senate official hansard - parliament of australia · matters of public interest— ... employment,...

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

SENATE

Official Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 1999

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENTFIRST SESSION—SECOND PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATECANBERRA

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH

Nuclear Waste: Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3069Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Bill 1999—

First Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3075Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3075

A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill 1998,A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998—

Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3079Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999—

In Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3088Matters of Public Interest—

New South Wales: Drug Crisis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3107Smith, Mr Dick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3110Wool Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3110Whistleblowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3113Asia Research Centre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3115New South Wales: Carr Government’s Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3123Student Unionism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3125

Questions Without Notice—Goods and Services Tax: Insurance Premiums. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3127Unemployment: Job Creation Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3127Goods and Services Tax: Tasmania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3129Sun Metal Zinc Refinery: Unions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3131Goods and Services Tax: Health and Aged Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3131Nuclear Waste: Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3133Superannuation: Investment Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3134Lucas Heights Nuclear Reactor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3135Goods and Services Tax: Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3136Women: Health Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3137Nuclear Waste: Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3137Jabiluka Uranium Mine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3138Goods and Services Tax: Sporting Organisations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3139

Answers to Questions Without Notice—Goods and Services Tax: Insurance Premiums. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3140Goods and Services Tax: Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3140Goods and Services Tax: Sporting Organisations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3140

Petitions—East Timor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3146Uranium: World Heritage Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3146Uranium: World Heritage Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3146Australian Broadcasting Corporation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3147Second Sydney Airport: Site Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3147Nuclear Weapons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3147

Notices—Presentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3147

Committees—Selection of Bills Committee—Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3149

Notices—Postponement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3151

Minister for the Environment and Heritage—Suspension of Standing Orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3151Procedural Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3152Censure Motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3152

Committees—Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education

References Committee—Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3182Business—

Urgency Motion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3182Committees—

CONTENTS—continued

Procedure Committee—Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3183Documents—

Australia-India Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3185Adjournment—

Uranium Mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3186Aged Care: Nursing Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3186Indigenous Women: South Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3188Education: Equity in Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3189Sullivan, Hon. Kathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3189Keating, Mr Paul: Piggery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3191

Documents—Tabling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3193

Questions On Notice—Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Industry Advisory

Bodies—(Question No. 9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3194Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Value of Market

Research—(Question No. 234). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3213Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement: Proposed Railway

Line—(Question No. 406). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3215Chalkbrood and European Foulbrood Diseases: Detection—(Question

No. 412) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3216Tasmania: Quarantine Services—(Question No. 414). . . . . . . . . . . . 3217Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim—(Question No. 415). . . . . . . . . . . . 3218Tendering Requirements—(Question No. 494). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3219Purchasing Advisory and Complaints Service—(Question No. 495) . . 3219

SENATE 3069

Wednesday, 24 March 1999

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m.,and read prayers.

NUCLEAR WASTE: STORAGESenator MINCHIN (South Australia—

Minister for Industry, Science and Resources)(9.31 a.m.)—by leave—On 1 December lastyear Senator Lees asked me a question with-out notice regarding a proposal by Pangea Re-sources to store high level nuclear waste inAustralia. In answering that question I statedthat there had been ‘no ministerial leveldiscussions with that company’. At that timeI was acting on the advice of my office. Myoffice had consulted all senior ministers whothey assessed could potentially have had someinvolvement in this issue. They confirmed thatnone of those ministers had had any meetingwith Pangea.

However, my answer, as it transpires, wasincorrect as I have since ascertained that MrTuckey, the Minister for Forestry and Conser-vation, met with Pangea late last year. Myoffice was advised yesterday by the office ofMr Tuckey that he met with Mr James Vossof Pangea Resources on 5 November 1998.That meeting was at the instigation of Pangeaand occurred in Mr Tuckey’s electoral officein Perth.

Mr Tuckey of course has no role at all inthe process of approving the importation ofnuclear material into Australia. Mr Tuckeyhas confirmed that he made no representationsto any other minister or any department onthis issue. Mr Tuckey is the only minister tohave met with Pangea and no minister hasmet with Pangea since my answer to SenatorLees on 1 December last year.

In short, the fact that one minister, MrTuckey, met with Pangea at their request isnothing to change the government’s funda-mental position. We will not take any othercountry’s nuclear waste. Countries that re-ceive the benefits of nuclear power shouldexpect to make their own arrangementsindividually or cooperatively to dispose oftheir nuclear wastes. The government’s policy

has been clearly stated on many occasions,including a letter I forwarded to Pangea on 5March 1999, which I am happy to table. Iwould like to quote the last paragraph of thatletter in summary of the government’s posi-tion, which states:

Regardless of Pangea’s views as to the suitabilityof Australia to host an international nuclear wasterepository, the Government has no intention ofconsidering Pangea’s proposals for such a project.

Senator SCHACHT (South Australia)(9.33 a.m.)—by leave—I represent the shad-ow minister for resources, Mr Martyn Evans,in the Senate and I am obliged to respond tothe minister’s statement. It appears that theminister has informed the Senate as soon ashe found out. It appears that he was incorrectin telling the Senate some time ago that nominister had spoken to Pangea.

Mr Tuckey has now admitted that he had ameeting. It was downplayed by saying that itwas in his electorate office in Western Aus-tralia. However, he is Minister for Forestryand Conservation and that is not an inconse-quential ministry in terms of the issue ofhandling resources, the environment, et cetera,even though Mr Tuckey may not be one ofAustralia’s leading green advocates or envi-ronmental protectors. In fact, he is probablythe opposite.

It would not be unusual for a company likePangea to seek to have a meeting with theminister for conservation in the federalgovernment. When they went down the list of30 ministers, the minister for conservationwould be one, I would presume, whom anycompany lobbying to get a decision to havenuclear waste stored in Australia would go tosee.

What I find extraordinary in the governmentprocess is that the minister for conservationdecided it was not necessary for him toinform any of his other colleagues that he hadthis discussion or meeting or to seek the viewof the minister who was actually responsiblein policy terms—that is, the Minister forIndustry, Science and Resources, SenatorMinchin. I find it interesting to note, Minister,that you made no mention of whether MrTuckey informed his own department that hehad a meeting.

3070 SENATE Wednesday, 24 March 1999

Is there a record of what Mr Tuckey said atthe meeting with Pangea? Is there a noterecording that he said, ‘No, this is not ourpolicy’? Is there a note recording whether hesaid, ‘Maybe this is an interesting idea’? Isthere a note saying that he would take thismatter up with anybody? Or does the notesay, ‘I am just the minister for conservation.I am going to take this nowhere. Thanks forcoming to raise this with me. I am pleased tomeet you and we have had a nice cup of tea,but forget anything I ever said. This goesnowhere’?

I find it hard to believe that a personalitylike Mr Tuckey would sit there and say, ‘Ihave heard all of your representations to storehigh level nuclear waste in Australia and I amgoing to do nothing.’ That beggars belief,Senator Minchin. If it had been a personalityother than Mr Tuckey, your statement mighthave had some credibility—but not WilsonTuckey, who has a record in this parliamentand in politics for the Liberal Party. Forexample, he was the one who skited abouthaving deliberately lied to do over JohnHoward.

Senator Ian Macdonald—Ha, ha!

Senator SCHACHT—He said it on thepublic record, onFour Corners. He lied in1989 to do John Howard over as leader. Thisman is not an unknown player in politics. Sowhen he has a meeting with a company likethis on such a sensitive issue, you cannotwalk away from it.

I realise that Mr Tuckey is a bit of anunguided missile in some ways, and he mayhave deliberately or unwittingly misled you ordecided not to inform you of what he wasdoing. That has created a problem for you andyou have had to get up and apologise to theSenate that you unwittingly misled—

Senator Ferguson—He didn’t apologise; hejust corrected it.

Senator SCHACHT—He corrected it, andhe has done the right thing. But he is dealingwith a minister, a colleague, who has no ideaof parliamentary propriety or parliamentaryrules. It would not worry Wilson Tuckey if hemisled—

The PRESIDENT—Mr Wilson Tuckey,please.

Senator SCHACHT—It would not worryMr Tuckey at all if he misled half a dozencabinet ministers and his colleagues if hethought there was a political advantage or ifit was something that he was interested in. Sowe would like to know, Minister—you didnot say it in your statement, although I havenot had a chance to read your statementcarefully—what was the record of the meet-ing? Are you telling us that Mr Tuckey metthis company unaccompanied by anybody elseand took no notes of the meeting? I find thathard to believe. And if he did do that, he isclearly an incompetent minister on such asensitive issue.

Senator Carr—No officials with him.

Senator SCHACHT—No officials, noteven an electorate secretary. Did he make nonotes afterwards? Senator Minchin, have yousought from Mr Tuckey any details of themeeting and the nature of the discussion tocheck that he did not even stupidly or inad-vertently agree to give encouragement toPangea that they could look forward to furthersuccess in Australia? I think your statement,though it corrects the fact that you inadver-tently misled the Senate because of MrTuckey’s activities, exposes the fact that thisgovernment again in process are a bunch ofincompetents. Why would any minister, evena junior minister, proceed to have a meetingwithout telling anybody else? Even though hedid not tell you beforehand he was having ameeting, which I find extraordinary, he shouldhave sought your view, your advice, abouthow he should respond.

Secondly, even when he had the meeting,he did not tell you that there was a meetinguntil, apparently, only the last 24 or 36 hours.Again I find this extraordinary when he hadthe meeting not last week or two weeks ago,but—as I think you said in your own state-ment—on 5 November 1998 when he metwith the representative of Pangea. That is fourmonths ago. It has taken four months for hisoffice to let you know that he had a meeting.And even though you are already on therecord in the Senate as saying there has beenno meeting with any other ministers, this is

Wednesday, 24 March 1999 SENATE 3071

another example that the executive in thisgovernment are a bunch of incompetents.

I can understand it maybe slipping throughif it was a very minor issue. The Pangeaissue, which involves putting the world’shighly radioactive nuclear waste in thiscountry as a permanent deposit, is not a minorissue. It is a top ‘up in lights’ issue, and MrTuckey wandering around having thesemeetings and not telling the senior ministerwith the policy responsibility is an appallingindictment of the process. We hope, Minister,and I seek now that you will agree to provideus with information—

Senator Ian Macdonald—Address thePresident; you can’t talk to the minister.

Senator SCHACHT—Through you, Mad-am President, to the minister: we ask theminister to provide further information to theSenate about any details of notes taken at themeeting of the nature of that meeting, whatofficials were present, whether those notesthat they took were passed on to SenatorMinchin’s department and when they werepassed on. It is just too glib to say, ‘I wasinadvertently not told by a ministerial collea-gue’ on such an important issue. We thankthe minister for informing the Senate that heaccidentally or inadvertently because ofignorance misled the Senate, but what he hasdone is expose this government as beingincompetent.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (9.41 a.m.)—byleave—Firstly, I would like to thank theminister for letting us know at a time that Iunderstand and believe is as soon as he foundout about this meeting. But I do find it ratherextraordinary that someone of Mr Tuckey’sreputation as a very active politician couldhave a meeting that he told no-one about andbriefed no-one on. So perhaps, if we are notlooking at federal level, we should be lookingat state level, and I wonder what sort ofpressure will be coming from the stategovernment of Western Australia onto thefederal government.

When I look at the letter from SenatorMinchin—which I thank him for—it assuresus that it is not the government’s intention toaccept any waste whatsoever, and again I

thank him for that. But let us look a coupleof years down the track. Knowing the pres-sure that is coming from Britain, combinedwith pressure from state governments such asWestern Australia, I think we may then havea whole different ball game.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(9.42 a.m.)—by leave—Madam President, Ido not intend to hold the Senate too long. Inrelation to the meeting which took place, Iwould like to let honourable senators knowthat it is clear that some advice may havebeen given during that exchange. Whether ornot Mr Tuckey actually said, ‘Yes, you willget acceptance from this government’, is notclear. In fact, it is likely that the currentpolicies and some political sensitivities orsensibilities were passed on.

However, it seems the Pangea managementmay have taken heart from whatever meetingsthey had. We know, and it has been admittednow, that there was ministerial contact withthe Western Australian government. We nowknow for sure that there was ministerialcontact with this government, even though atthis stage it has only been admitted that therewas the one minister involved. We do knowthat there was some departmental contactfrom a federal level. That has been admittedas well.

However, on 1 March 1999 a statement wasissued by the management of Pangea inTucson to a conference of potential propo-nents of the project. The indication from thatconference on 1 March was that this is notdead in the water. In fact, it seems thatpreparations are going ahead to get the propo-nents ready. Maybe that was the advice—thatyou go ahead, make it seem like it is a goerin terms of its financial backing, get as manygovernments on board as you can, use inparticular the emotive issues of the problemswith nuclear waste in the former SovietUnion, and eventually, when that seems to bea very strong argument, the Australiangovernment might be able to say, ‘Well, wehave had representations from this govern-ment and that government, and these particu-lar proponents have their money on the line.’

It is quite clear that whatever advice wasgiven to them by Minister Tuckey has not


been such as to make Pangea believe that theAustralian option is dead in the water. It isnot as if Australia is one of the options whichPangea is looking at; as far as I can see,Australia is the main option.

My belief is that they are looking at whatthey consider to be the political stability inAustralia. From my reading of the situation,it seems that stability is related to whether ornot either of the two political parties believethat a minimally engineered solution is ac-ceptable for nuclear waste. That is what hasbeen put up by ANSTO. That is what hasbeen put up constantly in inquiries—thatsomehow or other there are departmentswithin the Australian government, and havebeen for years, who believe you can use theenvironment as a protection against nuclearwaste, that as long as you have got a remoteenough area with, on average, a dry enoughclimate, you can use the environment forhundreds of thousands of years to protectagainst nuclear waste and the leaching ofradioactive materials into the water system.

That, of course, is not the truth. It cannotwork that way. However, the very fact thatsuccessive Australian governments have beenwilling to listen to the argument that you canhave a minimally engineered remote site fora national waste dump may well be givingheart to the Pangea operatives, who them-selves are talking about a minimally engi-neered site within Australia.

Those are the issues. The question thatneeds to be asked is: what advice was givenby Minister Tuckey to Pangea? That is whatthe community and the parliament of Austral-ia deserve to know.

Senator Brown—I seek leave to make abrief statement.

The PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?

Senator Ian Macdonald—Could I seekleave to make a very short statement beforegiving leave to Senator Brown?

The PRESIDENT—Is leave granted for theminister to intervene?

Senator Schacht—Leave is not granted.

The PRESIDENT—Is leave granted forSenator Brown to contribute?

Senator Ian Macdonald—Leave is notgranted.

Senator Brown—Madam President, I seekleave of the Senate to move a motion to takenote of the minister’s statement.

The PRESIDENT—Is leave granted?

Senator Ian Macdonald—Again, I seekleave, before responding to Senator Brown’srequest, to make a short statement about theprocess that is being embarked upon.

Senator Schacht—He had the call.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Brown had thecall first.

Senator Ian Macdonald—Well, the answeris no.

The PRESIDENT—Leave is not granted.

Senator Brown—Madam President, I raisea point of order. I want to put on the recordwhat is happening here. I did not refuse leaveto the honourable senator to make a state-ment. However, he is refusing me leavebecause somebody else has refused him leave.It is a very unsatisfactory set of circumstanceswhen one senator is being denied an oppor-tunity to speak on an extremely importantmatter because of an across-the-chamberdisagreement in which I am not involved. Iwould ask again of the government that I begiven the opportunity to make a brief state-ment. There are heavy matters before usduring this period. On many occasions leavewill be sought to expedite those matters. Wecould very quickly find ourselves boggeddown in refusal of leave and complicatedprocesses which are quite unnecessary if thisprocess continues.

Senator Ian Macdonald—On the point oforder, Madam President: I do not react toSenator Brown’s threats. They never work. Inresponse to the point of order, what I wasseeking to say before giving Senator Brownleave was that Senator Minchin made a briefstatement, by leave, correcting an answer. Heagrees, and the government agrees, with theattitudes of all other parties here. There is nodebate about whether the material will beallowed in. There is no substantive debate;nobody disagrees. Senator Minchin simplycorrected a technicality. We allowed a repre-


sentative of the Australian Labor Party tospeak. We allowed a representative of theAustralian Democrats to speak. We alloweda representative of the Greens to speak. Withrespect, Madam President, the government’sview would be that that is a fair go on a verytechnical matter by Senator Minchin. BecauseI appreciate the relationship between SenatorBrown and Senator Margetts, we were goingto ask that it be kept to a minimum and thatthat then would be it. We were going to allowleave. Otherwise this is going to go on and onwith regard to a matter which is really atechnical correction by Senator Minchin of ananswer he gave. There is no dispute about thesubstantive matter.

Senator Schacht—Madam President, on thepoint of order: we gave leave to the ministerbecause he had informed the shadow ministerand others that he had to make a statement tocorrect an inadvertent, as he put it, error inhis answer. We accept that a minister, or anysenator, must be given the first opportunity tocorrect the record. However, when he madehis statement we in the opposition thoughtthere were a number of other issues which westill wanted clarified, such as whether therewas a record, et cetera.

Senator Ian Macdonald—There’s a timefor debate.

Senator Schacht—But we want to raisethese issues when the statement is made. Wehave the right to do that; so do other parties.Madam President, I did not give leave toSenator Macdonald to make a statementbecause you had already given the call toSenator Brown to seek leave. My view wouldbe that if, after Senator Brown had spoken,Senator Macdonald wanted to make a state-ment, he should be given leave. I do notbelieve that this is just a slight technicalmatter. Senator Minchin has done the correctthing, but the issues involved in this, and howMr Wilson Tuckey stumbled into this, if thatis the best motive you can put upon it, meanthat issues have been left undecided. We wantthem resolved and information provided. Webelieve that you cannot deny the fact, whetheryou agree or disagree, that both SenatorMargetts and Senator Brown have been verystrong protagonists on this issue in the com-

munity. We do not think it is unreasonable, inthe short time that is being taken, for him toseek leave to make a short statement. Wehave now wasted more time, Senator Macdon-ald, because of your intervention. SenatorBrown would have completed his remarks andwe would have got on with the business ofthe Senate.

The PRESIDENT—There is no point oforder. The situation is that I had called Sena-tor Brown and he was seeking leave to makea brief statement on this matter. Is leavegranted for Senator Brown to make a state-ment?

Senator Ian Macdonald—Yes.

Leave granted.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.52 a.m.)—I thank the Senate. The one issue that isglaringly awaiting a response is the PrimeMinister’s involvement in this matter. He hadrecently appointed Mr Wilson Tuckey as hisMinister for Forestry and Conservation—hisadviser on conservation. Along comes Pangea,a multinational corporation which wants tomake Australia the global nuclear wastedump, and meets the minister for conservationin his office in Perth. I cannot believe thatthis matter was not reported to the PrimeMinister. We know Mr Tuckey has had aseries of meetings with the Prime Ministersince then on other matters, including logging.I cannot believe that this matter was notraised with the Prime Minister by MinisterTuckey.

The air needs to be cleared. Both the PrimeMinister and Minister Tuckey need to comeclean with the public as to how extensive thereach of Pangea was through Mr Tuckey’soffice. Did it not go right through to thePrime Minister? What further arrangementshave been made to keep communicationsgoing with the minister for conservation inthis country? I am not going to trespass intocommenting on the qualifications of MrTuckey for that role. The fact is that he wasappointed by the Prime Minister not longbefore this meeting took place. I, for one, donot believe that he did not report this meetingto the Prime Minister and therefore the Senatehas been unwittingly, through you, Minister,


misled about the level of negotiations thattook place there.

As previous speakers have said, this is aninordinately important matter. If Mr Tuckeydid not report to the Prime Minister he hasbeen derelict in his duty—absolutely derelictin his duty. It is a matter which the PrimeMinister has to decide on. But can you imag-ine being Prime Minister of this country andyour minister for conservation meets Pangea,which is proposing that Australia become aglobal nuclear waste dump, and does notreport that matter to you? It calls for instantdismissal if that is the case. I believe that hehas reported to the Prime Minister. We knowthere have been consequent contacts betweenPangea and the government. The whole matterneeds a more thorough airing than it has hadin here today.

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (9.56a.m.)—by leave—I thank the Senate. Theminister has tabled an important statementhere today and I certainly appreciate himoutlining these facts to the Senate. It is a bigissue to the Australian people, as all senatorswould be aware, and it is a matter of ongoingconcern to the Democrats that clearly there isa serious attempt by significant organisationsto establish a nuclear waste repository inAustralia.

The government to date have indicated thatthey have not had any meetings with anysignificant groups about this proposal. Thisstatement indicates that that has not actuallybeen the case. I appreciate that SenatorMinchin, as minister, cannot have eyes in theback of his head and know exactly whateverybody else in his party and in theministry is doing on any particular day, butthe fact is that this meeting took place on 5November last year and advice was providedto Minister Minchin’s office only very recent-ly. That is a very long time for Mr Tuckey totake to get around to mentioning the fact thathe had met with some people who may wantto establish a nuclear waste dump in Austral-ia, particularly given that the minister is fromWestern Australia, one of the areas thatpotentially could be affected by that.

It may be the case that Mr Tuckey has norole at all in the process of approving the

importation of nuclear material into Australia,but it does make one wonder why, in thatcase, he would be willing to meet with peopleabout that. Perhaps spending his time meetingand talking with people on things completelyoutside his portfolio and area of responsibilityis a common activity Mr Tuckey engages in.I would have thought that that would be anissue of concern to the government; it iscertainly an issue of concern to the Democratsto have a minister of the Crown going aroundmeeting with people outside his area ofresponsibility and telling the appropriateminister about it three months later, particu-larly when the issue is of such significantimportance to Australia and the Australianpeople.

The Democrats, as we have repeatedly said,welcome the public statements that theminister has made in the past ruling out anuclear waste dump. At the same time itseems very curious that, if the government’sopposition is as categorical as some of thepublic statements would indicate, Pangea inparticular and the people who are putting a lotof money into Pangea would be continuing topursue the option over and above otheroptions around the rest of the globe. Theirown material has indicated that they havetargeted Australia as the most suitable placenot solely on geological grounds but becauseof the indications they have gained from highup officials in Australia that it is an optionworth pursuing. It now becomes a bit clearerwhy they feel that it is an option worthpursuing. It may be the case that Mr Tuckeydid not give an indication of support, but it ishard to believe that he would have given anindication of complete opposition along thelines that Minister Minchin has given. In thatcase, we are wondering whether there is onemessage being communicated publicly fromone part of the government and another beingcommunicated privately from another sectionof the government.

I am sure that the government would notsuggest that Minister Tuckey has no signifi-cance, no power, no authority, no real rel-evance and is just a curiosity that does notreally count. Some other people may wishthat that was the case, but I imagine that all


ministers are significant people in the machi-nery of government, and for any minister tomeet with an organisation about such aserious matter obviously indicates that it issomething that they give importance to. I amsure Minister Tuckey has a reasonably busyschedule and does not just meet with anybodywho rings up and asks to meet with him aboutanything. In that circumstance, surely thisgives a clear indication that at least at onelevel of the government, and at quite a seniorlevel, at the ministerial level, this is seen asimportant. There are indications, but howstrong those indications are is something thatis not clear from this statement. That has notbeen made clear by the government. Therehave obviously been indications of somestrength from Minister Tuckey that this is anissue that is worth Pangea’s while to continueto pursue.

Whilst the Democrats welcome this clarifi-cation from Minister Minchin, from our pointof view it raises further questions and furtherconcerns about just how real a possibilitydown the track such a nuclear waste dumpmay be, particularly when one links it withthe current government’s support for expand-ing Australia’s role in the production ofnuclear waste by selling more uranium topeople around the world. I restate the Demo-crats’ complete and total opposition, publiclyand privately, and at all levels, to the estab-lishment of a nuclear waste dump in Austral-ia.

As I said, we welcome this clarificationfrom the minister. In many ways, it highlightsthe even greater need to have complete andtotal openness from the government aboutexactly what was said, who was present andexactly what the message given to Pangeawas from government officials. The statementsays that no minister has met with Pangea—other than Minister Tuckey—but have therebeen other government officials, departmentalofficials or other people who, on behalf of thegovernment, have met with Pangea subse-quently and have given indications privatelythat may be at odds with the strong publicstatements of the minister? I think those factsalso need to be highlighted and made publicto ensure that all of us can be as confident as

we would like to be of the veracity ofMinister Minchin’s public statements aboutthe possibility of establishing a nuclear wasterepository in Australia.

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT(SLAVERY AND SEXUALSERVITUDE) BILL 1999

First ReadingMotion (by Senator Ian Macdonald, at the

request ofSenator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for

an act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 andfor related purposes.

Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald)agreed to:

That this bill may proceed without formalitiesand be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Second ReadingSenator IAN MACDONALD (Queens-

land—Minister for Regional Services, Terri-tories and Local Government) (10.03 a.m.)—Itable the explanatory memorandum and Imove:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second readingspeech incorporated inHansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal

Code Act 1995 to insert offences relating toslavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruitingfor sexual services. The importance of this bill isperhaps best demonstrated by the fact that itsprovisions will be inserted in Chapter 8 of theCode, which is the chapter that deals with crimesagainst humanity.

Slavery offencesAt present, the law in Australia on slavery and

the slave trade is governed by four 19th centuryimperial acts which employ archaic language andrelate to outdated circumstances and institutionsthat have either changed or long since fallen intodisuse.

In 1990 the Australian Law Reform Commissionreleased report No. 48 onCriminal AdmiraltyJurisdiction and Prize,in which it recommendedthat the 19th century imperial acts be replaced withmodern and concise Australian statutory offences.


Modern Australian slavery offences will ensurethat Australia’s international obligations are fulfil-led, and that the elements of the offences and thepenalties that apply are clear.

This initiative has the support of all Australianjurisdictions through the Standing Committee ofAttorneys-General, which has endorsed my proposalto enact modern slavery offences.

The slavery offences in the bill prohibit engagingin slave trading and possessing a slave or exercis-ing any other power of ownership over a slave. Thedefinitions of ‘slavery’ and ‘slave trading’, arebased on the definitions of corresponding terms inthe 1926International Convention to Suppress theSlave Trade and Slavery(and its 1953 Protocol)and the 1956Supplementary Convention on theAbolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institu-tions and Practices Similar to Slavery, the two keyinternational agreements on slavery and the slavetrade. However, the bill definitions will be expand-ed in two important respects.

First, the bill definition of ‘slavery’ has beenexpanded to make it clear that slavery can alsoarise from a debt or contract. It is not sufficient forthe debt or contract to be exploitative or oppressiveto qualify. Rather, it must be such as to place aperson in a condition whereby a power attaching toa right of ownership is exercised over her or him.

Secondly, in relation to the ‘slave trading’offence, the definition of that term will include‘. . . exercising control or direction over or provid-ing finance for’ the trade. This will ensure thatthose who lie at the heart of the trade—the organis-ers, managers and financiers—will be caught bythis offence.

It is important to make the point that, althoughthis bill contains separate offences to address theconduct I will refer to shortly as sexual servitude,the slavery offences may also apply if the controlover the sex worker is so far-reaching that iteffectively amounts to a right of ownership overher or him.

The maximum term of imprisonment for theslavery offences is 25 years. In view of the hein-ousness of the crime involved that penalty is morethen justified.

Since the new slavery offences will be replacingthe old imperial acts, the bill contains provisionsfor their repeal. However, as a precautionarymeasure, the bill also includes a provision whichdeclares that slavery will remain unlawful and itsabolition maintained after the imperial acts havebeen repealed.

Sexual servitude and deceptive recruitingoffences

In addition to the modern slavery offences, thebill includes a range of model offences to deter the

impact on Australia of a growing and highlylucrative international trade in people for thepurposes of sexual exploitation.

Essentially the trade involves recruiting personsfrom one country and relocating them to another towork as prostitutes in servile or slave-like condi-tions for little, if any, reward. Young women arethe primary target of this insidious trade but,tragically, children are also falling victim to it inincreasing numbers.

Over recent years the world has seen a disturbingincrease in this appalling activity. There are fewcountries today that are not in some way affectedby the trade and sadly the indications are thatAustralia is becoming an important destination forits victims.

Australia has obligations under a wide range ofinternational instruments to prohibit servitude andthe trafficking in persons for the purposes of sexualexploitation. These include theConvention on theElimination of all Forms of Discrimination AgainstWomen, 1979, theConvention on the Rights of theChild, 1989 and the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, 1948.

Intelligence from Australian and overseas sourcesconfirms that the problem is a significant one forAustralia. In August 1997, the AFP reported thatin the previous 18 months it had received informa-tion of 14 possible cases in this country. The NCAhas also reported that it is aware of eight possiblecases over the period from December 1992 toNovember 1996. Those cases involved 25 women,one of whom was allegedly a 13-year-old girlbrought to this country from Thailand to work asa prostitute to repay her father’s debt.

We must not wait for what is already a signifi-cant problem to become so firmly entrenched thatit proves to be impossible to rectify in the future.The stakes are too high. Australians are rightlyproud of their record on human rights and what isinvolved here are serious violations of fundamentalhuman rights.

Our intelligence is that the recruits come mainlyfrom South-East Asia. The poorer regions of theworld are fertile ground for potential victimsdesperate to escape poverty and unemployment.

In many cases recruits are aware that they willbe employed as sex workers but they are usuallyunaware of the conditions under which they will berequired to work. In other cases recruits are de-ceived into believing that they will be engaged inother work, only to be forced into prostitution whenthey arrive in Australia.

What do they find when they arrive in thiscountry? The reports I have received paint an uglypicture. For example, once in Australia recruits areoften placed under heavy security and their move-ments strictly controlled. Those that are fortunate


enough to live away from the brothel premisesfrequently find that they are driven by guards toand from work and are not free to go elsewhere.Others live and work almost entirely at the brothel.The recruits are rarely allowed time off work andhave little or no control over how many clients theyservice a day. Many are not free to reject a clientor to determine the conditions on which theyservice them. Unsafe sexual practices are regularlyimposed on them and as a consequence they liveunder the constant fear of contracting HIV andother sexually transmitted diseases. Their passportsand other travel documents are frequently takenfrom them and transgressions are often met withintimidation, violence and threats to harm them ortheir families or to report them to immigrationauthorities.

There are various pay arrangements between thesex workers and organisers but in most cases therecruits are placed under a debt to the sponsors,allegedly for the costs of airfares, arranging falsetravel documents and for ongoing expenses, suchas accommodation and board. The sex workers arefrequently required to fully repay the debt beforethey can retain their earnings. In many cases the re-cruits are not informed of this until they arrive inAustralia. As a precautionary measure the sexworker’s earnings are usually paid directly to thesponsor or parlour owner.

The debt is usually far in excess of the sponsor’sactual expenses and is often unilaterally increasedin response to some transgression on the part of thesex worker. In some cases sex workers havecomplained that their debt is in the region of$40,000 to $50,000 and in others that they wouldhave to service up to 500 clients before they coulddischarge their debt. In many cases recruits aredetected by the authorities and deported back homebefore they receive any payment for their services.

The AFP has reported that there are a number ofsyndicates and individuals in Australia engaged insex trafficking and many have been operating inthis country for many years. The organisers usesophisticated methods and appear to have links withinternational crime syndicates and major drugtraffickers.

Large untaxed profits are made by the organisersand large sums of money are transferred by themoverseas. Investigations show that the gross cashflow to organisers of the trade could be in theregion of $1 million per week, much of which istransferred overseas.

Although the problem in this country mainlyinvolves persons being trafficked to Australia, itsaddens me to have to say that our own citizens arenot immune from this insidious trade. Last year theAFP reported that it is aware of a number of caseswhere women have been recruited in Australia towork overseas as prostitutes under servile condi-

tions. Further, the evidence is that many of thosewere deceived into believing that they would beemployed as ‘hostesses’ only to be forced intoprostitution when they arrived at their destination.It would be intolerable if this legislation protectedpersons brought to this country but did not affordthe same protections to our own citizens. Accord-ingly the bill includes a provision that applies thesexual servitude and deceptive recruiting offencesto cases where persons are recruited from Australiato work as sex workers overseas.

My advice is that current Commonwealth, stateand territory laws have not proved effective todiscourage the growth of this activity in Australia.There are a number of reasons for this. First, sextrafficking to and from Australia is part of a largeand increasing international trade so that althoughexisting laws may address some aspects of thedomestic activity, they do not address the core ofthe problem—the international conduct. Secondly,the primary focus of relevant prostitution andmigration offences is on the persons subjected totrafficking, such as the illegal immigrants or thesex workers, and not on the traffickers. Thirdly,although existing state and territory laws, such asassault and false imprisonment, may apply to theoffenders directly involved, the organisers andrecruiters are less vulnerable to prosecution becausetheir involvement is remote from the exploitativeprostitution.

If we are to discourage this activity in Australiawe need offences that are specific to the problemand address both the international and domesticaspects of the trade. Most importantly, we needoffences that target the traffickers that recruit,organise and profit from those engaged in sex workin slave like conditions.

In December 1997 I asked the Standing Commit-tee of Attorneys-General to consider a legislativeresponse to the problem of sexual servitude inAustralia. It referred the issue to it’s subcommittee,the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee. Thatcommittee released a discussion paper in April lastyear that broadly endorsed a strategy to enact apackage of Commonwealth, state and territoryoffences directed at the whole trade and not justaspects of it. A nationwide consultation processfollowed and over 50 submissions were receivedfrom a wide range of sources, including the judi-ciary, law enforcement agencies, sex workerorganisations, child welfare, Aboriginal, religiousand women’s groups and concerned citizens. I amgratified to say that a large majority of the submis-sions supported the proposed legislative package.

The final report was submitted to the StandingCommittee of Attorneys-General in late 1998,which I released in January of this year. The sexualservitude and deceptive recruiting offences in thisbill are based on the model offences recommended


in the final report, and are the Commonwealth’spart of the proposed package of uniform Common-wealth, state and territory offences which deal withthe problem.

The bill will create offences of:-

1) causing a person to enter into or remain insexual servitude;

2) conducting a business that involves thesexual servitude of another person; and

3) inducing a person to become a sex workerby deceiving her or him about the fact thatthe work will involve providing sexualservices.

However, the bill restricts the application ofthese offences to cases where an internationalelement is involved. For example, where a personrecruits someone outside Australia for sexualservitude inside Australia or conversely, where theperson recruits someone inside Australia for sexualservitude outside Australia. The offences areconfined in this way because corresponding stateand territory offences will operate where theconduct and sexual services take place whollywithin Australia.

The ‘causing’ offence in proposed subclause270.6(1) is aimed at both those who are directly orindirectly involved in bringing about a person’sentry into, or continued participation in, sexualservitude. The primary targets of this offence arethe recruiters and brothel operators involved. Butit would also catch those whose conduct contributesin a significant way towards a person entering orremaining in sexual servitude. However, the offenceis appropriately confined because the defendant hasto intend to cause, or be reckless as to causing, thesexual servitude. A person who inadvertentlycauses another’s sexual servitude cannot be crimi-nally liable.

The offence is also confined by the notion ofcausation itself. Although the concept of causationin the criminal law is complex, it is a notion whichis familiar to the courts. The connection must besufficiently strong to justify attributing criminalresponsibility to the conduct (Royall v the Queen(1991) 172 CLR 378).

The offence in proposed subclause 270.6(2) isperhaps the most important in the armoury becauseit targets the principals involved in the trade—theorganisers, managers and financiers. Any personwho conducts a business knowing, or reckless as towhether, it involves the sexual servitude of another,is caught by this offence. The term, ‘conducting abusiness’ is widely defined to include persons whotake part in the management of the business, orexercise control or direction over it or finance it.

The central element of the sexual servitudeoffences is, of course, the notion of ‘sexual

servitude’. That term is defined as the condition ofa person who provides sexual services and who,because of the use of force or threats, is not free to(a) cease providing sexual services; or (b) to leavethe place or area where she or he provides thesexual services.

There are a few points I would like to makeabout this definition. First, sexual servitude canonly apply where the services are provided in acommercial context. However, it is not limited toprostitution but can apply to sex work generally,such as pornography.

Secondly, sexual servitude can only arise if oneof the two matters I have mentioned has beenbrought about by the use of force or threats.

Further, whether a person is ‘not free’ in relationto those matters will be determined on the facts ofeach case and in the context of the mischief thelegislation is directed against. The fact that aperson may suffer a penalty under the terms of atypical employment contract would not of itselfamount to being ‘not free’. It is only if the force orthreats effectively deny the person her or hisfreedom to leave or to stop providing sexualservices that sexual servitude can be made out. Inborderline cases, where there is doubt aboutwhether a person was ‘not free’, it is expected thatthe matter would be resolved in favour of thedefendant.

The difference between slavery and sexualservitude in the bill is essentially one of degree. Toestablish slavery it must be shown that the accusedexercises a power of ownership over the victim.Sexual servitude falls short of ownership but thedomination over the victim is such as to effectivelydeny her or his freedom in fundamental respects.For the sexual servitude offences in the bill crimi-nal liability will only arise if the victim’s freedomis denied in respect of one of the two matters listedin the definition.

The next offence in the package of modelprovisions is the offence of deceptive recruiting forsexual services. That offence is aimed at those whorecruit sex workers by misleading them about thefact that they will be employed to provide sexualservices. For example, where a person tells apotential recruit that she will be employed as ahostess when in fact she is being recruited to workas a sex worker. The most important feature of thisoffence is that it does not include an element ofsexual servitude. In other words, it is not necessaryto show that the sexual services will be providedunder conditions of sexual servitude in order toestablish the offence.

The purpose of this offence is twofold. First, itis aimed at a particular kind of social evil which isakin to the harms we commonly penalise as fraud,though it does not fall within the fraud prohibitions.


Secondly, this method of recruiting is frequently aprelude to sexual servitude because often theultimate purpose of the recruiter is not only todeceive the victim into working in the sex industrybut also to force her or him to perform that workunder conditions of sexual servitude. Seen in thislight the provision is an important adjunct to thesexual servitude offences.

I must add that I believe that this provision isespecially important for the protection of the youngbecause they are often the most vulnerable to thedeceit and hollow promises of the perpetrators ofthis heartless kind of fraud.

The penalties for the sexual servitude anddeceptive recruiting offences are extremely severeand are a measure of the seriousness with whichthe government regards these abuses of our funda-mental human rights. This government is firmlycommitted to the protection of children, particularlywith regard to sexual exploitation and sexual abuseand this is reflected by the aggravated offenceprovisions that have been included in the bill.Those provisions allow the court to impose a higherpenalty for those offences if the victim is under theage of 18 years. Therefore, for the sexual servitudeoffences, the maximum term of imprisonment acourt can impose is 15 years unless the victim isunder 18, in which case the maximum term increas-es to 19 years imprisonment. Similarly, for thedeceptive recruiting offence the maximum term ofimprisonment is seven years unless the victim isunder 18, in which case the maximum term in-creases to nine years imprisonment.

I would like to make some final points about thebill. The slavery, sexual servitude and deceptiverecruiting offences can be committed by non-nationals as well as Australian citizens and resi-dents. In the case of the slavery offences they canbe committed by both nationals and non-nationals,whether they act wholly inside or outside Australiaor partly inside and partly outside Australia. Forsexual servitude and deceptive recruiting theoffences may be committed by both nationals andnon-nationals who act wholly outside Australia orpartly outside and partly inside Australia. Thoseoffences will also apply to nationals or non-nation-als who act wholly inside Australia if the sexualservices are provided or to be provided outsideAustralia.

The international nature of the trade in personsand the inherently evil nature of that trade satisfyme that the offences should have this application.

However, to ensure that Australia’s internationalrelations are not adversely affected in cases whereextraterritorial jurisdiction is invoked, the billcontains a standard provision that the Attorney-General’s written consent must be obtained beforea non-national can be prosecuted for a slavery,sexual servitude or deceptive recruiting offence, if

the relevant criminal conduct occurs wholly orpartly outside Australia.

The bill also includes a double jeopardy provi-sion which provides that a person cannot beprosecuted for a slavery, sexual servitude ordeceptive recruiting offences in respect of conductfor which he or she has already been convicted oracquitted in another country for offences against thelaw of that country.

Finally, since the offences in the bill are allindictable, the provisions of the Proceeds of CrimeAct 1987 will apply. That act allows a court toorder the confiscation and forfeiture of propertyused in, or in connection with, the commission ofa relevant offence as well as any profits derivedtherefrom.

As I have said, this bill is part of a package ofCommonwealth, state and territory legislationdirected at both the international and domesticaspects of the trade, with the main focus on thosewho recruit, organise and profit from this insidioustrade. By enacting this legislation we will besending a firm message to the organisers andrecruiters that Australia will not be a destination fortheir trade. We will also encourage the rest of theworld to do the same. Australia can be justly proudif it shows leadership to other countries affected bythis inhumane trade.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Ordered that further consideration of thesecond reading of this bill be adjourned tillthe first day of sitting in the winter sittings1999, in accordance with standing order 111.

A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FRINGEBENEFITS REPORTING) BILL 1998

A NEW TAX SYSTEM (MEDICARELEVY SURCHARGE—FRINGE

BENEFITS) BILL 1998

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 23 March, on motion

by Senator Ian Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(10.03 a.m.)—We are debating the A NewTax System (Fringe Benefits Reporting) Bill1998 and the A New Tax System (MedicareLevy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 1998.These two bills are the first of the over 17bills that we expect to get with the ANTSpackage. Like Labor, we have agreed thatthese can be brought on early because of theircontent and because of their early starting


date and in many senses they can be isolatedfrom the rest of the ANTS package. AsSenator Lees has indicated, we will supportthese bills being dealt with early, and we willsupport them overall, but with amendments.

On the question of amendments, I want tomake some remarks about the government’samendments before us, some 15 of them. Thegovernment have described these as technicalamendments and many may be so properlydescribed, but the fact is that they are amend-ments. I think that draws attention, again, tothe process the Senate has undertaken withthe ANTS package. The government’s ap-proach consistently has been that they have amandate, that those bills have been passedafter 20 hours of debate in the House ofRepresentatives, and that those bills should bepassed by the Senate without delay. TheSenate’s response has been that the complexi-ty and the nature of these bills requires properreview. That review explicitly means thatthere will be amendments as a consequence.

In Western democracies the very best gov-ernments do in fact put out bills in advancefor consultation. That is a sign of a maturegovernment. Indeed, the previous governmentand this government have at times done that.Amongst examples are the bills to rewrite thetax act in plain English and to review thecorporate law. Recently, the republic billshave been put out for consultation and com-ment. That, frankly, is the mature way inwhich to deal with complex legislation. Whatthe government has done by adopting thestance it has on these bills is to paint itself asimmature. It is absolutely impossible for agovernment composed chiefly of lawyerswithout much business experience, and for aTreasury without much business experience,to get every aspect of those bills right, evenfrom the government’s perspective.

There are always unintended and unforeseenconsequences arising from complex legislationsuch as this, and I will predict that even onthe government side there will be a deluge ofamendments attached to the remaining bills tobe considered later in this half-year term. Ithink we need a lot more statements aboutconsultation and flexibility and a lot fewerabout mandates and the bills being perfect,

because they cannot be perfect, not fromanybody’s perspective. The early sycophancywhich business has expressed over these billsis starting to give way to the reality of acritical assessment and a request foramendments to meet practical and unforeseendifficulties arising from the bills as presentedto us. That is as it should be.

I would urge the government to start toadopt a different kind of language, a moreflexible and more mature language, in dealingwith the remainder of the bills that come upbecause every time you present a sheet of 15amendments—or the deluge that I anticipatewill come later on—people are going to pointat you and say, ‘Look, you said this wasperfect. You said this should be passedimmediately. You said that these bills werebest practice and best assessed as they wereoriginally,’ and that cannot ever be so.Members of the government as well as non-government members have to recognise thatthe consequence of Senate review will be infact to improve the bills and to make themmore practical and better to operate in theworld that taxpayers have to deal with.

These two bills attack salary packagingusing fringe benefits to avoid means testswithin the tax and social security systems.The Democrats welcome that. As SenatorLees has pointed out, this has becomenecessary because of the use of salarypackaging, particularly by high incomeearners, to try to avoid the high incomeearners superannuation tax surcharge. If everthere was an exercise that resulted inunnecessary pain, it was the introduction ofthat particular act in such a way as to avoidthe matter being originally referred to as a‘tax’, which as a result has inflicted millionsof dollars of expense on the funds who havehad to manage it. When that consequence isassessed, it becomes rather hollow for thegovernment to claim that other amendmentsthat the Senate might seek to make to billscould cost the community money, because thegovernment does not hesitate to cost thecommunity money when there is a politicalissue at hand.

I want to talk briefly about superannuationand salary packaging before returning to


fringe benefits generally and specifically inrelation to these bills. The inclusion ofsuperannuation benefits on group certificateshas long been a policy sought by the Demo-crats. Once superannuation is included ongroup certificates, not only will people whoreceive those group certificates be able tovalue more the benefit of the superannuationthey receive—and consider it as part of theiroverall package—but we can then startaddressing the serious anomalies in the taxtreatment of superannuation. The anomaliesarise because of the flat 15 per cent tax onemployer contributions. That, like all flattaxes, gives a larger benefit to high incomeearners than to low income earners.

For someone on the top marginal tax ratesthe super tax provides a 33 cents in the dollartax break. For someone on the lowest taxrates it provides a tax break of just six centsin the dollar. As a result, a study by theDemocrats in 1994 found that a third of the$3.9 billion of tax concessions flowed throughto the top 10 per cent of taxpayers while thebottom 20 per cent of taxpayers received lessthan 10 per cent of the concessions. Then thesuperannuation high income earners tax sur-charge was introduced, putting an extra 15 percent on super contributions above $85,000.That was a blunt, partial attack on the prob-lem but at least it was some movement awayfrom a flat tax on super towards a moreprogressive tax rate.

But the government, to use a colloquialism,stuffed it up. Instead of accepting theunanimous recommendations from the ACTU,the ASFA—which is a superannuation body—and most employer groups, all calling for thesurcharge to be imposed on individuals byincluding superannuation on group certifi-cates, the government imposed it on thefunds. That meant that the funds have had tospend tens of millions of dollars in admin-istration costs and compliance costs trying toget tax file numbers off members to tell thetax office which individuals need to pay thesurcharge, then the ATO checks their incomeand tells the particular fund in turn how muchto collect. It has been an administrativenightmare and a huge and unnecessary costimpost on funds. That has pushed grumpy

high income earners into salary packaging toavoid it, hence the need for this bill.

A far fairer way of dealing with the tax-ation of superannuation contributions, in oursubmission, would be to include contributionson group certificates and then tax employeesat their marginal rate less the same flat rebate.That would ensure the same rebate for highor low income earners and provide a degreeof progressivity for superannuation while stillproviding a healthy rebate as an incentive toput superannuation away. If the governmentis to be congratulated, firstly, on balancingthe books and, secondly, on attempting totackle much needed tax reform, the third bow,if you like, in Treasury policy should surelybe to advance national savings. I would hopethat superannuation and the issues attached toit will get increasing attention from govern-ment.

I particularly support the inclusion ofsuperannuation in the definition of assessableincome for the determination of the highincome earners tax surcharge. When we aretalking about taxation of superannuation, whyinclude fringe benefits but exclude superannu-ation from the determination of income?Targeting fringe benefits but not superannua-tion is switching on a different traffic light forsalary packages after maximum tax advantage.This government, quite properly, has askedthe Ralph committee to attend to principles oftaxation to try to establish some common andconsistent ways in which we should addressthese issues. Here is an issue on which wethink the government is making the rightdecision: put fringe benefits where it belongs,on a group certificate, as part of the overallsalary package. Why not superannuation aswell? It is a major part of tax packaging.

I hope that the Senate, in moving to closethe loophole on fringe benefits in respect ofthe superannuation surcharge, also does so forsuperannuation. In our amendments which areto be circulated later today we have chosennot to include superannuation in the meanstest for HECS repayments. We have excludedHECS repayments because the HECSrepayment schedule starts at such an appallinglow level that any further impost would be to


add to the gross unfairness of the repaymentschedule.

The changes to the HECS repaymentschedule, also discussed by Senator Lees,provide a nice symmetry, an additionalimprovement to the bill. The bill should beabsolutely about increasing the taxes paid byhigh income earners. That should be used toreduce taxes on the low paid. The issue ofacute community anger about substantialnumbers of Australians paying far too muchtax and substantial numbers of Australianspaying far too little tax is palpable. There isa common belief, an instinct, that those whoare able to structure their affairs throughcompanies and trusts and those who earn highgross income are getting away with payingtoo little tax; in other words, they are notpaying their fair share.

The HECS repayment—the tax on gradua-tes, the tax on education—is a regressiveimpost which sees a large proportion of youngworkers under 25, on less than averageweekly earnings, with average tax rates wellabove those of multimillionaires. Why is thatsensible? Why is that something we should bedoing? To us, it seems a profoundly wrongand misdirected policy. It is an issue we willrevisit later in this tax debate and, I am sure,in the tax debates to come. For the moment,of the 1999-2000 income year, we proposeinterim relief to at least take out of the tax netthose who are regarded by the tax and socialsecurity systems as low income earners.

I said I would return to fringe benefits tax.One further fringe benefits tax change whichI think needs to be addressed, if we are to putsalary packaging to bed as a tax avoidancemeasure, is the removal of the concessionaltreatment of company cars. In 1996-97 the taxoffice estimated that this concession cost over$740 million. Why are we subsidising privatecar usage to the tune of $740 million?

The Ralph business review has alsoacknowledged this as an issue that should beaddressed, but I do not think the business taxreview is necessarily the place for it to bedealt with, although it is quite proper for themto examine it as part of overall businessinterest. The FBT on cars is a salary packa-ging issue, a fringe benefit, and should be

dealt with as part of the income tax reforms.It should not be offered up to pay for otherbusiness tax benefits. It should be dealt withto clean up and make more principled the wayin which we deal with the income that indi-viduals receive, whether in salary, in fringebenefits or in superannuation.

Abolishing the concession, according to thetax office, would give us over $740 million.That could be used to address other thingsthat the government has quite properly tar-geted in ANTS such as poverty traps, such asthe 70 per cent taper on unemployment bene-fits. That would in turn provide a big benefitto business by increasing the supply of labourand taking the pressure off wages because thereal income of low paid workers would go upwithout an impost on the companiesconcerned. It would provide benefits to lowincome earners by allowing them to keepmore of their income and it would add to theprogressiveness of the tax system by reducingthe tax concession on company cars that tendsto accrue more to high income earners than tolow income earners.

Another issue that has to be attended to inthis matter of the taxation levels forindividuals and how salary is to be addressedis the issue that the ACTU properly raised—itshould be on the agenda for all of us—that is,bracket creep and the need for the thresholdlevel to be at least parallel to the indexationthat presently applies, so that you do not keepraising the taxation of individuals whileholding the absolute threshold level down.That bracket creep issue, if addressed by thegovernment, would do a great deal for theirreputation among ordinary income earners.

The other issue I raise briefly concerns thelevel of taxation. The government, Ralph andbusiness cannot even begin to start discussinglowering tax rates, for instance to 30 per cent,until the community at large is satisfied thattrusts, companies and high wealth individualsare paying their fair share: the communitywon’t have a bar of it. I am sure the Senatewill not have a bar of it either. We must payattention to those issues before we can moveto a climate in which we can talk about anoverall reduction of top rates. I also believe,


as Senator Lees mentioned, that we have topay attention to a minimal tax rate.

The effective tax rates of some majorcompanies in this country are in singlefigures. They do not pay anywhere near a 36per cent rate on their overall taxable profits.In this exercise that the government hasrightly commenced, I say to the government:clean up the income tax area first and satisfythe community that you are doing the rightthing by them in terms of fairness and equity.Then, as a community, they will be willing tolook at the other issues that business isclamouring for.

Senator HOGG (Queensland) (10.24a.m.)—I thank Senator Margetts for allowingme to speak before her in the speaking order.The two bills before the Senate are part of awide-ranging package being introduced by thegovernment. They stand out as being ratherironic in themselves because the thrust of thepackage that the government will introduce isto shift the tax burden from the rich to thepoor. Yet before us are two bills which seekto address anomalies—that is, to make thosepeople who are now seeking to avoid thepayment of tax pay their due taxation. Thetwo bills, whilst a minor step to rake in someadditional taxation and to catch those peoplewho have been able to salary sacrifice andsalary repackage to avoid the payment oftaxation, will now be caught by the changesto the fringe benefits laws.

The two bills before us raise a question ofequity. Equity is very important. Those peoplewith the greatest capacity to pay should paythe most taxation. Having listened to many ofthe speakers that have participated in thisdebate so far, one would not be wrong informing the view that the people who havebenefited previously have been the high salaryearners who have been able to repackage theirremuneration arrangements. There is aregulation impact statement summarised in theBills Digest. I quote from item 1.164 becauseit sums up what has been happening:

Employees who are currently subject togovernment surcharges, income-related obligationsor who qualify for certain rebates, may have anincreased liability as a result of this measure. Someemployees may be subject to governmentsurcharges and/or income-related obligations for the

first time as a result of this measure, for example,where employees were avoiding such obligationsby receiving remuneration in the form of fringebenefits rather than salary.

The Bills Digestgoes on to say:Salary sacrifice arrangements with a view to taxminimisation will be less attractive in consequenceof the proposed changes which are considered inthe following paragraphs.

In that sense, the two bills before us arewelcomed. Obviously they will overcome aloophole that has been absolutely gaping andthrough which many have driven, to their ownadvantage, their salary repackaging. This is agood move indeed but, when one looks at itas part of the overall package, one must havea quite cynical view that we are seeing theshift of the tax burden from the rich to thepoor in a whole raft of bills. Yet thelegislation before us, in some minimal way,seeks to redress the problems that have beencreated by the salary sacrificing that has takenplace in recent years. This has been broughtabout in particular by the superannuationsurcharge, or tax—as my colleagues havebeen at pains to explore.

The opportunity for salary sacrificing hasnot been made available, nor was available,to low income earners. It has not beenavailable to those who may well be on somefixed income. To see people rejigging theirsalary packages to avoid their proper share oftaxation breeds nothing more than contemptand envy. This measure, in some small way,will go to removing the cynicism that existsin the public at large. People will now becaught by the provisions of the two billsbefore the parliament. Some small measure oftax justice will be achieved because thosewho have availed themselves of salarysacrificing and salary repackaging will nolonger see that as being an attractiveproposition.

Of course, the legislation does not addressthe issues of trusts and those who are able tohide in the corporate sector. Nonetheless, itdoes begin going down the path of addressingsome injustice. It is rather unfortunate thatthis is part of a raft of bills the thrust ofwhich will be to shift the burden of taxationfrom the rich to the poor. For those peoplewho may have had a dim view of the


practices of those high income learners, thehighest salary earners, to avoid the paymentof taxation, the measures in both these billsare undoubtedly welcomed. I commend thebills to the Senate.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(10.30 a.m.)—This series of bills is aimed atminimising tax avoidance opportunities. Inpart, it responds to the widespread concernsamongst the community. PAYE taxpayers feelthat they are the only ones paying their fairshare of tax in Australia. I should add thatPAYE taxpayers who cannot necessarilyafford expensive tax accountants and lawyersperhaps pay more than others. They feel as ifthey do not have the ability to work the taxsystem, negotiate the most effective salarypackage and minimise their income tax asmuch as high income tax earners are able todo. The average worker does not have themoney to pay the financial consultants,accountants and lawyers to devise elaborateschemes to evade the Australian TaxationOffice or work out elaborate salary packageswith their employer. The average taxpayercannot take advantage of the many taxeffective products that are flagrantly andaggressively marketed.

This feeling that the benefits in our societyare bestowed on a privileged few is borne outby recent studies that show the gap betweenrich and poor. The gap continues to extend.That is emphasised in a recent press releaseby ACOSS providing tax figures which showa divided Australia. This was released asrecently as 17 March. The press release saidthat the figures lend weight to data that showsinequality is on the rise in Australia with thetop 20 per cent of households receiving 50per cent of private income and the bottom 20per cent receiving only five per cent. I thinkthe issue for many people is that they also seethat some of the industries which get the mostbenefits from the taxpayers’ dollar—I knowthis is the case in Western Australia—areoften the ones that pay the least royalties taxand so on. People can see this. They do nothave the figures in front of them all the time,but they can see that it is happening.

These bills take a small step towardsaddressing concerns relating to tax avoidance

at the big end of town. They mandate thatemployers must include the grossed up valueof taxable fringe benefits totalling over $1,000on group certificates. Previously, employerswere only required to calculate fringe benefitstax on the combined amount of fringe benefitsfor all employees. These fringe benefits willnot be subject to personal taxation; they willbe included as income when calculatingliability for the super surcharge, the Medicarelevy surcharge, HECS repayments, childsupport and a raft of means tested socialsecurity entitlements such as family allowanceand child-care assistance—and rightly so, inthe opinion of the Greens (WA).

The Greens are highly supportive of thereportable fringe benefits scheme as it willcertainly help to improve the integrity of thetax system and the social security system.Certainly it is the view of tax experts that thisnew system will have the desired effect ofminimising the rorts that can be obtained viasalary packaging. It addresses the use ofsalary packaging to avoid super surcharge andlevies and to assess rebates to whichemployees would not otherwise be entitled onthe basis of their total remuneration. The maingroup of individuals affected by this measureare those on salaries between $50,000 and$75,000 who have a company car or otherpopular type of fringe benefit. While they areon the top tax rate and may pay the Medicarelevy surcharge, they avoid the super surchargethat is phased in when the adjusted taxableincome is $75,856 with a maximum 15 percent surcharge kicking in above $92,111.

For employers, this measure will un-doubtedly increase compliance costs. Therewill be many things that require monitoringthat are not currently monitored by employers.While some things will be relatively easy totrack, some other elements such as the privateuse of pool cars, sales staff vehicles,employee use of corporate boxes at sportingevents and office Christmas parties may beharder to monitor to allocate the value of thefringe benefit. Employees will also haveincreased compliance costs as they will haveto ensure that employers have correctlyreported their fringe benefits.


The Australian Taxation Office compliancecosts will also be on the up as they will haveto match reportable fringe benefits and groupcertificates issued by employers with thefringe benefits tax returns of employers.Forms and computer programs will needalteration and training will have to be pro-vided. In addition, it is likely that there willbe a number of appeals against assessmentsof various surcharges and levies by employ-ees. The government has indicated that, in thefuture, the reportable fringe benefits amountswill be used in determining a person’sentitlement to government benefits, so therewill also be a spill-over effect on theadministration of the Department of Familyand Community Services.

As with all policy measures, it is necessaryto weigh up the costs and benefits. While theincreased compliance costs are clearly notinsignificant, the Greens believe this negativeis largely offset by a number of factors. First,there are monetary gains in the reduction ofrevenue leakage and, secondly, a reduction intax minimisation opportunities will increaseconfidence in the integrity of the tax systemas a whole as the tax system will be viewedas more fair and equitable.

The Greens are, however, concerned aboutthe limited consultation that has been under-taken on this measure. Significant concernshave been expressed by representatives of theaccounting profession, industry bodies, charit-able institutions and the taxation profession.Primarily, these concerns relate to the shortamount of time for employers to implementthe new system by the commencement date of30 April 1999—that is, this financial year.Indeed, a number of lobby groups have urgedthe government to delay the FBT changesproposed in the two connected bills untilApril 2000. Although employers will have torecord fringe benefits information from Aprilthis year, of course, they will not have toactually report fringe benefits on groupcertificates until April 2000. It seems that thecommonsense approach would be that thenext financial year would be a much moresensible approach for the start-up. Thecompliance costs issue was also raised and itis noted that these concerns have been

addressed in part by excluding car parkingbenefits and benefits that constitute mealentertainment from this measure.

One of the major concerns that the Greenshave with this bill is that those institutionsand employers that are currently FBT exemptwill be required to report fringe benefits ongroup certificates. This includes publicbenevolent institutions such as charities.Around 23,000 public benevolent institutionsand live-in residential care workers areexempt from FBT at present—and that comesfrom section 57A or section 58 of the FringeBenefits Tax Assessment Act 1986. This is asignificant number.

The major concern that the Greens have iscompliance costs for these organisations andindividuals. These organisations will have aproportionately higher increase in compliancecosts than small, medium or large businesses.This is because previously PBIs have not hadto report at all and thus would not have hada complex reporting system in place tocomply with FBT liabilities. While theywould have records for their own internalmanagement structure, it would be unnec-essary to go into immense detail. In addition,FBT liable employers are required to keeprecords for five years and explain all trans-actions and other acts engaged in by the em-ployer or any other person which are relevantto ascertaining the employer’s liability underthis act.

Whilst it is acknowledged that there havebeen some problems in the community sectorin relation to salary packaging, in the mainsalary packaging is used by PBIs to give thema competitive advantage in the labour marketand to allow them to offer their employeessome semblance of reasonable salary,enabling them to attract a high standard ofemployees. Here we have the irony. Thebroader issue is the increase in compliancecosts for the community sector that isassociated with the rest of the ANTS package.There was overwhelming evidence throughoutthe GST committee process on the impact ofthe GST on compliance costs for thecommunity sector. This is one of theproblems about putting this in a piecemealfashion rather than debating it all at once. We


have raised similar concerns in the past inrelation to the Ralph committee.

Many in the community sector will be taxcollectors for the government under theirANTS package. Many will have to set up arange of systems where they will have to dealwith complex definitions of what amounts toa charitable activity and what does not. Thereare the same arguments that the governmentand many food and grocery retailers are usingto say that food should not be GST free. Whyare we listening to it in relation to somesectors—and that is fair enough—but not toothers? The grocers say that any use ofdefinitions makes the compliance costsskyrocket. Yet we know that there will be awhole range of definitions in what is GSTfree and what is not for charitable institutionsand other nonprofit organisations. This is ahuge concern for many of these institutionsand one that the government should takeseriously. Why do they close their ears to thecommunity and open them only to businesson these issues?

What concerns me is that the governmenthave targeted the community and not-for-profit sectors, environment groups and so onas able to bear these costs. It seems it is avery effective way of making life difficult forthe community sector. We know that on anumber of occasions there have been changesto legislation which effectively say, ‘Govern-ment—bad, community—bad and private—good.’ This is the kind of Orwellian mantrathat the government seem to be operating on:somehow or other the community sector is notas good as the private sector. They seem tothink, ‘If we can just penalise the communitysector enough, we will give that nice privatesector the advantages they need in order to dowhat they do most effectively, that is, makemoney and profit.’ There is something wrongin that logic and I think many people in thecommunity have worked it out.

What are the priorities of this government?The taxation changes are very indicative ofwhere their priorities lie. The government arevery concerned about compliance costs forsmall business—for instance, the car parkingissue that we just dealt with in Taxation LawsAmendment Bill No. 2 and setting up the

Small Business Deregulation Tax Force. Thisis certainly a legitimate concern and, indeed,the Greens (WA) have been highly concernedabout small business and the compliance costsassociated with small business, especiallyconsidering that small business is one of thestrongest drivers of employment in Australiatoday. Often, when large corporations getbenefits in terms of competitive advantage ontrade issues, it is the Greens who have beenstanding up for small business and theimpacts on it.

The point is that the government areexceptionally sympathetic to the concerns ofbusiness, and especially large business. Theyhave used the red tape argument with force onnumerous occasions in relation to decreasingcorporate governance provisions; for instance,with the Managed Investments Bill there wasless transparency and fewer checks andbalances for investors—the mums and dads ofAustralia.

When the community sector wants to usethe red tape argument, the government do notblink an eyelid. Extra compliance costs put anexceptional burden on this sector, which isoften based on voluntary assistance. Thissector is often the least equipped to deal withcompliance costs. As I said, it is partly staffedby volunteers, it is scrimping for money andtime, and it has lost a significant amount ofgovernment funding over the last term of thecoalition. It is also a sector which often hasto collect the problems the government havecreated. When the government create socialproblems, the community sector is left, often,to pick up the pieces.

Similarly, we have seen the complexity ofadministration in relation to social security asthe government have attempted to crack downon welfare cheats. In addition, we see theMinister for Industry, Science and Resources,Senator Minchin, publicly going in to bat forthe resources industry, when they have got awhiff that their accelerated depreciationprovision may be in jeopardy. But what dowe see from the minister, or from the Ministerfor the Environment and Heritage or from theMinister for Health and Aged Care? Hello,are you there? Are these people also incabinet fighting for the people they are meant


to be representing and for the issues andvalues they are meant to be representing?

The Greens welcome the government’s in-itiative to counter tax avoidance. This billattempts to tackle the salary packaging aspectthat has been exploited in the past; however,we have a major concern about the govern-ment’s general apathy in tackling some of thebiggest issues in tax avoidance in Australia.

The issues in relation to the free tradeagenda are some of the biggest we have facedin our history. One of the biggest challengesthat faces Australia and the world is theability of transnational companies, theircontractors and their skilled employees tomassively avoid tax. This is done by exploit-ing differences between national tax regimesand by using tax havens to hide their truefinancial position from the tax office. Elec-tronic funds transfer is facilitating this mas-sive leak from national tax revenues else-where. A government with a real commitmentto cracking down on tax avoidance will betalking about the tough decisions that need tobe taken to curb this kind of revenue leakage.

Let us look at the free trade agenda linkage.The government are trumpeting the fact thatAustralia is leading the world in bringingdown tariff and non-tariff barriers. They haveunilaterally reduced these rates, often to thedetriment of many Australian industries andcommunities, and yet they shy away frombeing international leaders in progressivepolicy areas such as the Tobin tax, otherinternational regulations of capital flows orstrong stances on human rights, on the basisthat Australia is just a middle power.

For the benefit of those who do not know,a Tobin tax is looking at a tax on internation-al speculative transactions—things like cur-rency transactions that are happening on animmense scale. Even our own banks admitthat they are doing much more business onthe international market than they are doingon the domestic market. But what is theactual tax benefit that is coming to the count-ries whose citizens are involved in thesetransactions? Very little. The reason is thatthey are not controlled by any tax regime.Australia should be in there leading on thisissue.

The government is exceptionally reticent todeal with these issues; indeed, the governmentis actively interested in making it easier fortransnationals to enter Australia and receiveconcessional treatment. Of course, Australiawas there with the rest of the countries will-ing to sign the Multilateral Agreement onInvestment, where corporations have beenthwarted, just for the moment, in their race tothe bottom. But the MAI moves forums andthey are still negotiating in other forums forsome sort of ‘in-principle’ decision for count-ries to sign up voluntarily.

We do support the principle of the bill, butwe will be particularly watching thegovernment’s treatment of the communitysector in the upcoming tax debate. It is simplynot good enough that you single out a sectorof the Australian economy, such an importantsector of the Australian community—that is,the not-for-profit sector, the communitysector—that holds together many of theaspects of the community that are beingsingularly attacked by this government. It issimply not good enough for the governmentto use tax to attack these sectors and that it isnot listening to their legitimate concerns interms of compliance costs.

Senator KEMP (Victoria—AssistantTreasurer) (10.47 a.m.)—I would like to thankall the participants in the debate on these newtax measures. These are important bills and itis appropriate that the debate be taken seri-ously, and that has happened. As highlightedin this debate, these bills are the first of thebills of the government’s tax reform packageto be brought before this chamber.

The fringe benefits tax provisions are beingamended to make the system fairer for alltaxpayers. From the 1999-2000 income year,group certificates will show the full value offringe benefits received when taxable valueexceeds $1,000. These benefits will be takeninto account when liability for surcharges andeligibility for assistance are being determined.

I would like to foreshadow that the amend-ments already circulated to honourable sena-tors will be moved by the government, andthese amendments will result in a significantreduction in compliance costs for employers.I would also like to foreshadow that the


government will not be supporting the amend-ments moved by the Democrats or the Greens.These amendments, we understand, focus onsuch issues as the superannuation surcharge,HECS, and compliance costs for charities.There should be, in our view, no concernabout these bills applying to the 1999-2000financial year. The policy underlying the billswas announced in the ANTS document inAugust last year. The legislation was intro-duced in December 1998, giving time forpreparation for the measures. The governmentalso moved to pass the bills prior to thecommencement of the FBT year to allowcertainty, and acknowledges the support of theSenate in allowing this to occur.

A number of issues were raised in thedebate, particularly by the speakers for theDemocrats and the Greens. These will bedebated at length during the committee stageof the bill. As I said, I thank all honourablesenators for their contribution.

Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read second time.Motion (by Senator Kemp) agreed to:That consideration of these bills in the Commit-

tee of the Whole be made an order of the day fora later hour of the day.

HEALTH LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1999

In CommitteeConsideration resumed from 23 March.The bill.The CHAIRMAN —The question is that

the bill stand as printed. Before I call anyspeakers, I would advise that there is a run-ning sheet for the amendments and, unlesssomebody wishes to speak in general terms,I will call Senator Evans for the opposition.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (10.51 a.m.)—I do want to speak ingeneral terms and perhaps allow those whoare participating in the debate to gather theirthoughts and their papers and perhaps evenenter the chamber. I think I can probably winthis debate at the moment, because I am notsure that Senator Kemp knows an awful lotabout it and, despite my own inadequacies, Imight just be able to sneak through on this

one! I did want to point out that, as I under-stand it, the running schedule that we havemay not include some amendments thatSenator Harradine had foreshadowed he mightmove, and so I am not sure of the status ofthose. It would be useful to clarify, whenSenator Harradine is available, whether thoseamendments are being proposed; and, if theycould be added to the running schedule in thecorrect place, that would certainly be helpful.I have just been handed an amended runningschedule, but it seems to be dated at an earliertime than the one I already had, so I am notsure if that is helpful.

The CHAIRMAN —I believe it is not yetup to date, Senator Evans, if you would liketo keep—

Senator CHRIS EVANS—I just noted thatthe one that is being circulated is actuallyeven older than the one I have in my hand, soI did not know if that was going to be help-ful.

The CHAIRMAN —The one I am workingoff is today’s 9.28 a.m. one.

Senator CHRIS EVANS—I had a 9.47a.m. version already. I am not sure whetherthey are different, but I will check that in aminute. As I say, there is the issue of whetherSenator Harradine is proposing amendments;if so, they obviously need to be included inthe running sheet, as a preliminary matter.

The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine’samendments have arrived and have just beencirculated.

Senator CHRIS EVANS—Right. I have acopy now of Senator Harradine’s amend-ments, but obviously we need to look atwhere they fit in on the running sheet. Theother thing I was going to suggest, MadamChair, is that the debate would be facilitatedby the Democrats’ first amendment, regardingthe issue of the removal of the minister’spower to approve premium increases, beingmoved first. As I understand it, theDemocrats’ position is, if you like, the strong-er critique of the government’s position, andI think the debate would be enhanced if infact the Democrat amendment were movedfirst and the Labor Party amendment movedsubsequently.


If the Democrat amendment is carried, thenthe Labor Party amendment will lapse. It isour intention to vote for the Democrat amend-ment and so, for the purposes of an orderlydebate, we ought to actually deal with theDemocrat amendment first. As I say, if thatis carried, then one or two of the Laboramendments actually become redundant, andit would allow us to have one debate ratherthan three or four debates that way. So Iwould suggest to the chair that, rather thanhave me move the first opposition amend-ment, the Democrat amendment regarding theregime for ministerial approval of premiumsshould be moved first, and that we should usethat as the vehicle for the debate on that issueand then move to the votes. That way, wewould not have to have the debate more thanonce.

The CHAIRMAN —Senator Evans, for myedification can you advise me which Demo-crat amendment you are referring to when yousay that it should be moved first?

Senator CHRIS EVANS—It is the one toclause 2, and it is about halfway down thefirst page.

The CHAIRMAN —No. 3, is it?

Senator CHRIS EVANS—It is the fourthamendment on the running sheet, clause 2,Democrats 1 and 2, sheet 1286. I think that isthe relevant amendment. Someone shouldcorrect me, if that is not right.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.56a.m.)—The suggestion that has been made bySenator Evans is eminently sensible. Theamendments that I am proposing have in factbeen sent to all parties, and they are actuallyon the desks at the present moment. Why theyare not on the running sheet, I do not know,but I believe that that is being attended toright now.

The CHAIRMAN —They had only justarrived in the chamber, and were only circu-lated just prior to your arrival in the chamber.

Senator HARRADINE—Yes, but theywere sent prior to that to the representativesof the various parties who are going to speakin this debate. I reiterate that the proposal putby Senator Evans, if satisfactory to SenatorLees, would be a desirable way to go.

The CHAIRMAN —Senator Lees, have youbeen following this, and are you ready tospeak?

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (10.57 a.m.)—Infact, what I should be doing is actuallymoving my last amendment, amendment No.5, because amendments Nos 1 and 2 aresubject to that passing, and they fall if it doesnot pass.

The CHAIRMAN —We are in the hands ofthe committee. What do you wish to do,Senator Lees?

Senator LEES—Perhaps I could help thecommittee by moving my amendment No. 5,which would basically mean that the ministerwill remain responsible for any increases inpremiums.

The CHAIRMAN —You are moving thatschedule 3, page 19, line 2 to page 23, line 29be opposed. The question is that schedule 3stand as printed. Are you going to speak tothat, Senator Lees?

Senator LEES—I did cover it in myspeech, but I will go over it very briefly. Withthe amount of public funds—some $1.6billion per year—going into private healthinsurance, either the current minister orwhoever it may be in the future cannot walkaway from having direct input into the actualcost of private health insurance. I do not thinkit can be handed over, either in part or in full,to the industry itself. The debate would becompletely different if we did not have sucha large amount of public money now goinginto this insurance product. It is an insuranceindustry that does need to be closely moni-tored and, in particular, the very price sensi-tive nature of its policies is the minister’sresponsibility.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (10.59 a.m.)—I wish to indicate, on behalfof the Labor opposition, that we will besupporting this amendment. We have graveconcerns about the government’s proposal thatministerial approval of health insurancepremium increases be deregulated. We havea series of amendments which seek to protectthe public interest on the issue of premiumincreases proposed, but we think that the


Democrats proposal is stronger and better. Ifthat can find support in the Senate chamber,then we are happy to see that occur.

If that did not occur, then we would seek tomove our amendments, which at least try toprovide some control over the government’sderegulation and find a middle ground. Butthe principal issue, which is outlined in theDemocrats amendment, is the one that wesupport—that the minister continue to havethe ability to approve or not approve increasesin private health insurance premiums.

One can argue about how successful thishas been over time. I think it is fair to saythat it may not have been the most successfulmeasure in controlling the premiums and thedirection of policy adopted by private healthinsurance organisations. Senator Lees makesthe point quite rightly, and I tried to emphas-ise this in my speech during the secondreading debate, that we have just invested ahuge amount of public funds in this indus-try—$1.7 billion of Australian taxpayers’funds. We have effectively bought a 30 percent share of the private health insuranceindustry. We have taken a 30 per cent optionin private health insurance. This is not thetime for us to say, having made that massiveinvestment, that we want to remove theCommonwealth’s ability to monitor andeffectively control movements in prices andthe premiums charged.

It is ludicrous to suggest that, on the onehand, you want to make a massive investmentin an industry and, on the other hand, youwish to downgrade your effective influence onand control over that industry. It is vital atthis point that we resist the government’sattempt to walk away from political responsi-bility for premium increases in the privatehealth insurance industry. It may well be thatthere are better public policy options availablein terms of providing effective public influ-ence over what occurs in the pricing ofprivate health insurance, but clearly this is notthe time to be walking away from theCommonwealth’s involvement in this process.It is clearly not the time for us to be loosen-ing our influence on an industry in which wehave made such a massive investment.

The opposition will be supporting theDemocrats amendment. If that is defeated, wewould obviously seek to move our amend-ments, which are aimed at ensuring at leastsome effective government control in theshort term and resisting the push to fullderegulation, as proposed by the governmentin its third phase. At this time the Democratsproposition is a much better one and thatought to be supported by the Senate.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.03 a.m.)—There is no doubt whatsoeverthat the government have used what theybelieve to be the connection between the costof private health insurance and the availabilityof the public health system throughout thisinquiry. They said the reason that they wereputting so much public money into the 30 percent rebate was that this would have animmediate impact on reducing the pressureson the public health system. That was thereason that public money was going into thisrebate through the tax system. They said thatthey were robbing Peter to pay Paul becausethis was going to be good for the publichealth system.

It makes no sense, and the government isleft with no credibility whatsoever, if theythen remove themselves from any oversightof the costs of private health insurance afterhaving put so much public funding intoreducing the premiums—temporarily it wouldseem. It has been argued that there is nothingto stop increases in the future, which willerode all or almost all of the 30 per cent.Indeed we know that many people did not getthe full benefit of the 30 per cent.

We know that the government is usingpublic funding, so this issue is one of publicfunding. We have just put public funding intothis sector, so there is no way you can saythat this is just a private matter and that thisis just the private sector dealing with privateissues. It is not; it is dealing with an issuethat the government have said is intricatelylinked—whether they are to be believed ornot is up to judgment now—to the pressureson the public health system.

Many people have argued that this was atenuous connection, but the governmentargued this. If they are then saying that they


no longer need to look at what the cost ofprivate health insurance will be or that theyno longer need to have a direct influence overthat, that is a bizarre statement. Quite frankly,it would be totally irresponsible in terms ofaccountability if the government turned theirbacks so quickly on this sector. It is simplynot good enough. From the Greens (WA)point of view this is one of the most vitalissues in relation to this particular legislativepackage. We will certainly be supporting theDemocrats in removing this particular elementof the bill.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (11.05 a.m.)—Thelong-term view of the government is that theonly people who should decide the premiumsthat may be charged by a health fund are themanagers and board of directors of that fund.These people, as is the case with all businessactivities, would be either rewarded or chas-tened for their decision. Ultimately, healthfund members will decide whether the healthinsurance product is worth buying.

The government is acutely aware of theextremely difficult circumstances that healthfunds find themselves in at the moment. Inaddition, the government has not forgotten thebehaviour of the health funds after the intro-duction of the private health insurance incen-tive scheme. The 30 per cent private healthinsurance rebate is designed to assist in thestabilisation of health fund premiums insofaras increased membership levels take financialpressure off the funds.

However, until that premium stabilityarrives, the government will, either throughthe department or through the Private HealthInsurance Administrative Council, continue toclosely scrutinise the premium rule changesmade by health funds. Only at that time willthe health insurance industry be able toescape the premium rule change scrutiny. TheACCC will continue to have a role in ensur-ing that premium increases are appropriate.

The transfer of these functions to thePrivate Health Insurance AdministrativeCouncil will make its role more consistentwith other government regulatory prudentialorganisations and regulatory bodies in general

insurance. These changes in no way limit thegovernment’s primary responsibility as apolicy maker. Therefore we will not beagreeing with the amendment of the Demo-crats on this particular matter.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.08 a.m.)—The Australian Competition andConsumer Commission actually have theirhands tied in some respects in relation to theoversight of something like a health insurancebody. The reason they have their hands tiedis that they are dealing with the current TradePractices Act. The current Trade Practices Actis limited as to whether or not somethingillegal is being done in order to collude toincrease prices. This is very difficult to prove,as the minister may well know. In the issueof public interest it becomes an issue ofcompetitiveness. It is defined in its ownterms.

Saying that the ACCC now becomes ourprotection for the already large amounts ofpublic money that are being put into thissector is not good enough. I am really keennow to see what Senator Harradine’s responseis to this because it is a vital issue of ac-countability in relation to the spending ofvery, very large amounts of money on theprivate health sector. I am really keen to seewhere the Senate will be going on this issue.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.08a.m.)—Of course I am supporting SenatorLees’s amendments for the simple reason thatthose amendments will ensure that the govern-ment remains accountable for administrationof health insurance premiums. I think ac-countability of government in this area ofmajor public policy is essential. I reallycannot see the logic in the government’sschedule 3. It just does not work out, to myway of thinking, in any event. Too much, Ibelieve, is left to industries at the presentmoment. There is not enough governmentaccountability in many areas. I will be dealingwith some of those areas in other measures.I will certainly be supporting Senator Lees’samendment.

Question put:That schedule 3 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [11.14 a.m.]


(The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 1

——AYES

Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O’Chee, W. G. * Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.

NOESAllison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O’Brien, K. W. K. * Quirke, J. A.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

PAIRSCampbell, I. G. Faulkner, J. P.MacGibbon, D. J. Cook, P. F. S.Reid, M. E. Hutchins, S.

* denotes teller

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (11.18 a.m.)—byleave—I move amendments (1) and (2):

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 9), omit subclaus-es (3), (4) and (5).

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (line 10), omit "or (3)".

These amendments are consequential to themotion that has just been defeated.

Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRMAN —Senator Evans, do you

wish to proceed with amendment No. 1?Senator Chris Evans—Subject to advice,

I think my amendments Nos 1, 2 and 9 lapse,because they relate to the previous debate andSenator Lees’s motion was carried.

Senator Lees—I seek leave to moveamendments (3) and (4) together.

The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted?Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)

(11.19 a.m.)—I ask a point of clarification onDemocrats amendment No. 3. The Greens(WA) reading of the situation is that thesection of the bill which the amendment dealswith relates to removing waiting periods forpeople having health insurance. Amendment(3) reads:", provided that any action under this subsectionthat results in the extension of a waiting periodapplicable to a contributor or his or her dependentfor an ailment, illness or condition . . . is prescribedin accordance with subsection (3)".

The section relates to removing the waitingperiod, and the Democrats are asking that itnot impact on the waiting period. I am won-dering whether that is making as little senseto other people as it does to me. I am happyfor the matter to be clarified.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (11.20 a.m.)—Thatis why the two amendments need to be takentogether. Basically, we are saying that theminister must take into account the actualimpact of extending waiting periods onspecific groups of people. It cannot just bedone because a fund asks for it to be done.The minister has to look for some evidencethat relevant illnesses and conditions arebeing subjected to the ‘hit and run’ problems,which is the reason that the minister is sayingthat we need this in the first place.

We propose that amendment No. 3 beinserted at schedule 1, item 6, page 9 so thatthe regulations for the purpose of this subsec-tion in respect of an ailment, illness or condi-tion must not be made unless the minister hastaken into account the following matters—and


then you read through what has to be takeninto account. This means that a fund cannotsay, ‘Right, we want a waiting period on aparticular procedure because it’s a veryexpensive procedure.’ There actually must besome evidence that there really is a ‘hit andrun’ problem; that the funds are suffering; thatit is not reasonable.

We have also asked that the impact on thepublic health system be looked at so that thefunds cannot use waiting periods to pushpeople back into the public health system justbecause it is an expensive procedure. Theremust be genuine reasons for these waitingperiods to be put in place.

The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of thecommittee that leave be granted to moveamendments (3) and (4) together? There beingno objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments (bySenator Lees)—byleave—proposed:(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (line 11), at the

end of subsection (1), add ", provided that anyaction under this subsection that results in theextension of a waiting period applicable to acontributor or his or her dependent for anailment, illness or condition (including a pre-existing ailment) is prescribed in accordancewith subsection (3)".

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 14), atthe end of section 73BAA, add:

(3) Regulations for the purposes of subsection(1) in respect of an ailment, illness orcondition (including a pre-existing ailment)must not be made unless the Minister hastaken into account the following matters:

(a) evidence that the ailment, illness orcondition is associated with opportunisticmembership of health benefits funds; and

(b) the potential for an extended waitingperiod to discriminate against people withthe ailment, illness or condition; and

(c) the impact of an extended waiting periodon:

(i) the principle of community rating; and(ii) the public health system.

(d) such other matters as the Minister con-siders relevant.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (11.22 a.m.)—Generally the government agrees with these

particular amendments; however, we dobelieve that Democrat amendment (4) needsa further amendment to add a subclause (d) atthe end which would give the minister theability to take into account other matters thatare important in this issue. I therefore proposean amendment to add ‘(d) any other matterthe minister feels relevant’.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (11.23 a.m.)—Ithank Senator Tambling; that sounds reason-able. What sorts of other matters does heconsider could come under that section (d),apart from the ones that we have talkedabout—the impact on people with a specificdisability and the impact on the public hospi-tal system. We do not want the funds creatingwaiting periods that will force people backinto the public system for all the expensiveprocedures that they do not want to do. Whatother matters do you envisage coming inunder (d)?

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (11.24 a.m.)—It isintended to be a catch-all to pick up broadmatters and particularly any other unforeseenmatters that could arise. This is an importantarea that requires careful handling by thevarious parties. It is intended to allow theminister to appropriately address other rel-evant issues.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (11.24 a.m.)—Wehave picked up some of these concerns. Iunderstand that your office has been speakingto my office. There is a revised sheet—1286revised—and on the bottom of that we haveput on a (d) which reads:such other matters as the Minister considersrelevant.

The CHAIRMAN —We do not have thatsheet here. It is my understanding that it hasnot been circulated in the chamber. As Iunderstand it, you are moving amendments(3) and (4) and your amendment (4) actuallycontains a subclause (d).

Senator LEES—I will pass this to you andSenator Tambling now. It has apparentlycome out of discussions between our offices;I was just wanting some clarification.


The CHAIRMAN —My understanding isthat the amendment (4) which you havemoved contains that particular subclause,rendering Senator Tambling’s amendmentunnecessary. The question is that Democratamendments (3) and (4) be agreed to.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (11.26 a.m.)—I indicate on behalf of theopposition that we will be supporting theseamendments. It is sensible to allow thisregulation to be included. Senator Lees hasmade the case and I do not want to delay theSenate by expanding on that. Before we getto a final vote, though, I want to be clearwhat (d) says and what I am voting on. Iknow we should trust the ministers to takeinto account any other matter they feel like,but for the purposes of a Senate debate weneed to be clear on that. Generally we are insupport of the original Democrat amendments;I just want to be reassured about what we arevoting for in (d).

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (11.26 a.m.)—Thishas come out of discussions, but I was inter-ested to get some specific details recorded inHansardas to what may be in that ball parkout there. Obviously we are still going tocontinue with it if we do not get that, but Iwas wondering what the minister mightforesee in the future if there is a specific issuehe is concerned about.

Amendments agreed to.Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.27

a.m.)—In my speech in the second readingdebate I pointed out a matter of rather seriousconcern to a number of people and it relatesto a number of individuals, particularly theelderly and the chronically ill, who purchasehealth insurance as an assurance that theiraccess to essential care and treatment will notbe hampered. I want to be convinced that thelegislation does not place barriers to thisaccess, but I fear that it could indeed placebarriers to that access by not clarifying thenature and scope of cover in areas of pallia-tive care, rehabilitation and psychiatric care.

I ask Senator Tambling, the ParliamentarySecretary to the Minister for Health and AgedCare: what assurances are in place to ensurethat the self-employed, self-funded retirees

and the unemployed are not disadvantaged orcharged relatively higher premiums so thatother members can receive discounted pre-miums? That is not related to the amendmentI am about to move, but before we get to thatamendment I want to have that questionclarified. Schedule 1 does allow registeredorganisations—the health funds—to offerdiscounted premiums to contributors based onadministrative savings. I believe that thiscould apply in respect of a package, anarrangement made between a large conglom-erate or organisation and a health fund. If, forexample, a very large company was able tomake administrative savings the health fundcould make an arrangement with the companywhich provided for the subscriptions to beless.

I want to find out from the government howthis is likely to affect the self-funded retirees.I have been going through the length andbreadth of Australia on the ANTS packageand the taxation measures, and this wholequestion of self-funded retirees has raised itshead. The question of compensation for themunder that particular package has arisen, andit is disconcerting. I sometimes feel that self-funded retirees are becoming a forgotten race.My view is that that is totally unfair. Here isa group of people who have decided, for onereason or another, to retire before the normalage of retirement and they have taken actionto ensure that their circumstances are suchthat they will not be a burden on the taxpayer.Yet under that particular measure—I know itis just a passing thing—these people will notget any compensation, yet they are doing a lotfor employment in this country. One of theproblems of unemployment is that there aremore people seeking paid work than there arejobs available. Instead of giving a bonus forpeople to stay at work longer after 65, youought to be giving a bonus to the people whodecide to retire. Those are very often the self-funded retirees.

I want to know, in respect of these particu-lar people and the health of these people,what assurances are in place to ensure that theself-employed, self-funded retirees and indeedthe unemployed are not disadvantaged orcharged relatively higher premiums so that


other members of the fund can receive dis-counted premiums.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (11.33 a.m.)—Theissues raised by Senator Harradine’s amend-ments are important. His amendments seek toensure that older people and people withchronic illnesses are not restricted in theiraccess to private health insurance. It is alsoimportant in this context to note, from thesubmission of the Australian ConsumersAssociation to the Senate committee:

The consumer association supports the generalintent of the bill which will increase the flexibilityin what health funds can cover in their policies andallow loyalty bonuses based only on the length ofmembership, not number of claims, which reaffirmsthe government’s commitment to community rating.

This issue is very important because in thebill itself community rating is reinforced bythe bill. Community rating means that ahealth fund cannot discriminate against aperson on the basis of age, sex, sexuality,illness, frequency of service usage and thelevel of benefits paid. However, it is possibleto uphold community rating whilst also takingadvantage of the efficiencies offered by newtechnology.

Under this legislation, a health fund is onlyable to offer a discount where they candemonstrate that the discount has arisen fromthe management savings they have made. Theaim of the exercise is to encourage moreefficiently managed funds without harmingcommunity rating. Our legislation meets thatobjective. I do not believe that the Australianpublic views the offering of a modest discountas being a threat to community rating. Thepoint should also be made that groups otherthan employee groups can take advantage ofthe administrative savings. The examples thathave been given to me are the CWA, pension-er groups, Rotary or bowling clubs.

Senator Harradine’s amendments are appro-priate in policy terms. However, they do notdistinguish between people with pre-existingailments and those with conditions that ariseafter a person has joined a health fund.Current policy and intended future policy isthat people with pre-existing ailments are

required to wait for 12 months before benefitsare paid in respect of their pre-existing condi-tion. Consequently we would recommend thatthe amendment be supported with an addition-al amendment at the end of the proposedparagraph (ja), by inserting the words ‘exceptwhere the psychiatric care, palliative care orrehabilitation is in respect of a pre-existingailment, illness or condition, as defined inparagraph (kc)’.

I understand that those words have beendiscussed between government advisers andSenator Harradine’s office. They wouldaddress a number of these issues. The intentis to ensure that people with psychiatricconditions, palliative care requirements orrehabilitation requirements can obtain accessto private health insurance without putting atrisk the financial position of funds by requir-ing them to cover such people where psychi-atric care, palliative care or rehabilitationrequirements arise because of a person’s pre-existing ailment—that is, where a person joinsa health fund knowing that they need to haveimmediate access to psychiatric care, pallia-tive care or rehabilitation. I would hope thatthese comments address the concerns ofSenator Harradine. I propose to move thatamendment to Senator Harradine’s amend-ment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena-tor Calvert) —Senator Harradine has notmoved his amendment yet. If he feels like it,he may well do so.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.37 a.m.)—I have a query requiringclarification. When the minister says ‘a pre-existing ailment’—and in many cases it mightbe that it is an undiagnosed ailment that ispre-existing—can I have a clarificationwhether people will be penalised for havingan undiagnosed pre-existing mental ailment?

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (11.38 a.m.)—I amadvised that this is a matter that would needto be referred specifically to the definitionswith regard to the pre-existing ailment andthat it is covered and addressed in that regard.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.38a.m.)—I seek leave to formally move


amendments Nos 1 and 2 standing in myname. Amendment No. 1 is just a formalamendment.

Leave granted.The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Is that

in the form suggested by the parliamentarysecretary?

Senator HARRADINE—No, I am movingit as it is at the present moment and then Iwill go to that other matter. I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 21), after

"subparagraph (ka)(i)", insert "or paragraph(ja)".

(2) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 7), after item9, insert:

9A After paragraph (j) of Schedule 1Insert:(ja) where the rules of the organization

provide for a waiting period with respectto contributors for benefits in accordancewith an applicable benefits arrangementof the organization and the benefits are inrelation to psychiatric care, palliative careor rehabilitation, that waiting period willnot exceed 2 months.

In effect, I am suggesting that you insert anew paragraph (ja). As indicated in myspeech in the second reading debate, I amproposing those particular amendments toreally ensure that changes to the healthinsurance legislation do not alter the existingwaiting period for people seeking psychiatriccare, palliative care or rehabilitation.

I have mentioned on a number of occasionsthat health insurance for many elderly,chronically ill and vulnerable people ispurchased to assure them of timely access toessential care, and I do not want to see anygovernment amendments to the legislationthat will put in place barriers to that access.In its present form and as things presentlystand, there is potential for health funds tolimit access to palliative care, psychiatric careand rehabilitation. It is the responsibility ofthe parliament and indeed of the governmentto guarantee that the weakest in our com-munity are not disadvantaged any further.

I am moving those particular amendmentsin their current form. What the governmenthas proposed is an addendum which, I nowsee, says ‘except where the psychiatric care,

palliative care and rehabilitation is in respectof a pre-existing ailment, illness or conditionas defined in paragraph (kc)’. I too would liketo hear a further explanation by the ministerof that. It may well be that the governmentmay wish to move an amendment to myproposition.

I think that the government does have apoint in respect of other areas, but this says‘except where the psychiatric care, palliativecare and rehabilitation is in respect of a pre-existing ailment, illness or condition asdefined. . . ’. I suppose being in theparliament—in the Senate—for a huge num-ber of years might lead one to develop a con-dition which at a particular stage could mani-fest itself in a way that requires psychiatriccare. It does really come down to the pointthat Senator Margetts makes: what if thecondi t ion is not diagnosed pr ior tomembership of the fund? I would be happy tohear an elaboration of the definition which isin paragraph (kc).

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (11.43 a.m.)—It isimportant to look carefully at the amendmentthat I am proposing to Senator Harradine’samendment because the government amend-ment will maintain the status quo, which ismost important to preserve in this issue. Weare concerned that, whilst we support thetenor of Senator Harradine’s amendment, asit stands it could in fact militate against assis-ting the very people that Senator Harradine isaddressing.

When Senator Margetts raised the issue, Idid not have handy at the time the clause towhich I think we should be referring. Thegovernment’s foreshadowed amendment refersto paragraph (kc) of the act. Let me read thatparagraph. It says:For the purposes of paragraph (k), a pre-existingailment is an ailment, illness or condition the signsor symptoms of which, in the opinion of a medicalpractitioner appointed by the organisation, existedat any time during the 6 months preceding the dayon which the contributor began contributions to theorganisation for:

(i) benefits in accordance with the applicablebenefits arrangement referred to in that paragraph;or


(ii) if applicable, benefits in accordance with theprevious benefits arrangement referred to inparagraph (ka).

We could probably go around in a circle herebetween all these various subparagraphs. Iappreciate it is often a lawyer’s nightmare todo the tracking, but I think we are of thesame mind in seeking to assist the people towhom Senator Harradine has rightly drawnour attention who are in the situation ofrequiring psychiatric care, palliative care orrehabilitation. I believe we are trying tofinetune the amendment in such a way as toassist those particular people, yet, at the sametime, recognise that we ought not impose onthe health funds financial impositions thatcould almost, in effect, send them broke.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.46 a.m.)—I am not sure that theminister’s explanation has made me feel moreat ease. I am concerned that paragraph (kc)will require that individuals become their owndiagnosticians: if they have signs orsymptoms of an ailment, somehow or other,even before they know enough about it, theyare supposed to know that they have anailment which requires treatment. One of theissues that springs to mind is breast lumps. Inmany situations there are women who havebreast lumps due to a variety of causes. Forsome women over the age of 35 this canmean that they are aware of the fact that theyhave had a breast lump in the past or have aseries of breast lumps which are benign. If itcould be proven that a lump was obvious, orcould have been obvious in the past, and wasnot one of those other benign lumps whichthey had, what then becomes the use of thatdefinition?

The issue of mental illness is one that, inmany cases, may be obvious to other peoplebut is not necessarily obvious to the personwho requires treatment. Sometimes peopleneed to put a level of careful pressure on aperson to seek treatment. It may be obviousto a professional or to other people that aperson needs to seek help but it may not inany way be obvious or evident to the personwho is suffering from that mental illness orother kind of illness. I think we have aproblem in inserting paragraph (kc) because,in the end, it will put pressure on people

somehow or o ther to be the i r owndiagnosticians.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (WesternAustralia) (11.47 a.m.)—I indicate on behalfof the opposition that it was our intention tovote for Senator Harradine’s amendments. Itis stil l our intention to vote for hisamendments. I am yet to be convinced by thegovernment’s argument and that is because Iam not quite sure that I understand it. Weneed to be much clearer about what thegovernment thinks it is achieving by thisamendment.

I would have thought that SenatorHarradine’s amendments went to the questionof waiting periods and that what is intendedby that is quite clear. It seems the governmentamendment goes to the question of pre-existing conditions. I would have thought thecurrent rules relating to pre-existingconditions would continue to be applied andnot be affected by Senator Harradine’samendments. I may be completely wrong onthis, but I do not get the point of thegovernment’s amendment. I have concernsabout what it might mean. I suspect thegovernment is going to need to do a bit betterin explaining it if they hope to have it carried.Certainly, my current inclination is that I donot know what it means. I am not sure whatthe effect will be and on present indications,therefore, I would vote against it and press onwith Senator Harradine’s amendments. I thinkhe has made the case quite clearly for themand we are prepared to support them.

As I say, I am not ruling out supporting thegovernment amendment but I do remain to beconvinced what the argument actually is andwhy the current pre-existing conditions ruleswould not continue to apply. As for thehandwritten government amendment, I thinkit is going to require a clearer explanation forthe opposition to be able to support it.

S e n a t o r T A M B L I N G ( N o r t h e r nTerritory—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Health and Aged Care) (11.49a.m.)—It is very important to recognise thatwhat we are seeking to do is maintain thestatus quo in respect of these issues. The pre-existing ailment clause has been in the act fora long t ime and is important in i ts


contribution. Senator Harradine’s amend-ments, unamended by what we are proposing,would have the effect, I am advised, that theycould trigger a situation where they wouldoverride that status quo for the people affect-ed and could discriminate against them.Therefore, it would be important to have theamendment that we are proposing.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.50a.m.)—Psychiatric care, palliative care andrehabilitation are very poorly funded in thepublic sector and access is very poor. Theseare areas of great importance and continuingimportance to a lot of people. If we are goingto be regarded as a caring society, we need tomake sure that more resources are put intopsychiatric and palliative care and rehabilita-tion. I have considered the parliamentarysecretary’s statements and he is right that thiswill go beyond the status quo. Originally Iwas not of that intention, but I think: why notgo beyond the status quo in respect of thesematters so that we do not have the situationwhere, as indicated by Senator Margetts,something was not diagnosed? Clearly, insome of these areas, we do have problems inthat regard.

What I cannot understand is how the parlia-mentary secretary can say that some of thesepeople will be discriminated against by whatI am proposing. How is that? I certainlycannot see it, on the face of it, otherwise Iwould not have moved the amendments. Theamendments, I would have thought, werefairly clear. As indicated by Senator Evans, itdoes go to the question of waiting periods. Insome circumstances, the effect of the waitingperiods on sufferers requiring this type of careis quite dramatic. I ask the parliamentarysecretary directly what he meant when hesuggested to the chamber that my amend-ments, unamended by what the government isproposing, will in some way discriminateagainst or disadvantage the people we arehoping to advance by these amendments.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (11.54 a.m.)—Senator Harradine is focusing very clearly onthe group which he has identified as havingparticular and special needs. This also needs

to be considered in the context of othermembers of the funds and the effects theproposal would have on them, particularlywith regard to the consequential flow-on thatwould necessarily have to be borne by thefund generally as well as the particular mem-bers of the fund. The fact that increasedpremiums for insurance would be inevitable,and could be substantial, does need to tax ourattention very carefully. There is the debatebetween the issue of the pre-existing ailmentand how that affects the other members of thefund and their conditions and also the effectthat Senator Harradine’s amendments, unam-ended, would have on the economic impact ofall members of funds. It would have the effectof increasing premiums very substantially.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.55a.m.)—That says something, doesn’t it, aboutthe way we look at psychiatric care, palliativecare and rehabilitation. It is clear to me, andI think to everybody, that those areas of careare poorly funded. I must have misunderstoodthe parliamentary secretary. I thought he saidthat in some way these people would bediscriminated against. They will not be, otherthan what the parliamentary secretary saidabout the general effect of such an amend-ment on premiums.

I have heard these things bandied aboutover the years in a number of areas. They say,‘Oh, there’ll be discrimination; there’ll bedisadvantage,’ et cetera. We have just hearda broad statement by the parliamentary secre-tary that the amendment would require asubstantial increase in fees. Where are thefacts on that? Where are the facts on the careof people with psychiatric problems? Whereare the facts on the costs of palliative careand rehabilitation? Have those been con-sidered, as against the importance of attendingto these problems in a timely fashion? As Iindicated earlier, more and more people areneeding palliative care and rehabilitation and,unfortunately, more people are needingpsychiatric care.

I am quite deliberate in what I am propos-ing. I heard what Senator Evans said. Obvi-ously it is a matter which he will have toconsider further, as will the Democrats andSenator Margetts. Frankly, I can say that my


amendments go slightly beyond the statusquo, but I would not have moved the amend-ments had I not been concerned about thewording of the schedule, which seemed to meto give an opening to the funds. I do not thinkwe should give them a break on this.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (11.59 a.m.)—TheDemocrats will be supporting SenatorHarradine’s original amendments. I havetrouble with what the government is trying todo. We will be supporting Senator Harradine.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (11.59 a.m.)—Wehave taken note of the comments that havebeen raised and we have drawn on the com-ments that Senator Evans made in that regard.I have not formally moved or foreshadowedan amendment because of the way in whichSenator Harradine introduced his amendments.I would like to set to one side what I havepreviously foreshadowed. I believe we wouldbe able to have a better form of words if Iwere to add, by way of amendment to SenatorHarradine’s amendments, the words ‘subjectto the pre-existing ailment rule in paragraph(kc),’. I believe that is more specific andacceptable. It recognises that this importantmatter does impinge on the important oper-ations of the funds yet at the same timeachieves the objectives of the groups forwhich Senator Harradine is rightly seeking toget special assistance. I therefore move:

At the end of paragraph (ja), add "subject to thepre-existing ailment rule in paragraph (kc)".

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (Midday)—I do not think anything neces-sarily has occurred to change my position. Myinclination is still to support SenatorHarradine’s amendment. I think that if thereis a serious argument about an unintendedconsequence which the government wants tomake, then perhaps Senator Harradine mightagree to defer this to a later hour because weseem to be going around in circles withoutclarifying it. We would be concerned if therewas an unintended consequence, but at themoment, if it comes to a vote, I think I wouldjust vote for Senator Harradine’s amendment.

I am not convinced by the government, butI understand that this has been legitimatelyput by the government. I do not know whatSenator Harradine’s view is, but it might beeasier to adjourn this particular debate to alater hour and be clear what it is we arevoting on. In the absence of that, I would beinclined to stick with my original position. Ialways take the view in these cases that theparliament ought not act in ignorance and, ifthere is a legitimate case that we might becreating a unintended consequence, thenperhaps drawing back and thinking about thatmight be a worth while thing to do.

My instructions are, and my inclination is,just to support Senator Harradine’s amend-ment at the moment. But, in terms of efficientlegislation and proper functioning of theSenate, it might be useful to step back tomake sure we understand what we are doingon this particular clause, deal with the rest ofthe bill and either deal with that at the end orcome back later today or tomorrow to nut outthis particular issue. At this stage, if we arepressing on I will be voting for SenatorHarradine’s amendment. I am still not clearwhat the government’s case is.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (12.02 p.m.)—Iam surprised that the Labor Party has notresponded to that particular amendment thatI put forward which I thought would havebeen acceptable. It is important to note thatthe intent of the amendment is to preserve thestatus quo.

Senator Harradine’s amendment, as it iscurrently circulated in his name, will have theeffect of increasing premiums and healthcontributions in this area. I think it is import-ant to note that, if Senator Chris Evans,Senator Lees and Senator Harradine are of amind to proceed in that area, they will beforcing up health insurance premiums.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.03p.m.)—I would have thought Senator ChrisEvans’s suggestion was a responsible responseto the government’s amendment to myamendment. I do not know what our col-leagues around the chamber feel. My feeling,subject to what they might say, is to seek


leave to have the clause deferred until a laterhour of this day. But I would hope that thegovernment has got a bit more to say aboutthe matter than it has thus far. This threat ofhigher premiums et cetera can be pulled outof the hat at any time of the day just tofrighten people off. I think there has been toomuch of that in this whole insurance industrydebate. The insurance industry has a verysubstantial influence on health policy in thiscountry; one might tend to say that it has gottoo much of an influence on the health policyof this country. Depending on what the LaborParty, the Democrats and the Greens mightsay, I would be happy to suggest its deferral.But, as I say, the government will need tocome back with some solid figures.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena-tor Calvert) —Could you move that way,Senator Harradine?

Senator HARRADINE—I move:That further consideration of the amendments be

postponed.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (12.05 p.m.)—I indicate that I am inclinedto support Senator Harradine’s motion. Ibriefly was inclined not to press ahead afterSenator Tambling’s outburst. Those of ustrying to bring a conciliatory approach to thisissue to assist the government get out of thetangle it has got into feel that, if SenatorTambling wants to start issuing threats acrossthe chamber, then he is going to end up witha very messy bill. I think he ought to take alook at himself before he starts that sort ofbehaviour. We are trying to assist the govern-ment. We currently are dealing with twohandwritten notes from the government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena-tor Calvert) —This is a deferral motion.Therefore, there is no debate, Senator.

Senator CHRIS EVANS—Sorry.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Thequestion is that Senator Harradine’s motion todefer this matter be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Wewill now move to opposition amendments Nos3 and 4.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (12.06 p.m.)—by leave—I move opposi-tion amendments Nos 3 and 4:(3) Schedule 1, item 20, page 13 (line 9), omit

"The Minister", substitute "Subject to subsec-tion (4A), the Minister".

(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 13 (after line 10),after subsection (4), insert:

(4A) Guidelines made under subsection (4)must include a requirement for an ap-proved procedures facility to be subject toaccreditation and quality assurance pro-cedures that are at least equivalent to theminimum accreditation and quality assur-ance procedures that apply to a dayhospital facility or day procedure centreunder State or Territory laws.

Opposition amendments Nos 3 and 4 effec-tively seek to establish a regime for minimumstandards for office based surgery. A majorelement of this bill is to make provision foroffice based surgery and to provide for thefunding arrangements for those procedures.

These amendments seek to ensure that theproposed approved facilities are required tomeet at least the level of accreditation andquality assurance procedures that apply to daysurgeries under state or territory law. This isintended to avoid the prospect that approvedfacilities could operate in a substandardfashion or enjoy an unfair economic advan-tage over day surgeries through neglect ofstandards which potentially could impact onpatient safety.

The wording only requires that the ministerinclude in the proposed guidelines a provisionthat the minimum standards for accreditationand quality assurance are not reduced. We arein fact setting the benchmark. There is nolegal obligation on the minister if the statefails to enforce such standards, and it is noteven required that every state has writtenstandards in place, provided that the level ofcontrol over new approved facilities is notless than what applies to day surgeries. Thisensures the government’s favourite position ofa level playing field and also ensures that newfacilities do not enjoy an artificial commercialadvantage over existing hospitals and daysurgeries simply because they do not have toachieve the same levels of cleanliness andpeer group oversight. There are, I think, very


good reasons, from a point of view of bothcompetition and patient safety, why we oughtto have a benchmark for these approvedfacilities in terms of the quality to be main-tained in them.

I note that Senator Harradine also hasamendments in this regard, and I also notethat there is some suggestion on the runningsheet that our amendments conflict withSenator Harradine’s. I put the case that thereis nothing contradictory in the two approach-es. I think they go to the same concern. I amnot sure what Senator Harradine’s attitude isto our amendments, but essentially we havea view that we are going to vote for ours andfor his, because it seems to me that ouramendment seeks to set the minimum bench-mark, which is that the standards be the sameat the very least as those for the day sur-geries, and that is an important platform toerect under the new arrangements for ap-proved facilities.

As I understand Senator Harradine’s amend-ments, they go to the question of qualityprotocols. We talk about quality assuranceprocedures and he talks about quality proto-cols, and it is a perfectly appropriate thing.He talks about annual utilisation reviews to beconducted by the Commonwealth. Again, wehave no problem with that, although there isthe question about whether the Common-wealth intends moving into that sort of role.As I understand it, it is traditionally a sort ofinspection role done by the state system.

Anyway, I think our amendments andSenator Harradine’s go to the same issue ofensuring that we have a minimum qualityestablished, that public safety is ensured andthat existing day surgeries do not face unfaircompetition as a result of our not ensuringthat appropriate standards are met. So I wouldurge the Senate to support our amendments,but I just wanted to draw senators’ attentionto the fact that the note on the running sheetimplies they are contradictory with SenatorHarradine’s amendments. I am not sure thatthey are, but other people may have otherviews.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (12.11 p.m.)—Firstly, we will be supporting these amend-

ments. I think they are very important. I donot think anyone can argue against qualityassurance procedures, and I do agree withSenator Evans that Senator Harradine’samendments are not in conflict. In SenatorHarradine’s amendments, clause (4A)(a) talksabout the establishment of quality protocols.Senator Evans’s amendments say that theseprotocols should be in line with what iscurrently applicable for day hospital facilitiesor day procedure centres under state or terri-tory laws. So they are actually agreeing withSenator Harradine’s clause (4A)(a) and takingit a step further by giving some details.

I ask the minister: I know we are not ontoSenator Harradine’s amendments yet, but Ithink we should be looking at both sets ofamendments. With regard to annual utilisationreviews, is that a fairly simple process ofsimply looking at Medicare provider numbersas related to a particular facility? I understandthat is something quite simple and the depart-ment should not have any problem with it.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (12.12 p.m.)—Iappreciate the comments that Senator Evanshas made, drawing attention to the overlap inthe amendments proposed by the oppositionand those proposed by Senator Harradine. Thegovernment is more inclined to support theamendments from Senator Harradine, as webelieve that they more succinctly and cor-rectly address the issues. The implementationphase of this bill has always envisaged wideconsultation to ensure quality health andsafety outcomes.

The Department of Health and Aged Careis currently undertaking discussions with stateand territory governments on licensing issues,and the department has already had discus-sions with the Australian Day Surgery Coun-cil, who have agreed to assist the departmentin developing quality standards for approvedprocedures facilities. The government hasbeen talking to Senator Harradine’s office inthis regard, and we think that, to address theissues just raised by Senator Lees, it willprobably be more appropriate if we amendSenator Harradine’s proposed amendmentwith suggested additional wording. I will


propose at a later stage that we add a clause(4A) reading:

Guidelines made under subsection (4) mustinclude a requirement for an approved proceduresfacility to—

(a) comply with the relevant quality protocols;and

(b) provide annual utilisation data requested bythe Commonwealth.

If that addition to Senator Harradine’s amend-ments were agreeable to him, we wouldcertainly be inclined to support them.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.14p.m.)—I am getting a bit worried if thedepartment of health is agreeing with anamendment that I am putting. I was about torise after Senator Evans and indicate to himthat I actually feel that the wording of theLabor Party’s amendment is more direct andacceptable. As Senator Lees mentions, it isspecific; it points to state legislation. As suchI think it is far tighter than my amendment,which of course is trying to do pretty muchthe same thing.

Senator Lees—It still needs paragraph (b).

Senator HARRADINE—Yes, thank you,Senator Lees. I cannot but agree with whatSenator Lees says. We do need paragraph (b)of mine, because I really do not think theopposition’s amendment goes far enough tosatisfy proper scrutiny of the effect andbenefit of those changes. My amendmentseeks to do that. It requires that an annualutilisation review be conducted by theCommonwealth. As Senator Lees says, whenthat was drafted, it certainly did not appear tous to be overly onerous. It is an annualutilisation review. It means better transparen-cy. If it is acceptable to Senator Evans, I willdefer to his amendment, and suggest andrequest that he include my paragraph (b) inhis current amendment. It simply says:. . . annual utilisation reviews to be conducted bythe Commonwealth.

I do not know how he or Senator Lees orSenator Margetts feels about that.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (12.17 p.m.)—I indicate—as I indicatedearlier—that I have no difficulty with SenatorHarradine’s amendments. I think there was a

question of duplication and that having thetwo together might have left a bit of muddledthinking. So I think what he proposed isprobably a better total outcome. If that is thegeneral view in the Senate, we would bepleased to add to our amendment (4) thesentence about annual utilisation reviewsbeing conducted by the Commonwealth thatwas included in Senator Harradine’s amend-ments. That probably makes the most cohe-sive outcome of the joint intent, provided thatis acceptable to the chamber. I take yourguidance as to how we do that procedurally.I thank Senator Harradine for his contributionand take your guidance, Mr TemporaryChairman. If I need to do that by moving itas an amendment to my amendment, I will doso. I seek leave to include that sentence as anaddition to our amendment (4).

Leave granted.

Senator CHRIS EVANS—I thereforemove amendment (4), as amended:

(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 13 (after line 10),after subsection (4), insert:

(4A) Guidelines made under subsection (4)must include a requirement for an ap-proved procedures facility to be subject toaccreditation and quality assurance pro-cedures that:

(a) are at least equivalent to the minimumaccreditation and quality assurance pro-cedures that apply to a day hospitalfacility or day procedure centre underState or Territory laws; and

(b) include annual utilisation reviews to beconducted by the Commonwealth.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (12.19 p.m.)—There are a number of issues on this clausethat I think may need to be deferred andaddressed, because the matter could getfurther complicated by the particular issues ofwhere we are cutting and pasting here be-tween the various areas. For example, in theamendments proposed by the Labor Party,under (4A) there is the statement:

. . . to the minimum accreditation and qualityassurance procedures that apply to a day hospitalfacility or day procedure centre under State orTerritory laws.


There is, as we know, a considerable degreeof inconsistency at the moment between stateand territory laws. This could therefore furtherexacerbate the problem. We are keen to get aconsistency and a uniformity in this area thatI think the amendments being proposed in thisregard by the opposition will further compli-cate. Similarly, I know that Senator Evans justpicked up a suggested phrase from SenatorHarradine to add to the Labor Party’s pro-posed clause (4A). I would propose that thewords I had indicated earlier would be moreappropriately added to Senator Harradine’smore acceptable amendment to us, whichadded the words:Guidelines made under section (4) must include arequirement for an approved procedures facility to(a) comply with relevant quality protocols, and(b) provide annual utilisation data requested by theCommonwealth.

We would maintain that that would be moreappropriately added to the opposition amend-ment than the words picked up by taking andborrowing from Senator Harradine’s amend-ment.

I also pose the question to SenatorHarradine as to whether, subject to the out-come of the opposition amendments, hewould be intending to continue with theamendments he had previously placed beforeus or whether he is intending to withdrawthem. I think it is important to know.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (12.22 p.m.)—IsSenator Tambling suggesting that the accredi-tation and quality control procedures in somestates, in their day hospital facilities or theirday procedure facilities, are not adequate? Ifthat is the case, surely that is an issue that theminister should be actively dealing with at themoment. With due respect to SenatorHarradine—and I do not want to suggest, inany way, that when he drew up the amend-ment he even thought of it—if we just leavea general quality protocol out there, we couldend up with the lowest common denominator.

I think we have to have some faith in whatthe state and territories are doing and slot thisnew facility option in. If we then have ques-tions, we should take it very seriously, be-cause it would obviously mean that their day

surgery facilities are not up to standard andthat their procedure facilities generally needto be checked and, if necessary, standardisedacross the country.

I have major problems with us simplymoving an amendment here today that justtalks about quality protocols, with no abilityfor us to say what they are, whether they arethe lowest or indeed the best. I think it is toovague for us to let through this place.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena-tor Calvert) —Senator Lees, I think at thisstage we have the situation where SenatorHarradine thinks that the opposition’s amend-ments are better than his, but the governmentthinks that Senator Harradine’s are better thantheirs. Perhaps we should take a bit of oneand a bit of the other and mix it all up andmake it something else. I do not know wherewe are at the moment. We seem to have allof these different changes coming. Perhapsyou might be able to help us.

Senator LEES—I understood that we arenow debating Senator Evans’s compositeamendment. The composition is that SenatorEvans’s amendment is effectively part (a),which actually gives us some specifics as towhat this quality control is. Part (b) has beenlifted from Senator Harradine’s amendmentand that talks about the reviews conducted bythe Commonwealth. How the Commonwealthwants to conduct these, I do not know. It maybe that they are going to require some input;it may be that they attach a Medicare tag onthese procedures so that they can simply readit off their statistics. How the Commonwealthgets this information is surely over to them,but I think it is important that today we askthat those utilisation reviews be the responsi-bility of the Commonwealth.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(12.25 p.m.)—I rise to indicate that I supporthandling the issue in the way that has beensuggested by Senator Evans—that is, we dealwith an amended Labor amendment. I alsoindicate that I share the concerns that havebeen expressed that, with any of the statesthat have gone to the trouble of getting ahigher standard of day surgery, the people inthose states may be singled out for poorertreatment than they currently have, and that


they may be under pressure to accept poorerstandards than exist, if we go along withSenator Tambling’s rather odd suggestion thatsomehow we cannot suggest that the standardsthat exist in the states and territories are theones that ought to be complied with. What theminister has said makes no real sense in termsof patient care. I am prepared to accept theapproach taken by Senator Evans. I certainlyaccept the amendment, as amended by Sena-tor Harradine’s amendment.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.26p.m.)—It is clear to me, and I would think itis clear to the whole of the Senate, that theproposition that has been put forward bySenator Evans really improves the position.My amendment about the establishment ofquality protocols says:Guidelines made under subsection (4) must includea requirement for an approved procedures facilityto be subject to accreditation procedures thatinclude:

(a) the establishment of quality protocols;

Senator Evans’s proposal is:Guidelines made under subsection (4) must includea requirement for an approved procedures facilityto be subject to accreditation and quality assuranceprocedures that are at least equivalent to theminimum accreditation and quality assuranceprocedures that apply to a day hospital facility orday procedure centre under State or Territory laws.

That is clearly more specific. When we aremaking laws, as we are in this particular case,the clearer they are, and the more specificthey are, the better. On the second point, andI am pleased that Senator Evans picked thisup, we are talking about health insurance.One of the aspects and factors influencing theprice of health insurance is the degree ofutilisation in particular procedures.

I have had representations to my office, andno doubt other honourable senators have,from people who are concerned that theremay be a degree of overservicing and thatthere are a large number of unnecessary testsor procedures. Therefore, in my view, it isessential that the Commonwealth conductutilisation reviews to ensure that best practicemedicine, or better understood as evidencebased medicine, is conducted through healthinsurance. That is the reason for the amend-ment I suggested.

The parliamentary secretary, SenatorTambling, has suggested that there be certainguidelines under section 4. I am not sure ofthe sorts of guidelines that he has in mind.Would they be guidelines to qualify that theannual utilisation reviews be conducted by theCommonwealth? What are the guidelines thatwill be used? I would be interested to hearfrom Senator Tambling about this. Whenthese are clear and before us, they may bemore specific and better for the legislature toadopt.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (12.28 p.m.)—TheCommonwealth is keen to insist on, and toobtain, high consistent standards. At the sametime, we recognise the important role andfunction of the state and territory laws in thisregard, and what is correctly their prerogativein dealing with that area. In order to achievehigh consistent standards, with appropriateaccountability mechanisms, it would of coursebe one of the issues that would subsequentlybe addressed through regulation.

The debate here of course is one largely ofhow we achieve this. Senator Harradine didnot indicate whether, if we proceed withSenator Evans’s amendments, he would beforgoing his subsequent amendment or wheth-er we are going to revisit the debate.

Senator Harradine interjecting—Senator TAMBLING —Okay, I accept that.

I believe that it is an issue and accept thatthere will be a will of the Senate in thisregard.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (12.30 p.m.)—I do not wish to delay theSenate; I think it is important that we moveon. I wanted to reiterate the point madeeloquently by Senator Harradine that theopposition’s amendment refers to ‘at leastequivalent’ and is about the governmentdrawing up regulations. It seems to me thatthe government has the capacity to draw upthose regulations in a way that meets theintention clearly expressed by the Senate ifthis is carried. I do not see that there is aproblem. The guidelines will need to ensurethat those accreditation and quality assuranceprocedures are at least equivalent. The stand-


ards and the methods are left to the terms ofthe regulation, which will be drafted bygovernment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena-tor Reynolds)—The question is that amend-ment No. 4 as amended and amendment No.3 be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —We

now move to opposition amendment No. 5and opposition amendment No. 1, sheet 1280.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (12.31 p.m.)—I think we might take themseparately, Madam Temporary Chair. I wasnot aware that we were going to take themtogether. It was my intention just to moveLabor amendment No. 5 at this stage.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes,they can be taken separately.

Senator CHRIS EVANS—The substanceof the amendment to be moved by the opposi-tion seeks to omit a paragraph and substitutethe words:that it is a procedure that, before the commence-ment of this subsection, was performed exclusivelyin a hospital or day hospital and involved anepisode of hospital treatment.

The reason for doing that is to clarify that theprocedures that can be carried out in approvedfacilities are limited to ones relocated from ahospital or day surgery. I think the govern-ment was arguing that that was in fact thecase in their bill, but the opposition is con-cerned that the wording of the bill at presentwould allow procedures which are done in adoctor’s surgery to now be done in an ap-proved facility and to attract the facility’s fee,provided that the procedure could also bedone in a hospital. For a public patient, thiswould mean that they would get only 75 percent of the schedule fee rather than the 85 percent they would get now.

The transfer of procedures from a doctor’ssurgery to an approved facility would alsoincrease the total cost of providing health andwould cancel out the savings from relocatingprocedures from hospitals. This would there-fore wipe out the economic justification thegovernment has made for this bill, which isbased on procedures being carried out at the

venue that is most appropriate and that comesat the least cost to the government and to theconsumer of the service.

The government indicated to us earlier thatthis amendment was unnecessary and thatthey had some problems with the use of theword ‘exclusively’. I am not sure what thegovernment will be doing. Obviously we willhear from Senator Tambling. All I want toindicate is that the opposition is willing toparticipate in getting the best possible word-ing to achieve the intention of our amend-ment.

Clearly what we want to see ensured is thatthis is not a recipe for increasing costs eitherto the health system or to the patients, andthat these approved facilities provide alterna-tives to procedures that are carried out inhospitals or day surgeries now rather thanmove the other way. The argument is quiteclear. I am not sure that we are in any dis-agreement with the government about thepolicy outcome, so I would move our amend-ment with that argument and perhaps see whatother senators had to say.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (12.34 p.m.)—Thegovernment would not object to the substanceof this amendment. However, I would like tosuggest a modification to the amendment sothat it would read:(a) that this is a procedure that, before the com-mencement of this subsection, is usually (notexclusively) performed in a hospital or day hospitalfacility and involved an episode of hospital treat-ment; but

Technological advances are such that anumber of procedures that might still becarried out in hospital or day hospital facili-ties could, in the very near future, be safelyundertaken elsewhere. If Senator Chris Evanswas prepared to agree to those words, I couldindicate the government would support theamendment.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (12.35 p.m.)—Iunderstand what Senator Tambling is doingand I agree that technology is racing ahead,probably ahead of most of us, but my prob-lem is that we are reducing from 85 per cent


to 75 per cent the actual Medicare rebate thatpeople can claim back. That is no problem forthose people who are privately insured, butfor public patients it is going to be a verydifferent issue.

In the past public patients who went alongto a doctor’s surgery—perhaps they had somemajor package of stitching or something thatcould just as easily have been done in casual-ty but they did not go to casualty becausetheir local 24-hour clinic had all the facilitiesto do it there—would get 85 per cent back.But we have a situation now where the publicpatients are going to suffer. Presumably thesenew facilities are going to be established insome of the clinics. Perhaps they are going tobe established in nursing homes. We have nothad any indication from the government as toexactly where they see these new facilitiesbeing established.

If the opposition’s last amendment had gotup—the one relating to taking it back up to85 per cent and looking after public pa-tients—then I would be happy with what thegovernment was doing. But at the moment myconcern is that we are again leaving behindthe public patients and only looking at peoplewith private health insurance. I do not thinkwe should continue down this road, with allthe advantages going to those who are pri-vately insured when the people who want tolook after themselves are left behind.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.36p.m.)—As it presently stands, the uninsured—that is, the public patient—has to pay all thecosts when they have a procedure in a privatehospital. The government covers their medicalcosts of up to 75 per cent of the medicalbenefits schedule.

This bill attempts to maintain the 75 percent coverage for public patients receivingprocedures out of the hospital that theynormally receive in the hospital. This is incontrast to the normal situation where, whenthey are attending a medical practitioner, theyare reimbursed 85 per cent of the MBS formedical costs. To raise the MBS to 85 percent will only encourage state governments topush some hospital procedures into approvedfacilities so that the Commonwealth paysrather than the state.

I raise this issue preparatory to asking aquestion of the parliamentary secretary be-cause, as we all know, this is a difficult andcomplex issue of health financing and it isunclear whether public patients will necessari-ly face higher out-of-pocket expenses throughthese changes. I would like to hear from theparliamentary secretary what the government’sresponse is on this particular issue. It seemsto me that raising the MBS to 85 per centonly further increases Commonwealth ex-penditure on private health services withoutnecessarily adding any substantial funding topublic services. I would be concerned thatleaving the MBS at 75 per cent may set aprecedent for other areas of out-of-hospitalcare to be reduced to 75 per cent from 85 percent.

Consequently, can the government assure usthat the 75 per cent rebate will only apply tocertain procedures and that the Common-wealth will guarantee that it will not applymore broadly in the future? I would like tohear the government’s response to what Ihave just said.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (12.39 p.m)—Iappreciate the comments that have been madeby Senator Harradine. They probably impingemore directly on the next amendment that wewill be addressing in committee as opposedto Senator Evans’s amendment that is current-ly before us. We will certainly go into thedetail of that on that next amendment. How-ever, I indicate that where a facility is essen-tially the same, the procedure is the same: thebenefits will not alter and will be the same.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (12.40 p.m.)—I want to ‘fess up’ to thecommittee and indicate that I might havemisled them on the basis that I was workingoff the opposition’s first draft amendmentsand not the revised amendments. WhenSenator Tambling proposed to amend ouramendments it became clear to me. Perhapsthe first question to ask is whether peoplehave a list of revised opposition amendmentsbefore them or the original list. I have adocument titled, ‘Opposition amendmentsrevised’. Is that before the—


The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena-tor Reynolds)—Yes. Senators should haverevised copy 1279.

Senator CHRIS EVANS—As I indicatedin speaking to Labor amendment No. 5, therehad been some discussion with the govern-ment because the government had indicated,basically, acceptance of the policy directionbut had raised concerns about the question ofexclusivity that was contained in our originalamendment. Only after I spoke to our amend-ment did I realise that I was operating fromthe old amendments as well. So I thought itimportant to clarify where we were at.

I am not sure that Senator Tambling formal-ly moved his amendment but, for the record,I think it is important that I now move revisedopposition amendment No. 5. I move:(5) Schedule 1, item 21, page 13 (lines 18 and

19), omit paragraph (a), substitute:(a) that it is a procedure that, before the com-

mencement of this subsection, was per-formed usually in a hospital or day hospitaland involved an episode of hospital treat-ment; but

We have made an attempt to meet the govern-ment some way in reaching a compromise onthat provision.

I must admit, after I heard SenatorTambling, I thought I preferred his, but so asto not confuse the chamber any further Iintend proceeding with our revised amend-ment. I do not want to stifle a debate whichcan move on to other things. I thought weneeded to be clear what we were considering.The opposition has moved the revised amend-ment which includes the word ‘usually’.

I take Senator Lees’s point, too. I actuallydealt with the amendments separately, but Ithink Senator Lees made a valid point whenshe said that her attitude to this was basedupon the attitude to the second issue whichSenator Harradine also raised. I suppose forthe purposes of the debate we could makethose points now and then vote separately. Ithought it important to clarify the record.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri-tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care) (12.43 p.m)—It isregrettable I did not have in front of me therevised sheet, and for that I am sorry because

in that case it would not have been necessaryfor me to have foreshadowed the amendmentI was proposing, which I do not think Imoved, so that can lie on the table. Wesupport Senator Evans’s amendment.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(12.43 p.m.)—The Greens were certainlyprepared to support the amendment to protectagainst the penalising of people through goingfrom 85 per cent coverage to a 75 per centMedicare rebate. We had some problems withthe use of exclusivity, so we are glad this hasbeen sorted out. We are certainly prepared tosupport the amendment as amended.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.44p.m.)—I also apologise for speaking to thewrong amendment. I support the amendmentbefore the chamber now.

Amendment agreed to.Progress reported.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTERESTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to

order, I call on matters of public interest.

New South Wales: Drug CrisisSenator TIERNEY (New South Wales)

(12.45 p.m.)—I have spoken twice in theSenate recently about an issue of immenseconcern to me. On 17 February I rose toinform the Senate of a meeting that I con-vened in my home town at the NewcastleWorkers Club. It was an appropriate venuefor a meeting about drugs. People will re-member the great tragedy suffered by New-castle during an earthquake a decade ago.This time, the tragedy is not so much anatural disaster but more a human disaster.The meeting was about the drug scourge thathas been tearing apart my home town ofNewcastle and, in fact, the whole of NewSouth Wales.

The Workers Club is home to the office ofBryce Gaudry, state Labor member for theelectorate of Newcastle for the past 11 years.He did condescend to attend, at the 11th hour,the drug crisis meeting, not realising the depthof the drug problem in his home town. Nordid he realise the depth of the drug problemin his own state. That was to be expected,given the Carr government’s failure in every


aspect of dealing with the drug crisis in NewSouth Wales.

New South Wales is the crime capital ofAustralia. New South Wales is the drugcapital of Australia. The public has been keptin the dark with regard to the problem, thankslargely to the Carr government’s inconsistent,ambiguous policy. It is a do-nothing policy,akin to their do-nothing election campaign.

Everywhere, we are reminded of the inept-ness of the Carr government’s approach,which has left dealers to prosper and developin hot spots like Kings Cross and Cabramatta.Now, half of the nation’s heroin overdosesoccur in New South Wales. The figure of 600deaths per annum is a 13 per cent increase onlast year and a 73 per cent increase since1989.

Bob Carr and his ALP government closetheir eyes, and in the meantime the purity ofstreet heroin has risen threefold since he cameto power. An addict dies every 16 hours inAustralia. Twenty years ago, the figure wasone every five days.

The Carr ALP government has, for twoyears in a row, cut funding for drug treatmentand rehabilitation. That is an absolute dis-grace. According to the Alcohol and OtherDrugs Council of Australia, it is the worstperforming state in this regard. The cost ofdrug and alcohol programs to taxpayers inNew South Wales in 1996-97 was $6.60 perhead of population. In the previous year, itwas $7.06.

What New South Wales addicts and theirfamilies need is a bipartisan approach toinvestigate the crisis and formulate policiesand legislation. We have no chance of thisunder the Carr ALP government, which hasrefused steadfastly to have a bipartisan in-quiry before the election. They say they willdo it after the election. But they have been inpower for four years. We are only nowstarting to hear of measures that appear to beserious about starting a war on drugs. Whynow? Why not four years ago?

I remind members of the Senate and thegeneral public of the disturbing crime statist-ics raised by the Hon. Amanda Vanstone inquestion time yesterday. In the time that

assaults have risen by 2.8 per cent in Victoria,the figure has risen by 44 per cent in NewSouth Wales. The armed robbery rate per100,000 of the population in New SouthWales is 79.3, which is three times the Vic-torian figure. Under the ALP Carr govern-ment, the rate of armed robbery has risen by105 per cent in five years, compared to 15 percent in Victoria over the same period.

The unarmed robbery rate per 100,000 ofthe population is 121 in New South Wales,which is more than four times that of Vic-toria. Under the Labor government in NewSouth Wales, this rate has risen by 97 percent, compared to 35 per cent in Victoria overthe same period. Those figures are a damningindictment of the Carr government and theirrecord on the prevention and treatment ofdrug abuse.

Let us look at what they have done in NewSouth Wales. There is an acknowledged linkbetween crime and drug use. There is also alink between unemployment and drug use, butthanks to this federal coalition government,the unemployment rate in New South Walesis now under 6½ per cent.

Let us consider the Carr government’srecord on drugs, based on figures from theAustralian Bureau of Criminal IntelligenceReport on illicit drugs for 1997-98. In 1997-98, the Victorian police force arrested 1,900heroin dealers, while the New South Walespolice force arrested 685. In real terms, NewSouth Wales police made one-third as manyarrests for heroin dealing. This is particularlyappalling when it is considered that NewSouth Wales accounts for 62 per cent ofheroin seizures by Customs, nearly half thenational death toll for drug overdoses, and hasnearly half the nation’s drug addicts.

Premier Carr’s flawed and failing policy isnot attacking the drug menace at the supplylevel, which would make economic, socialand common sense. Instead, he is leaving thedealers to infiltrate the streets and focusing onthe users, who are the victims, the weakestlink in the deadly drug chain.

This is a view shared by the AustralianBureau of Criminal Intelligence. New SouthWales has the lowest rate of finalised investi-gations for armed robbery of any state in


Australia. Eighty-seven per cent of armedrobbery investigations are not finalised afterthree months. New South Wales proceedsagainst only 10 per cent of offenders inunarmed robbery investigations, compared to26 per cent in Victoria. If you are a criminalin New South Wales, you have a 90 per centchance of not being taken to court.

An effective drug policy would see theaverage age of regular users of drugs rising.The younger generation would not be takingup drugs and policy attention could be fo-cused on the older, hard-core, life users. InNew South Wales, the average age of users is27 and falling rapidly. In Sweden, the averageage of users is in their late 30s. Sweden isrecognised as having the toughest drug policyin the world. Premier Carr has come togovernment and ignored the Swedish experi-ence, preferring instead to let the muck runfree in hot spots like Kings Cross and Cabra-matta.

The Swedish experience makes interestingreading for anyone who has a compassionateinterest in drug policy. Obviously PremierCarr and his policy ‘makers’, so to speak,have not done very much research on what iseffective in terms of drug policy. In themeantime, the number of heroin related deathshas risen by 50 per cent in NSW. The Swed-ish government experimented with a similarpolicy in 1965 to 1967 when they adopted‘harm reduction’. But unlike here, they movedaway from that fairly quickly because theyfound that it was a complete disaster. Inproviding regular drug users with narcotics,the government unconsciously installed andsupplied a new black market. Instead ofwaiting for change, as Carr and his cohortshave done, they realised the need for interven-tion and conducted an inquiry into the drugproblems in Sweden.

With swallowed pride and apologetic regret,the Swedish government took a prohibitionapproach. Police were granted wider powersto stop, search and detain suspected users ofcannabis, heroin and amphetamines. Obliga-tory urine tests were conducted at policestations and hefty fines were introduced,payable on a PAYE system. By the late1970s, the government realised that their

approach targets, as does the NSW system,the victims more than the dealers. So theychanged their approach. Residential treatmentcentres were increased, outpatient unitsestablished and information campaigns intro-duced. I mentioned in my earlier speech theterrible lack in New South Wales of treatmentcentres. If there is anywhere the state govern-ment should be directing its resources it is toget rid of the disgraceful situation where theunits available in most centres are very smallor, as I mentioned last time, on the CentralCoast nonexistent.

Police in Sweden took a tougher stance onstreet trading to prevent the wedging in ofheroin. Their new focus was on all forms andsizes of trafficking. The number of arreststripled in the early 1980s as the Swedishgovernment and a willing general publicworked together to become a drug free soci-ety. The public meeting in Newcastle is thestart of that sort of cooperation. Let us hopeit spreads to other cities.

The guiding principle of the Swedish drugfree society was to show distinctly and unam-biguously that all non-medical use of drugs isunacceptable. Methadone maintenance andneedle exchanges in Sweden are restrictiveand cautionary. As part of what becameknown as the ‘caring chain’, medical facilitiessuch as methadone clinics were aided bysocial welfare counselling and a caring basethat was the government’s social servicesinfrastructure. In Sweden, the interlinkedcaring chain ensures that 100 per cent of usersget into non-government treatment centreswithin a matter of weeks. In NSW, the figureis 28 per cent. Now the caring base ofSweden is looking into new drug treatmentsthat seem to work. At present, the Swedishgovernment spends $220 million directly ondrug treatment and rehabilitation. This is, inreal terms, nearly triple the figure spent inNSW under the Carr government.

In the meantime in New South Wales,social indicators of harm remain consistentlyhigh. Assaults, rapes and domestic violenceare on the rise. Welfare departments arebecoming backlogged and social securitypayments are increasing. The victims ofPremier Carr’s penny pinching are not just the


users themselves, but any member of thepublic who has their home broken into, isaccosted walking down the street or feelsunsafe in the streets. There is sadly no caringbase in NSW at present. The Carr govern-ment’s policy reeks of duality. Methadonecentres are closed down ad hoc. Needleexchanges are created ad hoc without caringand support and then closed down ad hoc.Shooting galleries are left to conduct theirbusiness ad hoc and then shut up again, adhoc.

Twenty years ago, Sweden had one of thehighest suicide rates in the world. Now NewSouth Wales has one of the highest in theworld. It raises the question: where would yourather raise your kids—Stockholm or Sydney?

Smith, Mr Dick

Wool Industry

Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (12.57p.m.)—The Prime Minister, Mr Howard,seemed genuinely upset that Dick Smith wasbeing forced out as chairman of the CivilAviation Safety Authority last Monday. Inresponse to a question from the member forDickson about Mr Smith’s future, the PrimeMinister said that he retained a tremendousamount of confidence in and had a personalregard for Mr Smith. However, Mr Smith lostthe confidence of the Minister for Transportand Regional Services, Mr Anderson, and hisfellow CASA board members and had nochoice but to resign. A possible explanationfor the Prime Minister’s distress may be thatDick Smith’s style of doing business verymuch appeals to the Prime Minister. No-onewould deny that Dick Smith brings enormousenergy to everything he does. He is a reform-er. Dick wrote to me some time ago wantinga meeting to seek my views on aviationpolicy. That meeting lasted over two hoursand I recall getting a couple of words in butI cannot recall exactly what they were.

While the Prime Minister clearly admiresDick’s style, Mr Howard is in no way afellow traveller. In fact, his own style isprobably the antithesis of Mr Smith’s. He isa procrastinator, he is inflexible and, unlikeMr Smith, no-one would ever accuse the

Prime Minister of being a doer or an aggres-sive reformer.

Monday saw the end to Dick Smith’ssecond term as the head of the Civil AviationSafety Authority. One of the reasons for MrSmith’s departure—the failed class G airspacetrials—is to be the subject of a Senate in-quiry. While I do not want to preempt thatprocess, I would still like to make someobservations about Mr Smith’s time as chairof CASA.

Dick Smith failed again as chairman of thenow Civil Aviation Safety Authority notbecause of his desire to reform but the man-ner in which he pursued that reform. Therewas no room in the Smith regime for properprocess—that is the problem. There was alsolittle room for effective consultation with hiscustomers. The result was a flawed reformprocess lacking attention to detail and indus-try support. When you are dealing withaviation matters these flaws can literally provefatal. Despite what happened over last week-end, Mr Smith claimed on ABCAM yesterdaythat he enjoyed the full support of the CASAboard. He said all his fellow board memberspressed him to stay. Unfortunately, this claimdoes not fit with the facts.

The deteriorating relationship betweenChairman Smith and Chief Executive Tollerreached a climax when Mick Toller cancelledthe class G airspace trial. Minister Andersoncalled a special meeting of the CASA boardto resolve what had become a Mexican stand-off between the chair and the director. Theboard obviously backed Mr Toller. If theboard were backing Mr Smith, he would stillbe there or the board would have resigned enmasse. I note that one board member, MsShepherd, has resigned in support of MrSmith. I go back to Mr Smith’s comments lastSunday. In that same interview Mr Smithclaimed that radar had been shut down be-cause of a union demarcation dispute. Intoday’sAustralianAirservices Australia saidthis claim was simply wrong. A spokesmansaid there was no dispute and the radar hadnot been switched off.

The events of the weekend almost mirrorthe situation that developed with Dick Smithand the former Chief Executive of CASA,


Leroy Keith, in 1997. On that occasion Smithhad the numbers on the board, courtesy of hisfriend, former minister John Sharp, and LeroyKeith was forced out. In that case Australianaviation lost an aviation administrator with avery high international reputation and keptDick Smith. On this occasion we get to keepour top-flight aviation administrator and loseDick.

I should say that Dick Smith’s relationshipwith his board and his chief executive is bestillustrated by a letter he wrote to his col-league, Airservices Chair John Forsyth, inJanuary this year. That letter was dated 3January and was hand delivered to Mr Forsython that day. The letter concerned the upgrad-ing of class G to class E airspace north ofBrisbane. In that letter Mr Smith told MrForsyth:

I asked Mick Toller to prepare this advice, how-ever, Mick has since told me that he wishes to waituntil Bill Pollard—

the Director of Airservices—

returns so he can discuss the issue with Bill beforeputting the CASA position in writing.

Not only was there this clash with Mr Tollerbut also Mr Smith did not have board clear-ance to pursue the matter. He said he wouldobtain urgent confirmation from his board‘when I can get all the members together’.He said in the same letter:

But I advise you not to delay any decision makingas our Board is single minded about the urgencyfor safety improvement through airspace reform.

Mick Toller quite reasonably wanted todiscuss the matter with Bill Pollard, so DickSmith chose to simply bypass him. TheCASA board had clearly not considered andendorsed the proposal, but Dick planned toget what amounted to a backdated boarddecision. This is no way to do business whenyou are responsible for the administration ofaviation safety in Australia. Claims by theformer minister, Mr Sharp, that an effectiveCASA board required a high level of aviationexpertise and experience obviously did notsuit Dick Smith. It appears he saw the CASAboard as a rubber stamp and little more. Ilook forward to Mr Smith’s evidence on thispoint in the Senate inquiry.

Mr Smith also failed to gather industrysupport for his reform agenda. In fact, ratherthan bring airspace users along with him, heopenly antagonised them. Let us take, forexample, the Royal Australian Air Force. Youwould have to say it is a conservative organi-sation not known to openly buck the system,and it is an organisation that brings consider-able expertise and experience to the processof upgrading aviation regulations. On thismatter of class G airspace, the RAAF opposedthe trial. It was concerned about safety. Butwhen Mr Smith was asked about RAAFopposition to his class G demonstration on theABC 7.30 Reporton 8 February, he said thatthe airlines had pressured the RAAF. Heclaimed that Ansett and Qantas had run to themilitary and said, ‘We oppose this trial. Whydon’t you come on board?’ and that they did.He was asked for proof of this allegation andhe replied:Well, the proof I have is that the Deputy Chief ofthe Air Staff, a most knowledgeable skilled pilot,sat at every meeting, a program implementationgroup, giving Mick Toller every support every bitof the way.

Frankly, that claim was simply wrong. Theofficer Mr Smith referred to was Air Vice-Marshal Espeland. Air Vice-Marshal Espelandtold a Senate estimates hearing that Defence,far from supporting this trial, had raised fivesafety concerns about the trial. They relatedto traffic information, cockpit workload,frequency management and the education ofairspace users.

So not only did Mr Smith attack the RAAFfor failing to support his plan, but also heblatantly misrepresented its position on thetrial. And, of course, Mr Smith alleged in aSenate committee hearing that CASA hadbeen threatened by Ansett Airlines. I am yetto see evidence which substantiates that claim,and I look forward to the production of actualevidence when this matter is before the Senatecommittee. Let me say this: Qantas took asimilar approach, expressing concern aboutthe safety of the trial. But it did not simplywrite a letter threatening to not fly in the trialarea; it actually refused to allow its aircraft tooperate until safety concerns were addressed.That is another matter which I am sure theSenate committee will consider.


Another area where the government appearsto have fundamental problems is the manage-ment of the official wool stockpile and theprivatisation of Wool International. It isshaping up as another example of a flawedprocess with inadequate consultation. OnMonday afternoon the Wool Council ofAustralia put out a media statement. Thestatement was headed, ‘What is Happening?’It stated, and I quote Wool Council PresidentDavid Wolfenden:Wool International equity holders want moreinformation about the privatisation of their proper-ty.

He continued:It has now been four months since the appointmentof the Wool International Interim Advisory Boardand equity holders want to know what progress hasbeen made on critical issues such as taxation ofequity, assessment of stockpile bids, future com-pany structure and business plans.

Mr Wolfenden said that equity holders hadspent a lot of money on consultants over thepast four months and this information shouldbe available to them. In fact, wool growersare looking at a bill of about $4 million.

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs andTransport Legislation Committee consideredin detail the Wool International AmendmentBill in November last year. That bill put inplace a freeze on the sale of wool from theofficial stockpile and arrangements to facili-tate the privatisation of Wool International.The Assistant Secretary, Wool and DairyBranch, of the department, Mr Paul Sutton,told the committee that ‘very many complexissues will need to be addressed’ in theprivatisation process. He said there might beelements that require the government to deemcertain outcomes by way of legislation forparticular privatisation routes. In other words,the legislation may in part commit an incom-ing board to a certain structure that couldlimit its flexibility in managing the stockpile.So we have a process now involving only asmall group—the minister, two consultants, asenior officer in the Office of Asset Sales, MrMcGauchie and his interim board—but notthe owners of the wool.

According to a senior departmental officer,this process is addressing very complexissues. Again according to that officer, the

outcome of that process may limit the man-agement options of an incoming privatisedWool International board. That means that theowners of the equity in the stockpile will alsofind that their ability to manage their affairscould be limited. This is no way to do busi-ness. I am advised that the government plansto introduce this second wool bill in the otherplace next week. It appears this will be donewithout consultation with the industry aboutthe form of the bill or the key issues thatrelate to the bill. Issues such as the form ofthe business plan for the privatised entity andthe tax treatment to apply to growers’ equityin the stockpile will be dealt with in this bill.I understand the bill will then be debatedsome time in the second week of May. It willprobably be forced through the other placeand sent here to the Senate.

I also pursued this question of consultationwith Australian wool growers when the Ruraland Regional Affairs and Transport Legisla-tion Committee was considering the WoolInternational Bill. I did that for a number ofreasons. Firstly, this government has poorform on consultation. Secondly, the policydirection taken by the government in freezingthe stockpile contradicted the preferred ap-proach put to the then minister by the indus-try and then put by the minister to the cabi-net. History shows that Mr Anderson failed towin cabinet support for wool growers, and theindustry has suffered as a consequence.Thirdly, we are dealing with an asset ofsignificant value at a time when this import-ant industry needs every cent it can get. Ifthere was ever the need for a right policymove for the wool industry, it is now.

During those November hearings I askedMr Sutton how the government planned towork through the detail of the privatisation ofWool International with the industry. MrSutton told the committee that the mechanismfor consultation would be there and it was upto the industry to organise itself to interact.He said that the industry at that point had notadvised the government how it planned tointeract. I pursued Mr Sutton further on thepoint and he said:

There will be a provision for an interim board, thepurpose of which will be to talk to and relate to the


proponents of industry proposals and industrygroups generally.

That interim board has been given $500,000of wool growers’ funds to facilitate theconsultation process, but it appears that littlehas happened. I have seen only one mediastatement from the Wool International InterimAdvisory Board, which was dated 19 Februa-ry. In that statement Mr McGauchie said thatthe interim board’s key role was to prepare adraft business plan for the incoming board ofthe new privatised Wool International. Hesaid further that the role of the interim boardwas to prepare the business plan and also toliaise with the Office of Asset Sales. Basedon that statement , i t should be MrMcGauchie’s group that is acting as a linkbetween growers and the manager of theprivatisation process. But the Wool Council’sstatement that I referred to earlier makes itclear that there has been no consultation withthe industry to this point.

The Australian wool industry will be askedto properly consider what is as yet an unseenprivatisation bill. Growers will be required toconsider the tax implications that will flowonce their equity in Wool International istransformed into shares, and I assume theywill be required to endorse the business planreferred to earlier. This consultative processmust be completed well before the end of thisfinancial year, according to the government.Of course, parliament will be asked to en-dorse the same matters in the same timeframe, while we are dealing with Senateestimates, the tax bills, the budget and anyother legislation the government wishes todeal with. The workload facing the Senateover this period is horrendous. Frankly, wewill be given an inadequate time to do whatought to be done, and that is to consult withthe industry whose money is tied up in theprivatisation process. This is no way to run agovernment.(Time expired)

WhistleblowersSenator WOODLEY (Queensland) (1.12

p.m.)—I rise today to speak on a couple ofmatters of public interest which affect mystate of Queensland. The Senate will be awarethat I have spoken on these issues a numberof times previously, but I believe they are

issues which will not go away. I believe thateventually the federal government will haveto pass federal whistleblower legislation as theonly solution to the issues which I am raising.

I want to update the Senate today on twowhistleblower issues which will not go away.One is to do with Kevin Lindeberg and theshredding of the Heiner documents. The otheris to do with the issue of a former policeman,Mr Gordon Harris. It is an issue of privilegewhich I believe really does interest the Sen-ate, and I thank the Clerk of the Senate, MrHarry Evans, for helping me to draw theattention of Mr Harris and others to what nowquite clearly is a breach of privilege of theQueensland parliament. The advice given byHarry Evans has subsequently been confirmedby the staff of the Queensland parliament aswell. So it is interesting for me to bring thisupdate to the Senate.

Briefly, in the first instance, in the matterof the Heiner inquiry and Mr Lindeberg, Ipoint out to the Senate that media reports inQueensland in recent days and evidence givento the Forde inquiry have underlined someinformation which was not available to theSenate when we conducted the two whistle-blower inquiries, nor available when thePrivileges Committee looked at that issueagain. I am speaking about the whole problemof child abuse, which is a big issue inQueensland and, I know, around Australia.When the Heiner documents were shredded,I do not think anyone was aware of the factthat they actually contained quite a bit ofevidence of child abuse in my state.

The tragedy is that it has taken eight ornine years since the shredding for that evi-dence to come to light again. That is thetragedy—that we had a hiatus of a period oftime in which we could have been doingsomething about the issue of child abuse but,because of the shredding, the evidence disap-peared from the record and is now beinggiven in great detail to the Forde inquiry.

I will go over a couple of matters that Iraised in a speech not quite 12 months agoand I will then add to that the recent evidencethat has come to light. When I moved mymotion to have the Lindeberg matter referredto the Privileges Committee a little over 12


months ago, I indicated that it appeared thatwhat was shredded was evidence of possiblechild abuse. We now know for a fact that itwas. Last year in theCourier-Mail there werereports that Mr Noel Newnham, a formerpolice commissioner in Queensland whoconducted an investigation for Mr Lindeberg,uncovered a number of instances of childabuse. They have been the subject of a lot ofdiscussion in the media in Queensland andalso in evidence given to the Forde inquiry.

Mr Newnham pointed out that the use ofexcessive or unnecessary force against peoplein lawful custody amounts to criminal assault.I would remind the Senate that we are talkingabout evidence of possible serious child abuseof detainees. Children as young as 10 and 12had been handcuffed to water grates in theopen air all night. One child was told thatsnakes would come out of the grate and wasfound the next morning with his blanketstuffed down the grate because he was soafraid. Others, it is alleged, were handcuffedto beds for extended periods. It is also allegedthat there was inappropriate use of suppress-ant drugs for other than medical reasons andthat there was also psychological and physicalabuse.

I am not apportioning blame to anyone—that will no doubt arise once Mrs Forde hashanded down her report to the current govern-ment—but I do believe that we need tounderline how abhorrent child abuse is to thisSenate and to most reasonable people inAustralia. As I said, Mr Newnham pointed outin his report that excessive or unnecessaryforce against people in lawful custodyamounts to criminal assault. Mr Newnhamsaid:In the case of minors such assaults by custodialofficials, directly or indirectly, must always beregarded as extremely serious.

He further said:. . . Australia has international treaty obligationsregarding the treatment of people in custody and ofchildren. It appears plain that officials disregardedsome of these obligations.

He also said that it was an absurd notion tosuggest that the Crown had to shred thesedocuments to prevent people suing each other.I happen to agree with Mr Newnham. It is

absurd to suggest that the Crown cannothandle documents containing such evidence,and that its only remedy was to destroy them.

To update the Senate, I will add some ofthe evidence given to the Forde inquiry. Itappears that two of the girls who were hand-cuffed in the John Oxley Centre were Abo-riginal girls, and that has been spelt out inevidence to the Forde inquiry. There is nodoubt that the treatment of people insideinstitutions is a very serious matter, and Ibelieve that international conventions, such asthe Convention on Torture, need to be in-voked in this case.

In a recent case, for which the evidence isnow coming to light, one young Aboriginallad hanged himself after being sexuallyabused in the John Oxley Centre. He used aventilation grille, and apparently the problemof ventilation grilles was pointed out in someof the evidence shredded in the Heiner in-quiry. This is why we need somewhere toexpose the problems.

There is no doubt that the Forde inquirywill expose many of these issues, but I thinkit is important that the federal governmentand this Senate—because of its interest inthese cases—be made aware of them. I againraise the issue of federal legislation in termsof whistleblower evidence. I believe that inthe end, because many of the problems occurin state institutions, only federal legislationwill give us the kind of forum which willenable many of these issues to be dealt withmore quickly than has been possible inQueensland because of actions by the Queens-land government and also by Queenslanddepartments. That is the first issue.

The second issue is also of interest to theSenate. I will read parts of a letter written tome from Gordon Harris, because some of itis fairly technical. An outline of what hap-pened—it is a very long issue—is that GordonHarris is a former policeman who, because hepursued superiors within the Queenslandpolice force, eventually was forced out of thepolice force but has continued to present hiscase in various forums.

In one court case in which he was in-volved—and in which, finally, the magistratesaid he was technically in breach of the law


but no conviction was recorded against him—much of the evidence used in the case againsthim by the prosecutor was taken from adocument obtained from the Queenslandparliament, and that document attractedabsolute privilege. For the court to have usedthe document as evidence against GordonHarris appears to be a very serious breach ofthat privilege. Harry Evans has given mesome advice on this, and the staff of theQueensland parliament have backed up thatadvice. It may be that this case will go fur-ther, particularly on those grounds, but it is ofinterest to the Senate that something thatSenator Abetz and I were involved in someyears ago continues to be a matter of disputebecause of the way in which things weredone.

I will read into the record some of thetechnical issues so that they are available forthe Senate. It may be useful. Gordon Harrisand another person wrote to me and said:

We have previously detailed the position regardingparliamentary privilege and our claims that adocument presented by the Crown to prosecuteGordon Harris was covered by absolute privilege(being published by the Queensland LegislativeAssembly) and therefore not admissible in a courtof law. Section 40A of the Constitution Act 1867provides that the powers, privileges and immunitiesof the Legislative Assembly are the same as thoseof the House of Commons, its committees andmembers from time to time, and Article 9 of theBill of Rights 1869applies in Queensland (as itdoes throughout Australian jurisdictions) by virtueof s.40A. Section 3 of theParliamentary PapersAct 1992 defines the document in question as aproceeding in parliament and therefore covered byabsolute privilege.

It is a very interesting case, and it seems thatnot only was that document used to prosecuteGordon Harris but also it was used veryselectively. At the time, it was not availableto the Senate committee, except that we wereallowed to read it in a closed room and notallowed to comment on it when we went outof the room. That document is now availablepublicly, and when one reads it, one can seehow selectively it was used in prosecutingGordon Harris in the court. I think thatrepresents a very serious miscarriage ofjustice as well as a breach of parliamentaryprivilege.

I believe it is important that I bring thisissue to the attention of the Senate. Theprosecution was brought with the knowledgeof the Queensland Criminal Justice Commis-sion, the Queensland Attorney-General at thetime, the Queensland Director of PublicProsecutions and the Queensland PoliceService. It seems to me that, when all of thosebodies work together to bring a prosecutionagainst someone and then use a documentwhich is subject to parliamentary privilegeand quote from it very selectively—a docu-ment which is not available publicly and notavailable to Gordon Harris to defend him-self—a serious miscarriage of justice hasoccurred.

Let me say in closing how grateful I am tothe Clerk, Harry Evans, for his advice on thismatter. It really did help Gordon Harris towork his way through the maze of technicaldetail. It was very helpful and may help in theend to get justice for Gordon Harris on thisissue, as the issue may eventually go to theHigh Court of Australia for determination.

Senator Abetz—For a change, that was agood speech.

Asia Research Centre

Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia)(1.26 p.m.)—High praise from Senator Abetz!It has been said that Australia’s future lieswith Asia. The fact that this remains the casein spite of the present Asian economic down-turn is dictated by the logic of our geographiclocation in proximity to Asia, the develop-ment of a well-off Asian middle class whichhas created an enormous potential market withspending power equal to that of Australians,and the continued development of political,social and legal institutions in the Asianregion equal to our own or hopefully to be soin the future.

For Australia to successfully interact withour Asian neighbours, both Australian busi-ness and government need to know moreabout Asia. Today I would like to tell theSenate a little about the Asia Research Centreat Murdoch University in Western Australia.The aim of the Asia Research Centre is toconduct research into the economic, politicaland social issues affecting Asia and provide


both the background for business ventures inAsia as well as basic research on the changingnature of the region. In the Senate today Iwould like to commend the valuable workthat the centre has achieved and to stronglysupport the centre’s application for a renewedgrant from the Australian Research Councilunder the special research centres category.

I would like to give a little background onthe Asia Research Centre at Murdoch Univer-sity. The centre was established in 1990,which is only nine years ago, and isAustralia’s only Asia-orientated special re-search centre. The centre is involved withinnovative research relevant to Australianbusiness interests in Asia. It has, in its shorthistory, attracted the best international schol-ars, delivered high quality consultant work forAustralian business and government andcontributed widely to the public debate aboutAustralia’s place in Asia. For these reasons,the Murdoch University Asia Research Centreis quite rightly regarded as a centre of nation-al excellence.

The board of the centre is composed ofdistinguished people with a diverse workingknowledge of business in Asia. The board ischaired by Mr Ken Court, a Western Austral-ian businessman who has a very wide person-al experience of business in Asia, especiallyin Taiwan and Vietnam, and he is assisted onthe board by representatives from both busi-ness and government.

The board includes such people as MrBruce Sutherland, who is a director of GunnSutherland Corporate Pty Ltd; Mr JohnLangouland, the Western Australian UnderTreasurer; Mr Mike O’Neil, the GeneralManager of the ANZ Banking Group in WA;Ms Valrie Daview, the director of a com-munications company in Western Australia;Mr John Akehurst, the Managing Director ofWoodside Energy; and Sir Charles Court,whose record in attracting Asian investmentto Australia is unequalled, as the Pilbara ironore industry and the North West Shelf projectboth demonstrate. Both of those generalindustries are worth billions of dollars. SirCharles Court has an unequalled knowledgeof dealing with Asian business and attractingAsian investment to Australia.

The academic team of 13 distinguishedscholars is headed by Professor RichardRobison, whose research interests are con-cerned with the politics of the Asian region.Professor Robison has published widely, hisdefinitive work beingIndonesia: the Rise ofCapital, which analyses the emergence ofbusiness and the role of the state in Indonesia.Other notable members of the academic teaminclude, for example, Ms Jane Hutchinson, aresearch fellow at the Asia Research Centreand also a lecturer in politics and internationalstudies at Murdoch University. Ms Hutchin-son’s primary research interest is in labour inthe Philippines. Ms Hutchinson is currentlycontributing to a series of books on businessin Asia, entitledThe New Rich in Asia.

Associate Professor Garry Rodan is anotherdistinguished member of the academic staff.Professor Rodan is the Chair of the Depart-ment of Politics and International Studies atMurdoch University and is also a researchfellow at the Asia Research Centre. Hisprimary research interests relate to the politi-cal and economic development of Singaporeand the democratisation of Asia.

Dr Sally Sargeson, who is a respectedChina scholar, is another a research fellow atthe Asia Research Centre. Dr Sargeson’sresearch interests include the social effects ofeconomic reform in China and changes toproperty rights in China. It can be seen thatthe Asia Research Centre has attracted highlyskilled academics who have a wide range ofexpertise in the political, economic and socialchanges which are occurring in Asia. For acentre which has been established only for therelatively short time of nine years, the AsiaResearch Centre at Murdoch University hasachieved some outstanding outcomes.

The Asia Research Centre seeks to build onits academic foundation by doing appliedwork for both government and business aswell as pure academic research. Quoting frommaterial provided by the Asia ResearchCentre, I would like to provide senators withan indicative list of some of the outcomes ofthe Murdoch University Asia Research Cen-tre. Published material in book form comingfrom the work of people at the Asia ResearchCentre includes:Southern China in Transi-


tion, which was written for the East AsiaAnalytical Unit of the Department of ForeignAffairs and Trade; Doing Business withIndonesia: Tax Guide for Investors; and aGuide to Doing Business in Vietnam, by CiscaSpencer and Gitti Heij, written for the WADepartment of Commerce and Trade, for useby WA businessmen interested in workingand seeking investment in Asia—and ofcourse for businessmen in general in Australiaseeking to invest in Vietnam. The centre hasalso undertaken privately commissionedresearch for AusAID, the Australian StockExchange, the Department of Employment,Education and Training, the Asian Develop-ment Bank, the Australian Taiwan BusinessCouncil, the WA Department of Commerceand Trade, Oxford Analytical and a numberof business clients. One of the activities thecentre has engaged in for business has beentailor-made business training courses whichhave included, for example, courses on theIndonesian economy and society, courses onnew identities in South-East Asia, and acourse on ASEAN and AFTA for the Vietna-mese Department of Trade.

The Asia Research Centre does not limit itsfocus to the world of academia, but seeks todisseminate material it produces throughworkshops and seminars contributing to abetter public understanding of the complexi-ties of doing business in Asia. Apart fromthis, the Asia Research Centre has a majorresearch focus on institutions which can bethe foundation for a civil society emerging inAsia, such as the press, the judiciary, parlia-mentary systems and the civil service. Behindall this there is a university academic centre.Postgraduate students are an important part ofthe centre’s activities and a valued part of itsintellectual life. Postgraduates come fromAustralia and across the region. Currently thecentre has 17 students undertaking PhDs andin nine years has graduated five students withPhDs, which is a remarkable record.

In conclusion, I would like to put on recordin the Senate today that I believe a fundamen-tal reason why the Asia Research Centreshould be supported by the Australian Re-search Council to continue its work is that ithas developed an expertise over the last nine

years and it would be a great tragedy if—asso often happens in Australia when we devel-op centres of expertise—that expertise isdissipated and lost. It is very important toensure that the expertise which has beendeveloped at the Murdoch research centre ismaintained and kept together so that they cankeep on doing the work that they have beendoing, which has proved so useful to Austral-ian business.

Another reason for supporting the continuedfunding of the Asia Research Centre at Mur-doch University is the fact that it is located inWestern Australia. The proximity of Asia toWestern Australia and the greater awarenessthat exists in Western Australia of the eco-nomic opportunities which Asia offers and,further, the extensive links WA business havewith their Asian neighbours means that thelocation of the centre in Western Australia isa powerful reason why the Murdoch teamshould continue to be supported. Critical tosuccessful Australian investment in Asia isbasic research on conditions in the region,which will bring understanding of the chan-ging political, economic and social conditionsin Asia. No other centre in Australia is doingthe kind of basic research which is being doneat the Murdoch University Asia ResearchCentre. I am sure that senators will agree thatit is certainly in Australia’s national interestthat the Murdoch centre continue to be fundedto provide this kind of basic research intoconditions in Asia, for the benefit of Austral-ian businessmen.

Mr Acting Deputy President, as I said, Ibelieve the Asia Research Centre is a vitalcentre of excellence that deserves the supportof the Australian Research Council. In viewof the outstanding record of the Murdochgroup, I trust that the application for ongoingbasic research funding as a ‘special researchcentre’ which has been made by MurdochUniversity will be given favourable consider-ation by the Australian Research Councilbecause, as I have said, there can be no doubtthat it would be a tragedy for the Australiannation were the Murdoch University groupnot able to continue their work. Mr ActingDeputy President, I seek leave to incorporatea list of the publications produced by the staff


of the Asia Research Centre at MurdochUniversity, if that is the wish of the Senate.

Leave granted.The list read as follows—

Publications: BooksThe New Rich in AsiaDavid S.G. Goodman and Richard Robison (eds) ‘The New Rich in Asia’ Special issue ofPacific

Review, vol. 5, no. 4, December 1992Richard Robison and David S.G. Goodman (eds)The New Rich in Asia: Mobilephones,

McDonald’s and Middle-class Revolution,Routledge, 1995

Garry Rodan (ed.) Political Oppositions in Industrialising Asia,Routledge, 1996

Krishna Sen and Maila Stivens (eds) Gender and Power in Affluent Asia, Routledge,1998

Jane Hutchison and Andrew Brown (eds) Organising Labour/Globalising Asia, Routledge,forthcoming

Michael Pinches (ed.) Cultural Constructions of the new Rich in Asia,Routledge, forthcoming

Chua Beng Huat (ed.) Consumption Patterns of Asia’s New Rich,Routledge, forthcoming

Engagement with AsiaRichard Robison (ed.) Pathways to Asia: The Politics of Engagement,

Allen & Unwin, 1996Richard Robison (ed.) ‘Politics and Economics in the Twenty-first Cen-

tury: Is There an Asian Model?’, Special issue ofthe Pacific Review, vol. 9, no. 3, 1996, pp. 309-27

Michael Byrnes Australia and the Asia Game, Allen & Unwin, StLeonards, 1994

Asian CapitalismsKanishka Jayasuriya (ed.) Law, Capitalism and Power in Asia, Routledge,

1998Richard Robison, Hyuk Rae Kim, KanishkaJayasuriya and Mark Beeson (eds)

From Miracle to Meltdown: The End of AsianCapitalism?, forthcoming

Sally Sargeson (ed.) Collective Goods, Collective Actions, forthcomingStudies in Political Economy and GlobalisationSoutheast AsiaDavid Hill and Krishna Sen Indonesian Cultures in Resistance and Change,

Oxford University Press, forthcomingMark Beeson Competing Capitalisms: Australia, Japan, and

Economic Competition in the Asia-Pacific, StMartin’s Press, forthcoming

Vedi R. Hadiz Workers and the State in New Order Indonesia,Routledge, 1997

Kevin Hewison (ed.) Political Change in Thailand: Democracy andParticipation, Routledge, 1997

Garry Rodan, Kevin Hewison and RichardRobison (eds)

The Political Economy of Southeast Asia: AnIntroduction, Oxford University Press, 1997

Ian Chalmers and Vedi R. Hadiz (eds) The Politics of Economic Development in Indo-nesia: Contending Perspectives, Routledge, 1997


Rob Lambert (ed.) State and labour in New Order Indonesia, AsiaPaper no. 6, University of Western Australia Pressand Asia Research Centre, 1997

Robinson Pangaribuan The Indonesian State Secretariat 1945-1993, AsiaResearch Centre, 1995 (translated and edited byVedi r. Hadiz)

Chua Beng Huat Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Sin-gapore, Routledge, 1995

Ky Cao (ed.) The Changing Financial Markets of East Asia,Routledge, 1995

Adam Schwarz A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990s,Allen & Unwin, 1994

David T. Hill The Press in New Order Indonesia, Asia Paperno. 4, University of Western Australia Press andAsia Research Centre, 1994

Garry Rodan (ed.) Singapore Changes Guard: Social, Political andEconomic Directions in the 1990s, LongmanCheshire, 1993

Kevin Hewison, Richard Robison and GarryRodan (eds)

Southeast Asia in the 1990s: Authoritarianism,Democracy and Capitalism, Allen & Unwin, 1993

Garry Rodan The Political Economy of Singapore’sIndustrialization: National State and InternationalCapital, Macmillan, London and St Martin’sPress, New York 1989; translated into Japaneseby Keiko T. Tamura for San’ichi, Tokyo 1992.Malaysian edition by Forum, 1993

David Birch Singapore Media: Communication Strategies andPractice, Asia Paper no. 1, Longman Cheshire,1992

ChinaSally Sargeson Reworking China’s Proletariat, Macmillan, forth-

comingLance Gore Market Communism: The Institutional Foundation

of China’s Post-Mao Hyper-Growth, Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1998

Ian Scott (ed.) Institutional Change and the Political Transitionin Hong Kong, Macmillan and Asia ResearchCentre, 1998

Feng Chongyi and David S.G. Goodman China’s Hainan Province: Economic Developmentand Investment Environment, Asia Paper no. 5,University of Western Australia Press in associa-tion with the Asia Research Centre, 1995

David S.G. Goodman Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese Revolution,Routledge, 1995. Translated into Mandarin andpublished by the Central Party School PublishingHouse asDeng Xiaoping zhengzhi pingzhuan

David S.G. Goodman and Gerald Segal China Deconstructs: Politics, Trade and Region-alism, Routledge, 1994

David S.G. Goodman and Beverley Hooper (eds)China’s Quiet Revolution: New Interactions be-tween State and Society, Longman Cheshire, 1994

David S.G. Goodman and Gerald Segal China in the 1990s: Crisis Management andBeyond, Oxford University Press, 1991


David S.G. Goodman China and the West: Ideas and Activists, Man-chester University Press, 1991

Studies in Environmental PolicyPhilip Hirsch and Carol Warren (eds) The Politics of Environment in Southeast Asia:

Resources and Resistance, Routledge, 1998Phillip Hirsch Seeing Forests for Trees: Environment in Thai-

land, Silkworm Books, Chiengmai, 1997Kylie Elston and Carol Warren Environmental Regulation in Indonesia, Asia

Paper no. 3, University of Western Australia Pressand Asia Research Centre, 1994

Kylie Elston and Greg Bankoff Environmental Regulation in Malaysia and Singa-pore, Asia paper no. 2, University of WesternAustralia Press and Asia Research Centre, 1994

Selected Reports and Policy Studies1998Cisca Spencer and David QuaneAgribusiness inSulawesi and Kalimantan, Rural Industries Re-search and Development Corporation, forthcoming.1997Gitte Heij and Thorsten StrombackAustralianServices in Indonesia: Learning from Experience,Policy Paper 19, Asia Research Centre, 1997.1996Cisca Spencer, Trevor Boughton and Usmanto NjoAgribusiness Opportunities in Sumatra and EastJava, Rural Industries Research and DevelopmentCorporation, 1996Yanrui Wu Opportunities and Trends in China’sHealth Care System, Policy Paper 18, Asia Re-search Centre, 1996Yanrui Wu Household Consumption and MarketProspects in China, Policy Paper 17, Asia ResearchCentre, 19961995Gitte Heij and Cisca SpencerA Guide to DoingBusiness in Vietnam, Policy Paper 16, 1995Don Smart and Grace AngEnhancing Australia’sRecruitment of International Students: A Survey ofTaiwan, 1995, Policy Paper 15, 1995Don Smart and Grace AngEnhancing Australia’sRecruitment of International Students: SingaporeRevisited 1995, Policy Paper 14, 19951993Kevin Hewison Thailand, the Australia-AsiaInstitute, Asia-Australia Briefing papers, vol.2,no.4, 1993Philip LewisOn the Move: The Changing Structureof Singapore’s Labour Market, Asia ResearchCentre, 1993Don Smart and Grace AngMedium-term MarketOpportunities for Australian Education: A Surveyof Hong Kong, Policy Paper 12, 1993

Allen Nash Investment Opportunities in the Viet-nam Textile Industry, Policy Paper 11, 1993Allen NashInvestment Opportunities in the Indo-nesian Textile Industry, Policy Paper 10, 1993Gitte Heij Doing Business in Indonesia: A TaxGuide for Australian Investors(vol.1), Tax Admin-istration and Compliance in Indonesia(vol.2),Policy Paper 9, 1993Allen Nash The Structure of the Taiwan WoolProcessing Industry: Implications for AustralianIndustry Development, Policy Paper 8, 1993Joe H. Zhang and Joan X. ZhengChallenges andOpportunities for Foreign Banks in China, PolicyPaper 7, 1993Don Smart and Grace AngOverseas StudentRecruitment: Some Recommendations on thePreparation of Print Material, Policy Paper 6, 1993Leslie O’Brien The Economic Climate for JointVentures in Malaysia, Policy Paper 4, 1993Allen NashThe Korean Wool Processing IndustryStructure: Implications for Australian IndustryDevelopment, Policy Paper 3, 19931992David S.G. Goodman, Bruce Jacobs, Shiu-hing Lo,Cisca Spencer, On Kit Tam and John ZerbyPost-1997 Economic Integration in Southern China, EastAsia Analytical Unit, Department of ForeignAffairs and Trade, 1992

Richard Robinson, Cisca Spencer, Shiu-hing Lo andIan Chalmers Investment Flows in East andSoutheast Asia, Consultancy Report for the Depart-ment of State Development, Perth, 1992

Don Smart and Grace AngAn Analysis of PrintMaterials for Overseas Student Recruitment: SomeRecommendations for Best Practices, ConsultancyReport for the Department of Education, Employ-ment and Training, Perth 1992

Don Smart and Grace AngMedium-term MarketOpportunities for Australian Higher Education: APilot Survey of Singapore, Policy Paper 2, 1992


Don Smart and AlanMarshall Submission toIndustry Commission on Draft Report on Exportsof Education Services, Policy Paper 1, 1992

Selected Journal Articles

1998

David Bourchier

‘Indonesianising Indonesia: ConservativeIndigenism in an Age of Globalisation’,SocialSemiotics, vol. 8, no. 2/3, pp. 203-14

Mark T. Berger

‘A New East-West Synthesis? APEC and Compet-ing Narratives of Regional Integration in the Post-Cold War Asia-Pacific’,Alternatives, vol. 23, pp.1-28

Kanishka Jayasuriya

‘Understanding ‘Asian Values’ as a form ofReactionary Modernization’,Contemporary Politics,vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 77-91

Garry Rodan

‘The Internet and Political Control in Singapore’,Political Science Quarterly, vol. 113, no. 1, 1998,pp. 63-90

Richard Robison and Andrew Rosser

‘Resisting Reform: Indonesia’s New Order, theIMF, and the Contest for Change’,World Develop-ment, August 1998

Garry Rodan

‘Asia and the International Press: the PoliticalSignificance of Expanding Markets’,Democratiza-tion, vol. 5, no. 2, 1998, pp. 125-54

Garry Rodan

‘Singapore in 1997: Living with the Neighbours’,Asian Survey, vol. XXXVIII, no. 2, 1998, pp. 177-82

Garry Rodan

‘Markets and the Media: Economic Developmentand Press Control in Asia’,Harvard Asia PacificReview, vol. 2, no. 1, Winter 1997-98, pp. 34-8

Mark Beeson

‘The End of the Miracle? Japan and the East AsianCrisis: Review Article’, Political Science, forth-coming

Mark Beeson and Ann Firth

‘Neoliberalism as a Political Rationality: AustralianPublic Policy since the 1980s,Journal of Sociology,vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 215-31

Mark Beeson

‘Indonesia, the East Asian Crisis, and the Com-modification of the Nation-State’,New PoliticalEconomy, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 357-74

Mark Beeson and Kanishka Jayasuriya‘The Political Rationalities of Regionalism: APECand the EU in Comparative Perspective’,ThePacific Review, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 311-36

Mark Beeson and Vedi R. Hadiz

‘Labor and the Politics of Structural Adjustment inAustralia and Indonesia’,Journal of ContemporaryAsia, forthcoming

Mark Beeson and Mark Berger

‘Lineages of Liberalism and Miracles ofModernization: The World Bank, the East AsianTrajectory and the International DevelopmentDebate’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 3,1998, pp. 487-504

Phil Lewis

‘Developing Australia’s Globalisation Strategies inSouth East Asia: The Role of Business Education’,Asian Academy of Management Journal, vol. 2, no.1, forthcoming

1997

Mark Beeson

‘Who Pays the Ferryman? Industry Policy andShipbuilding in Australia’,Australian Journal ofPolitical Science, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 437-54

Mark Beeson and Mark Cloney

‘Australian-based Agribusines and Asia: ThePolitical Economy of Regional Food Production’,Journal of Asian Business, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1-19

Mark Beeson

‘Bilateral Economic Relations in a Global PoliticalEconomy: Australia and Japan’,Competition andChange, no. 2, pp. 137-73

Mark Beeson

‘Organised Labour: Australia’s ReconstructedRevisited’,Journal of Australian Political Economyspecial issue: ‘Australia Reconstructed: Ten YearsOn’, no. 39, pp. 55-71

Vedi R. Hadiz

‘Ekonomi politik "kepentingan nasional"’,Prisma,vol. XXVI, no. 5, pp. 75-7

David Hill and Krishna Sen

‘Wiring the Warung to Global Gateways: TheInternet in Indonesia’,Indonesia, no. 63, pp. 68-89

Kanishka Jayasuriya

‘The Rule of Law: Authoritarian Governance inEast Asia’,Harvard Asia Pacific Review, vol.2, no.1, pp. 31-34

Kanishka Jayasuriya

‘Franz Newmann on the Rule of Law and Capital-ism: The East Asian Case’,Journal of Asia PacificEconomy, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 357-77


Phil Lewis

‘Temporary Movements of Professional Labour inEast and South East Asia’,Asia Pacific Journal ofEconomics and Business, December 1997, pp. 24-40

Richard Robison

‘Building Markets: The Confusion BehindIndonesia’s Economic Reform’,Harvard AsiaPacific Review, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 89-91

Garry Rodan

‘Civil Society and Other Political Responsibilitiesin Southeast Asia’,Journal of Contemporary Asia,vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 156-78

Garry Rodan

‘Singapore in 1996: Extended Election Fever’,Asian Survey, vol. XXXVII, no. 2, pp. 175-80

1996

Mark Beeson

‘Asia’s Disparate Political Economics and theProspects for Transnational "Convergence"’,AsianJournal of Public Administration, Hong Kong, vol.18, no. 2, pp. 141-67

Vedi Hadiz

‘Buruh dalam Penataan Politik Awal Orde Baru’,Prisma, 7, pp. 3-15

Kanishka Jayasuriya

‘The Rule of Law and Capitalism in East Asia’,Pacific Reviewspecial issue: ‘Politics and Econom-ics in the Twenty-first Century: Is There an AsianModel?’, Routledge, London, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 367-88

Garry Rodan

‘The Internationalization of Ideological Conflict:Asia’s New Significance’,Pacific Reviewspecialissue: ‘Politics and Economics in the Twenty-firstCentury: Is There an Asian Model?’, Routledge,London, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 328-51

Don Smart and Grace Ang

‘The Internationalisation of Australian HigherEducation’,International Higher Education, no. 6,URL: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/direct1/newslet6.html

Don Smart

‘Careful or the Export Bubble Might Burst’,Directions in Education, vol.5, no. 15, p. 1

Herb Thompson and Deborah Kennedy

‘Ecological Economics of Biodiversity and TropicalRainforest Deforestation’,The Journal of Interdis-ciplinary Economics, 7, pp. 169-90

Herb Thompson and James Duggie‘Political Economy of the Forestry Industry inIndonesia’,Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 26,no. 3, pp. 352-65Herb Thompson‘Indonesia’s Wood Resource: Trends and Policies’,Journal of Mineral Policy, Business and Environ-ment, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 14-23Herb Thompson‘The Pulp and Paper Industry: Indonesia in anInternational Context’,Journal of Asian Business,vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 41-55Yanrui Wu‘Technical Efficiency and Firm Attributes in theChinese Iron and Steel Industry’,InternationalReview of Applied Economics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp.235-48Yu-Shan Wu‘Away from Socialism: The Asian Way’,PacificReviewspecial issue: ‘Politics and Economics inthe Twenty-first Century: Is there an Asian Mod-el?’, Routledge, London, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 410-251995You-il Lee and Yoon Hwan Shin‘Korean Direct Investment in Southeast Asia’,Journal of Contemporary Asia, no. 25, vol. 2, pp.179-96Yanrui Wu‘Total Factor Productivity Growth, TechnologicalProgress and Technical Efficiency Change inChina: A Three Sector Analysis’,Journal ofComparative Economics, no. 21, pp. 207-29Yanrui Wu, E. Li and N. Samuel‘Food Consumption in Urban China: An EmpiricalAnalysis’, Applied Economics, no. 27, pp. 509-191994David Brown and David Martin Jones‘Singapore and the Myth of the Liberalizing MiddleClass’,Pacific Review, vol. 7, no. 1, 1994, pp. 79-88Kevin Hewison and Andrew Brown‘Labour and Unions in an Industrialising Thailand’,Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 24, no. 4, pp.483-514Philip Hirsch‘Where are the Roots of Thai Environmentalism?’,TE Quarterly Environmental Journal, vol. 2, no. 2,pp. 5-15Krishna Sen‘Changing Horizons of Television in Indonesia’,Southeast Asian Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 22,1994


Malcolm Tull with A.R. Krishnan

‘Resource Use and Environmental Management inJapan 1890-1990’,Australian Economic HistoryReview, September 1994

1993

Jou-juo Chu

‘Political Liberalisation and the Rise of TaiwaneseLabour Radicalism’,Journal of Contemporary Asia,vol. 23, no. 2, April 1993

David Hill

‘The Factory’, by Nh Dini (annotated translationwith introduction),Indonesia(Cornell University),no. 55, April 1993

Richard Robison and Vedi R. Hadiz

‘Privatization or the Reorganization of Dirigism?Indonesian Economic Policy in the 1990s’,Ca-nadian Journal of Development Studies, specialissue, June 1993

1992

David S.G. Goodman

‘Reforming China: Foreign Contacts, ForeignValues?’,Pacific Review, vol. 5, no. 1, 1992

David S.G. Goodman

‘China: The State and Capitalist Revolution’,Pacific Review, vol. 5, no. 4, 1992

Kevin Hewison

‘Communication: Reply to Professor MalcolmFalkus’,Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 22, no.3, 1992

Kevin Hewison

‘Thailand: On Becoming a NIC’,Pacific Review,vol. 5, no. 4, 1992

Jane Hutchison

‘Women and the Philippine Garments ExportIndustry’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 22,no. 4, 1992

Richard Robison

‘Indonesia: An Autonomous Domain of Power?’,Pacific Review, vol. 5, no. 4, 1992

Richard Robison and David S.G. Goodman

‘The New Rich in Asia: Affluence, Mobility andPower’,Pacific Review, vol. 5, no. 4, 1992

Garry Rodan

‘Singapore: Emerging Tensions in the "Dictatorshipof the Middle Class"’,Pacific Review, vol. 5, no.4, 1992

Garry Rodan

‘Singapore’s Leadership Transition: Erosion orRefinement of Authoritarian Rule?’,Bulletin ofConcerned Asian Scholars, vol. 24, no. 1, 1992

New South Wales: Carr Government’sRecord

Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales)(1.40 p.m.)—This time is set aside eachWednesday for discussion of matters of publicinterest. I wish to raise a matter of extremepublic interest today, that is, the forthcomingelection this Saturday in New South Wales.Next Saturday, the people of New SouthWales will be given the opportunity—and nodoubt they will take the opportunity—to re-elect the Carr Labor government and continuethe growth and good government of NewSouth Wales.

In recent weeks in this chamber somemembers of the government, particularlySenator Tierney and Senator Vanstone, have,in a last desperate attempt to assist the flag-ging fortunes of their coalition colleagues inNew South Wales, attempted to denigrate theNew South Wales government on the issue ofdrugs and policing. I find it despicable thatthey would stoop to such low levels as to usean issue of such importance and concern to allAustralians, an issue that should be approach-ed on the basis of bipartisan cooperationrather than simply used for base politicalmotives. It demonstrates that they havenothing at all to put forward to counter thegreat record of the New South Wales Laborgovernment.

I want to take the time today to highlight tothe Senate the achievements of the CarrLabour government, particularly in rural andregional New South Wales. They show theway for the rest of Australia. In the Laborgovernment’s first term, rural and regionalNew South Wales accounted for some $12billion of the $25 billion of new investmentstatewide, that is, 50 per cent of that invest-ment was directed at rural and regional NewSouth Wales. A share of this order for thecountry is a first for any postwar governmentin New South Wales.

New South Wales has the lowest unemploy-ment rate of any state in Australia. In Februa-ry of this year, two-thirds of all the new jobsin Australia were created in New SouthWales. The rate of jobs growth in rural andregional New South Wales actually exceedsthe rate in Greater Sydney—4.7 per cent in


rural and regional New South Wales. It is theactions of the New South Wales Laborgovernment that have contributed directly andsignificantly to that turnaround.

One can point to many instances wheregovernment support from the Carr Laborgovernment has contributed to the creation ofreal jobs throughout rural and regional NewSouth Wales. In Bombala, for instance, theLabor government signed an agreement withthe Softwood Development Corporation whichresulted in the creation of 300 local jobs witha $50 million mill. Similarly, in Tumut theagreement reached between the governmentand Visy Board has resulted in the establish-ment of a pulp and paper mill, some $350million worth of investments generating 980jobs. You can go across the way to Bega. Theestablishment of a cheese cutting and packag-ing plant in Bega was a $20 million invest-ment and 150 jobs were created. In Holbrook,another mill, a $19 million investment, isrevitalising a small Australian country town.For the first time in its history, the town willbe setting up a local chamber of commerce.

The achievements in those few areas that Ihave mentioned have resulted in the creationof substantial jobs. I can add more. In Grif-fith, a major chicken processing company,Barriers, obtained the support of the NewSouth Wales Labor government. This enabledthem to invest $125 million. That is going tocreate up to 1,000 new jobs in that region. Insome places where we have seen, unfortu-nately, the closure of some operations in themining and the meat industries, we have seenthe New South Wales government take actionto have those establishments reopened andthose jobs retained. That happened in Lithgowwith the recent reopening of the Clarencecolliery. Ninety jobs resulted in that hard-hitregion.

Similarly, due to the mismanagement of theowners—indeed, they indulged in somepractices which certainly require scrutiny—themeatworks at Grafton was closed. The Laborgovernment stepped in and through the greatwork of Harry Woods, the local state memberand the minister for regional development inNew South Wales, the Grafton meatworkswas reopened and jobs were saved in that

area. In 1996, the proposed Cadia gold andcopper mine in Orange was facing real diffi-culties and the project could have been lost.The Labor government passed special legisla-tion to secure this investment which is wortharound $400 million and will generate 300jobs in that area.

One could go on. The Southland colliery inthe Hunter Valley was shut down and 80miners were left without work. The NewSouth Wales government stepped in andworked with the industry and the unions toensure that the mine could reopen. This iswhat happened last week, with jobs for 100miners. These are real achievements of theNew South Wales Labor government in ruraland regional Australia, areas that clearly havecried out for government support, governmentinitiative and government backing to createjobs and improve the fortunes of the people.

One of the first acts of the coalition federalgovernment was to abolish the department ofregional development. We have seen theirpolicies. If they get their way on Telstra thesituation will be made even worse in terms ofthe reduction and the removal of governmentservices. What we are seeing in New SouthWales is the reverse. We are seeing the re-establishment of services. For instance, theformer coalition government in New SouthWales closed down passenger rail services toGriffith and Broken Hill. Under the Laborgovernment in New South Wales they havebeen reinstated. For 20 years country rail linesin New South Wales have been closing downand now the Labor government is reversingthis trend. Similarly, the government isupgrading the Pacific Highway. A 10-year$1.6 billion project will improve safety andtravel times between Hexham near Newcastleand the Queensland border.

In the area of education, New South Walesnow spends more per public school studentthan any other mainland state. We are invest-ing $1.1 billion a year on schools and col-leges. This is a great improvement on theposition when the government was elected in1995. Labor has put 90,000 new computersinto schools, including about 30,000 in coun-try New South Wales. Last year, the Laborgovernment introduced Country Online in 20


schools to enable parents, farmers and localbusiness people to use Internet and computerfacilities in the evenings at their local school.These are the things that Senator Alstoncomes in here and talks about in theoreticalterms. What you have in New South Walesunder a Labor government is real action, withthose facilities being provided to countrypeople.

Turning to the area of health, this federalgovernment slashed funding for health to thestates in its first and second budgets. Itstopped the dental scheme, fooled around withprivate health insurance and wasted money.Federal funding of the public hospital systemhas been allowed to decline. That reductionin federal funds had to be made up by thestate Labor government in New South Wales,and it has done that. For the first time in thestate’s history, annual health funding tocountry New South Wales exceeds $1 billion.That is a 37 per cent increase over the amountthat was spent when the Greiner-Faheygovernment lost office in 1995. It is a hugeincrease and one which has been achieved notjust without additional support from thefederal government but with reduced supportin terms of the contributions under this federalgovernment compared to the great supportgiven by the previous Hawke and KeatingLabor governments.

Country hospitals in New South Wales arenow treating almost 1,300 extra patients ayear. There are more than 300 extra doctorsworking in country New South Wales. Werecognise that that problem still needs morework done on it, and the government islooking at initiatives to encourage moredoctors to move to and remain in rural areas.The state Labor government has built orupgraded 16 hospitals throughout New SouthWales, nine of which were located in ruraland regional areas.

If we turn to the area of government admin-istration, under the leadership of HarryWoods, the state minister, and due to theRebuilding Country New South Wales pro-gram, we are seeing government jobs beingcreated in country New South Wales. Servicesand government facilities are being movedfrom the city into country areas. For instance,

when the Rural Assistance Authority relocatedfrom Sydney to Orange, 48 jobs were createdin Orange. In the Department of Agriculturein New South Wales, 140 research jobs wererelocated from Sydney to country centres,where they should be. In the Department ofLand and Water Conservation, 251 positionsare being transferred from city to countryareas. On top of that, 1,300 extra governmentjobs will be created in country areas; 400 ofthose in the Department of Education andTraining and 540 in the Department ofHealth. I could go on but time does notpermit.

Last Thursday in Queanbeyan Premier Carrlaunched the campaign for country New SouthWales. Next Saturday we are going to see thereturn of people like Harry Woods and theelection of other Labor candidates in seatsthroughout rural and regional New SouthWales, because the people in those areas arefed up with this federal government. They arefed up with the National Party, who no longerrepresent the interests of country people. TheNational Party are more interested in squab-bling with their coalition former mates thanthey are in representing the real interests ofrural New South Wales. It will be a greatvictory on Saturday when the Carr Laborgovernment is returned in New South Walesand can continue to take up the fight forcountry people and can continue to resist thedestructive policies of the Howard and Fischerfederal government.

Student UnionismSenator ABETZ (Tasmania—Parliamentary

Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (1.54p.m.)—I think the last speech should havefinished with the words ‘Written, spoken andauthorised by Bob Carr on behalf of theLabor Party’.

This afternoon I want to address an articlethat appeared in theAustralianhigher educa-tion supplement today where the address ofthe new Chancellor of the University ofTechnology in Sydney was printed, albeit inedited form. The new chancellor celebratedacademic freedom and the right to dissent atuniversities and talked about the freedom toexpress and advocate a concept. He talkedabout governing bodies of universities being


the traditional guardians of independence andacademic integrity. So I would have thoughtthat the chancellor, being so committed tofreedom and being so committed to independ-ence, would also of necessity, to be consistentand logical, be supportive of voluntary studentunionism. Instead, he does this amazingintellectual somersault to then argue in favourof compulsory student unionism.

He has made some quite bizarre assertions.He says in part of his speech:Hitherto, the view has been taken by the governingbodies of universities that extracurricular activitiesprovided by membership of student unions are avital element in tertiary education.

If it is so vital, why is it that the only thingthat this man’s university and, indeed, all theother universities around the country demandis not involvement in membership but thepayment of a membership fee? That is theonly thing that is compulsory. Yet he assertsthat being involved in sports and other cultur-al activities is of great importance to theeducational experience. If it is so important,make the involvement compulsory. But, ohno, the only thing that is compulsory is thatyou hand your money over to the studentunion. That completely and utterly debunksthe new chancellor’s assertions about the needfor a compulsory student union fee.

Then he goes on with some absolute pom-posity, to put it mildly, where he says:The student clubs and societies provide forums inwhich students mix with students from otherdisciplines—

as though they need a compulsory studentunion to mix with other students. The logicand the complete lack of comprehension ofwhat happens in student life, I must say, issomewhat embarrassing. Anyway, he goes on:where they may join together to further a commoninterest—

and then this is the greatest bit—where they learn their role as citizens.

Does that mean that, if you do not go touniversity, you do not learn the role of beinga citizen and so we should only consideruniversity graduates as citizens? What anabsolutely pompous and ridiculous statementto have made.

Indeed, at universities they are sayingmembership is not compulsory because youcan opt out of membership. Why is it, if theexperience is so important, that universitiesallow you to opt out of membership but youstill have to pay the fee?

He then tells us that it would be wrong toquell the dissent that has been so often and souseful a burr under the saddle of authority—those useful contributions like telling studentshow to inject heroin, how to get away withshoplifting and how to get a skinful of alco-hol and still drive home and beat the breatha-lyser! They are the useful things to whichthese compulsory fees contribute that the newChancellor of the University of Technologyof Sydney seems to be celebrating.

He then has the audacity to ask, ‘And towhat end is this legislation being introduced?’He asserts no adequate reason for the pro-posed amendment has been forthcoming.Unfortunately, the good gentleman clearly hasnot been talking to many students rightaround this nation, nor has he read the secondreading speech.

Just to remind the gentleman and thoseopposite, the legislation is designed to givestudents choice. Students should be able tochoose which associations they join, givingthem the same freedoms on campus that theyhave elsewhere. Students should be able tochoose which services they purchase ratherthan having these decisions made for them bystudent unions. That is the sort of sensibleapproach that this government is taking to thisissue.

The new Chancellor of the University ofTechnology in Sydney has done a greatdisservice both to himself and his institution.It appears that he supports the draconian atti-tudes of university administrations around thecountry that say it is more important that youpay your compulsory fee rather than beentitled to an education. You know whathappens if you do not pay your fee? You aredenied an education. What is the greatersocial good? Surely the greater social good isallowing a student an education rather thaninsisting on this draconian system of compul-sory student unionism.


QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Goods and Services Tax: InsurancePremiums

Senator COOK—My question is to theAssistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will theminister now admit that the insurance industrywill have no choice but to slug consumers anextra $2.5 billion in insurance premiumincreases due to the introduction of the GST?Why is the government in a state of denialabout this $2.5 billion blunder, given theevidence of the Insurance Council of Australiaand the NRMA? Did the government fail toproperly consider the transitional impact theGST would have on the insurance industry, orwas it just a deliberate grab for an extra $2.5billion in revenue?

Senator KEMP—Thank you, SenatorCook, for that question. The question againgoes to the tax reform package which thisgovernment went to the election on and waselected on and regarding which this govern-ment calls on the Senate to make sure wekeep our promises. It is not only the govern-ment that is calling on the Labor Party to dothis. That is why I greatly appreciate thequestion from Senator Cook. Mr Bob Hogg,a former federal and state director of theLabor Party, a former senior adviser to MrBeazley and Mr Keating—and, indeed, ahighly respected Labor Party individual—today called on the Labor Party to look to thefuture and make sure that they pass the GSTreform package.

This question is from Senator Cook, who isperhaps most famous for admitting that theLabor Party is a high taxing party—in con-trast to the coalition, which of course is a lowtaxing party. Let me make it clear that thegovernment has properly accounted for allGST revenue, including the transitionalmeasures applying GST to insurance. Thegovernment is consulting with the insuranceindustry on the technical application of theGST. The transitional GST provisions forinsurance are consistent with the GST transi-tional provisions for other sectors of the econ-omy. In our view the ICA should, whensetting the price of premiums, take intoaccount all reforms proposed by the govern-ment. The Treasury has estimated that, after

the introduction of the new tax reform system,the price of insurance services should rise byabout 0.8 per cent. Particular insurancepolicies will change in price by differingamounts.

Treasury has accounted in its figuring forboth measures that have been complainedabout by the Insurance Council of Australia,and we are confident of our figures and of ourtax reform package. We believe that onceagain we are seeing the sort of nitpicking thatSenator Cook has become quite famous for.We would urge the Labor Party, if they willnot listen to us and if they will not listen tothe voice of the Australian people, to listen toBob Hogg, who today gave them a lesson. Donot follow the pathways to nowhere of MrBeazley. What we want you to do is to followthe advice of a former distinguished Laborperson and pass the GST package.

Senator COOK—Madam President, I aska supplementary question. Minister, since youhave described $2.5 billion as ‘nitpicking’,can you tell this chamber when you willprovide a final reply to the Insurance Councilabout their claim? Isn’t it the case that, in theTreasurer’s haste to look like a visionary witha bold new tax plan, he left behind the detailbefore launching the GST, and that we nowknow that it is riddled with anomalies, incon-sistencies and unintended consequences? Inshort, when you read the fine print, there is alot of devil in the detail; isn’t that true?

Senator KEMP—That was the most wafflyquestion I have heard for a long time, buteven a question composed largely of wafflewill receive from me, as always, a seriousanswer. I said that the Treasury has accountedin its latest mid-year economic forecast forboth the measures that were raised by theICA; so, Senator, you should not worry onthat score. Yet again, you have been provento be wrong. All I can say to you is thatsenior people in your own party have brokenranks today and said, ‘For heaven’s sake, passthe GST and get on the way to the future.’

Unemployment: Job Creation Programs

Senator McGAURAN—My question is toSenator Alston, representing the Minister forEmployment, Workplace Relations and Small


Business. As the minister would be aware,unemployment continues to decline under theeconomic management of the coalition, andis at the lowest level since 1990. Minister,what initiatives does the government proposeto further reduce unemployment and expandemployment opportunities for all Australians?Is the minister aware of any threats to jobcreation programs?

Senator ALSTON—Yes, we have done anenormous amount—people do not describeAustralia as a ‘miracle economy’ for nothing.Of course, the best form of income securityis a decent job—not the sort of bodgie train-ing schemes that the opposition used to bevery keen on, not the welfare handouts, notthe substitutes for real work, but work itself.That is why it is very pleasing to the govern-ment—but, of course, profoundly unsatisfyingto the opposition—that unemployment hasfallen to its lowest level in nearly 10 years, asSenator McGauran rightly points out.

One of the things we have had to do istackle that huge, dirty big black hole that MrBeazley managed to bequeath to us—and thatothers of course denied for years, but we allknow now it had to be tackled in a fair andresponsible manner. And of course there area number of other very important things thatneed to be done, like getting rid of the unfairdismissal laws, like extending the Work forthe Dole scheme and like introducinglegislation to remove the entitlement of highlypaid seasonal workers to get unemploymentbenefits.

Why are all these sorts of issues supportedby Tony Blair in the UK when his mostfavoured acolyte in Australia, Mr Beazley, isgoing in precisely the opposite direction?Simply because Mr Blair realises that this isthe way to create jobs. He is not beholden toa small fraction of the work force. He is notin a situation where he gets 30 or sometimes40 per cent of the vote and then abdicatesresponsibility to probably 10 per cent of thepopulation and their representatives, who ofcourse are a very small and well paid coterie.That is the problem in this country.

What I think is critically important tounderstand—as Senator Kemp pointed out—isthat, when people like Bob Hogg actually get

away from the trade union movement, thescales fall from their eyes; they understandwhat unemployment is and how it can betackled. So what does Bob Hogg say? Hesays that the first thing that Mr Beazley oughtto do on the policy front is declare support forthe government’s GST and, secondly, heshould support the full privatisation of Telstra.He knows why Labor won’t. Labor won’tbecause it is not allowed to. That is a tragedybecause there are so many things that couldbe done in this country if there was bipartisancommitment to employment growth and GDPgrowth.

But, no, what do we find in Victoria? Theunions said they had had enough of Brumbybecause he would not deliver the goods, sothey knocked him off. Why have they gonefor Bracks? Because Bracks has said he willconsult with the unions. And what is theunions’ agenda? This is what Dean Maghellsays:

. . . the reasons unions affiliate with the ALP is thewish to have the ability to influence politicaloutcomes in the interests of members . . .

In other words, they could not give a damnabout the national interest, the wider interest,and even Labor voters. They are interested inthe unions’ interest. That is why they gotnearly $90 million during the 14-year periodof the Labor government and why the LaborParty is so much in their debt. But it is not inthe national interest; it is profoundlyundemocratic and all those initiatives are onesthat Mr Beazley ought to confront. We knowthat getting rid of unfair dismissal laws is theway to ensure that small business is moreinclined to take on new employees. Why isLabor opposed to junior wage rates? Ofcourse it is because the unions are terrifiedthat young and enthusiastic workers mightactually be a bit more productive than peoplewho are sitting around constantly whingeingabout workers’ rights. They are really notinterested in any mutual obligations. They arenot interested in quid pro quos. It is morequid pro me. They are only interested inlooking after themselves, not in looking afterthe business—seeing it grow and create moreemployment.(Time expired)


Goods and Services Tax: Tasmania

Senator FAULKNER—My question isdirected to the Assistant Treasurer, SenatorKemp. I ask whether the minister recalls that,in answer to my question on Monday regard-ing the effect of the GST on Tasmania, hesaid:

We do not accept that any state will be worse offas a result of the GST. All the states will benefit;indeed, the formula that has been established willcertainly show that.

Is the minister aware that the former ministerfor regional development, Mr Somlyay, haswritten to the Treasurer expressing seriousconcern about the effect of the tax reformpackage on Queensland? Is the minister alsoaware that, according to Mr Somlyay’s localnewspaper, theSunshine Coast Sundayof 21March, he has pointed out to the Treasurerthat he ‘can find no fault with the StateGovernment’s submission on GST funding’prepared by the state Labor Treasurer, MrHamill? If the minister’s own Liberal col-leagues do not have faith in the effect of thetax package on regional areas, why should theQueensland or Tasmanian communities do so?

Senator KEMP—Thank you, SenatorFaulkner, for the question. Talk about col-leagues today—we have mentioned Bob Hoggin question time already. Senator Bob Hogghas lost faith in the Labor Party’s oppositionto the tax package.

Senator Faulkner—On a point of order,Madam President: I am not aware that MrBob Hogg has now become a senator. Myquestion related to the former minister forregional development. It was a very specificquestion, Madam President, and I would askyou to direct the minister to answer thequestion. It is not about Mr Hogg. He hasalready answered one question not directed tohim about that matter. He has talked about MrHogg, let’s hear about Mr Somlyay.

Senator KEMP—Madam President, on thepoint of order: the question revolved arounda colleague who had made some comments onthe compensation package in Queensland. Iam talking about a colleague of SenatorFaulkner, Mr Bob Hogg. I point out to youthat is entirely in line with the question. This

was so obvious a response, and he asked forit and he got it.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I wouldremind you of the thrust of the question fromSenator Faulkner. I cannot direct you how toanswer it but I would ask you to keep thequestion in mind.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT—There are far too manyinterjections in the chamber and it makes itdifficult for me to hear and know what isgoing on. There are senators who were inter-jecting yesterday who are doing it againtoday.

Senator KEMP—As I was saying, SenatorBob Hogg, a colleague of Senator Faulkner—

Senator Faulkner—Mr Bob Hogg.

Senator KEMP—Mr Bob Hogg—the wayhe’s talking at the moment, it would be agood thing if he were actually a senator—ajolly good thing. We would vote for him andyou wouldn’t, I suspect.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, keepfocused on the question please.

Senator KEMP—Mr Bob Hogg said on thepolicy front that Beazley needs to do twothings. Firstly, he should declare support forthe GST—and that is from a former LaborParty leader. In relation to the other matterthat was raised by Senator Faulkner in hisquestion, let me make it clear that statepremiers and territory chief ministers have allendorsed a document outlining the principlesthat will transform Commonwealth-statefinancial arrangements.

All states and territories will benefit fromtax reform by gaining access to a robust taxthat will allow them to remove nine of theirinefficient taxes and give them greater inde-pendence from Commonwealth funding. Thisis why the tax reform, among other things, isgood for the states. The transitional fundingguarantee ensures the budgetary position ofeach state and territory will be no worse offin the three years following the introductionof the GST.

Senator Conroy—That is misleading theSenate, and you know it. He did not endorsethat.


Senator KEMP—Madam President, I amseeking to answer the question. I am receivingconstant abuse from Senator Conroy, whosimply cannot keep quiet. I think it would beappropriate if he were to be called to order,Madam President. The Queensland budget andQueensland taxpayers will benefit substantial-ly from the reforms. The information I haveshows that in the fourth year the Queenslandbudget could be at least $400 million betteroff. This is not disputed by the QueenslandPremier, as far as I am aware.

Senator Conroy—The Assistant Treasureris misleading the house. The QueenslandPremier has said no such thing and has inactual fact totally disputed the point.

The PRESIDENT—There is no point oforder.

Senator KEMP—If Senator Conroy wantsto get up and have a debate, stay back and wewill have a debate. It is quite simple.

Senator Sherry—You don’t stay back!

The PRESIDENT—Senators on my leftwill cease shouting.

Senator KEMP—When I say ‘we’, I speakbroadly of all my colleagues behind me whodo such an absolutely splendid job while I amoff serving the people. As I said, theQueensland budget and Queensland taxpayerswill benefit substantially from the reforms andin the fourth year the Queensland budgetcould be at least $400 million better off. Thisis good news for Queensland.

Senator Cook—That is not true.

Senator KEMP—It is true, Senator. Mad-am President, that is one of the many reasonswe say this tax reform package should bepassed. It is undoubtedly one of the reasonswhy Bob Hogg wants the tax reform packageto be passed, and Bob Hogg is right.

Senator FAULKNER—Madam President,I ask a supplementary question. You would beaware, Madam President, that I asked aquestion about Mr Somlyay, one of SenatorKemp’s Liberal Party colleagues, and the factthat Mr Somlyay bagged the Liberal Party’stax policy. My supplementary question ispretty similar to the one I asked before, andthat is simply this: if the minister’s own

Liberal Party colleagues do not have faith inthe effect of the tax package on regionalareas, why should people who live in Queens-land and Tasmania? How does this ministerexplain the fact that even Liberal Partymembers like Mr Somlyay are expressingvery serious and grave concerns about theCostello tax package?

Senator KEMP—Mr Alex Somlyay is avery strong supporter of the tax reform pack-age. What Senator Faulkner is going on aboutis incomprehensible to me. Senator Faulknerhas to explain why his own people are com-ing apart at the seams on this. Why is it thatsuch a distinguished Labor leader as Mr BobHogg has broken ranks from the Labor Partyand today called on Mr Beazley to show someleadership and pass the GST?

Senator Faulkner—On a point of order,Madam President: you must be aware thatSenator Kemp is not answering, or evenattempting to answer, the supplementaryquestion that has been directed to him. Iwould ask you to at least attempt to bring thisminister to order and explain what his Liberalmates are up to and what Mr Somlyay is upto in relation to the tax package.

The PRESIDENT—Senator, I think if youcheck the transcript you will find that theminister has referred to Mr Somlyay, althoughhe may have had some other things to add.There is a short time left for him to completehis answer if he has anything further to addto it.

Senator Alston—Madam President, on thatpoint of order, I draw your attention to thethreatening manner in which that point oforder was presented. What we got was basi-cally a metaphorical poking in the face, withyour being told that you must be aware ofcertain things and then being asked whetheryou would at least attempt to control SenatorKemp. That is a blatant insult to the chair,Madam President. It is typical of the disre-spect that is being shown for your authority.I invite you to draw Senator Faulkner’sattention to that behaviour every time itoccurs.

The PRESIDENT—It will be best if weproceed with question time. Senator Kemp, doyou have anything further to add?


Senator KEMP—I was planning to sitdown but, on the basis of the point of orderfrom Senator Faulkner, I will continue. Sena-tor Faulkner has to explain why a Labor Partyleader has broken ranks today and called onMr Beazley to pass the GST.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, that iswell beyond the question that was asked.

Sun Metal Zinc Refinery: Unions

Senator PARER—My question withoutnotice is to the Minister for Regional Ser-vices, Territories and Local Government,Senator Ian Macdonald. Minister, will yououtline the effect to the Australian economyif the $1 billion Sun Metals project in NorthQueensland is suspended and how that wouldaffect jobs? Does it have implications for therest of Australia, particularly employment? Isthis yet again unionism gone mad?

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I thankSenator Parer for the question and for hisongoing interest, as a Queenslander, in thisdispute which is of great interest and greatdespair to all of us in Queensland—it shouldbe to all of us in Australia. It is more indespair than in anger that I again refer tothis. To give the Senate some background,for years Townsville Enterprise, the localvoluntary group supporting business inTownsville, business and community leaders,the Townsville and Thuringowa councils,Queensland governments and politicians of allparties worked very hard, very often and atgreat expense to get this investment intoNorth Queensland from a Korean investmenthouse, Korea Zinc. They achieved that aftera lot of hard work. As a result of that, wehave in North Queensland a project worthover $500 million in stage 1 and $1 billion instage 2. It will create more than 1,600 newdirect and indirect jobs with a wages billannually of some $84 million.

This will lead on, in stage 2, to morebillions of dollars of investment. It will leadto a base load power station, the Chevron gaspipeline from Papua New Guinea to southernQueensland, the Comalco refinery in Glad-stone, the Western Mining fertiliser project atPhosphate Hill and the George Fisher zincmine in Mount Isa. All of those, in one way

or another, are dependent upon this KoreaZinc project.

All of that has been put in jeopardy, andwhy? It is because of a senseless, stupid,puerile interunion dispute supported by theLabor Party and the people opposite. It is partof an Australia-wide campaign by theCFMEU to take over from the AWU. That iswhat it is all about. As Senator Parer has said,this is unionism gone mad. To quote aTownsville identity, it is an industrial disputewithout an issue. Why do these unions, whichwere ordered back to work last Friday, thinkthat they are above the law? The AWUagreed to the Queensland Industrial RelationsCommission order to return to work. TheAWU wanted to go back.

Senator Gibbs—It’s not my union, mate.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I know itis not your union, Senator. But your unions,and the ones you support, refused to abide bythe order of the Queensland industrial com-mission. As I speak, the Queensland IndustrialCourt is, on its own motion, making efforts toenforce the order of the Queensland IndustrialRelations Commission. For all of us in thenorth who support this, for the workers, allwe ask Mr Beattie and the Labor Party to dois to apply the law of Queensland. Why can’tthat law of the Queensland Industrial Rela-tions Commission be applied to unions?Unfortunately, the Queensland governmentand Labor politicians opposite just ignore it.

There are workers in Townsville that wantto go back to work, but they have beensubjected to the usual form of union thuggery.They ring up late at night and say, ‘If you goback to work, remember that your wife andyour children will be home alone.’ That is thesort of thuggery we are getting in Townsville,along with racial taunts. Because this is aninvestment by a Korean enterprise, there areracial taunts about eating dogs and so on. Itis a disgusting attitude from the Queenslandgovernment. All we ask is that Mr Beattieapply the law.(Time expired)

Goods and Services Tax: Health andAged Care

Senator CONROY—My question is ad-dressed to the Assistant Treasurer. Is the


Assistant Treasurer aware of the study byArthur Andersen of the likely effects of thetax package on the Catholic not-for-profithealth and aged care sectors? Is he aware thatthis report finds that the government’s pro-posed tax changes will add $36 million to $56million to the cost of the sector in the firstyear and ongoing costs of $5 million? Theseare additional costs which represent the valueof services that will be lost in the Catholichealth and aged care sectors under your taxpackage. Does the Assistant Treasurer dismissthis analysis by Arthur Andersen, in the sameway he did yesterday? If so, on what analysisdoes he rely to refute the study’s findings?

Senator KEMP—As Kylie Minogue said,I could be so lucky! Thank you, SenatorConroy, for that question. If any of mycolleagues were thinking of asking me asimilar question on Arthur Andersen, couldthey please focus on some other issue inquestion time. I have a press release that wasfaxed to me today by Arthur Andersen. Thatis why, Senator Conroy, I said, ‘I could be solucky.’ Arthur Andersen were concernedabout some of the comments in this chamberyesterday. They wanted to make sure thatthere was a fuller perspective given on ArthurAndersen. Can Senator Conroy listen to theanswer? Senator Conroy asks me a questionand, when I get up to answer the question, hehas a chat with the person behind him. Thisis what Arthur Andersen says about our GSTreform package:The GST proposal, together with reforms to thetaxation of business in Australia, is welcomed bythis Firm as much needed initiatives in the mod-ernisation of our taxation laws.

Senator Conroy—I raise a point of orderas to relevance, Madam President.

Government senators interjecting—The PRESIDENT—Order! I need to able

to hear what is said. Senators on my right willcease making so much noise.

Senator Conroy—My question was specifi-cally on Arthur Andersen’s study to do withaged care and health. Would you ask theminister to address the question that I askedhim, not just go off on his own frolic?


Senator KEMP—I am tempted to say thatI was answering the question, but he wasturning around talking to a colleague. As Isaid, I could be so lucky—thank you toSenator Conroy! Arthur Andersen went on tosay, and this gives a very different perspectiveto what Senator Sherry and Senator Conroysaid yesterday:Our existing indirect tax system—includingCommonwealth wholesale sales tax, State stampduties and financial taxes and fringe benefits tax—leads to many distortions in business investmentand competition in the economy and createsuncertainties and unnecessary compliance burdensfor most businesses.

Senator Conroy, can you listen to the answer?

The PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, youshould apply yourself to the question that hasbeen asked of you and ignore interjections.

Senator KEMP—Arthur Andersen con-tinued:We are seriously concerned to ensure that ourrecommendations to the Senate Committee shouldnot be interpreted as criticism or lack of support forthe GST. The government’s resolve to embark ontax reform is welcomed by this Firm and in ourview, is welcomed by business generally.

Senator Conroy, you asked me about ArthurAndersen and I have actually said to you whatArthur Andersen has said. I make the pointthat charities, along with all other sectors ofthe economy, are going to benefit from taxreform.

Senator Conroy—What about the $56million—the ongoing cost?

Senator KEMP—I for one greatly admirethe work of all charities, including the Catho-lic charities, which do a magnificent job.

Senator Conroy—What about the $56million?

The PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, youwill get an opportunity to ask a supplemen-tary question. You should not keep shoutingduring the answer.

Senator KEMP—Let me say that theCatholic charities do an absolutely magnifi-cent job, in my view.(Time expired)

Senator CONROY—Madam President, Iask a supplementary question. Four minutesand he finally got to the question—to be cut


off! What compensation will be offered to thecharitable and not-for-profit health and agedcare providers for the ongoing costs of theGST? Does the government accept that theservice levels in these sectors will have to fallunder the tax package?

Senator KEMP—The services offered bythese sectors will not have to fall. Thesesectors benefit under the tax package. So letme make that as my first point.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator KEMP—I have read to you theArthur Andersen view on the tax package. Asfar as the implementation of the GST isconcerned, you will be aware there is a $500million fund which the government will useto assist in the implementation of the GST bysmall business. Included in that are charitiesas well.

Nuclear Waste: Storage

Senator LEES—My question is to SenatorMinchin, Minister for Industry, Science andResources. I refer the minister to my questionof 1 December last year, in answer to whichhe said:

I can confirm that as far as this government isconcerned there have been absolutely no ministeriallevel discussions with that company, PangeaResources.

I also refer him to his statement earlier todayin this chamber where he admitted misleadingthe Senate and, in doing so, amended theposition to the new one of ‘absolutely noministerial level discussions with Pangea,except for Mr Tuckey in November last year’.I ask, Minister: how do you justify your newposition? How does it sit with comments byMr James Voss, President of Pangea Re-sources, in July last year that he had spokento the government—

Government senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT—Order! SenatorMinchin is entitled to hear this questionbecause he will be called upon to answer it.

Senator LEES—at ministerial and bureau-cratic levels; that is, three months before MrTuckey has admitted to his discussions. So,Minister, are you still misleading the Senate?

Senator MINCHIN —I made my statementof 1 December in answer to your question onthe basis of the advice given to me at thattime—advice received by my office as to anyminister that might be relevant to this matterwho may have had contact or a meeting withPangea. I answered that question on the basisof my knowledge at that time. When I learnedyesterday that Mr Tuckey had in fact metwith Pangea back in November, I drew thatto the attention of the Senate as soon aspossible. One of the reasons why it was thismorning and not last night was that I wantedto make absolutely sure that no other ministerin the government had had a meeting withPangea. That involved my office contactingevery other minister’s office to ensure thatthose meetings had not taken place. Thatadvice was finalised last night, and that iswhy I felt confident this morning in sayingthat there was no contact other than thatbetween Mr Tuckey and Pangea, whichoccurred back on 5 November.

May I say in response to other issues raisedin the discussion of this matter this morningthat I received a letter from Mr Tuckey lastnight on this matter in which he said:At the meeting—

with Mr Voss—I indicated to him that:-1. My portfolio responsibilities did not cover this

issue;2. That I was not in a position to judge the

scientific and technical feasibility of such aproposal; and

3. I believed that such a proposal would beunlikely to receive community support.

I am not aware of the statement that you havejust quoted of Mr Voss. That is news to me,and it contradicts the information I have thatno such contact has occurred, apart from thatI reported this morning.

Senator LEES—Madam President, I ask asupplementary question. The date on thematerial I have is 24 July 1998, so perhapsyou could check with Mr Tuckey again thatthere was no other meeting. Could I also askyou to explain why, when you made yourstatement this morning, you circulated thedraft and did not make your final commentsin line with the draft? There is one particular


statement that you deleted. The statement youdeleted was:We completely reject Pangea’s proposal to build aninternational waste repository in Australia.

Is it because Pangea is already in line to buildand run, as a private facility, a low-levelradioactive waste facility for Australianwastes as planned by both the Keating andthe Howard governments? I ask you to rulethis out if it is not the case.

Senator MINCHIN —I read to you theletter from me to Mr Voss on 5 March, whichI tabled, which says:Regardless of Pangea’s views as to the suitabilityof Australia to host an international nuclear wasterepository, the government has no intention ofconsidering Pangea’s proposals for such a project.

As you well know, we are in the process ofdetermining a site for a domestic low-levelwaste repository, and that will almost inevi-tably be a government run repository. I amnot aware of any proposal that has been putto me for Pangea to run such a facility. Whilefinal decisions have not been made, myexpectation is that that would be a govern-ment run repository.

Superannuation: Investment RulesSenator SHERRY—My question is ad-

dressed to the Assistant Treasurer, SenatorKemp. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware ofcomments by the Australian Society of Certi-fied Practising Accountants that the govern-ment’s proposed changes to the investmentrules affecting do-it-yourself superannuationfunds would ‘effectively destroy retirementincome options for thousands of small busi-nesses in rural and regional Australia’? Canthe minister explain why the government ischanging the investment rules affecting over160,000 do-it-yourself superannuation fundswhen the government’s own budget papers donot attribute any savings measures to thechanges?

Senator KEMP—In view of the commentsSenator Sherry made in this chamber yester-day about Arthur Andersen, I had ratherhoped that he was going to make it very clearhow misleading his comments were. The newinvestment rules have been out for a verylong period of time. They were announced in

the last budget, and there have been furtherpress statements since then. What we areconcerned about is ensuring that money whichis provided for retirement incomes is properlyused for retirement purposes. We are verysupportive of DIY funds; in fact, DIY fundshave been one of the growth areas in super.From memory, the average rise in the numberof DIY funds each quarter is between 4,000and 5,000. They are a very attractive optionfor many people, including many people insmall business. I would have hoped that theLabor Party, along with this side of thechamber, would be very concerned to makesure that this growth in superannuation isproperly managed.

Senator Cook—That is why he is askingyou the question. Answer the question.

Senator KEMP—Senator, this is preciselywhat I am doing. I was asked why webrought in the new investment rules. Theseinvestment rules have been out for some ninemonths. We brought them in because we wereconcerned to make sure that the growth ofsuperannuation—in particular the growth ofDIY funds—took place on a sound basis, andwe believe that those rules are important toensure that money is appropriately investedfor retirement income purposes.

Senator SHERRY—Madam President, Iask a supplementary question. The ministermay know that they have been out for ninemonths, but they are not law yet, and smallbusiness operators are very concerned aboutthe interim arrangements that you propose. Isthe minister aware of the recent statements bythe Australian Superannuation Funds Associa-tion that ‘both workers and bosses are increas-ingly walking away from superannuation’?Given the Howard government’s monumentalblunders in regard to national retirementsavings policy—with the failed savings rebateincentive, the changes to DIY super and thedamaging effects of the way the surcharge taxhas been applied—has the government givenup completely on encouraging a long-termsavings culture in this country?

Senator KEMP—We are building a sav-ings culture in this country, in contrast to theLabor Party, which in its term of officeeffectively set about destroying national


savings through running massive public sectordeficits. We are giving particular emphasis tosuperannuation. Superannuation is one of thegreat growth sectors of the Australian econ-omy. People are not walking away fromsuper. People are putting increasing amountsof money into superannuation and that is whythe superannuation industry is enjoying verygreat growth. I rather hoped that, in the areaof superannuation, we might see some biparti-san responsible policy. Senator Sherry, I amafraid your question today shows how littleyou really understand what is going on in thesuperannuation industry.

Lucas Heights Nuclear ReactorSenator MARGETTS—My question is to

the Minister for Industry, Science and Re-sources, Senator Minchin. Can the ministerconfirm that there have been at least threemajor incidents at the ANSTO researchreactor at Lucas Heights this year, includingthe dropping of a spent fuel rod and therelease into the atmosphere of a large amountof radioactive gas and a large amount ofradioactive iodine? If so, can he advise whatauthorities were alerted to these incidents, andwhen that was done? Can the minister alsoadvise if workers at ANSTO were alerted tothese incidents at the time and if the com-munity in Sutherland Shire were alerted to therelease of radioactive gases and iodine?Finally, will ARPANSA be required to tablea report on these incidents, including theirrecommendations for changes in procedure toavoid a repeat of these dangerous incidents?

Senator MINCHIN —I thank SenatorMargetts for her question and for her earlynotice of it. I can confirm there were threeincidents in operational areas of LucasHeights during February 1999. None of thoseincidents were associated with the operationof the reactor itself. One event occurred whena spent fuel element was being transferredfrom a storage area to an examination area.The other two events occurred duringradiopharmaceutical production when gaseswere released at levels that were higher thanroutine levels. I am advised that, in all cases,radiation releases did not exceed the permittedlevels of emissions. There were no significantpersonnel exposures and no on-site or off-site

health impacts. The appropriate authoritieswere notified promptly of the incidents,particularly the Australian Radiation Protec-tion and Nuclear Safety Agency and theANSTO Safety Review Committee, as wereall relevant staff in the associated areas.

In relation to the fuel rod incident,ARPANSA was notified on that day and theANSTO Safety Review Committee the fol-lowing day. I have not been able to confirm,in the time available, the exact time of notifi-cation of the other two incidents. The initialadvice is that it was within 24 hours, but I amendeavouring to find out exactly when thatnotification occurred and I will make youaware of that as soon as it is available.

The incident involving a spent fuel elementhad no impact outside the building in whichit was being handled, and the two eventsinvolving small releases did not lead todischarges greater than normal for the monthand, as such, did not require any emergencymeasures or notifications to the local com-munity. However, ANSTO is reviewing itsnotification arrangements in light of theincidents. All three incidents are being fullyinvestigated by both ANSTO and ARPANSAto determine their root causes and to establishimprovements which will help to ensure suchincidents do not recur. Once those investigat-ions are concluded, they will be reported toparliament by the Chief Executive Officer ofARPANSA.

Senator MARGETTS—Madam President,I ask a supplementary question. The ministerhas clearly not included the community in hislist of people who were advised. Given theserecent incidents, particularly given that theincident involving the spent fuel rod occurredlargely as a result of its poor condition, whatconfidence can we have that there will not besimilar incidents when these rods are movedin preparation for their export to France forreprocessing? And given the recent earth-quake in the vicinity of Sydney, the epicentreof which was approximately 40 kilometresfrom the Lucas Heights reactor, can theminister advise if he is confident that thesafety of workers and the local communitycan be safeguarded in the event of repeat


earthquakes? Were workers even properlyadvised of that fuel rod incident, Minister?

Senator MINCHIN —I did say in myanswer that all staff were notified of theincident. I have every confidence in ANSTOand in the operation at Lucas Heights. Theydo an outstanding job for Australia. This isone of Australia’s great scientific communi-ties, contributing enormously to the country.I have every confidence in the work they aredoing. The whole point of an ARPANSAinvestigation into this incident is to ensurethat all safety measures are appropriate andproper and that there is no repeat of thisincident.

Goods and Services Tax: EducationSenator CARR—My question without

notice is to Senator Kemp in his capacity asAssistant Treasurer. Is it true that the GSTwill increase the costs of schoolbooks pur-chased by parents and students, school uni-forms, school camps, excursions and travel toand from school, visiting performers, schoollunches, hire of musical instruments and otherequipment, Internet services, goods purchasedto be resold in fundraising ventures, beforeand after school care, and school administra-tion? Is it also correct that schools, as youclaim, will be quarantined from the costincreases associated with the introduction ofthe GST?

Senator KEMP—Thank you for thatquestion, Senator Carr. I think you have tolook at the package overall in a sensible andfair manner. You would see that, as distinctfrom the sort of impression you are trying togive, costs for the education sector actuallyfall by some $240 million. The price effect isminus 0.3 per cent. The education sector willbenefit from tax reform, because the costs ofinputs into that sector will fall. As we esti-mate, they will fall by some $240 million.The parents of people attending school—andI will take the typical family—will probablybenefit in the order of $40 to $50 per week.This is part of arguably the largest income taxcut in Australian history. People like BobHogg have cut loose from the Labor Partyposition because they can see that this taxpackage is of overall benefit. You and theLabor Party are trying not only to stop the fall

in costs which the education sector willexperience as a result of our package but alsoto prevent the parents of the children attend-ing these schools getting what, as I said, willarguably be the largest tax cut ever given inAustralian history.

Senator Carr, we are very proud of ourpackage. Schools will benefit from our pack-age. And let me assure you that the parents ofstudents attending schools will benefit verysubstantially if only the Labor Party will lookto the future, if only the Labor Party willfollow the advice it has been given today byBob Hogg, and make sure this tax package ispassed.

Senator CARR—Madam President, I aska supplementary question. Minister, since youclaim that there are these additional advanta-ges to schools, will you be able to tell theprincipals that they are wrong, and if so why,when they say that the additional adminis-trative costs will be between $25,000 and$35,000 per year per school? Will you be ableto tell parents who have expressed theirconcern that under this proposal there will bean additional cost to individual children of$300 per week—

Government senators—What?Senator CARR—Up to $300 per year in

additional costs for the provision of school-ing? Will you be able to assure people that upto half the compensation package you are pro-posing will not go in additional educationcosts? If not, Minister, why not?

Senator KEMP—Did I hear correctly—‘$300 per week extra costs’? This is fantasystuff, Senator Carr. Along with many of yourcolleagues, you are in fantasy land. Can theLabor Party explain to the parents of studentswho attend schools why the Labor Party isattempting to prevent them from getting majorincome tax cuts? A typical family may wellget in the order of $40 to $50 per week—perweek! That is what the Labor Party is at-tempting to stop.

Senator Carr—You know that’s not true.Senator Cook—They don’t.The PRESIDENT—Senators on my left

will cease shouting. You are grossly in breachof the standing orders.


Women: Health ServicesSenator PAYNE—My question without

notice is to the Minister for Family andCommunity Services and Minister Assistingthe Prime Minister on the Status of Women,Senator Newman. The government has signifi-cantly increased Commonwealth funding forNew South Wales health this year and hasextended its commitment in particular towomen’s health and safety by promising anadditional $25 million for domestic violenceprevention. Minister, does the Commonwealthgovernment have any input into decisions bythe New South Wales government to cuthealth services to women, including the NewSouth Wales Rape Crisis Centre?

Senator NEWMAN—It is a very goodquestion, because we on this side of theparliament are all concerned about women’shealth. I just wonder what is happening inNew South Wales with the Carr-Refshaugegovernment. I was very worried to hearsuggestions on ABC radio that the Common-wealth government was to blame for reducingby one-fifth funding to the New South WalesRape Crisis Centre. Senator Patterson heardthat too.

The truth is anything but: the Common-wealth government has not cut funding to theNew South Wales Rape Crisis Centre. It looksas though this might be simply anotherpathetic, shameful example of the Carrgovernment in New South Wales beingprepared to shift the blame elsewhere when itis really that government whose commitmentto services for vulnerable women—including,very importantly, those who live in rural areaswhere support is so hard to come by—ispretty shaky. In fact, the situation is contraryto what the New South Wales governmentwould have the public and the communityorganisations believe. Commonwealth fundingfor health has in fact increased by more than10 per cent this year. That is the largestmonetary injection to New South Waleshealth by the Commonwealth ever.

Commonwealth funding for health servicesto the states and territories is now deliveredthrough the public health outcome fundingagreements, which are bilateral agreementsbetween the Commonwealth and each state

and territory—and that includes the NationalWomen’s Health Program. Under that pro-gram, the states and territories are required tocontinue their commitment to implementnational strategies, such as the NationalWomen’s Health Program, although the stategovernment—in this case the New SouthWales Carr-Refshauge government—will bedetermining how the resources will be de-ployed. But there has been no reductionwhatsoever in the levels of aggregate fundingprovided through the public health outcomefunding agreements with New South Wales tocover these programs. People will say any-thing to get back into government in NewSouth Wales!

If funding is cut to the New South WalesRape Crisis Centre, it is the decision of MrCarr and Dr Refshauge and the rest of theirmates in the New South Wales government.Their rhetoric on services to the most ofvulnerable women in the New South Walescommunity does not seem to be backed bytheir decisions behind the scenes. The truthmust out: the Commonwealth has not cut theirmoney; it has increased their money.

Nuclear Waste: StorageSenator FAULKNER—My question is

directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister forIndustry, Science and Resources. I ask wheth-er the minister is aware that a short time agoMr Tuckey informed the House of Represen-tatives that:When Senator Minchin made the remarks he did,I was obliged immediately to tell him that he hadmade an error inadvertently, and I stand by that.

They are Mr Tuckey’s words in the House. Iask the minister how those particular wordsstand, given that he advised the Senate thismorning:My office was advised yesterday by the office ofMr Tuckey that he met with Mr James Voss ofPangea Resources on 5 November 1998.

I simply ask: who is right? Did Mr Tuckeyimmediately inform Senator Minchin, as heindicated to the House, or were you right inyour statement to the Senate this morning?

Senator MINCHIN —I am at a disadvan-tage, not having heard or seen what MrTuckey said, but I have no doubt that Mr


Tuckey’s answer would have been entirelyconsistent with what I said to the Senate thismorning and in my further answer. I receiveda letter from Wilson Tuckey dated 23March—that is, yesterday—saying:It has come to attention that on 1 December 1998you informed the Senate . . .At the time you made that statement you could nothave been aware that my office had granted arequest for an interview to an American industrial-ist.

That letter forms the first and only notice tome of the fact that Mr Tuckey had met witha representative of Pangea. I came straightinto the Senate, as soon as I could, to reportthat. I am sure there is no inconsistency.

Senator FAULKNER—Madam President,I ask a supplementary question. Minister, MrTuckey informed the House of Represen-tatives, and I used his words, that:When Senator Minchin made the remarks he did,I was obliged immediately to tell him he had madean error inadvertently, and I stand by that.

Minister, either you or Mr Tuckey must bemisleading the parliament. Who is right? DidMr Tuckey advise immediately or are youright that you were only advised yesterday bythe office of Mr Tuckey that he had met withMr James Voss?

Senator Herron—Madam President, I riseon a point of order. Senator Faulkner isimplying by accusation that Senator Minchinhas misled the Senate. Senator Faulkner didnot hear what Mr Tuckey said in the otherchamber this afternoon. He is making theaccusation based on a false premise and Iwould ask him to withdraw the accusation. Ilistened to what Mr Tuckey said in the otherchamber. Senator Faulkner is relying onsomebody else, because he did not listen towhat Mr Tuckey said. He has based hisquestion on a false premise.

Senator Faulkner—Madam President, onthe point of order, which I believe is not apoint of order and ought to be ruled out oforder by you, I have been provided with atranscript of the words Mr Tuckey used in theHouse of Representatives. I am depending onthat transcript and it is on the basis of thetranscript that I put what I believe is a properand very serious question to the Minister.


Senator MINCHIN —I did not hear whatMr Tuckey said and I am not going to give ananswer based on the hearsay of SenatorFaulkner. He may have heard him or he mayhave seen a transcript but I do not knowwhether that transcript is correct. I am notgoing to respond to an accusation based onwhat is, at this stage, hearsay. I will have alook at what Mr Tuckey has said. All I cansay is that I was told yesterday, in a letterfrom Mr Tuckey, that he had met with MrVoss in November.

Jabiluka Uranium MineSenator ALLISON—Madam President, my

question is to the Minister for the Environ-ment and Heritage. I refer to his ongoingdefiance of the Senate’s order on Jabiluka andto the letter the minister sent me last night.

Senator Alston—Madam President, I raisea point of order. Isn’t this matter already onthe Notice Paper?

The PRESIDENT—I am not aware of abill on this particular topic.

Senator Alston—There is something inrelation to this very matter.

The PRESIDENT—That does not preventher asking a question on that topic.

Senator ALLISON—The letter the ministersent me last night claims that he had clearlyoutlined the documents tabled, which hecalled ‘key’ documents, and those withheld.I have looked through the lists again and Iask: why are there no documents from keypublic servants? I will list some of those:Kevin Keefe, Stephen Hunter, Bill Campbell,Elizabeth Williams, Gillian Bird, DavidAitkenson, Arthur Johnson, Peter Vaughan,David Collen and Kaely Woods. I ask theminister: is it not the case that all of thesestaff provided written information whichwould have been on his department’s files?Why have these key documents not beentabled? When is the minister going to let theSenate decide what are key documents andwhat are not?

Senator HILL —If the honourable senatorhas received a series of leaked documents, I


do not know why she wants copies from me.The department gave me advice on what theyregarded as key documents. I tabled those thatI thought it was proper to table. With regardto those I have not tabled, I gave reasons asto why I did not believe it was proper to tablethem.

Senator ALLISON—Madam President, Iask a supplementary question. Minister, is itnot the case that there is also a stack of otherdocuments missing too? Is it not the case thatall of the documents relating to the numerousconsultants that have been engaged on Jabi-luka—for example, Professor Dudgeon, DrWang, Dr Chew, Dr Pittock, Dr Jones, BruceStewart, Dr Sri Kanthan, Brian Taylor and DrWatson—are key documents? Where are thesedocuments?

Senator HILL —Before the time for tablingwe contacted the honourable senator’s officeand asked if she would be helpful and refinethe list that she might be seeking in order thatwe might be helpful in response. The answerthat we got was that they were not so interest-ed.

Senator Sandy Macdonald—MadamPresident, my question is to the Minister forJustice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Theminister would be aware of national statisticsfrom Crime Stoppers Australia that showdisturbing differences in arrests and char-ging—

Senator Robert Ray—Madam President,I raise a point of order. Wasn’t the call to ourside? I know arrangements were made to aska New South Wales question of SenatorVanstone to get the last add-in, but doesn’tthe call normally go to our side?

Senator Ellison—No-one jumped.

Senator Robert Ray—They did so.

The PRESIDENT—I call Senator Lundy

Goods and Services Tax: SportingOrganisations

Senator LUNDY—My question is to theAssistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Is theminister aware of claims that governmentgrants to sporting organisations will be sub-ject to the GST in certain circumstances? Canyou explain exactly in what circumstances the

GST will apply to government grants toorganisations such as Little Athletics? Is it notthe case that all government grants which aredeemed to be considered for the supply of aspecific service, such as assistance with thevenue and equipment hire costs for the under-sevens, be subject to the 10 per cent GST?What about general financial assistance grantsto maintain a local kids soccer club? Willthese also be subject to the 10 per cent GST?

Senator KEMP—Regarding the localsoccer club, was the soccer club registered ornot?

Senator LUNDY—Given that the ministerhas chosen to ignore all of the pertinentpoints of the question, will this governmentincrease grants to sporting organisations thatwill invariably suffer from a reduction in realfunding if grants are subject to the GST? Forinstance, doesn’t the GST mean that a $1,000grant will be reduced to a little over $900 inthe hands of a local sporting organisation?Won’t that grant buy even less when thehigher costs of sports uniforms and access tofacilities and services like phone and electrici-ty are taken into account? And, Minister, Inote the contempt with which you treatsporting organisations.

Senator KEMP—I would say to the sena-tor: you accept questions but they are notcomplete. If you ask me a question it isimportant from time to time to know certaininformation—for instance, in the case of theway this question is worded, whether theorganisation is registered or not. You couldnot even respond to that, could you? That isthe problem when questions are accepted thathave been written by Senator Cook. They aresimply not complete, they are poorly wordedand they leave people like you asking ques-tions which are simply not accurate. Webelieve that sport, along with all other sectorsof the Australian economy, will certainlybenefit from the government’s tax reformpackage. Thank you for the question, Senator.

Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask thatfurther questions be placed on theNoticePaper.


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUTNOTICE

Goods and Services Tax: InsurancePremiums

Goods and Services Tax: Education

Goods and Services Tax: SportingOrganisations

Senator COOK (Western Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in theSenate) (3.08 p.m.)—I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers givenby the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) inresponse to questions without notice asked bySenator Cook, Senator Carr and Senator Lundytoday relating to the proposed new tax system.

My question to Senator Kemp today about theGST went to—

Senator Ferguson—Madam Deputy Presi-dent, could I take a point of order? Yesterdayafternoon when a motion was moved to takenote of answers, you stipulated that in fact themotion could take note only of one particularanswer to a minister. In this case SenatorCook said he wants to take note of all of theanswers en masse. Why is it correct for himto do it today if it was not possible yesterdayfor others to speak on those matters?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is nopoint of order, Senator Ferguson, for the verysimple fact that yesterday Senator Forshawmoved to take note only of one particularanswer. Senator Cook is moving to take noteof three answers today.

Senator COOK—My question to SenatorKemp today concerned evidence given by theInsurance Council of Australia to the Senateinquiry into the GST. The Insurance Councilof Australia is a body that represents Austral-ian insurance companies. It gave evidence tothe inquiry that the transitional cost of theintroduction of a GST into the Australiantaxation system for insurance companies inAustralia adds up to $2.5 billion. It said thatit had made representations to the Australiangovernment—in particular to Mr Costello, theTreasurer—seeking relief from that $2.5billion cost that would go to it.

The council said further that if the govern-ment would not grant that relief they wouldpass on $2.5 billion in extra charges to their

policyholders, which is to say that Australianswho take out insurance will pay in total $2.5billion more than they now have to pay inorder to meet their insurance premiums. Thatwas the evidence given to the Senate commit-tee inquiring into the GST.

They said further that this was an unintend-ed consequence, that the government had notallowed for this, that the government hadmade a mistake and that was what causedthese charges to arise. They said that becausethe government was not counting on the extra$2.5 billion—although they would levy it—the government should wipe the slate cleanand therefore not interfere with the tax con-cessions that it was going to give—simplywipe it off. They said that they had notreceived an answer from the Treasurer aboutthis. Today, my question to the AssistantTreasurer gained no answer either. All he saidwas that there will be further consultations.What we have now is a chorus from thegovernment about ongoing consultations whilemajor flaws in this GST package have beenbrought to light and remain unanswered anddangle over this Senate as questions to beresolved in time for our debate on these billswhen they come forward.

We are witnessing the age-old practice ofa government keeping major organisations onthe line by consultations which never reach aconclusion in order to ambush them at the lastminute and ram through the legislation. Thatis what we are witnessing. Australians are notcompensated for this extra cost in the com-pensation package that the government hasannounced. This extra cost of $2.5 billionwould make Australians poorer, not richer,because the compensation package is notthere.

This question requires an answer immedi-ately because, as I say, the costs to be borneby ordinary Australians will make thempoorer under a GST than they ordinarilywould be. The evidence that we have is thatmost Australians, economically and financial-ly, in doing their household budgets will beworse off—not better off, worse off. This willmake them even more worse off.

Another respected independent body, theInstitute of Taxation, is comprised of experts


who compile tax returns around Australia.What do they say to us? They say, ‘We don’ttake a view about the desirability or not ofthis tax. We are tax experts. We will saywhether the law as proposed by the govern-ment will work or won’t work. Bringing ourexpertise to look at the 16 bills that encodethis law, we say if the government wants aGST it should defer the debate for six to 12months because, when looking at the detail ofthe legislation, we see there are lots of devilsin that detail.’

When you look at the fine print you dis-cover problems that have not been examinedor understood by the government that willcreate impositions on ordinary people andsmall business and make the law administra-tively impossible. This is not a group thattakes a partisan view in this debate, but anexpert group that says, ‘Does the law work ornot?’ What is the answer from the govern-ment to them? We have not heard it—we arestill waiting. And we will not hear it.(Timeexpired)

Senator PATTERSON (Victoria—Parlia-mentary Secretary to the Minister for Immi-gration and Multicultural Affairs) (3.13p.m.)—It is quite interesting that the LaborParty, when it discusses the tax reform pack-age, continues to focus totally on the GSTand the impact it says it will have on varioussectors of the community and business atlarge. The opposition has chosen, as I said, tofocus narrowly on the GST and it has chosento forget—or on purpose it is denying toacknowledge—that there is a much wider taxplan. It is denying and trying to hide that thisis not just the introduction of a new tax butrather the reform of a ramshackle tax systemit created during 13 years in office.

I would suggest that the opposition haveforgotten this fact and are remaining quiet onit—as with other aspects of the tax reform—because, unlike their former leaders, they donot want to acknowledge their mistakes of thepast. I could go to a number of quotationsback in 1985 of the former Prime Minister,Mr Keating—if we can believe what hesaid—when he went on ad infinitum about theimportance of reforming the taxation system.But he did nothing about it.

Bob Hawke at the same time went on andon about a consumption tax. He said that itwould force the rich to pay their share andthat if we did not have a consumption tax thepoor would be hit the hardest. They were thecatchcries of the Labor Party in 1985. Theydid not have the gall or the internal fortitudeto actually do something about it.

Let me review some of the reform measuresthat will be introduced in order to clear awaythe remains of Labor’s decrepit taxationsystem. Wholesale sales tax is the main areain which Labor continued to place their faithwhile in government. Obviously, that is theonly policy they have got now. They have notput up an alternative. So what they are pro-posing and supporting is a ramshackle whole-sale sales tax system. Despite continuallypromising to reform it, they never, everreformed it. Wholesale sales tax increased andincreased; in fact, it went up by 10 per centduring the period from the financial year1987-88 to the end of the financial year whenthey left office.

The system is now so complex that whole-sale sales tax rates differ between 22 per centand 45 per cent, with no less than six differ-ent rates. It is crazy. How can you justify asystem that has wholesale sales tax on tooth-paste and not on toothbrushes and—this is theexample I give again and again in this cham-ber—wholesale sales tax on strawberry Quikand not on chocolate Quik? It is a ramshack-le, out-of-date system.

It is also a system in which rates have beensurreptitiously put up. In 1993, there weresignificant increases in wholesale sales tax,with not one cent of compensation for any-body. For the people whom they are nowclaiming that they want to represent andsupport, there was not one cent of compensa-tion when that wholesale sales tax was put upby stealth.

Taxation reform is needed to help providejobs, stimulate business growth, cut red tapesurrounding tax legislation and prevent loop-holes from appearing and being used. Thereforms that we are putting in place, if we donot have obstruction from the oppositionparties in this chamber, are reforms of thewhole taxation system. They include remov-


ing the disincentives for low and middleincome people to work and save. We arereducing personal income tax rates, reformingand simplifying income support payments,providing extra assistance to social securityrecipients and ensuring that the impact of taxreform does not disadvantage pensioners, theunemployed, low income families and so on.

What we have now is a system—which,obviously, the Labor Party wants to support—which provides that when low income earnersgo over a certain income level, they losesignificant parts of their welfare benefits orfamily allowances. It means there is noincentive for them to get a pay increase or towork overtime. That is the poor interactionwe have now between the income tax systemand the social security system. We are re-forming that.

This is a total package. Australians shouldnot be fooled into thinking it is just about theGST. It is about reducing income taxes to alevel unheard of in Australia and making surethat we have a tax base that will providesufficient money to the states and ensure thatwe have welfare and health systems that canprovide support into the next millennium forthe young people who are currently growingup.

That is what we are putting in place—ataxation system which is sustainable. Laborhas no policy. Labor is clinging to a taxationsystem which is ramshackle, out of date andcannot be supported into the future. This willmean that we will not have a health system ora social security system underpinned byincreasing revenue to the government to beable to support those—(Time expired)

Senator CARR (Victoria) (3.18 p.m.)—Today we have heard yet again a series ofbland assurances from a government thatclearly does not appreciate the damage that itis doing to the Australian community by thisill-considered tax proposal which will wreakhavoc on many sectors of the Australianeconomy.

It will wreak havoc particularly on theeducation industries. We are told that educa-tion will be essentially GST free. Nothingcould be further from the truth. We are toldthat Australians will be some $40 to $50 a

week better off as a result of this package.Nothing could be further from the truth. Weare told that there will be a $240 millionsaving to the education industries as a resultof this government’s actions. Nothing couldbe further from the truth.

When we look at the detail of the legisla-tion, no specific assurances match up withspecific proposals within the bill. There arebland assumptions made by members of thegovernment as to the impact of this proposal.When you look at the detail, you see thatthose assumptions are not borne out by thefacts.

What we see, for instance, when we look atthe information provided to us by the educa-tion department, is that, in regard to theestimate of the additional cost to parents as aresult of this tax proposal, and including thegovernment’s proposals for reductions inincome tax and the alleged increases in familyassistance and other compensatory measures,parents will be much worse off. The govern-ment, of course, does not have any informa-tion—no empirical information—to back upits claims that they will be better off.

The department has acknowledged that ithas not undertaken any modelling or detailedstudy of the impact of these proposals onaverage families with children at school orinvolved in other educational institutions. Forinstance, in regard to studies of fundraisingfor schools, no specific information has beengathered by the government to indicate theimpact it is likely to have on the annualturnover of school fundraising activities.

The government has not undertaken anydetailed study of the effect of the compliancecosts that will be involved and the additionaladministration costs for schools. So when theprincipals told the parliament, through theSenate committee, that up to one additionalperson would be required in every school tomeet the compliance requirements of thegovernment’s legislation, and that that waslikely to come out of the teaching budgets ofevery school across the country, we did nothear anything from the government to refutethat, because they cannot refute it. Theysimply know that they do not have anystudies, any advice, to contradict the princi-


pals who, on a day by day basis, take respon-sibility for running schools in this country.

When the principals tell us that the addi-tional costs will be up to $35,000 per year foran average high school in the state of Vic-toria—or any other state, for that matter—weare told that the government cannot reassurepeople about the details of this proposal.What we are told is that there is $500 millionavailable—the great magic pudding—and thatall the businesses in this country, all of thosetens of thousands of small businesses, the 84TAFE colleges, the several thousand schoolsand the 38 universities can rely on this magic$500 million. It amounts to a couple ofhundred dollars per applicant, should every-one seek to apply for it. We know that theadministrative costs will be much higher thanthat. We know that there will be a dramaticimpact on the administration of our educationsystem, the parents and students involved inthe education system and the institutions as awhole.

We are told that they will be $40 to $50 aweek better off under this arrangement. Whenyou ask for details, as I have done, about theway in which this figure is calculated—sincethe government constantly spruiks this fig-ure—we cannot get the answer because thegovernment has no answers. We are told that$240 million will be saved by the educationindustry. How is this figure derived? Whatassumptions are made by the government inpreparing this figure? Again we are told thatthe answers are not available.

These are questions that have been put todepartmental officials and questions that areon notice. These are matters that we expectanswers on. We expect to know preciselywhat assumptions the government uses as thebasis for its claim. We expect to know whatassumptions underlie the cost savings that areallegedly to be passed on. To what extent?What protection will there be that any reduc-tions in any taxes will in fact be passed on toconsumers? We do not get any answers onthat front. We have to work on one simpleassumption. Most of the education industrytoday is tax free.(Time expired)

Senator CHAPMAN (South Australia)(3.23 p.m.)—Labor’s miserable scare cam-paign on the government’s tax reform packageand the goods and services tax has faileddismally. That is very clear and that is whywe now see them embarking on another scarecampaign in regard to the administrativedetail and the transitional arrangements forthe introduction of the GST. Their campaignon the overall principles and policy has failed,so now we see them diverting to a new scarecampaign regarding the administrative detailand the transitional arrangements. This scarecampaign is equally doomed to failure as wastheir campaign with regard to the overall issueof tax reform because Australians know onlytoo well that our current tax system andstructure is broken. Australians know only toowell that we urgently need tax reform. Aus-tralians know very well that the goods andservices tax offers a fair, simple and efficientindirect tax system. They know that it re-moves the complexities and the inconsisten-cies of our current wholesale sales tax struc-ture. On that basis, this new scare campaignthat Labor has embarked upon falls absolutelyflat.

The case for the government’s tax reformpackage is overwhelming. That is why noneother than Bob Hogg supports the package.Let us remember that Bob Hob—

Senator Calvert interjecting—Senator CHAPMAN—Hogs have been in

the news lately, so we might get a bit tonguetied about them. Here I am talking about BobHogg and not piggeries. Bob Hogg is nojunior insignificant member of the LaborParty. Bob Hogg is the former NationalSecretary of the Labor Party. He was thesenior campaign strategist for the Labor Partyin the 1980s and the 1990s—a man who ishighly regarded and highly respected in theLabor Party.

Senator Lundy—Is that all you can do—talk about Bob Hogg?

Senator CHAPMAN—What has Bob Hoggdone? He has called upon the Labor Party tosupport the government’s tax package. It isclear from what we have heard from SenatorCook, Senator Carr and Senator Lundy—withher question that she did not even know the


details of and her interjection a few momentsago—that Bob Hogg’s call is falling on deafears as far as the other side of the chamber isconcerned. Of course it is no wonder that, onthis issue, the Labor Party is becoming anembarrassment to itself and an embarrassmentto this chamber. Today we had question afterquestion on the goods and services tax. Thequestions were completely ill-informed andthe Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, hadabsolutely no difficulty in knocking themdown one after the other as they were putforward because they were based on falsepremises and misinformation. In fact, theywere informed by Labor’s determination toconduct this unjustified scare campaign.

We heard questions asked about the insur-ance industry, about education, about Queens-land and about sporting groups. None of themwas based on facts. And now in this debatefollowing question time Senator Cook has thegall to criticise the government for engagingin consultation with various groups in thecommunity about the details of the implemen-tation of the package. Well he might criticisethe government for consultation—it wassomething the Labor Party never engaged inwhen they were introducing change. Neverdid they consult with groups and organisa-tions of significance in the community thatwere going to be affected. Their legislationwas introduced time and time again withoutany consultation whatsoever. That is inmarked contrast to this government, whichhas developed a fine reputation in the com-munity for its consultation with interestgroups and community groups that are goingto be affected by legislative change.

The case for tax reform is clear; the needfor tax reform is evident. It is evident whenyou look at our income tax structure, as Iremarked a couple of days ago in another ofthese debates. We have an income tax struc-ture which is grossly unfair to people on allincome levels and which has resulted in anunfair burden of the overall tax take beingmoved to income tax. We have an indirect taxstructure that was designed in the 1930s andbased on consumption patterns of the 1930sand not of the 1990s or the 21st century. Ittaxes goods only and not services, which are

now a significant element of people’s con-sumption. So there is clearly a desperate needfor tax reform. There is a need for low in-come tax rates to be considered.(Time ex-pired)

Senator LUNDY (Australian CapitalTerritory) (3.28 p.m.)—Isn’t it interesting thatall Senator Chapman can find to talk about isBob Hogg. What we are really talking abouthere is the devastating impact of thegovernment’s GST package. With referenceto the question I asked earlier in questiontime, it is patently clear that Minister Kempwas not only not prepared to answer the veryspecific questions about the status of grantsthat provide services to sporting organisations,he was incapable of even providing someform of description as to where the govern-ment was heading with that issue.

This issue is indicative of the challenge thathas been presented to the Australian com-munity by this government. How on earth isthe community going to decipher the complexadministrative arrangements that the GSTbrings with it? This is part of the problem.This is the reason we have heard so manycommunity groups, sporting groups, volunteerorganisations and not-for-profit organisationscome before the Senate inquiry over the lastfew months and state their case very plainlythat the GST is going to unfairly shackle themwith increased costs in ways that will meanthat they will not be able to glean any benefitfrom any compensation package.

With respect to sport, there is absolutely avery clear and concise case against the GST.We know through evidence from New Zea-land that in fact the level of voluntaryism insporting organisations drops by about half,because the GST imposes an extraordinarilyunfair administrative burden and liability uponthose people who take their own time toparticipate actively in the aspirations of theirsporting club—usually the sporting club thattheir own children are involved in. We alsoknow that, as a result of the introduction ofthe GST, every family with a child involvedin a sporting club is likely to suffer a costimposition—for example, an increase in costsof around $90 per annum for a child playingsoccer—as a result of the GST being imple-


mented. That is not a cost that can be ad-equately compensated for by the esotericclaims by Senator Patterson and others thatsomehow the government’s compensationpackage will deal with all of these unfairimpositions.

There are two levels of negative impact ofthe GST with respect to the community. Oneis the hip pocket of the families themselves.The cost impositions through sporting expens-es, for example, will not be dealt with ad-equately through a compensation package.The second level—and this is where thegovernment has completely misled the Aus-tralian community—is where the organisation-al groups, the community structures, will beat such a significant disadvantage under theGST that it will actually start to undermineour social fabric to the point where voluntary-ism will be affected and these organisationswill find it very difficult to survive.

In Adelaide, as part of the GST inquiry, weheard from arts organisations that the firstthing to go under the GST will in fact beextra activities such as taking arts performan-ces to schools and to nursing homes. It is thatkind of value added special service providedby community based, not-for-profit organisa-tions that is an added benefit for the com-munity that is almost impossible to quantify.How do you quantify that in raw dollar termson the books? The problem is that you can-not. This is part of the unquantified price thatAustralians will pay if the GST comes intoforce.

The last point I want to make goes back tocontempt by the minister. Today in questiontime we heard his responses to a series ofdetailed and specific questions presented tohim by the opposition about the operation ofthe GST. There are claims that have beenunanswered about the status of grants toorganisations where services are involved.Until the government answers these veryspecific questions, the Australian communitywill go on being uncertain about the futureand being very concerned and afraid that infact their future is at risk if the GST comesinto force.

Senator LIGHTFOOT (Western Australia)(3.33 p.m.)—I might tell Senator Lundy that

the government has answered most of thesignificant questions that have arisen as aresult of this new tax system. The detail of itwill be debated in this chamber, but what wemust not lose sight of is that the governmenthas introduced a tax that is fair to all Austral-ians. It is a user-pays tax. You cannot de-scribe the wholesale sales tax system in suchterms. You cannot tell me what taxes are onspecific subjects in any detail. Yes, you cantell me some of these things, but you cannottell me that you are not going to put up thewholesale sales tax if you get back into poweragain. What we do know is that you cannotbe allowed to put your fingers in the tillagain. Right from the Whitlam years throughto the Hawke years and the Keating years,you have had your fingers in the till and youcannot manage money. You simply cannotmanage it.

But let me get onto the subject matter. It isnot good enough to say that Senator Chapmanspoke about Mr Bob Hogg and to dismiss thatas if it were not important. What is importantabout Mr Bob Hogg? He is the former ALPNational Secretary. He is the one who wasgiven credit for the 1983 election win by MrHawke. He is the one who has been givencredit for the 1990 win and again for the 1993electoral win. Again, he is not just an insig-nificant member of the Labor Party. He wasthe intellectual brain behind the very successof those elections that I just mentioned.

This is what Mr Hogg said, if it is quotedcorrectly in today’s edition of theAge. It saidthat Mr Hogg has also urged the oppositionleader, Mr Kim Beazley, ‘to break the cycleof organisational venality and stupidity of theALP in South Australia and Victoria’—and heis talking about the GST. He is saying breakthe cycle of stupidity and let us get back tosome decency and honesty. What the GSTdoes is to bring decency and honesty and userpays to the tax system. We have never deniedthat people are not going to say, ‘I want topay tax. I want to pay a tax of any kind. Iwant to pay a GST.’ We have never deniedthat. No-one likes paying tax. But what thisdoes, and the fairness that it promotes before


the Australian people, is bring in a user-payssystem.

What would have happened if you peoplehad won the election last October? You wouldhave introduced a capital gains tax going rightback from 1985, backwards as far as youcould go, to the point where if you inheritedan heirloom from your great-aunt you wouldhave had to get that valued and pay tax on it.We are not saying anything about that withrespect to our GST. We are saying that we aregoing to lift the tax threshold for people whopay tax—from $6,800 to $7,500. We areactually going to lift the threshold. Wherehave you said that you were going to lift thetax threshold for low income earners?

We have also said that we are going to fundpeople who will suffer from the GST. Wehave never pretended that some people arenot going to suffer from the GST, but theyare going to be compensated for that suffer-ing. We have said that we are going to com-pensate those people—

Senator Lundy—At least be consistentwith your party’s rhetoric.

Senator LIGHTFOOT —I did actually hearyou in silence, Senator Lundy. What you aresaying is incomprehensible to me. If I couldquote—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!Senator Lightfoot, would you like to addressthe chair, please, and ignore the—

Senator LIGHTFOOT —Yes, MadamDeputy President. I may say that SenatorLundy is being venal and stupid, and sheshould change—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!Senator Lightfoot, I would like you towithdraw that reflection upon another memberof this place please.

Senator LIGHTFOOT —I will withdraw,Madam Deputy President, and say thatSenator Lundy is part of the organisationalvenality and stupidity of the ALP.

I will continue with respect to theinsurance. We spoke about insurance todaybut we also said that the GST is still thesubject of a Senate inquiry. We had all sortsof accusations about the $2.5 billion extra that

people that took out insurance would pay. Nomention was made of the fact that a GST isgoing to make, for instance, motor vehiclescheaper and therefore their insurance wouldbe cheaper. You did not mention that. Whatwe have said is that the Treasury haveabsolutely funded and taken down into detailprecisely what would—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Thetime for the debate has expired.


PETITIONSThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for

presentation as follows:

East TimorTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in the Parliament assembled.

The Petition of the undersigned draws to theattention of the Senate Indonesia’s continued denialof human rights to the people of East Timor.

Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on theAustralian Government to:

(1) actively support all United Nations resolu-tions and initiatives on East Timor;

(2) actively support the right to self-determina-tion of the people of East Timor;

(3) work for the immediate release of allTimorese political prisoners;

(4) repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and(5) stop all military cooperation and commercial

military activity with Indonesia.

by Senator Bourne (from 158 citizens).

Uranium: World Heritage AreasTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled.

The Petition of the Undersigned strongly opposesany attempts by the Australian Government topermit the mining and export of uranium in Aus-tralia.

1. Your petitioners ask that the Senate opposeany intentions by the Australian Government tosupport the nuclear industry via any mining, enrich-ment and sale of uranium.


Uranium: World Heritage AreasTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in the Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned strongly opposesany attempts by the Australian Government to mine


uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in theWorld Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu NationalPark or any other proposed or currently operatingsite.

Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose anyintentions by the Australian Government to supportthe nuclear industry via any mining, enrichmentand sale of uranium.

by Senator Margetts (from 35 citizens).

Australian Broadcasting CorporationTo the Honourable the President and members ofthe Senate in the Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned recognises thevital role of a strong, comprehensive, independentand publicly funded Australian BroadcastingCorporation (ABC) and asks that:

(1) Coalition Senators honour their 1996 electionpromise, namely that ‘The Coalition will maintainexisting levels of Commonwealth funding to theABC’ [at pre-1996 levels].

(2) The Senate votes to maintain and strengthenthe existing role of the ABC as a fully independent,publicly funded and publicly owned organisation.

(3) The Senate opposes any weakening of theCharter of the ABC.


Second Sydney Airport: Site SelectionTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in the Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned shows:

(a) a proposal has been made by the Departmentof Transport to build a major no-curfew internation-al airport in Sydney’s western suburbs;

(b) airports and attendant infrastructure are amajor source of air and noise pollution;

(c) Western Sydney already suffers from theworst air pollution in Australia;

(d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshedwill only serve to greatly increase such pollution;and

(e) an airport in Sydney’s west will harm thelifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living andworking within the Sydney airshed.

Your petitioners therefore request that the Senatenot pass any bill which would lead to the construc-tion of any new airport within the Sydney airshed.


Nuclear WeaponsTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned strongly opposesuranium mining.

Uranium mining is the first step towardsNuclear Weapons: 200,000 humans died in

Hiroshima. A ‘modern’ nuclear bomb can killmillions. A global nuclear war could end life onearth.

Nuclear Accidents: The tragic meltdown of thenuclear reactor at Chernobyl may cost 40,000 to1,000,000 human lives over the next forty years.A complete release of the reactor’s radioactivitywould have been 200-400 times worse.

Nuclear Waste: The radioactive waste fromuranium mining (the ‘tailings’) will contaminatethe biosphere forever. These tailings are manymillions of times more dangerous than theoriginal ore, mainly because of the fine millingof the ore. They are being produced in vastquantities in Australia—14,000 tonnes each day.These tailings are estimated to cost billions oflives in the future, the lives of our future genera-tions.Respect for the dignity of human life demands

the banning of uranium mining urgently. Onlyrecently, the banning of apartheid, asbestos miningand landmines have been largely achieved. Pleasesupport the campaign for a nuclear free future.

Your petitioners ask that the Senate promote anuclear free future.

by Senator Margetts (from 80 citizens).Petitions received.

NOTICES

PresentationSenator O’Brien, at the request ofSenator

Quirke , to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Select Committee on the Socio-Econom-

ic Consequences of the National CompetitionPolicy be authorised to hold a public meetingduring the sitting of the Senate on 30 March 1999,from 7.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’sinquiry.

Senator Hill to move, on the next day ofsitting:

That the provisions of the Higher EducationLegislation Amendment Bill 1999 be referred to theEmployment, Workplace Relations, Small Businessand Education Legislation Committee for inquiryand report by 29 April 1999.

Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales)—Igive notice that, on the next day of sitting, Ishall move:

That the Senate—


(a) recognises that statistics show that in theState of New South Wales, currently underthe Australian Labor Party Government ofPremier Carr, rates of crime are worse thanin any other state in Australia;

(b) notes that:

(i) statistics from the Director of the Austral-ian Institute of Criminology reveal that inNew South Wales assaults have risen by44 per cent in the period that they haverisen by 2.8 per cent in Victoria,

(ii) the armed robbery rate per 100 000 ofpopulation is 79.3 in New South Walesand that this is equivalent to triple therate in Victoria, and

(iii) the rate of unarmed robbery in NewSouth Wales is 4.3 times higher than thatof Victoria and that it has grown by 97per cent since Premier Carr came topower, whilst the unarmed robbery rate inVictoria grew by only 35 per cent in thesame period;

(c) further notes the 105 per cent increase inarmed robbery in New South Wales sincePremier Carr came to power, compared toa 15 per cent increase in Victoria in thesame period;

(d) recognises that Premier Carr acknowledgesthe link between drugs and crime, but thatNew South Wales police still managed toarrest only 685 heroin dealers in 1997-98,whereas the police force in Victoria arrested1 901 heroin dealers in the same year; and

(e) acknowledges the incompetence of the CarrGovernment in a state which has 33 percent of the population, attracts over 60 percent of the nation’s heroin, is populatedwith nearly half of the nation’s dependentdrug users, accounts for half of the nationaldeath toll from drug overdoses and has onlyarrested, in real terms, one-third as manyheroin dealers as the Victorian police force.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—SenatorTierney, that is a very long notice of motionand I think it is very close to being out oforder as well. I will in fact be asking thePresident to review the order of that notice ofmotion.

Senator TIERNEY—Madam DeputyPresident, I would like to know on whatgrounds you would rule that out.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I wouldsuggest you read standing order 76, and I willrefer it to the President for her assessment.

Senator TIERNEY—I would suggest youread it—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!Senator Tierney, would you please withdrawthat reflection upon the chair.

Senator TIERNEY—I do not believe,Madam Deputy President, it was a reflectionon the chair. I just suggested you read it morecarefully. This is a matter of drugs. It is astate and federal issue.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!Senator Tierney, I have said I will refer thisto the President to review under section 76 ofthe standing orders. That is my judgment andI do not appreciate the comment that youmade. I do regard that as a reflection on thechair. I take it that you have withdrawn it.

Senator TIERNEY—Yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.

Senator Chris Evansto move, on the nextday of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the failure of the aged care reforms ofthe Commonwealth Government to:

(i) provide adequate capital funding for theaged care sector,

(ii) equitably provide access to high qualityresidential and community-based agedcare to older Australians,

(iii) protect the viability of aged care facilitiesin rural and remote regions, and

(iv) address the wage disparity for nursingstaff that exists between the acute andaged care sectors;

(b) notes the failure of the Minister for Healthand Aged Care (Dr Wooldridge) to resolvethe:

(i) setting of accreditation fees for the Stand-ards and Accreditation Agency,

(ii) provision of growth funding for home andcommunity care services to New SouthWales,

(iii) finalisation and release of the new certifi-cation instrument,

(iv) numerous anomalies and problems thatresidents and providers are encounteringunder theAged Care Act 1997,

(v) release of the initial report of the 2-yearreview of the Government’s aged carereforms, and


(vi) release of the report of the ProductivityCommission into nursing home funding,handed to the Government 70 days ago;and

(c) calls on the Minister to enter meaningfuldialogue with all sectors of the aged careindustry to address concerns about thequality of aged care received by olderAustralians.

Senator Woodleyto move, on the next dayof sitting:

That general business order of the day no. 27,relating to the Restitution of Property to KingIsland Dairy Products Pty Ltd Bill 1996 [1998], bedischarged from theNotice Paper.

Senator Bourne to move, on the next dayof sitting:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill foran Act to amend theAustralian BroadcastingCorporation Act 1983to provide for the establish-ment of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on theABC, and for related purposes.

COMMITTEES

Selection of Bills CommitteeReport

Senator CALVERT (Tasmania)—I presentthe fourth report of the Selection of BillsCommittee.

Ordered that the report be adopted.Senator CALVERT—I seek leave to have

the report incorporated inHansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 4 OF 1999

1. The Committee met on 23 March 1999.

2. The Committee resolved to recommend—

(a) That the provisions of the following bill bereferred to a committee:

Bill titleStage at whichreferred

Legislationcommittee Reporting date

Health Legislation AmendmentBill (No. 3) 1999 (see appendix1 for a statement of reasons forreferral)

immediately Community Affairs 30 April 1999

(b) That the following bills bereferred to committees:

Bill titleStage at whichreferred

Legislationcommittee Reporting date

Classification (Publications,Films and Computer Games)Amendment Bill 1998 (see ap-pendix 2 for a statement of rea-sons for referral)

immediately Legal and Constitutional 29 March 1999

Classification (Publications,Films and Computer Games)Charges Bill 1998 (see appen-dix 2 for a statement of reasonsfor referral)

immediately Legal and Constitutional 29 March 1999

Environmental Reform (Conse-quential Provisions) Bill 1998[1999] (see appendix 3 for astatement of reasons for refer-ral)

immediately Environment, Communi-cations, InformationTechnology and the Arts

27 April 1999


(c) That the following billsnot be referred tocommittees:

. Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill1998

. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) AmendmentBill (No. 2) 1998

. Export Market Development Grants Legisla-tion Amendment Bill 1999

. Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 1999

. Taxation Laws Amendment (Software De-preciation) Bill 1999.

The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committeedeferredconsideration of the

following bills to the next meeting:

(deferred from meeting of 23 March 1999)

. Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of For-eign Public Officials) Bill 1999

. Financial Sector Reform (Amendments andTransitional Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1999

. Financial Sector (Transfers of Business) Bill1999

. Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill1999

. Income Tax Rates Amendment (RSAs Provid-ed by Registered Organizations) Bill 1999

. Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill(No. 2) 1999

. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999

. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1999

. Taxation Laws Amendment (CPI Indexation)Bill 1999

. Taxation Laws Amendment (Demutualisationof Non-insurance Mutual Entities) Bill 1999

. Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Dona-tions) Bill 1999.

(Paul Calvert)

Chair24 March 1999

Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999

Reasons for referral/principal issues for con-sideration

. whether PHIAC should be established as a standalone regulatory authority

. The most appropriate prudential standards apply

Possible submission or evidence from:consumer groups, APRA, private health industryCommittee to which bill is referred:Community Affairs Legislation Committee orFinance and Public Administration LegislationCommittee.Possible hearing date(s): 1 April 1999 (?) or laterin AprilPossible reporting date: 30 April 1999signedKerry O’BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 2Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bills:Classification (Publications, Films and ComputerGames) Amendment Bill 1998Classification (Publications, Films and ComputerGames) Charges Bill 1998Reasons for referral/principal issues for con-siderationAdvised by a range of industry participants thatthere has been no consultation:(a) before the announcement of the contents of

these Bills(b) during the Ernst and Young report into the

substance of these Bills.Many industry groups have major concerns aboutelements of these Bills and believe that a Commit-tee hearing would allow an opportunity to expandon their concerns to all political parties. Theevidence would provide a comprehensive informa-tion source to be able to move forward with theBill.Possible submission or evidence from:1. MMPA—Mature Magazine Publishers Asso-

ciation2. AFC—Australian Film Commission3. SPA—Screen Writers and Producers Associa-

tion4. Lumiere Theatre5. AIDA6. Becker Entertainment7. Ronin Films8. Australian Film Institute9. Cinema Action Group10. Australian Free Speech Association—Terry

Lane


11. Eros

12. Australian Council of Film Societies

13. Federation of Victorian Film Society

14. Hobart Film Society

15. Melbourne Film and Video Makers

16. South Australian Amateur Movie Makers Inc

17. Melbourne International Film Festival

18. Melbourne Queer Film and Video Film Festi-val

19. Poison Apple Productions—Anna Brownfield

20. Phillip Adams

21. Cinema Owners Association

22. National Film and Sound Archives

23. Motion Picture Distributors Association ofAustralia

Further information as to details of these organisa-tions and individuals will be forthcoming onMonday 22 March.

Committee to which bill is referred:Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Com-mittee.

Possible hearing date(s): 26 March 1999

Possible reporting date: 29 March 1999

signed

D. Margetts

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

Appendix 3Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Environmental Reform (Consequential Provisions)Bill 1998 [1999]

Reasons for referral/principal issues for con-siderationIt appears that the bill has important transitionaland other considerations

Possible submission or evidence from:Committee to which bill is referred:Environment, Communications, Information Tech-nology and the Arts Legislation Committee.

Possible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date: 24 May 1999

signed

Kerry O’Brien

Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member

NOTICES

PostponementMotion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notices of motion no. 146

(relating to the Government’s proposal to reducethe price of diesel), no. 148 (racial discrimination)and no. 151 (certain proposals of the proposed newtax system) standing in her name for today, bepostponed till the next day of sitting.

Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 150

standing in his name for today, proposing an orderfor the production of a document by the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Defence (SenatorNewman), be postponed till 31 March 1999.

Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion no. 154

standing in his name for today, relating to the useof plantation-grown or recycled timber products forbuilding purposes, be postponed till 30 March1999.

Motion (by Senator O’Brien, at the requestof Senator Reynolds) agreed to:

That general business notice of motion no. 155standing in the name of Senator Reynolds fortoday, relating to native title legislation, be post-poned till 30 March 1999.

Motion (by Senator Chris Evans) agreedto:

That business of the Senate notice of motion no.1 standing in his name for today, relating to thedisallowance of the Social Security (Meaning ofSeasonal Work) Determination 1998, be postponedtill the next day of sitting.

MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAND HERITAGE

Suspension of Standing OrdersSenator ALLISON (Victoria) (3.46 p.m.)—

Pursuant to contingent notice and at therequest of the Leader of the Australian Demo-crats, Senator Lees, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended aswould prevent Senator Lees moving a motion toprovide for the consideration of a matter, namelya motion to give precedence to a motion of censureof the Minister for the Environment and Heritage,Senator Hill, relating to an order for the productionof documents.

Senator Hill—I would be pleased to takethe motion.



Procedural MotionMotion (by Senator Allison, at the request

of Senator Lees) agreed to:That a motion to censure the Minister for the

Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) relatingto an order for the production of documents may bemoved immediately and have precedence over allother business today till determined.

Censure MotionSenator ALLISON (Victoria) (3.48 p.m.)—

I move:That the Senate censures the Minister for the

Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for hisrefusal to comply fully with the order of 18 Februa-ry 1999 for the production of documents relating tothe Jabiluka uranium mine.

I do not move this censure motion on theminister lightly. I have explored many otheravenues before coming to this point, but atsome time the parliament must make thegovernment accountable.

On 18 February this year, the parliamentpassed an order for the production of alldocuments relating to the Jabiluka mine since1 October last year. There were good reasonshonourable senators passed those orders andconsidering the massive amount of decisionmaking in the number of portfolio areas thisgovernment does on a daily basis, orders forthe production of documents are used verysparingly in this parliament. They are notdone for the sake of it or just simply to botherthe minister or to bother public servants. Theyare done so that there is adequate scrutiny ofthe executive by the parliament. They are away of keeping the government honest andmaking them accountable to that parliament.

On 8 March, the due date, Senator Hill dulydelivered a swag of some 44 documents to theparliament with a tabling statement. Thattabling statement is an interesting one. Thefirst sentence starts: ‘The attached documentsconstitute the key documents held by orgenerated by Environment Australia.’ Notethe words ‘key documents’. The Senate orderwas about all documents and the minister andofficials in the department have made arbi-trary political decisions to conceal documentsfrom scrutiny by the parliament.

I believe the Democrats have been veryreasonable and mindful of Senate time over

this. We have written to the minister askingfor a list of those documents which wereexcluded or withheld and the minister re-sponded with a short list that we believe doesnot cover anywhere near the documents whichare missing. Most obviously missing arerecords of the interdepartmental committeewhich was set up to deal with this issue.There are no emails. There is no legal advice.There are no drafts of the report of theminister’s department which was supposedlybeing prepared to sway the UNESCO commit-tee with the minister’s version of the truth andthe facts, and no details of the $1 million oftaxpayer funds that the minister is spendingdefending his decision on Jabiluka.

I have looked again through the lists fromthe minister and asked why there are no filedocuments from key public servants. Todaymy question to the minister went to this point.We know that Kevin Keefe, JadrankaMcAlpine, Stephen Hunter, Bill Campbell,Elizabeth Williams, Gillian Bird, DavidAitkenson, Arthur Johnson, Peter Vaughan,David Collen and Kaely Woods, who are allpublic servants, have provided written infor-mation which would be on EnvironmentAustralia’s files.

He chose not to table them or it seems,from his answer to me earlier on today, thatthe department—according to him—chose notto give them to him. He wrote that he wouldnot table emails that were not on file, yetthere are no tabled emails at all, either on fileor otherwise. But he did not list any emails asbeing withheld. Isn’t it the case that the wayhis department’s computer system is set up,all emails drop out after 30 days? So wouldn’tit be standard practice for them to be printedoff and placed on the file? And what are weto make of the fact that there were no emailson either list? Don’t his staff use emails?Don’t they print them to keep them? Or is thedepartment simply holding them back? Iwould argue that the latter is more likely tobe the case.

The government, coordinated by theminister’s office, has engaged a great numberof consultants, again defending the minister’sdecision over Jabiluka. Again, I list thoseconsultants: Professor Colin Dudgeon, Dr


Wang, Dr Chew, Dr Pittock, Dr Jones, MrBruce Stewart, Dr Sri Kanthan, Brian Taylorand Dr Alan Watson. These consultants mustall have departmental files of some sort. Dothey not play a key role in the minister’sstrategy to defend his Jabiluka decision?Obviously the minister does not think so. Hehas not tabled their information and he hasnot listed as being withheld any reports fromthem or any other correspondence with them.The minister leads us to believe, in his tablingstatement, that there were legal opinions hewould not give to the Senate. Yet, when itcomes to the list, there were not any legalopinions on the list of documents that werewithheld or there were no legal opinions inthe documents that we were provided with.

The minister will not table a letter that hesent to the World Heritage chair because, hesaid in his statement, he will not do it withoutthe permission of the addressee. Yet he tabled11 others to the same committee, presumablywithout the permission of the addressee inthose cases either. The minister has also saidin this place that he only wants to present theWorld Heritage Committee with the truth andthe facts. I ask: if the documents he is with-holding are only about the truth and the facts,why does he want to hide them? How will thetruth and facts hurt international relations?The answer is that we do not know. It is justthe minister’s assertion that this is the case.

Why is there not a draft of the report,which is presumably being developed? Thisreport is designed to sway the UNESCOWorld Heritage Committee. The logic simplydoes not work. How could such materialdamage international relations? How could therelease of a letter which he sent to an interna-tional organisation damage internationalrelations? Minister Hill claims that we justwant to get to the documents and send themoff to the World Heritage Bureau. If this letterhas already been sent to that bureau, why isit being held back from the Senate?

The Democrats have, a number of times,offered the minister a third-party option. Wethink it would be wise if there was an emi-nent person acceptable to the Senate whocould look at all of the documents—and Imean all of them—and make a decision about

whether or not his assertions of his groundsfor refusal were adequate. So far the ministerhas refused to consider this option. He has notsupplied any of the material which is going toor coming from the Kakadu interdepartmentalcommittee. Presumably this committee wouldhave work plans, time lines and minutes ofmeetings. Presumably they are being run fromEnvironment Australia. Yet his statements tothe Senate would have us believe that they donot have a single document.

We have asked a series of questions on themissing documents in the last two parlia-mentary weeks, to which the minister hasgiven completely unsatisfactory and evasiveanswers. The minister has fudged. He hasducked and weaved. Today in the Senate hesaid he had asked my office to reduce thescope of the return to order and that we werenot interested. Of course we were not interest-ed. We wanted all of the documents and wewere not interested in refining our return toorder to one or two documents—as we wereasked to do. The parliament knew what theywere doing when they ordered these docu-ments. When the Senate said ‘all documents’,that is exactly what it meant. We expected theminister to try and get us to reduce this, butwe did not put in an ambit claim in the firstplace. The return to order was only one topicand it was for a period of only 16 weeks.That is certainly not an unreasonable or a bigorder.

The minister has been the one who haschosen not to comply with this. We have beenvery patient. As I said earlier, we do not takethis action lightly. We have not moved acensure motion for five years. It was, I under-stand, another five years before that that wemoved the previous one. We do not do this asa gratuitous stunt to take up the time of theSenate. But the minister has clearly decidedto tough this one out. He is, no doubt, bettingon time and hoping that the Senate and theDemocrats will give up and turn our minds tothe many other important and current issuesthat face us on a daily basis.

It is important to censure Minister Hill forconsistently defying an order of the Senateand all reasonable attempts to pursue thismatter. I ask the Senate to consider two


matters in particular. The first one is: is it anadequate response for a minister to makearbitrary decisions to withhold any docu-ments? I would argue it is not. Even if youwere to accept that he might try to do this,and tough out attempts at scrutiny, there isanother issue to consider—and that is: wereall of the documents covered by the scope ofthe return to order included in those tablesand those listed as withheld? The most cur-sory examination shows that a substantialbody of information was neither tabled in theSenate nor listed as being withheld.

The minister has made arbitrary decisionsto withhold many documents that have beenordered by the Senate and other attempts tohide documents covered by that order. This isa very serious matter because it is an attemptto subvert meaningful scrutiny of the parlia-ment over the executive. I ask all senators toconsider this with the utmost seriousness. Theminister is testing the resolve of parliament.It is up to us whether he gets away with it.

Senator HILL (South Australia—Ministerfor the Environment and Heritage) (3.58p.m.)—This censure motion differs in itsmotive from others with which I have hadexperience. As the honourable senator says,the issue of accountability—the capacity ofthis chamber to scrutinise performance ofgovernments—is very important. We wouldall acknowledge that to be the case. But thatis not really the complaint of the AustralianDemocrats. They do not want extra docu-ments in an effort to keep this governmenthonest, or to show that they may have beenmisled, or—perhaps—to demonstrate incom-petence or for any of the usual reasons forwhich an opposition or a minor party wantsdocuments. They want these documents sothat they can use them in direct action over-seas against the interests of Australia. Theywant these documents as part of the campaignthat they are waging internationally throughthe World Heritage Committee to try anddefeat a decision that the Australian govern-ment made to grant approvals to mine theJabiluka lease. That is so different from anyother motion of this kind.

Senator Margetts—On a point of order, Idid not know that it was open for a senator in

this chamber to impute a motive to the ac-tions of another senator.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bartlett)—Without having heard thefull text of Senator Hill’s comments, I amsure it is not appropriate for him to impute amotive, but I am sure that it was not hisintention to do so.

Senator Robert Ray—On the point oforder: Senator Margetts, in this chamber amuch wider canvass in censure motions hasalways been accepted than in other debates.So, whilst the point of order would havevalidity in a lot of debates, censure debatesalways give speakers a much wider ambit inwhich to pursue matters, I think. I just submitthat to you, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you for that submission, Senator Ray.I will allow Senator Hill to continue.

Senator HILL —Mr Acting Deputy Presi-dent, welcome to the chair. What I was sayingis that the Australian Democrats are breakingnew ground here because they are seekingammunition, they are seeking material, for usewithin an international campaign. That is whythey have sought documents through thismechanism: not to hold the governmentaccountable for its action in terms of theparliamentary debate and the domestic politi-cal issue that this involves, but in order toprovide the tools with which they hope toundermine the credibility of the Australiangovernment in the consideration of thatgovernment’s position by the World HeritageCommittee, formerly in Kyoto but then laterthis year, in June, in Paris.

Why do I say that? I say it because they didnot hide the fact from the start. What they didand, sadly, what the Australian Labor Partydid—it is a pity that they stooped to this newlow hand in hand with the Australian Demo-crats—was that, instead of taking the debateup at the domestic level within Australia, theywrote to the World Heritage Committee andsaid, ‘Don’t believe the Australian govern-ment. You should classify this world heritagesite as in danger. You should make thatfinding, and here are the reasons that youshould take into account to reach that conclu-sion.’ In other words, they have already put


before the World Heritage Committee, bothdirectly and indirectly through their agents—asmall number of rather extreme NGOs whohave been fighting this campaign—a casewhereby they say the Australian governmentshould not be believed. This is, in my submis-sion, an extraordinary attitude to take and anextraordinary way in which to pursue an issueof domestic political importance. I do thinkthat the motive of the Australian Democratsin bringing this motion is important to themerits of the case as a whole.

What are the facts here? The facts are thatthe Jabiluka mine application was assessed foralmost three years. It was assessed in greatdetail and with great rigour. This governmentwas determined that its ultimate decisionwould be based on the best facts, the best lawand the best science. What this governmentdecided after nearly three years of consider-ation was that the Jabiluka mine venture didnot pose any threat to the environment anddid not pose any threat to cultural valuesunder the world heritage convention.

Not surprisingly, the government reachedthat conclusion because we have had theopportunity, under the scrutiny of the Officeof the Supervising Scientist, to witness theRanger mine in operation for some 18 years.What has been demonstrated is that theRanger mine has been able to operate in asafe way in what is, I concede, a very sensi-tive environment. Basically, what the inde-pendent, objective Supervising Scientist tellsus is that there has been no environmentaldamage beyond the Ranger mine site at all.That helped in giving confidence to thisgovernment that this much smaller—only 22-hectare footprint—Jabiluka venture, which isyears on in terms of technology and anunderground mine as opposed to an open-cutmine, could be operated in an entirely safeway. So the government made determinationsin that regard.

But of course those determinations were notsatisfactory to the Democrats, who—I givethem credit—have always opposed uraniummining and have been consistent in that. But,instead of taking up the debate with thegovernment in the form of this parliament orwithin the public of Australia, unfortunately

they stooped to what I believe to be a newlow—that is, they have tried to undermine theAustralian government’s position and theauthorities that have been given by thisgovernment under Australian law by goingdirectly to the international World HeritageCommittee and trying to use them to applyleverage to the Australian government, tryingto get them to classify the world heritage sitein Kakadu as in danger in order that thetourist industry in Australia would lose, bedisadvantaged, and more pressure wouldapply to the Australian government.

The consents that have been given in thisparticular matter have, as I have said, beengiven under Australian law after long andcareful consideration. There can be no turningback from those consents, whatever theoutcome of further consideration by the WorldHeritage Committee. Any company or indi-vidual who deals with the Australian govern-ment has the right to expect certainty ofprocess. The company in this regard under-took years of assessment in accordance withAustralian law. Determinations were reachedat the end of that process, consents weregiven and the company has every right to actupon those consents.

I will just expand a little further on thebenefits of this particular venture because,unfortunately, this is what the AustralianDemocrats, in their efforts to close down thisprospective mine, will cause to be lost—inparticular the benefits that flow to AustralianAboriginals from the mining ventures in theJabiru area. It is interesting that, since theRanger mine began operating in 1981, a totalof $145 million in payments has been madeto Aboriginal interests: $1.9 million in up-front payments, $3.4 million in rental pay-ments and $140 million in royalty equivalentpayments. I would have thought that was veryimportant, in anyone’s language, and some-thing to be put on the positive side.

Similarly, very significant benefits will flowto the Aboriginal community in relation to theJabiluka mine development. Over its life, theJabiluka mine is expected to provide a further$231 million to Aboriginal interests. Theseare matters that I would have thought theAustralian Democrats, in seeking to close


down this prospective mine, should be takinginto account if they had in mind the interestsof all Australians.

In summary, the Jabiluka mine, togetherwith the Ranger mine, will generate approxi-mately $12 billion in revenue to this country,over 85 per cent of which will remain inAustralia, and 380 people will be employeddirectly and about 1,000 indirectly. I do notthink there can be any argument that these arevery significant benefits to the Australianpeople, and it is of regret to me that when theAustralian Democrats go overseas to try toundermine this development they do not takethem into account.

On the issue of scrutiny of the govern-ment’s processes, you would probably beaware, Mr Acting Deputy President—in factI think you are—that we accepted a demand-ing and lengthy session very recently in theestimates, when honourable senators examinedfor many hours the documents and the deci-sion making process of this government.When Senator Allison comes in here andcomplains about lack of scrutiny, she fails toacknowledge the very substantial scrutiny thathas already taken place through that process.She examined not only me as minister but thesenior officials who were involved in thedecision making process and, I would like tothink, got all the answers that she was seek-ing.

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

Senator HILL —Unfortunately, taking theinterjection, it was not sufficient to satisfySenator Allison. She came back into thischamber and, in addition to asking a series ofquestions about particular documents and theprocesses in general, decided to adopt thetrawl process of seeking an order from thisplace that all other documents—or what shedetermines as all documents—be provided.This is a mechanism to enable the Senate tocomplete its process of scrutiny. Historically,it is a vehicle that has not been used often; itseems to be used much more often these days.Nevertheless, it is an option that is open tothe Senate and, in this instance, the AustralianDemocrats got the numbers to get the orderup.

The question then became, when it wasframed in such general and all-encompassingterms—‘all documents’—exactly what waswanted by the Australian Democrats to com-plete their task of scrutiny. As I said, we triedto ascertain from them, with some little detail,what it was that they were not able to getthrough the estimates processes or in otherways—through questioning in here, forexample—so that we could see if we couldprovide those documents for them.

Despite the motivation of the AustralianDemocrats in this regard, it is not our inten-tion to hide anything. As I said, this was athorough process involving nearly three yearsof scrutiny. Of course, all the key documentsinvolved in the approval process were re-leased in accordance with the act shortly afterthe decisions were made and are already onthe public register. Nevertheless, we sought toascertain what further information was beingsought and were told that it was not up tothem to give us any help in that regard, wehad the order of the Senate and we should goaway and comply with it.

If you interpreted that literally, it wouldmean hundreds—if not thousands—of piecesof paper across the whole of the bureaucracy,because issues related to this matter werebeing dealt with in a range of different depart-ments, some of which have been mentionedby the Australian Democrats: Foreign Affairs;my department; Prime Minister and Cabinet;Industry, Science and Resources; and others.

Senator Boswell—How much was thisgoing to cost?

Senator HILL —The task was so great thatwe were not able to estimate what the costwould be in public servants’ hours involved.I determined to provide the key documents,and I would soon be told by the AustralianDemocrats if I missed one, because most ofthem have been leaked to the Democrats inany event. It is just that they are wanting torely on the documents that were publiclyreleased rather than those that have beenleaked.

In any event, I decided that the common-sense interpretation in all the circumstanceswas to look to the key documents, and Isought advice from my department as to what


those key documents might be. Those docu-ments were provided to me and listed, and wethen applied the traditional, longstanding formof assessment. That is not set out in anystatute or other regulatory form; they areguidelines that have been developed over along period of time, and certainly the detailof them is debated from time to time. I caneven recall an occasional debate with SenatorBolkus as to the extent of the protection tothe executive, which is basically designed toensure that, in being accountable, the exec-utive is still able to function effectively, bothdomestically and internationally.

I said in the tabling statement that I wastabling key documents. Other documents Isaid I was not tabling included draft docu-ments, legal advices, diplomatic communica-tions, et cetera, which traditionally have notbeen tabled in this place. In the tablingstatement I also said—so there is no secretabout this, and this is now some weeks ago—that I was not tabling that massive supportingdocumentation which Senator Allison nowsays she wanted—papers, notes, drafts,emails, other correspondence et cetera—because, I have to confess, I could not seeany benefit coming from that, just veryconsiderable inconvenience to officers andvery considerable public expense. I tabled allkey documents I believed I could legitimatelytable.

Then the Australian Democrats came backand wrote to me that they wanted basically alist of other key documents that I did nottable. I then prepared such a list for them,which I sent to Senator Allison with acovering letter. In that instance I sought tospecify the reasons I did not table them. Inother words, I sought to be more specificallyhelpful in relation to those documents thanjust referring to the general traditions ofexemption that I referred to in the previouscorrespondence. So I provided that list ofdocuments that I was not prepared to table. Ialso mentioned, as I did in the tablingstatement, that there were other keydocuments that had already been made publicand there was little point in tabling adocument that was already public.

Senator Allison then sought to make some-thing of the fact that in my first letter I hadstated the principles in general terms; in thesecond letter I had stated the principles asthey specifically applied to the documents Ihad determined should not be tabled. I there-fore wrote back to her again and explainedthat that was not the case. I furthermore saidthat I would seek further advice on the judg-ment of Hill J. that she referred to in questiontime yesterday to see if that was relevant tothis matter and that if it was I would respondto that.

The point I am seeking to make is that,despite the motivation of the AustralianDemocrats in this matter, which, on the basisof their record to date, is to find tools for theparticipation in an international campaignagainst the approvals that have been given bythe Australian government, I have neverthe-less sought to provide every document that isa substantial document—what I have referredto as a key document—that could and shouldbe before the parliament.

I know that Senator Allison would know ifthere are other so-called key documents thatI have not provided. If she knew that was thecase, by now she would have told me whatthey are, and I would have gone back andagain searched the records and, if they exist-ed, tabled them. What she said today is thatshe wanted documents such as the workingdocuments of the interdepartmental commit-tee, she wanted the legal advices, she wantedthe drafts, she wanted the officers’ variousadvices to me, she wanted work plans, shewanted time lines from within the department.These are exactly the documents which arenot normally encompassed by such motionswithin this place and which successive gov-ernments have declined to table.

I complete my contribution by saying thatthis matter is now of course not just about anassessment process on Jabiluka; it is about theprocedure that the World Heritage Committeehas adopted to scrutinise the Australiangovernment’s handling of this matter. On therecord today, that has not been a happyprocess. The report of the committee thatvisited Australia was clearly riddled withlegal, factual and scientific errors. The way in


which the committee sought to make prelimi-nary findings on the basis of that and thelobbying of the Australian Democrats and theALP have not given this government anyconfidence that this matter is being treated assomething that is seriously in the nationalinterest.(Time expired)

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.20p.m.)—That was a rather poor response thatI felt was a little thin in places. I want to takewhat I hope is a more objective approach thanSenator Hill’s, which would not be hard, andlook at the facts of the matter that is beforeus. As far as the opposition is concerned, wedo treat a censure motion as something ofsignificance in the parliamentary forum. Wewill not vote willy-nilly for a censure motion.We want to look at the facts. We want tomake a proper examination. And if a ministeris worthy of censure, then the opposition willdo the proper thing, Senator Hill.

But let us look at the facts of the matterthat are before us now. On 18 February theSenate agreed to a motion from SenatorAllison that there be laid on the table by theMinister for the Environment and Heritage,Senator Hill, no later than 4 p.m. on Monday,8 March 1999, all documents relating to theJabiluka mine proposal since 1 October 1998.In response to this order, Senator Hill tabledwhat he termed to be ‘key documents held byor generated by Environment Australia’. Inthe same tabling statement he said:I am not tabling draft documents, legal advice,diplomatic communications, or electronic mailmessages not placed on file. I am also not tablingcertain documents dealing with Australia’s relationswith other members of the World Heritage Com-mittee and certain internal advice provided to meby my portfolio.

He went on to say:The release of such documents could reasonably beexpected to cause damage to the internationalrelations of the Commonwealth, or they are internalworking documents the release of which could becontrary to the public interest, or they are subjectto legal professional privilege.

What occurred after that, when pressed bySenator Allison for more specific informationabout the material that he chose not to tablein the Senate, was that Senator Hill wrote to

Senator Allison on 10 March—I appreciatethat that letter was subsequently tabled, sothere was a little bit of transparency from theminister in that regard—saying that he haddecided not to table 13 of the documents thatwere included in a list of documents preparedfor him by his department in response to theSenate’s return to order.

Senator Hill claimed that 12 of thosedocuments constituted internal advice to himfrom his department and internal correspond-ence with other ministers. He said that he wasrelying on the grounds of public interestimmunity and potential to affect Australia’sinternational relations in refusing to table the12 documents concerned. In relation to the13th document he simply said:I am not prepared to table document 13, exceptwith the permission of the addressee.

That is, the current Chairman of the WorldHeritage Committee. On 10 March, SenatorHill refused a request from Senator Allison toappoint an independent third-party to examinewithheld documents to assess the strength ofthe claims put forward by the minister. Hecame out with the phrase at that time, ‘Good-will works both ways; you show a bit andwe’ll show a bit in return.’ That was theapproach apparently that the minister thoughtwas reasonable to take at that time. Now, ofcourse, we have moved on to debate a motionof censure, notice of which was given bySenator Allison yesterday. Fundamentally,that censure is around the issue of SenatorHill not complying fully with the return toorder of the Senate for the production ofdocuments.

Where does the opposition find itself in thisparticular debate? Where do any other sena-tors, if there are any other senators that cometo this with an objective capacity to make anobjective assessment on the issues that arebefore the chamber, find themselves? Well,we have to pass judgment as to whetherSenator Hill has adequately responded to theorder of the Senate. If he has not adequatelyresponded to the order for the production ofdocuments, is his failure worthy of theSenate’s censure? Even the most cursoryexamination of the relevant papers revealsthat, at the very least, we have Senator Hill


quite clearly being very sloppy and verydismissive in his responses to senators and tothe Senate.

I appreciate that Senator Hill does not wantto be environment minister. Who would wantto be environment minister in the Howardgovernment? I mean, who really would wantthat job! We know that Senator Hill does notwant it, but what has he done in relation tothis? Let us look, again, at the facts. SenatorHill has unilaterally decided to limit thetabling to ‘key documents held or generatedby Environment Australia’. So, unilaterally,he decides to limit the order for the produc-tion of documents.

Senator Hill’s initial claim of legal profes-sional privilege quickly evaporated when hewas pressed to provide specific reasons forwithholding the 13 documents. It turned out,as far as I can see, that there is not onedocument where the claim of legal profes-sional privilege actually applied. So that claimfrom Senator Hill is right out of the windowalso. Of course, he released 11 documents thatwere addressed to the World Heritage Com-mittee, four of those being personal letters tothe chair of the committee. Yet he refused torelease, interestingly enough, his letter to thechair of the committee on 29 January becausehe did not have the permission of the chair.This is a principle that did not apply inrelation to those other cases. As we look atthe issue of whether Senator Hill should becensured, bringing the objective analysis ofthe opposition to this question—

Senator Coonan—You are being fair aboutit, aren’t you?

Senator FAULKNER—Let us face it, hehas been very sloppy indeed. The Minister forthe Environment and Heritage has quiteclearly been very inconsistent in the way thathe has dealt with these issues. In decidingwhether censure is warranted, one needs tolook at whether it is an on-balance decision,which I think it is in this case, to be fair. I donot think it is an open and shut case as towhether it is a matter worthy of censurebecause, as I said, a censure is something thatwe ought to treat seriously in this chamber.What do you do when it is an on-balancedecision?

I think it is worth going to sources oflearned advice and precedent on these sorts ofmatters. That is exactly what the oppositionhave done. With regard to learned sources ofadvice, I readily admit—and I think thiswould be known to senators in the chamber—that when Labor were in government we didnot always fully comply with returns to order.But we were diligent in ensuring that themaximum possible number of documents weresupplied and we were scrupulous, I believe,in arguing our case and our claims for with-holding certain documents. The difference isthat the opposition, when in government, tookits responsibilities on these sorts of mattersseriously.

This is not just my view. This was acknow-ledged by the then Leader of the Oppositionin the Senate, Senator Hill, on 20 May 1993.Let me quote him:

When I look back upon experiences of recenttimes, for example, a similar order that we imposedon Senator Evans in relation to the Marshall Islandsaffair last year, there were all sorts of protestsabout how difficult it would be and so forth. ButSenator Evans, to give him credit, tabled thedocuments. There were some parts that he preferrednot to, and they were whited out. We had discus-sions and it was handled in a proper way becausethey were sensitive to individual interests and soforth.

In the same speech, which I commend—Icommend this precedent to the Senate—Senator Hill said:

I remember another case only a year or so agoinvolving Senator Bolkus under the administrativeservices portfolio in relation to a tendering process.We imposed an order upon him because we wantedto see whether matters had been handled properlyor improperly. He was not at all happy with that;nevertheless, he accepted his obligation to complywith the order of the Senate, as all ministers shouldbe prepared to if we are going to have a decentsystem of accountability within our democraticstructures.

He complied with the order also. So I makethe point that it is not just the current Leaderof the Opposition in the Senate who believesthat the Labor Party in government did cometo this with goodwill and did bring to bearproper and thorough process; it was evenSenator Hill when he was the Leader of theOpposition in the Senate.


In withholding certain information fromtabling, we too relied on grounds whichincluded legal professional privilege, publicinterest immunity, national security andcommercial-in-confidence grounds amongstothers. We accepted in government—and Ithink consistency does dictate that we acceptthis also in opposition—that there are limitson the extent to which governments can placeinformation in the public domain.

You ask the question: who is to determinethese limits? The Clerk of the Senate, MrEvans, has provided advice on this matter ona number of occasions over the years. MrEvans wrote to me on 24 November last year,saying:In seeking to force the executive to provide infor-mation, the Senate has two kinds of remediesavailable to it: non-justiciable political remediesand justiciable legal remedies.

He went on to say:It is unlikely that a contest between the Senate andthe executive over an executive refusal to supplyinformation could be brought before the courts atany stage before the imposition of a penalty.

He further said:On the whole, the political remedies are likely tobe more effective than a contest in the courts.

That is confirmed in a letter from the ClerkAssistant, Procedure, who pointed out in anearlier communication to the opposition:It is generally recognised that the tension betweenexecutive claims for confidentiality and theparliament’s right to know must be resolvedpolitically.

I think that is generally accepted. That is theimport of the advice to all of us, that it is thepoliticians who must determine an appropriatepolitical resolution of the tension between thisSenate’s demand for information relating tothe Jabiluka mine and the minister for theenvironment’s refusal to provide it. That isprecisely what we are about.

As I said, for a political party like theLabor Party—which wants to ensure that itmakes an objective assessment and a proper,balanced and principled decision on an issueas important as a censure motion—the issueis where you go for further enlightenmentabout the appropriateness of a formal censureof a minister in these sorts of circumstances.

It was in desperation that I turned to theparliamentary record. What did I find? I amsure the Senate will be relieved to know thatit was a treasure trove of information. I thinkSenator Hill would describe it as the prover-bial embarrassment of riches. On 3June1992 Senator Hill said, in relation to docu-ments on a matter concerning the Minister forForeign Affairs and Trade:Surely the Senate is entitled to the documents,being the whole of the documents. If there arematters of personal confidentiality or matters ofthat type, then there are well acknowledged proced-ures to ensure that they are excised or brought tothe attention of an individual on a confidentialbasis.

Senator Alston said on 3 June 1992:When push comes to shove, at the end of the daythe Senate has an unfettered power to demanddocuments.

Senator Alston said on the same day:The ultimate power resides in the Senate and it canresolve to compel the production of documentationand, indeed, witnesses—quite unconstrained. Thepractical reality is that both sides of politicsacknowledge from time to time there may be goodcause why one would withhold certain material,whether it be on the grounds of national interest,national security, commercial-in-confidence, thejeopardising of relations between States and awhole range of other things. But it is not for theMinister to simply invoke those and say, ‘Here youare, I have given you what I deem to be yourentitlement’.

Senator Alston on 3 June 1992 said:But it is simply not on for a Minister to unilaterallytake it upon himself to decide what is and what isnot disclosable.

Senator Hill on 20 May 1993 said:. . . as much as Ministers might not like beingcalled to account by the Senate, it is our responsi-bility that they are and we are not going to let themavoid their responsibilities so easily by simplysnubbing their nose at the Senate . . .

Finally, of all people, Senator Knowles—thenew bullyboy of the government—

Senator Bolkus—Bullyboy?Senator FAULKNER—Yes, bullyboy. On

16 December 1993 she said:For the government to continue to ignore suchorders made by the Senate is an absolute and uttercontempt of the Senate. It has become common-place for this government to act in such a manner.


Senators from all parties in this place cannotcontinue to condone this type of action and let thegovernment off the hook. If a request has beenmade by the Senate, the government should bemade to deliver on that request, and on time.

You see, they have got form. And in the faceof such an overwhelming and convincingargument in the words of government senatorsin support of the strongest possible action bythe Senate to assert the Senate’s rights inthese matters, at the moment I have got to sayI am minded to support this censure.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(4.40 p.m.)—This has been an amazingargument today. If I could paraphrase whatSenator Faulkner has just presented to theSenate, he admitted with his quotes that ‘Wewere bad but you are worse’ in relation to thepresentation.

Senator Faulkner—I don’t think I everused that word.

Senator MARGETTS—I know. SenatorFaulkner did not actually say that. I amparaphrasing it in my own words, but basi-cally he read out several rather serious criti-cisms of his own government in relation tothe release of documents. Basically he issaying that the standards of this governmentare worse than the standards set by Laborwhen they were in government. That is agreat concern because I believe that certainlyby the end of their term of office the Laborgovernment were showing considerable con-tempt for the Senate. I do recall severaldebates in relation to those very issues in thischamber. So, if that is the case, it is some-thing to be concerned about.

What are we talking about in relation to thepower of executive government? The ministerhas mentioned 12 documents held back forwhat he calls ‘public interest immunity’.However, the minister also says that hebelieves it is in the public interest that themine should go ahead. How do you translatethat? Public interest immunity may mean thatthose documents may be detrimental to themine going ahead. Well, isn’t that interesting?The first part of the minister’s presentationexpressed his outrage at what he thought theinformation might be used for.

I would like to remind honourable senators,through you, Mr Chair, that the minister hasforgotten that any document tabled in thischamber, because of the ability to be tabled,can be used by anybody. It can be used ifnecessary, I guess, across the Sydney HarbourBridge if so desired. If there is a desire forthe community to obtain information and ifthere is a reasonable reason for that informa-tion to become available, it is irrelevant whatmembers of this parliament are planning to dowith it. It is also irrelevant what members ofthe public plan to do with it. It is not theplace of the executive to make decisionsabout access to documents based on whatpeople are planning to do with that informa-tion. That is not, I believe, the prerogative ofexecutive government. If that is considered tobe the prerogative of executive government,I am afraid this ministry has already forgottenwhat they are supposed to be involved in withthe separation of powers.

It is not supposed to mean that a ministercan decide what is right or wrong for the par-liament, for senators or for the public basedon information that is in this parliament orthat is made available through this parliament,unless what is made available is dealt withillegally—and then of course we have crimi-nal laws to deal with those issues. So if whatwe are saying is that the minister for the en-vironment has become a proponent of mining,then we are saying that it is his opinion thatin the public interest he should withhold anyinformation which will be detrimental to thething which he has considered to be good—and that it equals the public interest if theinterests of the environment minister equal theinterests of the mining minister and he de-clares any documents which may harm hispurpose in allowing the mine to go ahead tobe against the public interest.

I think there is a very serious problem here.We know that the Administrative AppealsTribunal has been very limited in what itconsiders to be legitimate reasons for with-holding documents. How dare a ministercome into this place and suggest that—forreasons of what he considers to be the use orpotential use of those documents—he willconsider that releasing those documents to the


public and to the parliament is against thepublic interest? How dare he? How dare hethumb his nose at that basic, simple level ofaccountability?

Whether or not the mine can be adminis-tered in a safe way is, of course, an issue ofhigh dispute. But we cannot have a situationwhere, right now, within the operation of theparliament, a government is already acting asif it is born to rule.

We already have a situation where thegovernment are annoyed that the Senate isamending or debating any of the proposalswhich they come up with, as if we have notgot a right to debate or amend their proposals.In the media, they are demanding changes tothe voting system and to the Constitution tomake sure that small parties and independentscannot voice the concerns of the community.

This is further evidence of that contempt.This is further evidence that we need to moveto a strengthening of the separation of powers,not a blurring so that a minister can decide,‘I don’t like the way you are likely to use thisinformation so on that basis I will declare itagainst the public interest to release it.’ Thatis patently a nonsense and it is patentlyagainst the general public interest of thiscountry.

If there is information in those documentswhich would be damaging to the ongoingsham approval process that this governmenthas engaged in, then that information shouldbe in the public arena. The right decisionshould have been made. If the right decisionwas not made, and if the documents show thatthe right decisions were not made or thatinformation that should have been taken intoconsideration was not, whatever methods thisgovernment used to try to sway an interna-tional body—and how dare they talk aboutother people mentioning the internationalarena—against making a decision based onproper process should be out in the publicarena.

Mr Acting Deputy President, this is dis-graceful. On the evidence that is before me,I feel that I can support this censure motion.I take these motions seriously because theyare about the basis of democracy. And con-tempt of democracy should be exposed.

Senator LEES (South Australia—Leader ofthe Australian Democrats) (4.47 p.m.)—I riseto support the motion of censure moved bySenator Allison. I think it is important for usto focus on the two key questions that arebefore us today. Firstly, did Minister Hillcomply with the order of this place to put onthe table here all the documents relating tothe Jabiluka mine proposal since October1998? Secondly, do we care whether or nothe did?

Let us go back to the first question. Thisone has already been agreed. We already havea decision; there is no dispute. The Ministerfor the Environment and Heritage himselfaccepts that he has not complied with theorder to table all documents. In his tablingstatement of 8 March he began by saying:The attached documents constitute key documentsheld by or generated by Environment Australia.

That is a very, very narrow definition. Indeed,in this place he again said that he has onlyreleased those documents that he felt comfort-able classing as key documents and thereforereleasing.

So on the question of whether the ministercomplied, he has already conceded that theanswer is no. He admits it. I think we havethe basic facts before us, agreed by all sides,and should move on. Before I move on, Ishould add that that in itself should be enoughfor this place to agree to the motion of cen-sure. But it is more than just a proceduraldebate, so let us move on.

I think this is a very real test of theSenate’s commitment to the actual principleof parliamentary scrutiny over the executive.Are we simply going to let the executivemake all the decisions, right down to whichdocuments they release, decide whether or notcertain scientific evidence is relevant to theircause or anyone else’s, and be very selectiveas to what they let the rest of us know? Aswe decide today to vote for or against thismotion, or perhaps abstain, we must lookcarefully at where we are going from now on,if we decide that the executive can decidewhat we are entitled to know and what we arenot entitled to know.

Let us look at the second question: do wecare that the minister has snubbed an order of


this parliament? The Democrats do care.Whether we decide eventually to support thismotion or not, I think each of us needs to ask,in order to answer for ourselves: did theminister have a reasonable excuse for decid-ing this way? If we do care, and our answeris, ‘Yes, we care,’ we need to look carefullyat the issue of whether there was a goodenough excuse.

I am happy to have a go at this one. Clear-ly, the answer for us is no. The minister sayshe is not obliged to table draft documents.But if we go back in history, as SenatorFaulkner has just done for us, we see therewere plenty of occasions when draft docu-ments have been amongst those tabled.

He says he is not able to table legal advice.Again, I have major questions about that.Firstly, that has happened in the past. Also,with regard to looking at legal advice, surelythat is something he would be following andwould be quite happy to table.

The minister says he is not obliged to tableemails. This is something that has come upfairly recently. I think all of us who are nowonline have a massive problem with thevolume of these that we are getting. Surelythe minister runs a department tight enoughto keep these on file.

He says that to search for supporting docu-ments would be too costly, even though wehave only asked for a specific set of docu-ments—that is, a 16-week period—and weknow that his department is in a position tocomply. Surely, photocopying a few docu-ments is not tremendously expensive.

The minister says that there are documentsheld throughout the bureaucracy. He says thathe is only going to supply us with those heldby Environment Australia. But EnvironmentAustralia has a lot of copies of the otherdocuments from other departments. Surely theenvironment department, as a natural courseof events, keeps material relevant to it on anissue like this that other departments mayhave generated.

The minister says that he will not release aparticular letter which he sent to the Chairmanof the World Heritage Committee without theaddressee’s permission. But he has just done

that. Other letters to the Chairman of theWorld Heritage Committee have been re-leased—obviously, the ones he felt comfort-able releasing.

This last reason for ignoring the order ofthe Senate has not even been given to theSenate yet. That was actually contained insome correspondence with Senator Allison. Sothe minister is changing his stated reasonsfrom day to day. Not only did this one turnup after the event, but so did this new phrasewhich the minister is using—the catch-all, Iguess you could describe it as—‘publicinterest immunity’.

The minister has not even had the courtesyto inform the Senate of this new one. It seemsan ever changing reason for refusal. It seemshe would have us believe that it is okay forhis reasons for refusal in his tabling statementto basically be a work in progress—somethingthat is moving on, day by day, and is able tobe changed at whim.

What did the minister actually do? Heprovided a small number of documents relat-ing to Environment Australia. He then, in asubsequent letter to Senator Allison, provideda list of further documents which he said hewould not provide. Even today in questionsto the minister, Senator Allison was able toprovide a further list of 16 public servants andnine paid consultants all working on the issue,all of whom have apparently produced nodocuments—or as the minister would have usbelieve, perhaps they have produced no ‘key’documents. One has to ask: what have theybeen doing? I find it very hard to believe thatthis government has employed nine consul-tants who have basically produced nothing.They have produced no key work and no keydocuments at all and have been of no valueto the taxpayer. One has to ask: what on earthare we paying them for?

The minister admits he ignored the order ofthe Senate. He has produced only some of thedocuments—‘key’ documents. He has notproduced documents from other departmentseven though he acknowledges that they exist.He provides only a limited range of docu-ments from Environment Australia. He hastried to bluff his way out of questions inquestion time in a way that he would never


have tolerated if he were sitting over on thesebenches. Again I refer to the evidence pre-sented by Senator Faulkner.

I was listening today to the minister’sdefence. What is the minister’s defence? Wehave had bits and pieces throughout the weekas we have tried to get to the bottom of thisissue in question time rather than throughmeasures such as this. One defence hebrought up earlier was that this was just apublicity stunt on our part. I point out to theminister that this is the first time in five yearsthat the Australian Democrats have moved tocensure a minister. It is not an action we takelightly.

The next argument used by Senator Hill isthat we are out to intentionally damage thiscountry’s international relations. I say, as anaside to Mr Acting Deputy President Bartlett,that the government does a very good job ofthis all on its own—it does not need any helpfrom us. But, to look at this issue seriously,it is absolutely unacceptable for the ministerto look at any potential use of documents—not for a moment am I suggesting that wehave done that with any document from 8March. We have not sent any of these docu-ments you have given us anywhere overseas.We are simply asking that we get this debatesorted out domestically. We believe weshould be debating this on the floor of thischamber with all the material in front of us.

The minister said today that he had madethis decision on the best facts, the best lawand the best science available to him. That iswhat has led him to decide that this mineshould go ahead. How do we know thegovernment has relied on the best facts whenwe cannot get all the facts? How do we knowthat you have done it on the best law whenwe cannot get your legal advice? How do weknow that it has been based on best sciencewhen we cannot get all the scientific evidencethat you have available to you? We have notseen the details so how can we possibly havethe proper debate that we are supposed to behaving here in this country?

Let us look at the other red herrings that theminister dragged around today. He talkedabout the benefits of the venture. We havealready agreed to disagree on that. The

minister argues that it is to the benefit of theAboriginal people, but the Aboriginal peopleup there do not want it, do not agree thatthere has been any real benefit to them at alocal level in their community from theexisting mine and have made it very clear, tothe point of being sent to gaol, that they donot want this new mine. So we will have todisagree on that. It is simply a red herring andis completely irrelevant to whether theminister should be tabling documents.

We are prepared to debate this issue do-mestically if we can get these documents onthe table. But if we do not get the documentsthat are really at the centre of this debate,how can we?

The third argument is that it is all toohard—what the Democrats want will cost afortune. The minister mentioned this againtoday, that we were being unreasonable. Thisis also absolute nonsense. We have gone toextraordinary lengths to limit the documentswe want to a specific period of time, a 16-week period. I do not think we could haveasked for anything more direct. We are nottrawling through everything he has ever done,said or seen on Jabiluka. We are looking at aspecific period of 16 weeks. I believe itwould be very easy for the Public Service,presuming it is being run efficiently, to keepdetailed files and records and therefore tocomply with that quite easily.

Basically what has happened is that apolitical decision has been made simply notto comply. For political reasons associatedwith domestic politics—it has nothing to dowith anything on the international arena—hedoes not want to comply. Frankly, this issomething that the Senate should absolutelyreject. If we do not reject his arguments, if welet this censure motion pass through withoutsupport, then basically we are giving up beinga house of review.

It is particularly apt that we proceed withthis today—a day in which another govern-ment minister has admitted that he misledparliament over three months ago in ananswer to me on a question of nuclear issues.This issue has, interestingly enough, nowinvolved Senator Hill’s junior minister. Isuspect Senator Minchin’s troubles may well


not have come to light had we not beenpursuing this formal censure motion today—aprocedure which I again stress we use veryseriously and very sparingly.

I seek the support of the Senate. Let mereiterate in closing that the minister admits hedid not comply fully with the order, he neverintended to. He has provided a list of reasonsfor not doing so which are flimsy and weak.Basically he regards the whole thing as workin progress. He adds to the list of excuseswhen challenged but without the courtesy ofupdating his reasons inHansard. He is stilltrying to bluff it out by dragging a lot of redherrings through the debate here today and hewill succeed if senators do not choose toenforce the order we have already passed inthis place. The facts are clear; the response isweak and predictable. Bluster does not anargument make. Today we have a choice: tohold this government accountable or to letthem off the hook. The decision of everysenator today to vote for or against or toabstain from this motion will tell us a lotabout the future accountability of governmentin Australia.

As I said previously, the Democrats havenot moved a censure motion for five years.We do take this seriously. We do not do thislightly. We believe in accountable governmentand I hope that other senators do too.

Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leaderof the National Party of Australia in theSenate) (5.00 p.m.)—This morning when Iwas reading through theCanberra TimesIsaw an article headed ‘Hill faces censure overJabiluka’ and I thought that I would ring upmy old mate Senator Hill and see if I couldgive him some assistance in the chamber. Thearticle said that the opposition environmentspokesman, Nick Bolkus, had said that Laborwould support the motion. ‘I have got moredocuments in my office that have been leakedthan have been tabled,’ he said.

I listened very closely to Senator Faulkner,the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.He was trying to give a balanced opinion tothe Senate—and he admitted that the case forthe Democrats was a bit thin—and trying toinform the Senate that, on the balance of whatthe Democrats were offering and all the

evidence that was put forward, he would haveto make a decision. Of course, that is a farce.The Labor Party went into the censure motiontoday supporting the Democrats—as theyshould. In this world, if you take a bit youhave to return a bit, and the Labor Party andthe Democrats have been trading with eachother ever since we became part of thegovernment. I remember, going back sometime, when occasionally the Democrats evenused to vote with us.

Senator Hill—Once, was that?

Senator BOSWELL—Well, it was a longtime ago; I can remember it in the far distantpast. Of course, if the Labor Party relies onthe support of the Democrats, then of courseit has to support the censure motion. That isnot beyond anyone’s understanding. I havelistened very closely to this debate and I havelistened to the questions over the period ofthe past couple of weeks. What appears to meto have happened is that Senator Hill hastabled a number of documents, but there are12 documents that he has refused to tablebecause of sensitivity, and there is one docu-ment to the World Heritage Committee thathe has said he will not table unless he getspermission from the addressee. I thought thatthat was pretty reasonable. Even SenatorFaulkner said that there are limits to whatinformation can be placed in the public arenawhen it comes to the sensitive issue of urani-um.

Senator Hill then went on to say in today’squestion time, I think: ‘Give us a list of thedocuments that you want, and I will try andassist you.’ The response was, ‘We wanteverything.’ If you know what you want, Isuggest that you give Senator Hill a list of thedocuments and he will try and obtain thosedocuments for us, if it is possible. On thisside of the House, Senator Hill is known asa reasonable person. The National Partythinks that sometimes he is too reasonablewith the Democrats. He is certainly a personthat would not try and obfuscate his responsi-bilities in the Senate; yet you have not givenhim a list of the documents that you require.You have trawled through the Senate commit-tees, you have asked a number of questions,and I would say that if you cannot nominate


the documents that you require then it isreally an exercise in futility trying to put outa big dragnet to pick up everything.

Senator Allison has brought this censuremotion forward on Senator Hill on the pro-duction of documents. The censure motionsays that he did not comply fully with theorder of the Senate for the production ofdocuments in relation to the Jabiluka uraniummine and the report of the 1998 UNESCOmission to Kakadu. I would say to SenatorAllison that the minister has taken a positionof absolute responsibility over this wholeissue of the Kakadu mine and the productionof documents as demanded by the Democrats.The whole issue has become emotive. We allknow that the Democrats are terribly againstany form of uranium mining and that, if theyhad their way, they would close down anyuranium mine in Australia. Senator Woodleynods his head in assent to that.

We have had in this debate SenatorFaulkner, a leading Left figure in the LaborParty, and Senator Bolkus. I think that theywould concur; the Left would concur with theDemocrats. It does not appear that any of theRight or the Centre Left or the Independentsare going to join this debate. The Left of theLabor Party divides from the Right, becausethe Right is concerned about the 380 jobs thatthis mine is going to produce and the 1,000indirect jobs that the mine will also produce.Therefore, you have a divide in the LaborParty, with the Left of the Labor Party joiningwith the Democrats—which are more to theleft than the Left of the Labor Party is. Soyou have a coalition of the Left pushingforward this motion.

I want to say that the record of the govern-ment and the minister has to be looked atobjectively. The government are committed tothe protection of Kakadu and have ensuredthat the world heritage values are not threat-ened. They have imposed 80 strict require-ments on the company. The government willensure that these requirements are observedduring the construction and operation of themine through a regime which includes regula-tion by the independent Supervising Scientist.The government have conducted a rigorousenvironmental impact study lasting nearly

three years, which has demonstrated that themine can produce without any adverse impacton Kakadu. Further, the government are alsocommitted to the implementation of outcomesfor the Kakadu region.

On the social impact study, the governmentwill work in partnership with local Aboriginalcommunities to ensure that the economic,social and cultural benefits of developmentsare enjoyed by the local communities. We allknow Senator Woodley’s support for Aborigi-nes. It is on record, and I accept that he isalways very concerned about the Aboriginalcommunity. But, Senator Woodley, again weface a divide in this parliament. We wouldsay that you do not make the Aboriginalsdependent on social welfare. Here is anopportunity to give them a benefit of theirmine ownership. The Ranger mine has beenoperating in Australia under Labor and acoalition government who have been veryresponsible in relation to the mine.

Ranger has been operating for 18 yearsright next door to the Jabiluka lease. It isinteresting to look at the benefits of theRanger mine over the past 18 years. Since theRanger mine became operational in 1981,nearly $146 million has been paid to Aborigi-nal interests. That is not sit-down money.That is not money to do nothing. That is nota handout. That is money that they are enti-tled to because it is their land that the mineis operating on. It is money that they getevery week and, I am told, it is the moneythey really appreciate, money they will drivemiles and miles to get because it is theirmoney. They own it—it is not just somehandout they are getting—and that is themoney that they really appreciate.

This money has been made up of $1.9million in up-front payments, $3.4 million inrental payments and $140 million in royaltypayments that go directly to the Aboriginalcommunities. Already the proposed Jabilukamine operation, which has not even com-menced, has generated $5.2 million in ben-efits to Aboriginal people. The traditionalowners have given permission to mine Jabi-luka not once but twice—in 1982, under theJabiluka agreement, and again in 1991—andthe Northern Land Council believes that


consent given by the traditional ownersshould be honoured.

Senator Woodley, you would know thatwhen a mine starts near Aboriginal communi-ties the mining companies do everythingpossible to get Aboriginal workers to join thework force of that mine. They go to greatlengths to do that. They train the Aboriginalpeople in driving trucks and working machi-nery. It gives them jobs. It gives them securi-ty. It takes them off the social welfare pay-ments. You should rejoice in that, Senator,because you know, as a former UnitingChurch minister—

Senator Woodley—I still am.

Senator BOSWELL—As you still are, asyou tell me, that these sorts of jobs givepeople a sense of belonging.

Senator Allison—Really dangerous miningjobs, yes.

Senator BOSWELL—They are not danger-ous mining jobs. They give people a sense ofbelonging to the community. You seem toreject that, and I think that is terribly selfishof you, Senator, and of all the senators overthere. You are all on 80,000, 90,000 or100,000 bucks a year but you want to deprivethe Aboriginal community of being able toget a job. I do not think that is in the bestinterests of the Aboriginal community, other-wise they would have rejected the mine. Theyhave not. The Northern Land Council believesthe consent given by the traditional ownersshould be honoured.

The World Heritage Committee, when it putKakadu on the World Heritage List in 1991,was fully aware that uranium mining wasoperating at the Ranger lease. It was fullyaware of that, and that it was proposed tobecome operational at the adjacent Jabilukamine. As Senator Hill has pointed out, youhave a pinpoint out there—22 square kilo-metres. This mining lease covers 10 kilo-metres by 10 kilometres. I want to illustratethis point. It must be clearly understood,despite the protests and misinformation, thatthe Jabiluka uranium mine that is proposed tobe developed is on a mining lease which hasnever been part of the Kakadu National Park

and has never been part of the Kakadu worldheritage area.

There are flaws in the UNESCO missionreport. The recommendations are not support-ed by any evidence. It questions the compati-bility of mining in proximity to a worldheritage area and therefore concludes Jabilukashould be stopped, ignoring all the time thatthe Ranger mine next door has been operatingfor 18 years without any adverse effect onKakadu. We have a mine that has beenoperating there, providing Aboriginal jobs,giving Aboriginal people money that theydeserve because they in fact own the land.They are the rightful traditional owners, andthey are getting some benefit out of it. Someof them want to work. Some of them want tofollow their traditional ways. That is up tothem, but at least the opportunities are there.I can never understand the Left in the LaborParty trying to prevent people having jobs—and trying to prevent Aboriginal peoplehaving jobs is even more difficult to under-stand.

Australia is implementing total internationaland domestic environmental requirements andsafeguards. The Democrats are jumping ontheir own political bandwagon for their ownpurposes quite divorced from the truth of thismatter. There are many questions about theprocess of the mission report and the conflictswithin the majority drafting group, which didnot recommend calling for an immediate holdon the Jabiluka mine.

The censure motion that has been putforward by Senator Allison, fully supportedby Senator Bolkus, actually devalues thecurrency of censure motions. The governmentand the minister have acted totally properly,with great responsibility at all stages of thedevelopment of the Jabiluka mine. They havegiven most of the documents. If you scopedown what you want and if it is possible,Senator Hill will give you the other docu-ments that you require. You just cannot throwout a big fishing net to drag around hisdepartment for the next three months and thenhope that something is going to come out thatwill give you a great advantage. I have beenin this place now longer than most. SenatorBolkus came a bit before me.


Senator Bolkus—Twenty months too long.

Senator BOSWELL—When you are ingovernment, the buck stops with Senator Hill.He has to make these decisions and he has tosell his point of view to the cabinet. We doneed these jobs. We need the money that thisproject is going to provide. The Democrats donot particularly worry about jobs. They putthem at a very low priority.

Senator Hill, you have the support of theNational Party. I certainly could not supportthis censure motion and I do not believe thatSenator Hill’s actions deserve any formwhatsoever of censure.

Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (5.16p.m.)—Unfortunately for Senator Hill and forSenator Boswell, that is not the view of theopposition. We have had to look seriously,not just in the last 24 hours but over the lastfew months, at Senator Hill’s performance onthis issue and at the documentation thatsurrounds it. We will support this motionbecause of the performance, because of thefact that we have not had straight answers forquite a long time and because we have nothad open government in matters that other-wise would be open to the public to scruti-nise.

We are concerned that Senator Hill hasfailed to respond to a Senate order. We areconcerned not just because he failed to re-spond to it in a blatant and arrogant way butalso because in failing to respond to it he hastried to skirt his way around his obligations.He has tried to redefine what the Senate orderstood for and what it meant. He has tried togive the impression that in doing what he isdoing and responding by providing a selectiverange of documents, he is meeting his obliga-tions under the return to order. He knows fullwell that the return to order is broader thanthe way he has redefined it. He knows fullwell that by referring to key documents hetries to mislead the public, but, in doing so,he really does not mislead the Senate. He isbasically avoiding the return to order inbucket loads. There are lots of documents thathe knows should be available to the Senatefor public scrutiny and there are lots ofdocuments that he should make available tous.

Senator Hill—I read in the newspapers thatyou have them all. You told the journalist youalready have them.

Senator BOLKUS—Senator Hill, if it istrue, as Senator Boswell says, that you havenothing to hide, then why are you trying sohard to hide important documentation? If yourrecord is clean, why won’t you provide thatdocumentation to us? You have chosen torefuse to obey the order on a very importantissue. You got stuck into Democrat and LaborParty senators for, as you alleged, taking thisissue internationally, but we are talking aboutan area which has international recognitionand ramifications, and respect. We are talkingabout an area which has been listed on aninternational register because of those interna-tionally respected values—cultural and scien-tific. We are talking about an area of interna-tional world heritage concern.

We are talking about the world community,through the World Heritage Committee, inapplication of its convention, taking an inter-est in Australia and the dereliction of ourduties. That process will continue not becausethe Democrats, the Labor Party or anyone elsein this community is concerned about whatyou are doing with the Kakadu area; it willcontinue because through your actions you aredamaging and putting into danger some ofthose values which are respected and need tobe protected by resolution of the rest of theworld. It is a legitimate forum for us to beinvolved in. It was a legitimate forum for theUSA to find itself involved in in respect ofYellowstone National Park.

Your actions do have important ramifica-tions. The resolution carried by the Senate,the return to order, had some potency. If,today, we do not back it up with the censureof the minister, then we might as well writeoff as ineffectual the return to order mecha-nism into the future.

You say you have produced a list of docu-ments. You say that we should be happy withyour assessment of what is a key documentand what is a fundamental document. Thisprocess is not about the government or thePublic Service telling us what we should havea look at. This process of parliamentaryscrutiny of the executive hinges very much on


the executive being able to have as broad anaccess to documentation as is possible.

Senator Boswell says that we should trustSenator Hill because his department came upwith 80 recommendations in this area. Theycame up with 77. If it were not for the factthat documentation was leaked, we would nothave understood how those 77 recommenda-tions by Environment Australia were watereddown by Minister Parer before the last elec-tion and have turned out to be totally ineffec-tual. Those documents are important for usand we need to see them in terms of provid-ing adequate scrutiny of this government’sperformance.

The best person to quote concerning theimportance of production of documents in thescrutiny process is Senator Hill himself. Justa few years ago he said, ‘We want to get tothe bottom of this particular issue. We havesaid to the minister that to do so we requirecertain documents to be tabled.’ He knew theimportance then of having documents tabled.We know the importance now. I am sure theminister also knows why it is important totable documents and why it is important forhim not to have some documents tabled.

To get an idea of the extent of the arro-gance and obstruction that we see today, letus also recognise that Senator Hill, in notresponding to the return to order, is nottabling documents which ordinarily would betabled, whether they are memos, emails orwhatever. He has the gall to table pressclippings, amongst this huge wad of docu-mentation. He has the gall to table documentsfrom the World Heritage Committee—pressclippings, press statements—as if he is givingus something that we have not seen before,but he does not table documents which thishouse has long expected to be tabled, whetherthey are emails, memos or whatever.

The other thing I find quite offensive is thatthe range of documents he is prepared toproduce today, or was prepared to produce acouple of days ago, is even more limited thanwhat Senator Allison or any senator in thisplace could get under the FOI Act. The FOIAct would give us greater productivity interms of documents than this minister isprepared to give to the Senate.

Senator Robert Ray—If you’ve got deeppockets.

Senator BOLKUS—That is precisely thepoint, Senator Ray. The FOI Act is there tobe used if you have the resources to use it.The leader of the Senate is treating membersof the Senate as second-class citizens. Therights he allows to us in terms of access todocumentation are rights that are less thanthose that a normal member of the publicwould have accruing to them if they were totake this matter through the courts of the land.He is biding time. He thinks that once July isover and the World Heritage Committeemakes its ruling, the heat will come off himin another dimension.Senator Hill, you haveto acknowledge that allocating the Senatefewer rights of access than the FOI Act doestreats members of this place as second-classcitizens.

When one looks at the role of senators andmembers of parliament and recognises that weare here for a number of reasons, one ofwhich is as agents for the electorate to pursuetheir legitimate and otherwise complaints, partof our responsibility is to scrutinise govern-ment on behalf of our constituents—to holdgovernment accountable. Part of that is doingthings that they cannot otherwise do becausethey do not have the resources, the knowledgeor the financial resources to do them. Thisprocess of producing documents is an import-ant element of our being able to meet ourobligations and responsibilities to our con-stituency. Despite all that and despite the factthat we are here as instruments of accounta-bility, this minister says, ‘Well, I won’t evenallocate you access that a citizen might findunder the FOI Act.’ This minister is thumbinghis nose at the whole system of parliamentaryscrutiny.

We are not talking about a one-off situation,as I mentioned earlier. If this minister getsaway with redefining the terms of return toorder, as he has, his redefinition will becomethe standard. It will become the benchmarkfor future governments and ministers in asimilar situation. If we do not censure theminister today, we will adopt world’s worstpractice in terms of Westminster accountabili-ty, because the minister will have been al-


lowed to walk out of the Senate redefining adecision of the Senate in the way he wantedand then proceed to meeting his own redefini-tion of that term. We may as well not have areturn to order at all.

One of the other concerns I have withSenator Hill in this matter is the way he haschosen to gild the lily, to put out a tablingstatement which is deceptive, which concealsand which is misleading. He talks about thesedocuments constituting key documents. Hedoes not say that they are the only key docu-ments. He will not say that because he knowsthere are other key documents. But he tellsthe public, ‘I am prepared to table key docu-ments.’ Senator Hill, why are you not pre-pared to table all the key documents? Whyare you not prepared to let us make theassessment of what is or what is not a keydocument? Senator Hill then goes on to say,‘The government has already released a largenumber of documents.’ Why doesn’t he saythat the government is refusing to release themost critical documents in this domestic andinternational debate?

Senator Hill then went on, in his normalway, to bag the mission of the World Heri-tage Committee and said he would not tablecertain documents. He said he was not goingto table legal advice, diplomatic communica-tions and so on. What he did not say was thathe was not prepared to table other documentswhich would ordinarily be tabled. That is anaspect that concerns us also. He is confrontingthe Senate, being arrogant about not wantingin any sense to meet the determination of theSenate, redefining his own terms of referenceand basically trying to tell the public that heis doing more than people expect him to bedoing—and we know full well that he is notdoing that at all.

The cause of this issue is basically Jabilukaand Kakadu and the government’s record. Wecan understand why this government is notprepared to make key documents available.Over the last few months, with every docu-ment that has been leaked, we have seen theextent to which this government has chosento mislead the public. We have seen theextent to which this government is preparedto get into unethical conduct to pursue its

illegitimate aims on the international andnational levels.

A letter from Senator Hill to the chair ofthe UNESCO World Heritage Committee wasleaked to us just a few weeks ago. Thisgovernment said to that committee, ‘Look, weknow you have an international conventionand that under that convention there arespecific institutions which have a role inadvising the World Heritage Committee, butwe want you to move them aside because wedon’t agree with them, and we want to ap-point our own list of suitable experts.’ Thatwas an attempt to bodgie up the process, anattempt to fix the court of internationaljudgment on this government. We would nothave found that out had some well-meaningperson not made the document available to us.

The government says, ‘This is a greatprocess. We have scrutinised it fully, exten-sively. We have taken advice from the envi-ronment department.’ But what we do know,once again because of a leak from Environ-ment Australia, is that this government hasnot taken its responsibility seriously. Thegovernment is not open; it is still trying tohide and conceal. What we found out about,in a report from the minister’s own depart-ment to the minister, was a whole range ofinadequacies of this process. I will itemisesome of them. This would not be on thepublic record were it not for the fact thatpeople in the bureaucracy feel so upset aboutthe way this government is handling this issuethat they have chosen to leak documentation.In terms of the need for the project, theminister’s own department says:. . . there is an element of uncertainty because ofthe current inadequacies of the baseline data.

There are inadequacies in the baseline data.That is pretty fundamental to this projectgoing ahead. In terms of water management,the minister’s own department says:Because soil surveys have not been conducted atthe site, it is uncertain as to whether sufficientmaterial is available to form a compacted base . . .

Time and again in this document—a docu-ment the minister is not prepared to pro-duce—there are instances of concern in hisown department. The need for baseline datarequired for assessment is pretty critical. In


terms of hydrology and hydrogeology, hisown department says:The degree of connection between the deep andshallow aquifer systems was not able to be definedby [ERA] from the available data.

There is real concern about the location ofthis mine. The minister’s own department tellshim that the data is not sufficient, and whatdoes the minister say? The minister basicallydoes not want this documentation madeavailable. We understand why not when wesee advice like that. The best bit of advicethough—and I do not think this has actuallyhad any publicity at all before—is thedepartment’s concern as to the fauna-floraecology of the region; pretty important as-pects of the Kakadu region. This is the advicethe minister is given, this is the warning thatthe minister is given by his department:Environment Australia does not consider that theflora survey conducted by helicopter [for theEnvironmental Impact Statement] . . .

They have conducted a flora study by heli-copter! Environment Australia says:. . . constitutes an appropriate study of vegetationpotentially affected by the project.

This is the degree of interest and concern thisminister has for the heritage values of thisparticular area. They do a flora study byhelicopter, a vegetation study by helicopter!No wonder this minister does not want thisdocumentation to come out. But it is comingout in dribs and drabs and, unfortunately forthe minister, the FOI processes will probablystart in the not too distant future as well.

In terms of other issues of concern to therest of the world and to us—the culturalissues, the Aboriginal issues—the departmenttells the minister:Baseline anthropological and archaeological studieshave not been undertaken for the specific purposeof this project.

If you go out to the area, as I did last week,and talk to the miners and talk to the OSSand talk to the indigenous people, you willfind one of the great deficiencies of theprocess: they cannot agree on where thesacred site areas are. The ERA says that theyare a bit further from where the OSS saysthey are, a bit further from where indigenousAustralians say they are. You have got to

have concerns if the minister’s own depart-ment is saying, ‘You haven’t had the rightstudies taken,’ as to how seriously thisgovernment is taking this particular issue.

I could go on to another document—thedocument that was released just a few weeksago detailing the government’s strategy to tryand get world opinion on side; a multimilliondollar strategy to try and buy votes, not onscientific grounds but by picking the targetcountries and picking what they might wantout of international processes over the nexttwo years—basically trying to do dirty dealsto try and win votes for this. As I said, wecan see why the government does not wantthe documentation produced. We can also seethat we are talking about an issue of majorimportance; one that is not just of importancein this parliament but one that also has at-tracted world opinion.

The minister has been able to get away witha fair bit so far. But leak after leak has puthim on the back foot. What we are concernedabout here is ensuring that we play ourlegitimate role as a Senate in scrutinising thegovernment’s performance. It is not just theminister’s relationship with the Senate that isin question; it is also Australia’s image androle in the world. If this minister ismisleading the World Heritage Committee inthe way that he has chosen to mislead thisparliament, if this minister is not treatingAustralia’s international responsibilities asseriously as he should, that will reflect onAustralia’s reputation. It is not within thepower of this government and this ministeralone to make decisions that will impact sonegatively on our reputation abroad.

As I said earlier, we have given this quitesome thought for quite some time. It is anissue that has lingered on for quite some time.Given Senator Hill’s continued performanceand dissembling in this area, the oppositionfelt there was no other option but to supportthe censure motion.

Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (5.33p.m.)—There have been dozens of censuremotions moved in this chamber over the last15 years, and many of them, I have to say,have been trivial. Censure motions are just adevalued currency in this chamber. It is


interesting to note, if you look back over thelast 15 years, that there have been 32 censuremotions moved. The coalition have moved 24of them. The Democrats today got their scoreup to three. The Greens, four. The AustralianLabor Party, one. So, when the Leader of theOpposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner,says we take censure motions seriously, hewas being serious because we have only evermoved them in serious circumstances, where-as for the coalition it is standard operatingprocedure no matter how trivial the thing is.

For instance, let us say one of the mostarticulate and brilliant whips in the history ofthe Labor Party decides that a quorum is notnecessary at a particular time. They wastedhours of the chamber’s time trying to censurethat very historical figure in the Labor Party,noted for his ties, his shirts and everythingelse. We all knew he was just waving awaybogong moths at the time, but that is howthey trivialise censure motions.

The other thing that I need to say at thestart of this contribution is: the success ofcensure motions really depends not on thecase but on who the target is. Basically, ifyou are not a very nice person you run amuch higher risk of censure than if you are anice person. I have been lucky—I have neverbeen censured and I have never been accusedof being nice. I have to say it is a matter ofgreat regret to me that I have never beencensured by this chamber. It certainly has notimpressed my preselection panel that thisaugust chamber has never bothered to censureme. I think that at the last preselection I facedI got 88 per cent of the vote. If my colleagueshere had taken me seriously and censured meI would have got a much higher vote on thatlast occasion than I did.

I think today Senator Hill would have beenbetter to plead guilty so he did not have to sitthrough the whole debate. It probably wouldhave been less painful for him. I think byforcing him to sit here through this wholedebate we have probably almost punished himenough. He will find that a bit bigger punish-ment than censure.

This censure motion hinges on returns toorder. It just reinforces the old axiom, doesn’tit? What goes around comes around. Returns

to order, when I arrived in this chamber toolong ago, were virtually unheard of—youmight get one every three years. Who devisedreturns to order as a tactic to attack theexecutive? The coalition did. Starting in 1988,and gathering momentum as the years wentby, they flooded this particular chamber withreturns to order—always associated withpomposity, always associated with articulatingthe rights of this chamber, always with thatvery serious look that they can put on at suchtimes, enunciating principle and demandingevery document under the sun.

Of course, things changed once they gotinto government. I accept that things changeaccording to your perspective or where you sitin this chamber, but I do not think theyshould change as dramatically as they havefor the coalition. We on the Labor side havetried to resist the temptation of opportunismin opposition—not to argue 180 degreesopposite just because we sit on this side ofthe chamber—in relation to these principlesas they affect the Senate. But all we get nowis the government squealing and squawkingabout returns to order. They have also shownthat they are far less likely to comply withreturns to order than the previous govern-ment—the government that they criticised forthis.

I found it interesting to listen to SenatorHill complain about the amount of resourcesthat would be required to produce thesedocuments. I can remember a return to orderon Senator Collins that ran to 113,000 pages.

Senator Hill—He refused to table anything.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Senator Hillsays it was not complied with. I am going toget to that. But who came into this chamberand said it was an easy task? Who came intothis chamber and said it was as easy as fallingoff a log to produce these documents? It wasnot Senator Hill. No, it was Senator Alston.He came in here and said that it was theeasiest thing in the world to do and we werejust filibustering and trying to delay. We arenot talking about 113,000 pages here; we aretalking about 12 or 13 documents, plus othersthat we have yet to identify—although someof the speakers in this debate have alluded tothem.


The question of resources and time is anonsense in this case. It is not always anonsense. There are valid reasons why theexecutive should not produce documents tothis chamber, and I would be hypocritical toassert that on every return to order there is anobligation of government and the executive toproduce every document. An example isnational security. If I had been asked, whenI was Minister for Defence, to produce certaindocuments, I would have refused. Commer-cial-in-confidence is another example. Someparts of those documents might not be pro-duced but most can be produced with somesort of blacking out or whiting out system.

One of the more ridiculous returns to orderin this chamber was the one moved at thetime of Carmen Lawrence’s appearance beforea royal commission. The coalition oppositedemanded, as a return to order, all the legaladvice she had received—before the matterwent through the various courts. In otherwords, they were saying, ‘We demand byresolution that you cough up your totaldefence so that the other side will know everylegal argument you are about to put.’ That ishow far they went with returns to order.

What we have seen as a pattern developingsince 1988 is a deluge of returns to order. Itseemed like a good idea at the time for thecoalition but, once they got into government,suddenly they realised that you can refusethese matters—on the basis of cost, on thebasis of national security, on the basis of legaladvice, on the basis of commercial-in-confi-dence; but, worst of all, they reveal theinternal workings of government. That hasnever been a valid excuse. The internalworkings of government are probably precise-ly what Senator Allison is chasing, to see ifthe answers given by Senator Hill in thischamber and in the estimates committee arein fact accurate.

We all know of the allegations that arefloating around about the tactics of thisgovernment in international forums in tryingto get the numbers for this particular proposi-tion on Jabiluka. The trade-offs are there, andthe Democrats are entitled to know whetherthose trade-offs are a result of internal discus-

sions in government and that their point canbe proved.

I know Senator Hill goes on ad nauseamsaying that the Democrats are interferingoverseas in international forums. If they are,I do not support them on that. I never have.Nevertheless, they have a right to know whatAustralia’s international negotiators are upto—if it is not going to be considered on themerits of the case and it is going to be con-sidered by a horse-trading approach.

The nub of this particular matter is that I donot think Senator Hill can be censured onfailure to produce documents. There is toomuch form on this, on both sides of thechamber, for a censure motion to have weightsolely on that ground. The nub of SenatorAllison’s position, I think, is that Senator Hill,in writing to her, has indicated there are 12 to13 documents, when we all know there areother documents. Then we have to jump thenext hurdle. Did Senator Hill deliberatelymislead Senator Allison in this regard, or wasit just his interpretation of what he needed toprovide? Frankly, we on this side of thechamber are going to find it very hard tojudge. Going into the mind of anyone is verydifficult, let alone the mind of a politician. Sowe will find it hard to judge what SenatorHill’s motivation was in these particularcircumstances.

What is the remedy available to this cham-ber if indeed a minister will not producedocuments? We can call him a naughty boy,we can censure him—it has the same effect.When this question came up when Labor wasin government, the coalition readily embracedthe idea of gagging a minister for not produc-ing the documents. I hope those on that sideof the chamber remember that. That wouldhave had two effects: one, it would have beenmassively undemocratic and probably uncon-stitutional; two, there would have been a rushof ministers not to produce documents so theycould get gagged and not turn up to questiontime and we would have had a free ride. Youcannot do that. There is actually no remedy,that I know of, for not producing documents.There is not a punishment, there is not adevice in this chamber, that will ever effec-tively overcome that.


One of the suggestions often put forward isthat we give these documents to a thirdperson—I think that has been done in thepast—and the third person clears them orotherwise. I think that is a great idea, depend-ing whether the third person agrees with meor the government. And finding someone ina position to make those judgments is noteasy, especially in specialised areas, becauseyou really have to have someone that hasknowledge of those areas and, if they haveknowledge of those areas, they probably haveviews, principles and biases that we cannotdetect before they make the judgment.

It is not a case of giving it to a judge or ajudicial officer, because in many of theaspects they will not be able to judge how ourforeign relations are affected one way or theother. So we do have difficulty in using thatas a device. I cannot see an answer to it.Certainly, I think the Clerk was right to alludethat the only answer is a political one. And Ithink the only alternative given to SenatorAllison was to move a censure. She does nothave another or mechanism for trying to getthese documents.

In assessing whether Senator Hill has infact transgressed here, you have to look at hishistory. That runs both ways, I have to say. IsSenator Hill someone we would describe ascommitted to transparency and openness ofgovernment? Certainly, when it came to thefederation grants, he has not been at alltransparent with this chamber or the estimatescommittee. What do we know? We know thatthe department scored points on these moreminor federation grants. You could score upto 24, I think, and 15 was the pass mark. Weknow 12 projects were granted from thosebelow the pass mark, and many of the pro-jects that went beyond the pass mark werescrapped. But we are not told the names ofthe projects, because it might hurt the feelingsof the people who did not score 15 points.

Senator Woodley—It might reveal whichelectorates they were for.

Senator ROBERT RAY—It is funny youshould mention that, because when we gothrough the grants, there is the odd little $1million or $2 million grant dotted aroundmarginal electorates in a decision approved by

the Prime Minister after he announced theelection but before he issued the writs—legalbut not necessarily moral. It is not outrageous.It is not as bad as some of the other grants wehave seen—just nibbling around the edges.But we can never judge that, we can neverassert that, because Senator Hill does notbring the information forward.

Then we have the second case, which Ihave been pursuing for 18 months. How couldthe Prime Minister of this country accuse MrBeazley and Mr Evans of being perverters ofthe course of justice only on the basis ofreleased documents from the Prime Minister’soffice basically saying they did not act inaccordance with the Solicitor-General of theday? But, funnily enough, two documents didnot appear. And when they appeared a fewmonths later, they showed that Mr Beazleyand Mr Evans acted on the advice of theSolicitor-General. That is not Senator Hill’sfault, but he represents PM&C. For 18 monthsI have been trying to find out who disap-peared these documents. We know they werein the Attorney-General’s office. We knowthey were taken to the Prime Minister’soffice. But neither will tell us who deliveredthem and who received them.

Senator Woodley—We can guess.

Senator ROBERT RAY—You can have arough guess. I do not think Senator Hill hasresponsibly pursued that issue. However, onthe other hand, to be fair, when you sit atestimates committees, Senator Hill tends to beone of the more cooperative ministers. He isone of the very few I have seen, when apublic servant gives an evasive or whatSenator Hill would perceive as a possiblyinaccurate response, who actually turnsaround, qualifies the question, and forcesthem to answer properly. Compare that withSenator Kemp, who just goes on with eva-sion—the inanities of it, the waffle. SenatorHill, by comparison, is just a pane of glass oftransparency compared with Senator Kemp.

So when we have to judge Senator Hill onthe question of transparency, I acknowledgeon the record that there are arguments bothways—that at times he has shown much moreleadership in this area than most of his col-leagues. But in some instances loyalty to the


government and cover-up of governmentactivity have overcome this natural tendencytowards transparency. Again, in this case, Ithink he has been lured to the dark side of theforce and he is basically covering up a lot ofthese documents.

I suppose the most interesting phrase I sawin all this was Senator Hill’s statement thatgoodwill works both ways. It only dawned onme that what that really means is, ‘If you raton the Labor Party, I will make you DeputyPresident.’ That is the sort of goodwill work-ing both ways. It just dawned on me that thatwas what the definition was.

I think it is true to say the Labor Party hasbeen a bit equivocal on this censure motion,because it comes to such narrow issues. AsSenator Faulkner said, it is not an open andshut case. As Senator Bolkus indicated, onlyon balance—it is an on-balance decision—will we support this censure motion.

Obviously, other people take censures farmore seriously than I do in terms of a blackmark against someone’s name. As I reiterate,most of the censure motions have been movedin this chamber by those sitting on the otherside of the chamber. In fact, Senator Hillhimself has managed to move two since hegot into government, which is one morecensure motion than the Labor Party hasmoved in the same time. He has managed todo both on general business days so he doesnot waste any government time. With one ofthem you could at least say they managed tomount an argument; with the other one theywere totally outmanoeuvred and had towithdraw in a very bedraggled manner. Thelast thing I would like to say on this motionis that I remember the last censure motion.

Senator Woodley—Will I leave now?Senator ROBERT RAY—Woodley the

gagger interrupts me. They gagged the lastcensure motion. It is a pity, Senator Hill andco., that you do not have another 10 speakers,because then we could join you, gag thisdebate and ease the pain from you. But Ithink I am about the last speaker, apart fromthose who will sum up. I hope the Democratshave learned their lesson from their previousundemocratic behaviour. I had a great speechready to defend Senator Bolkus—we think we

would have cleared him had I delivered it—and you unmercifully interrupted, gagged us,and Senator Bolkus’s reputation was mostunfairly traduced by this chamber. So I hopeyou have learnt that lesson. And I hopeSenator Hill, when he looks at these returnsto order, will apply criteria fairly in futureand not use the standard excuses. I reiterate:there are some reasons for not producingdocuments to this chamber—I have to ac-knowledge that. I did so in government andI have to do so in opposition. But they mustbe valid, otherwise a minister deserves cen-sure.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (5.52p.m.)—I want to begin where Senator Ray leftoff. Actually, we did not realise that SenatorRay was going to speak; the reason that wegagged was that we thought Senator Cooneywas going to speak, and that was what wewere really worried about. However, let merefer to what Senator Ray said about thewhole issue of whether or not the Democratsare interfering in our reputation overseas,which I think was one of the major points thatSenator Hill made. I support my leader insaying that none of the documents that weregiven to us on 8 March 1999 have been sentoverseas. However, I am not necessarilyaccepting all of the arguments given bySenator Ray about the problems that he seeswith that. I certainly do not accept SenatorHill’s arguments about international forums.

I did not want to mention Senator Boswelltoday because I do cause him some pain fromtime to time but, really, when he comes inhere and wants to talk about the Democratsdestroying Australia’s reputation overseas byappealing to international forums, I have toremind him, and also this chamber, that thisgovernment grovels at the feet of internationaltrade forums. When it comes to global freetrade this government is prepared to use theWorld Trade Organisation to destroy Austral-ian rural industry, to send farmers into pover-ty, to suck people out of rural communitiesand dump them in capital cities. So thegovernment does not mind at all using inter-national forums when it comes to globaltrade. But when it comes to environmentalissues, or issues of human rights, we are told,


‘No, you cannot use international forums toseek justice that you cannot obtain in Austral-ia. You must hide in your cupboard becausewe do not want anybody looking over ourshoulder if we are destroying the environmentor if we are trashing human rights in thiscountry.’

We got the same response from theAttorney-General when the World HeritageBureau’s appointed mission—a very highlevel mission—came to this country andwanted to raise issues about our treatment ofthe environment as we got in the last fewdays when the United Nations Committee onthe Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discri-mination had some criticism of Australia.That report was also rubbished by thisgovernment.

The government is quite happy to haveinternational forums destroy rural industry inthis country, but it does not want internationalforums looking over our shoulder when itcomes to the destruction of the environmentor of human rights. I think that this govern-ment, and particularly Senator Hill, expressesvery selective outrage about internationalforums and about Australia’s reputationoverseas. Then of course we heard that whatthe Democrats are doing may damageAustralia’s interests or Australia’s reputation.I ask the Australian people and this govern-ment: is it in Australia’s interests to releaseany further uranium for either the nuclearpower industry or nuclear weapon production,which is one of the by-products of the nuclearpower industry?

If it is in the interests of Aboriginal peopleto allow this mine to go ahead, why aretraditional Aboriginal people today—not inthe 1980s or early 1990s—so implacablyopposed to it? Senator Boswell said thatAboriginal people ought to understand howbeneficial this mine will be to them. That istypical of this government. Like they tell mostAustralians, they are very quick to tell Abo-riginal people, ‘We will tell you what youwant, because we really know what is best foryou. Whether or not you think it is good foryou, we think it is good for you therefore youwill accept what we give you.’ That is theattitude of this government.

Let me now deal with the issue of thebypassing of this parliament by this govern-ment. That is now an art form entered into bythis government. In political academia it isreferred to as the corporate state. In thecorporate state, the idea that elected represen-tatives should be the ones who make deci-sions is seen as an outmoded idea because inthe corporate state you do not deal with theparliament, you deal with hand-picked powerelites and you ignore the parliament wheneverpossible. One of the reasons why in Westerndemocracies ordinary people are so alienatedby the political process is that the growth ofthe corporate state in Western democracieshas gone on apace.

With this government, we again see the useof the executive government to avoid parlia-mentary scrutiny and parliamentary accounta-bility. This government really believes that todebate issues in the parliament is an ineffi-cient and time consuming way of running thecountry; not only that, but at times the parlia-ment may make decisions which are contraryto the wishes of the government. The onlyproblem of course is that what I am describ-ing as what the government is avoiding is infact what democracy is all about.

The government believes that it shouldconsult with and give information only to thepeople of whom it approves. It does notmatter that, on 3 October last year, thiscountry of Australia elected a whole parlia-ment. They believe not just that members ofthe government were elected but that thepeople of Australia should have voted for thecabinet because they are the only people whoought to be available to discuss issues and tomake decisions. That is what we mean by thecorporate state, and the corporate state is aliveand well in this country.

Let me take issue with the idea of keydocuments. The minister has said that he hasreleased key documents. I am afraid, Minister,that this falls into much the same area as theterm ‘core promises’. We now have keydocuments and core promises. Again, thisreinforces this government’s lack of accounta-bility. This government has raised avoidingparliamentary scrutiny to an art form. Let megive you a few examples, one of which at


least involves this minister. When we soughtdocuments to examine the whole Hinchin-brook development and decisions made by theminister about that, it was like pulling teeth,although in the end we did get those docu-ments, and I thank the minister for that.

There have been a number of occasionswhen this government has simply defied theorder of the Senate. Another occasion waswhen the Senate demanded documents thatwould reveal how the government made thedecision to withdraw funding from the Aus-tralian Superannuants and Pensioners Associa-tion. Again the Senate passed a resolutionasking for those documents and again thegovernment said, ‘No, thank you, we reallydon’t need you to be involved in that deci-sion; we have made it. We have sent thepensioners and superannuants to the wall andwe don’t want you to know why we did it.’

I agree with something else that SenatorRay said—that it is a great shame that SenatorHill, over the past three years, has been moreand more compromised by his membership ofthis government. I know that for years, whenhe was in opposition, and even at the begin-ning of his time as a minister in this govern-ment, most of us regarded him as a small ‘d’democrat and a moderate. The problem is thatnow we cannot tell the difference betweenhim and the most right wing member of thegovernment. I will leave him to work that oneout.

The Democrats have not moved a censuremotion in the parliament for five years. Thatis because we do agree that it is a seriousissue. We have at times supported censuremotions moved by others and at times wehave not supported those. I have to takeexception with Senator Boswell, who askedwhy we had not given the minister a suffi-cient description of the documents we re-quired. Let me say to Senator Boswell, and Ihope he readsHansard or listens to thisdebate: staff in the Democrat leader’s officespent two weeks working out the categoriesof documents required and describing those.Today we placed on the record the names ofa number of authors. I do not know how wecan tell the minister any more clearly whichdocuments are required unless we actually see

them, he puts them on the table and we saywe want that one, that one and that one. Thatis a fairly ridiculous proposition because it isarguing in a circle.

Also, in terms of the debate with SenatorBoswell about Aborigines and mining, I haveto agree with Senator Boswell that there havebeen some mines where Aboriginal peoplehave benefited. However, there have beenother decisions made by mining companies,backed up by state governments, whereAboriginal people have lost considerably—and they remember that. So it is a very mixedbag when it comes to the relationship betweenAboriginal people and mining companies.

My colleague Senator Allison has been toJabiluka on two occasions and she can tellyou the attitude of the Aboriginal people andwhy it is they are now—

Senator Hill—Why didn’t she have a looklast week when she was there?

Senator WOODLEY—She had been twicebefore.

Senator HILL —That was before the minestarted.

Senator WOODLEY—I can assure you,Senator Hill, that Democrat senators will bevisiting the mine and Jabiluka quite regularlyin the future.

In any case, this debate is about the abilityof the parliament to hold the governmentaccountable. I am afraid that this governmentdoes not believe in parliamentary scrutiny.That is what this debate is about and that iswhy the Democrats believe that this censuremotion should be supported. We believe thereis no other option left to us now, having spentthese months trying to get the information andtrying to get the minister to own up to thereasons why he has made the decisions he hasmade, with which I admit we disagree—thereis no doubt about that—but which I believewe could have a much more intelligent debateon if only he would come clean.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia—Deputy Leader of the AustralianDemocrats) (6.05 p.m.)—I rise comparativelybriefly in this debate to support my Democratcolleagues, in particular Senator Allison in hercensure motion against the minister. While


Senator Ray made some interesting contribu-tions, if only it was punishment enough—Iuse that word for lack of any other—for theminister to sit and hear this debate. But theDemocrats take this process and the parlia-ment much more seriously than that and thinkit is only in worst case scenarios and whenpeople have openly defied an order of theSenate and the Senate processes that anyoneshould be censured in this way. We think itis important to bring this matter to a vote andnot simply to make the minister sit and listento speeches. Sorry, Minister, you have onemore at least left to go.

The censure motion arises out of theminister’s refusal to table a range of docu-ments relating to the government’s representa-tions to the World Heritage Committee. I wasquite surprised to hear from the minister themotive attributed to the Democrats that wewere somehow intent on demeaningAustralia’s reputation in the eyes of theworld—that we would be sending thesedocuments for perusal over to the other sideof the world. In actual fact, my leader andSenator Woodley have both refuted this, andthe documents that had been made availableto us on 8 March have not been sent overseas.So that is an unfair accusation and an unfairmotive for the minister to promote.

But the minister still maintains that thesomewhat shameful representations by thisgovernment to the World Heritage Committeeare just an attempt to ensure that they areprovided with the facts and the truth. Howmany times have we heard ‘the facts’ and ‘thetruth’ referred to by the minister in thisdebate? The minister’s statements that he isonly interested in providing the facts and thetruth to the committee have begun to look alittle suspicious when he is unwilling toprovide the very documents that have beenrequested to establish the facts and the truthof this matter.

My colleague Senator Allison requested allthe documents relating to the Jabiluka mineproposal since 1 October. She was providedwith essentially a subset of those documents,conveniently referred to by the minister as thekey documents. One of the crucial sets ofdocuments is clearly the range of documents

which relate to the workings of the Kakaduinterdepartmental committee. That committeeis being run out of Environment Australia, butwe can only be led to believe that it has notproduced any documents: no work plans, nominutes of meetings, no correspondence andno time lines. I suggest that might be a ratherextraordinary committee. But there are also anumber of documents of other types whichthe minister seems to have withheld. Thereare no drafts, even though drafts have previ-ously been provided. There are no emaildocuments and there is no legal advice. Verysignificantly, there are no documents relatingto the spending of taxpayer funds on defend-ing the minister’s position on Jabiluka.

The minister has claimed that he has nottabled any documents which he believes willaffect our international relations, and SenatorAllison has informed us that the minister isalso not prepared to show those documents toa trusted third party. This was an option thatwas put to the minister by the AustralianDemocrats to avoid many of the concerns thathe put forward about these documents, thatthey might in some way affect internationalrelations. He basically rejected that option aswell. Now the Jabiluka mine proposal hasbecome an issue of international importance,thanks to the investigations of the WorldHeritage Committee. But it is quite odd thatthe minister seems to be using this embarrass-ment now, the fact that the eyes of the worldare upon us for environmental reasons, asalmost a convenient excuse for not providingthe documents to the Senate after the Senatehas expressly and explicitly asked for thoserelevant documents.

We are extremely concerned that theminister is secretly destroying Australia’sreputation with these heavy-handed interna-tional lobbying tactics. This is precisely whathas been indicated. It has been indicated indocuments leaked from the Department ofForeign Affairs and Trade during the monthof February, so we have every indication thatmay be the case. The parliament has animportant and legitimate role in overseeinggovernment activity. An order for the produc-tion of documents is one of the techniquesavailable to ensure that the parliament is able


to fulfil this role. We believe that the ministerhas expressly sought to avoid this responsi-bility to the parliament. It is a defiance thatwe cannot and should not take lightly in thisplace, and hence this censure motion.

The minister for the environment is not theonly minister who has been avoiding parlia-mentary scrutiny. Today the Democrats havealso asked further questions of SenatorMinchin regarding the Pangea waste dump.This is in relation to the admission by MrTuckey that he had met with Pangea represen-tatives. We remain concerned that there is thisongoing and perhaps growing willingnessamong some government ministers to try andwork around the clear intentions of the parlia-ment to engage in scrutiny of government. Inthe case of Jabiluka, the documents were notrequested in an attempt to create further workfor the minister or his staff. They were re-quested, as we were entitled to do, to assist inthe discharge of our responsibility to overseethe actions of the executive—a fundamentalrole of the Senate.

I remind the Senate that the AustralianDemocrats regard censure as a last resort.Indeed, this is the second time in the time thatI have been here that I have had to rise tospeak on such a motion. I do not take itlightly, just as I do not take lightly the oppor-tunity for the minister or the person who isthe target of that particular censure to defendthemselves and have a right of reply. It wasa right that Senator Bolkus was able to exer-cise in the last censure debate, and I acknow-ledge that the rest of his party should havebeen able to exercise that right as well.

We have given the minister numerousopportunities to assist us with the productionof documents on this occasion, but he haschosen to remain uncooperative so as not toreveal the government’s shameful behaviouron Jabiluka. We are concerned about that, weare shamed by that, but we would not befulfilling our responsibility as a parliament, inparticular as a Senate that provides a watch-dog role over the workings of the executive,if we were to do anything but move thismotion today.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (6.12p.m.)—A censure motion is a very seriousmatter in this chamber, or anywhere, for thatmatter. The Australian Democrats had threecensure motions on theNotice Paperand hadasked me to see whether I would agree thatthey be declared formal. I did not agree tothat, because I believe that a censure motionshould not be subject to these formal motionsand voting aye or nay, and that was the endof the matter.

There are multifarious notices of motionthat come before this chamber almost everyday of the week and there is considerabletime having to be spent by me in examiningthe implications of those motions. Most ofthose notices of motion relate to politicalmatters and policy matters. I reiterate thatthere is a huge amount of time involved todecide the issue one way or the other. Unfor-tunately, many of them do come down to myvote. It is very pleasant, I would suggest, for90 per cent of the members of this chambernot even to know what is in those notices ofmotion and be able to just vote according towhat their leaders say. That would be a veryeasy way of going about things, and I doenvy the rest of the chamber, who have thatability just to say yes or no, depending onwhich way their leader suggests their voteshould go.

On this particular matter I refused formality,because a censure motion of a minister is avery serious matter. I did suggest that theperson who is to be censured, if that is thewish of the Senate, is entitled to respond andto give the side of the story that that individ-ual senator needs to provide to the chamber.I am sorry that this censure motion is directedat Senator Hill. Other honourable senatorshave mentioned the fact that Senator Hill hasbeen a minister who has been meticulouswhen questions have been asked of bureau-crats in estimates committees. If he considersthat the questions are not being properlyanswered, he takes action to ensure that theydo respect the rights of this chamber to seekand obtain information. Personally, it doesconcern me that this motion is being directedtowards Senator Hill.


I think a number of political points—policypoints—have been made in this debate aboutwhether Jabiluka should go ahead or whetherit should not go ahead. I do not approach thismatter having regard to either of those mat-ters—that is to say, the objective of thecensure or the politics of Jabiluka. I have toapproach this motion having regard to theright of this chamber to obtain information asrequested of the executive government. Thatis the only issue before us.

As honourable senators realise, a consider-able amount of material has found its wayinto committee reports over the years and,indeed, intoOdgersabout this question of theSenate’s right to obtain information by areturn to order motion. I refer to the 49th and52nd reports of the Senate Privileges Commit-tee. I do not need to read those, but they arethere. They are unanimous reports—and all-party reports—and they make it clear that theSenate has that right and can pursue thatright. Odgers also makes it clear, on page477:While the public interests and the rights of indi-viduals may be harmed by the enforced disclosureof information, it may well be considered that, ina free state, the greater danger lies in the executivegovernment acting as the judge in its own cause,and having the capacity to conceal its activities,and, potentially, misgovernment from publicscrutiny. It may also be considered that a represen-tative House of Parliament is the best judge of thebalance of public interests.

I emphasise:It may also be considered that a representativeHouse of Parliament is the best judge of thebalance of public interests.

No doubt that has been included inOdgersbecause the claim of governments, almostinvariably, is that it is against the publicinterest—and in this particular case there is noreal difference if one examines the documen-tation. The minister’s letter to Senator Allisontalks about this matter and refers to variousdocuments. Honourable senators will bear inmind that this Senate requested all documentsfrom a particular date. The minister’s re-sponse was to provide what were termed‘key’ documents. A list of documents wasprepared by Environment Australia, and thedecision of the minister was not to table 13

documents which are included in that list. Thelist of those documents was provided. Theminister says in the letter:Documents 1 to 12 all constitute internal advice tome from my department or internal correspondencewith other ministers. The Senate has, on numerousoccasions, recognised that there are categories ofadvice which relate to the internal workings ofgovernment and which should not be disclosed onthe basis of public interest immunity.

Quite frankly, over a number of years therehas been consideration of that matter—and Ihave participated in these debates—but, in theend, the decisions have been made by theSenate, and it is a most unusual event for aminister to be censured.

There have been occasions when the Senatehas been helped in its consideration. SenatorRay was inferentially criticising a suggestionthat some outside competent individual shouldbe used as an agent by the Senate for thepurpose of sifting through the documents tosee whether the claim of public interestimmunity by the government was sustainable.I will mention for Senator Ray’s edificationthat that suggestion was made by none otherthan Gareth Evans, I think in 1982. It was theformer Senator Gareth Evans, the now theHon. Mr Gareth Evans in the House ofRepresentatives, who made the suggestion thata retired judge of the Victorian SupremeCourt ought to be the agent.

There was another occasion, I cannotremember it exactly, where the question ofthe commercial-in-confidence status of thedocumentation was up for consideration. Onthat occasion an agent was used by theSenate, namely, the Auditor-General, toconsider a number of documents which thegovernment refused to table to see whetherthey should not be tabled in the public inter-est because of their commercial-in-confidencestatus.

I am not going to delay this discussionmuch further. There are a number of otherexamples which have not been adverted toduring the debate. Suffice it to say that it isvery important for our right as a chamber todemand documents. In this particular case,unless the government can see its way clearto give a better explanation than it has donethus far of its claim of public interest immuni-


ty—by way of having, for example, theSenate appoint an agent for that purpose—andif it still feels that it is its executive preroga-tive to hide behind that claim, I think there isno alternative, unfortunately, than for theSenate to censure the minister for not actingin accordance with its resolution.

Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (6.15 p.m.)—in reply—I will reply very briefly. One of themajor disappointments of this debate has beenthe way in which the Minister for the Envi-ronment and Heritage and the only otherspeaker for the government have not ad-dressed the central issue. They have talkedabout the pros and cons of the mine. TheDemocrats did not do that and neither did anyother speaker in this chamber. It is quite acontrast to look at the substance of the contri-butions to the debate and compare them withwhat the minister said. It would be temptingto challenge some of those statements madeabout the mine, but I do not want to do thattoday. I want to pick up on a couple of pointsthe minister made when he did finally getaround to the question of documents.

The minister said that there was no need forus to call for these documents, that there hadbeen a lengthy session in the estimates hear-ings, as indeed there was, over this issue andthat information was given to the Democratsat the time. One of the central parts of thisdebate and one of the main reasons why theDemocrats called for the Senate to considerthe return to order was this question of thegovernment’s activities overseas. The persua-sive way in which the government was work-ing with member countries of UNESCO inorder to get them to change their minds aboutplacing Kakadu on the endangered list wasquite central. For that reason it was somethingthat I concentrated on during the estimateshearings. Let me give honourable senators anexample of the exchanges that took place. Iasked the bureaucrats and the minister abouttheir trips overseas. When I asked about MrBamsey, in particular, a senior bureaucrat whohas been doing quite a lot of travel for thispurpose, the minister said:

I have said that I am not going to give details ofcommunications to other governments.

I had asked where Mr Bamsey had been. Theminister said that he had been overseashimself and I asked him if, when he was inLondon, he had taken up this issue there. Hesaid:

If I did, it is my business.

That was the tenor of the discussion duringthe estimates hearings. That is really the mainreason the Democrats moved in the way thatthey did. We were not getting satisfactionfrom the estimates hearings and we felt thatthese were very important documents to haveat our disposal to find out exactly what thegovernment was up to.

The minister says that key documents havebeen released, and today’s contributionsdemonstrate very clearly that the key docu-ments were the minister’s definition of whatwas ‘key’. We have already pointed to verymany documents that could have been provid-ed, such as those produced by the manyconsultants who have been employed on thisjob. The minister says that there would beliterally hundreds of pieces of paper and thatthe difficulties and costs of providing those tothe Senate were insurmountable. I remind theminister again that already $1 million hasbeen spent in defending this position of hisover the decision on Jabiluka and that a fewhundred pieces of paper on the copying ma-chine would not amount to much in thescheme of things.

Central, too, in this debate is the questionof who is responsible for delivering to theSenate the documents in question. Theminister is now saying as late as today thatthis was a matter for the department and thatthe department simply handed the documentsover to him. I remind the minister that thisorder was with the minister, not with anybureaucrats or heads of departments.

The letter in which the minister explainedhis grounds for withholding documents hasbeen referred to a number of times today aswell. The minister talks about defining orredefining, but really we have seen a back-tracking and a changing of the minister’smind in terms of what constitutes reasonablegrounds and what does not. That has been avery evasive technique that the minister has


used—and not to good effect, because it wasfairly transparent.

Senator Faulkner puts the case that thecoalition took the business of returns to ordermuch more seriously when in opposition thanit is doing when in government. Senator Leespoints out that draft documents have beentabled in the past and also that emails arelegitimate pieces of documentation and thatthey ought to be kept on file—and I am surethe minister knows that.

The argument that a letter to the WorldHeritage Committee chair should not bereleased without the chair’s okay is clearlyrefuted quite easily by the fact that there weremany other documents released that were alsoaddressed to the chair, and the minister gaveus no indication that he had sought the per-mission of the chair of the World HeritageCommittee in releasing them.

I am suggesting to honourable senators thatthe government’s case really does not stackup. They have tried to argue this on the basisof the intentions of the Democrats. The inten-tions of this side of the chamber have alwaysbeen about accountability. Senator Harradineis right in saying that the only issue before usis the right of the parliament to obtain infor-mation. I will conclude on that point and Iurge senators to vote for this motion.

Question put:That the motion (Senator Allison’s) be agreed

to.

The Senate divided. [6.37 p.m.](The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret

Reid)Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 1

——AYES

Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.

AYESLees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O’Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. * Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E.Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSCrowley, R. A. Crane, W.Hutchins, S. Minchin, N. H.Schacht, C. C. Ellison, C.

* denotes teller

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

COMMITTEES

Employment, Workplace Relations, SmallBusiness and Education References

CommitteeMeeting

Motion (by Senator Jacinta Collins)agreed to:

That the Employment, Workplace Relations,Small Business and Education References Commit-tee be authorised to hold a public meeting duringthe sitting of the Senate on 25 March 1999, from4 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiryinto the employment incentive and educationimpacts of the Government’s taxation reformlegislation proposals and the provisions of the billsimplementing the proposed new tax system.

BUSINESS

Urgency MotionSenator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-

tralia—Deputy Leader of the AustralianDemocrats) (6.40 p.m.)—I think that, due to


the lateness of the hour, it would be appropri-ate for me to withdraw the urgency motionstanding in my name for today.

COMMITTEES

Procedure CommitteeReport

Senator WEST (New South Wales) (6.40p.m.)—I present the first report of 1999 of theProcedure Committee, relating to the use ofunpublished documents in dissenting reports,the appearance of private witnesses withdepartmental officers, notices of motion,postponements and formal motions, anddivisions.

Ordered that the report be printed.Senator WEST—I move:That the Senate(a) in relation to the use of unpublished

documents in dissenting reports, adopts theamendment of standing order 37(2) at pages1 and 2 of the report;

(b) in relation to the appearance of privatewitnesses with departmental officers, adoptsthe views expressed by the committee atpage 2 of the report; and

(c) in relation to notices of motion andpostponements, adopts as temporary ordersceasing to have effect at the expiration of30 June 1999 the amendments of standingorder 76(1) and 67 at page 4 of the report.

I move this motion to allow the Senate tomake decisions on the various recommen-dations in the report, on the understandingthat the recommendations will be voted onseparately.

Senator CARR (Victoria) (6.42 p.m.)—Isupport the motion that Senator West hasmoved. In particular I draw the attention ofthe Senate to those matters relating to theappearance of private witnesses with depart-mental officers, which are outlined on page 2of the committee’s report. The Senate will beaware that this is an issue that came about asa result of deliberations of the Employment,Workplace Relations, Small Business andEducation Legislation Committee, which wasinquiring into provisions of the unfairdismissals legislation.

Concern was expressed by members of thecommittee that the actions of the minister inarranging for private witnesses to appear

before the committee under the cloak ofdepartmental witnesses was of course totallyinappropriate and, in the judgment of manymembers of the committee, outside thestanding orders. It was felt that this was aparticularly inappropriate action to takebecause it was the view of the committee—and it has traditionally been the view of thisSenate—that bills committees would be ableto provide an opportunity to examine thewitnesses that appear before the committee onthe basis of the legislation that is there and inparticular, when official witnesses are present,to provide opportunity for senators to questionofficials as to the nature and the effects ofany proposed government legislation.

In this particular case there were plenty ofopportunities for private witnesses to appear.Just about every major employer group andmany groups of individuals appeared beforethe committee to provide the committee withthe views of a range of people about thenature of this particular legislation. However,when it came to the question of the depart-ment’s witnesses appearing in the very limitedperiod of time that was allocated for consid-eration of departmental witnesses, officersfrom the department turned up with four pri-vate citizens in tow. What was disturbing wasthat the department had taken upon itself tofund the expenses of those witnesses toappear before the committee to the tune of$2,268.60.

What occurred was that this had beenarranged as a way of providing a paid cheersquad before the committee so as to supportthe views of the minister, Mr Reith, and ofcourse as part of his campaign and hisleadership squabble with Mr Costello.

I am deputy chair of this committee. So Ican assure the Senate, and I express the viewstrongly, that this action was totally inapprop-riate and that this was a fait accompli presen-ted to the committee by the chair of the com-mittee, insofar as there was no private meet-ing of the committee to consider the witnesslist or to consider the appropriateness of theaction. The secretariat, under the direction ofthe chair, at no time took into account thatthese witnesses should not appear withdepartmental witnesses.


Clearly, we are not opposed to privatewitnesses appearing. There are provisions inthe standing orders for that to occur. Further-more, there are provisions in the standingorders for expenses to be paid upon appli-cation to the committee. What you see herein these circumstances is that this arrangementwas made as a direct result of the interventionof the government into the provision ofwitnesses before the committee.

This is a serious matter. It gave us a clearinsight into the way in which this governmentis prepared to manipulate the Public Serviceand squander public resources to frustrate thelegitimate workings of a Senate committee.Once again, it demonstrated that, via hismaverick activities, this minister, Mr Reith, isdetermined to push his ideological agenda onthe Australian public. I think all senatorsshould be clear that this was a sham. It wasa political stunt and it was designed andinstigated directly by the minister, not by thedepartment.

In the evidence at the Senate additionalestimates hearing held on 10 February, thedepartment outlined the events that led tothese non-departmental witnesses appearingwith the department. The minister’s senioradviser, Mr Anderson, acting on the instruc-tions of Minister Reith, approached thesecretary to the department, Dr Shergold,about the appropriateness of bringing non-departmental witnesses to the hearing. MrAnderson suggested to Dr Shergold that—andI quoteHansard—‘The minister thought thatthis was a valuable idea.’ Dr Shergoldconfirmed to the committee that it was hisbelief that it was the role of a senior publicservant to provide support to his minister. Soin trueYes, Ministerstyle, Dr Shergold agreedthat he thought it was appropriate for thedepartment to pay for and bring non-departmental witnesses to attend the hearing.

We understand that under this governmentsenior public servants worry more aboutcollecting performance bonuses and havingtheir contracts renewed than adhering toWestminster traditions or the principles ofpublic administration. We have seen the stepsthat this government will take to frustrate thewill of the Senate. In this episode, it is quite

clear that the minister is intent upon misusingpublic trust in one way or another.

The entire episode represents a directintervention from what I say is a maverickminister; I do not believe that these views arewidely held within the government. Clearly,it is not appropriate that they should be. It isapparent that this minister is quite prepared topursue the strategy of ‘whatever it takes’, aswe saw with the dock dispute and the variousmatters which are still actions before variouscourts in this country. I will not go into theconspiracy matters that relate to those. If it isleft unchecked there will be no guarantees inthe future about the way in which govern-ments will use the resources of theirdepartments—and any other attempts that theymight make—to manipulate Senate commit-tees, to frustrate and ultimately thwartlegitimate bases for Senate inquiries into whatis the work of government through the variousbills that it is putting before this parliament.

What this report draws to our attention isthat Public Service witnesses and privatewitnesses have different roles, and those rolesshould not be confused. It says that it isinappropriate for actions to be taken bydepartments in this manner and for expensesto be paid by the department without advisingthe committee that such actions have in factbeen taken.

This report allows for the Chairman ofCommittees, the Deputy President of theSenate, to be allowed to confer with alldepartmental secretaries and advise them ofthe views of the Senate on this matter.Hopefully, through this action, we can preventthis sort of behaviour occurring again.Hopefully, it will send a clear message to allministers in this government that it is nottheir job to interfere in the work of Senatecommittees in this way. There is ampleopportunity for citizens to appear beforecommittees and provide their views. In thiscase, the witnesses who appeared were peoplewho did not currently have matters beforeCommonwealth jurisdictions: some weremaking complaints about state matters, somewere involved in cases that were currentlybefore courts of law and others, of course,


paid their witnesses, but they had nothing tosay when they got here.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Hogg)—Order! It now being 6.50p.m., we will proceed to the consideration ofgovernment documents.

DOCUMENTS

Australia-India CouncilSenator COOK (Western Australia—

Deputy Leader of the Opposition in theSenate) (6.50 p.m.)—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

The Australia-India Council is chaired by aneminent Australian, the Hon. Jim Kennan QC,who was for a time Attorney-General in thestate of Victoria and Leader of the Oppositionin that state. He is someone who, since hisretirement from politics, has played an im-portant role at a business level in buildingstronger commercial and other ties betweenAustralia and India.

India is an important nation for Australiafrom a trade point of view. It is not a nationthat ranks highly in the order of Australia’smost senior trading partners. It is a nation inwhich a large part of the English justicesystem, civil service and structure of law hasbeen transplanted with, of course, localrefinements. Australian business people feelat home in India because the legal require-ments which they must meet are not at allstrange to them and the circumstances ofdoing business are quite compatible withthose of this nation. Despite those things, thebusiness relationship has not been strong inthe past.

However, the relationship is growing.During the period of the previous Laborgovernment, the Department of ForeignAffairs and Trade brought down a majorreport on Australia-India relations with a viewto developing further strategies to bolster andimprove commercial contacts. Since thenthere has been an initiative to involve Austral-ia with nations in the Indian Ocean littoralregion to examine and promote further tradeissues.

I think it is a great shame that this businessrelationship has not flourished more strongly.

It is not a question of blame; it is a matter ofobservation. A number of things can be doneto represent the opportunities for Australianentrepreneurs in India more strongly than hasbeen done in the past. Certainly, the Austral-ia-India Council is a mechanism for that. Iacknowledge and applaud the work that it hasdone in promoting closer relations betweenour two countries.

As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President,the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence andTrade References Committee has inquiredmost recently into the detonation of nucleardevices in India and Pakistan. While I under-stand the committee’s report has not yet beentabled, it is close to finalisation. The relation-ship between India and Australia has becomemore strained now than it was before thosetests were undertaken. A view has been putfrom the Indian side that Australia overreactedin expressing its protest and opposition tothose nuclear tests when they occurred.

Whatever the truth of that assertion is,nonetheless there was bipartisan support forthe opposition expressed to nuclear weaponstesting when it did occur. But there nowseems to be a chance, while maintaining aprincipled position on nuclear weapons, topursue actively and sensibly stronger commer-cial and industrial ties. Indeed, by doing thatat a commercial business level, there wouldbe greater strength and acceptability for anyviews that Australia might put at a ForeignAffairs level or at the level of the nuclearissue.

We have a strong sporting tradition withIndia. We do not have a strong businesstradition. I would applaud any steps that theIndian side would take to open up marketaccess for Australian goods and services. Butthere is no replacement for Australian busi-ness people going to the subcontinent, tryingto establish business contacts themselves andbuilding a mutually beneficial trade betweenour two nations. I seek leave to continue myremarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

ADJOURNMENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT

(Senator Hogg)—Order! There being no


further consideration of government docu-ments, I propose the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Uranium MiningSenator MARGETTS (Western Australia)

(6.57 p.m.)—I rise briefly tonight to beg theSenate’s indulgence. I have received two lotsof petitions which are not precisely in thenormal format. The first is entitled ‘Stopuranium mining—care for the future’. Theother also relates to uranium mining in Aus-tralia and the United Nations World HeritageCommittee. The petition states:. . . that the current mining operation at Jabilukacease until agreement has been reached with theWorld Heritage Commission on it’s safety inrespect to the Kakadu national park.

The petition continues:We also request that a referendum or other suitablepoll, be conducted on whether Uranium should bemined and it’s waste stored or buried in Australia.The referendum should include the opinion of theyouth of Australia.

The petition contained 1,495 signatures. Theearlier petition contained 39. I seek leave ofthe Senate to table the petitions.

Leave granted.

Aged Care: Nursing StaffSenator GIBBS(Queensland) (6.58 p.m.)—

I rise to speak on a subject I regard as ex-tremely important to aged care residents andthe nurses who care for them. In particular, Iadvise the Senate of a serious incident that ishappening in Queensland at the moment. I amsure most senators would be interested toknow whether this is also happening in theirown state.

On 14 January 1999, nurses working for theQueensland aged care provider Churches ofChrist received a letter advising that themajority of nursing staff are to be reclassifiedas aged care workers at its Fairhaven, Mary-borough and Hervey Bay facilities. This willcome into effect on 29 March 1999, andnurses are yet to be told how their roles willbe affected after that date.

The Churches of Christ organisation hasdeclared that a nursing model is no longer tobe used to care for high-care nursing home

residents and that a ‘hostel’ service deliverymodel will be used. According to the Queens-land nurses union, not only will resident carebe jeopardised but also nurses’ conditions ofemployment will decline dramatically.

The actions of the Churches of Christorganisation are in direct contravention of theAged Care Principles 1997—Quality of Care,part 3, item 3.8, Nursing Services, whichstates:Initial and ongoing assessment, planning andmanagement of care for residents, carried out by aregistered nurse. Nursing services carried out by aregistered nurse, or other professional appropriateto the service (eg. Medical practitioner, stomatherapist, speech pathologist, physiotherapist orqualified practitioner from a palliative care team).

The Aged Care Principles have been flagrant-ly breached by the Churches of Christ organi-sation. The reclassification of current employ-ees has implications that will be felt byresidents in nursing homes across Queenslandfor many years to come. Essentially, theemployer has used a rebuilding and construc-tion program at Fairhaven Maryborough andthe relocation of 20 high care residents to itsFairhaven Hervey Bay facility as the justifica-tion for the reclassification of its nursing staff.

The reclassification undertaken by theChurches of Christ organisation involves theabolition of the nursing classifications of‘enrolled nurse’ and ‘assistant in nursing’.These nurses will be reclassified as ‘aged careworkers’. Fundamentally, the effect of this isto transfer their entitlements from the NursesAged Care Interim Award—State to two non-nursing certified agreements. Indeed, the jobdescription of an aged care worker is identicalto that of an AIN. Hence, the reclassificationin itself is nothing but a sham. It is a shabby,transparent exercise designed specifically tocut wages and conditions and to remove theprofessional status and identity of nurses.

The reclassification for AINs will mean aloss of wages, shift penalties, one week’sannual leave and their title as ‘assistant innursing’. For enrolled nurses the picture isparticularly bleak. They will lose up to $3,500each year in wages in addition to a loss ofshift penalties, annual leave and job title.Even more devastating are the implicationsfor the long-term career prospects of the


nurses. If the enrolled nurses remain em-ployed as aged care workers for three years,they will lose their level of entitlement and,if they ever return to work as enrolled nurses,they will be on the lowest classification andpay point. Any absence from designatednursing employment for five years or morewill result in the loss of their licence topractise.

Clearly, the Churches of Christ organisationsees no need to retain skilled nursing staff tocare for people in their nursing homes, despitethe specifications of the aged care principles.They are using the current legislation todowngrade their staff so they can make a fastbuck.

The long-term implications of the reclassifi-cation are even more frightening for residents.As their current nurses gradually leave toavoid deregistration, these elderly people willhave to rely on staff who are inadequatelytrained and unqualified to care for their needs.This situation is an absolute disgrace, bothfrom the nurses’ and the residents’ perspec-tive.

As senators would know, the work that thenurses currently undertake is absolutely vitaland fundamental to providing a decent levelof care for residents in these facilities. Nurs-ing home residents in particular are dependenton their nurses to help them with the basicactivities of daily life. These duties will stillneed to be attended to after 29 March, but wecan assume that nurses’ time will then beconstrained by additional duties, primarilydomestic. If this is not the case and nurses areto carry on as usual, how can the Churches ofChrist organisation justify the reclassificationof their roles?

After the reclassification, standards of carefor residents in these facilities will declinerapidly. Evidence provided to the Queenslandnurses union has revealed that nursing dutieswill subsequently be undertaken by peoplewith no knowledge, skills or training to dothis work. An illiterate domestic who hasworked 30 years as a cleaner will be under-taking nursing duties. A domestic with 15years experience as a cleaner will also beundertaking nursing duties. A former recep-tionist-administrative officer will be undertak-

ing nursing duties at the Hervey Bay facility.I find it particularly disturbing that the em-ployer has not even initiated any training forthese staff who will, in effect, be expected towork as qualified nurses.

Staff have also been advised that they willbe required to administer medications withoutthe proper authority. If this is not a frighten-ing enough prospect, these people are noteven to be supervised by the remainingregistered nurses. The employer has advisedthat registered nurses will work only as teammembers without any authority to delegate,direct or supervise the care that has alwaysbeen the work of nursing staff. This is abso-lutely ludicrous and a potential for disaster.

The union has also been advised that theongoing assessment, planning and manage-ment of care for residents will now be under-taken by non-registered nursing staff. Thisaction is in direct contravention of the Qualityof Care Amendment Principles, clause 3.8,which specifies that such duties must beundertaken by a registered nurse. Theseprinciples were established to protect residentsand must be upheld if these people are tomaintain any quality of life.

It is distressing that we are now faced witha situation where the quality of care beingprovided to nursing home residents is beingcompromised. Aged care in Australia shouldnever be allowed to regress to the situationbefore 1984, as highlighted at the time by theGiles report. However, this government haspresided over legislative changes that arealready making these scenes a reality.

The reclassification of nursing staff by theChurches of Christ organisation will no doubtbe replicated all over the country if thegovernment refuses to intervene. We willhave residents receiving injections frompeople who cannot explain why they aregiving them. No doubt there will be manymore instances of neglect, while a lack ofproper planning will mean that servicesdecline even further in the long term.

The government was warned of theseconsequences during the debate when this billwas before the Senate. The accommodationbonds were introduced to ensure that facilitiesand services in nursing homes could be


improved and brought up to scratch, but it isbecoming obvious that certain unscrupulousorganisations are now flouting the verysafeguards put in place to protect residents.All they want to do is take the money andrun.

The Minister for Aged Care must act nowto amend this legislation; otherwise, the roleof nurses in aged care facilities will be re-moved forever. If this is allowed to occur,Australia’s aged care sector will once againbecome a source of misery for residents,bringing shame on the government and thewider community.

Indigenous Women: South AustraliaSenator FERRIS (South Australia) (7.08

p.m.)—I would like to talk tonight about tworoundtables that I recently convened in SouthAustralia for indigenous women. One washeld in Adelaide and the other in Port Augus-ta, and there were around 30 women at eachof them. They were the latest in a series ofwomen’s roundtables that I have held inSouth Australia over last 18 months or so,and they have provided me with a veryvaluable opportunity to listen to women’sviews and their priorities and to assist withappropriate policy advice.

These sessions provide an opportunity foruseful exchanges of information but they alsoprovide me with some very special memories,particularly of women with multiculturalbackgrounds and indigenous women. Somevery important themes emerged from my tworoundtables, which I would like to sharetonight. In each of the stories shared, mothersfigured as an important focus for life. Sadly,in many cases they were the only knownparent.

There is a strong determination to achievefor their communities, a need to provide apositive future for their children and theirgrandchildren, and a need to break the cycleof family violence and welfare dependency.They want to raise and nurture strong childrenwho are not crippled by the destructive cycleof unemployment and substance abuse.

These are women who know the importanceof working with young people, because theyknow that in the early years education and

opportunity provide a foundation for a chanceto work, a chance to own their own home anda chance to live a healthy life. These arecommendable goals for every family and forall mothers who hope for a better life for theirchildren and a better future for their grand-children. Our government is working withthese families to tackle the tough issues, toimprove employment opportunities and tofocus on the causes of family violence.

I was particularly pleased to hear fromSenator Herron that a model unit to deal withfamily violence is to be established in PortAugusta, with the help of legal and communi-ty organisations and Indigenous Legal Ser-vices. The unit will open later this year tooffer legal and other support for these fami-lies. Further funding of $18,000 from thePartnerships Program will be spent in mystate of South Australia to provide resourcesfor indigenous family violence workers,educational resources for children and re-sources for communit ies to promotenonviolent behaviour.

The problems of violence and alcoholabuse, sadly, are often linked and bring abouta deterioration of family life. I was pleased tolearn that Minister Herron has asked ATSICto give close attention to the ways in whichit can address family violence, as part of areview being undertaken to see that each ofthese programs is working as effectively andas efficiently as possible. Of course, men andwomen will be consulted directly about thebest ways to develop new initiatives, remem-bering that, generally speaking, women andchildren are the victims. I was also pleased tolearn from these women about a level ofsupport for mandatory counselling for thoseconvicted of family violence, in the same wayas some other offenders are counselled. Thereis no doubt that breaking this destructivecycle will fundamentally improve the qualityof family life.

Education leading to a worthwhile job andthe sense of purpose that accompanies it is thegoal of all our young people, whoever theyare. But literacy skills have proved difficultto achieve for some of our young indigenousmen and women. This was an issue againraised by many of the mothers at my


roundtable. I am very proud to say that atWoodville High School in South Australiayoung indigenous students have been able toachieve a 100 per cent success rate in an out-standingly successful program known asScaffolding Literacy. At the school’s Wiltjaannexe, more than 50 students have beenparticipating in the program, which has raisedthe reading skill level of those students byone percentage profile—a very significantachievement.

All colleagues at my roundtables will bereassured by the news that an extra $885,000has been allocated by Dr Kemp to extend thisprogram, so increasing the number of youngindigenous men and women who will enhancetheir chances in the work force using theseimproved literacy skills. This program willbecome the backbone of the National Indigen-ous Literacy Strategy that will be announcedby Dr Kemp later this year.

Caring for our elderly is important to allAustralians, and it is a very important issuefor indigenous people who are frequentlyliving far away from their country. Ourgovernment’s Aboriginal aged care strategyrecognises the special needs of older indigen-ous people, especially in the planning andlocation of new aged care places. It incorpo-rates the importance of family and communityinvolvement in the caring process. There are70 operating or planned services for olderindigenous people, many of them in theremote communities where they have lived allof their lives, with facilities for up to 15clients in each. As part of my visit to PortAugusta last Friday I was very privileged tosee briefly in Davenport the Ummeewarramission for the aged community. Six projectsin South Australia receive recurrent annualfunding and provide a range of care forresidential and community clients across mystate.

The indigenous women who shared theirstories and their concerns with me in SouthAustralia last week share the priorities and thegoals of all of us: family security and stabili-ty, their own home, a stable income, and jobprospects for their children and grandchildren.I was very privileged to take part in this firstconsultation as part of my round table series,

and I look forward very much to undertakingfurther round tables with these women andtheir colleagues in other parts of SouthAustralia over the next few months. There isno doubt that the trust and confidence thatthose people showed in me to talk throughwith me the priorities they have for theirfamily lives was something I felt veryprivileged to receive. I look forward verymuch to undertaking more in the series.

Education: Equity in Higher Education

Sullivan, Hon. KathySenator PAYNE (New South Wales) (7.15

p.m.)—I rise tonight to address what I regardas the very important issue of equity in highereducation. I noted with interest yesterday theannouncement of my colleague the Hon. DrDavid Kemp, releasing theEquity in HigherEducationstudy. The study, produced by theHigher Education Division of the Departmentof Education, Training and Youth Affairs,presents information relating to the participa-tion rates in higher education of groups in thecommunity and, in particular, some fromdisadvantaged backgrounds.

It is mainly in relation to this importantissue of equity and how we go about ensuringmaximum equitable access to higher educa-tion that I wish to speak this evening. Thereport on this occasion looks at the progressof indigenous students, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, people fromrural and isolated backgrounds, women innon-traditional courses, and people with adisability.

Statistics from each university in Australiain relation to these groups are provided andrated in relat ion to four key equityperformance indicators: access, participation,success and retention. Whilst the report relatesto 1997 statistics, it also contains comparativefigures for the period 1991 to 1997 in relationto participation.

The report notes that whilst the success andretention rates of indigenous students remaina cause for concern—a fact which theminister specifically noted in his press state-ment—‘other equity groups, particularlywomen and people from non-English speakingbackgrounds, have made significant progress’.


Of specific note is the participation ofwomen in non-traditional fields of study,which has risen in all areas and now exceedsthe 40 per cent mark in most academic areas.The participation of women in higher degreesby course work and research has also risenover that period. It is interesting to note thatfemale NESB students enter nontraditionalareas of study at a much higher rate than isthe case for other female students. Overall,women are making progress in most fields ofacademic study although they are stillunderrepresented in areas such as computerand information sciences, mathematics,physical sciences and physics, whilst continu-ing to be overrepresented in food science andhome economics.

At the University of Western Sydney, theuniversity which attracts many of my constitu-ents in that area, 38.2 per cent of commencingagriculture students, 32.1 per cent of architec-ture students, 7.4 per cent of engineeringstudents, 48.2 per cent of business and eco-nomic students, and 38.5 per cent of sciencestudents are women.

The most encouraging thing about thesestatistics is how well they compare to otheruniversities, especially some of the moreestablished universities around the country.For example, in relation to the access ofwomen to business and economic fields,measured as a proportion of commencing stu-dents who are women, UWS actually outper-forms both the University of Sydney and theUniversity of Melbourne. In other fields ofacademia, the University of Western Sydneymatches such historical universities andcompares very well.

When I last spoke in the Senate to makemention of the University of Western Sydney,I referred to statistics gathered in their intakesurvey. The survey indicated that much of theUWS intake comprises first generation stu-dents and that many lived in the GreaterWestern Sydney region. Like students in theareas researched in the equity in educationreport, students at UWS are benefiting fromthe expanding opportunities available onAustralian university campuses as a result ofgovernment support for universities in thiscountry.

As Minister Kemp pointed out yesterday, in1999 the operating grant per fully fundedstudent on Austral ian campuses was$11,596—higher in constant dollar terms thanit was when the government came to office in1996. The minister pointed out that not onlyis this level of funding per student higher butthat there are also more fully funded placesavailable, with 13,000 more undergraduatepositions on Australian campuses this yearthan were available before 1996.

I was recently honoured to be invited by theUniversity of Western Sydney Nepean’sCentre for Academic Development and Flex-ible Learning to launch the Women in Re-search Seminar Series entitledWomen andnon-traditional research: the alternative trek.I value my relationship with the universityvery highly and was pleased to have beeninvited to this launch. Both the contributors—Jean Callaghan, Janice Withnall, BarbaraBeale, Lynda Jarvis and Diana Bloom—andthe editors—Nicola Lengkeek and AssociateProfessor Elizabeth Deane—put an enormousamount of time and effort into the publication,which offers an insight into a very interestingarea of higher education.

Each of the essays contained in the bookoffers a unique perspective on areas of inter-est and issues of great difference. In theintroduction to the book, Nicola Lengkeekand Elizabeth Deane state that research is somuch more than the sum total of grants. Ithink they are absolutely correct. The contri-bution that is made by the collective outcomeof universities and academia in Australia iscrucial to our communities, whether it isimmediately visible, tangible or not.

Last year I had the opportunity and honourto meet the President of Ireland, Her Excel-lency Mary McAleese, on her visit to Austral-ia. In a speech she made at a breakfast withmany of Sydney’s leading business andcommunity women she made the point that asociety is not the sum total of just its econ-omy or just its government; that a healthysociety benefits enormously from the emer-gence of a strong and diverse arts communityor sports community and youth community,and of course, from an active and vibrantacademic community.


In this regard, work such as that containedin the book launched is highly valuable. Tome, the fact that this work celebrates the roleof female academics makes it even moreimportant. These essays, which are fascinat-ing, offered an insight—and although thelikelihood of me being immediately involvedin music performance or nursing might besmall, I think there are parallels with the jobswe do as members of parliament—into theday-to-day work of these women and othersinvolved in research.

I read each of the essays very carefully and,whilst I do not wish to single one out, I wantto briefly refer to Janice Withnall’s essay. Sherefers to her personal motto that ‘we have tobe perceived and received to succeed’. Shegoes on to say:People fear the unknown, they fear change and theyfear difference. Fear is a very strong emotion, onethat we must register and deal with to succeed.

In their own way, each of these essays high-lights that point, and whether through dealingwith personal fear, or the fear of others,women who choose to take a path untroddenby any before them do help to make it easierfor those of us who follow.

I note briefly that this evening I and, I amsure, a number of other members of theSenate and the House will be attending adinner held by the National Foundation ofAustralian Women to mark the anniversary inthis parliament of the Hon. Kathy SullivanMP, the member for Moncrieff in Queensland.It marks her service in the parliament, both inthe Senate and the House of Representatives.She is the longest-serving woman in theHouse of Representatives and next Mondayshe will be the longest-serving woman ever inthe parliament. I think that is a milestone forwhich she is due enormous credit.

It is crucially important to acknowledge theimportance of education in giving women,and others, the necessary tools to forge a newpath or to take the ‘alternative trek’ as theUWS book terms it. That is where the linkbetween academia and politics becomes moreevident: through the promotion of knowledgeand understanding, both have a key rolewithin Australian society. Sometimes one ismore productive than the other; nevertheless

it is a key role. I understand that the Universi-ty of Western Sydney has forwarded a copyof the book to the Parliamentary Library, andI recommend that senators take the opportuni-ty to have a look at the essays contained in it.They provide a valuable insight into animportant area that is often difficult to benefitfrom in any other way.

Finally, I want to briefly comment on theparticular campus of the University of West-ern Sydney at which the book was launched.When I have spoken about the work of theUniversity of Western Sydney, I have pointedout the historical nature of the campus. It isfortuitous that a book on women in researchwas launched near what was the formerfemale orphanage on the banks of the Parra-matta River, Australia’s first purpose builtorphanage and Australia’s oldest two-storeybrick building. When Governor Macquarielaid the foundation stone of the orphanage in1813, he could not possibly have imaginedwhat its future held in this regard.

It is also interesting to note that the pres-ence of the orphanage on UWS Nepeancampus means that UWS Nepean now claimsfor itself the honour of the nation’s oldestuniversity site, an honour that I am sure theUniversity of Sydney had always imaginedwas well within its keeping. In conclusion, Iwould like to acknowledge the importance ofthe work of the University of Western Syd-ney, and of universities across the country, inaddressing access and equity issues for Aus-tralian students.

Keating, Mr Paul: Piggery

Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (7.25p.m.)—I do not normally speak on the ad-journment but I could not help but notice thisweek the publicity that was given to formerPrime Minister Keating and his piggeryinvestments. I do not intend to pass judgmenton what the former Prime Minister did but Iwant to raise a couple of concerns and men-tion a few facts.

Those of us who were here at the time willremember—I think Senator West wouldremember—the continual querying by formerSenator Michael Baume of the formerTreasurer’s, and then Prime Minister’s, deal-


ings. When looking back through theHans-ard, I was amazed to find that his first contri-bution on the matter was on 1 June 1992. Itcertainly does not seem that long ago, but itis almost seven years ago that Michael Baumestood up in this place and drew our attentionto the fact that the former Prime Minister haddeclared when he was still the Treasurer thathe had shares in Euphron Pty Ltd, a companywhich had interests in a piggery and a refrige-ration fabrication business.

Of course, that started the saga of MichaelBaume reporting to this place on a regularbasis and bringing to our attention, and to theattention of the government of the day andthe people of Australia, matters that weregoing on which he believed the PrimeMinister of the country should not be in-volved in. For his trouble, Senator Baume wasthe butt of a terrible amount of abuse. He wasnot just abused in the parliament, but hisefforts in trying to bring to the attention ofthe Australian parliament what is now provingto be a very curious set of circumstances wererewarded with continual abuse from memberson the other side, particularly former SenatorEvans. Even in the media, we had peoplesuch as Laurie Oakes and Alan Ramsaysaying that there was no evidence of whatSenator Baume was bringing forward and thatit was unsubstantiated muckraking.

The last time that Senator Baume addressedthis place, on 26 June 1996, he put togethera complete history of what he had broughtbefore the Senate, and there is very little dif-ference between what he said then and whatappeared on60 Minuteslast Sunday evening.I believe the only reason the media havepicked it up now is because Big Al blew thewhistle. There have been plenty of occasionswhen good investigative journalists could atleast have had a go at doing something withthis. Of course, there were some early at-tempts to report on this but they soon closeddown when the former Prime Minister madesome of his famous Sunday phone calls.

In fact, when a journalist—Michael Gor-don—tried to bring some attention to thismatter he was moved on, or out of Canberra,for a brief period. On 18 June 1992 MichaelBaume drew the Senate’s attention to the fact

that Brown and Hatton and the former PrimeMinister had some associations with Danpork.No action was taken. On 24 June 1992Michael Baume brought to the attention of theSenate an article by Michael Gordon, I be-lieve it was, which had appeared in theSunday Age. We were informed that theformer Prime Minister, on that Sunday, let itbe known that he was not very happy aboutwhat was going on.

Looking through the documents here I findhe also quoted Fred Brenchley, who said thatthe former Prime Minister said:You have hurt me and I will hurt you; you cancount on it . . .

I will not quote the rest of it because at thetime I was the Acting Deputy President in thechair and I had to rule former Senator Baumeout of order for the language he used. But hewas only quoting the former Prime Minister.

On 24 and 25 June 1992, and on 7 Septem-ber 1993, Michael Baume again presented along account of what he had been followingfor some time on the Parkville piggery. Itcertainly makes interesting reading. But on 7June 1994 he first raised questions about oneof the matters that really concerns me andconcerns the Australian people, which is whatappeared to be the favourable treatment beinggiven to Mr Constantinidis, Mr Keating andothers by the Commonwealth Bank. I thinkthat was the first time that he had raised thesematters.

If you read theSydney Morning Heraldtoday, there are a couple of people quoted.Ms Judith Radin lost her home because ofmoney owing to the Commonwealth Bank.Another builder and property developer, MrGreg Malouf, saw his $1 million home beingsold because of a $3.5 million loan. It mustgall a lot of people around Australia, and a lotof farmers who were paying high interestrates at the time and who had their farms soldout from under them because of debts a lotless than the purported $11 million that wasgoing to be written off.

There are a lot of questions to be askedabout the actions of the bank. I made thecomment for the first time in response at adoorstop on Monday morning, saying that ifthe Commonwealth Bank were to open their


books I think this matter could be cleared upvery quickly. I guess only time will tell. On11 October 1994 former Senator Baume againraised the matter of a figure of $4.5 millionbeing written off by the CommonwealthBank. That $4.5 million figure is one that hasbeen quoted in the electronic media this week.

On 30 June 1995, after a couple of otherefforts, former Senator Baume, in one of hisexpose speeches, first drew attention to thefact that there were Indonesian interestsstarting to become involved in this piggeryoperation. On 29 August 1995 he again raiseda matter in this place about the Common-wealth Bank, the large amounts of publicmoney that seemed to have been lost and thefact that the Indonesians were seen to begetting favoured treatment. In May 1996former Senator Baume made the point:The reality is that there is a smell over the Keatingpiggery and Keating’s involvement in it.

He wanted the then Prime Minister to comeclean.

A notice of motion in June 1996 gave theopportunity for Michael Baume to commentabout some of the language that was being

used against him by Senator Evans, whoaccused him of a:fishing, trawling, insubstantial, muck-rakingexpedition . . . in the usual slimy muck barrels thathe inhabits.

They were the sorts of things that wereaddressed to Michael Baume. In fact, I wasonce again in the chair and I had to callSenator Cook to order when he accusedformer Senator Baume of being a crook.

I think what this week’s events have doneis to show that former Senator Baume wasmaligned by the then government in thisplace. The abuse he received from somegovernment senators was beyond the pale, andwhat he exposed to the people of Australiahas now come to pass to be quite correct.(Time expired)

Senate adjourned at 7.35 p.m.

DOCUMENTS

TablingThe following government document was

tabled:Australia-India Council—Report for 1997-98.


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry: Industry Advisory Bodies

(Question No. 9)

Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre-senting the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheriesand Forestry, upon notice, on 11 November1998:

(1) How many industry advisory bodies are therein the Primary Industries and Energy portfolio.

(2) (a) What is the membership of each body; (b)how are members selected; and (c) how often doeseach body meet.

(3) Can a schedule of meetings be provided foreach body since March 1996.

(4) Has the Minister attended all meetings ofeach body; if not, which meetings has the Ministerattended.

(5) Does the Government provide funding tothese industry advisory bodies; if so, how muchfunding has been provided to each body sinceMarch 1996 and how does each body use thefunding.

Senator Alston—The Minister for Agricul-ture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided thefollowing answer to the honourable senator’squestion:

(1) 45 industry advisory bodies.

(2) Please see attachment A

(3) Please see attachment B

(4) Minister is not required to attend meetings asa matter of course and does so as appropriate.

(5) Please see attachment C

Attachment A(2)—

BODY (a) MEMBERSHIP(b) MEMBERSHIP

SELECTION

(c) BODY MEETINGTIMES

Consultative Rural FinanceForum (CRFF) (is a consulta-tive group, established as partof the Agriculture—AdvancingAustralia package, to promotebetter communication and regu-lar consultation between thefarm sector, financiers andgovernment on rural financialissues. The Forum does nothave an advisory role

Senator the Hon JudithTroeth (Chair), Ian Donges,Barry Buffier, Bruce Brown,Brian Plain, Brent Clark,Alister Bennett, MarkGenovese, Bruce Bashford,David Heinjus, MaxOrmsby, John de Salis, PeterCooke, Ross Donald, StuartBlack, Bill Sheehan, BarbaraScott, Ian MacFarlane,Venessa Tripp, PermanentObservers: Stephen Carroll,Todd Ritchie

Members are selected asrepresentatives of rural fi-nance stakeholders such asthe major financial institu-tions, pastoral houses, creditunion associations, the Na-tional Farmers’ Federation(NFF), rural counsellors,accountants, government,farm consultants and busi-ness people.

The Forum meets three timesper year.

Domestic Violence AdvisoryCommittee (DVAC)

Ms Venessa Tripp (Chair),FAS, Rural Division, AFFA,Mr Stanley Jeyaraj, KidsHelp Line, Major EstelleStrong, Salvation Army, MsJeanie Brook, Multi PurposeHealth Service, CooktownHospital, Ms Sharon Ledger,Domestic Violence RegionalService (South West), MsJean Tom, Country Women’sAssociation, Ludo McFerran,WESNET Rural Representa-tive

Members of the DomesticViolence Advisory Com-mittee are selected by theMinister for Primary Indus-tries and Energy.

The Domestic ViolenceAdvisory Committee is ex-pected to meet two to threetimes a year.



SELECTION


Rural Adjustment SchemeAdvisory Council (RASAC)

Mr Neil Inall (Chairman);Mr Ross Donald; Mr BrianPlain; Ms Fran Rowe; MsMargaret Thomson; Mr JohnWatson; Mr Bernard Wonderand Dr Roger Stone.

The members are selected bythe Minister after consulta-tion with the States andTerritories NFF. One mem-ber is a AFFA officer ap-pointed to represent theCommonwealth. Other mem-bers are appointed to contri-bute expertise in economics,financial administration,banking, sustainable agricul-ture, regional adjustment, re-gional development, farmmanagement or training.

RASAC generally holds fourCouncil meetings in anyfinancial year as well asteleconferences as required.

Rural Women’s AdvisoryGroup (RWAG)

Secretary, Department ofPrimary Industries and Ener-gy (Chair), President, Coun-try Women’s Association ofAustralia, President, Austral-ian Women in Agriculture,President, Foundation forAustralian AgriculturalWomen, Chairperson,Women’s Industry Network(Fisheries Industry), Exec-utive Director, NationalFarmers’ Federation, Chairof Chairs, Cotton Researchand Development Corpora-tion, Experts in social andcommunity issues, research,regional development andsustainable land manage-ment.

Members are selected byvirtue of their positions orby their expertise.

This group meets bi-yearly.

Quarantine and Exports Advis-ory Council (QEAC)

Mal Nairn Chairman, EdWright, Deputy Chairman,Peter Allen Member, And-rew Beattie Member, JimCullen Member, Paul HickeyMember, Andrew InglisMember, Brian JeffriessMember, Hart Krtschil Mem-ber, Ken Pritchett Member,Anne Story Member, JackWare Member, Carolyn Tan-ner Member, Ken MatthewsMember

The Council was appointedby Cabinet. Applicationswere sought and membersappointed based on theirskills, rather than on industryrepresentation.The Secretaryof AFFA and the ExecutiveDirector of AQIS holdmemberships based on theirposition in the Department.

QEAC meets bi-monthly

Special Merino Export Com-mittee

While there are no formalappointments to the Com-mittee it consists of repre-sentatives of the AustralianAssociation of Stud MerinoBreeders, the AustralianCouncil of Livestock Agents,the Australian LivestockExporters’ Association andAFFA.

Therefore, due to the lack offormal requirements, it isdifficult to provide an offi-cial number of members.

The Committee usuallymeets yearly to review theprevious merino ram sellingseason and the administrativerequirements for the comingseason.

Red Meat Advisory Council Each Peak Council of the redmeat industry, represented bythe President of each body.

Each Peak Council of the redmeat industry, represented bythe President of each body.

At least quarterly.



SELECTION


National Pork Industry Devel-opment Group (NPIDG)

Mr Trevor Herd (Chairman)has experience in the market-ing and retail sectors. He isalso currently Chairman ofthe Australian Pork Corpora-tion, Mr Peter Brechin(Member)—pork producer,President of the Pork Coun-cil of Australia, Dr MikeGinnivan (Member)—previously Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Bunge Meat Indus-tries, Mr Kym Hewett(Member)—General Manag-er, Major OpportunitiesGroup, Austrade, Mr IanNielsen (Member)—primaryproducer and exporter, MrGreg Read (GovernmentMember)—Assistant Secre-tary, Meat and LivestockBranch, AFFA, Mr RobertSutton (Member)—Chairman(Australia), Jardine MathesonGroup; Managing Director,Jardine Matheson (Australia)Ltd, Mr Tony West (Mem-ber)—pork producer; Chair-man, NSW Farmers PorkProducers Committee, DrRob Wilson (Member)—Chairman, Pig Research andDevelopment Corporation.

The NPIDG is comprised ofnine members selected fortheir experience and skills inproduction; processing; mar-keting; research and develop-ment; and exporting. Theprocess of selecting membersinvolves full consultationbetween the Department ofPrimary Industries and Ener-gy, and industry. The De-partment then seeks theformal approval of theMinister to the proposedappointments.

At this stage the NPIDG hasbeen meeting monthly inorder to progress key ele-ments of the activities of theProgram, such as finalisingthe Business Plan and con-sidering applications forfunding. It is envisaged thefrequency of meetings willreduce now the BusinessPlan has been released, andapplications are likely to beplaced in funding rounds.

National Consultative Com-mittee on Animal Welfare(NCCAW)

The Committee consists ofan independent Chairmanappointed by the Minister;and 15 members comprisinga person nominated by eachof the following: Departmentof Primary Industries andEnergy; Bureau of ResourceSciences; Environment Aus-tralia; National Health andMedical Research Council;National Farmers’ Feder-ation; Australian VeterinaryAssociation; RSPCA Aus-tralia; Australian and NewZealand Federation of Ani-mal Societies (ANZFAS);and a representative fromeach State/Territory Govern-ment (drawn from StateAnimal Welfare AdvisoryCouncils/Committees wherethey presently exist).

Members are nominated bytheir organisation and ap-proval is required by theMinister.

Bi-annually



SELECTION


Horticulture 2000 Group Senator the Hon JudithTroeth Chairman, Mr BobSeldon Australian Horticul-tural Corporation (AHC)—Chairman, Mr JamesMcGeoch Horticultural Re-search and DevelopmentCorporation (HRDC)—Chairman, Mr LarryCavallaro Temperate produc-er representative, Mr JonDurham Temperate producerrepresentative, Mr SilvioFavero Vegetable producerrepresentative, Mr JeremyGayland Marketer represen-tative, Mr Bob GrangerTropical producer representa-tive, Mr Terry Hill,ARMCANZ representative,Mr Lyndel Jack Austrade,Mr Bruce Lloyd GovernmentAppointee, Mr MikeMacnamara CommonwealthrepresentativeMr TonyWalsh Exporter representa-tive, Mr Michael O’BrienProcessor representative, MrJohn Rich Vegetable produc-er representative

The Minister for PrimaryIndustries and Energy ap-points the Chair of the Horti-culture 2000 Group. Thepositions of AHC andHRDC Chairs are ex-officiopositions. Other members areappointed predominantly onthe nomination of the bodiesor sectors that they represent.

4 times a year

Citrus Market DevelopmentGroup

Senator the Hon JudithTroeth Chairperson, Mr NeilEagle President AustralianCitrus Growers Inc, MrSteven Benham MemberCitrus Sectional CommitteeQueensland Fruit and Vege-table Growers, Mr MarkNapper Acting MD Austral-ian Horticultural Corpora-tion, Mr Michael CrookPresident Australian CitrusIndustry Council, Mr MarkHancock MD Mildura Co-opFruit Company representingcitrus processors and con-verters, Mr Andrew WeigallYandilla Park Ltd represent-ing citrus exporters, MrDavid Cain CEO CitrusBoard of SA, Mr IainWorrall GM Griffith Produc-ers Co-op Ltd, representingcitrus packers, Mr JohnBraniff CEO Murray ValleyCitrus Marketing Board, MrPeter Davidson ChairpersonRiverina Citrus Marketing,Mr Peter Walker HRDCBoard Member

The Chair of the CitrusMarket Development Groupis appointed by the Ministerfor Primary Industries andEnergy. Other members areappointed predominantly onthe nomination of the bodiesor sectors which they repre-sent.When the Group wasestablished in 1994, nomi-nations for membership weresought from: the AustralianCitrus Industry Council (fivenominees to collectivelyrepresent all sectors of theindustry); the four Statestatutory marketing authori-ties/committees (one nomi-nee each from RiverinaCitrus Marketing, the MurrayValley Citrus MarketingBoard, the Citrus Board ofSouth Australia and Queens-land Fruit and VegetableGrowers); and the twoCommonwealth statutoryauthorities with responsi-bilities for horticultural pro-grams (one nominee eachfrom the AHC and theHRDC).

Usually three or four times ayear.



SELECTION


Agricultural Chemicals Consul-tative Committee

Mr Peter Raphael NRA-Chair, Mr Lee Jones Plasticsand Chemical IndustriesAssociation, Mr Geoff HarrisAustralian Chemical Speci-alities Manufacturers Asso-ciation, Mr Geoff MacAlpineAvcare, Mr Peter MunroAerosol Association of Aus-tralia, Mr Lindsay ShowyinAerosol Association of Aus-tralia, Mr Andrew SimonsSwimming Pool and SpaAssociation of Australia, MsJane Carder NRA Secretary

The members for this Com-mittee are selected by theorganisations represented onthe Committees.

Every nine (9) to twelve (12)months

Industry Liaison Committee Mr Greg Hooper NRAChair, Mr John AlexanderPet Industry Joint AdvisoryCouncil of Australia, MrGeoff Harris AustralianChemical Specialties Manu-facturers Association, MrGeoff MacAlpine Avcare,Mr Bruce McAllen Plasticsand Chemical IndustriesAssociation, Mr KerrySanford Veterinary Manufac-turers and Distributors Asso-ciation, Mr Lindsay ShowyinAerosol Association of Aus-tralia, Mr Andrew SimonsSwimming Pool and SpaAssociation of Australia, MrDavid Bateman NRA Secre-tary


Every six months

NRA Meat Consultative Com-mittee

Mr Greg Hooper NRAChair, Dr Tony Britt Agri-culture Victoria, Mr BobBiddle Australian Quarantineand Inspection Service, MrNorm Blackman Meat Re-search Corporation, MrKevin Dunn Department ofPrimary Industries Queens-land, Mr Robert JohnsonCattle Council of Australia,Mr Peter Klein SheepmeatCouncil of Australia, DrTerry Nicholls NationalResidue Survey, Mr KevinO’Brien ACT Department ofPrimary Industries and Ener-gy, Mr David Palmer Aus-tralian Meat and LivestockCorporation, Mr Kerry Sand-ford Veterinary Manufactur-ers and Distributors Associa-tion, Mrs Helen Scott-OrrNSW Agriculture, Mr JustinToohey National FarmersFederation, Mr Bob WithamTick Control Advisory Com-mittee, Mr Des Whittle Aus-tralian Meat Council, Dr RonEichner NRA Secretary


Annually



SELECTION


Veterinary Chemicals Consulta-tive Committee

Mr Peter Raphael NRAChair, Dr John AlexanderPet Industry Joint AdvisoryCommittee, Dr Alan ColeVeterinary Manufacturersand Distributors Association,Mr Kerry Sandford Veterin-ary Manufacturers and Dis-tributors Association, MrGeoff MacAlpine Avcare, DrValerie Villiere Avcare, MrMichael Craft VeterinaryManufacturers and Distribu-tors Association, Dr TomGrimes Australian VeterinaryPoultry Association, DrBrian Priestly Department ofHealth and Family Services,Mr Michael O’Connor De-partment of Health andFamily Services, Mr PeterScott Australian VeterinaryAssociation, Dr David SnowAustralian Veterinarians inIndustry, Dr Craig SuannNational Office of AustralianRacing, Ms Teresa StoreySecretary


Every 6 months

NRA/Industry Manufacturers’Licensing Liaison Committee

Mr Greg Hooper NRAChair, Dr John Owusu NRASecretary, Mr Graham Sav-age NRA, Mr GeoffMacAlpine Avcare, Mr IanWheatley Avcare, Mr BillBlackhall Veterinary Manu-facturers and DistributorsAssociation, Mr Mike CraftVeterinary Manufacturersand Distributors Association,Mr Chris Lawlor VeterinaryManufacturers and Distribu-tors Association


At least twice a year



SELECTION


South East Trawl ManagementAdvisory Committee(SETMAC)

The Hon Bennett Chairper-son, Mr Geoff RichardsonAFMA member, Dr DerekStaples Research member.Mr Bert Tober Industrymember, Mr Lachlan Mar-shall Industry member, MrAnthony Jubb Industry mem-ber, Mr Lindsay CheersIndustry member, Ms MargiPrideaux Environment/ Con-servation member, Mr CraigBohm State/Governmentmember, Ms Gail HewittExecutive officer.

The AFMA Board makes allappointments to ManagementAdvisory Committees(MAC’s) and may appointMembers for terms of up tothree years. If a Member re-signs, the Board may appointa replacement for the re-mainder of the term of ap-pointment. To ensure conti-nuity, it would be unusualfor a Member to be appoint-ed for less than twoyears.The arrangements forfilling membership positionsmay vary slightly acrossMACs/CCs to reflect theindividual nature of eachCommittee and the status ofmanagement arrangements inthe corresponding fishery.However, all MAC/CCmembers are selected inprocesses which are con-sistent with the provisions ofAFMA’s Fisheries Manage-ment Paper No. 1—Management Advisory Com-mittees, a copy of which canbe provided if re-quired.Generally CC memberselections and appointmentsare made in the same manneras noted above for MACmembers. Committees,

Needs basis (see schedule ofmeeting).

South East Non-Trawl FisheryManagement Advisory Com-mittee(SENTMAC)

Mr Gerry Geen Chairperson,Mr Geoff Richardson AFMAmember, Mr David SmithResearch member, Mr Wil-liam Mure Industry member,Mr Anthony Mooney Indus-try member, Mr HorstFischer Industry member, MrMichael Tucker Industrymember, Mr Greg KeatleyIndustry member, Mr CraigBohm Environment/ Conser-vation member, Ms CindyO’Brien Executive Officer

As above As above

Sub-antarctic Fisheries Man-agement Advisory Committee(SOUTHMAC)

Mr Bill Nagle Chair person,Ms Trysh Stone AFMAmember, Dr Keith SainsburyResearch member, Mr JoePirello Industry member, MrMartin Excel Industry mem-ber, Mr Les Scott Industrymember, Mr Ian Hay AADmember, Mr Sean RileyState Government member,Ms Margaret Moore Envi-ronment/ Conservation mem-ber.

As above As above



SELECTION


Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fish-ery Management AdvisoryCommittee (Eastern TunaMAC)

Mr David Bateman Chair-person, Ms Dorothea HuberAFMA member, Dr JohnGunn Research member, MrGeoff Binns Industry mem-ber, Mr Brian Jeffriess In-dustry member, Mr GrantTaylor Industry member, MrBob Lamason Industry mem-ber, Mr Paul Anderson Rec-reational member, Mr GaryHenry State Governmentmember, Mr Bill EdwardsPermanent Charter BoatObserver, Mr Glenn SantEnvironment/Conservationmember, Mr Ian FreemanExecutive Officer

As above As above

Southern Tuna and BillfishFishery Management AdvisoryCommittee (Southern TunaMAC)

Mr Rob Lewis Chairperson,Ms Mary Lack AFMA mem-ber, Dr Tom PolacheckResearch member, Mr MarioValcic Industry member, MrGreg Honeychurch Industrymember, Mr Joe PuglisiIndustry member, Mr BobLamason Industry member,Mr Glenn Sant Environ-ment/Conservation member,Mr Gary Morgan StateGovernment member, MrBob McPherson PermanentRecreational Fishing Observ-er, Mr Brian Jeffriess Exec-utive Officer

As above As above

Western Tuna and BillfishFishery Management AdvisoryCommittee (Western TunaMAC)

Mr Brett McCallumChairperson, Ms Mary LackAFMA member, Dr JohnGunn Research member, MsErica Starling Industry mem-ber, Mr Kim Newbold Indus-try member, Mr MarioValcic Industry member, MrNeil Patrick Recreationalmember, Mr Tim Bray StateGovernment member, MrRob Fish Executive Officer

As above As above

Northern Prawn Fishery Man-agement Advisory Committee(NORMAC)

Mr Brian Jeffriess Chair-person, Mr Frank MeereAFMA member, Dr BurkeHill Research member, MrMurray France Industrymember, Mr Efrem GambaIndustry member, Ms LouiseDeacon-Casey Industrymember, Mr Greg AlbertIndustry member, Mr DavidHall State Government mem-ber, Mr Eddie Hergerl Envi-ronment Conservation mem-ber, Ms Annie Jarrett Exec-utive Officer

As above As above



SELECTION


Western Fisheries ManagementAdvisory Committee(WestMAC)

Mr Martin Holtz Chairper-son, Mr Bruce WallnerAFMA member, Mr JohnGarvey Research member,Mr Semi Skoljarev Industrymember, Mr Richard ElvinIndustry member, Mr GeorgeSimpson Industry member,Mr Greg Ferguson Industrymember, Ms Margi PrideauxEnvironment/ Conservationmember, Ms Fiona CroweState Government member,Ms Wendy O’Brien Exec-utive Officer

Southern Shark Fishery Man-agement Advisory Committee(SharkMAC)

Mr Barry KaufmannChairperson, Mr Dave John-son AFMA member, DrAndrew Punt Research mem-ber, Mr Brian Bailey Indus-try member, Mr TrevorGilmore Industry member,Mr Wynne Hobson Industrymember, Mr Horst FischerIndustry member, Mr PeterRiseley Industry member, MrGlenn Sant Environment/Conservation member, MrDennis Witt State Govern-ment member, Mr Ian Free-man Executive Officer.

Great Australian Bight Man-agement Advisory Committee(GABMAC)

Ms Gail Hewitt Chairperson,Mr Bruce Wallner AFMAmember, Mr Richard TilzeyResearch member, Mr JimRaptis Industry member, MsMarcia Valente Industrymember, Mr Richard ElvinIndustry member, Mr SemiSkoljarev Industry member,Mr Will Zacharin StateGovernment member, MrGordon Anderson Environ-ment/ Conservation member,Ms Wendy O’Brien Exec-utive Officer

Bass Strait Scallop Consul-tative Committee (BSSCC)

Mr Kim Parkinson Chairper-son/AFMA member, MrStuart Richey AFMA Boardmember, Dr Noel ColemanResearch member, Mr JohnHammond Industry member,Mr Arno Blank Industrymember, Mr Bill Cull Indus-try member, Mr PeterStegmann Industry member,Mr Bruce Male Environ-ment/ Conservation member,Mr Steve McCormack StateGovernment member, MrSteve Mantzaris Processingmember (Vic), Ms JaneMalcolm Executive Officer



SELECTION


SquidMAC Mr Richard McLoughlinChairperson, Mr Kim Parkin-son AFMA member, Dr IanKnuckey Research member,Mr David Molloy StateGovernment member, MrLisle Elleway Industry mem-ber, Mr John Anastos Indus-try member, Mr AndrewWatts Industry member, MrGeoff Richey Industry mem-ber, Dr Mark Norman Envi-ronment/Conservation mem-ber, Ms Jane Malcolm Exec-utive Officer

Torres Strait Fisheries Man-agement Committee

Mr Kim Parkinson Chair-person, Mr Tony KingstonAFMA member, Dr IanPoiner Scientific member,Mr Pat Appleton QFMAmember, Mr Dan CurreyQDPI member, Mr RayMoore Industry member(QCFO), Mr Roger GreenIndustry member (QCFO),Mr Ted Loveday Industrymember (QCFO), Mr HenryGarnier Island Co-ordinatingCouncil (ICC) member, MrGetano Lui (Jnr) ICC mem-ber, Mr Thomas Fujii ICCmember, Ms Nancy MosbyExecutive Officer

Norfolk Island Fisheries Con-sultative Committee (NIFCC)

Mr Kim Parkinson Chair-person, Mr John Lorking NIFishing Club, Mr PeterWoodward, NI Fishing Club,The Hon Ric Robinson NIMinister for CommunityResource Management, MrToon Buffet NI Chief Ad-ministrative Officer, MrRalph Condon Deputy Ad-ministrator, Mr Steve Jack-son Secretary

Fisheries Research AdvisoryBodies (FRABs) one for eachState, Northern Territory andthe Commonwealth (8) in total

Each FRAB comprises be-tween five and ten members.

They are expertise based andnormally comprise fisheriesmanagers, researchers, com-mercial fishers, recreationalfishers and others.

The FRABs meet quarterly.



SELECTION


Australian Landcare Council(formerly the NationalLandcare Advisory Committee)

Mr Bruce Lloyd, Chairman;Mr Des Boyland, represent-ing ANZECC; Mr PeterClarke, community member;Dr Wendy Craik, represent-ing the NFF; Mr RexEdmondson, communitymember; Mr MichaelKrockenberger, representingthe ACF; Ms MeredithLaing, community member;Mr David Papps, represent-ing ARMCANZ; Mr GrahamSansom, representing ALGA;Mr Tim Scholz, communitymember; Mr John Smink,community member; MsAlison Teese, communitymember; Mr Clive Thomas,community member repre-senting the MDB communi-ty; Mr Mark Thomas, repre-senting Greening Australia;Mr Tracker Tilmouth, repre-senting the indigenous com-munity.

The Chairman and all mem-bers are appointed by theMinister for Primary Indus-tries and Energy. Followingthe recent election, appoint-ments will in future be madeby the Minister for Agricul-ture, Fisheries and Forestry.

The ALC meets four timesper year.

National Residue Survey/CattleCouncil/Australian Lot FeedersAssociation Consultative Com-mittee

There are no formal appoint-ments to the committee. Itconsists of senior representa-tives of the National ResidueSurvey, the Cattle Council ofAustralia and (since July1998) the Australian LotFeeders Association

As there are no formal re-quirements for membership.Numbers at meetings areusually on a ‘needs’ basis.

The committee usually meetsat least twice a year to dis-cuss the cattle industry’sresidue monitoring program,expenditure levels and levychanges.

National residue Survey/GrainsCouncil Consultative Commit-tee

There are no formal appoint-ments to the committee. Itconsists of senior representa-tives of the National ResidueSurvey and the Grains Coun-cil of Australia

As there are no formal re-quirements for membership.Numbers at meetings areusually on a ‘needs’ basis.

The committee usually meetsat least twice a year to dis-cuss the grain industry’sresidue monitoring program,expenditure levels and levychanges.

Wool Industry Future Direc-tions Taskforce

Chair, the Hon IanMcLachlan AO. Members,Perry Gunner, Julia King,Mark Johnson, Daniel Sam-son and Harold Clough

Appointed by the Minister Determined by the Taskforceas required to meet 30 Junedeadline for reporting.

Wool Interim Advisory Board(IAB)

Chair, Mr Don McGauchie.Members, Phillip Scanlan,Elizabeth Bryan, Brian vanRooyen, Reg Clairs

Appointed by the Minister Determined by IAB as re-quired to meet 30 June dead-line for reporting. Expect tomeet at least monthly.

AQIS Grains IndustryConsulative Working Group

Australian Quarantine andInspection Service (AQIS),Grains Council of Australia,AWB Limited, AustralianGrain Marketing Federation,Seed Industry Association,National Agricultural Com-modities Marketing Asso-ciation, Australian OilseedsFederation, Australian GrainExporters Association, BulkHandling Authorities,Ricegrowers Co-operative,Australian Fodder IndustryAssociation, Quarantine andExport Advisory Council

Members nominated byrespective industry body.

Meets 3 to 4 times perannum.



SELECTION


Horticulture Industry Consulta-tive Committee (HICC)

Mr Jon Durham, Chief Exec-utive Officer, AustralianApple and Pear GrowersAssociation, Mr David Hunt-Sharman, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Australian Horticul-tural Exporters Association,Mr John Baker, Chief Exec-utive, Produce MarketingAustralia Pty LtdMr RussellKlopper, SecretaryFlowerExport Council of Australia,Mr Neil Offner, Export De-velopment Manager, Aus-tralian Horticultural Cor-poration, Mr Len Collins,Chairman, Australian BananaGrowers Council, QEACRepresentative, Mr HartKrtschil, Mr John Campbell,Chairman Export Committee,Australian Fresh Stone FruitGrowers Association, MrBob Curren, Executive Di-rector, Australian CitrusGrowers Incorporated, MrBrian Newman, Secretary,AUSVEG, Mr David Hood,Queensland Fruit & Vege-table Growers, Mr JolyonBurnett, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Nursery IndustryAssociation of Australia, MrLes Horsfield, ThorpdaleTrading Mr Rod Dalton,President, Australian Avoca-do Growers’ Federation Inc,QEAC Representative, MsAnne Story Growers


Meets twice per annum.

Post-Entry Plant Industry Con-sultative Committee (PEPICC)

AQIS, Australian CitrusImprovement Association,Australian Pome Fruit Im-provement Program Limited,Australian Potato IndustryCouncil, Australian RubusGrower’s Association, Aus-tralian Vine ImprovementAssociation, EnvironmentAustralia, Fleming’s Nursery& Associates, Nursery Indus-try Association of Australia,Quarantine and Export Ad-visory Council, ToolangiCertified Strawberry RunnerGrower’s Co-operative Lim-ited

Representation from industryis invited.

Meetings are usually heldtwice per annum.



SELECTION


Biologicals Consultative Com-mittee

AQIS, Peter Holdsworth(Avcare), Tony Beaver(Food and Beverage Import-ers Association), AnneVukmanovich (MedicalIndustry Association ofAustralia), Fred Bover (Vet-erinary Manufacturers andDistributors Association),Samantha O’Connor (Aus-tralian PharmaceuticalManufacturer’s Association),Alan Lawrenson (ScientificSuppliers Association ofAustralia), Stephen Morris(Customs Brokers Council ofAustralia), Geoffrey Burge(Sigma Aldrich), RichardHamlyn-Harris (AustralianAquaculture Forum), Vanes-sa Williams (Association ofRegulatory and ClinicalScientists)

Initially members were selec-ted by the AQIS BiologicalsUnit. Subsequently someindustry bodies have alsoasked to be represented andthis has been agreed.

Meets annually.

Australian Ballast Water Man-agement Advisory Council

Dr M Williams Chairperson,AQIS, Association of Aus-tralian Ports and MaritimeAuthorities (AAPMA), Aus-tralian Maritime SafetyAuthority (AMSA), CSIROCentre for Research onIntroduced MarinePests(CRIMP), AustralianShipowners’ Association(ASA), BHP Transport(BHP), Australian Chamberof Shipping (ACOS), Aus-tralian Aquaculture Council(AAC), CommonwealthDepartment of WorkplaceRelations and Small Busi-ness (DWRSB), MineralsCouncil of Australia (MCA),Environment Australia, Tas-manian Department of Pri-mary Industry and Fisheries(TDPIF), Australian SeafoodIndustry Council (ASIC),WA Department of Trans-port (WADOT), NSW Officeof Marine Safety (OMS),Standing Committee onFisheries and Aquaculture(SCFA), Qld Department ofthe Environment (QDE), SADepartment of Environment& Natural Re-sources(SAENR), VictorianEnvironment ProtectionAuthority (VEPA), NT De-partment of Transport andWorks (NTT&W), PeakConservation Organisation(PCO) (SCFA),

Chairperson appointed byMinister. Members nomi-nated by respective industrybody.

Meets twice per year.



SELECTION


Imported Foods AdvisoryCommittee

AQIS—Chair, AustralianNew Zealand Food Auth-ority, Australian Food Coun-cil, Food and Beverage Im-porters Association, Victori-an Fish and Food MarketingAssociation, Importers Asso-ciation of Western Australia,NSW Fish Importers Asso-ciation, Australian Govern-ment Analytical Laboratories


Annually.

Dairy Export Industry Con-sultative Committee

AQIS—Chair, State DairyAuthorities, Australian DairyProducts Federation, DairyExport Registered Establish-ments, Australian DairyCorporation, Livestock andPastoral Division, Depart-ment of Agriculture, Fisher-ies and Forestry, AustralianQuarantine and InspectionService Processed FoodPolicy Section, AustralianQuarantine Inspection Ser-vice Food Programs Section


Annually with various rel-evant Subcommittees meet-ing as required to deal withcurrent issues.

Fishing Industry AdvisoryCommittee (FIAC)

Australian Abalone Produc-ers Association (Chair),Oyster Farmers Associationof NSW, Australian SeafoodIndustry Council (ASIC),Industry representativesfrom:. Kailis & France.DOSAQUA. Ocean Foods.Food Factotum. A. Raptis &Sons. M&M Fisheries. AQIS

Membership is via nomina-tion/application. Selection ofcommittee members is madejointly by ASIC and AQIS.

Committee meets at least 2times per annum

Export Meat Industry AdvisoryCommittee

Membership: AustralianMeat Council—4 representa-tives; Mr B James, Mr JWare, Mr R Van Nesch, MrR Gawthorne, National MeatAssociation—4 representa-tives; Mr B Treloar, Mr PGreenham, Mr G Tancred,Mr A Wharton., 1 represen-tative each from:, AustralianChamber of Shipping, Mr UDanielsen, Meat and Live-stock Australia, Mr C Pitt,Refrigerated Warehouse andTransport Association ofAustralia, Mr R Glass, FoodScience Australia, Mr BShay, Australian Food Coun-cil Processed Meat IndustryForum, Mr J McCausland,Chairman, Dr R Biddle(AQIS), Secretary, Mr EKlim (AQIS)

Members are nominated tothe committee by their re-spective parent organisations

The committee meets fourtimes a year (approximatelyquarterly)


Attachment B(3)—SCHEDULE OF MEETING

BODY MEETINGS SINCE MARCH 1996

Consultative Rural Finance Forum (CRFF) 20 November 1997; 19 February 1998; 18 June 1998Domestic Violence Advisory Committee (DVAC) 23 June 1998Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council (RASAC) CanberraApr 96Teleconference May 96; Teleconference Jun

96; Canberra Jul 96; Canberra Oct 96; TeleconferenceNov96; Canberra Dec 96; Melbourne Mar 97; TeleconferenceMay 97; Teleconference May 97; Teleconference May 97;Canberra Jun 97; Teleconference Aug 97; Canberra Sep 97;Canberra Oct 97; Teleconference Nov 97; Sydney Dec 97;Teleconference Feb 98; Griffith, NSW Mar 98;Teleconference Mar 98; Teleconference Mar 98;Teleconference Mar 98; Teleconference Mar 98; CanberraMay 98; Canberra Jun 98; Teleconference Jun 98; SydneyJul 98; Sydney Jul 98; Teleconference Jul 98

Rural Women’s Advisory Group (RWAG) 18 September 1996; 27 May 1997; 12 November 1997; 10June 1998

Quarantine and Exports Advisory Council (QEAC) QEAC 1 10 December 1997—Inaugural Meeting; QEAC2 18 February 1998; QEAC 3 16 April 1998; QEAC 4 17June 1998; QEAC 5 19 August 1998 (planned); QEAC 614 October 1998 (planned); QEAC 7 9 December 1998(planned)

Special Merino Export Committee There was no official meeting in 1997 or 1998. 1996:meeting was held Friday 29 march 1996 at the Australianmerino Centre, Sydney Showground.

Red Meat Advisory Council Two meetings have been held (15 and 29 July) since thebody was established on 1 July 1998.

National Pork Industry Development Group (NPIDG) 1 Sydney 09-02-98; 2 Melbourne 20-03-98; 3 Canberra 29-04-98; 4 Sydney 22-05-98; 5 Sydney 25-06-98; 6 Adelaide13-07-98

National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare(NCCAW)

2-3 April 1996; 2-13 November 1996; 22-23 April 1997;28-29 October 1997; 28-29 April 1998.

Horticulture 2000 Group 10 June 1996; 2 September 1996; 13 December 1996; 14March 1997; 21 July 1997; 1 December 1997; 27 February1998; 29 May 1998; 21 August 1998; 13 November 1998;12 February 1999

Citrus Market Development Group 12 April 1996; 12 July 1996; 16 December 1996; 7 March1997; 20 June 1997; 3 November 1997; 19 December 1997;24 February 1998; 8 April 1998; 22 July 1998

Agricultural Chemicals Consultative Committee 23 June 1996; 24 June 1997Industry Liaison Committee July 1996; November 1996; April 1997; October 1997;

April 1998; September 1998NRA Meat Consultative Committee 7 February 1997; 16 February 1998Veterinary Chemicals Consultative Committee 13 June 1996; 14 November 1996; 1 May 1997; 25 Sep-

tember 1997; 10 March 1998NRA/Industry Manufacturer’s’ Licensing Liaison Committee 17 May 1996; 20 January 1997; 10 March 1997; 18 August

1997; 21 March 1998; 21 May 1998; 5 August 1998South East Trawl Management Advisory Committee(SETMAC)

27 March 1996; 10 July 1996; 6 August 1996; 20/21 Sep-tember 1996; 5 December 1996; 19/20 March 1997; 5 May1997; 8/9 July 1997; 17/18 September 1997; 31 March—1April 1998; 28/29 July 1998; 29/30 September 1998; 17-18November 1998

South East Non-Trawl Fishery Management Advisory Com-mittee (SENTMAC)

15/16 April 1996; 10/11 July 1996; 17/18 October 1996;17/18 April 1997; 11/12 June 1997; 31 June 1997; 9/10October 1997; 19 November 1997; 9/10 February 1998;16/17 April 1998; 6/7 August 1998

Sub-antarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee(SOUTHMAC)

30 November 1998; 12 February 1999

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management AdvisoryCommittee (Eastern Tuna MAC)

15/16 April 1996; 1 / 2 November 1996; 15/16 May 1997;8/9 November 1997; 1 / 2 February 1998; 31 March 1998;21/22 April 1998; 2-3 September 1998; 11/12 November1998; 15-16 December 1998; 15/16 December 1998

Southern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management AdvisoryCommittee (Southern Tuna MAC)

17 May 1996; 12 September 1996; 8/9 May 1997; 21/22August 1997; 22 October 1997; 9 March 1998; 27 August1998


BODY MEETINGS SINCE MARCH 1996

Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management AdvisoryCommittee (Western Tuna MAC)

5/6 March 1996; 30 May 1996; 13/14 November 1996; 19November 1996; 5 October 1998; 5 November 1998

Northern Prawn Fishery Management Advisory Committee(NORMAC)

19 February 1996; 4 July 1996; 4 December 1996; 14February 1997; 21 March 1997; 21 March 1997; 21 June1997; 17 July 1998; 13 November 1997; 11 March 1998;17 July 1998 ; 18 November 1998; 12 February 1999

Western Fisheries Management Advisory Committee(WestMAC)

26 April 1998; 26 May 1998

Southern Shark Fishery Management Advisory Committee(SharkMAC)

8-10 May 1996; 20/21 June 1996; 28 July 1996; 16/17October 1996; 10/11 April 199727 June 1997; 23-24 July1998; 25/26 September 1997; 29/30 January 1998; 25-27March 1998; 23/24 July 1998; 29/30 October 1998; 16February 1999

Great Australian Bight Management Advisory Committee(GABMAC)

22 March 1996; 18 February 1997; 16 January 1998; 21August 1998; 22 September 1998

Bass Strait Scallop Consultative Committee (BSSCC) 28/29 March 19963 October 1996; 19/20 March 1997; 30June 1997; 19/20 March 1998

SquidMAC 10 June 1998 Inaugural meeting)Torres Strait Fisheries Management Committee 25 October 1996; 18 September 1997; 9 September 1998Norfolk Island Fisheries Consultative Committee (NIFCC) 8 May 199618 July 1997; 24 September 1998Fisheries Research Advisory Bodies (FRABs) one for eachState, Northern Territory and the Commonwealth (8) in total

Quarterly meetings

Australian Landcare Council 5/6 March 1996; 5/6 June 1996; 27-29 August 1996; 13/14November 1996; 26/27 August 1997; 17-19 November1997; 23/24 February 1998; 18-20 May 1998; 27-30 July1998; 27-29 October 1998

National Residue Survey/Cattle Council/Australian Lot Feed-ers Association Consultative Committee

24 March 1997; 9-10 September 1997; 16-17 June 1998

National Residue Survey/Grains Council Consultative Com-mittee

13 March 1997; 10 February 1998

Wool Industry Future Directions Taskforce 15 January 1999; 29 January 1999; 10 February 1999Wool Interim Advisory Board (IAB) 5 February 1999; Only one formal meeting has been held to

dateAQIS Grains Industry Consulative Working Group 18/6/1996; 6/8/1996; 6/11/1996; 21/5/1997; 21/11/1997;

4/12/1997; 22/4/1998; 12/5/1998; 13/8/1998; 14/10/1998;9/12/1998; Some of these were teleconferences

Horticulture Industry Consultative Committee (HICC) 14 June 1996; 30 May 1997; 12 November 1997; 25November 1997 (teleconference); 28 May 1998

Post-Entry Plant Industry Consultative Committee (PEPICC) 4 September 19979 December 19976 August 1998Biologicals Consultative Committee 13 October 1997; 20 August 1998Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council 29 July 199620 November 1996; 6 May 1997; 18 Novem-

ber 1997; 5 May 1998; 19 October 1998Imported Foods Advisory Committee 8 July 1996; 22 November 1996; 26 September 1997Dairy Export Industry Consultative Committee (DEICC) 21 March 1996; 2December 1996; 5 March 1998Fishing Industry Advisory Committee (FIAC) 14 March 1996; 19 September 1996; 17 April 1997; 19

November 1997; 26 March 1998; 11 December 1998Export Meat Industry Advisory Committee EMIAC 16 6 March 1996; EMIAC 17 22 May 1996;

EMIAC 18 21 August 1996; EMIAC 19 13 November1996; EMIAC 20 5 March 1997; EMIAC 21 5 June 1997;EMIAC 22 20 August 1997; EMIAC 23 12 November1997; EMIAC 24 11 March 1998; EMIAC 25 20 May1998; EMIAC 26 19 August 1998; EMIAC 27 11 Novem-ber 1998


Attachment C(5)—

BODY AMOUNT OF FUNDING USE OF FUNDING

Consultative Rural Finance Forum(CRFF)

Expenditure totalled $11,680 in 1997-98

Travel and accommodation expenses forrural sector representatives not represent-ing large organisations, such as the NFF,are funded by AFFA.

Domestic Violence Advisory Committee(DVAC)

1997/98 $43,000; 1998/99 $86,000. The Government funds the DomesticViolence Advisory Committee throughrunning costs annual appropriations.Running costs include remunerationpayments to members (as approved byRemuneration Tribunal guidelines),travelling allowances, and costs associat-ed with holding Advisory Committeemeetings.

Rural Adjustment Scheme AdvisoryCouncil (RASAC)

1996/97 $311,000; 1997/98 $311,000. RASAC running costs are fundedthrough AFFA annual appropriations.Running costs include remunerationpayments to members (as approved bythe Remuneration Tribunal), travellingallowances, costs associated with hold-ing Council meetings and office ex-penditure.

Rural Women’s Advisory Group(RWAG)

$33,376.00 Meals, accommodation and travelling.

Quarantine and Exports Advisory Council(QEAC)

$257 688.00 The Government provides funding forQEAC, through Nairn funding. QEACrelies on the funding for member’s fees,industry consultation, meetings, famil-iarisation and secretariat services.

Special Merino Export Committee No funding is allocated to the Commit-tee, only costs of attending meetings aremet by the membership.

Red Meat Advisory Council No NoNational Pork Industry DevelopmentGroup (NPIDG)

1997-98: $51,674.59; 1/7/98 to3/8/98: $8,613.23

The Government has provided $10million for the Program, which com-menced in November 1997 and termi-nates on 30 June 2000. It was agreed byrelevant Ministers that the running costsfor the operation of the NPIDG andassociated secretariat should be cappedat 5% (or $500,000) of the cost of theProgram. It was also agreed that the roll-over of unspent funds be permitted up to30 June 2000. Expenditure to date hasincluded an amount of $29,328 spent onthe preparation by a consultant of theNPIDG Business Plan. The remainderhas been expended on meeting costs ofthe NPIDG, and secretariat supportcosts. It is anticipated that project fund-ing under the program will shortly com-mence, following Ministerial approval ofproject expenditure totalling over $2million. Several more project proposalsare currently under consideration by theNPIDG.

National Consultative Committee onAnimal Welfare (NCCAW)

No funding is provided to the Commit-tee. The Commonwealth only meetsmembers travel and incidental expenses.



Horticulture 2000 Group On the winding up of the Horticultur-al Policy Council (HPC) on 31August 1995, approval was grantedfor $169,000 of unexpended HPCfunds to be transferred to the Horti-culture 2000 Group on its inception.$125,000 was approved to be carriedforward into 1996/97. At the end of1997/1998 $70,691 of unexpendedfunds remain.

Funding provided to the Horticulture2000 Group has been used for:. Refundof members’ travel costs to the fourmeetings held each year;. Printing anddistribution of meeting papers to mem-bers and summary reports of meetings,which are distributed to around 350industry associations;. Printing and dis-tribution of publications such as theChemical Residue Management Planproduced by the Horticulture 2000Group;. Part funding a joint study beingconducted by the AHC and HRDCwhich is looking at the impact of theAsian financial crisis on Australianhorticulture and how the AHC/HRDCand industry can minimise the impact ofthe Asian financial crisis; and. Meetingcosts.

Citrus Market Development Group Funding for meeting costs of theGroup has been approved. Fundsspent on the operations of the CitrusMarket Development Group for meet-ing costs have totalled $52,891 sinceMarch 1996.

Under the Terms of Reference for theCitrus Market Development Group, theGroup is responsible for recommendingprojects to be funded from theCommonwealth’s Citrus Market Diversi-fication Grant. Projects approved by theGroup are submitted to the Minister forPrimary Industries and Energy for fund-ing approval.

Agricultural Chemicals ConsultativeCommittee

There is no government fundinginvolved, as the NRA is a fully costrecovered organisation through feesand charges on the regulated industry.

Industry Liaison Committee There is no government fundinginvolved, as the NRA is a fully costrecovered organisation through feesand charges on the regulated industry.

NRA Meat Consultative Committee As aboveVeterinary Chemicals Consultative Com-mittee

As above

NRA/Industry Manufacturer’s’ LicensingLiaison Committee

As above

South East Trawl Management AdvisoryCommittee (SETMAC)

An amount less than $40,000.00 hasbeen provided by the Governmentsince March 1996 for SETMAC,SEFNTCC, Eastern Tuna MAC,Southern Tuna MAC, Western TunaMAC, NORMAC, WestMAC,SharkMAC, GABMAC, SquidMAC,NIFCC

To fund travel allowance and fares forthe Government member on someMACs.

South East Trawl Management AdvisoryCommittee (SETMAC)

An amount less than $40,000.00 hasbeen provided by the Governmentsince March 1996 for SETMAC,SEFNTCC, Eastern Tuna MAC,Southern Tuna MAC, Western TunaMAC, NORMAC, WestMAC,SharkMAC, GABMAC, SquidMAC,NIFCC

To fund travel allowance and fares fornon industry member on some MACs.

South East Non-Trawl Fishery Manage-ment Advisory Committee (SEFNTCC)

As above As above

Sub-antarctic Fisheries ManagementAdvisory Committee (SOUTHMAC)

As above As above

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Man-agement Advisory Committee (EasternTuna MAC)

As above As above

Southern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Man-agement Advisory Committee (SouthernTuna MAC)

As above As above



Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery Man-agement Advisory Committee (WesternTuna MAC)

As above As above

Northern Prawn Fishery ManagementAdvisory Committee (NORMAC)

As above As above

Western Fisheries Management AdvisoryCommittee (WestMAC)

As above As above

Southern Shark Fishery ManagementAdvisory Committee (SharkMAC)

As above As above

Great Australian Bight ManagementAdvisory Committee (GABMAC)

As above As above

Bass Strait Scallop Consultative Com-mittee (BSSCC)

As above As above

SquidMAC As above As aboveFisheries Research Advisory Bodies(FRABs) one for each State, NorthernTerritory and the Commonwealth (8) intotal

The Fisheries Research and Devel-opment Corporation (FRDC) providesup to $15,000.00 per year.

To meet the operating cost of FRABs

Australian Landcare Council 1996/97 expenditure:$211.3111997/98 expenditure:$187,452; 1998/99 estimate: $245,000

ALC operational costs are fundedthrough the Natural Resources Manage-ment Fund. Operational costs includeremuneration payments to members (asapproved by the Remuneration Tribu-nal), travelling allowances associatedwith bringing a widely dispersedmembership to meetings, and costsassociated with holding Council meet-ings.

National Residue Survey/Cattle Coun-cil/Australian Lot Feeders AssociationConsultative Committee

24 March 1997—$621.00; 9-10 Sep-tember 1997—$1940.70; 16-17 June1998—$3328.01

No funds are allocated to the committee.Costs of attending the meeting by indus-try representatives are met from industryfunds held in the National Residue Sur-vey Reserve Fund.

National Residue Survey/Grains CouncilConsultative Committee

No funds are allocated to the committee.Costs of attending the meeting by theGrains Council representatives are metby industry.

Wool Industry Future DirectionsTaskforce

Taskforce funded by the AustralianWool Research and Promotion Organisa-tion.

Wool Interim Advisory Board (IAB) No funding has been provided to thisdate.

The Government will be providing fund-ing to this body, up to $393,100. Fundsare used for members’ fees, consultants’fees, travel and administrative costs.

AQIS Grains Industry Consulative Work-ing Group

There is no government fundinginvolved, as the Grain Export Pro-gram is a fully cost recovered throughfees and charges on the regulatedindustry.

N/A

Horticulture Industry Consultative Com-mittee (HICC)

There is no government fundinginvolved, as the Horticulture ExportProgram is a fully cost recoveredthrough fees and charges on the regu-lated industry.

N/A

Post-Entry Plant Industry ConsultativeCommittee (PEPICC)

There is no government fundinginvolved, as the Post-Entry PlantsProgram is a fully cost recoveredthrough fees and charges on the regu-lated industry.

N/A

Biologicals Consultative Committee. There is no government fundinginvolved, as the Biologicals Programis a fully cost recovered through feesand charges on the regulated industry.

N/A



Australian Ballast Water ManagementAdvisory Council

The costs are met from the BallastWater Program’s community serviceobligations (CSO) funds. Dependingon the venue each meeting is estimat-ed to cost between $6,000 to $8,000.

Funding from the Program’s CSOsprovides for:. the Chair’s sitting fees,accommodation and transport. non-government members’ air fares, inciden-tals and accommodation. costs associatedwith production of agenda papers,freight, venue and hospitality.

Imported Foods Advisory Committee There is no government fundinginvolved, as the Imported FoodsProgram is a fully cost recoveredthrough fees and charges on the regu-lated industry.

N/A

Dairy Export Industry Consultative Com-mittee

There is no government fundinginvolved, as the Dairy Export Inspec-tion Program is a fully cost recoveredthrough fees and charges on the regu-lated industry.

N/A

Fishing Industry Advisory Committee(FIAC)

There is no government fundinginvolved, as the Fish Exports Pro-gram is fully cost recovered throughfees and charges levied on the exportfishing industry.

N/A

Fishing Industry Charging and ReviewCommittee (FICRC)

There is no government fundinginvolved, as the Fish Exports Pro-gram is fully cost recovered throughfees and charges levied on the exportfishing industry.

N/A

Export Meat Industry Advisory Com-mittee

The Government provides no fundingto the Export Meat Industry AdvisoryCommittee

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry: Value of Market Research

(Question No. 234)

Senator Robert Ray asked the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Agriculture,Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 26November 1998.

(1) What was the total value of market researchsought by the department on a month-by-monthbasis between March 1996 and November 1998.

(2) What was the purpose of each contract let.(3) In each instance, what was the involvement

or otherwise of the Office of Government Informa-tion and Advertising.

(4) In each instance; (a) how many firms wereinvited to submit proposals; and (b) how manytender proposals were received.

(5) In each instance, which firm was selected toconduct the research.

(6) In each instance, what was the estimated orcontract price of the research work and what wasthe actual amount expended by the department.


Please see attached table

YearPurpose ofContract Involvement of OGIA

Number ofFirm Propo-sals

Numberof TenderProposals

Firmselected

ContractPrice

Amountexpend-ed bydept

1997/98Totalamount foryear$205,210

Benchmark re-search to assist thedevelopment of acommunicationsstrategy for theNatural HeritageTrust

Nil 3 3 ARM:Quan-tumHarris

30,400 30,400





Firmselected

ContractPrice


Benchmark track-ing research forQuarantine Aware-ness strategy fromSept—Oct 97

OGIA recm’d companiesand sat in on selectionprocess.

Four propo-sals received.

Four re-ceived.

ACNielsen

97,145 94,270

Omnibus marketresearch survey forQuarantine Week98—April/May 98

OGIA agreed ACNielsenshould do job as an ex-tension of research donein Sept 97.

ACNielsenonly propo-sal—OGIAapproved se-lection ofACNielsen onpreferred sup-plier basis.

n/a A CNielsen

n/a 15,000

Focus group test-ing of travellerbrochure, "Whatcan I take intoAustralia?" under-taken in Nov/Dec97

OGIA consulted andrec’d four research firms,agreed on proposed ap-proach and did not wantto be formally involvedin selection process.

Of four firmssent a briefonly two sentin proposals.

Two re-ceived

BlueMoon

8,100

SupplyChain Man-agement ProjectPhase 1—Identifythe key factorsnecessary to devel-op effective supplychain managementfor food exports toJapan.

Nil 9 8 FrankSmallandAssoci-ates(nowcalledSOFRES FSA)

48,940 48,940Firstpay-ment$24,470June97payment =$24,470June 98

Focus group test-ing of QuarantineWeek 98 cam-paign products inMarch 98

OGIA supported selec-tion of Blue Moon.

Due to previ-ous work forAQIS, tighttime frameand fact BlueMoon wererec’d byQGIA noother firmsapproached

OnlyBlueMoon—OGIArecom-mended

BlueMoon

8,500

1998/99Total amountfor year$138,000

Media exposureprofile on interna-tional travellers foruse in communi-cation campaign—July 98

OGIA assisted AQIS ingetting MCGC approvalto use ACNielsen forquantitative research forthe duration of campaign

ACNielsenapprovedMCGC sup-plier of quan-titative re-search forduration ofcampaign—until 2001.

n/a A CNielsen

n/a 3,000

Evaluation ofNorthern AustraliaQuarantine Strat-egy (NAQS) TopWatch quarantineawareness cam-paign—August toNov 98

OGIA recm’d firms,were involved in selec-tion process and sat inon final report presenta-tion.

Three firmssent briefs,only two sub-mitted.

Twoproposalsreceived.

McGregor Mar-keting

39,000 39,000





Firmselected

ContractPrice


Focus group test-ing of campaignadvertising materi-al in Sept 98

OGIA assisted AQIS ingaining MCGC approvalfor Blue Moon to carryout qualitative researchfor duration of the qua-rantine awareness cam-paign.

Only BlueMoon—approved byMCGC toundertakequalitativeresearch forduration ofcampaign.

OnlyBlueMoon—approvedbyMCGC

BlueMoon

18,500

Plan Communica-tions relating tothe goals of theIntegrated RuralPolicy Package(later called Agri-culture AdvancingAustralia) Aug 97

Nil 6 Solu-tionsMar-ketingand Re-searchGroupPty Ltd

31,500 31,500

1998/99 Pretest materialsfor the launch ofthe Action Planfor Australianagriculture June 98

Nil 3 PR PlusPty Ltd

7,000 7,000

Delicatessen Pro-gram Phase 1Research to under-stand Australia’scurrent capacity todevelop new agri-cultural productsand determine howinformation onAsian market op-portunities is cur-rently communi-cated to food pro-ducers and therelevance of thisinformation totheir needs. In-cluded literaturereview, stakehold-er and producer/exporter consulta-tion.

Nil 10 8 FrankSmallandAssoci-ates(nowcalledSOFRES FSA)

39,000 39,000Firstpay-ment =$19,500Aug97Finalpay-ment=$19,500 Jan99

Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement:Proposed Railway Line

(Question No. 406)

Senator Brown asked the Minister repre-senting the Minister for Forestry and Conser-vation, upon notice, on 12 February 1999:

(1) Can the "comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative" reserve system defined in theTasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) bealtered; if so, what is the process.

(2) Is it a fact that at least two of the possiblefour corridors for the railway line associated withthe proposed magnesite mine in north-west Tas-mania pass through RFA reserves.

(3) If the Commonwealth refuses to allow therailway to use routes that traverse RFA reserves,what amount of compensation would the Common-wealth be liable to pay, if the Regional ForestAgreements Bill 1998 is passed.

Senator Hill—The Minister for Forestryand Conservation has provided the followinganswer to the honourable senator’s question:

(1) The RFA provides (Attachment 6, Cl. 5 and17) for the precise boundaries of the CAR reservesystem to be further defined, recognising the needto translate those boundaries from the RFA map, toactual boundaries on the ground. The RFA alsodefines those circumstances under which boundariesof informal reserves can be altered while maintain-


ing overall CAR outcomes (Cl. 57). The RFAcommits Tasmania to the management of theidentified reserves according to the objectives andpurposes identified in Attachment 7, to maintainCAR values (Cl. 51).

(2) The Tasmanian Government advises that atthis stage the indicative corridor of theGovernment’s preferred route does not pass throughany of the RFA Formal Reserves.

(3) The Commonwealth’s commitment to com-pensation is set out in Clause 95 of the TasmanianRFA.

Chalkbrood and European FoulbroodDiseases: Detection(Question No. 412)

Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre-senting the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheriesand Forestry, upon notice, on 18 February1999:

(1) (a) When was chalkbrood disease firstdetected in Australia; (b) where was it detected;and (c) how was it detected.

(2) (a) When was European foulbrood diseasefirst detected in Australia; (b) where was it detect-ed; and (c) how was it detected.

(3) When was the first draft of a protocol toenable the export of honey from Australia to NewZealand first provided to New Zealand Ministry ofAgriculture.

(4) Can a copy of that draft protocol be provided.(5) Did that protocol propose a heat treatment

regime to address the potential problem ofchalkbrood disease; if so: (a) how was that heattreatment regime developed; and (b) who developedthe regime; if not, why not.

(6) (a) When did the New Zealand Ministry ofAgriculture provide a response to that draft proto-col; and (b) what were the details of that response.

(7) (a) Did the Australian Quarantine and Inspec-tion Service (AQIS), or any other agency on behalfof AQIS, undertake further work to refine the heattreatment regime to address chalkbrood disease inresponse to concerns from the New ZealandMinistry of Agriculture.

(8) (a) When did that work take place; (b) whoundertook the work; and (c) when were the resultsof that work submitted to the New ZealandMinistry for Agriculture for its consideration.

(9) How many submissions were made to theNew Zealand authorities concerning the heattreatment regime.

(10) (a) On each occasion what was the responseto the refined heat treatment regime; and (b) whatadditional work followed.

(11) (a) How many subsequent draft protocols tofacilitate the export of honey to New Zealand havebeen submitted to the New Zealand Ministry forAgriculture; (b) when were they submitted; and (c)when did New Zealand respond.

(12) Can copies of each draft protocol submittedto the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture beprovided.


(1) Chalkbrood disease was first visually detect-ed, as an abnormality in brood, by a QueenslandDepartment of Primary Industries apiary officer inbeehives near Warwick in south-east Queenslandin January 1993.

(2) European Foulbrood disease was first visuallydetected, as an abnormality in brood, by apiaryofficers simultaneously in beehives in Victoria andSouth Australia in 1977.

(3) A proposal for the export of Australian honeyto New Zealand was first provided by AQIS to theNew Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries(MAF) on 24 July 1991.

(4) A copy of the proposal is provided.

Concerns expressed by New Zealand authorities inrespect of Australian honey imports were principal-ly for the presence of European Foulbrood disease(EFB), not Chalkbrood disease, as the latter wasalready present in New Zealand. The AQIS propo-sal of 24 July 1991 included a heat treatmentregime for EFB, based upon the published work ofWootten, et al (1981), describing the thermaldestruction of the causative organism of EFB,Melisococcus (Streptococcus) pluton;

(b) The proposal did not address chalkbrood asthe New Zealand authorities were not concernedabout that disease, which was present in NewZealand.

(5) (a) In response to the AQIS proposal of 24July 1991 New Zealand provided draft conditionsfor the importation of honey from Australia on 20July 1992.

(b) The MAF draft import conditions essentiallyendorsed the AQIS proposal and the parameters forthe heat treatment(s) described in that proposal.According to the MAF letter which accompaniedthe import conditions, they had been approved bythe Chief Veterinary Officer of New Zealand.However, the letter also referred to a period ofapproximately one month for comment upon thedraft import conditions from members of the NewZealand beekeeping industry before the conditionswould be formalised.


(6) As reported in the answer to question 5above, New Zealand concerns have been principallyfor the presence of EFB disease, not Chalkbrooddisease. In October 1992, ie subsequent to theprovision of the draft import conditions from NewZealand, MAF advised that it had received techni-cal information at conflict with the evidence onwhich the draft import conditions for Australianhoney were based. On 4 December 1992 theseconcerns were further elaborated by MAF and thefollowing was requested:

(i) full documentation of the epidemiology ofEFB including the infectious dose;

(ii) documentation regarding the safety marginsin the recommended heat treatment(s) for EFB andadvice as to whether any studies had been donewhich conflicted with these recommended heattreatments; and

(iii) documentation on any studies investigatingwhether different strains of American Foulbrooddisease (AFB) existed within Australia and NewZealand, documentation on the incidence of AFBin Australia and any assurances that could beprovided that Australian honey did not contain AFBspores.

There was no request for a refinement of the heattreatment regime. AQIS provided the informationrequested by MAF on 11 December 1992.

(7) Refer answer to question 6.

(8) As previously indicated, apart from the queryregarding the safety margin in the recommendedheat treatment(s) for EFB, which was addressed bythe AQIS correspondence to MAF of 11 December1992, AQIS has provided no further technicalinformation relating to the proposed heat treatmentregime as AQIS considered that the regime detailedin the proposal of 24 July 1991 proposal, assubsequently endorsed by MAF’s draft importconditions of 20 July 1992, was and is scientificallyvalid.

AQIS made several enquiries of MAF in relationto the finalisation of an import protocol since 11December 1992 but MAF did not provide a positiveresponse.

In August 1993, MAF proposed to undertake a fullquantitative analysis of the risks associated with theimportation of Australian honey. The risk analysisreport was finalised in January 1994 but concludedthat technical issues remained unresolved. However,in response to ongoing requests from AQIS, a draftdecision on the proposal to import honey fromAustralia was provided by MAF in December 1995.This draft decision concluded that Australian honeywould be permitted entry into New Zealand onlyif derived from areas or States known to be freefrom EFB.

(9) Refer answers to questions 7 and 9.

(10) (a) Since the MAF decision on the proposalto import honey from Australia was received byAQIS in December 1995, one application has beensubmitted by AQIS This application related toWestern Australian honey and was based on thatState’s freedom from EFB (the only AustralianState with this status).

(b) The application for WA honey was submittedto MAF on 1 December 1998.

(c) MAF responded with further technical querieson 12 February 1999 and 23 February 1999.

A copy of the application for WA honey is avail-able from the Senate Table Office.

Tasmania: Quarantine Services(Question No. 414)

Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre-senting the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheriesand Forestry, upon notice, on 18 February1999:

(1) Does Tasmania provide quarantine serviceson behalf of the Commonwealth under an agencyagreement.

(2) When was that agreement entered into andwhat is the life of that agreement.

(3) What funding has been provided to Tasmaniaunder that agreement in each year of its operation.

(4) Has there been a review of this arrangement;if so: (a) when was that review commenced; (b)who undertook the review; and (c) when was itcompleted.

(5) Can a copy of the subsequent report beprovided.

(6) Have the recommendations contained in thatreport been the subject of discussions between theFederal and Tasmanian Goverments; if so: (a) whendid those discussions take place; (b) who participat-ed in those discussions; and (c)when were theyconcluded.

(7) What changes have been made to the agencyagreement between the Tasmanian and FederalGoverments as a result of the review process.

Senator Alston—The Minister for Agricul-ture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided thefollowing answers to the honourable senator’squestions:

(1) Yes. The provision of export inspection andcertification and quarantine services is coveredunder an agreement between the Comonwealth ofAustralia and the Tasmanian Department of Pri-mary Industries, Water and Environment.

(2) The agreement commenced on 1 July 1992and remains in force at this time.


(3) Funding has been provided under the agreement as follows:

Financial Year Total Amount ($)

1992/93 1,573,8031993/94 1,319,2841994/95 1,422,2031995/96 1,427,6021996/97 1,450,4581997/98 1,406,7321998/99 (to 9/2/99) 495,591Total 9,095,673

(4) (a) Yes. A review of current arrangements inplace for the delivery of international quarantineand export inspection services was undertaken inTasmania, Western Australia and the NorthernTerritory commencing in August 1997.

(b) The review was conducted by senior officersfrom the Australian Quarantine and InspectionService and the respective States and Territory.

(c) The report was completed in May 1998 whenthe relevant Chief Executive Officers agreed to it.

(5) A copy of the report has been provided toSenator O’Brien and copies are available from theSenate Table Office.

(6) Formal correspondence was forwarded to theMinister for Primary Industries, Water and andEnvironment, Tasmania on 7 July 1998 seekingendorsement of the report, with subsequent advicebeing received from the Tasmanian Minister to thataffect dated 27 July 1998.

(7) No changes have been made to the existingagreement, however, the preparation of a "new"agreement is underway which will encompassrelevant changes outlined in the above report.

Negotiations on the agreement between seniorofficers of AQIS and the Department of PrimaryIndustries, Water and Environment are continuing.

Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim(Question No. 415)

Senator Knowles asked the Minister forAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs,upon notice, on 19 February 1999:

(a) how much of the $3,151,180 provided byATSIC to support the Yorta Yorta Native Titleclaim has been paid to the law firm Arnold Blochand Leibler Solicitors;

(b) what are the total legal fees paid by ATSICto Arnold Bloch and Leibler Solicitors for theirinvolvement in the Yorta Yorta claim; and

(c) what are the total legal fees paid by ATSICto Arnold Bloch and Leibler Solicitors on this, orany other matter, in the past 4 years.

Senator Herron—The Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Commission has provid-ed the following information in response tothe honourable senator’s question:

(a) To date, of the $3,301,180 provided byATSIC to support the Yorta Yorta Native TitleClaim, $2,570,000 has been paid to the law firmArnold Bloch Leibler Solicitors;

(b) Allocation of funds for legal costs associatedwith the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim on anannual basis is set out in the following table:

1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99

$250,000 $250,000 $200,000 $860,000 $860,000 $300,000

While all 1998/99 funds allocated for the YortaYorta Native Title Claim have been committed,$150,000 of the funds committed for legal supportfrom Arnold Bloch Leibler is yet to be released.

(c) ATSIC has paid $2,764,826 in legal fees toArnold Bloch Leibler since 1993/94. In addition to

the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim, ATSIC haspaid Arnold Bloch Leibler fees amounting to

$106,826 in 1996/97 and 1997/98 for legaladvice on the amendments to the Native Title Act1993; and


$88,000 in 1998 for legal and policy assistanceto the Queensland Indigenous Working Group.

Tendering Requirements

(Question No. 494)

Senator Robert Ray asked the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Finance andAdministration, upon notice, on 8 March1999:

Have the two-envelope tendering requirement andindustry impact statements been abolished follow-ing the review of Commonwealth purchasingarrangements; if so, what was the rationale for thechanges.

Senator Ellison—The Minister for Financeand Administration has supplied the followinganswer to the honourable senator’s question:

Two envelope tendering and the industry impactstatements were abolished in December 1997. Thiswas in response to industry and agency concernsabout the cost and complexity of the requirement.

Purchasing Advisory and ComplaintsService

(Question No. 495)

Senator Robert Ray asked the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Finance andAdministration, upon notice, on 8 March1999:

(1) How many complaints have been received bythe Purchasing Advisory and Complaints Servicesince its establishment in March 1998.

(2) On how many occasions have complaintsbeen upheld.

Senator Ellison—The Minister for Financeand Administration has supplied the followinganswer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Purchasing Advisory and Complaints Servicehas received 29 complaints since March 1998.

(2) The Purchasing Advisory and ComplaintsService facilitates discussion between the partiesinvolved. It does not have legal powers to upholdcomplaints. That is the role of either the Common-wealth Ombudsman or the courts.