presented to the committee. verifying Mr Chen’s credentials. Moreover, Ordered that the report be printed. Mr Chen indicated on a number of occasions that he regarded his life as being in danger as Senator HUTCHINS—I seek leave to a result of his actions. move a motion in relation to the report. The committee heard that such disclosure Leave granted. of Mr Chen’s identity was inconstant with Senator HUTCHINS—I move: Australia’s treaty obligations to protect the That the Senate take note of the report. identities of persons seeking political asylum I would like to commence my remarks by and could well have breached the spirit of thanking Dr Dermody, the secretary of the the Migration Act and the Privacy Act. In- committee; Ms Lyn Beverly, from the secre- deed, we were advised by the United Nations tariat of the committee; the hardworking Human Rights Commission, in its appear- Hansard staff; and, of course, my Senate col- ance before the committee, that under inter- leagues. This reference was referred to the national conventions to which Australia is a committee on 16 June. To reiterate for hon- signatory the confidentiality of an applicant ourable senators, Mr Chen Yonglin was the should be protected at all stages and no con- first secretary political at the People’s Re- tact should ever be made with the home public of China’s consulate in Sydney from country of the applicant until the determina- 2001. On 26 May 2005 at the DIMIA Sydney tion has been made. It makes no sense that a office he applied for political asylum on his person in the position of Mr Chen, a diplo- own behalf and that of his family. Mr Chen mat seeking to defect with his wife and child, also advised the committee that his father would act as flippantly as DIMIA sought to had been murdered during the Cultural argue he did before the committee. It was Revolution and that he was a pro-democracy concerning that one staff member said that, activist in Tiananmen Square in 1989. because she heard laughter in the back- The committee is seriously concerned ground, she thought the call might not be about the inept and inappropriate handling of genuine. As such, the committee has recom- Mr Chen’s initial contacts with department mended that procedures and training be put of immigration officials on 26 May. Mr in place to handle similar events in the future Chen, as I said, presented himself at the in a proper way so that the confidentiality of DIMIA Sydney offices, seeking an appoint- applicants is protected. ment with the state director. After his re- The second issue that concerned the quests were rejected, he left a letter request- committee was the ad hoc nature in which ing political asylum for himself and his fam- decisions for granting territorial asylum for ily. During that time, two executive assis- high-profile diplomats are made. The territo- tants to the director sought contacts from Mr rial asylum power is a power retained by the Chen, ostensibly to verify his identity. Mr executive and normally exercised by the Chen clearly indicated that he did not wish to Minister for Foreign Affairs. The committee have the Chinese consulate contacted regard- understand that Mr Chen’s application was ing his presence at the DIMIA office in Syd- decided in considerable haste, sometime between 7 pm on 26 May and 10.30 am on 27

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 87

May, when an interdepartmental committee At their meeting, Madam Fu briefly raised meeting was advised. Despite being in exis- the issue of Mr Chen with Mr Downer. Mr tence for over half a decade, the territorial Downer is on the Hansard record as saying asylum option has been little used, and this nothing inappropriate happened on that occa- has resulted in no specific procedures being sion. However, in that discussion Mr Downer created to govern its use. In the past, appli- asked if Mr Chen would be persecuted if he cants have generally enjoyed a meeting at returned to China. The committee believes least, and there is evidence that ministers that any discussion, however brief, was in- have at least given close attention to, or even appropriate, given the fears that Mr Chen discussed, these matters in cabinet. However, had for his safety and given that no decision as I have said, this matter was decided in the regarding a protection visa had been made. space of less than 15½ hours. Mr Chen has Such discussions could have constituted a still not been provided with a statement of clear breach of section 336E of the Migration the reasons for the decision to not grant him Act, if any identifying information concern- territorial protection. The committee were ing Mr Chen was disclosed. The jury must also concerned that no procedure for the in- still be out on Mr Downer’s conduct at the vestigation of grounds and no guidelines for time, especially if it privileged foreign affairs the minister’s decisions were available at the considerations over our protection obliga- time of the decision being made. In light of tions. the perceived risk to Mr Chen, this was to- What characterises this whole sad episode tally unsatisfactory. is the insensitivity, no matter how innocent, One of the most concerning issues for the that was demonstrated—and the ignorance of committee involved the discussions, as re- and unconcern for the rights of a very dis- vealed, between the foreign minister, Mr tressed asylum seeker. There was an un- Downer, and Madam Fu, the Chinese ambas- seemly, unprecedented decision to withhold sador, on 2 June 2005. These occurred this man’s rights—to breach those rights, to against a backdrop of ongoing requests for try to cajole him and to betray him to that information from the Chinese embassy since nation from which he had sought asylum. Mr Chen leaving the consulate on 26 May. The Chinese have a term for this behaviour: At the same time, Mr Chen was being told kowtow. I will quote from my dictionary’s that he could apply for a tourist visa to re- explanation of how this term has been con- main in Australia, and DIMIA were not re- verted to use and understanding in English: sponsive to his requests for a more secure Kowtow came into English in the early 19th cen- meeting place than their public offices in tury to describe the bow itself, but its meaning Sydney. soon shifted to describe any slavish support or DIMIA and DFAT did not respond to Mr grovelling. Chen’s stated belief that his life was in dan- I will leave you to judge how the actions of ger, advising that this was a matter for the this minister and this government in relation state police. In fact, DFAT kept trying to get to how they approached the defection of this him to contact the embassy, despite his re- man, Mr Chen, may be summed up. peatedly stating his fear that his life could be Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (5.52 in danger. Chapter 5 of the report, which has pm)—I congratulate the people who worked already been made public, outlines allega- on this inquiry and I congratulate the chair tions made by Mr Chen about the activities for the speech he has just given. This whole of Chinese officials in this country.

CHAMBER 88 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 matter involves a failure of the Australian The consequent failure of the Minister for government, from the people at the top levels Foreign Affairs to accept Mr Chen’s plea for down to those who were at the meeting place asylum, which the committee chair has just when diplomat Chen Yonglin came to the spoken about, and his failure to then Australian authorities to defect. The fact is promptly notify Mr Chen of that refusal to that Chen Yonglin was failed from the mo- grant him asylum disregarded the best inter- ment he made his approach and he went on ests of Mr Chen and the best interests of this being failed. He was failed when he was nation, Australia. This failure was com- moving from a police state to seek asylum in pounded by Mr Downer’s breach of Austra- a free and open democracy. We can see in the lian law when he spoke with China’s Ambas- treatment he received greater similarities sador Fu about Mr Chen on 2 June 2005. Let with the treatment we might expect in China us be blunt about this: Mr Downer had no than with the treatment we would expect right to speak to Chinese Ambassador Fu here in Australia. The overall picture pre- Ying on 2 June. Chen Yonglin was in hiding. sented to this committee is one of largely He feared for his life and for the lives of his unchecked surveillance—and, at times, har- wife and child. He had approached the Aus- assment—of Australian citizens in Australia tralian authorities and been rebuffed. He had by agents of the People’s Republic of China. approached the Minister for Foreign Affairs The Australian government is not responding and been turned down, although he had not to this unacceptable intrusion of a foreign been told of that by the Minister for Foreign government into the domestic life and free- Affairs. Yet, when the ambassador of the doms of our country. police state of China met up with our foreign When Mr Chen defected, a courageous minister, the issue, no doubt with self- man expecting safe harbour, if not an open- aggrandisement, was raised and a conversa- armed welcome, in Australia for himself, his tion took place. wife and his six-year-old daughter did not In the absence of other evidence, I believe get it. A similar thing occurred with the de- that it was the Minister for Foreign Affairs fections of the two former police officials of who asked what would happen to Mr Chen if China who also appeared before the commit- he were to be sent back to China. The minis- tee. Beijing was notified of Mr Chen’s defec- ter was actually courting that possibility. It is tion by Australian government instrumentali- almost impossible to believe. My reading of ties, but the committee was unable to prove the law is that it is illegal to talk about a per- who was responsible for the department of son in Mr Chen’s circumstances with the immigration’s failure to allow that to happen. government involved. It is illegal, but Mr The matter of who did that may have been Downer did it. What a way for our Minister resolved by requiring the two secretaries for Foreign Affairs to behave. He owes an who dealt directly with Mr Chen in Sydney apology to Mr Chen and an explanation to on 26 May to appear. However, they were this nation. The evidence before the commit- not asked to appear. The lackadaisical atti- tee leads to the conclusion that the Australian tude of the senior officer, whose name is government considers that its political rela- O’Callaghan, to Mr Chen’s presence and to tionship with the Chinese government is Mr Chen’s urgent entreaties in his prem- more important than the political, religious ises—downstairs from his office—is inex- and human rights of individuals in both cusable. countries. That is deplorable.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 89

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (5.57 That is the key point that has to be drawn pm)—This is an important report—we need from this. While ever we are prepared to ig- to emphasise that point first—but it is one in nore anything that is inconvenient in relation a long line of reports that demonstrate prob- to serious human rights abuses, we will con- lems in how we approach asylum claims. We tinue to have cultural problems. That goes to have had the minister, the Prime Minister the heart of so many things that have come to and, indeed, the former secretary of the de- light in so many other problem areas. For partment of immigration acknowledge in any case where that is inconvenient politi- recent times that there are major problems cally, it is just bad luck. I support having a with the culture within DIMIA. It is good good relationship with China. It is in our that that is acknowledged now, but the fact is political, economic and cultural interests. But that that has been demonstrated by report no good relationship should be at the cost of after report, literally going back into the last ignoring human rights—I do not care how century—into the 1990s—including Senate good the trade opportunities are. committee reports, human rights commission One of the side benefits of this inquiry reports, Ombudsman reports and other par- was that much further evidence came to light liamentary committee reports. But at least from Falun Gong practitioners and other there are now some first movements on it. people from China, including former police However, the point that has to be made is officers who gave quite concrete evidence of that changing some people around in the de- very serious persecution, torture and murder partment, including the secretary and some of Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese others, is not going to dramatically change regime. That has been something the Minis- the culture within the department, unless the ter for Foreign Affairs has been willing to culture, attitude and policy in the govern- downplay time and time again. No wonder ment, among senior ministers and within the we have a cultural problem. law changes. What I think this report empha- I have to disagree to a small extent with sises most conclusively is that, if people what Senator Brown said. I support this re- think that there is an attitude and culture port, as all non-government senators do. I problem within DIMIA, and obviously I be- also made a few additional comments. It is lieve that there is, then within parts of the right to criticise the action of the DIMIA of- department of foreign affairs, at senior level ficials in Sydney at the initial stage. Clearly, as well as with the minister, there is a cul- in hindsight, it was a poor decision to contact tural problem that is just as significant—and the Chinese consul. But, firstly, you have to potentially more significant. When you have recognise that those initial actions were an attitude that says that in the blink of an made before it was clear that this was a claim eye you can blithely sweep to one side a se- for political asylum and secondly you have rious concern—a clearly genuine request for to acknowledge that none of the people in- political asylum from a senior diplomatic volved had in their living professional mem- official from a communist, totalitarian dicta- ory ever experienced a case of political asy- torship which we all know has serious hu- lum. It is rare. To that extent, I am willing to man rights problems—that says to me that acknowledge that the actions, while in hind- there are serious cultural problems with the sight were wrong, were excusable. But we foreign affairs minister and with the senior need to learn from them and make sure that officials of his department. they do not happen again.

CHAMBER 90 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

I also believe we should not be putting too son. He had made no previous arrangement. much of the blame on the public servants He did not properly disclose his ultimate dealing with the initial situation. We should intent. He simply handed over two envelopes acknowledge that this case was handled and addressed to the then state manager and to controlled from right at the top, and that is another person. where the cultural problem is. Not only did A number of things flowed from that the Minister for Foreign Affairs ignore Mr which may well have been, with the benefit Chen’s claim but, straight after that, the offi- of hindsight, handled better. But I want to cial from the Department of Foreign Affairs point out that the inauguration and com- and Trade—when they finally met with mencement of this factual matrix was abso- him—spent their whole time trying to con- lutely extraordinary: a diplomat, who by his vince him to go away, to go back to China. own admission, was in charge of his gov- They said, ‘It’ll all be fine; just go away.’ It ernment’s offshore activities attacking or was quite clear what the message was to him. seeking to undermine the so-called five poi- That is disgraceful. For somebody who was sonous groups, turns up unannounced and making a genuine claim for freedom from delivers two letters. persecution for themselves and their family It was some hours until the senior officials to be told to ‘go away’ is not acceptable. We at the Sydney offices of DIMIA discovered have serious cultural problems that go much that he was seeking political asylum. Politi- deeper than just DIMIA. (Time expired) cal asylum cases in Australia are extraordi- Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia) narily rare. The Petrov case is the most well- (6.02 pm)—These factual circumstances are known and celebrated case of political asy- quite unique and extraordinary. Chen lum. The girl in the red bikini—the Russian Yonglin was a 38-year-old Chinese diplomat who jumped ship in Sydney—was also a who arrived in Australia on a diplomatic similar applicant. Indeed, political asylum passport in August 2001. He assumed the has been granted only two or three times by role of consul for political affairs at the Chi- Australia to foreign nationals seeking it. Mr nese consulate in Sydney. He told the com- Chen took the Australian government, the mittee that he was in charge of implementing Australian people and, indeed, the DIMIA the People’s Republic of China’s central officials in Sydney utterly and completely by government policy in relation to ‘the five surprise. Notwithstanding that, it was ascer- poisonous groups’: Falun Gong, pro- tained later that day what he was on about. democracy movement activists, the pro- That is when the Commonwealth officers Taiwan independence force; the pro-Tibet began to react to, deal with and process his separation force; and the eastern Turkistan claim. force. He noted that he was required to per- Mr Chen raised a number of allegations. I secute Falun Gong practitioners overseas, a want to say that the first thing anybody seek- task which—if he is at all to be believed in ing political asylum would have to do in or- any of the matters he raised—he presumably der to have any opportunity of getting it accepted and carried out for at least the pe- would be to poison the well, so to speak. riod 2001 to late May 2005. They must bring allegations against their This is the background to the person who government. They must create a background arrived at the Sydney offices of DIMIA late such that there is, if not already, a likelihood in the morning of 26 May this year and said that he wished to speak to a particular per-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 91 that they will be punished when they return Mr Chen brought a number of stories as to home. what happened in the DIMIA offices. It was Mr Chen set about doing that. He set unfortunate that, apparently, a junior em- about creating a circumstance where the ployee did ring the Chinese consulate in Australian government and the Chinese gov- Sydney to check his identity. The Migration ernment were effectively given no option. He Act sets out that particular matters of identity made extensive allegations, rightly or should not be disclosed to a foreign govern- wrongly, against a broad range of people, ment in the face of an asylum seeker. It is an including his own government, which effec- offence to disclose identifying information to tively meant that the Australian government the foreign government where that person is was left in a position where they could not seeking asylum. In this case, at no time was send him home. He obviously did that so he there any information that would fit the defi- could stay. It was a surprise to the Australian nition of identifying information disclosed to government that a diplomat on a diplomatic the People’s Republic of China government passport would not return home, as would representatives in the Sydney mission or in have been anticipated on the grant of his dip- the embassy here in Canberra. Identifying lomatic entry visa at the beginning of his information is defined in the Migration Act posting to Sydney. as: Another important fact which I think indi- (a) any personal identifier; cates that Mr Chen had some long-term am- (b) any meaningful identifier derived from any bition and had been planning to come to the personal identifier; Australian government for some time was (c) any record of a result of analysing any per- that he had left a detailed letter in his apart- sonal identifier— ment setting out to his government that he and so on. A personal identifier actually was disenchanted and that he refused to want means fingerprints, a measurement of the to carry out his duties anymore. So he effec- person’s height or weight, a photograph of tively poisoned the return route. He shut the that person, an audio or visual recording, an door tight so that he left the Australian gov- iris scan, a person’s signature or ‘any other ernment with no real alternative than to grant identifier prescribed by the regulations’— him a visa. and I might say that the regulations do not Notwithstanding the embarrassment and prescribe any further identifiers. At no time the difficulty he put the Australian govern- did the DIMIA officials in Sydney or the ment through, at no time was Mr Chen de- DFAT or DIMIA officials here in Canberra clared an unlawful noncitizen and he was who reviewed his case disclose any breach of afforded a protection visa, which entitles him the Migration Act type identifier material to citizenship in the long term. This is not a and certainly neither did the minister. The happy event in terms of a modus operandi to committee heard no evidence of that. There seek to stay in Australia. Mr Chen could was no evidence, and we examined every- have gone about the task through the proper body. formal channels. He could have said, ‘I love There was evidence, however, with re- Australia and I want to stay in Australia,’ and spect to the allegations made by Mr Chen of he could have applied. But he effectively a kidnapping and all manner of things. These jumped the queue with the allegations that he allegations were investigated. The Federal made, and I think that that is to be regretted. Police came along to the committee and said,

CHAMBER 92 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 in short: ‘We found that the allegations Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (6.13 which Mr Chen made had no substance.’ So pm)—The government has the numbers, but what we have is a person who, as a diplomat, we have the extraordinary situation where knows what is required to get over the the government is effectively suspending threshold and put a foreign government into standing orders to railroad this legislation, a position where they have no alternative but the Telstra bills, through this Senate. The to grant him a visa because he had so poi- debate a little earlier was about a committee soned his relationship with his home gov- held on Friday, and I was being chided by a ernment. That is what he did. He made a long absent government senator, Senator number of allegations and the Federal Police, Ronaldson—a new senator from somewhere. as I said, investigated them and found those Senator Stephens—Victoria. allegations to have no substance. Senator BOB BROWN—From Victoria, The fact of the matter is that, no matter is he? He has been missing ever since from what Senator Brown or the majority report the Senate, where it matters. The fact is that I might say, Mr Chen was never at risk of be- spent a very productive and busy day on Fri- ing returned to China. He was never declared day, but I did not go into the Senate commit- an unlawful noncitizen and he was, within tee to claim travel allowance at night. That one month of application, granted a protec- would have been a farce. As the Labor and tion visa. There is absolutely nothing that Democrat contributors to the debate a while Senator Brown could complain about here— ago pointed out, it was an absolute and ri- other than to seek to score political points, as diculous farce. But, worse than that, it was he always seeks to do when it comes to a an affront to the democratic right of people matter of China. The committee heard no to feed into the committee system and an evidence against the minister and no evi- affront to Australians interested in this enor- dence that the Migration Act was breached. mously important legislation which is being At the end of the day, the committee— pushed through the Senate because the Prime largely at Senator Brown’s behest—wanted Minister wants it that way. The Prime Minis- to immerse itself in matters of Falun Gong ter will move heaven and earth to take this and other things. But these are matters that opportunity to get it through with the least the committee had only a passing interest in fuss. and are a term of reference for another day, The reason we are having a truncated de- so that the committee can properly and fully bate is because it is a bad time to be selling examine such allegations.(Time expired) Telstra, it is a bad look to be selling Telstra The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT and all the polls show that the majority of (Senator Crossin)—Senator Johnston, do Australians want it kept in public hands. you wish to seek leave to continue your re- They want the money that flows from Telstra marks later? kept in public hands so that the profits from Senator JOHNSTON—I do. I seek leave it can go into hospitals and schools instead of to continue my remarks later. into the pockets of the already rich who are Leave granted; debate adjourned. waiting around in the market to see what they can grab out of the dismantling of Tel- BUSINESS stra as we know it, the privatisation of tele- Consideration of Legislation communications and the consequent loss of Debate resumed.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 93 telecommunications services for the average talks going on outside this Senate are much citizen in this country. more important than the debate inside this One of the things that concerns me about Senate. Witness the absence of all but three the undue haste which is inherent in this mo- of the 39 government senators at this motion is the failure of the government to ex- ment from the Senate. The question is: at plain what happened to the fortunes of aver- what stage will the National Party senators age Australian shareholders when they cave in and claim that they have got a better bought into the second tranche of the privati- deal? One of the issues that Senator Joyce sation of Telstra. They lost billions of dollars. was quite rightly concerned about was the Can, and will, the government explain to ‘up to $2 billion’ clause in the legislation. I those Australians what happened to their will come back to that a bit later in the de- money? I will be seeking explanations dur- bate, but a question we might ask the gov- ing the committee stage, although it will be ernment before we get to that is whether it is guillotined later this week. Can the govern- prepared to release the drafting notes given ment explain why the expectation that the to the drafters—who are very loyal and shares would be worth more than $7 was 100 stringent in taking instructions—so that we per cent over the actual value that the market can see if it was indeed a mistake? Of settled on? Can the government explain to course, I do not think it was anything of the those Australians who lost their money how sort. It was a deliberate piece of terminology it could have so badly mismanaged the sale given to the drafters so that those who be- so that so many ordinary Australians lost lieved $2 billion would be kept in a fund their money and are still deciding what to would be cheated further down the line. It is do—whether to get out or whether to stay just the same as the promises made over the with Telstra—at a time when the Prime Min- GST to Senator Lees, former leader of the ister is asking Mr Trujillo and others to ‘talk Democrats, by the Howard government. it up’ rather than state the situation as it is? They were full of weasel words and were not kept when it came to the implementation of At this stage I just want to say again to the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of National Party that there is a need for more promises on goods which Senator Lees had time and better investigation. In the absence negotiated at that time. of a committee that was worth the name in the advertisement to declare that it was open We are going to see a vote very shortly. I for business—that failed to get into the Fi- am going to sit down now so that it can be nancial Review because of the rush last taken before tea—if the minister so wants it, week—we need to have the investigation of because I see he is going to speak after me. the very complex components of these five But the process is a farce and nothing in here bills in the committee of this Senate during is going to change that unless the National this week. We need to get time to do that. Party senators have the gumption, the back- The only way that will succeed is if the Na- bone, to stand up to this farcical process on tional Party gives the people of Australia, behalf of their rural and regional constituen- through this Senate, the time to do that. What cies and say, ‘We want more time, we will I predict will happen instead—we saw the take it and we will get this right, or we will first motion to have more time voted down block this legislation.’ by the coalition this morning—is that the Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— government and the Prime Minister’s office Minister for Justice and Customs) (6.21 will keep everybody aboard. It will. The pm)—The proposed legislation for the priva-

CHAMBER 94 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 tisation of Telstra is two bills in the Senate The Senate Environment, Communica- and three in the House of Representatives. tions, Information Technology and the Arts Last week the Senate determined that the two References Committee has in just over a year bills that are currently in the Senate should handed down reports into the telecommuni- be exempt from the cut-off, that is, they can cations regulatory regime, the powers of the be introduced in the same sittings and de- industry regulators, the Australian telecom- bated in the same sittings. As well as this, the munications network and competition in Senate determined that all five bills I have Australian broadband services. The most mentioned—three in the other place and two recent of these inquiries, the performance of in the Senate—be sent to the Senate refer- the Australian telecommunications regula- ences committee so they could be examined tory regime, completed its report only last as a package. This motion proposes to treat month. The Senate Environment, Communi- the three bills from the House of Representa- cations, Information Technology and the Arts tives in the same manner as the two we dealt Legislation Committee has also already in- with last week. It will also allow cognate quired into the provisions of the Telecom- debate, which is something that Senator munications Legislation Amendment (Regu- Ludwig mentioned in his speech on this mat- lar Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2005 ter and something that people have men- this year. What we have here is a thorough tioned. I simply reiterate that what we are examination of the proposal to privatise Tel- doing here is allowing senators to deal with stra. We have a process which brings the five these five bills as a package—that is, they bills together so that they can be debated can be debated in a cognate fashion. There is cognately. I will not hold up the Senate any no blunt instrument or any convoluted proc- further in order that we can get on with the ess involved in that. second reading speeches and debate this very It is really hypocritical of Labor to say important proposed legislation. that this is something untoward, unusual or Question put: indeed convoluted. When you look at La- That the motion (Senator Ellison’s) be agreed bor’s record you will see that they dealt with to. privatisation bills dealing with the Com- The Senate divided. [6.29 pm] monwealth Bank, Qantas and CSL without a (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul reference to a committee. The Common- Calvert) wealth Bank Sale Bill was introduced in the Senate on 26 October 1995 and passed on 27 Ayes………… 34 November 1995—the next month. The Qan- Noes………… 32 tas Sale Bill was introduced in the Senate on Majority……… 2 12 November 1992 and passed on 7 Decem- ber 1992—the very next month. The CSL AYES Sale Bill was introduced to the Senate on 28 Abetz, E. Adams, J. October 1993 and passed by the Senate in Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. the following month on 23 November 1993. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. All of those bills were passed without a ref- Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. erence to a committee and without the ex- Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. tended debate and scrutiny which we have Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. seen with the privatisation of Telstra. Heffernan, W. Humphries, G. Johnston, D. Joyce, B.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 95

Kemp, C.R. Lightfoot, P.R. Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania) (7.30 Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. pm)—I move the second reading amendment McGauran, J.J.J. * Minchin, N.H. standing in my name: Nash, F. Parry, S. Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M. Omit all words after “That”, substitute “further Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. consideration of the bills be an order of the day Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. for 4 October 2005”. Vanstone, A.E. Watson, J.O.W. While a motion with similar effect moved NOES this morning by the Labor Party was voted Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. down by the government, I want the option Bishop, T.M. Brown, B.J. left there for the Senate to take a bit more Brown, C.L. Conroy, S.M. time—three weeks more—to properly con- Evans, C.V. Faulkner, J.P. sider this matter if the government or any of Fielding, S. Forshaw, M.G. its members want to support that option. Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. I will quote from an article in yesterday’s Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. Australian Financial Review by Mr Bill Marshall, G. McEwen, A. Beerworth, Managing Director of Beerworth McLucas, J.E. Milne, C. and Partners and a member of the Australian Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. Competition Tribunal. He includes a list of Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. Polley, H. Sherry, N.J. things which he believes that the sale of Tel- Siewert, R. Stephens, U. stra—the T3 prospectus—should have as an Stott Despoja, N. Webber, R. * ideal starting point, noting the failures of the Wong, P. Wortley, D. T2 prospectus, which gave investors a very PAIRS wrong assessment of what the value of the shares would be. This is in the event that Campbell, I.G. Sterle, G. Coonan, H.L. Campbell, G. privatisation goes ahead. I am assuming that Hill, R.M. Carr, K.J. it will despite the Greens’ opposition to it. Macdonald, I. Crossin, P.M. Here are some things that he proposes for the Patterson, K.C. Ray, R.F. prospectus. Firstly, he says: * denotes teller It should contain a section explaining how the T2 Question agreed to. subscription price was calculated, why the share Sitting suspended from 6.32 pm to 7.30 price rapidly dropped to about half that amount pm and why it is still $3 or so below that price. Secondly, he says: TELSTRA (TRANSITION TO FULL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP) BILL 2005 There should be an explanation of what went wrong and why no one has ever accepted liability TELECOMMUNICATIONS for it. LEGISLATION AMENDMENT Certainly no-one in government, the biggest (COMPETITION AND CONSUMER shareholder, has. Thirdly, he says: ISSUES) BILL 2005 There should be a clear statement of the invest- Second Reading ment maths for the pricing of T3 and how it is Debate resumed from 8 September, on justified. motion by Senator Coonan: That is a very sensible expectation. It would That these bills be now read a second time be very simple for us to put it into this legislation. Fourthly, he says:

CHAMBER 96 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

There should be an abject apology to T2 sub- so that that service is at a comparable level scribers who invested on the faith of the govern- with the service that the rich at the big end of ment’s recommendation. town will get? It beggars belief to think that I think we can go past that one—we do not a $2 billion fund can provide for the short- have a Prime Minister who is into apologis- coming that has already been identified and ing to people who have been harmed in the go anywhere near to providing equal services past. Finally, he says: for regional Australia into the future, let There should be a discount offer for T2 share- alone provide for those services that we do holders to equate them with T3 subscribers. not even know about yet. I see that our He says that T3 subscribers will be in a bet- friends in Japan reckon that we will have ter position. That can be debated. What is three-dimensional TV by 2020. really underlying Mr Beerworth’s proposals Senator McGauran—They just voted for for the sale of Telstra is getting some truth. the privatisation of the postal service! What concerns me about the process we are Senator BOB BROWN—I am not sure entertaining this week—or the process that whether the honourable senator opposite, the government is going to force on the Sen- Senator McGauran, in commenting about the ate this week—is that we will not get an- Japanese situation, is flagging the sale of swers, let alone the truth. We are not going to Australia’s postal services next. But it is cer- have a full committee consideration of these tainly in the government’s mind. It is a very five bills. They are going to be shoved to- serious matter because, again, rural and re- gether. There will be no ability to question gional Australia loses out. Senator Joyce, particulars, and there was no such ability at who is with us in the chamber, quite properly the farce of a committee hearing last Friday. picked up on the ‘up to $2 billion’ clause in The government—particularly the Prime this legislation. That was the government’s Minister, whose baby this is—is not going to prescription for that fund, because that was be put under the rigorous cross-examination what was given to the drafters. that it would be put under if this was to be One only has to look back at what hap- properly debated, simply because the gov- pened to the Leader of the Democrats a few ernment has the numbers. years ago when she supported the GST legis- The questions, though, are manifest. One lation through this place. How clearly I re- of the basic questions is: if a report which member her, in June 2000, with the promise has come during Mr Sol Trujillo’s time as of hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to CEO says that $2 billion to $3 billion needed other community benefits, including some to have been spent in the last several years to very savvy environmental outcomes which bring Telstra up to expectations and, amongst would have created jobs in regional Austra- other things, to obviate the fact that 14 per lia, amongst the other things that Senator cent of subscribers have faulty connections, Lees had in mind. But there were too many how on earth is a $2 billion fund for the fu- ‘get-outs’ in the arrangement, and they did ture going to make up for that shortfall of not survive. If we go back to the $2 billion just the last few years? How much in real fund in this legislation, where is the guaran- terms is that $2 billion fund for the future tee on that? Even if you did say that the going to provide, not just for the upkeep but money coming off that $2 billion fund—let also for the modernisation of an increasingly us take 10 per cent: $200 million a year— complicated telecommunications system for could supply the needs of rural and regional the whole of regional and suburban Australia

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 97

Australia, that it could keep up the services est. Whether we like it or not, that is the po- required in the bush plus provide the new sition in which we find ourselves. ones, who is going to guarantee that fund? Telecommunications is no longer a natural Who on earth will guarantee that? monopoly. Most informed people agree. Governments come and governments go, Even our political opponents concede it pri- and you cannot bind future governments vately—and, in fact, not so privately. Both with current legislation. Everybody knows Mr Beazley and Mr Keating actively consid- that that cannot be assured. There is only one ered the sale of Telstra, as has been widely way you can assure that there will be ade- reported, with Mr Keating having discus- quate servicing of the bush, and that is by sions with BHP in this regard some 10 years keeping Telstra in public hands and therefore ago, before we came into government, of subject to the Senate and the House of Rep- course. I think the Australian people can be resentatives, the elected members here who grateful that the Australian Labor Party did are subject to the public out there. The very not sell Telstra. After all, they were a most fact that this debate is taking place shows profligate government. They built govern- that you cannot guarantee that. How much ment debt to around $90 billion. Any money less can you guarantee the interest on a $2 that they got their hands on with the sale of billion fund being put into rural and regional the Commonwealth Bank, the Common- services, let alone the existence of that fund? wealth Serum Laboratories or Qantas, they You cannot guarantee that, and experience used for recurrent expenditure. They cer- says that in the future that will not happen. tainly did not pay off the national bankcard. The bush will be left to appeal to govern- The $3.1 billion package that is proposed in ment largesse to try to do the best it can to this legislation is a real bonus and only make up for a privatised company whose available to the Australian people because of interests are not to spend money for services the sale of Telstra and because of the wise which are not profitable. It will be putting its and prudent management of our economy by services into profitable areas, which means the coalition government. downtown cities in particular. The Greens The Nationals have done what we were will be opposing these bills. elected to do. We have used and we will use Senator SANDY MACDONALD (New the sale of Telstra to secure the biggest boost South Wales—Parliamentary Secretary to the to regional telecommunications in our his- Minister for Trade) (7.40 pm)—We have tory. It is in addition to everything else we been working towards this sale for 10 years have done as part of the government over the and it has been exhaustively debated, our last nine years. Since 1996, the coalition aim being to provide a well-regulated, com- have delivered unprecedented benefits to petitive telecommunications environment for Australian consumers and businesses all of us in the belief that continued public through development of a highly competitive ownership of Telstra is not a prerequisite of telecommunications regime. This has been an acceptable level of service. In fact, the underpinned by strong—in fact, world’s best opposite is the case. How can the govern- practice—consumer safeguards and sup- ment continue to be the regulator, the major ported by appropriately targeted funding in shareholder and also a provider of funds for areas where market failure might deny con- additional infrastructure and services at the sumers, particularly rural, remote and re- same time? There is a clear conflict of inter- gional consumers, the full benefits of competition.

CHAMBER 98 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Competition, regulation and subsidisation record, the Australian government in the pe- where appropriate have been the key ele- riod 1997, from T1, to 2009 will have spent ments of our approach to providing tele- approximately $4 billion on programs to as- communications outcomes to all Australians, sist regional telecommunications. This is in and they will remain. That is what good gov- addition to probably $20 billion that has been ernment is all about and that is what the Na- invested by Telstra and the 100 or so other tional Party, in cooperation with our col- telecommunications carriers that now oper- leagues in the coalition, Telstra, other tele- ate. communication providers and telecommuni- The various regional telecommunications cation infrastructure providers will work to programs have been an ongoing response to achieve with this package. Our objective is both the Besley and the Estens inquiries that to make sure that all Australians have equita- identified need in regional Australia. Firstly, ble access to high-quality telecommunica- we had the social bonus response to T2 in tions services. 1999. I will long remember sitting in the Our approach to fulfilling this objective Prime Minister’s office, with Senator Bos- has three planks. Firstly, we have encouraged well, when the Prime Minister accepted, competition to deliver innovation, cheaper among many other things, that untimed local prices and greater choice, while always re- calls should be provided to people living in maining completely open to new technology far-flung pastoral zones, like they were to all and new carriers. There is nothing in these other Australians. That contribution amounts proposals for future proofing which is tech- to a cool $154.6 million—an awful lot of nology or company specific. In a sense, the money. It is proper to remember these out- $1.1 billion Connecting Australia package is comes. So often in politics the goalposts are money that can be utilised by any company. moved as soon as the outcome is achieved. It is certainly not technology specific. There were other things in the social bonus Secondly, we have maintained tough regu- that were important, but that alone was a latory safeguards like price capping, the very great and appropriate win for regional Aus- much expanded customer service guarantees, tralia. the local presence plan, the commitment to Madam Acting Deputy President Troeth, retain Telstra Country Wide and the USO you will recall that the Australian govern- which is presently held by Telstra. I would ment also provided around $250 million in expect that, despite the call for competition 1997, as part of T1, along with the nation- and it being opened up to tender, it would be building commitment of about $2 billion to likely to remain with Telstra for the foresee- the Natural Heritage Trust. I am sure that able future. These regulatory safeguards are would interest Senator Bob Brown. It was a ongoing, certainly while we are in govern- lot of money and an awful lot of good has ment, and they are not a closed book. I re- been done by the Natural Heritage Trust. The mind the Senate that we are the government. money has been very well targeted over the We will regulate Telstra and other providers years. In response to the Besley inquiry in as we see fit. Telstra or any other market 2001, another $150 million was spent in re- player must expect to shape up or ship out. gional Australia. Then in 2003, in response Thirdly, we have provided targeted fund- to the Estens regional telecommunications ing to improve services in areas which are inquiry, we targeted another $250 million for not going to be served by the market. For the a number of upgrades, particularly the Hi- BIS, which received $160 million. That has

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 99 been an incredibly well-received program vices. Actions speak louder than words. I and provided broadband access to many remember as a young man we had a party parts of regional Australia that were not able line that was serviced by the PMG. When it to access broadband before. broke down it took probably three weeks for There is evidence that the government’s it to be fixed. I remember thinking then that targeted approach has delivered real benefits that must be the greatest argument about to all consumers since 1997. Prices, espe- public ownership of major public infrastruc- cially for long-distance calls, have fallen; ture such as telecommunications, that anyone customers have more choice of service pro- else could have done it better. In fact, we viders than ever before; and innovative new frequently fixed the phone line ourselves. services and technologies are being rolled The first responsibility of government is out all the time—at this very time they are to give people economic security and the being rolled out. Since the introduction of second is to give them national security. competition in 1997, Australian consumers Coming next is a range of services that peo- have enjoyed price decreases of more than ple expect, like good health services, educa- 20 per cent in real terms. All Australians can tion and infrastructure. Foremost in this next now choose between different service pro- range of services is telecommunications— viders for their fixed phone, internet and our reliance on which is increasing daily. We mobile phone. have provided this in our previous commit- Last week the coalition government an- ments on telecommunications and in this nounced the comprehensive communications package of legislation. So I return to where I package, along with the sale legislation, with started: we will ensure that our telecommu- a $1.1 billion roll-out of broadband, new nications services will equal world’s best regional clever networks, mobile services practice by competition, by regulation and by and an Indigenous communications package. subsidisation if necessary. It is certainly not a On the passage of this Telstra sale legisla- consideration of any of these that the gov- tion, we will establish a range of future- ernment own Telstra. It is quite the opposite: proofing measures. The government is intro- it is about service and choice, not about ducing legislation that requires regular re- ownership. The present conflict of interest views of telecommunications services and a cannot continue. I support the Telstra legisla- Communications Fund of $2 billion. That tion. It is a great outcome for regional Aus- future technology infrastructure fund, so to tralia and for Australia generally. speak, will be tied to legislated and regular Senator HURLEY (South Australia) independent reviews of rural, regional and (7.52 pm)—I want to talk tonight about why remote telecommunications services. The 70 per cent of people surveyed in Australia model for operational separation has been oppose this privatisation—and up to 80 per developed in consultation with Telstra and cent in some regional areas. It is because a the ACCC. Its operation will be imposed by lot of Australian people have seen how bad it licence conditions. This will ensure further can be for them if privatisations are misman- competition. aged. I think that they do not have sufficient The Nationals’ aim, in cooperation with confidence in the processes of the govern- our coalition colleagues—the best government and the way it has handled the pro- ment that regional Australia has ever had—is posed sale of Telstra to have confidence that to provide first-rate telecommunications ser- the Telstra privatisation would be properly handled. I want to speak about the way that a

CHAMBER 100 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 number of privatisations, both state and fed- proud of their employees and they wanted to eral, have been mishandled and mismanaged do what was right. But they were just ham- such that the people of Australia have actu- strung by existing conditions which were set ally suffered as a result of these changes. up by this government. One of the first ways is if the infrastruc- BT also talk about 21CN, their 21st cen- ture has not been handled properly. I think tury network, as being a key infrastructure that Telstra is the glaring example. The gov- that will fuel the economy in United King- ernment have had nine long years to get this dom. I think this is also a key point which we right and yet they have not put in place and must remember: telecommunications is an have not spent enough money on infrastruc- integral part of the economy these days. It is ture either in regional Australia or in metro- essential for business to have access to world politan Australian to give people confidence class communications. This ÃELOOLRQÃRYHUÃ that, with Telstra having to come out and five years will fuel the UK economy not only face competition and with it being fully pri- in the tenders that BT are putting out but also vatised, the necessary infrastructure is there in the services that will result. Rather than in Australia to set up telecommunications in talking about it in a congratulatory manner— a proper way. because the minister of course was talking The Minister for Communications, Infor- about a privatised company—she should be mation Technology and the Arts spoke last ashamed that the Australian government, week in a congratulatory manner about Brit- unlike the United Kingdom government, ish Telecom’s announcement in the United have not set up their telecommunications Kingdom that it will be investing £10 billion company in a way that will in the near future on infrastructure in the United Kingdom and allow Telstra to put that sort of investment Europe on the next generation platform of into infrastructure in telecommunications. telecommunications IP. She also referred to They have had nine long years to get this New Zealand’s telecommunications com- right and they simply have not achieved mitment of $220 million on a similar new those objectives. Their mismanagement and platform. It is certainly right that BT seems incompetence over the last 10 years has to have much to be congratulated for. That translated into mismanagement and incom- ÃELOOLRQÃRYHUÃILYHÃ\HDUVÃLVÃJRLQJÃRQÃDÃQHt- petence in the sale process. work that it says will take it well into the Apart from infrastructure, the second way 21st century. Its press release talks about that Australians have suffered as a result of cutting edge technology and a world class badly managed privatisations is in price communications service, and I do not think structure. They have seen time after time— that anyone in the government here could and we have seen this with electricity priva- claim that Telstra is at the cutting edge of tisation in South Australia—that big business technology or that it has a world class com- certainly benefits with dropped prices and munications service. improved services. But what we have seen I must emphasise that I do not believe that happen is that small business and ordinary this is Telstra’s fault or that the problem is customers have suffered. We have already with Telstra’s employees or executives. Be- seen this in Telstra with the line rental fore I came into parliament one of my clients charges going from $11.65 per month to $30 was Telstra in South Australia and they were per month. That impacts very adversely on committed to their customer base. They were people on a fixed or low income. Pensioners who need their phone, who probably do not

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 101 use their phone very much but rely on it as a telecommunications are getting far more ef- form of communication and for emergency ficient and effective. services, have seen their line rentals go up to The real joke is in the last point on price $30 per month. Calls have not come down controls in Minister Coonan’s press release: particularly so they are paying proportion- • in order to maintain a viable payphone indus- ately far more for their telephone services try, increase the local call cap on payphones than they absolutely should be. from 40 cents to 50 cents. And you only have to look at the minis- That is her guarantee on price controls—that ter’s statement where she boasts about the we will have a 10 per cent increase in the new price controls when Telstra is privatised. cost of using a public phone. That is to guar- She talks about focusing on the benefits of antee service. That is actually quite right. To price controls on residential and small busi- guarantee service she will have to allow an ness customers by removing price controls increase in costs. That is what we will see from services provided to big business. That when Telstra is privatised. To guarantee ser- is just a nonsense. Everyone knows that the vices to small customers and to regional ar- prices for big business will not go up. That is eas, there will be a price that will have to be just pure window dressing. She also says that paid somewhere; there will be an increase in she will require a basket of Telstra’s line prices somewhere or a reduction in services. rentals—local calls, STD international and You can guarantee that it will not be big fixed to mobile calls—to be subject to an business that will see that increase in prices overall price freeze. That is nonsense too. or reduction in services; it will be ordinary Everyone knows that the price of telecom- Australians. I think that they understand that munications is coming down. She should be very well, and that is why they are opposing talking about actually forcing down the this privatisation in such overwhelming num- price, not a price freeze. This is not going to bers. benefit anyone. New technology, new com- The other aspect of badly managed priva- munications and new competition should see tisations that we need to talk about is com- a dramatic reduction in prices, not a price pliance and enforcement. Before privatisa- freeze. That is a nothing guarantee. She goes tion occurs you get promises and guarantees on to say: about customer service obligations, universal • provide a line rental safety net through a service obligations and price controls. What price cap that will not allow Telstra’s basic happens is that the privatisation occurs and line rental products to increase by more than then the company or companies will say to the rate of inflation. the government, ‘I’m sorry, we can’t live That price increase has already occurred. The under these controls. We’ll have to either minister should be forcing down the rate of increase prices or decrease services.’ That is that line rental so that fixed income earners, when we need to have a very effective com- pensioners and low-income earners see a pliance and enforcement regime that will be reduction in the line rental cost. It is a non- able to take a look at the figures behind these sense, when you look at world prices for bleatings to government and the community telecommunications, that she should be con- and enforce community service obligations tent with a cost of living increase. Right and price controls. through this statement on price controls there is window-dressing. It is an absolute non- There is every sign that the government sense to give that kind of guarantee when are again mismanaging this part of the proc-

CHAMBER 102 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 ess. In the operational separation and com- be satisfied with the way that this privatisa- pliance regime that they are putting in place, tion has been managed. which seems to be a bit fluid at this time, the There has been some question among cracks are already starting to appear. Already government senators about whether the ALP there has been a great deal of criticism that has been hypocritical on privatisation. We Telstra has been so involved with the prepa- have just heard Senator Sandy Macdonald ration of the draft operational separation plan talk about a meeting that the leader of the and that the ACCC, which is the govern- ALP, Kim Beazley, had with BP. This illus- ment’s watchdog on all these issues of com- trates, in fact, that the Labor Party does not pliance and the enforcement of price con- have extreme views—extreme ideologies— trols, has been left out in a number of key about privatisation. Yes, the ALP was in gov- areas. ernment when the Commonwealth Bank was The problem is that once the privatisation privatised. Yes, it was in government when goes through, if we still have a Liberal gov- Qantas was privatised. Yes, it was in government—because heaven knows when the ernment when CSL was privatised. The La- sale will actually happen—that government bor Party and a Labor government are pre- will have a vested interest in ensuring the pared to look at each privatisation case by success of the privatisation and ensuring the case, deciding whether it is in the best inter- success of Telstra. So that already provides ests of the Australian people and whether the government with a conflict about the way that company has been set up to succeed and it monitors compliance and enforcement. produce benefits out of its privatisation—as, Will it ensure that the community service I think, have been produced from privatising obligations are met? Will it ensure proper Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank and CSL. competition or will it ensure that, whatever Each of those companies has gone on to do happens, the privatisation looks like it has very good things in the market and be very been a success? successful in the market. We have seen in- These are key issues in privatisation. I creased competition in all of those areas. think the public have already voted. It is in- We are not going to stick to an extreme teresting that the government is not prepared ideological agenda, but the Liberal govern- to listen to the people. It might be prepared ment appears to be willing to stay with its to listen to one rogue member of the Na- extreme ideological agenda and not even tional Party because it needs his vote, but it take the time to properly review and consider is not prepared to make changes that will this legislation—or even the views of its own satisfy the 70 per cent of Australians who members. It is certainly not considering the currently oppose the privatisation of Telstra views of the members of organisations like because they are not yet certain that they the National Farmers Federation or of the have the guarantees in place. Senator Joyce vast bulk of the population of Australia. That may be persuaded that the guarantees are in is where the Liberal government is being place for his particular constituency—the really hypocritical. National Party—but are all the senators in It is not hypocritical of the Labor Party to this chamber satisfied that all their constitu- oppose this privatisation. We are responding ents in each of the regions in each state will to concrete difficulties with the way this pri- have the services, the infrastructure and the vatisation has been managed in the lead-up price controls that they deserve? I would not to the sale process and, in particular, to diffi- think so. I would not think that they would

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 103 culties with the sale process itself, which well to have broadband for the sake of their seems to be extremely flawed despite the fact business. This again illustrates the prob- that the government has had nine long years lem—big businesses will do well out of this to consider it. This government has been ob- and small businesses will not do well. The sessed with this sale for nine long years and government has focused its attention on re- yet somehow it has been unable to get its act gional areas in order to buy the vote of one together to produce a smooth sale process. In senator, yet broadband is still lacking in key the end it has been confronted by the execu- areas of Adelaide and key metropolitan areas tive of Telstra coming out and talking about in my seat of South Australia. I am certainly the way it has mismanaged the whole proc- not happy about that and I know that South ess and about the way Telstra has under- Australians are certainly not happy about funded infrastructure over the last years and that. run down its services in order to prop up its Senator RONALDSON (Victoria) (8.10 sale price. pm)—Probably without wishing to do so, The Labor Party is implacably opposed to Senator Hurley has given us 20 minutes all aspects of this sale process, because it worth of very good reasons to do what the knows, along with 70 per cent of Australian government is doing. The Telstra (Transition people, that this process is greatly flawed. It to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005 and does not want to see it go through in this way related bills give effect to longstanding gov- at all and does not want to see the govern- ernment policy by allowing the full privatisa- ment implement its extreme agenda just be- tion of Telstra at a time to be determined. cause it can—just because it has the numbers They unlock the value of Telstra for Austra- in both houses of this parliament. The gov- lian taxpayers and continue to build upon the ernment certainly would do well to accept competitive telecommunications policy that this legislation needs a longer period of framework, because that is the mechanism review and to go back and reconsider— that will provide the widest practical access Senator Abetz—We’ve been doing that to advanced services at the least cost to the for nine years—you just told us. community’s resources. Senator HURLEY—You have been do- Passage of this package of legislation will ing that for nine years, Senator, and doing it activate the government’s pledge to ensure badly. The government has underfunded in- an immediate $1.1 billion in funding for frastructure and reduced services. broadband, mobile and Indigenous communication services, including: $878 million for Senator Abetz—Why do you need more Broadband Connect, to provide all Austra- time? It’s been on the agenda nine years. lians with affordable broadband services; Senator HURLEY—That is precisely $113 million for Clever Networks, to roll out why we need more time—to build up infra- new broadband networks for innovative ap- structure again in the regions, which we have plications to improve the delivery of health, talked a lot about, and also in metropolitan education and other essential services; $30 areas, where the issue of infrastructure has million for Mobile Connect, to extend terres- also been very badly handled. In Pooraka trial mobile coverage and continue satellite and Wingfield, near the electorate I used to handset subsidies; and $90 million for Back- represent in state parliament, I hear they still ing Indigenous Ability, to deliver compre- do not have broadband. There are so many hensive telecommunications improvements small businesses in that area that would do for remote Indigenous communities. There

CHAMBER 104 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 will also be regular reviews, with the first to Under our management, these airlines have in fact occur every three years after any sale of Tel- done very well. What we are looking at in the stra, or sooner if the minister directs. This context of selling down a proportion of Qantas, package of legislation crystallises the estab- our national flag carrier, the carrier of our bilat- lishment of a $2 billion Communications eral relations with a number of other countries in the aviation area, effectively is selling if not quite Fund, to be maintained in perpetuity to de- a monopolistic position then certainly a monopo- liver an income stream to fund government’s listic Australian overseas involvement position, of responses to the recommendations made by which the Opposition would sell 100 per cent and legislated, regular reviews of regional, rural of which we, in the positions we are putting for- and remote telecommunications services. ward and which we are suggesting to conference, This legislation is a stark contrast to would sell around 49 per cent. We are doing it not because of some ideological commitment to the communications policy under the previous issue of privatisation but because it seems in the government. When Mr Beazley was minister interests of the airline that we should approach it for communications, Paul Keating, who ac- in that way now. tually understood the benefits of privatisa- We know that that 49 per cent soon became tion, told the then sports minister, John 100 per cent. Mr Beazley was happy to sell Brown: what he viewed to be a monopoly. All the There are four dinosaurs in Australia—Qantas, previous government achieved in telecom- Australia Post, the ABC and Kim Beazley—and munications was the setting up of a cosy du- the fourth dinosaur is in charge of the other three. opoly with Telstra and Optus, with none of The sad thing is that the Leader of the Oppo- the consumer protections and competition sition understands the benefits of privatisa- which have flourished under this govern- tion; it is just that his mates never let him ment. Indeed, under this government, tele- close a deal. On 17 September 1990, speak- communications is now a dynamic industry ing of Qantas, Mr Beazley said: undergoing massive change and develop- The Labor Government has not been inactive in ment. Telecommunications is one of the fast- this area. Since it has been in office, some $2 est growing industries in Australia, and there billion worth of government services have been are now more than 142 licensed telecommu- taken out of the government sector and put onto a nications carriers. private contracting basis. When I confronted the requirement to devise a contract to construct frig- On 1 February 1995, Mr Beazley went on ates in this country, I coupled with that at that to outline his success in selling nearly 50 per time-which was the right time-the issue of the cent of the Commonwealth Bank, the Com- privatisation of Williamstown Naval Dockyard. monwealth Serum Laboratories and the bulk When the Commonwealth Bank absolutely re- of Defence Industries. As we know, the quired a capital injection, effectively in order for Commonwealth Bank soon went from 50 per it to be able to grow and to continue to perform cent to 100 per cent. On 24 August 1994, Mr the essential stabilising role that it performs in the Beazley said: Australian banking sector, this Government put in place a capacity for the bank to sell down to the The government has nothing to apologise for in tune of 30 per cent. regard to its privatisation program which has been conducted with a very high level of success to I repeat the words ‘to grow and to continue this point. to perform’, which is what this debate is all about today. He then went on to say that it is I might add that not only should Labor not okay to sell a monopoly. I quote again: apologise for their privatisation program, they should thank the then opposition for

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 105 helping them, not because we wanted to help and in committee is far more in keeping with the then Labor government but because it democratic process and old-fashioned hon- was the right thing for Australia. Would that esty than Mr Beazley as finance minister Senator Evans, Senator Conroy and Mr ever provided for as he flogged off anything Beazley might take a leaf out of our book. that moved, as fast as he could. Instead of supporting the government on No area of public administration better the continued reform of the economy, we highlights Mr Beazley’s shoddy track record hear nothing but confected anger. It is noth- on public enterprise than the handling of the ing short of hypocrisy. In government, Labor sale of ANL. If the opposition are going to never spent more than a calendar month on have a debate about keeping Telstra only their privatisation bills. They never took is- partly privatised, it is imperative that we sues to elections, as we did four times in re- have a look at Mr Beazley’s record on ANL. lation to this issue. They never held exhaus- As minister for finance, Mr Beazley wasted tive public and Senate committee inquiries, millions of taxpayers’ dollars on the botched which this government have already done. sale of ANL. Labor say we should no longer For example, the Commonwealth Bank sale take on the sale of Telstra. ANL is a horrific bill was introduced into the House on 19 Oc- example of how Labor go about selling an tober 1995 and passed on 25 October 1995. asset—perhaps $130 million or more was It was introduced into the Senate on 26 Oc- wasted through Labor incompetence. tober 1995 and passed on 27 November In the budget of November 1991, the then 1995. It was not referred to a Senate commit- government decided they would sell 49 per tee. The Qantas sale bill was introduced into cent of ANL. The Labor government ap- the House on 4 October 1993 and passed on pointed Price Waterhouse in July 1991 to do 11 November. It was introduced into the a complete independent study of ANL. The Senate on 12 November and passed on 7 De- next year, Price Waterhouse told them that 49 cember. It was not referred to a Senate com- per cent was not going to work and that to be mittee. The CSL sale bill was introduced into viable 100 per cent had to be sold. Did Mr the House on 29 September 1993 and passed Beazley say, ‘No, let’s sell only 49 per cent’? on 27 October. It was not referred to a Senate No, he did not, because it was in the public committee. interest to sell 100 per cent. One year later How dare the Labor opposition lecture the they announced the start of the due diligence government about process. None of Labor’s process. In the May 1994 budget, they an- privatisation bills for Qantas, CSL and the nounced that the due diligence process had Commonwealth Bank were ever referred to a started. And after four budgets, in August Senate committee. Labor did not allow their 1994, the Labor government suddenly with- bills to be subject to the level of scrutiny and drew ANL from sale and appointed Malcolm transparency which this government allow. Turnbull and a couple of others to do an as- While Labor arrogantly rushed their sale sessment of it. The Labor government had to bills through, never putting them to a Senate bring in a Liberal to help them fix up their committee, this government voluntarily do mess—it is obvious that the dinosaur, Mr so. How dare they lecture us about Senate Beazley, needed help. process. Their confected arrogance and rank But the saga continued. In May 1995, hypocrisy is breathtaking. The process this P&O put in a conditional offer for 100 per government have implemented through a cent of the shares of ANL. In August, the series of elections and reviews in this place

CHAMBER 106 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

ANL board recommended that the sale be sale, in accordance with Mr Keating’s made to P&O. But did Mr Beazley and the wishes. Labor government snap up the deal? No. Indeed, Mr Beazley, then Minister for Fi- Instead, the Labor government announced nance, made a rare great speech on 24 Au- that the sale would be subject to the veto of gust, entitled ‘Paying for our future: the the Maritime Union of Australia. In Septem- changing role of public investment’. We got ber 1995, the ANL sale bill was passed by to hear what Mr Beazley really thinks about the other place, but the wharfies won the day, privatisation when he is being honest. He and in November 1995 ANL was withdrawn said: from sale. To try to save face the Labor gov- Privatisation fits in with the Government’s ernment said that they were going to restruc- broader economic imperative to create jobs ... ture ANL and sell it. All the while, the Labor Privatisation is not pursued because of a New government had pumped $160 million into Right ideology ... ANL. Under Mr Beazley’s watch, ANL ac- cumulated $96 million worth of losses. Ap- He continued: proximately $260 million of taxpayers’ dol- Privatisation, for instance, can strengthen the lars were squandered on ANL because, performance of enterprises by allowing private again, Mr Beazley did not have the ticker to capital injections, as happened with the sale of the Commonwealth Bank ... stand up for the national interest. This government had to do the job for him. Mr Beazley was right on that. Private capital is necessary to ensure that business assets Now Mr Beazley wants to do to Telstra work properly, that they are strong and work- what he did to ANL. We cannot let that hap- ing in the national interest and that they have pen. That brings me back to former Prime free access to the capital markets without Minister Keating, who had some terrible having to worry about dilution of the gov- home truths to tell about Mr Beazley—for ernment shareholding. whom he had the affectionate name ‘the dinosaur’. Graham Richardson wrote a great I recall a written guarantee that the Labor book on this subject, giving intimate details Party would not sell down the other 51 per of the massive debate about telecommunica- cent of the Commonwealth Bank. It was a tions policy in the federal cabinet of the time. shameless porky. They did it in 1993 and Would it surprise you to know that the for- 1995 anyway, and afterwards the current mer Prime Minister wanted to sell 100 per Leader of the Opposition boasted that he had cent of Telstra? Not 49 per cent, not 51 per done it—but only after one of his colleagues cent, but 100 per cent. And why did he want had given a written, ironclad guarantee that it to do that? He wanted to do that because it would not be done. was and still is in the national interest. How- This government, through good economic ever, after promoting the sale of Telstra to management, has now repaid most of the $80 cabinet, Mr Keating did an about-face in a billion debt that Mr Keating and Mr Beazley deal with the Telecom unions in 1993. Mr ran up in their last five years of govern- Beazley’s Labor is still honouring that ment—between 1991 and 1996. But Mr pledge today, 12 years after the Keating deal. Beazley does not want the debt paid off in But before that dirty deal on Telstra with the full. He does not really want a future fund, telecommunications union was done, it was he does not want a $2 billion Communica- Mr Beazley who was getting it ready for tions Fund and he does not want tax cuts,

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 107 because that is the legacy of the good eco- cent days with regard to Telstra’s ASX list- nomic management of this government. ing. Let us not forget that as finance minister The dead hand of government should Mr Beazley was happy to sell Qantas, the never be in the position of being both share- Commonwealth Bank and the CSL. He cor- holder and regulator. It is a conflict, no mat- poratised Telstra, getting ready to sell it as ter what the industry. This package ensures part of a cosy duopoly. Why? Because it was that government can focus solely on regula- in the public interest; because those re- tions that benefit all Australians in their ac- sources are better run by the private sector; cess to telecommunications. The burden of because governments should not be in the an inability to access the capital markets, business of running businesses; and because which is imposed by current legislation, will that capital can be utilised to more efficient be removed from Telstra. They will be able ends for the good of the Australian taxpayer. to do their job better, and the government We supported Mr Beazley as finance minis- will be able to do its job better, focusing on a ter, and he needed every bit of our support. regulatory structure that benefits all players When Mr Beazley talks about it being ap- in the industry and all Australian taxpayers. propriate to sell a monopoly or a cosy du- The universal service obligation, or USO, opoly, as he claims he did with Qantas, he and the customer service guarantee, known knows what he is talking about. He set up the as the CSG, are central planks of this gov- Telstra-Optus duopoly. It is this government ernment’s telecommunications consumer that has brought real competition to tele- safeguards. Telstra is currently the only USO communications. It is this government that provider in Australia. The CSG applies to has brought real regulatory protection for Telstra and all other telecommunications Australian consumers. It is this government companies. This bill reiterates and strength- that has overseen a massive boom in tele- ens this government’s commitment to main- communications services and players. To taining these safeguards. It safeguards their their shame, the previous Labor government continued application to Telstra. On every would have sold Telstra as a duopoly player. key area—consumer protection, foreign As has been debated at length recently, the ownership, the sale process and consumer government has subjected Telstra to a very safeguards—this government has delivered tight regulatory regime in order to ensure the best practice. This is the best possible pack- kind of service that Australians deserve. age for the Australian taxpayer. There is no incongruity or inconsistency be- The Telecommunications Legislation tween private ownership and public protec- Amendment (Competition and Consumer tion. The United States has a universal ser- Issues) Bill 2005 is another powerful regula- vice fund which levies carriers to fund com- tory achievement of this government. It leg- munity service obligations—obligations islates to impose on Telstra through its li- which we all agree are extremely important. cence conditions a requirement for opera- The US has never had any public ownership tional separation, it gives the minister the of telecommunications carriers. This legisla- power to determine the matters covered by tion strengthens these protections. Indeed, the operational separation plan and the ser- nothing underscores the importance of priva- vices it covers and it requires the ACCC to tising Telstra better than the debate over re- take account of the costs and risks of new

CHAMBER 108 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 network investment when making decisions Greens lost their right to engage in this de- under the telecommunications access regime. bate when their leader refused to come into a Debate of recent weeks shows that Telstra committee of which he was a member. On knows it needs to lift its game, but that is not Monday, Senator Eggleston, the chairman of going to happen while you keep one hand the committee, also expressed surprise that tied behind its back. There is nothing wrong Senator Brown could not put his mobile with privatisation. As Mr Beazley has phone down and walk 15 metres into that pointed out many times, it delivers enormous Senate committee to discuss what he views benefits for consumers and taxpayers alike. as some as the most important legislation this The Iron Curtain was removed over a decade country has seen. And he had the gall to talk ago, and the days of socialised commercial about abuse of process. (Time expired) enterprises are long gone. It is no wonder Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) that the former Prime Minister was so infuri- (8.30 pm)—On 3 March 1845 British Prime ated with the current Leader of the Opposi- Minister Benjamin Disraeli stood in the tion that he called him a dinosaur. Mr House of Commons and uttered these words: Beazley almost dragged himself into the free A Conservative government is an organised hy- market but was unable to do so. pocrisy. Before I finish, I want to talk about Sena- The government’s position on Telstra dem- tor Bob Brown. As I said to this chamber this onstrates the truth of Disraeli’s maxim, ex- afternoon, Senator Brown is a member of the cept for one thing: this government is a dis- Senate legislation committee. He should organised hypocrisy. have been at the hearings on Friday. He ap- The Minister for Finance and Administra- parently gave his apologies because he was tion demonstrated this hypocrisy back in Au- going to be in Sydney or in the city and gust in a speech to the National Press Club. would be unable to attend. His apologies The minister, Senator Minchin, dismissed must have been late, because the committee public opinion polls indicating the over- staff had one of those cardboard nameplates whelming desire of the majority of Austra- ready to put in front of him. Had Senator lians to retain ownership of Telstra as ‘not Brown been in Sydney or in the city and le- deeply held’. Yet in the very next breath he gitimately apologised, then I would have said proclaimed: that he should have been there but, because I do have a dream that our Christmas present to he was not, he must have had a good reason the nation in December 2006 will be the full sale for his absence. of our remaining shares in Telstra. I see Senator Conroy, who is also a com- Apparantly, the Minister for Finance and mittee member, has walked into the chamber. Administration is not the only senator on the For at least an hour of extremely important government side prone to dreaming. We Senate committee deliberations, Senator know that in the government party room at Brown was marching outside speaking on his the start of this session Senator Heffernan mobile phone. He did not have the decency regaled all those present of his dream. It was to come into those committee hearings. He vivid dream of chaos and defeat. Senator had between 8.00 am and 5.00 pm to do so. Heffernan’s dream is bound to come true, It was an utter disgrace. For him to come very much a consequence of this into this chamber today and speak on this bill government’s blind ideology with regard to I find quite extraordinary. The Australian selling Telstra.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 109

I do not have a dream, but I have a wiped of the share value of Telstra in one nightmare. My nightmare is the Minister for day? Finance and Administration acting as Santa Why did Telstra suffer this sharp decline Claus to the nation. What a bleak and in its value? It was because the facts were miserable Christmas that will be. Perhaps the exposed. The truth about its failure to spend minister believes that all Australian mums on infrastructure and the use of its reserves and dads can purchase their Telstra shares to prop up the dividend and share price fi- from the lousy $6 per week tax cut that the nally came out—details that this government majority of Australian families received in did not want to have exposed. The informa- the last budget. However, that lousy $6 has tion on salaries was also held back from the been well and truly eroded by escalating public until after the close of the stock mar- petrol prices. ket last week. What is the government, the The recent plunge in the share price and majority shareholder, doing about this corpo- revelations of management and board rate greed? It is doing absolutely nothing. incompetence demonstrate that the Prime This government is only interested in beating Minister is also dreaming if he believes he up unions and attacking the wages and work- can sell the rest of Telstra at $5.25 a share as ing conditions of ordinary Australians and valued in the budget papers. The current those on welfare benefits. price is $4.30. That is around $3.10 less than In that same speech on 25 August, Senator the $7.40 sale price of T2. That is why they Minchin stated that the support of Australian have proposed putting it into a Future Fund. superannuation funds and individual inves- They are not confident of their own ability to tors would decide the success of the float. sell the remaining 51 per cent of Telstra. Yet the minister has also admitted Telstra has Telstra has proved to be a very poor been a poor investment for the government. I investment for Australian mums and dads as suggest that support from Australian super- a result of the fiasco this government has annuation funds will be hard to find as well. created, so much so that I doubt many Finally, in that same speech to the National Australians will be willing to trust the Press Club on 25 August, Senator Minchin government’s hype when T3 is floated. Even stated: the overpaid and over here senior executives If those polls are right, some might ask whether are advising their mothers not to invest in the the government’s resolve to continue with the sale company. is an act of political folly. In the ultimate act of grand hypocrisy, the I think he is right. board of Telstra has increased the total of It may only be political folly for this gov- senior executive salaries from $13.2 million ernment but this legislation is political death in 2003-04 to $22.5 million in 2004-05. The for the National Party. Why is the govern- chairman’s remuneration was tripled to ment seeking to rush this legislation through $497,000. The previous CEO, Ziggy Swit- the parliament? The reason is clear: having kowski, who has already left the company, obtained Senator Joyce’s agreement to the has had his payout increased from $2.7 mil- sell-off and having corralled The Nationals lion to $6.6 million. What sort of greedy rat- into the saleyard, they do not want to let bags do we have running this company who them get restless—maybe one of them might can increase their own payments by such escape. obscene amounts while watching $3 billion

CHAMBER 110 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

So the government allowed only one day frastructure requirements of Australia’s tele- for the Senate Environment, Communica- communication needs. tions, Information Technology and the Arts Let us analyse the deal that has been ex- Legislation Committee to consider the legis- tracted by The Nationals in return for support lation and only one more day to table the of the legislation. The Telstra sale is set to report. The government has arrogantly used cost taxpayers $1.1 billion up front plus on- its numbers to deprive this Senate, interest going revenue for a $2 billion infrastructure groups and the public in general of any op- fund. Of course, that does not take into ac- portunity to properly scrutinise this legisla- count the various costs associated with any tion or to participate in the Senate commit- eventual sale. The Prime Minister extracted tee’s deliberations. What contempt. What this deal from the National Party based on an abuse of democracy. Yet the government was assertion at the time that regional telecom- prepared to give Senator Joyce all the time munication services are, in his words, ‘up to that he needed to make up his mind. If he scratch’. Yet the CEO of Telstra acknowl- baulks again this week, I predict they will edged recently that Telstra needs to spend give him more time. But they will gag this around $5.8 billion to fix problems in the Senate as soon as they think they have his bush. The Nationals originally asked for $7 vote finally tied up. billion. After they did the deal on the $2 billion The farmers of Australia are now scratch- infrastructure fund, Senator Joyce went back ing their heads in bewilderment that the Na- to Queensland to consult his constituents— tional Party fell for this hype—and, more so, those who put him here. But he did not con- after revelations last week that Telstra had sult the people of Queensland. Rather, he underinvested to the tune of $2.3 billion in consulted the members of the National Party. its network over the past three to five years. In fact, to be absolutely correct, he only con- Of course, National Party senators them- sulted the Committee of Management of the selves—Senator Joyce particularly—were Queensland National Party—a narrow focus very surprised when Telstra admitted that a group if ever there was one. There is no further $2.6 billion will be needed over the doubt that the Liberals are rushing this legis- next five years to provide rural areas with a lation through because they do not want Na- world-class broadband system. tional Party senators and members of parlia- Every year since 2000, on average, the na- ment—and maybe the odd Liberal senator or tion’s finances have benefited through a MP—to realise they have been duped. dividend stream from Telstra in the vicinity I would be remiss if I did not comment on of $1.5 billion. So National Party votes for the contribution to this debacle by the Minis- this legislation were secured for the equiva- ter for Communications, Information Tech- lent of only two years of Telstra dividends. nology and the Arts. The minister initially They have settled for a $2 billion fund from expressed support for the structural separa- which interest of $100 million a year will be tion of Telstra; however, her political masters available to do the job. It will take decades to quickly reined her in over that proposal. The raise and spend the amount required. And minister now stands in this chamber and, in Senator Joyce and The Nationals claim they order to do a deal, espouses the virtues of are great negotiators. It would be a big joke offering National Party interests taxpayer if it were not so serious. Is it any wonder that funds of $3 billion to finance the future in- the New South Wales Farmers Association

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 111 issued a damning report card last month in- gence in the investment of funds raised from dicating that the minister had failed in sev- any T3 sale. Past experience suggests it will eral key performance areas? They have also be lacking. I will refer to one particular ex- expressed their dissatisfaction with the pack- ample: less than a month ago the Howard age negotiated between the National Party government was spared the embarrassment and the government. What a difference a of a failed $1.5 million investment after its month makes. flagship regional carrier, Norlink Communi- It is clear that many government members cations, traded its way out of administration. do not really support the sale. History will The government-backed telco had been in not be kind to this coalition government, and the hands of administrators since May. The especially The Nationals, recording that they government knew nothing of its predicament will have been responsible for depriving the until alerted to the situation by Labor. Not a nation of billions of dollars in ongoing reve- whisper came from The Nationals. In 2001 nue to satisfy the Prime Minister’s ideologi- the Howard government sunk $1.5 million cal obsession. There are some members, such from the initial sale of Telstra into Norlink as the member for Hume, Alby Shultz, who with the aim of nurturing a local rural enter- still oppose the full sale of Telstra. However, prise to rectify the inequities of communica- he is clearly aware of the ramifications tions in the Northern Rivers region of New should he cross the floor. Others have kept South Wales. After this news came out re- quiet—at least publicly—and it will be to cently, the National Party member for Page their peril. jumped on the broadband wagon and appor- tioned some of the blame to Telstra. He also No doubt, National Party senators oppo- said Telstra’s distribution and sales arms site will face the wrath of rural and regional needed to be separated for a fair and trans- electorates of Australia for supporting this parent system of competition. I wonder how legislation against the overwhelming and long it will be before Mr Causley gets a clear opposition from the public. I note, par- knock on his door from Senator Heffernan. ticularly, Senator Nash who, on 1 August in the Australian newspaper, expressed her The events of the past few days have only scepticism at an announcement by CEO Sol added to the confusion and the hypocrisy. Trujillo that Telstra was willing to use alter- After declaring during the election campaign native technologies to its copper network in that he was opposed to the sale of Telstra, regional Australia—especially as the an- Senator Joyce said he would support the sale. nouncement coincided with the govern- Then, early last week, he claimed that the ment’s review of industry regulation. Yet, in deal had delivered the trifecta—more money speaking in an MPI debate in the Senate last for telecommunications in the bush, a guar- week, Senator Nash made a pathetic attempt antee of increased regulation and, somewhat to convince us of her new-found trust in and curiously, Telstra may not be sold anyway, respect and love for Telstra. She claimed that even if the legislation is passed. He claimed the deal will ensure Telstra delivers adequate that this was a victory achieved by the Na- telecommunications to rural and regional tional Party. By last Friday, following the Australia after the government sells its ma- one-day farcical Senate hearing, he was jority share. back-peddling as fast as he could. The light had changed from green to amber, he said. It A further concern is the uncertainty over is reported in the media that yesterday Sena- this government’s ability to ensure due dili- tor Joyce compared the situation to a bride

CHAMBER 112 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 pulling out of a wedding. He is quoted as tas was, and still is, the nation’s flagship air- saying: line, it was, and is, used by less than 10 per It doesn’t matter how far up the aisle she gets, if cent of the population. Moreover, at the time, she says “I’m out of here”, if it’s your daughter it needed huge injections of capital to up- you say, “right you’re out, sorry folks, see ya, grade its fleet and compete internationally. In bye”. the absence of privatisation those billions of Frankly, this is looking more and more like dollars would have had to come out of the the Barnaby dance—take one step forward, budget. It would have had to have been paid two steps backwards, step to the right, slide for by all of the Australian population, not- to the left, spin your partner round and withstanding that 90 per cent of them, or round, let’s do the dopey so-and-so! With the more, never really use Qantas—maybe only partners now all in a daze, the conductor once or twice in a lifetime. Telstra is unique. calls for the bouncer to restore order, because It owns and provides the essential network he prefers the knuckle-up to the knees-up! and infrastructure for all our telecommunica- I want to respond to two arguments that tions. Every Australian man, woman and have been advanced by the coalition. I note child is dependent on it. It is one of the larg- that in their arguments they spend a lot of est telcos in the world and it earns substantial time talking about what the previous Labor revenue. It has the capacity to fund infra- government did when we sold the Com- structure renewal and expansion into new monwealth Bank and Qantas. If you think we services. were right then, listen to us now. The claim The second argument by the government that because a previous Labor government is that it claims it has a conflict of interest as sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas a majority shareholder and also as the regula- we would sell Telstra if we were elected to tor. But this is a situation created by the gov- government is untrue; it is a spurious argu- ernment when it disposed of the first two ment. Whilst Labor did sell off the govern- tranches—T1 and T2. It is duplicitous; it is ment’s interests in those two enterprises we sophistry. Also, there are many countries never attempted to sell Telstra. It was never around the world—at least 20 in the put up for sale. Legislation was never intro- OECD—where a similar mix of private and duced into this parliament. We have continu- public ownership exists and the government ously voted against it, on at least four occa- is also the regulator. sions when this government has introduced Senator Joyce told the Sydney Morning legislation to sell Telstra. We have a clear Herald on 20 August that he had received and unmistakable policy of opposing the pri- thousands of emails and letters opposing the vatisation of Telstra. sale. He said the sale was overwhelmingly Further, the comparisons with the Com- opposed by Australians and that if the sale monwealth Bank and Qantas are also spuri- provoked a voter backlash, The Nationals ous. Neither of those two entities provided would wear the political cost, perhaps even monopoly services or had total ownership of destroying the party, while the Liberals network infrastructures across Australia. The would be largely unscathed. He said: Commonwealth Bank was one of a number We’re always the whipping boy on any decision of banks competing in the market. It was a that goes wrong. large bank but it was not the largest in the So as the turmoil was unfolding Senator country; there were many others. While Qan- Joyce arrived in this Chamber and everyone

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 113 on both sides of the House, as well as the introduce to the Senate I would have brought media, took great interest in his first speech some Shakespeare to quote as well, but on in the hope of gaining some insight into his this occasion I have to do without that. thoughts on what his ultimate decision on the Senator Hogg—Romeo, Romeo, where- sale of Telstra would be. I was here and I fore art thou? listened, as we all did, and Senator Joyce Senator HUMPHRIES—Do not get me ended his first speech with a recitation of started, Senator Hogg. The sale of Telstra is Rudyard Kipling’s, If. That is the well- worth supporting, and worth supporting at known doggerel which begins with: this point in time, because it is good public If you can keep your head when all about you policy for the Australian government to be Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; pursuing. It reflects the prudent approach And ends with: which this government has adopted through- If you can fill the unforgiving minute out its 9½ years in government. It is an ap- With sixty seconds worth of distance run, proach which minimises the risk to taxpayers and maximises the benefits available to those Yours is the Earth and everything that is in it, same taxpayers by the forces of competition. And—which is more—you’ll be a Man my son. The purpose of the sale on the government’s Kipling was a second-rate poet renowned for part is not to slavishly follow an ideological his glorification of the British Empire. Today agenda. If that were the case the government he would probably be a candidate for the would have on the agenda the sale of other National Party. But, if I may, I would urge public assets, such as Australia Post, for ex- Senator Joyce to forget Kipling and instead ample. No, it is about pursuing a balanced consider the words of Macbeth. They are far and sensible public policy which says that if more apposite and indeed prophetic: you want to ensure the public is protected, if To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, you want to ensure that public assets are Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, used to the best public advantage, you do not To the last syllable of recorded time; operate as a major player in a highly competitive marketplace when there are better And all our yesterdays have lighted fools alternatives. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! The principles that underpin the sale of Life’s but a walking shadow; a poor player, Telstra are the very same principles that un- That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, derpinned Labor’s sales of a host of major And then is heard no more: it is a tale public assets in the 1980s and the 1990s. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, There are no substantial differences. I am Signifying nothing. very pleased that in the course of this debate Senator Forshaw has for the first time tried Senator Joyce can make an important and to put some flesh on this argument that Tel- lasting contribution to the Senate and to this stra is different to the Commonwealth Bank, nation by voting against this legislation to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, sell Telstra, or he can leave this place like Qantas, ANL and all the other things that Macbeth, ‘Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’ Labor has so systematically and habitually privatised. I will come to his arguments in a Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capi- minute, but I do not see any substantial dif- tal Territory) (8.49 pm)—Had I known the ference. I can see differences that Senator standard that Senator Forshaw was about to

CHAMBER 114 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Forshaw creates but no differences that actu- communications carriers operating in the ally explain why it was good to sell all those Australian market today. Telstra is the largest other things and is not good to also sell Tel- of those but it is not the only one. Is Labor stra. maintaining that we need to wait, for exam- The principle that is at work here, and that ple, until Telstra is about the same size as the was at work in the 1980s and 1990s under others, until it is more of a first among prime ministers Hawke and Keating, is that equals, before we proceed to sell it? That government is not well placed to manage seems to me a very dangerous policy. That businesses which essentially live in and op- seems to be waiting until Telstra is no longer erate under the principles of the private mar- the valuable asset that it represents today ket. It was the principle that said that the before its value is converted into some form umpire should not also be out on the field more readily usable by the Australian com- kicking goals for one side or another. It was munity. the principle that said public assets should The other argument that has been ad- not be exposed to the risks that are inherent vanced in this debate is that the services that in a volatile and rapidly changing market- Telstra provides to the community are not up place. to scratch and therefore it is not an eligible In the course of this debate we have heard candidate to be privatised at this time. That a number of interesting comments from seems a very strange argument to me. I those who maintain that the sale of Telstra at would think that is more of an argument for this time is wrong. Senator Hurley, for ex- privatisation rather than against it. It seems ample, was at pains to point out that the La- to me that if Telstra’s services are deficient in bor Party is not opposed to privatisation— some way, particularly in the provision of not surprisingly, given Labor’s pretty strong services in remote and regional parts of Aus- record of privatisation. She maintained that tralia, then that is an argument for either pro- Labor is not opposed to privatisation but be- viding for some subsidy to the operation of lieves each case should be taken on its mer- Telstra—which should be transparent and its. However, she failed to explain what ex- fair to other players in the marketplace and actly the demerits of a sale in these circum- therefore available to all of them in fair, bal- stances were. At least Senator Forshaw and anced and unbiased circumstances—or for others in the debate contributed possible rea- pushing those operations out into the mar- sons as to why the sale should not occur. ketplace where they can be subject to market forces, and poorly performing aspects of Tel- One argument is that Telstra has the di- stra’s operations can be lifted by the pressure mensions of a monopoly, that some aspects of the marketplace. of Telstra’s operations are a monopoly and that Telstra should not therefore be sold. The argument essentially goes like this: Even if that argument is partly true, a large Telstra is majority government owned; Tel- part of what Telstra does as a supplier di- stra services are inadequate in some respects; rectly of services into the marketplace—telco therefore, we should leave Telstra the way it services, particularly—makes it a competitor is. With great respect to those people who in an open marketplace. The arguments for mount that argument it seems to me that the selling it become that much stronger at least third tranche of that argument is: Telstra is in respect of those particular activities. There government owned; Telstra is not performing are, as we have heard, 142 different tele- as well as it should be; therefore, there should be some change in the nature of Tel-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 115 stra’s ownership or operation. That, to me, is always some area of the market where you best achieved by pushing it out into the mar- can find some case of prices having gone up ketplace. and customers being less well off. The fact is In any case, the arguments about poor ser- that since 1997 and the introduction of com- vice seem to me to be entirely disingenuous. petition Australian consumers have enjoyed, Since 1996 the coalition have delivered un- across the board, real price decreases of precedented improvements to Australian more than 20 per cent for telecommunica- consumers and businesses through the devel- tions services. That is the essential point. opment of a highly competitive telecommu- That has been engineered by policy which nications regime. We have engineered the has essentially had at its core greater compe- changes that people have argued for. We tition in the marketplace. Obviously, the have created a more competitive marketplace government’s role as the owner of Telstra has and, unquestionably, Australian telecommu- been in some respects useful in generating nications consumers are better off for it. The some greater focus on that issue on Telstra’s approach that the government have pursued part. But it is the rest of the marketplace in that time has had three key planks. One is which has offered that essential characteris- to encourage competition to deliver innova- tic—the competition that has driven down tion, cheaper prices and greater choice. The prices. It is that factor which can be en- second is that we should maintain regulatory hanced if Telstra is further embedded in the safeguards which are quite stringent, for ex- marketplace. ample, such things as price controls over Research was conducted for the Australian local calls, customer service guarantees and Communications Authority by the Allen universal service obligations covering both Consulting Group a few years ago which the outlay of services to customers in the found that the communications reforms that first place and the repair of those services as the Howard government has put in place problems arise. The third plank is that we have had a number of direct and positive should provide targeted funding to improve benefits for the Australian consumer. It found services in areas that are not going to be that the reforms had increased the size of the served because the market in some way fails. Australian economy by more than $10 bil- Whether it is these policies or something lion. They had created something like 26,000 else, we have seen very clearly the im- new jobs. They had delivered benefits to provement of services to the Australian con- small businesses of the order of $2.1 billion. sumer and real benefits to those consumers They had resulted—and this is most signifi- as a result of competition and the implemen- cant; Senator Hurley should take note—in tation of those policies. Prices have fallen. savings or benefits to the average Australian Customers today have a wider range of household of the order of $720. That is very choice of provider than they have ever ex- significant indeed. Those benefits have also perienced and at the same time there is mas- been very real in regional Australia. Since sive investment in the Australian telecom- 1997 the government has committed more munications market being provided by the than $1 billion to improving communications rolling out of new and better services. infrastructure and services in Australia and a very large proportion of that has been in re- Senator Hurley earlier in this debate ar- gional Australia. Of course, the sale of Tel- gued that, in some respects, prices had gone stra facilitates the continuation of that in- up. That may be the case. I am sure there is

CHAMBER 116 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 vestment through the creation of the com- never have sold Telstra if they had remained munication fund and Connect Australia. in office after 1996. ‘We have proved that,’ The most recent substantial commitment he said; ‘We’ve voted against the sale of Tel- was the $180 million committed in response stra four different times since that time.’ That to the Estens inquiry. We have provided is true. But, unfortunately, it does conform to more than $140 million to support the exten- a pattern of behaviour which the Labor Party sion of mobile coverage to 98 per cent of the exhibited throughout the time they were in Australian population. Under the coalition government—that is, they would never an- government, 40,000 customers living in re- nounce in advance their intention to privatise mote Australia have received access to un- a government owned asset. My recollection timed local calls for the very first time. In is that every asset that Labor sold was sold addition, these customers have been given after elections where no mention had been the opportunity to take up subsidised two- made of that proposal before that election way, high-speed satellite internet services. I occurred. There was never a telegraphing of recall one of my colleagues with a seat in the government’s punches. To our credit, our regional Queensland pointing out that, when government have said not once, not twice, we came to office in 1996, two per cent of but four times to the Australian electorate, his electorate had access to mobile phone ‘Vote for us and we will move to the partial coverage. He said that today two per cent of or total privatisation of Telstra.’ We have his electorate does not have access to mobile been up front and honest about it. I think we phone coverage. That is an indication of the deserve more credit for that than has been success of those policies. offered to us in this debate. Labor complains about poor quality ser- On the point raised in this debate about vices. The fact is that under Labor there were the lack of scrutiny of the legislation to effect no customer service guarantees. There was this sale, let me remind those opposite that nothing that people could look to to ensure before the sale of the Commonwealth Bank that this 100 per cent government owned there was no parliamentary scrutiny by a telecommunications provider would live up Senate committee of the legislation to sell to particular standards. They might have had the Commonwealth Bank. Before the sale of the comfort of knowing that the government Qantas there was no parliamentary scrutiny was there behind this carrier, looking after by a Senate committee. Before the sale of them. But what did it actually mean when it CSL there was no parliamentary scrutiny by came to delivery of services? What it meant a Senate committee. was that very often customers would have to I was intrigued by Senator Forshaw’s de- wait up to 27 months to have a faulty phone scription of Telstra executives as ‘greedy line repaired. That is unlike the situation to- ratbags’. I do not say that I necessarily dis- day, where the customer service guarantee agree with the description, but I was in- ensures that people only have to wait 20 trigued by it. I also have to note that Senator working days for a phone service or an in- Conroy has been extensively relying on the terim service to be provided to them. words and assessments made by those very I heard Senator Conroy on, I think, a executives in recent days in order to hammer Channel 7 program yesterday using the ar- the government’s policies. Senator Forshaw gument that Senator Forshaw put in the de- did go to the trouble of putting forward some bate this evening. He said that Labor would arguments, as I said, that attempted to distin- guish the case of Telstra from those of Qan-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 117 tas and the Commonwealth Bank and so on. PMG, then Telecom and then Telstra—was He said, for example, that Qantas was in a an asset built up by the patronage, involve- different boat because it was used by only 10 ment and investment of the generation of per cent of Australians, whereas Telstra is Australians known as baby boomers. Now, in used presumably by many more. And he said being sold, it is also there to ensure that the the Commonwealth Bank was appropriately liabilities created by those people are met. privatised because it was not Australia’s That is one view of the matter. It might just largest bank. Those are differences—I grant be my view, but I think it underpins what is Senator Forshaw that. But how those differ- very clearly a sound public policy in favour ences are relevant remains to be demon- of the sale of Telstra. (Time expired) strated. Senator HOGG (Queensland) (9.09 The final argument that I will put tonight pm)—I listened to Senator Humphries with in this debate as to why there should be a interest. It is a bit unfortunate that we did not sale of Telstra is what the government will have a little bit of Shakespeare, but maybe do with the proceeds of this sale. It has indi- next time around. The one thing I could not cated that the proceeds of the sale, at least accept is that privatisation will overcome the substantially, will be directed to the provi- deficiencies that currently exist in Telstra. sion of a so-called Future Fund, used to meet There is no basis for that argument whatso- the future, unfunded superannuation liability ever; it is a totally spurious argument indeed. of the Commonwealth government. The last Probably the only thing that can be said is time I looked, that liability stood in the order that if privatisation is allowed to proceed to of $90 billion. Clearly, this investment is a 100 per cent, as this government is hell bent worthy one if that fund is to be able to meet, on doing, then the only outcome that can be or go some way towards meeting, that future really predicted from that is that if the mar- liability. Let us be clear therefore that the ket forces dictate and Telstra is being sale of Telstra, in respect of that investment squeezed for a profit, and Telstra is being in the Future Fund, is essentially about pre- squeezed in meeting its obligations, then it serving the standard of living of future gen- will seek to dodge, duck and weave from erations of Australians. If we do not make an those obligations every which way that it investment of that order in the Future Fund can, because it will want to maintain its place or something of that kind to meet that future in the market. So saying that privatisation superannuation liability, then we run the se- will overcome the deficiencies has no basis; rious risk that future generations of Austra- it has no foundation whatsoever. Whilst it lians will have to have their standard of liv- sounds nice, it is not the reality for those ing compromised in order to meet that liabil- people in rural and regional Queensland and, ity—and quite inappropriately compromised, particularly, it is not the reality for the people because those Australians did not incur that in the city areas where they currently do not liability. That liability was incurred by a pre- have the advantage of full Telstra services. I vious generation of Australians: the baby will come to that in few moments. boomers. It is appropriate, in my opinion, At the outset of this debate, it is interest- that the baby boomers should ensure that that ing to note that The Nationals once again liability is cancelled out and not carried for- have fallen at the hurdle in representing rural ward to a future generation. and regional Queenslanders. They have So there is a certain symmetry about this failed once again. On this occasion Senator sale. You might say that Telstra—first as the Barnaby Joyce was supposed to be champi-

CHAMBER 118 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 oning the cause of ‘no sale of Telstra’ and to If I look at the issue of broadband connec- be very firmly committed to this, and he led tion, I need go no further than my own ex- the people of Queensland to believe this. We perience a fortnight ago. I was on my home now finds that he has done a double backflip, PC, wanting to log on to the OneOffice 2½ reverse pike on the sale of Telstra and has web—and those around this place know been lured by the snake oil salesmen from what that means. When I got on to the down here who have dangled a couple of OneOffice web via Telstra broadband, what very nice figures in front of his nose, namely did I find? Not once, not twice but three $1 billion and $2 billion. It seems a lot to the times I was disconnected in the space of two average Australian—it seems a lot to many minutes. I would log on and then I would be people like me—but, in the whole scheme of cut off; log on, cut off. It is not as if I am the commercial world, those figures are very dealing with outdated and outmoded equip- small indeed. As a matter of fact, from the ment in my set-up at home; it is quite up to figures that Telstra gave us the other day, I date. But three times in about two minutes I understand that the $1 billion and $2 billion, found myself being without the service, and even if they come to fruition, will not meet there was no explanation for this whatsoever. the full amount that is required—$5 billion, Intermittent service is something that I have not $3 billion, is required to make the up- to put up with and, undoubtedly, others have grade, repair the existing network and pro- to put up with it as well. This is the service vide the services that are going to be needed that the government claim is in such good in the longer term. order that it needs little or no repair and is to If one thinks that there may be difficulties be on-sold to private industry which then, in in rural and regional Queensland, and there my view, will have little or no regard for so- are in terms of access to Telstra services, called universal service obligations. One then they certainly exist in the city areas as must ask: how good are these? How well well. The funds that are being dangled under will they be respected by a privatised Telstra the nose of the National Party representatives that is forced down the path of making a in this place—in particular, Senator Barnaby profit? Joyce, who seems to have attracted a lot of If people think that I am simply complain- attention—will not necessarily bring the Tel- ing about my own experiences tonight, let us stra network up to scratch at all. I heard look at a couple of experiences of people I Senator Humphries speak about the range have been dealing with in more recent times. and reach of services in some of the rural and The first instance is of a small company regional areas. Again, on the surface, that which are trying to compete in the market- sounds very nice, but when one gets out into place and having real difficulties indeed. the rural and regional areas one finds that They wrote to my office. I will not name the that is not true. Let us not go to rural and company because I do not have their permis- regional Queensland; just go to my local area sion to do so. The company have been seek- in Brisbane. There is not one black spot but ing ADSL services since they moved to three black spots for mobile phones in that Metroplex on the Gateway estate at area—and those are the three that I know of. Smallwood Place, Murarrie on 1 September Of course, as you move out into the rural 2003. For those who do not know, Murarrie areas they are not black spots, they are black is not some remote part of Queensland; Mu- blobs, because they are so large that cover- rarrie is no more than about eight kilometres age in many instances disappears completely. from the CBD. In the file note I have, they

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 119 say that they were particularly concerned To overcome this limitation we pay more than that Telstra could not provide a time or even 500% more in Broadband costs, for the equivalent a projected schedule for upgrades in the area. ADSL service using a Microwave link, than our They had spoken to colleagues in the pre- colleagues across the river or 1Km up the road. cinct who had similar complaints and sug- So they are at a major competitive disadvan- gest that this lack of broadband accessibility tage in running their business. This is not presents a competitive disadvantage to many something that was happening 10 years ago, businesses in the electorate. This is not by the way; this was a letter to me dated 22 something that has been invented by me; it is July this year. They also say: a reality. This is yet another layer of additional costs that This is the company—Telstra—that is in inhibits a local manufacturer from truly compet- such pristine order that it can be on-sold, and ing on a national and global level. the privatised version will immediately leap There are real concerns about Telstra’s abil- to ensure that the service is delivered be- ity to deliver the services now. As I said, cause there are competitors. It has not deliv- what will it be like in the future? But then ered the service to date. There is nothing to there is more. I have not brought all the files ensure that the privatised version will be any from my office, but this email was received better. The Telstra reply that was received in today. It has gone to other people in this respect of the difficulties that the company I place, so they can read it themselves. Again, just mentioned were undergoing says: I will not disclose the author, but it can be We regret to inform you that your application has verified. This person writes: failed validation and we cannot provide your ser- I live in a “metropolitan area” in Brisbane. Sub- vice. The telephone service line is too far from urb—Ormiston; Postcode—4160. I wanted to the exchange and data is being lost while it is install broadband a year ago. I was told: being transmitted through the telephone line. 1. There is no cable or ADSL in my area The correspondence between us and the 2. The telephone wiring in my area is only 50% company and us and Telstra has been ongo- capable, what ever that means ing, not resolving the difficulties at any point 3. No, I am not eligible to have satellite based in time. It is worthwhile my going to one of broadband subsidy because I live in a metropoli- the more recent letters from the company. tan area. Rural customers are entitled to $3000.00 They say: subsidy to have it. For a business in the much publicised Australia 4. I cannot have wireless broadband because it Trade Coast precinct, only 8Km from the Bris- does not cover my area. bane GPO, I am astonished at the inability of So the concern by this business is not dis- Telstra to provide this basic telecommunications similar to what is being found elsewhere. service ... The fact remains that the services have not This is a basic telecommunications service been provided. that enables them to operate a small business I have dealt with other people who have and try to be competitive with other small had difficulties as well. There have been dif- businesses in the area. If the service cannot ficulties in Murarrie, which is eight kilome- be provided now, what hope is there that the tres from the CBD. There have been difficul- service will be provided under a fully priva- ties in the suburb of Chandler, where broad- tised Telstra? None whatsoever. They go on band connection has been difficult to achieve to say: and to have put on, and that was the subject

CHAMBER 120 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 of major correspondence between us and The government have had nine long years Telstra. As well, of all places, there have in government to ensure that the services not been difficulties in Wynnum. It would be only to rural and regional Queensland but interesting to find out who in this chamber also to those people in the city areas meet might live at, around or about Wynnum or reasonable expectations in today’s environ- Manly. It would be interesting to see if there ment. But that has not been the case. I think is anyone in this chamber who lives near, at that the figures put forward on the part of the or about that place. I think you will find that government as an inducement to The Nation- there is someone and, surprise, surprise, it als in particular to vote for this Telstra legis- would not happen to be anyone from the Na- lation have not been properly costed. They tional Party, would it? No. Well, I think it fall well short of the mark. The $1 billion would be. that is promised over four years to fix the Right in the heart of the area in which I immediate problems is insufficient. These and others from this parliament live we have are not my figures, they are Telstra’s figures. many constituents and many businesses un- The $2 billion that the government say able to access the existing Telstra services. would be allocated—and I know these fig- We are not looking into the future at the next ures are a bit rubbery because they have not generation of technology—and that is not far been finally settled at this stage—is insuffi- off down the track. We are looking at today. cient based on the evidence from Telstra it- And in today’s environment, under T1 and self, and even that $2 billion is to be invested T2 and a supposedly competitive Telstra, we and it is only the interest from that $2 billion are finding that there are many people in city that will find its way into the network over areas—let alone in the rural and regional the longer term. areas—who are not getting the services that The fact remains, in my view and in many they believe they are entitled to, and there is other people’s view, that that is insufficient. no indication whatsoever that this is going to It is not good enough. One of the basic change. As I said, my own experience tells things that allows people to be competitive in me that the service more recently and even at many ways in our society today, whether it my own house dropped out on at least three be in business, in education or on a personal occasions. basis, is to have modern communications and The Nationals have been taken for a ride modern technology. Technology today is part on this issue. They know the reality in terms and parcel of the life of many everyday aver- of rural and regional Queenslanders. They age Australians. Without a proper communi- know that there have been some advances cations system—something that is clearly the made in rural and regional parts of Queen- current problem faced by this Telstra—then sland, and that cannot be denied. If there had what is the future going to look like? As we not been any advancement at all then it go into more sophisticated generations of would have been a very poor outcome indeed telecommunications changes, three and four on the part of Telstra. But the change has generations on from here, where is there go- been incremental and the money that is being ing to be the seed funding that will be re- flagged as a result of the sale of the remain- quired to implement those changes—not der of Telstra is insufficient to provide just even yet thought of in some instances—in the bare necessities. As for the $5 billion that rural and regional areas? There will be no Telstra say is necessary, the government’s $3 compulsion on a privatised Telstra to deliver billion of course falls well short of it. those services, because Telstra will say that

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 121 they were not part of the schema of things government cannot expect to be the police- back in 2005, and so they will seek to avoid man for the industry while also being the any obligation that they might have to many majority owner in the largest company. This Australians, particularly in Queensland, who is simply not fair on the Australian people, live in remote, rural and regional areas. nor is it likely to encourage a healthy and There is no doubt that The Nationals will prosperous telecommunications industry. pay the price for their sell-out on Telstra. Why should we sell Telstra? Many sena- Many Queenslanders have put faith in the tors in this chamber seem to believe that the opposition that has been shown to the sale of delivery of communications systems is Telstra by The Nationals and in particular by somehow linked to the level of government Senator Barnaby Joyce. Undoubtedly they ownership of Telstra. This is simply not the will watch very closely how Senator Joyce case. Since the government allowed the par- performs in this debate. I am sure that they tial privatisation of Telstra, prices have will look forward to his contribution to this dropped, the number of services offered to debate to see that he lives up to the promise customers has increased and the quality of that he made to Queenslanders that there those services has drastically improved. The would be no sale of Telstra in his time in this reasons for the improvements in the quality place. One can only hope that that would be of service offered to consumers can be di- the case, but at this stage I think that Senator rectly attributed to the competition that the Joyce has been bedazzled— (Time expired) Howard government legislated to allow Senator TROETH (Victoria) (9.30 when we first came to office in 1996. Since pm)—In the debate on Telstra over the last the deregulation of the telecommunications few days, we have seen the Labor Party try sector in 1997, call prices have dropped by to put forward the view that in some way the around 20 per cent on average. It has clearly government has sprung the Telstra (Transi- been shown that a dynamic and competitive tion to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005 and telecommunications industry is the best way the Telecommunications Legislation to drive innovation, to lower prices and to Amendment (Competition and Consumer improve services—and that includes in rural Issues) Bill 2005 on the electorate and on the and regional Australia. Senate—as though the bills have never been If Telstra is privatised, the government is spoken of before. In fact, it has been a long- committed to ensuring that legislated safe- standing policy of the Australian government guards will continue to be applied, no matter that it is in the interests of the Australian who owns Telstra, thereby ensuring that Aus- people for Telstra to be fully privatised. The tralians will have access to affordable, reli- simple fact is that the Australian government able communications services. There are should not be expected to have majority many on the opposite side of the chamber ownership of a modern and dynamic tele- who claim that rural areas will be ignored communications company. Moreover, the once Telstra is fully privatised. Again, this is current situation of partial privatisation en- ill-informed scaremongering. For places sures that the government has an unsustain- where the market is not willing to go, the able conflict of interest within the Australian government is committed to providing tar- communications industry. On the one hand, geted investments to ensure the best possible the government legislates to ensure a fair and services in rural and regional Australia. To equitable industry and, on the other, it has a this end, part of the government’s package majority financial interest in one player. The includes the Connect Australia package that

CHAMBER 122 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 was announced on 17 August this year. This and end the illogical conflict of interest that package includes a $1.1 billion appropriation currently exists. The first bill under consid- to roll out broadband, new regional clever eration in this debate is the Telstra (Transi- networks, mobile services and Indigenous tion to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2005. It communications. The package also includes is a similar bill to that which was introduced a $2 billion Communications Fund, the in- in the chamber in 2003. This bill’s primary come from which will be used to respond to purpose is to allow the government to sell regular reviews of regular communications the Commonwealth’s remaining share in the through targeted assistance. Telstra Corporation at a time of its choosing. Primarily, the government understand that Therefore, the bill gives the government through targeted assistance we can address flexibility to sell its stake in Telstra when the the areas which the market deems unfavour- market conditions are optimal. able to develop. This will act as a catalyst for I reiterate that the government have no further industry development. The govern- part in the day-to-day running of the comment have a strong history of using targeted pany. We are only the major shareholder. It is assistance to respond to regional concerns, in the Commonwealth’s interest to ensure and the telecommunications industry is no that public funds are not tied up in one par- exception to this. Where inquiries have ad- ticular company. This bill allows the gov- vised the government to spend capital to im- ernment to transfer funds into the Future prove services, we have responded. In re- Fund or the Communications Fund. Once sponse to the 2001 telecommunications ser- transferred, those funds will not be consid- vice inquiry, $163 million was provided. In ered to be owned by the Commonwealth. response to the 2003 regional telecommuni- The bill will also strengthen the affirmation cations inquiry, $181 million was provided. of the government’s commitment to the uni- Both of those inquiries called for targeted versal service obligation and the customer funds to improve infrastructure in regional service guarantee. This will strengthen the areas—in particular, mobile phone coverage. act and provide even greater certainty to con- It is unreasonable to expect an area like sumers in regional areas than that which they the middle of the Kimberleys to receive the currently enjoy. same level of mobile phone coverage as the To alleviate the concerns of the opposition CBD in Melbourne, but the competition and and of other concerned people, let me ex- growth that the government has actively en- plain what the bill does not do. This bill will couraged in the sector has resulted in 98 per not change the 35 per cent foreign ownership cent of the population now receiving mobile restrictions that currently apply to Telstra. It phone coverage. This has been made possi- will still require Telstra to have an Australian ble by the government actively pursuing a chairperson, Australian headquarters and two model of market competition to drive growth directors with knowledge of and experience in high-demand urban areas, combined with in regional communications issues. This is targeted assistance to ensure that regional looking after our constituents. Through the areas have adequate coverage. passing of this bill, the Senate will ensure But the government does not believe that that a longstanding policy of the Howard it should rest on its achievements. The gov- government is followed through into legisla- ernment believes that the next logical step is tion. The government have gone to the Aus- to sell the remaining public stake in Telstra tralian people at four elections with the full sale of Telstra as a key plank of election pol-

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 123 icy. This is our longstanding promise to the Thirdly, the bill will streamline the opera- Australian people to create a modern and tion of the regulatory framework. It will al- dynamic telecommunications industry that low the ACCC to speed up the decision- will not be burdened by the industry regula- making process, develop procedural rules tor also being the key stakeholder in the ma- and clarify and provide greater flexibility. jor telecommunications company in this Fourthly, it will provide additional enforce- country. ment powers to the Australian Communica- If this bill is passed by the Senate, it will tions and Media Authority. This will remove enable the government to pass legislation to any uncertainty about whether ACMA can help regional communities enhance their enforce compliance. The bill will also pro- telecommunications infrastructure through vide a new enforcement tool, thereby giving $1.1 billion in funding from the Connect the ACMA similar powers to those of the Australia package. This will include a roll- ACCC. out of broadband, mobile and Indigenous We have here a significant enhancement communications services, as well as the es- to the competition regulatory regime through tablishment of an additional $2 billion Com- the operational separation of Telstra. This munications Fund that will be used to fi- will provide consumers with real and lasting nance future telecommunications upgrades in benefits. By ensuring separation of the busi- regional areas. But most of all this bill re- ness sectors, it will provide all telecommuni- moves the inherent conflict of interest in the cations companies with greater regulatory Australian telecommunications industry. certainty. Telecommunications competition The second bill under consideration is the will continue to develop in Australia, thereby Telecommunications Legislation Amendment ensuring that Australian consumers enjoy (Competition and Consumer Issues) Bill long-lasting benefits through new services 2005. This bill will enshrine in legislation and lower prices. This is a wide-ranging four key aspects of government telecommu- view of legislation. nications policy. Firstly, it will establish a We may well ask: what alternative poli- framework for operational separation. This cies are we being provided with? We know will enable the government to ensure that that the Labor Party continues to espouse the Telstra achieves transparency for the separa- view that Telstra as a whole should not be tion of the retail, wholesale and network sold. This is a bit rich coming from a politi- business. It will also ensure that Telstra pro- cal party that when last in office privatised vides equivalent standards of service to its everything that moved. The Labor Party goes retail and wholesale business units, to ensure on and on about future proofing to protect that smaller operators are able to compete on consumers, but this is exactly what the gov- a similar playing field. Secondly, it will en- ernment has done. Through the legislation in courage investment in new telecommunica- these bills, consumers in rural and regional tions infrastructure. It will legislate a signifi- Australia will have a more secure access to cant change to the criteria which guide the telecommunications than they currently en- Australian Competition and Consumer joy. Commission, so that greater certainty will be How does this compare to the actions of given to potential investors, while competi- the last Labor government, when Mr Beazley tors will continue to be allowed to get access was the finance minister? Where was the to services which are considered to have future proofing of banking services when the natural monopoly characteristics.

CHAMBER 124 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Commonwealth Bank was privatised? Where There is no doubt that the full sale of Tel- was the future proofing of regional air ser- stra will have long-term benefits for all Aus- vices when Qantas was privatised? What tralians in both metropolitan and rural com- about CSL and Australian Airlines? The truth munities. Through these two bills, the gov- is that privatisation is very much Labor Party ernment will promote and encourage compe- policy. Mr Beazley is only too happy to talk tition, which will drive down phone costs, in glowing terms of his privatisation of eve- give greater services to Australians, promote rything when he was finance minister in a better service for consumers and provide Labor government. But, when it comes to Australia with a superior telecommunica- election time, the Labor Party is very quiet tions industry that will provide Australians about its privatisation record. This is very with better communication capabilities in the surprising given that when last in office it future. It is clearly not sensible monetary privatised two national airlines and one of policy to have $30 billion of public funds the four major banks. tied up in one company. These public funds The main difference here is that the How- should be protected by being invested across ard Government is open and honest with the a broad range of investments. There are 1.7 Australian people about what it believes to million Australian shareholders in Telstra. be in their best interests—after consultation Leaving the ownership of Telstra in limbo, with them. The government has worked tire- half government owned and half privately lessly to ensure that the public is well aware owned, is not in the best interests of those of the privatisation plans. As I said, it has shareholders, just as it is not in the best in- won numerous elections with the full privati- terests of the Australian taxpaying public. sation of Telstra as one of its key policies. Most of those shareholders are not busi- Do not be mistaken—if given half a chance, nessmen from the big end of town; they are Labor would sell Telstra. ordinary Australian investors who are aiming to make the most of their wealth. These bills will ensure that safeguards are legislated to protect all consumers in rural So there are numerous reasons why it is in and regional areas—safeguards such as price the best interests of Australians for these bills controls, untimed local calls, support for to be passed. It is in the interests of the tele- low-income earners, the customer service communications industry for the govern- guarantee, the universal service obligation ment’s conflict of interest to be removed, and the network reliability framework. The giving greater certainty and a fairer playing percentage of government ownership of Tel- field. That in turn will result in more compe- stra has no effect whatsoever on whether tition, giving Australian consumers greater Telstra provides these basic services. Since and better service and more competitive 1991, it has been Australian law that Telstra prices across the industry. Selling the gov- must operate on a purely commercial basis. ernment’s stake in Telstra will have no effect These basic conditions for Telstra’s operation on how Telstra operates or the services that it are already set in legislation, and through provides, and that has been the case since it these bills they will be strengthened. As well, was made law in 1991 for Telstra to operate it is a condition of operation within Australia as a commercial entity. Lastly, as I have said, that all telecommunications companies must the sale of Telstra is in the interests of the 1.7 adhere to these basic conditions. million Australian shareholders who have their hard-earned money invested in the company. Clearly, the passing of these bills

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 125 is in the best interests of everybody. The fact tions. Only 10 years ago, most members of remains that it should not be the job of parliament would not have known how to elected politicians to direct the fate of one of use a computer, would not have been linked Australia’s largest companies. Politicians to the internet and would not have been fa- should focus on the legislative side of the miliar with those kinds of services, and yet telecommunications industry, ensuring that a things have moved so quickly that telecom- suitable framework is provided to allow munications are now absolutely critical to companies to flourish in a competitive envi- living and working anywhere in Australia. ronment that provides increased services, That is even more so in the bush. All kinds lower prices to consumers and a higher qual- of services, health and education services in ity industry. particular, are delivered to rural and regional Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (9.47 pm)— Australia by way of telecommunications ser- That was an interesting final flourish from vices. You see evidence of that in rural medi- Senator Troeth about lower prices and better cine, where GPs can now have the reassur- services, because that is central to this whole ance, if they require consultation, of being in debate on the Telstra (Transition to Full Pri- contact with major city teaching hospitals. vate Ownership) Bill 2005 and the Tele- People in rural and remote areas rely on telecommunications Legislation Amendment communications to deliver education in a (Competition and Consumer Issues) Bill way that was never achievable before. Farm- 2005. I rise tonight to totally oppose the sale ers are using the internet, using telecommu- of the government’s 51 per cent holding in nications services, to access everything from Telstra. I have received numerous letters information from the Bureau of Meteorology over the last year, since my election to the through to all kinds of assessments of condi- Senate, from people around Australia who tions and all sorts of information they require are consumers. They urge me to oppose the to remain competitive in their industry. sale of Telstra, and for good reason. Many of So I am horrified that we have got to the them have written to say that these claims point of the government saying, ‘This has about better and cheaper services were made been our policy for nine years; therefore you about the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas should accept the indecent haste with which and, of course, they have not come to pass. we have brought this legislation into the par- Coming from rural and regional Australia— liament.’ It is one thing to have a policy say- from Tasmania—as I do, I know that the sale ing that you want full privatisation; it is quite of Qantas has certainly not led to better re- another to bring in a set of bills in which gional airline services. In fact, it has led to a everybody knows the devil is in the detail. severe downgrading of airline services in That phrase has been used over and over Tasmania. You have only to try to get out of again in relation to the sale of Telstra. Over- Hobart and Launceston, let alone the north- whelmingly, people are saying, ‘We cannot west coast, to see what you get in terms of understand what is going on until we look at regional aviation services. the legislation in detail and see the govern- But tonight’s debate on Telstra is a critical ment’s plans.’ Looking through these bills, one, because we are talking about Australia’s increasingly we are finding the government telecommunications central nervous system. saying, ‘Just trust us now. Vote for the sale My concern is that, perhaps of all the indus- and in the next six to 12 months we will tries we talk about, one of the fastest in terms come up with the arrangements for how we of change and innovation is telecommunica- are actually going to do this.’ Frankly, I do

CHAMBER 126 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 not trust the government in terms of the de- consequences of this underinvestment have been tail it is promising. That is because of the dramatic. appalling manipulation surrounding the Tel- In fact, it says: stra sale that has gone on, such that $10 bil- ... Telstra has received 14.3 million fault calls on lion has been wiped off its value in the last its line. 14% of all of Telstra’s lines have faults. 10 weeks as the whole controversy surround- In total, 1.4 million Australians currently have a ing the sale has hit the national news. faulty telephone line because Telstra has underin- In particular, I am concerned about the vested in its network as it has tried to prop up its share price in pursuit of the government’s privati- way that the government has manipulated the sation agenda. dividends for Telstra in order to make it appear to people that Telstra can pay higher The report also notes: dividends than are actually achievable. It is Since the partial privatisation of Telstra in 1997, damning evidence for Telstra to say in the consumer complaints have sky rocketed with the document that the company released recently Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman receiving 26,794 complaints about Telstra in the that Telstra is borrowing from reserves to last year alone. pay the dividend. It borrowed more than $550 million in 2005, which will rise to more That is the kind of the service that is cur- than $2.2 billion in 2006. The document rently being offered. What guarantee do we says: have that it is going to be any better in terms of privatisation? The Telstra board has already recognised that this kind of borrowing to pay dividends is not a sus- This is particularly so when you consider tainable policy or practice ... what happened in the United States recently. So why then is the Telstra board paying divi- President Bush’s first budget director, Mitch dends that it cannot afford and that do not Daniels, spelled out a similar philosophy in truly reflect the profitability of the company? April 2001 when he said: Quite clearly, the object of the policy of pay- The general idea—that the business of governing these dividends was to encourage inves- ment is not to provide services, but to make sure tors to buy Telstra shares not because of the that they are provided—seems self-evident ... long-term earning prospects of the stock but So the idea of the Bush and Howard admini- because they could get a juicy dividend in strations seems to be that the business of the short term. The impact of this on the Tel- government is not to provide services but to stra consumer and the long-term share price make sure that they are provided. But the has been disastrous. In fact, as the report that problem is: what happens when a govern- has come to the Senate from just a one-day ment cannot do the things that it used to do hearing recognised: and disaster strikes? What happens when the ... the pursuit of an extremely generous short government gives up those capabilities to the term dividend ... undermines the capacity of the private sector and then it is not profitable for company to make capital investments. Telstra’s private corporations to maintain those capa- briefing document confirms that the dividend bilities? That is precisely my concern. policy implemented ... in pursuit of the govern- With things moving so rapidly in tele- ment’s privatisation agenda has left it without the communications in Australia and around the cash to invest in infrastructure and improve services to regional and rural Australia. The docu- world, this Future Fund that has been set up ment concedes that ... Telstra “has failed to make simply will not be adequate to deal with the the necessary investments” in its network and the kind of innovation in the industry that will be

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 127 required into the future to keep Telstra com- communications infrastructure. How much petitive and to provide services to rural and more difficult will it be once Telstra is priva- regional Australia. You might set aside tised? money for what is known today, but within I am also concerned about this term ‘ade- even a couple of years what will be required quate’: the sale of Telstra will supposedly will be far greater and far different, and there guarantee ‘adequate’ communication ser- is no guarantee, in terms of the government vices to rural and remote Australia. This ade- putting aside $2 billion in this fund, that they quacy needs to be equal to urban services will be able to make the investment to pro- and standards. My concern is that the Re- vide those technologies. gional Telecommunications Independent Re- That leads me to the ABC. The minister view Committee, which is charged with de- and the government will be aware that the termining what ‘adequacy of telecommuni- charter of the Australian Broadcasting Cor- cations services’ means, will not effectively poration requires the ABC: take the view that adequacy means equal in ... to provide within Australia innovative and terms of service delivery to rural and remote comprehensive broadcasting services of a high Australian communities, particularly as we standard ... and ... to provide: get to the Northern Territory, which will not (i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a be represented on this independent review sense of national identity and inform and enter- committee. The Northern Territory does, of tain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Aus- course, include many Indigenous communi- tralian community ... ties already suffering from being cut off al- It also requires the ABC: most entirely from telecommunications ser- ... to transmit to countries outside Australia ... that vices. will: I am not satisfied that this component of … … … the proposal, the Regional Telecommunica- (ii) enable Australian citizens living or travelling tions Independent Review Committee, will outside Australia to obtain information about Aus- be able to guarantee what could be regarded tralian affairs and Australian attitudes on world as adequate services. Indeed, at the moment affairs ... in Tasmania alone Launceston South, Ringa- My concern is: how does the government rooma, Lady Barron and Montagu—which is propose to guarantee that a fully privatised near Smithton—are shown as having con- Telstra will provide the infrastructure re- tinuous poor service. That is as it stands at quired to deliver ABC programs and services the moment with the government having ma- that rely on new technologies—such as ABC jority ownership. What hope is there for peo- digital, ABC Online, podcasting et cetera— ple in Launceston South, Ringarooma, Lady to ensure that all Australians do have access Barron and Montagu once Telstra is priva- to ABC programs and that the ABC can fulfil tised if they cannot get decent services there its charter to provide within Australia inno- at the moment? There are many other places. vative and comprehensive broadcasting ser- They are on my list because they are noted as vices of a high standard which will contrib- being among the 97 worst exchanges in Aus- ute to a sense of national identity? It is al- tralia. They are an indictment. ready difficult for the ABC to provide that to The New South Wales Farmers Associa- the bush, with the shortcomings that already tion did a survey recently showing that 63 exist because of the underinvestment in tele- per cent of farmers already have unreliable

CHAMBER 128 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 mobile telephone services and more than half government talks about the unfunded super- are dissatisfied with their internet speed. We annuation liabilities, they should also talk of have also been told by the New South Wales the revenue stream that comes from Telstra Farmers Association that the services are that will be lost to the taxpayer once this pri- worse beyond the Great Dividing Range, vatisation proceeds. with almost a third of people unable to rely It is obvious that the government is in a on their basic landline telephone service, let rush to sell Telstra. It is obvious that the gov- alone anything else. What hope have those ernment attempted to put a much better spin people got with a privatised Telstra in terms on the state of Telstra than was warranted. of getting so called adequate—and I raise All Australians would be nervous about the that issue again—services? fact that many senior government ministers Finally, I come to the issue of the gov- were privy to information about the real state ernment’s rationale for selling Telstra. We of Telstra that shareholders and the commu- have heard a lot about it not being a good nity were not privy to. And it was dire in- idea for governments to own services. In formation, really, with predictions of the fact, that is the Bush administration idea: that second half of the year being significantly somebody else can provide services, with the worse than the first half. Voice revenue had government just having to make sure the declined five per cent, indicating an acceler- services are provided. We saw in New Or- ating decline in that business. The retail sales leans what happens when it is not profitable and profitability decline continued to accel- to provide emergency services once they erate, and so on and so forth. And yet the have been privatised. That is precisely the Prime Minister told the board to talk up the point I was making before. Why is the gov- sale of Telstra. ernment arguing that we need to sell Telstra? If the managing director of a private com- They say it is not a good idea for govern- pany talked up the state of a company when ments to be involved in owning telecommu- they had inside information to the effect that nications networks. Yet in the OECD you the company was not doing particularly bril- have 20 countries accepting that there should liantly and they had a strategy of borrowing be a mix of public and private ownership and money to pay dividends in order to make the they operate that way quite successfully. company look better, they could find them- We have been told that the reason the Tel- selves in the courts for insider trading. But stra sale has to proceed is so that the gov- the Prime Minister has not been accused of ernment has the money to put into the Future attempting insider trading, and to some ex- Fund to address the unfunded superannuation tent I think that is because the company liabilities in Australia. Yet every year we are saved his bacon by coming out and releasing told that the nation’s finances are in fine the document which shows quite clearly the hands and that we are running a surplus. This real situation. The government has attempted idea of running a surplus when you have to talk up the sale of Telstra in the face of substantial unfunded liabilities is an interest- indications that it is not doing as brilliantly ing notion. Whenever Treasurer Costello as it would have people believe. stands up and talks about surpluses, he I am concerned about the sale of Telstra. I should also be explaining how he is running am concerned about rural and regional Aus- a surplus when money has not been put aside tralia, particularly Tasmania but also outback to deal with the superannuation liabilities Australia and places beyond the Great Divid- that the government has incurred. When the

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 129 ing Range, in the Northern Territory and in indicated that Telstra would be undergoing a Western Australia. I am concerned that the major review of services in mid October, rapid rate of innovation in telecommunica- presumably after this legislation is passed. tions means that this $2 billion fund will go On the other hand, we have had the plati- nowhere towards keeping Australia competi- tudes and promises from Senator Barnaby tive. The best way to do that would be for the Joyce, who took his 30 pieces of silver in a government to keep its remaining shares in little under a weekend and signed up to the Telstra so that it is able to respond to the sale of Telstra. Irrespective of how the gov- changing global climate in telecommunica- ernment tries to spin it, it is clear that Telstra tions and to make the appropriate investment is calling the shots to the government on this in the telecommunications network. In the debate. information age, the telecommunications The government thought it could pass the infrastructure network is absolutely funda- buck for being asleep at the wheel on invest- mental to the capability and competitiveness ing in telecommunications services to a of the Australian economy. newly privatised Telstra. Those problems That is why I oppose the sale of Telstra. I should have been fixed years ago. Unfortu- urge the government to support the idea of nately for the government, Sol and his three delaying debate on it until the parliament can amigos are too smart by half for that. Now, at least get across some of the detail. Their in the shadow of privatisation, as the clock is abrogation of responsibility in terms of not ticking, we have finally had a look at the permitting the house of review to do its job is rotten foundations of the regulatory envi- an insult to us all. Their proposition to sell ronment and all the parties are shocked by Telstra with undue haste and inadequate what they see. scrutiny, along with the processes that the Let us start from the beginning and look at government has chosen to use to rush this the background of the three amigos. The bill through the Senate, is the government’s three amigos are Sol’s mates from his forma- final insult to the Senate and the people of tive years at the US telco US West. US West Australia. had a strong corporate history before Sol and Senator HUTCHINS (New South Wales) the amigos arrived. It disappeared in a (10.07 pm)—I would like to begin my re- merger with another giant telco very soon marks by focusing on how events over the after. The three amigos are Greg Winn, who last fortnight demonstrate now, more than is now Telstra’s chief operating officer; Bill ever before, why Telstra ought not be sold. Stewart, who runs advertising; and Phil Bur- Over the last two weeks we have seen a de- gess, who is now the head of the communi- liberate game of brinkmanship between the cations and regulatory compliance depart- Telstra executives and the government as to ment. Let us hear what Phil thinks about the who picks up the tab for a lack of investment role of government. He is on the record as in telecommunications infrastructure in this saying: country. Everything the government’s gotten involved in, No doubt, Sol Trujillo has this cost at the it has made worse. Government is being run by top of his mind in his not so secret desire to people who believe in the power of Washington— slash products and services. The cat was well or Canberra— and truly let out of the bag a few weeks ago to solve other people’s problems. I don’t believe by his right-hand man, Phil Burgess, who in that.

CHAMBER 130 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Someone should remind Phil that Telstra was and cancelling products—all to put profit built on the backs of Australian taxpayers ahead of everything else. over many years. All the sunk costs of in- In light of all the cut and thrust over the vestment, all the cabling for kilometres in past fortnight, it is also worth examining Mr regional and rural areas of Australia, and the Trujillo’s history with US telcos in the last conquering of the tyranny of distance by few years. His reputation certainly preceded telecommunications were paid for by the him—in a diminutive sense. Over the week- taxes of ordinary Australian families. Austra- end, the Financial Review quoted an invest- lians viewed, and still view overwhelmingly, ment banker as saying: ‘This guy has to that a publicly owned telecommunications show he is capable.’ All the three amigos company—be it called the Postmaster Gen- jumped ship from US West. They moved to a eral, Telecom or Telstra—is essential to na- small tech start-up called Graviton. Graviton tional development. It must be asked of Phil was wound up a few years ago as well due to Burgess what answers he has for those Aus- massive debts. Burgess, once again, was act- tralians who live in areas of telecommunica- ing as a consultant at the time. The firm col- tions market failure. lapsed early in 2003, with more than $US66 Of course there will be areas that are un- million—or $A88 million—in debt, in the profitable to run at full service. That is why words of one investor, ‘going down the toi- public ownership picks up the tab. It is every let’. Australian’s right to have a phone that is not What is even more interesting in light of off the hook and an internet that is reliable. the revelations of recent years that Telstra But Phil has a problem with Telstra being subsidised dividends from reserves is the under an obligation to provide services to apparently cavalier entitlements enjoyed by country Australia, as Optus and others are this cowboy leader of the amigo posse. The not. Mr Burgess needs to understand that this Australian reports: is because Telstra was in effect given an in- One former director told The Weekend Australian frastructure network for free on becoming a that, while at Graviton, Trujillo would defray corporate entity while Optus and others had some of the cost of his travel in his personal Fal- to build theirs from the ground up. More- con 2000 jet by charging Graviton first-class air- over, Phil is quite happy to charge these fares. (There is no suggestion the board were not companies for access to Telstra’s network. aware of the expense claims.) It is really all take and no give from Mr But according to insiders, he hired expensive Burgess. That should not be a surprise, be- executives, including former US West lieutenants. cause Phil has form for the sort of agenda Graviton—a company with no sales—soon that Telstra has foreshadowed post privatisa- boasted more than 10 vice presidents. “I’ve got nothing good to say about him” was how one tion. When the three amigos took charge of former investor summed him up. US West a few years ago, Phil was brought in and put in charge of marketing. His posi- At the same time Trujillo’s mate, Bill tion was aggressively marketed as ‘introduc- Stewart, was getting into the action in the ing new products and services as a proven tech start-up industry. It appears his major performer’. Unfortunately, in less than a contribution to that period of economic his- month, US West disappeared in a merger. So tory was three weeks as CEO of a company Phil Burgess has form for doing little but called Stellar One. Stewart swiftly departed putting in place plans for slashing services after those three weeks having cleared the deck for a new CEO to introduce massive

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 131 staff cuts. I would not wish to draw an an- August Telstra executives flew to Canberra ticipatory parallel with the actions that the to break the bad news to the Prime Minister. amigos may instigate at a newly privatised In their short discussion they said that Telstra Telstra, but I must say that their track records was borrowing to pay dividends that will be do not bode well for an expectation that they unsustainable in the long term and ‘didn’t would gladly assume the regulatory burden make the investments it needed to make’. placed on them by government, much less The difficulty with this meeting is that it was embark on an additional infrastructure in- denied to every other shareholder. The rea- vestment. son for this was because Telstra was telling Let us look at the debacle of recent weeks the government that it could no longer prop for the reasons why this bill is being rushed up the budget. Telstra’s borrowing from re- through in such a fashion. What we have serves to pay the dividend will rise from seen over recent weeks is a last-ditch, ‘five $550 million in 2005 to $2.2 billion in 2006. minutes to midnight’ game of buck-passing The reason for all this borrowing is to artifi- between Telstra and the government as to cially bolster the dividend and share price who bears the cost, to use the hackneyed ahead of the sale. So is it any wonder that phrase, of getting it up to scratch. Let us look Phil Burgess said that he would not recom- at the urgent reasons made by Senator Elli- mend the shares to his own mother. That son the other night. It was difficult to discern contrasts with Mr Howard saying in 1998 the reasons for exempting the bill from the that Telstra shares were a ‘great deal’. Some- cut-off in that short statement. They resolved one should have asked if he meant for the an ambitious legislative agenda and said that government or ordinary investors. the Telstra sale was an election commitment. But Mr Howard now says that he could No matter how the government likes to duck not give advice regarding Telstra. It is amaz- and weave, they promised not to sell Telstra ing how billions wiped off the share price until services were up to scratch. However, can engender a change of heart. Mr Howard how can this be the case if there is a need to is now saying that he could not reveal infor- commit billions of dollars in upgrading in- mation that could affect the share price as frastructure now and into the future? The that was the responsibility of Telstra execu- answer, of course, is that it cannot. It cannot tives. This is also a change of heart from a be true that telecommunication services are few days ago when he described the role of adequate if such a massive investment is re- Telstra executives as: quired. But the difficulty is that this invest- ... to talk up the company’s interest, not to talk ment is not nearly enough. That is why the them down. Don’t knock the stock, don’t talk government has decided it needs to rush down the growth story, don’t send out bad news, ahead with this sale—to shirk the responsi- spin it all positively, finesse the share price. bility and pass the buck for future investment Unfortunately for Mr Howard, he has not onto the newly privatised Telstra. quite grasped the nuances of the disclosure In light of the aggressive corporate nature provisions for company directors to the ASX of the three amigos, is it any wonder the veil in the Corporations Act. Needless to say, has finally been lifted and what has been such provisions expressly prohibit the sort of going on in Telstra in recent years has finally obfuscation that Mr Howard is now seeking been exposed? Sol is too slick by half to to endorse. Ray Williams and A. N. Other, have the government pull the wool over his his imaginary travel companion, would no eyes, even if The Nationals are not. On 11 doubt be able to further educate Mr Howard

CHAMBER 132 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 on this point. If further study is required, Mr However, some remarkable transformation Howard could go and consult Rodney Adler must have occurred as the delegates to The up at Lithgow jail. Nationals committee of management trav- We have a situation where the largest elled to that meeting. It must have been re- shareholder is playing fast and loose with the markable, because we can be sure they were corporations law and the company is financ- not plotting that morning driving to the meeting profit payments by borrowing, and none ing, because their phones would not have of this is being announced to the ASX. The worked out there, of course. The reason I conclusion is inescapable; this is economic stress this is that on the night before the vote mismanagement of the worst order. It is only at least five were against the sale of Telstra, matched by Telstra’s ‘five minutes to mid- 10 were undecided and seven were not avail- night’ request to be cut loose from regulatory able, according to the Financial Review. obligations and have its monopoly protected. James Baker, Senator Joyce’s closest confi- As the release of costs caused by the ACCC dant and advisor, was not for the sale; the compliance shows, Telstra has for years been immediate past president of the Young Na- cross-subsiding its monopoly power in many tionals was not for the sale; and a number of markets to satisfy its regulatory obligations the immediate past presidents were not in rather than addressing them by sound in- favour either. What is even more interesting vestment. is that Bruce Scott assumed the presidency of The Nationals in Queensland over the days Now the government’s number is up. It surrounding that meeting. In fact, the past has to choose between a low share price for president, Terry Bolger, was adamantly Telstra, reflecting the commercial reality that against the sale. He even appeared on ABC’s the company is in due to the government’s AM speaking out against the sale, saying that mismanagement, or cutting Telstra loose of 70 per cent of Queenslanders were against it. the regulatory environment in order to let it recover from its parlous corporate state. No Nevertheless, Senator Joyce got his wish wonder the government is hell-bent on the by claiming that the Queensland Nationals quick fix of privatisation. It wants Telstra to had endorsed the sale that Monday morning. be someone else’s problem, and it has be- It appears Terry Bolger and his colleagues come someone else’s problem—The Nation- were crunched. But that has not quite fin- als. Let us look at their twisting and turning ished the matter for The Nationals. I under- to spin this great sell-out of the country. It is stand that The Nationals federal council is to amazing that just a few months ago the gov- meet this weekend, and Senator Sandy Mac- ernment was indicating that no further in- donald can probably advise me if that is the vestment would be required in the country to case. No doubt the government is quite anx- secure the sale of Telstra. Then Barnaby ious to have the sale through by this week- Joyce came along full of bluster and was end so that there are no difficulties and no given glib assurances that a bit of money embarrassing resolutions when they go to here and there would fix it. That was a bit that meeting. too much for Senator Joyce, who said that To finish off this evening, I have brought the real decision would need to be made by along a copy of the September edition of the The Nationals state management committee, News Weekly, which we all get. I do not sub- and retreated to the safety of St George. scribe to it—just in case my colleagues think I do. I want to read from a column titled ‘Canberra observed’. It says:

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 133

15 years ago, the Nationals had four out of six whatever their 30 pieces of silver are, if they Queensland senators; now they struggle to get vote for this legislation this week, that is the one. end of them. (Time expired) The fact is, the longer the Nationals are seen to Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (10.27 be constantly marching in perfect step with their pm)—This is a bizarre piece of legislation. Liberal coalitionists, the less voters can see the need to separate the two parties. The policy of The Senate has been asked to support the absolute loyalty to the Liberals saw the Nationals sale of Telstra, lock, stock and barrel, and it practically wiped out in country Victoria when has been asked to do that at a time when the Jeff Kennett was swept from office. Telstra share price is going through the floor, And one by one, each retiring Nationals MP is when the senior management of Telstra are handing over his seat to either an incoming Lib- telling Australians they would not advise eral or an incoming independent. their mother to buy Telstra shares, when the Senator Joyce’s worst fear was that his deci- CEO of Telstra is saying that it will need to sion to vote in favour of the sale would mean the spend $5 billion to bring its ageing infra- beginning of the end of the Nationals as a force in structure up to scratch and when the same Australian politics ... CEO is saying government regulations will Mr Acting Deputy President, can you not wipe $800 million off its earnings. believe that is the case? If the sale of the rest of Telstra were to go I also brought along a book I have cher- ahead tomorrow it would be a fire sale. No- ished for many years. It is by a famous body wants a share in a company where the American historian called Barbara Tuchman. CEO is saying the company is being stran- It is called The March of Folly. The underly- gled by red tape and will lose profits. No- ing theme of the book is that political elites body wants to invest in a company that ad- or people in power over some period of time mits its infrastructure is stuffed and will take make decisions that are contrary to their in- $5 billion to fix. The mums and dads of Aus- terests. They make decisions that make no tralia might well be better off plonking the sense because in the end they destroy them- family nest egg on the three legged donkey selves. She talks in her book about the Tro- in the Melbourne Cup. jans taking in the wooden horse, the Renais- The Howard government agrees with me. sance popes provoking the Protestant seces- They do not want to sell it now; they just sion and the British losing North America. In want permission to sell it when the time is the end, The Nationals by their decision will right. What do they mean? Do they mean shortly be voting themselves out of rele- when the time is right for Telstra customers vance. They know it; we know it. Senator in country Tasmania or do they mean when Barnaby Joyce knew it, despite all his gyra- the time is right for the bean counters in tions over the last few days. Maybe Senator Canberra? This is a ridiculous piece of legis- Joyce has tried to provoke his National Party lation. We are being asked to sign a blank colleagues into understanding that the deci- cheque; we are being asked to say to the per- sion they are going to make some time this petrators of the children overboard fiasco: week will vote them into irrelevancy. The ‘We trust you. Sure, you have our permission Liberals have already stalked them well and to sell it when you think it best.’ truly in New South Wales. They have almost It is a ridiculous piece of legislation—so annihilated them in Victoria. They do not ridiculous you have to ask why the govern- exist in most other states. In Queensland, ment are putting it up now. Are they doing it

CHAMBER 134 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 because it is in Australia’s best interest? Are We had a debate about privatisation in they doing it because it is financially respon- Tasmania eight years ago. The Liberal gov- sible? Are they doing it because it is in the ernment there were thrown out because they best interests of the economy? No, they are wanted to sell the hydroelectric corporation. not doing it for those reasons. Senator Joyce The Greens leader at the time, now Senator is an accountant; he knows about numbers. Milne, supported the sell-off initially but He can do the sums, and I bet he could tell later changed her mind as public outrage you it would be dumb to sell Telstra now, grew. Eager to keep the Liberals in power, when the share price is heading south and the she proposed a 50-year lease on the hydro CEO admits the infrastructure is on the way poles and wires as a compromise. I am out. pleased to hear Senator Milne tonight oppose So why are they doing it? I will tell you the sale. why they are doing it. They are doing it be- In Tasmania Labor stood firm. It was the cause they can. They are doing it because only party that refused to budge. It did so they control the Senate. They are doing it not because it did not make sense to sell the hy- because it is in the national interest but be- dro. Part of the profit generated by the hydro cause they can. They are rubbing the noses was channelled into state coffers to provide of the Senate in it. They are saying to the the services that Tasmania needed. We are Senate: ‘We have the numbers, we can do now out of the debt trap that Tasmania was what we want and there’s nothing you can do in. The budget has been balanced. Very soon about it.’ This arrogance is best summarised the state will be net debt free, we will still in this place by the one-finger salute we saw have the hydro and our kids will still be able recently. This is the arrogance that allows the to rely on it. It is silly to sell Telstra now, as government to tell country Australians: ‘We it would have been to sell the hydro eight don’t care that your services are falling apart. years ago. Let us learn from the lessons of We don’t care that you can’t get broadband. the past. Is there nothing in this country that We don’t care that you can’t even get mobile we want to leave to the next generation? service. We don’t care about any of that. We Tasmanians are reliant on their hydro, as will sell Telstra because we can. We will sell they are on Telstra. Our isolation relative to Telstra when the share price is right. That mainland Australia results in a level of vul- might be before or after your home phone nerability and dependence upon our commu- gets connected.’ This legislation is arrogance nications systems which connect us not only made official. with the mainland but also with the rest of I feel for Senator Joyce. How must he feel the world, making Bass Strait seem like a right now? How confident is he that the as- mere puddle rather than an obstacle. The surances given to him will be kept now that partial privatisation of Telstra some years the CEO is already banging on the door and ago has clearly demonstrated to many Tas- calling on the Prime Minister to tear down manians just how vulnerable we are and how the regulations that Senator Joyce has fought our lives and the way we choose to interact for? How long will those regulations remain with technology can be taken away from us in place? How long will it be before the gov- in the blink of an eye, without so much as an ernment tears down those safeguards because explanation or a time frame for resuscitation it can? of services. To add insult to injury, try explaining your Telstra faults to a call centre in

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 135

Queensland and to operators who have very can be used to ensure that places like Poatina little geographical knowledge of Tasmania. can get access to broadband immediately, Tasmania is classified as a rural regional without excuses or restrictions—just 100 per area. We identify comparatively with the cent reliable, efficient and effective access to remote areas of mainland Australia that also broadband. Quite frankly, this is only one suffer a high degree of vulnerability due to incident. If Telstra is sold, we are committing the large expanses between and isolation of country Australia to a slow and tortuous eco- many towns and homesteads. That classifica- nomic death. If it is in government hands, tion really hits home when you visit some of pressure can be put on Telstra to get access the outlying areas of northern Tasmania—in to communications technology right. We particular, a small village called Poatina. know that it is far from perfect at the mo- This village is managed by Fusion, a Chris- ment and we know it will be far worse if Tel- tian organisation whose vision and goals are stra is privatised. We know this because the to provide opportunities and support services government will not provide any guarantees for youth who have been disadvantaged and that Australians will not be worse off. have had traumatic lives and social circum- One of my constituents lives in an area stances to deal with. Poatina is a wonderful where mobile phone communications do not example of how Fusion has developed an old operate. This is par for the course in a lot of Hydro Tasmania village into a useful life- Tasmania’s rural areas. What makes this skilling resource for Tasmania’s youth. situation unique is that the landline to his Achieving some of their goals depends home is also unreliable and drops out every upon access to technology. Despite many time it rains. In an emergency situation, what requests and lobbying by a large group of is this person supposed to do? Watch the local residents in the valley below, the resi- skies and have a carrier pigeon prepared for dents of Poatina cannot have access to foul weather? This is 2005, and the least a broadband. Poatina is not a backwater lo- resident of Tasmania should expect is to have cated in the deep south-west of Tasmania. It access to a reliable phone line. Are the resi- is perhaps only 100 kilometres south-west of dents of the outlying areas of Tasmania go- Launceston. Fusion has been proactive in ing to be guaranteed that their phone lines gaining support and further potential cus- will be reliable, or will it be a case of each tomers for Telstra by securing about 30 resi- situation being judged on profitability and dents, some of whom are farmers of large prioritised accordingly? Continued govern- properties, who have indicated that they ment ownership will ensure that people will would support broadband technology. How- be put ahead of profits. A privatised Telstra ever, regardless of the efforts and vision for will only answer to one master, and that will Tasmania’s youth, Telstra broadband is not be its shareholders. accessible. It should probably be called lim- By its own recent admissions, Telstra has ited band rather than broadband. failed to make the investments needed by the The demand for telecommunications is Australian economy to ensure widespread going to grow more than we can imagine. accessibility to such things as broadband. It Selling off the government’s remaining share has failed to deliver on improving service in Telstra would be like cutting off our right standards, to which my earlier example testi- arm. Telstra has the potential to grow and fies. Essential services like e-health and e- continue to provide handsome dividends that education in rural and regional areas still require infrastructure. The Australian Labor

CHAMBER 136 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Party’s position is clear: fix Telstra, do not has to ensure that local calls are not timed. sell it. We should not contribute to the lack of ac- How will people feel about their tele- tion and responsibility and the creation of communications services under a fully priva- isolated communities because residents can- tised Telstra? I will tell you how they will not afford to use the telephone and do not feel: angry and powerless. Australians are have access to the internet. angry now. Seventy per cent of them oppose Tasmania’s peak agricultural organisation, the sale of Telstra, and I can give you some the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Asso- very good reasons why, including the ridicu- ciation, who represent the vast majority of lous line rental increases from $11.65 to as landowners and agricultural enterprises in high as $30, not to mention that large busi- rural Tasmania, have issued a media release ness consumers of Telstra are faring much clearly saying they do not support the un- better than residents and small business cus- conditional sale of Telstra. They are not tomers. The latter have faced price increases alone in this thought, with the National of between 1.4 per cent and 3.1 per cent. Farmers Federation also lending support. The I ask again: what cast-iron guarantee will basis for their position of no support for the this government give to the people of Austra- sale of Telstra leans heavily upon what is lia that they will not be worse off if this sale seen as an inequitable position. Clearly, if proceeds? We as a society have identified you live in the city you have access to all that it is more cost effective for the country’s these services and reliability. If you live in economy and healthier for our elderly if they the country, bad luck. remain independent within their own homes The government is hell-bent on selling for as long as possible. To encourage and Telstra. Will it show the same level of com- foster this habit, reliable telecommunications mitment to providing telecommunications for this demographic are essential and, dare I service levels to regional areas that are as say, critical. Older Australians are far more good as those in urban areas, to implementa- vulnerable people, and we are an ageing nation of all the recommendations of the re- tion. It is imperative that our telecommunica- gional telecommunications inquiry, to regu- tions network does not become cost prohibi- lations and legislation to guarantee that new tive and works when they need it to work— technology is available to everybody regard- and that is all the time, not just in fair less of where they live and to legislation for weather. guaranteed customer service levels for re- Tasmania’s population tends to be clus- gional areas? What answers does the gov- tered around the north and south coasts, with ernment have for the skyrocketing number of rural communities interspersed through the complaints—some 26,794 to the Telecom- remainder of the island. And as the popula- munications Industry Ombudsman about tion is fewer than half a million, I call upon Telstra last year alone? What answer does the government to think seriously about re- the government have for Telstra line repair moving the three STD zones in Tasmania performance plummeting for the last five and replacing them with one. I call on the years? What answers does the government government to think about the ramifications have for Australia’s telecommunications of the sale of Telstra and to put in place, prices being the fifth highest amongst devel- while it has the opportunity, safety nets for oped countries? I will tell you what answer our rural and regional areas. The government the government has: ‘Sell Telstra, and then it is no longer our problem.’

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 137

What of the employees of Telstra? Has this partial privatisation of Telstra has been anyone spared a thought for them and their able to deliver anything of their vision state- long-term security, or are they just a subse- ment? I think not. What responsible govern- quent consideration to the proposed sale? ment would allow a partially privatised com- Speak to any of the many Telstra employees pany to focus on fattening up for privatisa- or those who have switched camps to other tion at the cost of network services for Aus- telcos, or even those who accepted redun- tralians? An arrogant, out of touch govern- dancies many years ago, and you will not ment that is clearly focused on its own find many singing the praises of the partial agenda and not on ensuring that Australia has privatisation of Telstra. What you will find the best and most accessible telecommunica- are employees who are trying desperately to tions technology in the world. respond to a growing service industry. They Why is this government so obsessed with are trying to respond to faults and requests privatising Telstra? It is so obvious through for line and service repairs for which, at one the many personal incidents that I am aware time, they had the resources. You will also of, the numerous complaints received by the find employees who are dispirited and just telecommunications ombudsman’s office and cannot wait to retire: employees who no the overwhelming rejection by 70 per cent of longer feel valued, particularly because they Australians to the sale of Telstra that this are at the coalface and taking the brunt of the government should only be focused on im- anger and frustration of residents who want proving access, quality and prices of tele- answers, who want reliability, who want phone, mobile and broadband services in their phones to work when they are needed. Australia. I would like the senators of this Again I say to this chamber: oppose the chamber to think very hard about the wishes sale of Telstra. Fix Telstra; do not desert re- of the people in the state they represent. I gional Australians. Labor has put Australia would like them to think realistically about first on every occasion that the government how much it is going to cost to bring the has tried to force the sale of Telstra through network up to an acceptable standard. Do not legislation. The Liberal and National party let us be fooled into thinking that $3.1 billion members of the parliament have already will do the trick. I would like them to admit voted in support of the sale three times. Do that a partially privatised Telstra has been a they have the country’s best interests at heart disaster. or are they merely eyeing off the Future Will those senators who vote for the sale Fund? It is well known that Telstra has been of Telstra be able to stand by their decision focused on making the company investment in years to come, when our telecommunica- ready and fattening up the areas that entice tions industry is in a shambles and Austra- buyers rather than delivering on its vision to lians suffer as a result? While the govern- be a world class, full-service, integrated tele- ment has a share in Telstra, we can make the communications company helping Austra- changes and investment necessary to become lian, Asian and Pacific customers and com- a country with one of the most advanced munities prosper through their access to in- telecommunications services in access and novative communication services and mul- reliability. As a proud senator for Tasmania, timedia products. representing Tasmanians, I say to this cham- Would anyone from Telstra or the Howard ber tonight, ‘Don’t sell Telstra; fix it.’ (Time government stand up and hold their hand expired) over their heart and confirm they believe that

CHAMBER 138 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (10.47 other new senators on the other side and on pm)—As the chamber is well aware, we are this side, look at the history of the sale of debating the sale of Telstra bills, in essence. I Telstra—T1 and T2—and even the history realise there are five cognate bills: two cur- prior to that and you will see that the answer rently—the Telstra (Transition to Full Private to all those queries is yes. Each sale has Ownership) Bill 2005 and the Telecommuni- been, in short, a success. cations Legislation Amendment (Competi- Let us go right back to when Telstra was a tion and Consumer Issues) Bill 2005—and monopoly, when the Left on the other side— three more are to come from the House of the likes of Senator Carr—pined for the days Representatives. They are the technicalities of government ownership, when the gov- of the Senate. In essence, we are debating, as ernment owned 100 cent of the banks, the anyone who has been listening to this debate airlines, telecommunications and just about knows, the final sale of Telstra. everything; it was as socialist as you could So it is quite a moment in the Senate, and get. Telstra did live in that environment, and it will be for the rest of this debate, which those were the days. As we all know, particu- will go on all of this week. We welcome eve- larly as we came into the eighties and nine- ryone from the opposition getting up and ties, this was a monopoly that behaved like a putting their point. I wish they would not put monopoly: it was way overpriced, utterly it as emotively as the speakers thus far have, inefficient and could not, and would not, just throwing out assertions devoid of facts meet the challenges in technologies that ex- and believing that those assertions will con- ploded in the late eighties and nineties. It vince us, the public or the listeners. Senator was a monopoly; it was a dinosaur. Change Polley, for example, who is now leaving the had to come. Acting as a monopoly, its ser- chamber, invited anyone from this side of the vices were affected. Anyone who thinks they chamber to put their hand on their heart to got their phone fixed more quickly under say that they actually believe in the sale of Telstra when it was in 100 per cent govern- Telstra. Well, my hand is on my heart. I be- ment ownership has a very short memory or lieve in the T3 sale of Telstra, as I did in T2 was not around at the time. This was a dino- and T1. I have been fortunate enough, having saur that needed changing—and, ultimately, longevity in politics, in this chamber to be a the Labor government at the time were con- part of all three sales of Telstra—the two vinced of this. previous ones and the one we have before us. The Hawke-Keating government were ac- As I said, it really will be a moment in this tually the first to move to corporatise Telstra. government’s life and in this parliament’s They saw the technology changes coming. life, should this legislation get through by the No-one predicted how quickly they would end of the week. It is worth looking at the happen or how advanced they would be but, history of this issue. Having lived through it, nevertheless, even that government saw that I might be able to enlighten Senator Polley, Telstra had to adapt and had to be corpora- who is new to the parliament. It is worth tised. Mr Acting Deputy President Lightfoot, looking at its history as it will probably an- who do you think was the minister for tele- swer every one of her queries. She asked: communications at that time, when the Labor ‘Do we really believe that this will be a suc- government took the first timid steps towards cess? Do we really believe that the proceeds the corporatisation of Telstra, opening it up will hit the spot to bring in greater competi- to some competition? It was none other than tion and better services?’ Senator Polley and the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 139

Beazley, who well knew at that time that Tel- stra in the 1996 election. We have actually stra had to face competition and had to be tested it in four elections. But, not to get opened up. That is exactly what the Labor ahead of myself, I want to go to the first sale, Party did. T1, in 1997, a policy tested in the previous Of course, as we all know, a duopoly was election. T1 was for one-third—33 per created with the introduction of a competitor cent—of Telstra. It is very important that we in Optus. That was the first step, but the La- look at where the proceeds of that 33 per bor Party were disappointed: whatever vision cent sale of Telstra went. In November 1997, they had at that time—and it was to sell Tel- one-third of Telstra was sold and as other stra; let us not kid around—was not realised. speakers, including my colleague Senator The then communications minister, Mr Sandy Macdonald in this chamber, have said, Beazley, had a meeting with BHP and with of the proceeds of some $14 billion, $1.1 Mr Keating in 1995 to scope or to discuss billion went into the Natural Heritage possibilities for the sale of Telstra, so we Trust—the greatest expenditure on the envi- know they had it in the gun; they were going ronment by any government in the history of to privatise Telstra eventually. The great dis- Australia. appointment was that they were always too Senator Bob Brown was against that for slow in getting around to it. We would have political reasons. He was against $1.1 billion supported them in opposition. of a capital fund setting up the Natural Heri- But they were never going to introduce tage Trust, moneys going towards the the USO or the customer service guarantee Murray-Darling project, the National Vegeta- or any of those safeguards for the bush. The tion Initiative, the Coast and Clean Seas ini- rural and regional areas know that the legacy tiative, a national reserves system, the na- of the Labor Party in their timid first step tional land and water audits—all programs towards opening up the communications that are still in existence today because of market was to shut down the analog system. that fund. Given that money does not grow As we all know, when we first came into on trees, that it is taken from the taxpayers, government we were faced with the crazy that sort of expenditure could not have been decision of the analog system being closed found unless the privatisation of one-third of down in the rural and regional areas and Telstra had been put into play. A certain digital replacing it—that was the legacy of amount of the rest of the moneys went to previous government. There are many areas reduce the legacy of debt. It was putting in that could not take digital and we had to rush place the foundations of good economic in and find a solution to that problem and management. You just cannot do it by milk- introduce the CDMA system. So in the end, ing the taxpayers. The privatisation of Telstra whatever timid first step they did take, they in T1 was needed particularly at that time, left a mess behind—typical, of course. They given the budget black hole the government knew what they had to do but in the end they had to fill—a legacy of the previous gov- would not do it. ernment. And the legacy of that is, of course, a contribution towards lower interest rates— When we came into government we knew lower debt equals lower interest rates. what we had to do, and we are doing it. And this is the final chapter of that necessity. As You might remember, Senator Moore, that you well know, Mr Acting Deputy President, in between the first sale of Telstra, T1, and we had tested our policy on the sale of Tel- the second, T2, there was the 1998 election. What policy do you think we took to that

CHAMBER 140 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 election? It was for the full sale of Telstra. So ADJOURNMENT we were tested again—our mettle was tested The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It at that election. I know very well that, be- being 11.00 pm, I propose the question: sides that election being the GST election, That the Senate do now adjourn. the Labor Party tried to make the sale of Tel- stra a central plank of that election. In 1999 Millennium Development Goals we proceeded to sell 16 per cent of Telstra. Senator BARNETT (Tasmania) (11.00 This history is necessary, Mr Acting Deputy pm)—I rise tonight to speak in support of the President, because I am moving up to T3. We Millennium Development Goals, which Aus- have to know the backdrop to what will be a tralia has committed itself to. In doing so, I somewhat historic moment when we sell the would like to congratulate all those involved last piece of Telstra and the largest govern- in the recent Make Poverty History cam- ment owned asset. T2 was, as I say, for 16 paign to halve world poverty by 2015. I ap- per cent and it brought in some $16 billion. plaud the actions of my government, because Again, the greater bulk of that was used to we are a lucky country, to quote the late reduce debt, with $1 billion put towards the Donald Horne. We are a politically stable social bonus. One of the finest programs set and resource rich, wealthy country. We are a up from T1 was the Networking the Nation compassionate race of people, who practise program. Something like $250 million was tolerance and largely subscribe to Christian put into that and it has been an enormous values, which promote peace and charity, success on the ground for the rural and re- particularly for the poor and the disadvan- gional areas. taged. I am proud of this country’s Christian Senator Eggleston—Hear, hear! heritage, which underpins much of the work of non-government, charitable and volunteer Senator McGAURAN—With the sale of organisations. The response of my govern- T2, from the resulting $1 billion social bonus ment and the Australian people to the De- something like $150 million extra went into cember 2004 tsunami disaster was illustra- Networking the Nation. I heard a ‘hear, hear’ tive of that. It was outstanding. I have previ- from the government whip, Senator ously acknowledged that response in this Eggleston, a rural and regional senator from chamber. Western Australia. He knows only too well how that project got right onto the ground in Earlier this week I was joined by col- the rural and regional areas and benefited leagues from both sides of politics in urging those people. It was a community program. It Senate support for Australia’s commitment to bettered the services and bettered the prod- the Millennium Development Goals. Senate uct. So if Senator Polley is sitting in her support, I am glad to say, was achieved room—having asked the question: ‘Where without dissent. The goals include halving have the services been improved; can anyone world poverty; reducing child mortality by name one?’—I invite her to go and look at two-thirds; halting and reversing the spread the Networking the Nation project. I see that of HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases; my time to speak is now drawing to a close. I and supporting freer and fairer international ask that I can continue my remarks at a later trade. The motion, which I proposed with the time. support of Senator Grant Chapman, Senator Ursula Stephens and Senator Helen Polley, Debate interrupted. said:

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 141

That the Senate— aid must be carefully targeted, especially in (a) recognises: our region, where two-thirds of the world’s (i) the extent and gravity of world poverty and poor are. In Asia, 712 million people live on the urgency of tackling this situation, less than $US1 per day, as do 314 million (ii) that the most impoverished countries can- people in Africa. A child dies as a result of not escape the cycle of poverty without assis- extreme poverty every three seconds. Every tance, and day 30,000 children die from preventable (iii) that two-thirds of the world’s poor are ac- causes. Nearly 11 million children under the tually in Asia, (rather than Africa); age of five die every year. One woman dies (b) acknowledges recent efforts by the Australian every minute as a result of pregnancy and Government including increases in the Australian childbirth complications. More than 500,000 overseas aid budget and special support for those women die in childbirth each year. Each day in need following the December 2004 tsunami; 58,000 people die from hunger and easily (c) supports the Millennium Development Goals preventable diseases. One in five children in agreed to by the Australian and other govern- the developing world do not have access to ments in 2000 which specifically included a set of safe drinking water. One hundred and three eight goals to be achieved by 2015 ... million children of primary school age do not … … … attend school. Nearly a billion people enter- (d) urges the Australian Government to recommit ing the 21st century are unable to read a itself to the achievement of those goals. book or sign their names. The gross domestic Senate support for those goals has been product of the poorest 48 nations—a quarter achieved, and it was a great honour to be part of the world’s countries—is less than the of that process. wealth of the world’s three richest people combined. But tonight I specifically want to record my support for three measures. The first The developing world now spends around measure concerns Australia’s overseas aid $US3 on debt repayment for every $US1 it budget, which in 2005-06 is nearly $2.5 bil- receives. Five years ago all members of the lion. I believe that there are strong arguments UN signed up to a global plan and pledged to to double this funding support in the years halve poverty by 2015. As I said, there are ahead. The second measure is to promote, eight Millennium Development Goals. The where appropriate, conditions being attached aim of the Make Poverty History campaign to overseas aid, to ensure that corrupt re- is to achieve those goals by 2015. Meetings gimes do not benefit from our aid and to en- in New York this week to consider the pro- sure better governance by beneficiary na- gress will be attended by many people, in- tions. The third measure is to promote more cluding our own Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard. free trade among nations, so that developed and developing nations are better able to Despite committing themselves to putting compete in world markets—on a level play- development at the centre of global trade ing field—and to prosper. Free, freer and fair negotiations, many rich countries are still trade has a huge part to play in advancing the pursuing unfair trade rules. Developed coun- cause. tries spend more than $350 billion each year Supporting my proposals and underpin- on subsidies for their farmers—the equiva- ning the Millennium Development Goals are lent of the entire combined income of Africa. the following facts. Overseas development Every cow in Europe now gets $US2 a day in subsidies, which is more than three-

CHAMBER 142 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005 quarters of what Africans earn each day. At would like to specifically acknowledge the the same time, developed countries are ag- non-government organisations Caritas, gressively pushing developing countries to World Vision, Oxfam, TEAR Australia, Plan, open their markets. In the European Union, Baptist World Aid, Micah Challenge and the farmers receive 33 per cent of their income Oaktree Foundation. Their support has been from the government. In the United States immense. I would like to record the support the level of support and protection received of the members of the Make Poverty History from the government is 18 per cent. In Aus- campaign, which include the following or- tralia it is four per cent. Ensuring that world ganisations: AID/WATCH, Anglican Board trade rules give developing countries the of Mission, Anglicord, the Archbishop of power to decide the pace and extent of trade Sydney’s overseas relief and aid fund, Assisi liberalisation, especially of their agricultural Aid Projects, Australian Business Volunteers, markets, so that they can preserve food secu- AUSTCARE: Australians Caring for Refu- rity and livelihoods, is essential. We need a gees, the Australian Conservation Founda- freer and fairer trade arrangement. We need tion, the Australian Council for International to break down the barriers that have been put Development, the Australian Lutheran World up, particularly in Europe and the United Service, Australian Relief and Mercy Ser- States. vices, Australian Reproductive Health Alli- I indicate my support for the Millennium ance, Australian Volunteers International, Development Goals and programs such as Baptist World Aid Australia, the Burnet Insti- Make Poverty History. In doing so, I would tute and Caritas Australia. like to record that in August this year I The organisations also include the Chris- hosted a visit to Parliament House of the UN tian Blind Mission International, CCF Aus- special ambassador to Asia, Ms Erna Witoe- tralia, Engineers Without Borders Australia, lar. Earlier, in June, the Hon. Bruce Baird the Foundation for Development Coopera- and I hosted a dinner at Parliament House in tion, the Fred Hollows Foundation, Friends honour of the Reverend Tim Costello of of the Earth, International Centre for Eyecare World Vision and David Bussau of Opportu- Education, International Needs Australia, nity International, to speak about and to International Women’s Development speak in favour of the Millennium Develop- Agency, Marist Mission Centre, Oaktree ment Goals. Last week it was a privilege to Foundation, Opportunity International, Ox- be part of a prayer vigil outside Parliament fam, PALMS Australia, Plan, Quaker Service House supported by the Make Poverty His- Australia, RESULTS Australia, Save the tory campaign. Last Saturday I attended a Children Australia, TEAR Australia, celebration of Make Poverty History in UNICEF Australia, Union Aid Abroad, Launceston. To that end I would like to con- United Nations Association, WaterAid Aus- gratulate the organisers, Grant Maynard and tralia and World Vision Australia. The work Ben McKinnon, and their energetic team of of the volunteers and numerous members of supporters. these non-government and volunteer organi- I also want to record thanks to some or- sations has been vitally important in raising ganisations who have done so much in their the issue of and support for the Millennium contributions to making poverty history. A Development Goals. special thanks goes to Michaela Sargent, campaign coordinator of the Australian Council for International Development. I

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 143

Brisbane Traffic Tunnels when it could have been put at the Exhibition Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) grounds that are not utilised most of the year. (11.10 pm)—For something different tonight However, this is about traffic, not about I thought I might talk on Telstra, because it football grounds, although those football has not been covered much lately! At the last grounds certainly generate their share of traf- minute, to your relief, Mr Deputy President, fic. The north-south bypass tunnel goes, as I I decided to change my mind and talk about said, from Woolloongabba and reappears at a matter more specific to my own town of Herston and Bowen Hills, near the Royal Brisbane, a matter I have covered to some Brisbane Hospital and the Brisbane Exhibi- extent previously in this chamber—that is, tion grounds. The Brisbane City Council has the significant amounts of money that the estimated that that tunnel will cost around $2 Brisbane City Council is prepared to waste billion. The TransApex project, according to on tunnels and bridges surrounding the inner reports, will cost up to $5.3 billion. That in- Brisbane area. It is an enormous amount of volves a number of other tunnels and bridges expenditure that will inevitably lead to more in the inner Brisbane area. traffic and motor cars in the inner Brisbane The Brisbane City Council has said that area and, therefore, further emissions. I be- its contribution will be a maximum of $660 lieve it will also lead to significant ongoing million, although it may not be that much, debt for the city council for a long time to the vast bulk of which is going to be bor- come. rowed from the state government. The city What spurred me to raise this issue again council is asking the state government to was that I noticed on the most recent list of kick in $400 million and the Commonwealth proposals referred to the Department of the to kick in $400 million as well. I would like Environment and Heritage for assessment to put on the record my complete opposition under the federal environment laws the pro- to any federal money whatsoever being used posal for a bridge at the end of Hale Street, on the north-south bypass tunnel or the right near the Suncorp Stadium—once upon TransApex project. It is clearly not a Com- a time known as Lang Park—to go across to monwealth road and there are plenty of other South Brisbane. That is one part of what is road projects with far greater priority. known as the TransApex scheme, the core of In the general broader Brisbane area, there which and the first stage of which is the is an absolutely pressing need for some fund- north-south bypass tunnel, which is to go ing to be spent on the Ipswich Motorway from Woolloongabba—right near another into Brisbane. The sooner federal resources famous football ground, the Gabba, where I can be provided for that, the better for all of think they play some cricket from time to those people coming from fine cities out in time as well—and reappear outside the Ex- the west such as Toowoomba as well as those hibition grounds. That is where they should closer to Brisbane such as Ipswich and the have built the new Suncorp Stadium, instead many satellite suburbs that are now funnel- of spending that stupid amount of money ling into that road. For even a cent of federal expanding the stadium in the urban area of money to go on something as insane as the Paddington. That is a disgraceful blight on tunnels, when we have that pressing need out the Beattie Labor government. It was an ap- in the western areas of Brisbane, would be palling decision to spend all that money to absurd. just slightly expand the size of that stadium

CHAMBER 144 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

I call on the federal government to cate- or the like—and we have had a bit of com- gorically rule it out once and for all, because ment about that tonight. It is a significant one of the ways that the Brisbane City Coun- part of enhancing the economic opportunities cil Lord Mayor is managing to dangle along for the entire wider western Queensland re- the furphy that it could be a financially plau- gion. Outback tourism is a very significant sible project to build this tunnel is through and growing part of the tourism industry. It is the notion that the federal government will an area that already has the benefit of not kick in some money. The sooner the federal only generating a lot of income and re- government rules it out categorically once sources for those areas but also of drawing and for all, the sooner that particular phan- people to see different parts of Queensland— tom leg of this project can be kicked away, it is getting people away from the coastal and the lack of financial substance behind it routes and highways and into other parts of can be more clearly exposed. the state. Putting in the basic infrastructure I would also like to take the opportunity to of a sealed road obviously benefits the peo- put in a plea not just for money for roads in ple that live out there, but it also makes it far the Brisbane area and its surrounds, but also more feasible for others to travel, and to have to support the call that has been made for tourism, out there. funding to enable upgrades of rural roads, It also makes it much safer, and that is cer- the Outback Highway in particular. The Out- tainly a point that cannot be overemphasised. back Highway covers not just parts of Preventing even a small number of accidents Queensland but also parts of the Northern due to unsealed roads, highways and outback Territory and Western Australia. A lot of it is connector roads, apart from saving lives and unsealed. Frankly, when we have highways sparing individuals trauma, saves money. and significant interconnectors between out- When you add up the money spent—the cost back towns and communities that do not of accidents in some of those areas—it is have any sealing at all, it is a bit outrageous quite a significant amount. Over time, it for city councils to be trying to get federal would easily outstrip the amount that needs money to build another massive layer of bi- to be spent to seal those roads. tumen over the amount that they already As a representative for Queensland, I cer- have, and to build unnecessary tunnels and tainly emphasise the value of putting road bridges that will just create more traffic and funding into some of those outback areas. As pollution. Federal money spent on areas such an example, a call was made at a meeting as the Ipswich Motorway, the Outback today in Boulia of the Outback Highway Highway and roads in rural communities, Development Council’s annual general meet- such as the roads out to Birdsville and towns ing. They are looking for $10 million to up- like that, would be far better spent and a grade the Outback Highway, and for state much better use of taxpayers’ resources. and territory governments to support a fed- I should say that the issue of sealing the eral road funding agreement. Those sorts of Outback Highway or the roads to Birdsville amounts of money can make a huge differ- and some of the other towns of note in west- ence for some of those communities, yet here ern Queensland that still do not have sealed we have the Brisbane City Council asking roads is not just a matter of pork-barrelling for $400 million for tunnels that would sim- rural communities to make them feel better ply create more health problems, pollution or of building the old mythical ‘highways to and traffic in inner-city Brisbane. The vast nowhere’ to satisfy National Party senators bulk of the TransApex project would be

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 145 funded from private sources. It is a classic Customs Act— example of what we have already seen in CEO Instrument of Approvals Nos— Sydney, which has a whole gamut of tunnels 37 of 2005 [F2005L02470]*. that have ended up costing more than was 47 of 2005 [F2005L02497]*. initially proposed through massive cost over- runs, had spiralling tolls and have led to sig- Tariff Concession Orders— nificant increases in pollution problems from 0504353 [F2005L02515]*. the emissions stacks at either end of the tun- 0504543 [F2005L02517]*. nels. The Brisbane City Council is refusing 0504544 [F2005L02518]*. to consider filters on the tunnel smokestacks, 0504553 [F2005L02520]*. which are going to come out right near the 0504554 [F2005L02564]*. Brisbane Hospital, the Gabba and other parts 0504562 [F2005L02549]*. of inner-northern Brisbane. That is simply a disgrace, and I certainly support the growing 0504563 [F2005L02550]*. number of people throughout Brisbane, par- 0504570 [F2005L02522]*. ticularly in the inner-suburban communities, 0507031 [F2005L02557]*. who are recognising the TransApex tunnel 0507308 [F2005L02559]*. scheme for the con that it is. (Time expired) 0507315 [F2005L02525]*. Senate adjourned at 11.20 pm 0507355 [F2005L02526]*. DOCUMENTS 0507356 [F2005L02529]*. Tabling 0507357 [F2005L02532]*. The following documents were tabled by 0507364 [F2005L02530]*. the Clerk: 0507365 [F2005L02531]*. [Legislative instruments are identified by a Financial Management and Accountability Federal Register of Legislative Instruments Act—Net Appropriation Agreements for— (FRLI) number] Australian Electoral Commission A New Tax System (Goods and Services [F2005L02505]*. Ta x) Act—A New Tax System (Goods and Australian Public Service Commission Services Tax) Margin Scheme Valuation [F2005L02503]*. Requirements Determination MSV 2005/3 [F2005L02565]*. Commonwealth Grants Commission [F2005L02501]*. Civil Aviation Act— Geoscience Australia [F2005L02450]*. Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2005 [F2005L02506]*. Higher Education Support Act— Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Higher Education Provider Approval Order (No. 2) 2005 [F2005L02507]*. (No. 9 of 2005)—Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE [F2005L02551]*. Civil Aviation Safety Regulations— Airworthiness Directives—Part 105— Higher Education Provider Approval AD/S-PUMA/57 Amdt 1—Tail Servo- (No. 10 of 2005)—Perth Institute of Control [F2005L02511]*. Business and Technology Pty Ltd [F2005L02575]*. Class Rulings CR 2005/69-CR 2005/72. Higher Education Provider Approval Corporations Act—ASIC Class Order [CO (No. 11 of 2005)—Colleges of Business 05/910] [F2005L02538]*. and Technology (WA) Pty Ltd trading as

CHAMBER 146 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Curtin International College [F2005L02576]*. Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act—Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act Notice About How Incident Reports Are To Be Made [F2005L02514]*. Migration Act—Migration Regulations— Specification of designated APEC econo- mies for the purposes of the definition of “designated APEC economy” in regulation 1.03, dated 26 July 2005 [F2005L02408]*. Military Superannuation and Benefits Act—Military Superannuation and Bene- fits (Delayed Payment of Benefits) Amendment Determination 2005 (No. 1) [F2005L02366]*. Radiocommunications Act— Radiocommunications (Trading Rules for Defence Spectrum Licences) Determina- tion 2005 [F2005L02543]*. Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Revocation of Modification Declara- tions [F2005L02475]*. Taxation Ruling TR 2005/17. Veterans’ Entitlements Act—Instrument No. R20/2005—Veterans’ Entitlements (Child-Related Rent Assistance Payments) Determination [F2005L02495] * Explanatory statement tabled with legislative instrument. Departmental and Agency Contracts The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 20 June 2001, as amended: Departmental and agency contracts for 2004-05—Letter of advice—Education, Science and Training portfolio agencies.

CHAMBER Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 147

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE The following answers to questions were circulated:

Regional Development Council (Question No. 248) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 December 2004: (1) On what date did the Council of Australian Governments agree to establish the Regional Develop- ment Council. (2) On what dates has: (a) the Regional Development Council met; and (b) the Standing Committee on Regional Development met. Senator Ian Campbell—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) The Council of Australian Governments agreed on 8 June 2001 to create a new Regional Develop- ment Council (RDC) by amalgamating regional development issues from the Industry, Technology and Regional Development Council and the informal Regional Development ministers’ meetings. (2) (a) The Regional Development Council has met once, in Canberra on 30 July 2003. The next meeting of the RDC is scheduled to be held in Coffs Harbour on Friday 21 October 2005. (b) The Standing Committee on Regional Development has met seven times, the first meeting was in Canberra on 9 May 2002. Subsequent meetings have been held in Melbourne on 17 October 2002; Gladstone, Queensland on 18 June 2003; Port Arthur, Tasmania on 14 November 2003; Melbourne on 25 June 2004; Kanga- roo Island, South Australia on 26 November 2004; and Darwin on 6 May 2005. Minister for the Arts and Sport (Question No. 697) Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister for the Arts and Sport, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: (1) In relation to all overseas travel where expenses were met by the Minister’s portfolios, for each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date what was the total cost of travel and related expenses in relation to: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; and (c) the Minister’s staff. (2) In relation to all air charters engaged and paid for by the Minister and/or the Minister’s office and/or the department and its agencies, for each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date: (a) on how many occasions did the Minister or his/her office or department and/or agency charter aircraft, and in each case, what was the name of the charter company that provided the service and the related respective costs; and (b) what was the total cost. Senator Kemp—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) Central Departmental records indicate the following costs were met by the Minister’s portfolio in relation to ministerial overseas travel by the Minister for Arts and Sport. (a) 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 $nil $5234.27 $nil $nil $nil

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 148 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

(b) Nil (c) 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 $132.00 $nil $131.86 $nil $494.93 (2) (a) and (b) In relation to ministerial overseas travel, records indicate there has been no charter aircraft used. Defence: Customer Service (Question No. 837) Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: (1) For each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date, can a list be provided of customer service telephone lines, including (a) the telephone number of each customer service line; (b) whether the number is toll free and open 24 hours; (c) which output area is responsible for the customer service line; and (d) where this call centre is located. (2) For each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date, what was the cost of maintaining the customer service lines. (3) For each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date, can a breakdown be provided of all direct and indirect costs, including: (a) staff costs; (b) infrastructure costs (including maintenance); (c) telephone costs; (d) departmental costs, and (e) any other costs. (4) How many calls have been received, by year, in each year of the customer service lines operation. Senator Hill—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) See attached table for centrally managed free call services. (2) The maintenance of these services is included in the Defence Voice Facilities Management Con- tract, and the nature of the contract structure does not allow the extraction of the maintenance costs of individual services. (3) As stated in part (2), the contract structure does not permit extraction of indirect costs, but the customer service lines call costs for: 2000-01 - unavailable. 2001-02 - unavailable. 2002-03 - $2,636,548. 2003-04 - $2,725,116. 2004-05 - $2,724,635. (4) Current systems do not allow the collection of call rates. Customer Service Numbers Y for the FY the Service Started 1800, 13 etc Y/N Y/N/VM= Voice Mail FY FY FY FY FY Service Toll 24 Hr Responsible Call 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Number Free Group Centre Location Y 1800100064 Y N Army ACT Y 1800100166 Y VM Army ACT Y 1800242123 Y VM Army ACT Y 1800647946 Y VM Army ACT Y 1800654714 Y N Army ACT Y 1800005687 Y N Army VIC Y 1800066941 Y N Army VIC Y 1800097911 Y N Army NSW

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 149

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 150 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 151

Customer Service Numbers Y for the FY the Service Started 1800, 13 etc Y/N Y/N/VM= Voice Mail FY FY FY FY FY Service Toll 24 Hr Responsible Call 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Number Free Group Centre Location Y 1800558555 Y VM Navy ACT Y 1800812406 Y VM Navy ACT Y 1800628737 Y Y Navy QLD Y 1800646680 Y N Navy VIC Y 1800670793 Y N Navy VIC Y 1800020444 Y N Navy NSW Y 1800020879 Y N Navy NSW Y 1800249949 Y N Navy NSW Y 1800267909 Y N Navy NSW Y 1800600206 Y N Navy NSW Y 1800672484 Y N Navy NSW Y 1800810913 Y N Navy NSW Legend CFO Chief Finance Officer CIOG Chief Information Officer Group CSIG Corporate Services and Infrastructure Group DMO Defence Material Organisation DPE Defence Personnel Executive DSA Defence Security Authority DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation IG Inspector General Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Question No. 869) Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Re- gional Services, upon notice, on 6 May 2005: For each of the financial years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 to date, can details be provided of all privately or commercially sponsored travel, including costs and sponsor for: (a) the Min- ister; (b) the Minister’s family; (c) the Minister’s personal staff; and (d) officers of the Minister’s department. Senator Ian Campbell—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (a) The Special Minister of State will be providing an answer to this part of the honourable Senator’s question on behalf of all Ministers. (b) The Special Minister of State will be providing an answer to this part of the honourable Senator’s question on behalf of all Ministers. (c) The office of the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon John Anderson MP, has advised that they hold no records to indicate that any privately or commercially sponsored travel was undertaken by personal staff from 2000-01 to 2004-05. (d) The following sponsored travel was undertaken by officers of the Department of Transport and Regional Services from 2000-01 to 2004-05:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 152 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

Date Sponsor Destination Objective Cost recovered October 2003 Kenyon International Houston Presentation at a Kenyon Airfares, accommodation, Texas International Conference meals and surface transport ($10,900) paid by Kenyon December 2003 Atkins Rail London First Global Rail Acci- Radisson Tottenham Court dent Investigation Course Road Accommodation pre-paid by Atkins ($A720) April 2004 Transport IQ a Division United Presentation at Transport Transport IQ contributed of IQPC Kingdom Speed Management Con- 500 pounds towards Air- ference fares August 2004 Bankstown Airport Sydney Presentation to the Bank- $337.12 stown Airport Consulta- tive Committee August 2004 Australian Mayoral Cairns Presentation at the $554.00 Aviation Council AMAC 2004 Annual + two nights accommoda- (AMAC) Conference tion paid for by AMAC (cost unknown) November 2004 Nissan/Isuzu Sydney Meeting with car maker $400.00 to discuss BTRE’s research and forecasts on truck sales March 2005 Brisbane Airport Brisbane Holding a training work- $1,314.51 shop for airport staff April 2005 Centre of Policy Studies Melbourne Presentation of paper to $600.00 (Monash University) seminar sponsored by CoPS

Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads (Question No. 895) Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, upon notice, on 6 May 2005: For each of the financial years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 to date, can details be provided of all privately or commercially sponsored travel, including costs and sponsor for: (a) the Min- ister; (b) the Minister’s family; (c) the Minister’s personal staff; and (d) officers of the Minister’s department. Senator Ian Campbell—The Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (a) The Special Minister of State will be providing an answer to this part of the honourable Senator’s question on behalf of all Ministers. (b) The Special Minister of State will be providing an answer to this part of the honourable Senator’s question on behalf of all Ministers. (c) No privately or commercially sponsored travel was undertaken by my personal staff during 2004- 05. Records of privately or commercially sponsored travel that may have been undertaken by staff of former Ministers from 2000-01 to 2003-04 are not readily available. To compile a response to this part of the question would require a significant diversion of resources which I am not prepared to authorise.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 153

(d) Please refer to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services response to Question on Notice number 869. National Missile Defence (Question No. 1053) Senator Nettle asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 August 2005: (1) What is the status of negotiations regarding Australia’s participation in the United States of Amer- ica’s National Missile Defence. (2) What commitments have been made by the Government regarding Australia’s contribution to Na- tional Missile Defence. (3) What is the estimated cost of each element of Australia’s contribution. Senator Hill—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) Australia signed a 25-year Memorandum of Understanding concerning Ballistic Missile Defence with the United States, on 7 July 2004. This is a framework arrangement that will enable agreements on particular areas of cooperation. (2) Australia’s commitment, as expressed in the Memorandum of Understanding, will evolve over time. While no specific commitments have yet been entered into, an annex providing for research, development, test and evaluation is currently being negotiated. (3) While no commitment has yet been formalised, any contribution made to missile defence will come from within existing Defence resources. Envirofund Program (Question No. 1066) Senator Bob Brown asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 8 August 2005: With reference to round 6 of funding under the Australian Government Envirofund for Tasmanian projects: (1) How does the project ‘Leading Practice Property Management – Residential Developments, East Coast’, awarded to two individual property owners, meet the criterion of ‘a very high public benefit’. (2) In relation to this project, can funds be used to compensate for site rehabilitation work which has already been completed. (3) Can funds be used to cover the costs of site rehabilitation work which has been mandated by state resource management planning processes. (4) Why was funding provided for this project if the apparent ‘public benefit’ element (i.e. a natural resource management planning manual) replicates a manual already produced by a local community group in conjunction with the University of Tasmania. (5) What projects have received Envirofund funding in the Break O’Day municipality. (6) What mechanisms exist for monitoring and evaluating local Natural Resource Management coordinators to ensure that projects are developed with local land/bush and coast care groups that meet funding objectives and guidelines. Senator Ian Campbell—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) No funding has been provided for the project. (2) No.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 154 SENATE Monday, 12 September 2005

(3) No. (4) See answer to (1). (5) Eight projects have received funding in the Break O’Day municipality, as follows: Applicant Funding Scamander Community Development Association Inc $6,282 Break O’Day Council/Break O’Day Landcare and Waterwatch $2,793 Stieglitz Foreshore Group $6,230 Pyengana Area Landcare Group Inc $27,000 Fingal Pastoral Proprietary Limited $28,182 Mr Mukul Joshie $13,827 Australian Government and regional facilitators are given detailed information about the Enviro- fund Programme at the launch of each new round and when successful applications are announced, to assist them in advising potential applicants and helping successful applicants to implement their projects. Potential applicants are encouraged to contact facilitators during preparation of their project application and facilitators can seek further advice from the Envirofund Unit on any aspect of the Programme. Envirofund roadshows and workshops are also conducted to engage with regional and local level coordinators, landcare groups and other interested parties. Radioisotopes (Question No. 1077) Senator Siewert asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training, upon notice, on 10 August 2005: With reference to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation budgeted actual revenue for the 2004-05 financial year and Table 5.1: Analysis of Budgeted Financial Statements, Statement of Financial Performance for the 2004-05 period: (1) Will the Minister provide a financial breakdown of revenues from the sale of radioisotopes for: (a) radiopharmaceuticals derived from the High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR) at Lucas Heights for: (i) domestic use, and (ii) export; (b) industrial radioisotopes derived from the HIFAR at Lucas Heights for: (i) domestic use, and (ii) export; (c) radiopharmaceuticals derived from the National Medical Cyclotron (NMC) at the Royal Prince Alfred (RPA) Hospital for: (i) domestic use, and (ii) export; and (d) industrial radioisotopes derived from the NMC at the RPA Hospital for: (i) domestic use, and (ii) export. (2) For the 2005-06 financial year, will the Minister provide the projected revenues from the sale of radioisotopes for: (a) radiopharmaceuticals derived from the HIFAR at Lucas Heights for: (i) domestic use, and (ii) export; (b) industrial radioisotopes derived from the HIFAR at Lucas Heights for: (i) domestic use, and (ii) export; (c) radiopharmaceuticals derived from the NMC at the RPA Hospital for: (i) domestic use, and (ii) export; and

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Monday, 12 September 2005 SENATE 155

(d) industrial radioisotopes derived from the NMC at the RPA Hospital for: (i) domestic use, and (ii) export. Senator Vanstone—The Minister for Education, Science and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) (a) (i) $10,600,000 (ii) $2,270,000 (b) (i) $538,000 (ii) $370,000 (c) (i) $4,000,000 (ii) $965,000 (d) No industrial isotopes are manufactured at the NMC. Cyclotrons can only be used for the manufacture of some short-lived isotopes, and as such are suitable for manufacturing some isotopes used in medical applications but unsuitable for manufacturing isotopes used in industrial applications (which are relatively long-lived). (2) (a) (i) $10,400,000 (ii) $2,200,000 (b) (i) $498,000 (ii) $371,000 (c) (i) $4,000,000 (ii) $979,000 (d) See 1(d). (Note: Figures given for radiopharmaceuticals also include radiochemicals)

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE