senate official hansard - parliament of australia · plex at oyster point near cardwell north...

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, 12 FEBRUARY 1997

THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENTFIRST SESSION—THIRD PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATECANBERRA

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 12 FEBRUARY

Petitions—French Nuclear Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503Telstra: Privatisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503Gun Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503Port Hinchinbrook Development Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503Repatriation Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503Repatriation Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504Goulburn Valley Highway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505

Notices of Motion—Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. . . . . . . . 505Community Affairs References Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505Ms Nombiniso Gasa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505Education and Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506University Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. . . . . . . . 506Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507Days and Hours of Sitting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507Jabiluka Uranium Mine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509Standing Orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509Youth Unemployment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs:

Funding Cut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509Genetically Engineered Foods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510

Order of Business—Nuclear Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510BHP Petroleum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510Greater Beedelup National Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510

Condolences—Edna Ryan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510

1997 Australia Prize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511Committees—

Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts ReferencesCommittee—Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511

Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996—First Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511

Bills Returned from The House of Representatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512Customs Depot Licensing Charges Bill 1996—

Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512Social Security Legislation Amendment (Newly Arrived Resident’s WaitingPeriods and Other Measures) Bill 1996—

Consideration of House of Representatives Message. . . . . . . . . . . . 513Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (1996-97 Budget Measures) Bill1996—

Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531In Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539

Matters of Public Interest—Radio Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543Greater Beedelup National Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547Pastoral Leases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548Condolences: Mr Brett Seaman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550Austudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551Ministerial Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

Questions Without Notice—The Senate: Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

CONTENTS—continued

Inflation: Interest Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554Telstra: Operator Assisted Calls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555Native Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557Ms Gabi Hollows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558Telstra: Operator Assisted Calls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560Government Appointments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561Perth Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562

Distinguished Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563Questions Without Notice—

Prime Minister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563Work for the Dole Scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564Superannuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565Austudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566Defence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567Nursing Home Entry Fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567Medical Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

Personal Explanations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571Questions Without Notice—

Prime Minister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572Notices of Motion—

Days and Hours of Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578Employment, Education and Training References Committee. . . . . . . 579

Matters of Public Importance—Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579

Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (1996-97 Budget Measures) Bill1996—

In Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595

Proceeds of Crime Amendment Bill 1996—Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595In Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605

Committees—National Crime Authority Committee—Membership. . . . . . . . . . . . . 605

Student and Youth Assistance Amendment (Waiting Period) Bill 1996—Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605

Documents—Foreign Investment Review Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613

Adjournment—Antarctic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616Charleville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618Mobile Phones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620Young Australians: Drug Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622Young Australians: Drug Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623

Documents—Tabling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623

Questions On Notice—Telecommunications—(Question No. 51). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625Fishing—(Question No. 363). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625Telecommunications Code—(Question No. 364). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639

Wednesday, 12 February 1997 SENATE 503

Wednesday, 12 February 1997

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

PETITIONSThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for

presentation as follows:

French Nuclear TestingTo the Honourable President and Members of theSenate in Parliament assembled.

We, the undersigned, wish to lodge our protestin the strongest possible terms against the resump-tion of Nuclear Testing. Therefore we request:

1. the immediate and permanent cessation ofmining and the export of Uranium as a signal to allnations that we will not accept nuclear weapons inany form,

2. the use of all means possible to dissuadeFrance and any other nation from Nuclear WeaponsTesting, and

3. that the Minister for Foreign Affairs make asubmission arguing the illegality of NuclearWeapons to the International Court of Justice.by Senator Kernot (from 37 citizens).

Telstra: PrivatisationTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in the Parliament assembled.

The Petition of the undersigned strongly opposesattempts by any Australian government to privatiseTelstra as well as any other Australian publicassets.

Your Petitioners ask that the Senate opposes anyintentions by an Australian government to sell offnational assets through privatisation.

by Senator Kernot (from 72 citizens).

UraniumTo 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 mineuranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in theWorld Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu NationalPark or any other proposed or current 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 Kernot (from 1,012 citizens).

Gun ControlsTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned shows:that the overwhelming majority of Australians

support uniform, national gun laws and theassociated compensation measures as agreedbetween the Prime Minister, State Premiers andthe Chief Ministers of the ACT and NT.

Your petitioners ask that the Senate:continue to demonstrate its firm support for

these measures;take all possible action to expedite their

implementation; andresist all calls for the control measures to be

watered down or abandoned.


Port Hinchinbrook Development ProjectTo the Honourable President and Members of theSenate in Parliament assembled.

We the undersigned humbly request that theSenate honours the obligations of the Common-wealth of Australia to protect its territory that hasreceived World Heritage status according to theWorld Heritage Convention of which Australia isa signatory.

Significant areas of marine and mangroveecosystems of Australia’s World Heritage GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park are directly threatenedwith destruction by the adjacent construction ofAustralia’s largest tourist resort and marina com-plex at Oyster Point near Cardwell North Queens-land (opposite Hinchinbrook Island).

We implore the Senate to use its powers immedi-ately to permanently halt the construction of themarina and access channel in the World Heritage"Buffer Zone" as recommended by the ValentineReport made to his Department in October 1994.


Repatriation BenefitsTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled

The petition of certain citizens of Australia,draws to the attention of the Senate the fact thatmembers of the Royal Australian Navy who servedin Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are the onlyAustralians to be deliberately excluded fromeligibility for repatriation benefits in the Veterans’Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) for honourable‘active service’. Australian Archives records showthat the only reason for the exclusion was to savemoney. Members of the Australian Army and AirForce serving in Malaya were not excluded, and the

504 SENATE Wednesday, 12 February 1997

costs associated with the land forces was one of themain reasons for the exclusion of the Navy. Aninjustice was done which later events have com-pounded.

There are two forms of benefits for ex-service-men, Disability Pensions for war caused disabilities(denied the sailors referred to but introduced in1972 for ‘Defence Service’ within Australia) andService Pensions. Allied veterans of 55 nationsinvolved in conflicts with Australian forces untilthe end of the Vietnam War can have qualifyingeligibility for Service Pensions under the Act.Service by 5 countries in Vietnam was recognisedafter RAN service in Malaya was excluded. TheDepartment of Veterans’ Affairs confirms that 686ex-members of the South Vietnamese ArmedForces are in receipt of Australian Service Pen-sions; 571 on married rate and 115 on single rate.In effect, 1,257 Service Pensions, denied to ex-members of the RAN, are being paid for servingalongside Australians in Vietnam.

It is claimed that:

(a) Naval personnel were engaged on operationalduties that applied to all other Australian servicepersonnel serving overseas on ‘active service’.They bombarded enemy positions in Malaya andsecretly intercepted enemy communications;

(b) Naval personnel were subject to similardangers as all other Australian service personnelserving in Malaya and there were RAN casualties,none of which appear on the Roll of Honour at theAustralian War Memorial;

(c) the Royal Australian Navy was ‘allotted’ foroperational service from 1st July 1955 and this isdocumented in Navy Office Minute No. 011448 of11 November 1955, signed by the Secretary to theDepartment of the Navy. The RAN was thenapparently ‘unallotted’ secretly to enable theexcluding legislation to be introduced;

(d) the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has saidit can find no written reason(s) for the RANexclusion in the Act. In two independent FederalCourt cases (Davis WA G130 of 1989 and DoesselQld G62 of 1990) the courts found the two ex-members of the RAN had been ‘allotted’. Davishad served in Malaya in 1956 and 57. As a resultof these cases ex-members of the RAN who servedin Malaya and who had, at that time, claims beforethe Department of Veterans’ Affairs for benefits,had their claims accepted. Eight weeks after theDoessel decision the Act was amended to requireallotment to have been by written instrument. Inparliament, it was claimed the amendment wasnecessary to restore the intended purpose of theexclusion, reasons for which can not, allegedly, befound.

(e) Naval personnel were not, as claimed, boundby the ‘Special Overseas Service’ requirements,

introduced in the Repatriation (Special OverseasService) Act 1962. This Act became law some twoyears after the war in Malaya ended;

(f) as Australian citizens serving with the RoyalAustralian Navy they complied with three of thefour requirements for ‘active service’. The fourth,for ‘military occupation of a foreign country’ didnot apply to Malaya.

Your petitioners therefore request the Senate toremove the discriminatory exclusion in the Actthereby restoring justice and recognition of honour-able ‘active service’ with the Royal AustralianNavy in direct support of British and Malayanforces during the Malayan Emergency between1955 and 1960.

by Senator Hogg(from six citizens) andSenator Tierney (from five citizens).

Repatriation BenefitsTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled

The petition of certain citizens of Australia,draws to the attention of the Senate the fact thatmembers of the Royal Australian Navy who servedin Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are the onlyAustralians to be deliberately excluded fromeligibility for repatriation benefits in the Veterans’Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) for honourableoverseas ‘active service’ under ‘OperationalService’ at Section 6(1)(e)(ii) of the Act.

A defined group of Australians, who served inthe Malaya area, being members of the RoyalAustralian Navy so affected, have been wronglyexcluded, whereas members of the Army and AirForce were not so excluded, and this is supportedby documents in the Australian Archives andelsewhere on public record.

Allied veterans of 55 nations involved in con-flicts with Australian forces until the end of theVietnam War can have qualifying eligibility forbenefits under the Act. Service by 5 countries inVietnam was recognised after RAN service inMalaya was excluded. The Department of Veterans’Affairs confirms that 686 ex-members of the SouthVietnam Armed Forces are in receipt of AustralianService Pensions; 571 on married rate and 115 onsingle rate. In effect 1,257 Service Pensions, deniedto ex-members of the RAN, are being paid forserving alongside Australians in Vietnam.

It is claimed that:(a) Naval personnel were engaged on operational

duties that applied to all other Australian servicepersonnel serving overseas on ‘active service’.They bombarded enemy positions in Malaya andsecretly intercepted enemy communications;

(b) Naval personnel were subject to similardangers as all other Australian service personnel


serving in Malaya and there were RAN casualties,none of whom appear on the Roll of Honour at theAustralian War Memorial;

(c) the Royal Australian Navy was ‘allotted’ foroperational service from 1st July 1955 and this isdocumented in Navy Office Minute No. 011448 of11 November 1955, signed by the Secretary to theDepartment of the Navy. The RAN was thensecretly ‘unallotted’ to enable the introduction ofthe excluding legislation.

(d) the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has saidit can find no written reason(s) for the RANexclusion in the Act. In two independent FederalCourt cases (Davis WA G130 of 1989 and DoesselQld G62 of 1990) the courts found the two ex-members of the RAN had been ‘allotted’. Davishad served in Malaya in 1956 and 57. As a resultof these cases ex-members of the RAN who servedin Malaya and who had, at that time, claims beforethe Department of Veterans’ Affairs for benefits,had their claims accepted. Eight weeks after theDoessel decision the Act was amended to requireallotment to have been by written instrument. Inparliament, it was claimed the amendment wasnecessary to restore the intended purpose of theexclusion, reasons for which can not, allegedly, befound.

(e) Naval personnel were not, as claimed, boundby the ‘Special Overseas Service’ requirements,introduced in the Repatriation (Special OverseasService) Act 1962, which act became law some twoyears after the war in Malaya ended;

(f) the Australian citizens serving with the RoyalAustralian Navy complied with three of the fourrequirements for ‘active service’. The fourth, for‘military occupation of a foreign country’ did notapply to Malaya.

Your petitioners therefore request the Senate toremove the discriminatory exclusion in the Actthereby restoring justice and recognition of Austral-ian citizens’ honourable service with the RoyalAustralian Navy for Australia, Britain and Malaya,whilst on ‘active service’ in the Malaya campaignbetween 1955 and 1960.

by Senator O’Chee(from eight citizens) andSenator O’Chee(from 30 citizens).

Goulburn Valley HighwayTo the Honourable President and Members of theSenate in Parliament assembled:

We the undersigned citizens of Victoria respect-fully submit that the duplication of the GoulburnValley Highway between Shepparton and the HumeFreeway is a critical step in improving road safetyand reducing the number of accidents and death.

We the petitioners call on the Federal Govern-ment as a matter of urgency to make available

funds for the duplication of the Goulburn ValleyHighway.

by Senator McGauran (from 88 citizens).Petitions received.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeLegislation Committee

Senator TROETH (Victoria)—I givenotice that, on the next day of sitting, I shallmove:

That the time for the presentation of the reportof the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legisla-tion Committee on the examination of annualreports be extended to 25 March 1997.

Community Affairs ReferencesCommittee

Senator WEST (New South Wales)—I givenotice that, on the next day of sitting, I shallmove:

That the following matter be referred to theCommunity Affairs References Committee forinquiry and report by 15 May 1997:Consequences for older Australians and theirfamilies arising from proposed changes announcedin the 1996-97 Federal Budget to the funding ofaged care institutions in Australia, with particularreference to:

(a) the implications of charging an entry fee foraccess to a nursing home;

(b) the application of an assets test to thehomes of older people living alone;

(c) guaranteeing equal access to nursing homecare for financially disadvantaged people;

(d) the role of market forces in determining thelevel of entry fee to be paid;

(e) ensuring that a two-tiered system of nursinghome care does not develop as a result ofthese changes;

(f) ensuring that the quality of care is protectedin nursing homes;

(g) the need for user rights;(h) the implications of possible transfer of aged

care to the States and Territories; and(i) the need for prudential arrangements that

will protect residents’ contributions.

Ms Nombiniso GasaSenator MARGETTS (Western Austral-

ia)—I give notice that, on the next day ofsitting, I shall move:


That the Senate—(a) notes that:

(i) Ms Nombiniso Gasa, the former head ofthe African National Congress (ANC)Commission for Women’s Emancipation,was raped on 20 January 1997 on RobbenIsland, South Africa, while working to setup a museum on the island,

(ii) 3 days after the rape Ms Gasa returned toRobben Island and publicly revealed heridentity, and 4 days after the rape ad-dressed both houses of the South AfricanParliament,

(iii) Ms Gasa was in Australia in December1996 with her husband, senior ANC MP,Raymond Suttner, and

(iv) the Western Cape province has the high-est rape statistics in South Africa, whichhas the greatest incidence of rape in theworld;

(b) expresses sadness and outrage at the rape ofMs Gasa;

(c) commends Ms Gasa for refusing to bear theburden of silence and courageously makingher identity public to make the experiencereal for the people of South Africa and, inso doing, giving strength to women there,and elsewhere in the world, who have beenraped;

(d) urges the Western Cape provincial govern-ment to ensure that a proper and thoroughinvestigation is conducted into this horrificcrime and that the perpetrator is brought tojustice; and

(e) calls on the Western Cape provincialgovernment and the Government of SouthAfrica to act on the call by Ms Gasa andthe women of the Western Cape for legalreforms in relation to sexual assault and topromote greater understanding of the crimeand its victims.

Education and TrainingSenator CARR (Victoria)—I give notice

that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the Senate notes, with concern, the failure

of the Government to adequately administer ordefend key aspects of the Employment, Education,Training and Youth Affairs portfolio and, specifi-cally, the Federal Government’s:

(a) unwillingness to address concerns of thehigher education community about theproblem of declining demand for universitycourses, particularly in regional Australia,resulting from increased Higher EducationContribution Scheme fees;

(b) complete abrogation of its responsibilities toensure an adequate supply of science andengineering graduates;

(c) reduction of training and labour marketprograms;

(d) lack of a sustainable policy to address long-term unemployment; and

(e) inadequate defence of public education andabandonment of a long-standing commit-ment to the provision of quality, universallyaccessible and equitable public education.

University ApplicationsSenator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-

tralia)—I give notice that, on the next day ofsitting, I shall move:

That the Senate—(a) notes that, at the close of on-time university

applications:(i) there was a decline in the total number of

university applications by 3 per cent inQueensland, 5 per cent in Western Aus-tralia, 6 per cent in Victoria, 6 per cent inNew South Wales, 7 per cent in SouthAustralia and 8 per cent in Tasmania, and

(ii) applications made by mature-age studentsnew to higher education had fallen by 12per cent in South Australia, 13 per cent inVictoria, 15 per cent in Tasmania, 17 percent in Western Australia and 19 per centin New South Wales; and

(b) condemns Government increases to theHigher Education Contribution Scheme asa financial barrier which has actively dis-couraged many thousands of Australiansfrom pursuing the option of universitystudy.

Foreign Affairs, Defence and TradeReferences Committee

Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales)-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting,I shall move:

That the following matters be referred to theForeign Affairs, Defence and Trade ReferencesCommittee for inquiry and report by 14 May 1997:

(a) the contribution to Australia’s foreign policyand trade interests, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, and their role as independentbroadcasters, of:

(i) Radio Australia, and(ii) Australia Television;

(b) the activities of similar foreign broadcastservices, radio and television, broadcastingto countries in the Asia-Pacific region;


(c) the consequences of the closure of RadioAustralia and/or Australia Television; and

(d) the relationship between Australia’s over-seas information and cultural activities andAustralia’s foreign and trade policy inter-ests.

Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkRegulations

Senator CONROY (Victoria)—At therequest of Senator Cook, I give notice that,three sitting days after today, he shall move:

That the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regula-tions (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules1996 No. 277 and made under the Great BarrierReef Marine Park Act 1975, be disallowed.

Days and Hours of SittingSenator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)—Igive notice that, on the next day of sitting, Ishall move:

A. SESSIONAL AND CONTINUING OR-DERS—PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

1. That sessional and continuing orders beamended as follows:(1) Sessional order 17, omit the sessional order,

substitute the following order:Times of sitting and routine of businessThat, notwithstanding anything contained inthe standing orders, the following proceduresapply:(1) The days and times of meeting of the

Senate in each sitting week shall be asfollows:

Monday 12.30 pm—7 pm, 8 pm—10.30 pmTuesday 2 pm—8 pmWednesday 9.30 am—8 pmThursday 9.30 am—8.40 pm.

(2) (a) On Monday the routine of businessshall be:

(i) Government business only(ii) At 2 pm, questions(iii) Motions to take note of answers(iv) Petitions(v) Notices of motion(vi) Postponement and rearrangement of

business(vii) Formal motions—discovery of formal

business

(viii) Any proposal to debate a matter ofpublic importance or urgency

(ix) Government business(x) At 9.50 pm, adjournment proposed(xi) At 10.30 pm, adjournment.

(b) On Tuesday the routine of businessshall be:

(i) Questions(ii) Motions to take note of answers(iii) Petitions(iv) Notices of motion(v) Postponement and rearrangement of

business(vi) Formal motions—discovery of formal

business(vii) Any proposal to debate a matter of

public importance or urgency(viii) Government business(ix) At 6.50 pm, consideration of govern-

ment documents for up to 30 minutesunder standing order 61

(x) At 7.20 pm, adjournment proposed(xi) At 8 pm, adjournment.

(c) On Wednesday the routine of businessshall be:

(i) Government business only(ii) At 12.45 pm, matters of public interest(iii) At 2 pm, questions(iv) Motions to take note of answers(v) Petitions(vi) Notices of motion(vii) Postponement and rearrangement of

business(viii) Formal motions—discovery of formal

business(ix) Any debate on committee reports(x) Any proposal to debate a matter of

public importance or urgency(xi) Government business(xii) At 6.50 pm, consideration of govern-

ment documents for up to 30 minutesunder standing order 61

(xiii) At 7.20 pm, adjournment proposed(xiv) At 8 pm, adjournment.

(d) On Thursday the routine of businessshall be:

(i) Petitions

(ii) Notices of motion

(iii) Postponement and rearrangement ofbusiness


(iv) Formal motions—discovery of formalbusiness

(v) Any debate on committee reports

(vi) Government business

(vii) At 2 pm, questions

(viii) Motions to take note of answers

(ix) Any proposal to debate a matter ofpublic importance or urgency

(x) Not later than 4.30 pm, general busi-ness

(xi) Not later than 6 pm, further consider-ation of government documents

(xii) Not later than 7 pm, consideration ofcommittee reports and governmentresponses under standing order 62

(xiii) At 8 pm, adjournment proposed

(xiv) At 8.40 pm, adjournment.

(3) (a) The question for the adjournment ofthe Senate shall be proposed at thetimes provided, but if the consider-ation of government documents orthe further consideration of commit-tee reports concludes before theexpiration of the times provided, thequestion for the adjournment shallthen be proposed.

(b) Debate on the question for the ad-journment shall not exceed 40minutes, and a senator shall notspeak to that question for more than10 minutes.

(c) At the expiration of 40 minutes, orat the conclusion of debate, which-ever is the earlier, or if there is nodebate, the President shall adjournthe Senate without putting the ques-tion.

(4) If a division is called for on Thursdayafter 6 pm, the matter before the Senateshall be adjourned until the next day ofsitting at a time fixed by the Senate.

(5) The consideration of government docu-ments for up to 30 minutes under stand-ing order 61 shall be called on only onTuesday and Wednesday at the times pro-vided.

(6) (a) If a committee report is presentedafter the discovery of formal busi-ness and before the commencementof any other business on Wednesdayor Thursday, a motion may bemoved relating to the report.

(b) A senator speaking to such a motionshall not speak for more than 10minutes, and debate on all such mo-tions shall not exceed one hour.

(c) If a debate is not concluded at theexpiration of that time the debate shallbe made an order of the day for Thurs-day at the time for consideration ofcommittee reports.

(7) Matters of public interest may be dis-cussed only between 12.45 pm and 2 pmon Wednesday.

(8) Immediately after question time on anyday motions may be moved to take noteof answers given to questions withoutnotice in accordance with the terms of therelevant orders relating to questionswithout notice.

(9) Debate on a matter of public importanceor urgency motion under standing order75 shall not exceed one hour, or, if nomotions are moved after question time totake note of answers, 90 minutes, and asenator shall not speak to such a matteror motion for more than 10 minutes.

(10) Where a motion is moved by leave inrelation to a document presented to theSenate, including a document presented tothe President when the Senate is notsitting, a senator speaking to such amotion shall not speak for more than 10minutes, and debate on the motion shallnot exceed 30 minutes; where two ormore such motions are moved in succes-sion, debate on all motions shall notexceed 60 minutes.

(2) Sessional order 16, omit the sessional order,substitute the following order:

Speaking times—debate on motionsThat, subject to the time limits applying tospecified debates:(a) a senator shall not speak for more than 20

minutes in a debate on any motion;(b) the time taken to make and determine

points of order shall not be regarded aspart of the speaking time of a senator;and

(c) the time taken to form a quorum shall notbe regarded as part of the speaking timeof a senator.

(3) That continuing order 22 relating to theconsideration of legislation be amended byadding after paragraph (1) the followingparagraph:(1A) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a

bill introduced in the Senate or re-


ceived from the House of Represen-tatives within the first two-thirds ofthe total number of days of sitting ofthe Senate scheduled for the firstperiod of sittings after a generalelection of the House of Representa-tives, but consideration of such a billshall not be resumed after the secondreading is moved in the Senate un-less 14 days have elapsed after thefirst introduction of the bill in eitherHouse.

2. That the foregoing amendments of ses-sional and continuing orders be in-corporated into the standing orderswhen the Senate incorporates sessionaland continuing orders into the standingorders in accordance with the recom-mendation of the Procedure Committeein its first report of 1996.

B. STANDING ORDER 61—PROPOSEDAMENDMENT

Consideration of government documents—amendment of standing order

That standing order 61 be amended to providethat, immediately after prayers on any daywhen consideration of government documentsoccurs, a minister may present documents byhanding them to the Clerk without any an-nouncement to the Senate, and the presentationof such documents shall be reported to theSenate by the President when the considerationof government documents is called on underthis standing order.

Jabiluka Uranium Mine

Senator MARGETTS (Western Austral-ia)—I give notice that, on the next day ofsitting, I shall move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine inthe Kakadu National Park region is cur-rently facing an environmental impactassessment (EIA) by the proponent,Energy Resources of Australia, and

(ii) Northern Territory Aboriginal people haveasked that the EIA be delayed until theKakadu region social impact study iscompleted in order for the EIA to takeinto account the social impact of mining;and

(b) calls on the Government to delay the EIAuntil after the Kakadu region social impactstudy has been completed in order for a

comprehensive EIA to take place with thesocial impact of mining included.

Standing OrdersSenator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)—Igive notice that, on the next day of sitting, Ishall move:

(1) That the standing orders be amended as setout in the attachment to the first report of1996 of the Procedure Committee.

(2) That orders of the Senate concerning thebroadcasting of Senate and committeeproceedings be consolidated as set out in theattachment to the first report of 1996 of theProcedure Committee.

(3) That the standing orders as amended haveeffect on and from 24 February 1997.

Youth UnemploymentSenator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-

tralia)—I give notice that, on the next day ofsitting, I shall move:

That the Senate—(a) notes:

(i) the statement by the Governor-General(Sir William Deane) that youth unem-ployment is the most important problemfacing our nation, and

(ii) that youth unemployment is having adevastating effect on the self-confidence,self-respect and self-esteem of unem-ployed young Australians;

(b) supports the Governor-General’s call that anational effort to deal with youth unemploy-ment be the first priority of the Govern-ment; and

(c) maintains that any plan to combat youthunemployment must have the self-esteem ofyoung Australians as its highest priority.

Department of Employment, Education,Training and Youth Affairs: Funding Cut

Senator CARR (Victoria)—I give noticethat, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate:(a) recognises that the massive $4.3 billion

funding cut inflicted on the Department ofEmployment, Education, Training and YouthAffairs in the 1996-97 Federal Budget andconsequential forward estimates has causedgreat harm; and

(b) calls on the Government to quarantine theportfolio from further funding reductions inthe 1997-98 Federal Budget.


Genetically Engineered Foods


That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the first shipment of genetically-engi-neered soya beans tolerant of the pesti-cide Roundup entered Australia on 29November 1996,

(ii) the mutant beans, designed by Monsanto,were the first whole gene technologyfoods in Australia, yet the National FoodAuthority (NFA) did not assess or attemptto regulate them on the basis that they area minor concern, and

(iii) the Australian GeneEthics Network(AGN) disputes that they are a minorconcern, saying that soya beans are in 50per cent of all processed foods in someform or another and that Monsanto hasallegedly applied to the NFA for a 200-fold increase in residue levels of Roundupfor imported soya beans; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) ban all genetically-engineered foods atleast until there are standards agreed to ina wide-ranging public inquiry,

(ii) seize any imports of genetically-engi-neered foods which have not been as-sessed or regulated in Australia, and

(iii) reject Monsanto’s application to the NFAto allow a 200-fold increase in theamount of Roundup allowed on Australiasoya crops from 0.1 mg/kg to 20 mg/kg.

Genetically Engineered Foods


That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) a new draft food standard for genetically-modified food was issued for publicdiscussion on 3 February 1997,

(ii) genetically-engineered food has an impacton a wide range of social, environmental,ethical and public health issues,

(iii) the draft contains weak assessment pro-cedures which do not include the produc-tion process and the nature of the endproduct in the assessment of genetically-modified foods, and which blur the defi-

nition between non-genetically-modifiedand genetically-modified food, and

(iv) the draft standard does not include rulesfor the labelling of genetically-engineeredfood products; and

(b) calls on the Government to:(i) implement the strictest assessment and

regulation of genetically-engineeredfoods,

(ii) refuse to implement the notion of thesubstantive equivalent in assessmentprocedures, which blurs the differencebetween genetically-engineered and non-genetically, engineered foods, and

(iii) ensure that all genetically-engineeredfoods are labelled as such.

ORDER OF BUSINESSNuclear Waste

Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 442

standing in the name of Senator Brown for today,relating to the transportation of nuclear waste bythe Pacific Teal, be postponed till the next day ofsitting.

BHP PetroleumMotion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 11

standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today,relating to BHP Petroleum’s offshore safety ar-rangements, be postponed till 24 February 1997.

Greater Beedelup National ParkMotion (by Senator Murray ) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 431

standing in the name of Senator Murray for today,relating to the protection of old growth forests, bepostponed till the next day of sitting.

CONDOLENCESEdna Ryan

Motion (by Senator Crowley) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) expresses its sadness on the death of Edna

Ryan and conveys sympathy to her family;(b) acknowledges and expresses appreciation for

the energy, dedication and pioneering contri-bution of Edna Ryan to improving the lot ofAustralian women, particularly throughachieving wage justice for them; and

(c) acknowledges Edna Ryan’s lifelong contri-bution to the Australian Labor Party and herextraordinary contribution, through articles,essays and books, to debate, discussion and


policy on equity and justice for Australianfamilies, particularly blue collar workingfamilies.

1997 AUSTRALIA PRIZEMotion (by Senator Patterson) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) congratulates the joint winners of the 1997

Australia Prize, which recognises the contri-bution of science to human endeavour andwelfare;

(b) commends:(i) Australian Professor Allan Snyder for his

theoretical work describing the way lightmoves down fibre-optic cables,

(ii) Australian Professor Rodney Tucker forhis development of high speed laserswhich have markedly increased the ca-pacity of fibre-optic cables, and

(iii) Austrian Doctor Ungerboeck for hisdiscovery of a coding system whichenables the high speed transmission ofdata between computer modems;

(c) acknowledges the vital contributions thejoint winners have made towards establish-ing the modern international telecommunica-tions network; and

(d) commends the Commonwealth’s support ofscience through the Australia Prize andlooks forward to the 1998 awards whichwill recognise scientists working in the fieldof molecular genetics.

COMMITTEES

Environment, Recreation,Communications and the Arts References

CommitteeMeeting

Motion (by Senator Lees) agreed to:That the Senate Environment, Recreation,

Communications and the Arts References Commit-tee be authorised to hold public meetings during thesittings of the Senate on Tuesday, 25 February1997, and Tuesday, 25 March 1997, from 6 pm, totake evidence for the committee’s inquiry into themanagement of water and biological nutrients inAustralia.

CHARTER OF BUDGET HONESTYBILL 1996

First ReadingBill received from the House of Representa-

tives.Motion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:

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

Bill read a first time.

Second ReadingSenator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(9.48 a.m.)—I move:

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—

Madam President, the Charter of Budget HonestyBill 1996 fulfils the Government’s election promiseto introduce a Charter of Budget Honesty andemphasises the Government’s commitment toimproving fiscal performance.The need for improved fiscal outcomes in Australiais clearly demonstrated by the persistence ofCommonwealth deficits over the past 25 years, theratcheting up of Commonwealth general govern-ment net debt and falling levels of national saving.Commonwealth general government net debt hasincreased from around 2.5 per cent of GDP in June1972 to around 19.2 per cent of GDP currently.Over the past 5 years there has been a greater thanfive fold increase in Commonwealth generalgovernment net debt which now stands at $93billion. By this measure alone there is clearly aneed for governments to improve fiscal outcomes.This bill will rectify this situation by implementinginstitutional arrangements to improve the formula-tion and reporting of fiscal policy. The need forsuch arrangements has already been supported byindependent bodies such as the National Commis-sion of Audit and the Joint Committee of PublicAccounts and the framework contained in this billincorporates many of their recommendations.The improvement of the fiscal position will only beachieved through greater discipline, transparencyand accountability in government fiscal policy. TheCharter of Budget Honesty will achieve all theseoutcomes.Fiscal discipline will be enhanced by requiringgovernment fiscal policy to be formulated accord-ing to principles of sound fiscal management.Transparency and the accountability of governmentwill be substantially increased through improveddisclosure of fiscal policy intentions and the regularreporting of information on fiscal developments.Further, the Charter will prevent future govern-ments going to an election on the basis of outdatedand misleading information on the fiscal andeconomic outlook.


In short, this bill will ensure that at all times thisgovernment, and all future governments, can beheld to account for their fiscal and economicpolicies, providing a sounder basis for improvedeconomic performance and sustainable job oppor-tunities.

Madam President, I will now describe the mainfeatures of the fiscal framework that will beestablished by the bill.

Fiscal Policy FormulationThe bill will reform fiscal policy formulationthrough introducing principles for the soundmanagement of fiscal policy against which govern-ments must develop their fiscal strategy.Theseprinciples will focus attention on a range of issuesthat must be addressed if fiscal policy is to besustainable over time. In doing so they will estab-lish an appropriate environment for setting andassessing fiscal policy, without restraining govern-ment or Parliament in their pursuit of other, non-fiscal, objectives.

The principles take account of the need to addressshort term issues, such as cyclical economicdownturns, while recognising the importance ofmedium-term issues such as the sustainability ofgovernment debt and national saving.

The presentation of a government’s fiscal strategy,as required by the bill, will also increase publicawareness of a government’s objectives andestablish a benchmark for evaluating fiscal perform-ance.

Fiscal ReportingThe Charter of Budget Honesty will also ensurethat up to date information is available so that agovernment’s performance can be assessed againstits fiscal objectives. To achieve this the bill estab-lishes a formal reporting structure.

With each year’s budget a report will be releasedsetting out economic and fiscal projections for thebudget year and three forward years. These projec-tions will illustrate the consequences of the adoptedfiscal strategy.

A further report released mid-way through thefinancial year will update the fiscal and economicprojections contained in the budget report.

The details of fiscal outcomes for the just com-pleted financial year will be presented in a reportto be released within 3 months of the end of thatfinancial year.

In addition, an intergenerational report will beproduced every 5 years to report on the long-termsustainability of current fiscal policies.

These reports will provide fundamental informationthat will allow government performance to beassessed against the objectives set out in the fiscalstrategy statement. However, the bill also gives

particular attention to ensuring that important fiscalinformation is available during the election period.

The bill requires the Secretaries to the Treasury andthe Department of Finance to prepare a pre-electionreport providing an updated assessment of the fiscaland economic outlook. Never again will a govern-ment go to an election without the public beingaware of the current economic and fiscal situation.

In addition, the bill provides for more equal accessto Treasury and Finance costings of electioncommitments by the Government and the Opposi-tion during the caretaker period. This will allow theelectorate to be better informed of the financialimplications of election commitments.

Conclusion

In conclusion Madam President, the Governmentbelieves that that the Charter of Budget HonestyBill 1996 represents a landmark development in theconduct of fiscal policy and reporting of fiscaloutcomes. The bill will provide a strong impetustowards achieving better fiscal outcomes by provid-ing greater discipline in policy formulation, regularstatements of fiscal objectives and increasedaccountability for fiscal performance.

Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion bySenator Carr)adjourned.

BILLS RETURNED FROM THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Message received from the House of Repre-sentatives intimating that it had agreed to theamendments made by the Senate to theCustoms Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996

CUSTOMS DEPOT LICENSINGCHARGES BILL 1996

Message received from the House of Repre-sentatives acquainting the Senate that theHouse had made the amendments requestedby the Senate to the Bill.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion bySenator Campbell) reada third time.

BURMA

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Ferguson)—I present a letter dated28 January 1997 from the Minister for For-eign Affairs (Mr Downer) to the President ofthe Senate responding to the resolution of theSenate of 31 October 1996 concerning Burma.


SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT (NEWLY ARRIVED

RESIDENT’S WAITING PERIODS ANDOTHER MEASURES) BILL 1996

Consideration of House ofRepresentatives Message

Consideration resumed from 11 February.

The CHAIRMAN —The committee isconsidering message No. 139 from the Houseof Representatives in relation to the SocialSecurity Legislation Amendment (NewlyArrived Resident’s Waiting Periods and OtherMeasures) Bill 1996 and has completed con-sideration of the amendments specified ingroup 1. I now turn to group 2, amendmentNo. 27.

Motion (by Senator Newman) proposed:That the committee does not insist upon its

amendment No. 27 disagreed to by the House ofRepresentatives.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (9.50a.m.)—I indicate my opposition to that mo-tion.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.51 a.m.)—If I am correct, that is the amendment relatingto residents claiming maternity allowance. Ifthe minister would explain and defend thegovernment’s position it is putting, I wouldrespond to it.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(9.51 a.m.)—I think it might simplify andspeed things up if I make it clear to allsenators that the government is not insistingon excluding the maternity allowance frommigrants over the two years. We have lookedat it afresh and recognise that, in essence, itis different from an income support payment;it is a one-off payment recognising the costsof having a baby. Therefore, the governmentwill not be supporting the motion.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.52 a.m.)—If I can cut through the double negatives: thegovernment has had a change of heart on thisand is agreeing to the argument that was putearlier that this maternity allowance be avail-able to newly arrived Australians after sixmonths regardless, and not after 24 months.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(9.52 a.m.)—It is not currently included in thesix months period, so in fact there will be nochange of entitlement to migrants at all. Itwill be as for any other person in Australia:it will be available on the birth of a child inAustralia. It is consistent with the approachwhich we have taken on minimum rate familypayment. We have decided not to pursue thismeasure.

The CHAIRMAN —The question is thatamendment No. 27 be not insisted upon.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (9.53a.m.)—Is the proposition that we have beforeus that amendment No. 27 be not insistedupon?

The CHAIRMAN —That is the questionbefore the chair. Senator Brown, you got injust in time.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.54 a.m.)—Yes. On the question that the amendment benot insisted upon, everyone is going to agreeto that because of the benefit that will bringto people newly arrived in the country. I thinkwe have to be very careful, as I said, to cutthrough the double negatives to make exactlysure that the government has had a change ofheart, which is welcomed, and is acceptingthe argument which was always there: thatthis benefit ought to be available to newlyarrived Australians.

The CHAIRMAN —I put the question thatamendment No. 27 be not insisted upon.

Question resolved in the negative.The CHAIRMAN —The committee will

move to Group 3, which has amendment No.33.

Motion (by Senator Newman) proposed:That the committee does not insist upon its


Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (9.55a.m.)—I believe that, as with amendment No.27, there is now going to be a commonalityof view around the chamber in relation to thisparticular issue, which of course goes tominimum family payment.


I actually think it is competent for theminister to put the question to the committeethat the Senate insists on its amendment. I donot believe for one moment that we have todeal with all these negatives. That is myhumble view, Mr Chairman, and I would beinterested in your interpretation of this. I amaware, of course, having read the statementthat you made to the committee before—

The CHAIRMAN —The question beforethe chair is that amendment No. 33 be notinsisted upon.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (9.57a.m.)—I am opposing that. If everyone elseopposed that motion it would mean that wewould be insisting upon it, so I think that thecommittee should insist upon this matter. I amnot sure whether the government intends tovote against its own motion, but I think theminister, from what I heard her say, is actual-ly moving the motion that it be not insistedupon, and she is going to support that motion.

Senator Newman—No.

Senator HARRADINE—No, I see. So thegovernment agrees that—

Senator Newman—I’m sorry; we have theproblems of the negatives again.

Senator HARRADINE—Can I just get itclear from the government? Does the govern-ment concede that additional family paymentshould be available for newly arrivedmigrants?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(9.58 a.m.)—No, Senator Harradine is wrong.The government does believe that more thanminimum family payment is essentially awelfare benefit. It is not a universal paymentbased on the needs of children, as you wouldfind with other payments. Essentially,minimum family payment and the family taxinitiative are similar, in that they are near touniversal payments. Neither the family taxinitiative nor the minimum family paymentwill be affected by the waiting period, so allmigrants will have both those from the timethey arrive in the country. But, essentially, themore than minimum family payment is in thenature of a welfare benefit—which is, of

course, what we said at the election that wewould cause to have a waiting period applyto.

The history is that family allowance wasintroduced by a coalition government in 1976.It comprised partly child endowment andpartly tax rebates for children. In our electioncommitment we talked about maintainingaccess to family allowance. By maintainingaccess to minimum family payment—whichis what that family allowance has become—we are keeping that commitment. However,in addition to family allowance, there was afamily allowance supplement which is nowknown as more than minimum rate of familypayment. It is this separate payment on whichthe government now seeks to apply a two-year waiting period, Senator Harradine.

When you bear in mind that the minimumfamily payment is essentially the old basicfamily allowance and the family tax initiativehas come in to join it—in both cases they areavailable to all, regardless of whether or notpeople are in the work force—I believe thatfamilies are provided for under the govern-ment’s plan. The more than minimum familypayment is appropriately designated a welfarebenefit and, therefore, comes under the ambitof the general thrust of the legislation.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.00a.m.)—The government is quite serious aboutsupporting this motion not to insist, as distinctfrom the previous one. I will be opposing thismotion. One of the reasons for that is that youmentioned in your speech previously, andrepeated it today, that the government went tothe election on a particular platform. Might Iremind you that in respect of this particularmatter—I seriously make this point throughyou, Mr Chairman, to the minister—beforethe election in your press release you said:

Access to welfare benefits for migrants other thanrefugee and humanitarian migrants will be availableafter two years under a Coalition Government. Thisextension will have little direct impact on thosemigrants, particularly those in the PreferentialFamily Reunion category who are accepted forentry into Australia on the basis of formal assuran-ces of support.

Then you go on to say:


Full access to Family Allowance and Medicare willbe maintained for all migrants immediately uponarrival.

In your statement explaining the history of themeasures, including the additional familypayment, you obviously acknowledge thatpeople were aware of what this was—that is,at one stage it was called a family allowancesupplement. Then it was added to. When therank and file voters in this country hear yousay, ‘Full access to family allowance andMedicare will be maintained for all migrantsimmediately upon arrival’, there is only onething they would think about—that is, thefamily payments, including the additionalfamily payments. That is what people refer tocolloquially as family allowances.

You can quote all the technical stuff youlike, but I am talking about what the voterthought. The voter clearly would get thewrong impression. You do not say that familyallowance and Medicare will be maintainedfor all migrants immediately upon arrival.There is no such thing as a family allowancenow. You say that full access to familyallowance will be maintained for all migrantsimmediately upon arrival. That certainlywould convey to voters that you meant whatyou said—in other words, full access tofamily payments, including additional familypayments.

Consistent with the approach that I havetaken on this matter, I will be voting againstthe motion. At least so far as I am concerned,with respect to the other members of thecommittee, I think the committee should insistupon that amendment.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.04 a.m.)—I regret the position that Sena-tor Harradine is taking on this matter, al-though I understand where he is coming from,of course. Can I correct what I think he prob-ably said by accident. He said he was quotingmy press release. In fact, I think he wasquoting from theMeeting our commitmentsstatement, an election document released byMr Costello in February 1996. The pressrelease that I have in my hand under myname, dated 23 May last year, actually says:

Newly arrived migrants will also retain full accessto Medicare and Minimum Family Payment (thenew term for the former Family Allowance).

Senator Faulkner—So Costello lied.

Senator NEWMAN—No, not at all. Thatis a ridiculous statement.

Senator Faulkner—That is what you justsaid. You said you didn’t lie; you saidCostello lied.

Senator NEWMAN—Nobody has lied inthis matter at all, Mr Chairman. It is a ques-tion of a payment having changed its name—two payments evolving in the social securitysystem. The minimum family payment andthe family income supplement, or familyallowance supplement, were essentially twoseparate items. The family allowance at thetime theMeeting our commitmentsdocumentwas prepared was understood to be the basicfamily allowance. You got a top up on that ifyou had income support needs. It was awelfare measure. That is why there has beena misunderstanding about terminology, but thedirection and the purpose of the governmentwere consistent. So I utterly reject the inter-jection from the Leader of the Opposition.

It is a question of the name change of thepayments having, I think, confused the issuein the minds of some people. There wasalways a basic payment for families, with atop up for welfare measures. That has causedthe problem here. We are saying that thebasic payment for family, as we said in ourelection document and as I reiterated in mypress release of 23 May, will still be availableto all those families. But the additional top upwe are proposing should be included in thecategory of welfare benefit that we describedin our election manifesto.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia) (10.06 a.m.)—I was wondering whetherthe minister would clarify something. Whenwe talk about the application of the two-yearwaiting period to family payments in theevolution of these payments, doesn’t thatinclude a two-year waiting period beingapplied to more than the minimum standardof family payment and the multiple birthallowance, rent assistance and guardianallowance—all as part of the family payment?


Could you clarify whether a two-year waitingperiod would apply to those.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.07 a.m.)—I am advised that anythingmore than the minimum family payment isincluded in the two-year waiting period, asyou surmised.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.08a.m.)—So what we get again is thegovernment’s insistence that welfare benefitsbe cut to people who are in need because theyhappen to have newly arrived in Australia.That is why the chamber should be standingfirm and rejecting the government’s bid tohave this two-tier system and to make thesenew citizens second-class citizens.

The change, by the way, between MrCostello’s statement in February last yearwhich Senator Harradine read out indicatingthat the full allowance would be available andMinister Newman’s qualified statement ofMay is pivotal on the fact that in March lastyear there was an election. So the indicationto the electorate before the election, that thisbenefit would be kept, changed after theelection to an indication that it was going tobe scrapped. It was a change of heart simplybecause the government was in office.

Once again it is important for this chamberto stand by the amendment made beforeChristmas defending the right of newlyarrived Australians to access these benefits.The minister says that it is a welfare measure.That implies just what it is: it is for peoplewho are in real need in this country. Weshould ensure that those people newly arrivedin the country who find themselves strug-gling—very often due to the change of cir-cumstances that follows their arrival here;circumstances that can be unforeseen—oughtto be able to have the same access to thesebenefits as every other Australian.

As I pointed out last night, a very smallamount of money is involved here. It shrinksinto insignificance almost when compared tothe handout to major corporations through taxbreaks and so on. So the Greens stronglyoppose the move by the government to havethis chamber back down on this measure. We

hope this chamber will stand firm and insistthat this benefit be made available to newlyarrived Australians.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.10 a.m.)—Consistent with the position Ihave outlined in the chamber previously, theopposition will be opposing the questionbefore the chair. We believe that it is appro-priate for this amendment to be insisted uponby this chamber for all the reasons I haveoutlined previously.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia) (10.11 a.m.)—Similarly, the AustralianDemocrats have not changed their position onthis matter. The original amendment that Imoved back in, I think, November—Democratamendment No. 19—dealt with the issue ofthe family payments. We sought to omit thatparticularly mean-spirited and regressivemeasure in the government bill. We dobelieve that these measures should be insistedupon. I reiterate that we think they are penny-pinching, mean-spirited measures. They aretargeted at the most vulnerable in our com-munity. Once again we only have to look atthe family payment, who that will targetagain—migrant women applying for multiplebirth allowances, rent assistance, guardianallowance. So, once again, the AustralianDemocrats believe this should be insistedupon.

I found extraordinary the minister’s com-ments regarding the Treasurer’s electiondocuments as opposed to her own pressrelease. I think Senator Faulkner’s commentsyesterday were right; I bet they do regretcalling it Meeting our commitments, giventhat this is a government that has, I think,broken about $12 billion worth of electionpromises so far. So this is not an issue ofmandate. As I said yesterday, it is not a caseof ‘my mandate is bigger than yours’. Theseare bad measures. For that reason, the Aus-tralian Democrats continue to oppose the two-year waiting period applying to social securitybenefits, but specifically in this case to thefamily payment.

Senator Kernot—Mr Chairman, I raise apoint of order. Under standing order 99(2) Iask you to indicate to the committee whether


you intend to vote and how you intend tovote.

The CHAIRMAN —After Senator Kernotmade her request yesterday there was somequestion about whether or not I should haveconceded to the request. I would like toremind the committee that standing order 99says:(1) The President and the Deputy President andChairman of Committees shall in all cases beentitled to a vote.(2) The President and the Deputy President andChairman of Committees when in the Chair mayvote by stating to the Senate or to the committeewhether they vote with the "ayes" or with the"noes".

The convention has been that the person inthe chair has indicated to the tellers whichway he or she wishes to vote, but as a requesthas been made under that standing order Iindicate that on this occasion I will be votingno. I ask the tellers to continue.

Question put:That amendment No. 33 not be insisted upon.

The Senate divided. [10.16 a.m.](The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 2

——AYES

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

NOESAllison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A.Collins, R. L. Colston, M. A.

NOESConroy, S. * Cook, P. F. S.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Faulkner, J. P. Foreman, D. J.Forshaw, M. G. Harradine, B.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.

PAIRSAlston, R. K. R. Schacht, C. C.Crane, W. Cooney, B.O’Chee, W. G. Hogg, J.Woods, R. L. Gibbs, B.

* denotes teller

(Senator Chris Evans did not vote, tocompensate for the vacancy caused by thedeath of Senator Panizza.)

Question so resolved in the negative.Motion (by Senator Newman) proposed:That the committee does not insist upon its

amendments Nos 10 to 14 disagreed to by theHouse of Representatives.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.23a.m.)—I believe the Senate should insist onsticking by these amendments. They of courserefer to a whole range of benefits which oughtto be available to newly arrived Australians.The arguments have been canvassed before.I point out to the committee that item 10 is aclass A vote and the rest are class B. There isthe potential in voting on these separately,were there to be a split vote, that there wouldbe a different result for one compared to theother four. Therefore it may be wise, to avoidthat potential, for 10 to be taken separatelyfrom 11 to 14.

The CHAIRMAN —I think that is a reason-able suggestion and I will do that from thechair. I will put 10 first and then I will put 11to 14.

Senator BROWN—What we are talkingabout here is such items as child disabilityallowance, orphan pension, seniors health cardand family payment. Further down the listthere is the newly arrived residents’ waitingperiods, disability wage supplement, specialbenefit partner allowance and maternityallowance for newly arrived residents and so


on. This is the whole raft of welfare benefitswhich we have been arguing from this side ofthe chamber ought to be available to newlyarrived Australians.

It is important for the Senate to stand indefence of this small group of people—somethousands of people—who are going to be cutout to help improve the government’s abilityto pass hundreds of millions of dollars acrossto the big mining corporations, with theirexecutives on million dollar plus annual sala-ries—to hand that across on a platter by wayof the diesel fuel rebate.

The government had no difficulty with that,so why is it trying to penny pinch and saveone-eighth of the amount in this raft ofwelfare payments to newly arrived Australiansstruggling to set up a new life and contribut-ing to the Australian community as a whole?It does not make sense. It did not make senselast year. It makes no more sense now.

There should be no change of mind by theSenate; and the Greens, for two, will bestanding as strongly as we did last year inpreventing the government from making theseunnecessary, miserly, unkind and heartlesscuts to the people who need these benefits noless than any other Australian who needs thesupport that our social welfare system brings.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia) (10.27 a.m.)—Just briefly, the Demo-crats acknowledge that the group of amend-ments that we are dealing with now, Nos 10to 14, are largely consequential and involvechanges to the definitions in the Social Se-curity Act. For that reason, we understandwhy the government would move these, giventhat the first two groups of amendments werenot insisted upon.

Again I reiterate the Democrats’ disappoint-ment and anger at these mean-spirited meas-ures. We only have to look at the referenceswe are dealing with, such as carer pension,widow allowance, disability wage supplement,special benefit, partner allowance, maternityallowance, child disability allowance, doubleorphan allowance—although I believe that hasbeen changed—mobility and seniors healthcard. Once again, let us review the socialsecurity benefits we are talking about hereand review who they target. They target the

vulnerable people, women, people withdisabilities and widows. I think these are verymean-spirited measures indeed.

Obviously these consequential amendmentsrelied upon the first two groups of amend-ments not being insisted upon. I again sayhow disappointed I am that people felt thatthey had to vote in a way that perhaps pre-vented a double dissolution or other suchforecasts. I say to Senator Harradine, as Iinterjected when we discussed this yesterday:is it not a shame that we are making thesedecisions in a climate in which we are socautious or so scared that this governmentmay bring about an election based on thepolitics of race, the politics of division andthe politics of hatred? It is outrageous that wehave had to make our decisions and votes inthat climate.

Senator McGauran—You are being theemotive one.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA—SenatorMcGauran was not here for yesterday’s debatebut I am sure he was listening attentively. Ihope he would understand from yesterday’sdiscussions just what a sensitive and complexissue this is. We are talking about applying atwo-year waiting period—a 104-week waitingperiod—for migrants to access some of thesebasic benefits, the kind of benefits that peopleare only accessing if they are indeed in direfinancial and other straits. We are talkingabout widow allowances, special benefits andpartner allowances. I think Senator McGauranshould think about that and how he is goingto discuss it with migrants in his constituency.Again the Democrats reiterate their oppositionto these measures, but understanding thatthese are in fact consequential amendmentsand changes to the definition.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.30 a.m.)—Mr Chairman, this goes to thepoint that I was trying to make with you andwith the minister the day before yesterday—

The CHAIRMAN —The days merge.

Senator FAULKNER—They do indeed,but they get better and better as we go along.I think the point I made at that time in rela-tion to these actually being consequential


amendments has been borne out by decisionsthe chamber has made in relation to thesubstantive issues before us.

I listened carefully to what Senator StottDespoja has said and I think she sums up thesituation well. I do not think one can mounta strong case that the chamber ought to pressconsequential amendments, given the previousdecisions that have been made in the deliber-ations of this committee.

I do note—and I would ask Senator New-man whether I am correct in this, as I expectthe government at some point to concede thefamily payment issue because of the strengthof the arguments that have been mountedaround this chamber and in the community—that the government would be intending tomove a consequential amendment encompass-ing family payment in item 7. I think thatobviously would be required. I ask throughyou, Mr Chairman, whether that would be thegovernment’s intention?

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.32a.m.)—I am sure that the Senator Faulkner iscorrect in this. No doubt the government hasconsidered the implications of what theSenate has just done in respect of its decisionon additional family payment. No doubt thegovernment will be moving an amendment tothe definitions. I point out to the committeethat the government has come away on thisparticular matter.

The government has, as we all know, putforward amendments of its own, which wewill deal with directly, which will deal withthe question of maternity allowance whichwill be available to newly arrived residents.It will deal with the child disability anddouble orphans issues, which were not advert-ed to by previous speakers but the govern-ment has agreed with those issues in discus-sions. I look forward to hearing from theminister on Senator Faulkner’s request.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.34a.m.)—Senator Harradine has just said ‘whatthe Senate has just done in respect of itsdecision on additional family payment’,which, in a way, says it all. It is what SenatorHarradine just did on the family additionalpayment. It was not the Senate; it was Senator

Harradine, shelling that out from a whole raftof welfare payments that made the difference.

He sits there as arbiter of who will be cutout of welfare payments and who will not andthen says, ‘The Senate did it.’ It is SenatorHarradine who is cutting thousands of newlyarrived Australians out of their right to accesswelfare payments. Let me quote what he hadto say in November last year when thismeasure was first before this place. He said:I have seen no reason whatever to change my mindand I think it would be unstatesmanlike for thegovernment to go to the people on this measure andwhip up an immigration debate.

That is a quote from theWest Australianof30 November. One has to ask: why thechange of mind now? That question stillhangs in the air. Nothing else has changed.There is no increased climate or change ofclimate to justify the fact that we are seeingin this chamber a single change of vote fromSenator Harradine which is cutting out thou-sands of newly arrived Australians from theiraccess to welfare if they are down on theirluck. And this is the country of a fair go!

Senator Harradine uses the words ‘chari-table’ and ‘compassionate’ very often. Heused them last night in this debate. Where isthe compassion in having used his single voteto cut out to thousands of Australians newlyarrived in this country who find themselves inhard circumstances these benefits which wehave judged, through years of development ofour social security system, Australians oughtto be given access to. Well, he says, ‘Notthese Australians.’ That is his decision. Thatis his vote.

Senator Harradine thought it was goodenough for them to have access to the benefitslast November but for reasons which escapeus, which have not been put before the cham-ber, he now says, ‘I am going with thegovernment’s harsh budget cut—the "let thepoor and needy be cast out" philosophy—andI am going to determine, by crossing the floorin the opposite direction to the one I took lastNovember, that they can be left out in thecold.’

I do not think we should end the proceed-ings without noting that Senator Harradinehas totally failed to justify his change of


heart—his new heartlessness in this matter.What we are about here is cutting out thesepeople for a small monetary benefit to thegovernment. Senator Newman says it is $107million all-up per year, but that is in the sameyear that $800 million will be handed on aplatter to a handful of big mining corporationsas a rebate for the diesel fuel levy. So it is atwisted antisocial logic that the government isemploying and, I submit, now it is the sametwisted antisocial logic that Senator Harradineis backing.

I take some umbrage at this statement thatthe chamber has just saved the additionalfamily payment. It took Senator Harradine tocome across on this side of the committee tosave that payment. It would have been just aseasy for him to cross to this side of thecommittee last night to save the other pay-ments.

I think it is a really sad moment for thischamber that it is seen to be losing to thegovernment in the House of Representativeson these amendments which the governmentsent back up here because Senator Harradinehas changed his mind. He has failed to get upand justify that change of mind as against hisstrong stand from last November, when hesaw no reason whatever to change his mindon protecting these newly arrived Australiansfrom having their rights taken away to haveaccess to social welfare.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.40a.m.)—I think the committee can ignore whatSenator Brown just said. We have beenthrough all that. We know the situation. Whatwe were dealing with was a request fromSenator Faulkner to Senator Newman as towhat she intends to do in respect of theadditional family payments definitions toensure that they then flow to newly arrivedmigrants. I wonder whether she could respondto the quite legitimate question that was askedby Senator Faulkner.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.40 a.m.)—I do confirm that I will bemodifying the amendments that I have alreadycirculated. There are some complexities in theconsequential amendments in the sense that,

if we do not get those right, we have a poten-tial problem. For example, somebody may becovered under the legislation, say, on thenewstart allowance, and may go off thenewstart allowance and go on to the widowsallowance under the Social Security Act. Sosomeone who has served a newly arrivedresidents waiting period is not subject to sucha waiting payment for another payment. Thisoccurs provided that both payments are listedin the definition of the newly arrived residentswaiting period.

That is why we have to be particularlycareful to ensure that these consequentialamendments are right. Therefore, I believe weshould not try to do anything other thansupport the motion I have moved and thendeal with the government’s new consequentialamendments as they come up at the end ofthe debate, including taking account, asSenator Faulkner said, of the more thanminimum family payment.

The CHAIRMAN —The question is thatamendment No. 10 be not insisted upon.

Question resolved in the affirmative.The CHAIRMAN —The question now is

that amendments Nos 11 to 14 be not insistedupon.

Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Senator Newman) proposed:That the committee does not insist upon its


Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.43a.m.)—I imagine that, if amendment No. 15is not insisted upon, you are picking up thedouble orphan pension and the child disabilityallowance and the family payments in youramendments, which were certainly in yourformer amendments that were previouslycirculated.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.43 a.m.)—Senator Harradine’s assumptionis correct. The amendments will simply havethe effect of taking those items out frommention altogether.

Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Senator Newman) proposed:


That the committee does not insist upon itsamendments Nos 21, 24 and 35 disagreed to by theHouse of Representatives.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.44 a.m.)—These amendments are toremove retrospectivity and this a key elementof the arguments that were mounted by theopposition when this matter was exhaustivelydebated in the Senate previously. The originalprovisions put by the government wereretrospective. I do not think there can be anydoubt about that. If the provisions are re-stored, the two-year waiting period for newlyarrived residents will apply from 1 April, lastyear. This means that newly arrived residents,who have come to Australia and have foundthemselves without work or other support andhave served the current six-month waitingperiod and received newstart allowance, willnow find effectively that they have to pay themoney back. That is the truth of the matter:they have been paid legally but—

Senator Newman interjecting—

Senator FAULKNER—I think it is animportant point to make. They have been paidlegally, but now the government is proposingto—

Senator Newman—Where do you get thesefunny ideas from?

Senator FAULKNER—Minister, let mejust say to you that I have plenty of ideas,and one or two of them are funny, but thatputs me a long way in front of you who areyet to have one. I will just say to you veryclearly that this proposal is fundamentallyunfair. These particular amendments ensurethat the two-year waiting period applies fromthe date of royal assent to this legislation.Minister, it is hardly our fault that yourgovernment and you have failed to get youract together. It is not acceptable that peoplein this situation will have to pay the price foryour and your government’s incompetence.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia) (10.47 a.m.)—The Australian Demo-crats maintain their opposition to the retro-spective nature of these measures. It is badenough that we are applying a two-yearwaiting period to some of these social security

benefits, let alone making it retrospective toApril last year. I find it ironic especially whenthe coalition, in opposition, were the first tojump up and down about retrospective meas-ures and how we should never change thegoal posts on people while they were in aparticular position so I find this a ratherduplicitous position in that respect. But I takeon board Senator Faulkner’s comments tooabout the fact that these people have been on,and have obtained, benefits quite legally. It isnot only inappropriate for them to be payingthem back but also for them to feel that theyhave somehow obtained these benefits in away that was wrong, illegal or inappropriate.I cannot imagine—although I am quite happyto seek clarification on this—that it would bethat big a deal for the department perhapsadministratively as well as politically. Interms of justice measures, perhaps it would bebetter not to apply this retrospectively. TheDemocrats have a pretty solid opposition tothe retrospective nature of certain pieces oflegislation, whether it concerns HECS orsocial security benefits, so in that case I willmaintain our opposition to this measure.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.48a.m.)—Is the minister going to respond?

Senator Newman—Yes, I will. I amlistening to what you have to say, Senator.

Senator BROWN—I am pleased to hearthat, but the case has been put that newlyarrived Australians who have been paid thesebenefits are going to have to pay them back.

Senator Newman—It’s not so.

Senator BROWN—And the minister isallowing the debate to proceed but she issaying that it isn’t so. What we need to hearfrom the minister now is how this retrospec-tivity will work if it is not going to havepeople, who have been legally and properlypaid benefits since April last year, having topay them back and what the need for theclause is if that is not the case.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.49 a.m.)—Can I make it perfectly clearthat the government is not planning this inany way, and that the department will not be


clawing back benefits to which people havebeen legally entitled. If they receive theirbenefits legally, there will be no question ofthe department being able to claw back thosepayments. If they are still receiving paymentsas at the date of royal assent, they will not beeligible for future payments until they havebeen in Australia for two years. I do think Ican make it clearer than that, Senator. That isthe way it will work and that is an absolutecommitment. There is no question aboutpeople losing benefits which they have beengiven legally under the law. How could we dothat?

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.50a.m.)—I accept the good faith of the ministerand the minister’s department. The Auditor-General, however, may indeed have anotherview about that. That is not the reason that Iam opposing this type of retrospectivity.Indeed, I and I know other people were soconcerned about this matter that we wanted itto be in a separate group of amendments sothat it could be separately divided upon. Icannot remember, Mr Chairman, but if themotion that has been moved is that the Senatedoes not insist upon its amendments, I will bevoting against that motion.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.51 a.m.)—Just briefly, on the generalquestion of retrospectivity, I think it is veryimportant for members of this chamber toremember and acknowledge that the majorityreport of the Senate committee and the reportof the Scrutiny of Bills Committee bothlooked at questions of retrospectivity andneither of them commented adversely on theprovisions of the legislation—the generalprovisions as to the start-up date, et cetera.

I should also put on the record very clearlythat, from the time that the government cameinto office, immediate measures were put inplace by both the department of immigrationand the Department of Social Security so thatintending migrants, before they came into thecountry and after they came into the country,and their sponsors were all alerted to thepolicy of the government. There can be noargument that due notice was not given to

people of the government’s intentions. Inaddition, anybody who has gone onto unem-ployment benefits—for example, in the lastfew months—also was advised at that timethat this legislation was before the parliamentand that they may potentially have to serve alonger period.

In all fairness, the government has doneeverything in its power to make sure thatthere is no ignorance on the part of intendingmigrants or migrants newly arrived as to thefuture direction of government policy. I reallydo think that, when both of the Senate com-mittees, which are always concerned withissues like retrospectivity, have examined theissue and have not commented adversely, itis beholden upon this chamber to take note ofthat fact in assessing its vote.

Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia)(10.54 a.m.)—I was watching the monitor andlistening to the Minister for Social Security(Senator Newman). I heard her commentagain, as I entered the chamber, about thecommittee’s lack of comment on the matterof retrospectivity. I refer the minister in theSenate to the report of the Senate Legal andConstitutional Legislation Committee that wastabled in this place in September last year. Onthe very first page, in ‘Conclusions andRecommendations’, the matter of retrospec-tivity is addressed, and that is in direct contra-diction to what the minister said as I walkedinto the chamber and what she said earlier asI watched her on the monitor. The committeesaid:The Committee notes concerns about the retrospec-tive provisions in the Bill and evidence that thesemay result in hardship for some newly arrivedresidents. In the Committee’s view these provisionswere clearly enunciated during the election cam-paign and information on the proposed changes tothe policy have been widely circulated by theDepartment of Immigration and MulticulturalAffairs. The Committee notes that the provisions inthe Bill relating to special benefits are prospective.

I think we do have to be honest when we aredebating—

Senator Newman—Keep going. Keepreading—keep reading the rest.

Senator McKIERNAN —You read whatyou want to read, Minister. I will read what


I want to read. I will put facts on the record,not—

Senator Newman—Don’t say that I misledthe Senate. That is what you are saying. Don’tsay it.

Senator McKIERNAN —Do you have thefloor?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.56 a.m.)—Mr Chairman, I do resent theimplication that, in some way, I might havemisled the Senate. I have done nothing of thesort. I said—and clearly, the senator was notlistening carefully—that these issues weredrawn to their attention, they considered themand they did not comment adversely. Whereyou were proposing to end your quotation,Senator, it says:The Committee notes that the provisions in the Billrelating to special benefits are prospective. There-fore new residents who arrive after 1 April 1996and before the Royal Assent of the Bill will beeligible for special benefits under current arrange-ments. In the Committee’s view, these provisionsprovide an appropriate transition and will allayconcerns about this aspect of the Bill.

Now be fair; that is the situation. On the basisof that quotation which I have in full in frontof me, I said that the committee did notcomment adversely. And that is the truth ofthe matter.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.57 a.m.)—Can the Minister for SocialSecurity (Mr Newman) indicate to the Senate:if this amendment is not insisted upon, whenwill the two-year waiting period start?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.57 a.m.)—The advice I have for theSenate is that those who have already finishedserving a 26-week waiting period will not besubject to a further waiting period or repay-ment. The effect of the bill will only impacton those newly arriving after around mid-August 1996 who are still subject to theexisting 26-week waiting period.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for theStatus of Women) (10.58 a.m.)—In view ofthe answer you have just given, SenatorNewman, can you now explain to the Senatehow you claim this measure is not retrospec-tive?

Senator Newman—As I made very clear,because of the advice that has been given tome by officials of my department.

Senator FAULKNER—With respect, thatis not good enough, Minister. Can you ex-plain to the Senate, as opposed to saying thatsomeone has told you. That is not goodenough, Senator; someone may have told youanything. I would like you to explain to us,given the information that is now before us,why this measure is not retrospective. Ananswer suggesting that you have been told byan official of your department, I am afraid,does not fit the bill. It is your usual approachto these issues, but it is not good enough.Let’s have a real answer.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.59 a.m.)—I remember so well seeingSenator Faulkner when he was a minister fora few short years—a pretty second-rate one,too, I think—with his tail up in the air and hishead down, taking advice from his officialsand then coming back to the committee withthe advice that he had received from theofficials. I think that sort of cheap shot doesnot really do you any good, Senator.

The reality is that this government made itvery clear in the election what it was planningto do. There is no suggestion that this planwas hidden from the Australian people. Wemade it very explicit and it was well publi-cised for several weeks prior to the election.

As I have said earlier, every migrant whohad been approved to come or who had madeapplication to come and had not yet beenapproved was advised immediately by theDepartment of Immigration and MulticulturalAffairs on our coming into government thatthis was the government’s policy. In addition,assurers of support and sponsors in thiscountry were also advised.


The Department of Social Security haswidely promulgated from our coming intogovernment that that was the government’spolicy. So both departments have been cover-ing this area. There is no doubt about it thatpeople are not in ignorance and were not inignorance of the situation when they came tothe country.

I do not think I can add more to that exceptto say, as I said earlier, that the retrospectiveprovisions in the bill, such as they might be,or at least the dates in the bill have beenanalysed by both committees. I cannot imag-ine that anybody in this chamber wouldlightly disregard the Senate Scrutiny of BillsCommittee and the Senate Legal and Consti-tutional Legislation Committee which investi-gated this bill and reported on it to the Sen-ate.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.01a.m.)—As Senator Harradine said in his post-Telstra comment last night, whether or not thegovernment has a mandate, this chamber hasa right to consider the matter on its merits.On its merits, this measure should be votedagainst because this chamber ought not beagreeing to suddenly cutting away the benefitsof people who have been able to properly getthe newstart allowance, the sickness allow-ance or the youth training allowance.

People on benefits are going to be taken offthem because they have arrived since thisgovernment came to office. It is going to bea very great hardship for those people in-volved for a very small amount of money, asfar as the government is concerned. I cannotunderstand why the Minister for Social Se-curity (Senator Newman) is pursuing this one.Why would the minister be pursuing thissmall number of people and not allowingthem to have continued access to a benefitwhich they have recently gained? She says,‘They may have been warned about it inrecent months and before that it was govern-ment policy.’

Senator Newman—No, they were warnedabout it from March.

Senator BROWN—All of them may havebeen warned about it, but the fact is that thatis not going to lessen the hardship they aresuddenly going to find themselves confronted

with when you take away their benefit as fastas you can.

Senator Newman—We are not taking itaway; future benefits—they will not beentitled in the future.

Senator BROWN—Are you going to cutout a benefit that they are on or are yousimply not going to allow—

Senator Harradine—Let us go to the vote.What are you talking about? Let us go to thevote.

Senator BROWN—Senator Harradine, isgetting a bit tetchy over there.

Senator Faulkner—He is not the only one.

Senator BROWN—He may not be the onlyone, but, like Senator Faulkner, I am elicitingsome reassurances from the minister here.Senator Harradine, you can get to your feetand speak when your turn comes. I am gettingsome information which is going to be im-portant in the way that this is administered inthe future. It is going to be important for therecord. So we are clearly establishing that thismeasure applies only to people who are newlyarrived in the country and who would benewly applying for benefits after the billcomes into effect?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.04 a.m.)—I can see where Senator Brownhas got a problem. Let me try to make it a bitclear. People who have served their six-monthwaiting period under the current law arefinished and will not be required to serve afurther period. People who are currentlyserving a waiting period—in other words,they are not getting benefits now—if the dateof royal assent occurs while they are servingthat period, then they will serve the two-yearperiod which is facing them.

It is prospective. So, if they are alreadyalong the road of a six-month waiting periodand the law changes, the law will then requirethem, prospectively, to serve a longer waitingperiod.

Senator Faulkner—Retrospectively.

Senator NEWMAN—No, it is prospectiveentitlements that they will not get.


Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia) (11.05 a.m.)—I understood what theMinister for Social Security (Senator New-man) said then, but I am going to seek furtherclarification. So if someone is on a waitingperiod for six months now and the date ofroyal assent occurs during the waiting periodthey are currently serving, you are talkingabout a perspective two-year waiting period?

There would not be a situation wheresomeone would serve a 2½-year waitingperiod. The six months would be included inthe two-year waiting period, is that correct?So the six-month waiting period that they arealready serving would be included?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.05 a.m.)—If by the time of royal assetthey had served four weeks of a six-monthwaiting period, they would be serving only100 weeks in addition to that.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(11.06 a.m.)—As I understand the situation,the Minister for Social Security (SenatorNewman) has made it clear that the two-yearwaiting period will apply to people who havecome into the social security system sincemid-August 1996. That is what the ministerhas informed the chamber.

Without putting words into the minister’smouth, she has said that people in that situa-tion will have to serve a two-year waitingperiod, even though this legislation has notreceived royal assent. I think by any defini-tion that means the issue of retrospectivity isopen and shut. It is for that reason that theopposition will be opposing the questionbefore the chair.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.07a.m.)—I will be opposing the question beforethe chair. Just on a technical question, I amnot so sure whether Senator Faulkner isclosing off the possibility of a future Laborgovernment announcing that it intends tointroduce legislation, pursue legislation andthen have the operative date from the date ofthe announcement. I think the previousgovernment, with respect, did that on a coupleof occasions.

The government is arguing that it made theannouncement and has informed prospectivemigrants and their sponsors. One of thereasons that I am going to vote against thegovernment on this particular matter is thatyou will have people here now who arereceiving some benefits. Those people willlose those benefits as a result of this legisla-tion; those benefits will be cut off. For exam-ple, the people who have come in from mid-August—just to use the minister’s example,and the minister might be able to clarifythis—would have done their six months, so,presumably, they are clear. But the peoplewho came in November-December will not bereceiving anything at this particular time.There will be people who would have expect-ed to receive benefits.

That is what I am asking the minister. Arethere people who would have expected toreceive benefits and, as a result of this legisla-tion, will not be receiving those benefits? Arethere any migrants in receipt of benefits at themoment who will have those benefits cut? Ifnot, why not?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.10 a.m.)—The advice I am receiving,Senator Harradine, is that if you are now onbenefits they will continue; you will not becaught up in this if you are already on it. If,however, you have not claimed them by thetime of royal assent, then you will be caughtby the legislation.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia) (11.10 a.m.)—Minister, would you goone step further and give us a guarantee thatno-one will be cut off benefits as a result ofyour measures? I should add that the conclu-sion the Leader of the Opposition in theSenate (Senator Faulkner) has drawn—thatthis is retrospective—is one that the rest of ushave also drawn. Again, we voiced ourconcerns about the retrospective nature ofthese measures during the debate last year.

I find little comfort in the idea that thedepartment or other people have been inform-ing people since March that this legislationmight happen or that the government’s direc-tion was a certain direction. I am just starting


to think of all these poor people out therewho have been frightened for almost the lastyear wondering whether they were going tolose their benefits. I would appreciate aguarantee that no-one will be losing theirbenefits.

I acknowledge, as Senator Harradine andSenator Faulkner have pointed out, thatpeople are expecting benefits. They knowthat, as they come to the end of their six-month waiting period, in certain cases, theyare not going to get the benefits to which theywere previously and legally entitled. It is, insome respects, a moot point whether peopleare being cut off or whether people are notgoing to get them, but I would like a guaran-tee to the chamber that no-one will be cut offfrom benefits—that is, lose benefits that theyare currently on—as a consequence of theseregressive measures.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.11 a.m.)—I thought that is exactly whatI just made very clear to Senator Harradine.I do not know whether Senator Stott Despojawas not listening, but I made that abundantlyclear.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.12a.m.)—I want to thank Senator McKiernan forgetting this particular debate going, becauseit is fleshing out some very important points.Thank goodness it was not cut off. Theminister said that people who have notclaimed their benefits will lose them. Couldyou explain just what you meant by that?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.12 a.m.)—What I said to you was thatpeople who are not currently on benefits andwho have not claimed benefits at the date ofroyal assent will be subject to the 104-weekwaiting period. The new law will then apply.

Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia)(11.12 a.m.)—I want to seek clarification onthe minister’s response to Senator Harradine’squestion. For example, suppose there are twosets of migrants and both of them came toAustralia in September of last year—and I amassuming that royal assent will be received

later this month. One set of migrants wouldbe receiving some form of benefit. Youranswer to Senator Harradine was that thatbenefit will be able to be continued after thisbill receives royal assent. Suppose the othermigrants, who came in at the same time, havenot sought any benefit and have not made anyclaims for any benefit. As I understand yourresponse to Senator Harradine’s question, youwould say that because they have not claimedthey will lose an entitlement to a future claimfor a benefit. So they would be treated differ-ently from the persons who had already madea claim. Am I correct in my understanding ofyour response to Senator Harradine’s ques-tion?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.14 a.m.)—The situation is that somebodywho comes in and is receiving benefit at thetime of royal assent will continue to receiveit. Somebody who has not sought benefit andwho is not on benefits at the time of royalassent will be required to serve the 104-weekwaiting period. That is a prospective entitle-ment that they may never call on. It is afuture benefit; it is not a retrospective meas-ure. It relates to what might happen to themand what they may apply for in the future.

Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia)(11.15 a.m.)—Minister, I think my under-standing of your response was correct then.So today as we stand in the Senate, both ofthose imaginary families that I have broughtto the chamber for example have a right toclaim those benefits. With the passage of theamendments before the chair and the legisla-tion receiving royal assent, one of the familieswill lose that right. Surely that is retrospec-tive.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.15 a.m.)—I think there is something Iought to make clear for you. That is, they arenot going to be serving a full 104 weeks,because it will relate to when they came intothe country. So if they have not claimed thebenefit at the time of the royal assent, it willnot be 104 weeks—and I think I have said


that to you—but the clock will run from whenthey came into the country in terms of howlong they have to wait. So it will be benefi-cial in the sense that it is a lesser periodbecause they have not yet claimed for ben-efits. Do you see?

Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia)(11.16 a.m.)—I do see that point, but it stilldoes not answer the question. Both sets offamilies who arrived here in September of lastyear now have a right to claim. One of themembers of one family is claiming, and theywill be allowed to continue making the claimand receiving the benefit; the other family hasnot made a claim but, with the royal assent ofthe bill, they will lose that right. Surely,Minister, that has to be a retrospective impactbecause we will be taking away their right tomake a claim.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.17 a.m.)—But, Senator, isn’t that whathappens on any piece of legislation—that,from the date of the royal assent, people maygain or lose entitlements? We do that here inthe parliament every day; we change people’sentitlements as from the date of the royalassent. I think you are labouring that point.But perhaps somewhere we are missing a cogbetween us.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.17a.m.)—I understood what Senator Newmansaid originally, and Senator McKiernan haselaborated upon that. That is an additionalreason for my voting against the government’sproposal that is currently before the chamber.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.18a.m.)—I would ask the minister about the in-between people, those who have applied forthe benefits. Somebody has fallen ill andapplied for the sickness allowance; is shegoing to have that application taken forwardand the benefit given, or is the guillotinegoing to cut her out because of this retrospec-tive component?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.18 a.m.)—The advice I have had as to thespecific that you have raised, Senator, is that,

if somebody has an application pending andthey are serving a 26-week waiting period butbefore they get it the 104 weeks becomes theperiod and they would not be eligible for thatsickness allowance, it would be determined onthe law at that time. If it were determinedbefore royal assent, if they were deemedeligible, they would get it. If it came after thedate of royal assent, they would not. But donot forget that the special benefit then willcome into play. So I think that you have yoursafety net there anyway.

I think we could explore these thingsforever and a day. But it looks to me as if theSenate seems to have a pretty clear pre-existing view about this matter. I do not knowwhether we are greatly assisting the Senate byteasing these out any more. I am not trying toavoid your question, Senator, but I do notknow if we are getting this very far for youif you are to oppose this anyway.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(11.19 a.m.)—But, Minister, does not thespecial benefit have a two-year waitingperiod?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.20 a.m.)—Had you not noticed, Senator?If your circumstances change, then the specialbenefit comes into effect. We have just had adebate about that.

Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia)(11.20 a.m.)—Relating to the special benefitand the provisions of this amendment, thereare some countries which restrict the amountof assets that an individual can take out ofthat country with them when they aremigrating. The special benefit of which youhave spoken is only applicable as a discre-tionary thing by the secretary. Would thesecretary’s discretion extend to people whosecircumstances had not changed in the sensethat the migrant or the prospective migrant isnot allowed to bring their assets with themout of the country when they leave and beforethey enter Australia?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)


(11.21 a.m.)—Mr Chairman, we are reallytalking here about people who are eitherbusiness migrants who are deemed to be ableto support themselves or people who arebeing sponsored into the country and whosesponsors therefore have a commitment whichwe would expect them to honour. Regardlessof whether their country will allow them tobring in money or not, that is something theyknow ahead of time before they venture here.That is not a new circumstance.

There could be new circumstances thatoccur, for instance, where somebody hasbrought or been able to bring money to thiscountry and, for some reason that is beyondtheir control, that money is no longer avail-able to them in this country. It could be, forinstance, that they invested it in a companythat immediately went bankrupt. If there wereto be anything like some of the spectacularfailures we have had in the 1980s in Australiaand somebody had thought they would cometo this country as a business migrant and puttheir savings in there, before long they wouldbe without any funds at all. That would be acircumstance that had altered beyond theircontrol since coming to the country, and theywould then be eligible. But a circumstancethey knew about beforehand of their beingable to bring only a certain amount of moneywould not be a circumstance that had changedsince their migration.

The CHAIRMAN —The question beforethe chair is that amendments Nos. 21, 24 and35 be not insisted upon.

Question put.The committee divided. [11.27 a.m.](The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 2

——AYES

Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. * Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.

AYESKnowles, S. C. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Short, J. R.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.

NOESAllison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. *Faulkner, J. P. Foreman, D. J.Forshaw, M. G. Harradine, B.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

PAIRSAlston, R. K. R. Collins, R. L.Crane, W. Cooney, B.O’Chee, W. G. Hogg, J.Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C.Woods, R. L. Gibbs, B.

* denotes teller

(Senator Robert Ray did not vote, tocompensate for the vacancy caused by thedeath of Senator Panizza.)

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.31 a.m.)—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (lines 7 and 8),

omit paragraph (j).

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (lines 11 to 14),omit paragraphs (l) and (m).

(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (lines 17 and 18),omit paragraph (kc).

(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (lines 19 to 31),omit the item, substitute:

12 Subsection 23(1) (at the end of paragraph(m) of the definition of waiting period)Add:


or (n) a mobility allowance newly arrivedresident’s waiting period under sections1039AA and 1039AB; or

(o) a seniors health card newly arrivedresident’s waiting period under section1061ZA; or

(p) a family payment newly arrived resident’swaiting period under section 1069.

(5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (lines 13 to 19),omit paragraph (b), substitute:

(b) is a person to whom one of the followingapplies:

(i) the person has not been an Australianresident for a period of, or periods total-ling, 104 weeks; or

(ii) the person has applied for a subclass 820visa—Extended eligibility (spouse), buthas not been in Australia for a period of,or periods totalling, 104 weeks afterapplying for that visa; or

(iii) the person has applied for a subclass 826visa—Interdependency, but has not beenin Australia for a period of, or periodstotalling, 104 weeks after applying forthat visa; or

(iv) the person has applied for a visa that is ina class of visas determined by theMinister for the purposes of this subpara-graph;

(6) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (after line 21), atthe end of section 201AA, add:(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person

who is the holder of:(a) a subclass 832 visa—Close ties; or(b) a subclass 833 visa—Certain unlawful

non-citizens.(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person

who is:(a) t h e h o l d e r o f a s u b c l a s s 1 0 4

visa—Preferential family; and(b) a special needs relative.

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a personwho is:

(a) t h e h o l d e r o f a s u b c l a s s 8 0 6visa—Family; and

(b) a special needs relative.(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person

who is:(a) a refugee or a former refugee; or(b) a family member of a refugee, or former

refugee, at the time the refugee or formerrefugee arrived in Australia.

(6) In this section:

family memberhas the same meaning as insection subsection 7(6D).refugeehas the same meaning as in subsection7(6B).special needs relativehas the same meaningas in the Migration Regulations.

(7) Schedule 1, item 36, page 16 (lines 29 and30), omit subparagraph (iii), substitute:

(iii) i s t h e h o l d e r o f a s u b c l a s s 8 2 0visa—Extended eligibility (spouse); or

(iv) i s t h e h o l d e r o f a s u b c l a s s 8 2 6visa—Interdependency; or

(v) is the holder of a visa that is in a class ofvisas determined by the Minister for thepurposes of this subparagraph; and

(8) Schedule 1, item 38, page 17 (lines 10 and11), omit paragraph (c), substitute:

(c) becomes the holder of a subclass 820visa—Extended eligibility (spouse); or

(d) becomes the holder of a subclass 826visa—Interdependency; or

(e) becomes the holder of a visa that is in aclass of visas determined by the Minister forthe purposes of this paragraph.

(9) Schedule 1, item 38, page 17 (lines 13 to 16),omit subsection (2), substitute:

(2) Subject to this section, if, immediatelybefore the commencement of this subsec-tion, a person was the holder of:

(a) a subclass 820 visa—Extended eligibility(spouse); or

(b) a subclass 826 visa—Interdependency; or(c) a visa that is in a class of visas deter-

mined by the Minister for the purposes ofthis paragraph;

the person is subject to a newly arrivedresident’s waiting period.

(10) Schedule 1, item 38, page 17 (lines 20 to23), omit paragraph (b), substitute:

(b) before, on or after the commencement ofthis subsection, the person applies for:

(i) a subclass 820 visa—Extended eligibility(spouse); or

(ii) a subclass 826 visa—Interdependency; or(iii) a visa that is in a class of visas deter-

mined by the Minister for the purposes ofthis subparagraph.

(11) Schedule 1, item 38, page 18 (lines 1 to 3),omit paragraph (b), substitute:

(b) immediately before the commencement ofthis subsection, the person was the holderof:


(i) a subclass 820 visa—Extended eligibility(spouse); or

(ii) a subclass 826 visa—Interdependency; or(iii) a visa that is in a class of visas deter-

mined by the Minister for the purposes ofthis subparagraph;

(12) Schedule 1, item 38, page 18 (lines 19 and20), omit subsection (6), substitute:

(6) Neither subsection (1) nor (2) apply to aperson if:

(a) a person has a qualifying residence ex-emption for special benefit; or

(b) the person holds or was the former holderof:

(i) a subclass 832 visa—Close ties; or(ii) a subclass 833 visa—Certain unlawful

non-citizens.

I point out to the committee that, as theSenate has already considered the question of‘more than minimum family payment’, thegovernment is further amending amendments2 and 4, which have been circulated, bydeleting ‘more than minimum familypayment’ from the implications of the act. Aswell, we will no longer be pursuing amend-ments 13 and 14.

The CHAIRMAN —I followed that you arenot pursuing amendments 13 and 14,Minister, but I did not quite follow the rest.

Senator NEWMAN—Amendments 2 and4 are currently phrased to delete ‘child dis-ability allowance’ and ‘double orphanspension’. In light of the earlier decision bythe committee, we will include ‘more thanminimum family payment’ in those twoamendments.

The CHAIRMAN —I will allow the com-mittee to debate the question but we have tohave the exact words before the chair. Is itthe wish of the committee that amendmentsNos. 1 to 12 be taken together? There beingno objection, it is so ordered. The modifica-tions are that amendment No. 2 now reads‘Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (lines 11 to 20),omit paragraphs (l), (m) and (p).’ AmendmentNo. 4 deletes all reference to (p), where itreads, ‘(p) a family payment newly arrivedresident’s waiting period under section 1069.’The question is that amendments Nos. 1 to 12be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN —The question beforethe chair now is that a resolution of thecommittee be reported.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(11.36 a.m.)—Is there no further questionbefore the chair, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN —Not at this stage.

Senator FAULKNER—I wanted to checka matter in relation to class 309 visas andclass 310 visas. I want to get some technicaladvice from the minister, if that is possible.I actually suspect that these probably go to atechnical point in relation to governmentamendments 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Minister,in December last year, I understand that thegovernment introduced two new classes ofvisa—class 309 visas and class 310 visas.These visas are offshore equivalents of the820 spouse and 826 interdependency visas,which are provisional visas issued to onshoreapplicants for permanent residence.

The questions go to the amendments notdealing with 309 and 310 visas. I have twoquestions. Firstly, can you tell this chamberwhen the two-year waiting period for newlyarrived residents would commence for holdersof 309 and 310 visas, if that is possible?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.38 a.m.)—I understand the difficultywhich the Leader of the Opposition in theSenate has had. Some new temporary visashave been introduced in the last few monthsby the government. What we are proposing todo here is to ensure that I, as minister, candetermine whether they will be included ornot.

I may need to get some more advice as towhether I am giving you the right informa-tion, because I was trying to listen to you andthe officials at the same time. These are two-year temporary visas after which a personmay be granted permanent residence and theamendment will ensure that the person wouldwait only two years before being eligible forsocial security payments. But as to whichones can be determined by the minister at thetime—that is to allow flexibility if more


changes are made in future years to temporaryentry visas.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11.39 a.m.)—What I might do then, Minister—

Senator Newman—I can just add to that,if you like.

Senator FAULKNER—Perhaps I can givenotice of those two questions and you canrespond so that we do not delay the commit-tee stage of the bill. I suppose this might bea matter that my colleague the Hon. DuncanKerr, the shadow minister for immigrationand ethnic affairs, might wish to raise in theHouse of Representatives. This does happenfrom time to time in committee stage debates.If I give notice of these two questions, per-haps you could respond to me and we will notdelay proceedings.

Could you inform me when the two-yearwaiting period for newly arrived residents willcommence for holders of 309 and 310 visas?I accept that you began to touch on that issuewith your previous answer. The other thing Iwas looking for was an assurance for theSenate that holders of 309 and 310 visas willnot have to serve the waiting period twice—inother words, once when they enter Australiaand again when they are granted permanentresidence. You may be able to give thatassurance now; but, if you cannot, I do notwant to delay the committee any longer.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(11.41 a.m.)—I think there is probably noneed to take this on notice because I can givethe assurance that the opposition leader in theSenate asked for. The date of arriving inAustralia is the crucial date, I understand, aswell, which is the answer to your first ques-tion.

Resolution reported.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator McKiernan)—The Chairman ofCommittees, Senator Colston, reports that thecommittee has considered message No. 139from the House of Representatives in relationto the Social Security Legislation Amendment(Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting Periods

and Other Measures) Bill 1996 and hasresolved not to insist on its amendments Nos10 to 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34and 36 but insists on amendments Nos 21, 24,27, 33 and 35 and has made further amend-ments to the bill.

Report adopted.

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT (1996-97 BUDGET

MEASURES) BILL 1996

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 9 December 1996, on

motion bySenator Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(11.44 a.m.)—The Veterans’ Affairs Legisla-tion Amendment (1996-97 Budget Measures)Bill proposes a number of changes to veteransand war widows’ entitlements—some ofwhich are unambiguously good, some ofwhich are fair and some of which in our vieware decidedly unfair. The financial impact ofthis bill may be minor when viewed in thecontext of the budget as a whole, but theeffect on a number of our veterans will begreat. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (MrScott), in his second reading speech, says,‘The veterans’ affairs 1996 budget packagehonours key pre-election promises to theveteran community.’ When the minister says‘key promises’ what he actually means is thatthe government has honoured some of itspromises but not all of them. The coalitionpromised before the election that they would‘maintain all existing veterans entitlements’.

Senator Woodley—They did, too.

Senator FAULKNER—They did, SenatorWoodley; they are the words of the govern-ment before the election campaign. So whilstveteran specific entitlements have beenlargely untouched, it is in the area of main-stream aged care services where the veterancommunity in Australia has come in for a realhammering. The government’s structuralreform of aged care will net savings in thevicinity of half a billion dollars. A further $88million will be saved through the additionaluser charges for home and community care.


Veterans make up around one-quarter of themale population aged over 65, and veteransand war widows together make up around 15per cent of the total population aged over 65.So, quite clearly, the veterans community willsubstantially contribute to the cost cuttingmeasures of this government through a reduc-tion in their entitlements. We say that, with-out qualification, that is a broken promise. Ithink it is worth touching briefly on a few ofthe measures in this bill because this is thefirst opportunity we have had to debate themand one of the first opportunities this year tobring the government to account over itsbroken promises to the veterans community.

In relation to the infamous nursing homeentry contribution, the government’s decisionto align the nursing home system with thehostel system will result in many veterans andwar widows having to pay an entry contribu-tion to gain admittance to a nursing home.There is no limit on what nursing homesmight charge, but hostel entry fees might beindicative. The average is around $26,000.

The government said that their decision toimpose an entry fee on new nursing homeresidents was simply a matter of aligning thetwo systems of nursing home care and hostelcare. That is just not a defensible position.The two types of care are radically different.Hostel care can in many cases be seen as alifestyle choice, and that level of care is alsoavailable in the home through communityaged care packages. Nursing home care, onthe other hand, represents a far more seriousdecision on the part of the resident. It is ahospital level of care reserved for those whoare frail, often extremely frail, or sufferingfrom dementia. If a potential resident isdeemed by an aged care assessment team torequire a place in a nursing home, it is con-sidered the appropriate care mechanismavailable to that person.

In relation to income testing recurrentsubsidies, many veterans and war widowsresiding in hostels and nursing homes will besubject to an additional charge of 25c in thedollar above the pension free area. For asingle veteran, any money earned over $98 afortnight will be reduced by a quarter, up toa maximum of $238 a week. Current residents

did not plan for this when they enteredresidential care, and their financial plans inmany cases will be ruined. It is an inequitablemeasure that targets frail aged veterans andwar widows.

In relation to the increase in the pharmaceu-tical benefits scheme concessional patientcontribution, although a 50c increase in thepatient contribution to the pharmaceuticalcosts may not at first blush seem very large,it is affecting a group of people on relativelysmall fixed incomes. Again, they were notwarned of this added impost, and many willfind it difficult to adjust to the new expense.

It is really difficult to know how the in-crease in user charges on home and communi-ty care is likely to fall as it will depend onthe states and the providers. I think veteransare already significantly disadvantaged whenit comes to HACC services. The states haveadmitted that many providers discriminateagainst veterans because they assume thattheir care is the sole responsibility of thestates. This measure will have a compoundingeffect on veterans’ ability to access HACCservices. So the Senate can see that veteransand war widows have not escaped lightlyfrom the government’s budget cuts. For thegovernment to suggest that they have hon-oured their commitment to the veteran com-munity is hyperbole in the extreme.

I now turn to the specific measures in thisbill—firstly, amendments relating to allocatedpensions. This measure amends the servicepension asset test treatment of allocatedpensions. The current asset value of allocatedpension investments will be taken into ac-count for the purposes of the assets testregardless of the person’s age, effectivelyclosing a loophole and I think aligning theDepartment of Veterans’ Affairs with theDepartment of Social Security, which institut-ed a similar measure in July 1992. We agreewith the government that it is unfair that somepeople could gain increased income supportand be entering into particular investmentarrangements.

In relation to amendments relating toearnings credits, the earnings credit schemeallows pensioners and allowees to take uptemporary or casual work without affecting


the level of their payment. Pensioners canaccrue an earnings credit of up to, I think,$1,050, or $2,100 for couples combined, tooffset earnings from employment before theirpayments are affected. This bill seeks toabolish that arrangement. The earnings creditscheme gave pensioners and allowees anincentive to take any casual or temporarywork that became available without thisincome immediately or necessarily reducingtheir level of payment. We think this amend-ment is a regressive step, particularly whenthe government is purporting to encouragepeople back into employment and towardsincreased financial independence. People willnow be deterred from taking up this kind ofemployment.

The opposition remains opposed to thisreduction in veterans’ entitlements as itrepresents yet another clear broken promiseon the part of the government. To be fair Imust say that we have had this debate at somesignificant length during consideration of thesocial security budget measures package atthe end of last year. I also hope that minorparty and independent senators in the chambergive serious consideration to the importanceof the earnings credit scheme for veteranswhen we deal with this issue in the committeestage of this bill.

In relation to the amendment relating tofuneral benefit, this measure provides for thepayment of a funeral benefit for the transportof the body of a veteran who dies away fromhome in indigene circumstances. This is verymuch in keeping with the appropriatelyrespectful and supportive treatment thatveterans deserve through our repatriationsystem and it is a measure that has the sup-port of the opposition.

In relation to the amendment concerning theVictoria Cross allowance, this will increasethe value of the Victoria Cross allowance paidto Australian recipients to $2,700 and bringsit into line with the same allowance that is infact paid to British recipients. It follows theformer government’s granting of a specialgold travel card to Australia’s surviving VCrecipients.

In relation to amendments concerning lumpsum compensation payments, it is always a

complex issue of course, but the device usedto calculate preclusion periods is to bechanged from the all persons average weeklyearnings to the amount above which nopension is payable to a single person underthe income test, which is currently $400.50per week. Pensioners and allowees affected bythis measure will be subject to longer periodswithout payments forcing them to use up theircompensation at a lower rate before they areeligible for financial or continued assistance.The opposition, as it has indicated, opposesthis measure. The preclusion period will beapplied to compensation recipients only andnot to their partner. That is for lump sumsthat are received after 20 March 1997 recov-ery of past payments to partners will not bemade, nor will partners be precluded fromreceiving any future entitlement they mayhave received during their partner’s preclusionperiod. The opposition does agree with thatchange.

In relation to the amendments to extendeddeeming, this measure would apply a deemingrate of 4 per cent on all bank deposits held bypensioners and the unemployed. The first$2,000 for singles and $4,000 for couples isto be exempt as the below threshold rate andthe actual interest earned, rather than thedeeming rate of interest being taken intoaccount under the income test. What we sayis that this measure relies on pensioners andallowees being able to access accounts whichin fact pay interest at the deemed rate. Wehave seen over the past few monthsAustralia’s financial institutions are reconsid-ering their interest rates on deeming accountsand, with the recent drops in official interestrates, pensioners and veterans are finding itincreasingly difficult to get returns to matchthe deeming rates.

Again it would be fair to say that this issuewas one which was canvassed at quite signifi-cant length during debate on the social securi-ty package last year, but in this debate—consistent with the position that the opposi-tion took at that time—we will be urging theSenate to protect veterans’ incomes andsupport the opposition against the schedule ofthis bill. I think something like 121,000 DVA


allowees in fact will be affected by thisparticular broken promise.

In terms of the amendments relating toservice pension or income support supple-ment, this establishes a minimum variationregime for service pension and income sup-port supplement. It prevents the RepatriationCommission from increasing or decreasing apension unless the variation is at least $1 perfortnight, currently rounded to 10c. Whilstonly a minor matter, it will minimise anunnecessary intrusion into pensioners’ lives.

The other matter I should touch on is thoseamendments relating to advance payments ofservice pension or income support supplementwhich extends full lump sum advance of $500to war widows who are recipients of theincome support supplement and removes therequirement to declare the intended use of theadvance payment. We acknowledge that thismeasure will benefit some war widows andwill reduce an administrative burden torecipients.

Schedule 2 of the bill deals with a numberof minor extensions of eligibility for benefitsunder the defence service homes scheme. Itextends eligibility for assistance to personswho served in Cambodia, the former Yugosla-via and Somalia; it extends eligibility forassistance to certain widowers of World WarII ex-servicewomen; and it reduces the inter-est rate on new additional advances from 10per cent to 6.85 per cent. Again, these exten-sions of benefits are comparatively minor.Nevertheless, I think they are ones thatdeserve the strong support of the oppositionand the Senate, and they will certainly receivethat level of endorsement from the Laboropposition.

As I say, this is in many respects a verydisappointing piece of legislation to comebefore the Senate. It does represent the codifi-cation of a number of broken promises on thepart of the government. Those are brokenpromises that I think since the time of thebudget the opposition has been able to ex-pose. On the other hand, there are some verygood measures in this bill and the opposition,as is its practice, has no problem in standingup and saying that they are unambiguously

good. They are worthwhile initiatives andthey will receive our strong support.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (12.01p.m.)—We are considering today theVeteran’s Affairs Amendment (1996-97Budget Measures) Bill 1996. This bill doescontain a number of very worthwhile meas-ures which, of course, the Australian Demo-crats will support and a couple of measureswhich we are not at all happy with. Most ofthe measures were announced in last year’sbudget and a number directly mirror changeswhich we have already considered as part ofthe social security bill which came before theSenate towards the end of last year.

Some of the measures, as I said, containedin this bill will have a positive effect onveterans and their families. For example, theDemocrats are more than happy to support theintroduction of the payment of a funeralbenefit for the transportation of the body ofa person who dies away from home in indi-gent circumstances. We will support increas-ing the value of the Victoria Cross to bring itin line with that paid to British recipients andwe will also support extending the eligibilityfor assistance under the Defence ServicesHomes Act.

However, there are two aspects of this billthat the Democrats cannot support: theamendments to the earnings credit and theamendments relating to lump sum compensa-tion. Just in terms of compensation, I mightadd that this is a reversal not only of promisesmade but also of the position taken by thegovernment when they were in opposition. Iremember that debate very clearly.

I am sure that the government will not beat all surprised to hear that we are opposingthese aspects of the bill because this is exact-ly what we did when we dealt with thesematters in the Social Security LegislationAmendment (Budget and Other Measures)Bill 1996. Just in case anyone has forgotten,let me remind the Senate of exactly why theDemocrats will not support these two chan-ges.

The earnings credit scheme allows pension-ers and unemployed people to earn a smallamount of income without it affecting theirincome support payment. This scheme has


been a very valuable one to pensioners andthe unemployed. In recognition of that, thecoalition’s social security policy documentspecifically stated:The Earnings Credit Scheme will be retained by theCoalition Government.

The government has changed its tune com-pletely and now argues:Due to its conceptual and procedural complexity,the earnings credit scheme is difficult to administerand is also difficult for social security recipients tounderstand.

I must say that I am disappointed to see thatthe government is abolishing this scheme andtrying to do so on the grounds that thescheme is too complicated. There is an obvi-ous solution to complication; it is not toabolish the scheme but to abolish the compli-cation. Somehow or other that seems toescape the government.

Senator West—This government does notthink very logically, Senator.

Senator WOODLEY—No, that is right,particularly when their own arguments clearlypoint in another direction.

Senator West—They are just dressing upsaving money.

Senator WOODLEY—That is right.Perhaps we should not have a conversationhere, Senator West.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Patterson)—That is a very goodsuggestion, Senator Woodley.

Senator WOODLEY—Thank you. Whenthe scheme was first introduced the Demo-crats pleaded with the then Labor governmentand the Liberal-National opposition to supportsome amendments we were putting up tosimplify the scheme. We always felt that thiswas a marvellous scheme and was going to behamstrung by its complexity, and here we arejust a couple of years later trying to abolishthe scheme because of that complexity.

People may very well not understand themechanics of the scheme but they certainly dorealise that it allows them to earn someadditional income without affecting theirincome support payments. The success of thescheme is evidenced by the level of savings

the government hopes to achieve through thescheme’s abolition.

I might add that the government would dowell to look again at this, because in thewhole proposal for work for the dole there isin fact a very easy way of accomplishing theobjective in terms of voluntary work, that is,simply by fixing up the penalties which applyto voluntary work. I am sure that if thegovernment did that they would actually findmany, many more people volunteering to dowork while they are on unemployment ben-efit. I am going to propose that kind ofamendment at a later time.

We cannot support what the government isdoing here because of the negative impact itwill have on Australia’s veterans. I reallyhave to say ‘shame’ to the government on thisone. Their arguments are weak and, in fact,contradictory. What is worse, the effect onveterans is one that I really cannot contem-plate or agree with.

In like manner, the government’s amend-ments to lump sum compensation will alsohave a negative impact on veterans, becauseit will increase the period of time injuredpeople will be precluded from receiving apension. I have to say to you that it is a prettysneaky proposal which we have in front of us,and it is complex. Because of its complexityand because of the sneaky way that theformula is being changed, people will notreally know what has hit them until, in fact,they have been hit. Let me explain what Imean.

Currently the department assumes that 50per cent of any lump sum compensationpayment which contains an economic losscomponent—no matter how small that compo-nent is—is for loss of income. The depart-ment then divides this 50 per cent figure bythe all persons average weekly earnings figureof around $560 to obtain the number of weeksa person will be precluded from receiving apension or benefit. As of March next year,rather than using the all persons averageweekly earnings, the department will dividethe 50 per cent figure by the single pensioncut-out figure. If that is not sneaky, I do notknow what is.


The effect of this will be significantlylonger preclusion periods for people who havereceived compensation payments. It is a bitlike that measure where the Treasurer halfproposed it and then ran for cover when hegot all the flak. Do you remember when hehad a proposal to change the pension fromaverage weekly male earnings to averageweekly earnings? That was another sneakymove. This one is of a similar complexion.

The 50 per cent rule already disadvantagesmany people by forcing them to live offmoneys awarded to cover, for example, pastand future medical expenses or pain andsuffering. This proposal will greatly exacer-bate that. This is why the Democrats will beopposing it—just as we did in the socialsecurity bill last year. However, as we alsodid in the social security bill last year, theDemocrats will be supporting the govern-ment’s proposed changes to extended deem-ing. I would like to explain the effect of thischange, as many people seem to be confusedabout the way this measure will affect them.

This part of the bill will apply the lowerdeeming rate of four per cent to the first$2,000 to $4,000 of savings held in bankdeposits by singles and couples. I want to putclearly on the record that these amendmentswill not affect those people who have onlysmall balances in the bank. They will notaffect those people due to the operation of theincome free areas on pensions. The peoplewho will be affected will be allowees withover $30,000 in financial assets, single pen-sioners with more than $52,000 in financialassets and pensioner couples with more than$90,000 in financial assets.

There has been a good deal of confusionover the impact of this measure, so I sayagain that it will not affect those allowees orpensioners who have only low or even modestamounts of financial assets. For those peoplewho are affected by this change, the averagepension loss is estimated to be around 50c afortnight, with a maximum loss of $2 afortnight. Importantly, however, that loss can,for many of those affected, be recouped byadjusting their investments and consolidatingtheir accounts into deeming accounts currentlyavailable from the various banks. I did hear

what the opposition was saying but I believeat this stage, because of the numerous debateswe have had on this issue, that the govern-ment is doing the right thing at this point, andI do not agree with the Labor Party’s reason-ing.

In conclusion, I think this particular meas-ure that we are looking at is very importantfor the positive measures that it introduces. Itis important that we never forget that theexpense of war does not cease with the endof hostilities. Even after peace is restored, thecost of war is still high in the lives ofAustralia’s veterans and their families. Forthis reason, the Democrats will not supportany policy which fails to acknowledge aspecial obligation to veterans or which doesnot recognise their special needs, but we willsupport those measures which benefit ourveterans who certainly need our support.

Senator WEST (New South Wales) (12.13p.m.)—In rising to speak to the Veterans’Affairs Legislation Amendment (1996-97Budget Measures) Bill 1996, I think I shoulddeclare my interest. This does not affect mefinancially, but both my parents are Depart-ment of Veterans’ Affairs recipients. Myfather is on a TPI and a service pension andmy mother, in her own right, is on a partdisability pension. So I do have a personalinterest in this issue.

As a child of veterans’ affairs recipients, Iknow that they are experiencing difficulties asthey get older. I know the problems that thesechanges have caused my parents, particularlymy father. As has been said earlier, there aresome parts of this legislation which are goodand there are some parts which are not. It isa bit like the curate’s egg—good in parts andbad in others. I have to say to the departmentand the government that the good parts—theparts we are going to be supporting—aregreat, wonderful. But I think the other partsare extremely cruel and very confusing andcomplicated to the veterans communities.

Before I actually deal specifically withsome of those, I would like to remind peoplethat the veterans will also be affected by otherbudgetary measures that were announced.They will be affected by the nursing homeentry contribution; they will be affected by


the income testing of recurrent subsidies; theywill be affected by the increase in the phar-maceutical scheme concessional patientcontribution. And they will not, as on previ-ous occasions, be having their pensionsindexed to accommodate any rises in thatconcessional contribution. They will also beaffected by the increased charges on homeand community care schemes. Those arestarting to have a major impact, particularlyin some states where the states have also hadtheir budgets cut and are having to applyuser-pays charges. That is a very cruel thingto be doing, not just to our veterans com-munity but to our whole aged community.

The first area I want to concentrate on isthe earning credits. This I think is a falseeconomy. No matter whether a person is onan age pension, unemployment benefit or anyother benefit, including the Department ofVeterans’ Affairs benefits, this earnings creditwas an excellent way to allow people to beable to participate in the workplace to a minoror major degree, depending on what theirneeds, desires and abilities were. These creditsactually smoothed out some of the lumps andbumps that occur when people go on and offbenefits.

I know from talking to horticulturists andother people in the agricultural industry thatin a lot of areas these growers are dependentupon those people on pensions—the youngerpension recipients—to come each year andhelp them harvest their crops or help withother work around those properties. Thesepeople were able, using the earnings credits,to balance the income they received and tosmooth out the lumps and bumps. If they hadsources of income outside of their benefits—so that they might keep having to go offbenefits, come on, go off, come on, go off—they were not having to wait the waitingperiods.

This removal of the earnings credits, whilstit might not be going to affect a huge number,Minister, certainly was an incentive forpeople. It allowed them to go and earn $1,000a year or less without affecting their pension.It allowed them that little bit of pin money.If you have ever had any dealings with peoplewho are elderly, you will know as well as I

do that they like that pin money. It enablesthem to assist their grandchildren, to treattheir grandchildren, and also enables them tosave for their funerals. One of the key thingsthat most elderly people worry about iswhether they have enough money to getthemselves buried. They want the dignity ofbeing able to know that when they die theywill be able to afford their funerals.

With all the broken promises I mentionedearlier and the increases of costs to pension-ers, age pensioners and Department ofVeterans’ Affairs recipients, we now have anerosion of the earnings credits. It is all justdeath by a thousand cuts. It is a general attackupon the ability of these people to remainself-sufficient, to be able to balance theirbudgets, to be able to budget ahead and to notreceive some nasty little stings in the tailwhen suddenly they have to go and say, ‘Ihave received this amount of income. I haveto go off benefits and then I have to wait togo back on.’ All that involves messingaround, and the earning credits enabled thatsmoothing of that process.

The other thing that has caused a great dealof confusion and concern has been the ex-tended deeming. For those who are fit andyoung and able to cope with changes, under-stand changes and understand why it isimperative that people should be maximisingthe amount of money they can earn in interestoff their accounts, I put it to you that thereare people who may have Alzheimer’s or pre-Alzheimer’s, or people who are just uncertainabout what to do, who do not want to have tomove accounts. Some of these people mayhave been banking with the same bank orinstitution for 70 or 80 years, and suddenly,because not all the banks or institutions areparticularly happy about this and they are notoffering rates that are as good as others,people are being forced to change theirbanking institutions. This is a cause of a greatdeal of worry and concern.

I mentioned earlier my parents. My fatheris 80, 81 this year. He was a prisoner of warfor four years in Germany. His carotid arteriesare partially occluded, which is causing himto have some memory problems and to havesome thinking and thought problems. This


gentleman used to delight immensely in beingable to work out which bank was giving himthe best interest rates for the small amount ofmoney he had invested. It was a joy and adelight and something he felt was a goodpastime. But time has progressed and he isnow not able to think it through as clearly aspossible, and he is getting very confused andgetting very worried. Telstra must be reallypleased with the number of phone calls thathave had to be made to me and my brother bymy mother and by him, because he has gotconfused as to what the requirements are andhow precisely it is going to work.

I put it to the department and the ministerthat a lot of veterans are in the same position.It is simply that age is catching up with them.They do not have the faculties that you andI have to be able to understand this, and thisis more change. It is exacerbated by the factthat some of the institutions are not playingball, as we would say, and are not offering asgood results as some of the others, so it isimperative for some of these elderly people toshop around.

I put it to you that you are expecting 70-,80- and 90-year-old people to have to becomefinancial whiz-kids who are adept, competentand capable of moving money around—notlarge amounts of money—to maximise theirreturns so that they can get the full pension.I know I am going to be told that there are allsorts of cut-in and cut-out points. But this isthe whole thing, Minister: these cut-in pointsand these ceilings are just the sorts of thingsthat confuse the aged and the elderly. Theyconfuse people who are not aged and elderly.

It behoves the government to look verycarefully at what you are doing to thesepeople who put their lives on the line for thiscountry, particularly during World War II.Parts of this country were designated as activeservice areas. We saw people in these areasdefending and putting their lives on the lineand, in some cases, losing their lives. Whatdo you think are the ages of the widows ofthose people who lost their lives between1939 and 1945 and have never remarried?They are not young; they are very elderlywomen. There are also elderly men, whosewives served in the Second World War.

Nursing personnel and others were killed aswell, but not many.

I put it to you that you need to think aboutsome of these things. It is over 50 years sincethe war ended. A person who was married atthe age of 20 and whose spouse was killed in1945 after having been married for one or twoyears, would be well into her 70s. Some ofthem are a lot older. I buried an aunt lastweek who was 81. She was the widow ofsomeone killed in Singapore.

We should think about the pressures thatare being placed on people of this age. Weshould think about the people in our families,whom we know and love dearly, who arehaving a struggle with this. I know the ofpressure that this extended deeming changehas placed upon my parents. My father is nolonger in a position to be able to walk thestreets to check every bank every day to seewhat interest rates are being offered. It isprobably what he did do; but he enjoyed itand it kept him amused. My mother is moreinterested in having her finances in one place.She does not want to have to go chasing. Shewants ease of management. Fortunately, whenthis was first announced, their bank was oneof those that put out a product that met thisneed. But what if they had been banking orsaving with one of the institutions that did notdo this?

Caring for people is difficult enough with-out these sorts of things. I have no problemswith the motives behind extending the deem-ing, but you have to think about how itapplies and you have to remember the ages ofthe people we are talking about. These peopleare not young. World War II has been fin-ished for 52 years. Even the Vietnam conflictfinished 25 years ago. Think about the agesof the people we are talking about. They arepeople who may have difficulties, who dohave difficulties, because they are ageing. Ithink it behoves the government to workthrough this, to take a socially responsibleattitude to their actions, to stop being eco-nomic rationalists of the nth degree, to stopbeing hard line about what they are going todo, because obviously that does not work.

The government has said that it has to doa lot of these things because of our ‘black


hole’. We were in government for 13 years toget that black hole. You have been in govern-ment for 9 months, Minister, and you havealready got a $3 billion one. You are doingbetter than we did in that respect!

Senator Newman interjecting—Senator WEST—Minister, it is your

responsibility. It is the policies that youdecided upon that have led to this. You haveexacerbated things and you don’t care aboutpeople.

Senator Sherry—A billion dollars in sixmonths.

Senator WEST—A billion dollars in sixmonths. You are going up at a rate of almostmillions of dollars a day. You don’t care. Youmake decisions; you don’t think about theramifications to people. The points that I havebeen making demonstrate very clearly thatyou don’t care. You have no compassion forthe aged on this issue. You don’t care aboutthem and that is something that I think youought to be criticised for very severely.

As I say, there are other things in thislegislation which are excellent. They are firstclass and the government is to be congratu-lated and thanked for doing them—it is goodlegislation. But there are other parts which areabsolutely terrible. The amendments relatingto the allocated pensions are good; they arenot a problem. The amendments relating tothe funeral benefits are good; they are com-passionate. The amendments relating to theVictoria Cross allowance are good as well.But you stick in some nasty little spikes andit is those nasty little spikes for which youneed to be exposed, particularly when you putwith those nasty little spikes your brokenelection promises, increasing the expenditurethat the veterans are going to have to outlayfor things such as home and community care.

You need to think very carefully aboutthose sorts of issues. Do not blame otherpeople. These are your decisions, made foryour own ideological reasons. You, therefore,have to be responsible for them and thinkvery carefully and seriously about what youhave done.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting the

Prime Minister for the Status of Women)(12.30 p.m.)—I thank honourable senators fortheir contribution to the debate. I will reservefurther comments for the committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.(Quorum formed)

In CommitteeThe bill.The CHAIRMAN —The committee has

before it the Veterans’ Affairs LegislationAmendment (1996-97 Budget Measures) Bill1996. This bill provides another case ofgovernment amendments being circulated asrequests when they should be amendments. Inthis case I am at a loss to understand why theamendments have been framed as requests.

The explanatory memorandum accompany-ing the amendments indicates that none of theamendments would result in greater expendi-ture from the standing appropriation containedin the act amended by the bill. The amend-ments will, therefore, be treated as amend-ments.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(12.33 p.m.)—I table a supplementary expla-natory memorandum relating to the govern-ment amendments to be moved to this bill.The memorandum was circulated in thechamber on 5 February 1997.

I now seek leave to move the followinggovernment amendments together:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 8 to 10), omit sub-

clause (1), substitute:(1) The following provisions commence on the

day on which this Act receives the RoyalAssent:

(a) sections 1, 2 and 3;(b) Part 1, items 5 and 7, and Parts 6 and 9,

of Schedule 1;(c) Schedule 2.

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 5 and 6), omit sub-clause (4).

(3) Clause 2, page 2 (line 9), after "commence",insert ", or are taken to have commenced,".

(4) Clause 2, page 2 (line 11), after "commences",insert ", or is taken to have commenced,".


(5) Schedule 1, item 66, page 25 (lines 21 and22), omit "1 January 1997", substitute "the dayon which this Act receives the Royal Assent".

(6) Schedule 1, item 66, page 25 (line 27), omit"1 January 1997", substitute "the day on whichthis Act receives the Royal Assent".



Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(12.35 p.m.)—I appreciate that the runningsheet calls government amendments Nos 1 to8. Having just got hold of the running sheetand the government amendments, I would liketo have a quick look at these as the commit-tee stage progresses.

Can I suggest, respectfully, that we dealwith one or two other amendments. Theremay be no problem with these and I take theminister at her word, but I would just like tohave a quick look at them.

The CHAIRMAN —In that case the com-mittee will proceed to schedule 1 where theopposition proposes to oppose part 2. The billwill be divided in respect of part 2 of sched-ule 1 and the question is that part 2 of sched-ule 1 stand as printed.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(12.36 p.m.)—I think it may assist the com-mittee if opposition requests Nos 1 and 2 aredealt with together, cognately. I think thatwould be sensible.

I also indicate to the minister and othersenators in the chamber that to deal with thisin a reasonably sensible fashion I propose todeal with opposition amendments Nos 3, 4and 5 together and then deal with oppositionamendment No. 6. I think that might assist thecommittee.

The CHAIRMAN —It would be okay totake Nos 1 and 2 together. No. 3 will have tobe by itself because the others are notices ofintention to oppose part of the schedule andNo. 3 is an amendment. We can do Nos 1 and2 together, 4 and 5 together and 6 by itself.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(12.37 p.m.)—The opposition proposes tomove the following amendments:(1) Omit Schedule 1, Part 2, page 4 (line 2) to

page 5 (line 29).(2) Omit Schedule 1, Part 3, page 6 (lines 1 to

16).

I thank the committee. I think this is a sen-sible way to address the issue. Oppositionamendments Nos 1 and 2 go to the issue ofthe abolition of the earnings credit scheme—

The CHAIRMAN —I am listening to yourargument.

Senator FAULKNER—You were lookingat me in such a perplexed manner that Ithought you were going to suggest that I wasout of order.

The CHAIRMAN —Definitely not.Senator FAULKNER—Please do not peer

at me like that again! These two amendmentsgo to the issue of the abolition of the earningscredit scheme for Veterans’ Affairs pension-ers. This is something that I indicated in myspeech on the second reading. It is a matterthat has previously taken a great deal of theSenate’s time, as we dealt with the socialsecurity package last year.

Part 2 of the Veterans’ Affairs LegislationAmendment (1996-97 Budget Measures) Billwill abolish the earnings credit scheme. Part3 makes consequential amendments to theSocial Security Act. As I have made clear, weopposed the abolition of this scheme forsocial security recipients. I regret to say thatwe were not successful on that occasion. Thisscheme provided an incentive for people totake up casual or part-time work opportuni-ties, because income from that employmentdid not affect their payments immediately.

Already, I might say, the opposition hasbecome aware of people choosing not to takeup those sorts of opportunities because of theabolition of the scheme. I think the argumentsthat I noted at some length late last year have,in some cases, proven to be most prescient.

I say clearly again that this is an importantmeasure. I urge senators to reconsider theirvote on whether this particular scheme shouldbe abolished. For those reasons, and the


reasons I outlined at length to the Senate lastyear, I urge the Senate to support oppositionamendments Nos 1 and 2.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (12.40p.m.)—I want to indicate that the AustralianDemocrats will be voting with the oppositionon this issue and opposing the government’sproposal. I again make an appeal to theminister. If your argument is that the schemeis too complex, then obviously what you mustdo is simplify it. But if what you are reallydoing is looking for spare change to perhapsfill up that Costello black hole, then youought to be up-front about that and say thatthe real reason you are abolishing the earn-ings credit scheme is that you actually wantto get rid of some expenditure and improvethe revenue side of the budget.

If that is the reason, it would be better thatyou said that. The reason you are giving forabolishing the earnings credit scheme justdoes not make sense. I might add that it reallydoes fly in the face of the debate we are nowinvolved in—a debate about working for thedole. This is a disincentive to that veryproposal. It is an issue that you are going tohave to revisit if you do bring in somescheme whereby you work for the dole. Youare going to actually have to look at theearnings credit scheme, look at the amount oftime that volunteers are allowed to workbefore they are penalised; all of those issueswill actually need to be brought into that kindof proposal.

What I am saying to the government is thatyou should really revisit this one. Perhaps itis a bit difficult for you to do it now, but Iam saying to you that it is something you willhave to revisit if you are going to proceeddown the road of any work for the dolescheme. We will be opposing this and votingwith the opposition.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(12.42 p.m.)—All senators who take part inthis debate will well remember the argumentsthat were raised on the issue of the earningscredit scheme in the social security legislationbefore Christmas. Complexity is a veryserious problem in this area. There was a very

low take-up. As I recall, it was three per centof people who were eligible to take advantageof the scheme in the Social Security portfolio.

There is actually a different situation here,Senator Woodley, because we are largelytalking about older people. I am advised bythe Department of Veterans’ Affairs that therehas been a negligible take-up of this measurebecause of the age of the people getting theentitlements under this department. Mostpeople are retired and are no longer seekingwork. An additional incentive for pensionersto take up work is no longer considerednecessary. Of course, probably more import-ant than anything is that when you look at theamount of the income free area which thecurrent income test provides—and that is,after all, what the Labor government changedin 1995—the income test arrangements wereso changed to make it worth while for any-body who wanted to go and earn some extradollars to just do it, because they still kept asubstantial proportion of it.

A single pensioner can retain $98 a fort-night of earnings under the current incometest arrangements. A pensioner who is one ofa couple can retain $172 per fortnight. Inthose sorts of circumstances it seems to methat the earnings credit scheme is not neededby Veterans’ Affairs pensioners. As I say, ithas had a negligible take-up rate to the extentthat the explanatory memorandum says thatthere is no financial impact.

I believe that it is really very important that,where we can, we have both the social securi-ty and the veterans’ affairs systems consistent.Also, I have been advised that there has beenno real concern expressed by veterans or ex-service organisations.

Progress reported.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTERESTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT

(Senator West)—Order! It being 12.45 a.m.,we will now proceed to debate matters ofpublic interest.

Radio AustraliaSenator WATSON (Tasmania) (12.45

a.m.)—I wish to take this opportunity to joinwith many others—including the Prime


Minister of Papua New Guinea; the Premierof Bougainville; the governments of Cambo-dia, Vanuatu, Nauru and Tonga; Jose RamosHorta, Nobel Prize winner from East Timor;the head of the Kanak Development Agency,Gerard Sinato; and representatives of theUnited Nations—in expressing support for thesterling effort provided over the last 57 yearsby Radio Australia.

More than 80 nations operate foreign radioservices, and several nations have more thanone. In a very competitive market, RadioAustralia broadcasts for over 45 hours per dayin nine languages: English, Indonesian,Mandarin, Cantonese, Papua New GuineaPidgin, Vietnamese, Khmer, Thai and French.By way of contrast, the Voice of Americabroadcasts for 138 hours per day in 46 lan-guages, and the BBC broadcasts for 125 hoursa day in 38 languages.

Despite its small size, Radio Australia hasearned an enviable reputation for the remark-able standard of its news and cultural pro-grams. The number of listeners is perhapsharder to determine. Figures have been usedto show a decline in the number of listeners,but this may only illustrate that recent figuresof between five million and 20 million arebased on more accurate methods of estimatingaudiences. However, it does not show conclu-sively that people are switching off. Recentstatistics for most of China, Burma and Indiawere not available to be researched. Thestatistics also exclude listeners in America andEurope. It is therefore difficult to get a truepicture of the size of its audience. Yet eventhe estimated figures represent a greateraudience than any station in Australia;100,000 listeners from 150 countries send inletters each year.

Radio Australia has been regarded as ourbest ambassador. Australian interests in Asiaare given an enormous boost because of theimage of Australia as a clean, green, friendlycountry being promoted by the service. Mostof the senior officials in the Department ofForeign Affairs and Trade recognise the valueof the service in projecting into Asia and thePacific the image of a liberal democraticpower, a non-threatening nation with respectfor the truth and a genuine concern for human

rights. Radio Australia enhances Australia’sdiplomatic standing in the region.

It has also become the vehicle for openingup trading opportunities in the Pacific andSouth-East Asia. Through Radio Australia, apositive image of Australia can be portrayedwhich is essential for those making decisionson doing business with or in Australia, thosecontemplating Australia as a tourist destina-tion, those considering supporting Australianenterprises and recommendations on the worldscene and those looking for better educationalopportunities for their children. Many busi-ness events covered on Radio Australia arenot reported in any other form of the media.

In the capitals of the Pacific island nations,public broadcasters are in the habit of runningdirect broadcasts of Radio Australia news andcurrent affairs. There is no cheap and easysubstitute for the goodwill and respect thatthis generates. Programs which bring localsup to date with sport, entertainment and ideaspromote a sense that Australia does careabout, and actually engage in, the region.With the end of the Cold War, we have seenthe withdrawal of both Soviet Union and USinterest in the region. Japan and China givea certain amount of aid to the region fordomestic and trade purposes. The Frenchterritories still receive assistance from theirmotherland. But Australia is the one countrywhich provides an independent, objective andreliable service which helps them to gain amore accurate and balanced world view.

The penetration of radio still far outweighsother media in the region, including ourclosest neighbour, Papua New Guinea. Chinahas outlawed private satellite dishes, andlisteners have reported that they cannot accessthe Internet. A radio service is still thereforeof vital significance to those in many of therural and outback areas of Asia and thePacific.

Its news programs, in Asia in particular,attract an educated and influential audienceseeking a more regional focus than thatoffered by the BBC and without the NorthAmerican bias of Voice of America. Manygenerations of Asians have learnt Englishthrough Radio Australia and at present itslanguage programs in China are extremely


popular. In doing so, they have also learntabout Australia’s culture. Now we have asteady increase in the number of studentsfrom Asia and the Pacific attracted to educa-tion in Australia as well as a fledgling indus-try of Australian education in Asian countries.For many in Asia and the Pacific, RadioAustralia has been their first contact withAustralian culture.

Through the open learning program broad-cast in Khmer, Cambodians can track theevolution of the Australian political systemsince the Second World War, including theformation of political parties, governmentsand parliamentary debates. But for RadioAustralia our style of government which hasmade us only one of eight democracies to lastthrough the 20th century would be unfamiliarto many. For a country just giving birth todemocracy, an understanding of Australiangovernment is vital.

In the Pacific region, it is very often theonly source of news. It was through RadioAustralia that the people of Bougainville firstlearnt of the assassination of TheodoreMiriung, the former Premier of Bougainville,last October. In Indonesia the English teach-ing service is used extensively and manyIndonesians have started buying Australianfoodstuffs because Radio Australia keepstalking about our clean and green image. It ishighly regarded by a generally well-educatedaudience in Indonesia, and conveys themessages that Australia is the most interestedand most expert in Indonesian affairs of anyWestern country. Transmitting programsoverseas which will enable Australians livingabroad or travelling outside Australia to‘obtain information about Australian affairsand Australian attitudes on world affairs’ is anobligation of the ABC, as stated in its charter,and is very important for Australian expatri-ates.

A well-informed Australian expatriatecommunity in Asia and the Pacific which isable to present a contemporary view ofAustralia is one of the best ways of influen-cing perceptions of Australia overseas. Thisaudience is at the cutting edge of presentingviews on Australia to friends and businessassociates, and their importance to Australia’s

trade and diplomatic objectives should not beunderestimated.

In recent years, the Radio Australia Internetpresence has generated considerable activityto listeners worldwide. Thirty thousand letterswere received on the Internet from listenersin response to a Radio Australia questionnairein September 1995. The web site receives150,000 visits a month.

I conclude by saying that, for the 1996-97financial year, just $13½ million and $7million in transmission costs have beenappropriated to run this service. This shouldbe noted in the light of the $490 million spenton the diplomatic activities of the Departmentof Foreign Affairs and Trade. I believe thevalue of the services that it provides is wellworth the sort of money we spent on it. I trustthat there will be further careful and detaileddiscussion before any decision is made re-garding its future. I thank the Senate.

Trade Outcomes and ObjectivesStatement

Senator BISHOP (Western Australia)(12.53 p.m.)—The trade outcomes and objec-tives statement released last week by theMinister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) providedthe government with an opportunity to dealwith strategic structural issues facing Australianow and into the future. It was also a chanceto repair many of the mistakes made by thegovernment in industry and trade policy sincecoming to power last year. Instead of doingthis, however, the government provided alargely administrative document falling shortof the government involvement required toimprove our status on the world stage.

This document is a hope document. It relieson other nations to set the pace and condi-tions of our own growth and sets many of itspremises on the presumption of overallgrowth in the world and our region whichthey hope will trickle down to Australia.Australia needs a more strategic and integrat-ed trade policy in order to meet the expecta-tions of our firms and to achieve an improve-ment in net export contribution to nationalgrowth.

The issues and challenges Australia needsto be facing are those that have shown them-selves in world trends for the last century and,


in particular, since the Second World War.These issues are: a decline in the real valueof commodities and rural exports; an increasein real value in elaborately manufactured andvalue added products; Australia’s decreasingshare of the world trading market over thepast 50 years; and Australia’s inability tofundamentally reshape our strategic positionto improve our access rights to world marketsand consequently improve our national livingstandards through real economic growth ratherthan short-term borrowing. Australia’s posi-tion in the trading world is disastrously lowand has historically been so. Results of thiskind illustrate an inability to compete with therest of the world.

Australia has long depended on our naturalresources. Commodity exports had for manyyears been a sole source of internationalincome. In the fifties and sixties this providedAustralia with a rosy future. However, theworld market has changed but Australia hasnot changed with it. Agriculture and mining,traditionally Australia’s domain, have de-creased in the relative return they provide toAustralia. High export return now stems frommanufacturing and services.

In the period 1980 to 1995, there was asignificant change in Australia’s tradingpriorities. High return areas of manufacturingand services have seen an increase in the totalaggregate of net exports rise to approximately40 per cent. In comparison, South-East Asiannations far exceed this. Australia’s challengeis to further improve on this 40 per cent.South-East Asian nations have turned naturalresource disadvantages into advantages bycreating value added industries and structuringtheir economies towards saving and invest-ment rather than borrowing. The result hasbeen a greater ability for research and devel-opment and a larger pool of financial re-sources for government to assist industry andbusiness to compete in the world marketplace.

This increasing reliance by Australia onagriculture and mining has produced a declinein Australia’s export share of the worldmarket from 1.3 per cent in 1989 to 1.1 percent in 1995. These results are embarrassingfor Australia. In global terms, we can hardlyjustify our place at the negotiating table.

Highly respected journalist Greg Sherridanargues:. . . Australia is a nation of declining relevance inglobal trade.

He goes on to say:We are falling further and further behind.

While these are accurate reflections of thecurrent state of affairs, they are not the realbite from Mr Sherridan. This comes in thefollowing analysis. Mr Sherridan argues:

In Opposition, Fischer and the Coalition claimedthat the only way to evaluate national exportsuccess in Asia was by measuring market share. . .

But having made that the very centrepiece oftheir approach in Opposition, they have not both-ered to include market share figures for key Asianmarkets in this trade statement.

Mr Fischer proudly boasts that Australia’srural exports were increased by 15 per cent.The National Party relies on this figure toprovide support for their argument within thegovernment that a commodities rural sector isand should continue to be the government’spriority in trading terms. The point he ismissing is that this is an increase in a declin-ing market with a declining dollar value toAustralia’s exporting performance and posi-tion.

In fairness, the point about declining valuefor the agricultural and mining sector is notjust lost on Mr Fischer. The Minister forPrimary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson)has also joined the chorus. In aWeekendAustralianedition in January, John Andersonstated:

Australia should focus more on improving itsexports of raw materials rather than developingprocessing industries.

And:It is likely that improving the quality of our raw

materials will become much more important thanvalue adding.

These comments go against world trends forthe last 50 years. There is no better exampleof the problems facing Australian industry andtrade policy than the comments and mythswhich are given voice by the Minister forPrimary Industries and Energy and clearlyabide within the government.


The trend figures for the period 1980 to1995 clearly show that for Australia there hasbeen a reduced level of international trade inagriculture and a significantly increased levelfor manufactures. What this means is that weas a nation are getting less for more. We maybe acquiring more and more of the market,but it is a shrinking market with lesser re-turns. For Mr Anderson’s constituency, thismeans less return for capital investment anda decline in living standards.

The minister for primary industries does hisconstituency no favours by delaying theinevitable. By not accepting this fact now, hisnatural constituency will suffer severe reduc-tions in return and living standards when theworld forces Australia to accept the reality ofdeclining return for commodities. This meansthat the benefits of trade liberalisation are tobe experienced in the value added sectors,particularly elaborately transformed manufac-tures and services.

Even within the primary sector there is ashift away from the rural sector to the miningsector. By 2001-02, mining will account for50 to 65 per cent of our export trade in theprimary sector. The trade statement was anopportunity for the government to dispel thesemyths and set a strategic path designed toincrease our share of the export growth areassuch as value adding.

In my home state of Western Australia,there has been some attempt to improve onthe value added side of mineral exports. InWestern Australia it is reported that there isa boom in the industrial minerals industry. MrAnderson would probably point to this asvindication of his comments. He should,however, read the report carefully.

The review by the Western Australianresources department reports that the value ofindustrial minerals to the production ofminerals in Western Australia is nearly 12 percent. This is an increase from 7½ per cent in1985. The crucial point here is the usage ofindustrial minerals. Their use is in ceramics,plastic, refractories, glass, paint, chemicalindustries and paper, among many others. Allare value adding industries.

So, while this value adding has seen a fiveper cent increase in industrial minerals to total

mineral production, the real proof of thebenefit of value adding is in the dollar termincreases. In 1985, 1.72 million tonnes ofproducts were produced. They were priced at$87 per tonne with a total value of $149million. In 1995 there had been an increase inproduction of only 19 per cent. However,through the success of value adding, the priceincreased to $420 per tonne from $87 pertonne to a total value of $860 million. Thus,in mineral production in Western Australia,value adding is providing a higher return forinvestment.

However, while the industry is doing itspart to move towards high growth exportorientated goods, the government’s lack ofstrategic policy is hindering the process frombooming even further. Essential to the indus-trial minerals sector is energy policy. The realissue here is the quality of gas.

The state government has rigidity require-ments which allow about only 20 per cent ofthe state’s gas reserves to pass through thepipeline from Dampier to Bunbury. What isrequired is a pipeline for industrial qualitygas. This gas, if provided through a pipelineother than the state owned one from Dampierto Bunbury, will be accessible at prices lowerthan gas from the trunk line. The result willbe a cost advantage to the Australian indus-trial minerals sector.

The point of this case is that governmentpolicy must be strategic, forward looking andintegrated. Energy policy is extremely import-ant to the Western Australian minerals sector.If these policies are integrated with industryand trade policy, comparative advantages withthe rest of the world will appear. It is thesecomparative advantages which result inefficiencies and a greater capacity to competein our access markets and create new ones.Integrated policies help take the step fromnatural resources to value adding and exportgrowth. A reliance on commodities alone isuseless. So too are policies dealing only withparts of an overall industry.

If the figures I have mentioned aboutAustralia’s trading position are not enough toalarm senators, then I further point to themid-year economic and fiscal outlook 1996-97 brought down by the Treasurer, Mr


Costello. The government has forecast that thenet export contribution to national economicgrowth is a negative quarter per cent. Bycomparison, in the period 1995-96 the figurewas a positive one per cent.

It is important to note what this increasingshare of a declining market will mean forAustralia over the next decade. Exports equalgrowth and growth equals jobs. The Austral-ian population is not large enough to consumeAustralian manufacturing. Our products mustbe sold overseas. This is where growth willoccur and so will jobs.

With a negative contribution to economicgrowth from exports, the job prospects lookbleak. The problems facing Australian traderequire an aggressive approach designed toassist Australian industries and, in particular,firms internationalise themselves. The policiesrequired must be pro-active and designed tocreate and improve comparative advantagesfor our firms. We must do more than justassist firms to respond to world markets andtrends. The government has too heavy areliance on world growth and trends. It shouldbe creating policies that will provide advanta-ges for firms.

In chapter four of the trade statement, thegovernment argues that world growth trendsbode well for Australia and will create anincrease in net exports to national growth.Successful trade policies require more thanjust a preparedness to respond to world trendsand events. Aggressive policies which givecomparative advantages will assist with highnet export growth exceeding the world aver-age.

Importantly, if these comparative advanta-ges continue, this type of growth should besustainable in times of a world slowdown.Reliance on world trends, as chapter 4 of thedocument advocates, will only result infigures corresponding with world trends. Theproblem with Australian trade policy is thatwe allow the world to dictate the environmentin which we work.

The problems that arise with a reliance onworld trends to steer export growth ratherthan policies to set our own direction lie inthe admission in chapter 4 of the documentthat:

Australia’s total market share has fallen because thecomposition of world imports has shifted into areaswhere Australia has a lower total market share.

Australian policy makers should have seenthis coming through the study of world trends.Appropriately, government should design anddirect policy to ensure that we are not avictim of world trends but a beneficiary.Support for research and development andnew industry initiatives will result in newinnovations and new markets. By governmentencouragement through financial assistanceand appropriate policy for these pursuits, weprovide ourselves with the best opportunity toset our goals and not be the victim of outdat-ed policies destroyed because of world trends.

In those areas where there is governmentassistance, they are largely the continuation ofthe former government’s policies. For exam-ple, after much pressure from the ALP, thegovernment decided to retain the ships bountyintroduced by the former Labor government.The ships bounty was a program whichcontributed towards a high growth exportorientated industry. The program contributedto a growth rate of 200 per cent, exports by150 per cent and employment levels by 50per cent since its inception.

The government was prepared to slash thisprogram, which would result in the loss ofjobs and export dollars, for a saving of alousy $3 million. The fact that the govern-ment was going to cut the bounty is indicativeof their policy position: let the market workit out. The fact that they rescinded the deci-sion after pressure from the ALP and thecommunity is indicative of their politicalposition: keep quiet and do not move until weare caught.

The government does not appear to fullyunderstand the relationship that has occurredin South-East Asian nations between govern-ment support for industry and firm success.Maximising Australia’s trading positionmeans doing what this report fails to mention.We must implement policies which encourageinnovation, which support industry and pro-vide comparative advantages with worldtrading partners, and which ensure trade andindustry policy is strategic and integrated to


achieve long-term results which cut intounemployment.

Greater Beedelup National ParkSenator MURRAY (Western Australia)

(1.07 p.m.)—I rise to speak on the urgentmatter of the imminent destruction of one ofthe most beautiful and valuable old-growthforests left in the south-west of WesternAustralia, the Giblett forest block near Pem-berton. I want at the same time to present tothe Senate a proposal from the Pembertoncommunity for the creation of a world-classold-growth karri and jarrah forest nationalpark, the Greater Beedelup National Park,which includes Giblett forest block.

I preface my comments by pointing out thatmuch of the original pre-European karri foresthas been destroyed. Now there are only185,000 hectares of karri forest left in thesouth-west of Western Australia. There aremany pastoral stations which are much largerthan that on their own. This tiny residual area,about half of its pre-European extent, has theonly karri forest that I know of on the face ofthe planet and is likely to be the only onethere ever will be. Of that tiny area, about55,000 hectares have already been clear-felledand only 53,000 hectares, or 29 per cent, areprotected in secure conservation reserves.

The old-growth karri forest is being rapidlywiped out. Under existing plans, only aminute vestige of the original glory of thatkarri forest will remain. This is the plannedfate of what is a world famous karri forest, aforest that people already do and increasinglywill travel from all around the globe toexperience.

I would also like to preface my commentsby noting that soon after becoming the federalMinister for the Environment, our Senatecolleague Senator Hill was treated by localpeople to an excursion through the forest thatis subject to this talk. I understand that thereis a sense of deep grievance and disappoint-ment in the minister’s apparent casual disre-gard for their concerns since.

In 1982, the West Australian EnvironmentProtection Authority asked Professor PeterAttiwell to write a report on karri forestconservation in WA. In his report, Professor

Attiwell identified the importance of Giblettblock and adjacent old-growth karri forestsand stated:Such an area of extensive and concentrated karriforest should be of high priority for conservation.

In 1992, a further assessment was conducted,this time by the Australian Heritage Commis-sion. As a result of this study, Giblett wasfound to be worthy of National Estate listingand is currently interim listed on the Registerof the National Estate. The 1992 AHC reporton the values of the Giblett forest clearlyshows that, by any measure, this is a mostimportant area of forest. In 1995, the Giblettforest block was included in the areas offorest placed under moratorium by the stateand Commonwealth governments as part ofthe deferred forest agreement process. Thatmoratorium recognised the importance of thisarea.

Under the national forest policy statementand the deferred forest agreement, which thisgovernment claims to be complying with incarrying out the regional forest agreementprocess, high conservation value forests likeGiblett are supposed to remain under a mora-torium pending the completion of full regionalassessments and the implementation of thepromised ‘comprehensive, adequate and repre-sentative’ forest conservation reserve system.Instead, in a cynical move last year theHoward and Court coalition governments dida deal whereby Giblett forest and other highconservation value National Estate listedforests will be sacrificed—I use that emotiveterm deliberately—to clear-felling andwoodchipping in 1997. This abhorrent dealclearly breaches the national forest policy andclearly pre-empts and undermines the regionalforest agreement process.

Last year, the proposal for the creation ofthe Greater Beedelup National Park waswritten and launched by Pemberton communi-ty representatives and endorsed by many localtourism industry operators. I stress that thathas been launched locally. The proposed parkwould increase the size of the existingBeedelup National Park from a meagre 1,500hectares—I remind you that this parliamentsits on about 50 hectares, so it is only 300times the size of this—to 19,000 hectares,


which would be a much more manageablepark and would thus provide a viable andsustainable resource base for the rapidlygrowing eco-tourism industry and naturebased tourism industry in the Pembertondistrict. That tourism industry already hassomething like 70,000 visitors a year to thatpark.

The decision to allow the destruction ofGiblett forest block and adjacent NationalEstate forests means that the enormous poten-tial value of the national park is being ignoredand the needs of the tourism industry willagain be overlooked in favour of the insa-tiable greed, as it seems to me to be, of thewoodchip industry. Let me be a little bitsharp, because I say that WA woodchipcompanies make huge donations to the coali-tion parties and the tourism operators do not.I would hope that is not what is weighing onthe minds of the people who make thesedecisions.

Such outcomes make a complete mockeryof the regional forest agreement process.Fortunately, it is not too late for theCommonwealth government to correct aserious breach of trust by accessing funds setaside in the forest industry structural adjust-ment package, which I understand runs toover $100 million. The Commonwealth canassist the WA government and the nativeforest logging industry to defer any loggingwithin the proposed national park pending afull and open assessment of this national parkproposal. The funds in this package are inpart specifically designated for this type ofuse. There is no reason why they cannot beused now to compensate the timber industryand to allow breathing space so that studiescan be conducted into the proposal for thecreation of a world-class Greater BeedelupNational Park.

Upon signing the disastrous regional forestagreement with the Victorian government thisweek—there are many of us who think it wasnot good enough—the Prime Minister (MrHoward) made much of the supposed benefitsof the agreement for rural and regional com-munities. Turning it around, if the PrimeMinister and the Minister for Environmenthave any regard for the well-being of the rural

and regional communities of south-westWestern Australia who support this forestpark, they must act now to ensure that theplanned destruction of Giblett block is de-ferred and that the Greater Beedelup NationalPark proposal is given full and open consider-ation. I seek leave to table the proposal of thePemberton community for the creation of theGreater Beedelup National Park.

Leave granted.

Pastoral Leases

Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leaderof the National Party of Australia in theSenate) (1.15 p.m.)—In 1917, one of the mostmemorable feats of Australian courage tookplace in the Battle of Beersheba, whereAustralian troops secured key positionsfacilitating the capture of Gaza. The perform-ance of the Australian Light Horse is synony-mous with valour and audacity and has beenimmortalised by our storytellers and filmmak-ers and is writ large in the hearts of allAustralians today.

As one of the first tests of a newly federat-ed nation, the Great War saw the hearts of allAustralian men beat as one for the first timein defence of their country. Thousands will-ingly made the greatest sacrifice for theircountry and, when the conflict was over,those that survived lent their valour andaudacity to their home ground, stimulating thedevelopment of a free and prosperous Austral-ia. In war and in peace those soldiers wereheroes and we honour their legend.

I would like to trace today the family ofone of those Australians who took part in theBattle of Beersheba. In 1921, the returnedsoldier purchased a property near Blackall.Through drought, flood, fire, war and depres-sion, his family has continued to live andwork the property for four generations. Theold man who fought for the freedom of hiscountry and his descendants is buried there onthe property. There have been other burials,and there have been weddings and the chris-tening of new life as the seasons have comeand gone. There have been 76 years of humandrama and 76 years of the battles and the lessfrequent triumphs of family farming.


This is the country known to host BanjoPaterson. This is the country haunted byHenry Lawson. This country resonates withthe shearers’ strikes and the formation of theAustralian Labor Party. This is the outback.Other countries also have their beaches, theirmountain ranges, their tall buildings and theirtheme parks. But only Australia has theunique cultural and economic heritage afford-ed by the families who have lived and con-tinue to live west of the Divide; familieswhose strong personal attachments to the landhave been forged in isolation from the bigcities their toil has done so much to support.

It is important to make the point about thateconomic heritage. When the patriarch of thisfamily bought out at Blackall, it was part ofa progression. His father and brothers hadstarted in the Darling Downs and then movedfurther and further out in the natural evolutionof nation building that has led us to where weare today. It is for these families that I speaktoday—not for the large corporations, themultinationals, who will always have power-ful voices to put their case and negotiate self-serving outcomes.

I wish to paint in words a still life of whatthese families are experiencing as a result ofthe Wik decision on native title. It may bethat their fears and concerns can be allayed,but no-one is yet in a situation to give themany certainty and so their fears cannot butcontinue.

Several members and senators have re-ceived a letter from Mrs Lindsay MacDonald,who is in a family partnership in a grazinghomestead perpetual lease near Blackall. Thisfamily are the descendants of the LightHorseman who fought at the Battle ofBeersheba. They are typical of many familiesand their reactions to native title typify thereaction of thousands of farming families westof the Divide.

Mrs MacDonald wrote that their family’sCharleville property, purchased for droughtmanagement purposes, was the subject of anative title claim and that they were partici-pating in a mediation process. Their lease wasone of 3,000 affected by the claim. Since thatletter, she was informed via a radio broadcastthat a second claim had been filed by another

Aboriginal group. Neither of the two claimswere made by local Aborigines. The secondclaim covers 11 Queensland shires and claimsthe flora and fauna and the artesian and sub-artesian waters.

The Blackall property also is under claim,despite the fact that when it was purchased in1921 there were no Aboriginal people in thearea with any connection to this lease—forsome time previously and none since.

ATSIC regional councillors from Rock-hampton have been telling local Aboriginesthat they are now co-owners of pastoralleases. The concerns of families like theMacDonalds are many. Firstly, they believedthe leaders of the day, who told them thatpastoral leases would extinguish native title.Mrs MacDonald writes:We have been alarmed by the backing away fromthis solidly given commitment by the Labor Party,the Democrats and the Aboriginal leadership of thetime, and feel we have been betrayed.

They cannot understand how Aborigines whohave no physical contact with the claimedland can make a claim which engages theleaseholder in the process of native titlebefore the rightness of the claim itself isassessed. They are perplexed by the overlap-ping of the claims, how to deal with each, andthe extensive time and cost involved, whetherthe claim is established or not. They arebewildered by a system which advocatesmediation when it is only at the court stagethat the claimants are required to provideproof of connection to the claimed lease.

In the mediation process, lessees are en-couraged to concede perceived rights toclaimants before there is even proof as to thelegitimacy of the claim. This feels like extor-tion to them. They are confused by the newlanguage of economic empowerment throughnative title. They thought it was just abouttraditional activities such as hunting and cere-monies. Unlike the few who have long-estab-lished protocols for a form of access, mostfarming families have no history of coexist-ence with Aboriginal people on their lease.

The massive claims under discussion meanalso that leaseholders have no prior know-ledge of or even acquaintance with the peoplemaking the claim. They are not locals or


known to anyone in the district. It should berealised by the leafy suburb intellectuals inthis country that the prospect of sitting arounda table with someone you have never heardof, who claims to co-own what you alwayshad been led to believe was yours, is anunderstandably frightening prospect. Wecannot leave them on their own. As LindsayMacDonald put it:

We feel we are in an insane situation, and cannotbelieve our country has put us in this position.

Imagine hearing on the media that a group ofpeople has lodged a claim using the followingwords:

. . . to be entitled as against the whole world topossession, occupation, use and enjoyment of theclaimed land.

Imagine then ringing the Native Title Tribunaland being told not to worry about the wordsused because it is just legalese. The tribunalis doing just that—advising farmers not totake notice of legalese.

Where do you go? There is a multitude oflegal opinions floating around—which one isaccurate? And as far as not taking notice ofthe legalese goes, any lessee would do that attheir own peril, for the tortuous path oflegalese is what got us there in the first place.

They are also most anxious about thepossibility of their rights and leases beingrestricted to pastoral activities. For severalyears now, with the drought, terms of tradeand high interest rates, it has been commonpractice for farming families to require sup-plementary income to ensure their survival.They do all manner of innovative things tokeep food on the table. They are concernedabout what coexistence would mean to theseactivities which would go to the viability oftheir overall enterprise.

Their concerns do not float around in thelofty world of ideas but address specificproblems. Already, the Queensland landdepartment has stopped accepting the fullpayment to freehold farms and has refused togrant permits to Crown land use because ofthe Wik ruling. This has the effect of puttingcontracts and jobs at risk, putting questionmarks on valuations and postponing develop-ment processes. These are the sorts of ques-

tions which need answers and deserve an-swers.

At the coalface of life in the bush, farmersand graziers want to know these things: doescoexistence mean shared local governmentrates and shared cost of property roads?What about legal liability for injuries andinsurance? How are native title holders to beidentified? What notification of entry wouldbe required? What rights exist if agreementsare breached? How will property managementand development be affected? What willhappen to equity and interest rates and howwill this upset viability? Should lessees becompensated? How will it work if claimantsnegotiate with mining companies but lesseescannot?

These questions are the nitty-gritty of theWik legacy. They may even sound a bitsordid to the shining-eyed idealist who wouldgive everything away so long as it was not inhis backyard. However, it is important for thisparliament to hear the anguish, the confusion,the wariness and the disbelief of families westof the Divide. Decisions cannot be madewithout cognisance of their concerns.

It is irresponsible to say, as ATSIC com-missioner Geoff Clark said onPM on Wed-nesday, 29 January, that ‘Aboriginal groupsare now partners in any economic, or anydevelopment, in Australia because of therecognition of our property rights and com-mon law rights’. It has reached a stage in thewest where the descendants of the heroes—the holders of unique Australian lore andculture—fear that their contribution is to besubmerged, belittled and even obliterated topay a debt not of their own making. No doubtthis sounds extreme to many, but I am afaithful messenger. This is a crisis for lease-holders—beyond drought, beyond banks andbeyond commodity prices.

Condolences: Mr Brett Seaman

Senator LUNDY (Australian CapitalTerritory) (1.27 p.m.)—I rise to speak inmemory of a well-known and dedicatedmember of the ACT Branch of the AustralianLabor Party and ACT trade union movement,Mr Brett Seaman, who was hit by a car and


killed while riding his bicycle at Merimbulaon the NSW South Coast on 30 January 1997.

Brett Seaman grew up in Sydney andWollongong in New South Wales and uponcompletion of his higher school certificate hejoined the merchant navy as an officer cadetfor two years. Leaving that career behind,he moved back to New South Wales and laterstudied arts at the University of Wollongong.His success as a student earned him theuniversity medal.

Brett moved to Canberra in 1991, where heimmediately became involved in the localpolitical and trade union movement. He joinedthe Canberra South sub-branch of the Austral-ian Labor Party, holding the positions of bothsecretary and president. At the time of hisdeath, he continued to hold the position ofpresident of the sub-branch.

Brett was a tireless campaigner duringelections, working hard to achieve what hestrongly believed in—social justice and equityin Australian society.

Brett Seaman commenced work as anindustrial officer and organiser with the ACTbranch of the Community and Public SectorUnion in 1992. He again was a dedicatedorganiser who consistently chalked up resultsfor the members. In 1994, Brett became theACT government union liaison officer in ACThealth, bringing his knowledge, skills andintellect to improving the industrial relationsbetween the ACT government and the tradeunion movement.

In 1994, Brett returned to the union move-ment as an industrial officer with the Austral-ian Nursing Federation. He was respected bynurses in both the public and private sectors,and did the bulk of the work in negotiatingthe current ACT government nurses’ enter-prise agreement, which has substantiallyimproved relations between the governmentand nurses.

Brett recruited and converted many mem-bers to the union movement and the ALP. Hestood fearlessly by what he believed in andnever shied away from an argument or disputewhen his beliefs were questioned.

Brett was also involved in the Canberracommunity through cycling, one of his other

great loves. He was elected race secretary ofthe Canberra Cycling Club in 1995 andworked with the committee to promote racingin Canberra.

I knew Brett as an energetic, committedactivist who inspired many. His love of lifeand his dedication of his life to improving thelot of others distinguishes Brett in a harsh andsometimes selfish world.

Brett’s early death at the age of 33 is asubstantial loss for those in this country whoare working to see a fair and just society. Hewill long be remembered in the local ALPand labour movement. His partner, KatyGallagher, who is expecting their first childin August of this year, survives him.

Austudy

Senator MURPHY (Tasmania) (1.30p.m.)—I wish to raise the issue of the changesto the Austudy means test, and to look at whyit was changed and what has gone wrong,because some significant problems have arisenfor students as a result of those changes,particularly for those students who come fromfamilies with small businesses.

The Austudy means test was changedessentially to stop the asset rich, cash poorand high income earners from abusing thesystem by artificially manipulating theirfinancial situation in order to become eligiblefor Austudy. That is quite an honourableposition to try and achieve. The intention wasthat the alteration would ensure Austudy wasavailable for those who genuinely qualifiedfor it and for the financially disadvantaged.

What has happened, though, is that thegovernment has made it so complicated that,in so far as the assessment process appears towork, it is now excluding people who wereeligible last year and whose circumstanceshave not changed. It is creating all sorts ofdifficulties for students, either due to theperiod of time for enrolment and the timeschedules they need to meet or in the fillingout of the forms.

I would like to refer to one of the manystudents who have contacted my office. I willread a letter from the father of this student,Kim Allen. It is the letter he sent to the


Austudy office in relation to the notice ofassessment for Kim L. Allen, and it says:

The difference between my daughter receivingalmost full Austudy assistance and receiving only$45 per fortnight appears to depend, in my case, onthe answer to question 25 on the application form.My income has not changed in its source, orsignificantly in its amount, since the previous yearwhen my daughter was judged eligible for almostthe full assistance.

The decision, if it remains as it is at present, willmean that my daughter will be withdrawing fromher University course because we are unable toobtain, or service, loans of a sufficient amount toenable her further study.

Background information

My daughter will be in her third year at the Univer-sity, and last year achieved results consisting onlyof distinctions and high distinctions (with theexception of one short unit, which I think was onlya credit). I have discussed the problem with staffat the University, and have been informed that theyhad been looking for her to continue on to anhonours level, and possibly to a PhD level infuture.

I was retired early from teaching in 1990, receivinga pension only. Unable to find further work, Ireturned to University to complete an honoursdegree in geology. After receiving 1st class honoursI was offered a non-taxable allowance (School ofScience and Technology Award) to continueresearch in my area of interest towards a PhD.During 1997 a trust company was formed to holdany patents which might eventuate from theresearch, because I could not pay for them myself.There has been no financial reward to me at allfrom this company involvement, and the companyitself has received no outside income at all. In factwe have not yet applied for a tax file number orany tax exemption.

As a result of stating in question 25 of the Austudyapplication that I am involved with a company, Ihave been forced to complete the actual means testsection of the application.

Previously, with no difference in income, I onlyhad to state taxable income. Except for the trustcompany involvement this year (which has broughtno income, and which promises none in the nearfuture), I would also have been judged on taxableincome only.

My study allowance from the University is non-taxable, and is not included in taxable income. Ifit was included, it would be completely wiped outby deductions (probably more than wiped out in mycase, where I must construct my own researchequipment).

Because the ‘Actual Means Test Section’ of theAustudy application asks only for expenditure, andthis expenditure (I was informed by Austudy) mustinclude the expenditure of the proceeds from allgifts and allowances (under pain of prosecution),my tax-exempt study allowance now becomes apart of my ‘taxable income’ for Austudy assess-ment purposes. Nowhere on the application form isthere provision to deduct the expenses which theallowance (or any other allowance) covers.

There is a section called ‘Student incomeconcession’, which allows for student income to bededucted from expenditure, and I did list theallowance in this section (there was nowhere else),but it was apparently judged as not applicable.

Under the heading of ‘education expenses’ itemphasises that all education expenditure, even ifmet by a third party, must be included. It was inthis section that I included the tax-exempt allow-ance as expenditure. I included in this expenditurea component for the ‘transport costs’ which arenecessary for research in my area, which involvesmuch travelling and field work. Austudy has thenlooked at the amount I listed under the separate‘transport costs’ heading, and judged that theamount listed was not sufficient. Austudy has then‘imputed’ their own amount for transport costs,which almost doubled the amount I had listed.

I tried to discuss the matter with Austudy. TheTasmanian office was friendly, but emphasised thatthey were not able to make any constructivecomment on the matter except to advise me toapply for a review (I requested the required forms).They gave me a Canberra number to ring. Afterwaiting for almost an hour with my telephone onmonitor, during which time I could not be con-tacted by anyone else, I got through to an officerwho would only repeat, in answer to every ques-tion, the statements which I could see for myselfwere printed on the form in front of me. No otheradvice was offered or comments made, except tostate that I needed to apply for a review.

One Austudy officer (I contacted several) advisedme that review times could be some months, andgiven the present situation (?) could be up to sixmonths. Most officers refused to speculate onreview times.

Is this a solution?

I propose to resign from the trust company, andto cease any efforts to develop my research find-ings for commercial application.

Will my daughter then be assessed for Austudyassistance on the basis of my taxable income andon the basis of what I can really afford?

They are two fairly simple questions whichthe Austudy hotline office has been unable toanswer. I suppose the question for the govern-


ment really is this: given that you continue toclaim that you champion the cause of smallbusiness, surely you ought to be able to comeout with an answer as a government, and theminister, Senator Vanstone, ought to be ableto explain how we can solve these problems,because they clearly are problems.

It is not as though the government does notknow. As I understand it, there have beensome 60,000 phone calls to the Austudyhotline. The government clearly knows aboutit. You have only to look at what is writtenin the newspapers to really come to grips withthis issue. The application goes in and getsrefused. The student does not have the moneyeither to continue or to begin their universityeducation. They are told they need a review,and the review process can take up to sixmonths.

What sort of a situation is that for them?Most are already having to enrol for the dole.I suppose there might be a position wheresome of them end up on the dole. Then, all ofa sudden, while they are trying to sort out thismess with regards to their review, and wheth-er they are finally going to start, or continue,their university education, they get involvedin the compulsory work for the dole scheme.In that sort of a situation, they could notbegin to look at even part-time education.

As I said, the minister and the governmenthave a very big and urgent responsibility toprovide answers to these people, and not onlyin terms of the hotline. My colleagues and Iare getting a number of complaints, and Iknow that the letter really just mirrors one ofthe many phone calls that we have received.

It may well be that the change had anhonourable objective and, of course, wewould and did support the change in so far asit applied to people trying to rort the system,if that were the case. But clearly, there is aproblem in terms of income assessment,whereby people, even if they have borrowedmoney, have it counted as income. And, ofcourse, we have somehow got this nationalaveraging in terms of certain aspects of whatwill be assessed. In Mr Allen’s case, it relatedto transport costs and that, apparently, camefrom the ABS. But what was it assessed on?Clearly, there will be differences around this

country with regard to cost of living and,clearly, in terms of transport, in Tasmania thecosts will be less than they will be in someother states.

This is a ridiculous situation. We have seenno action from the government and no ex-planation from the minister. The minister andthe government and the Prime Minister (MrHoward) say that they are the champions ofsmall business and that they do not want tosee young people on the dole. They say thatthey want them to make a responsible contri-bution. And yet they have put a means test inplace that is clearly disadvantaging youngpeople that want to go to university andcannot because of this whole process of abungled means test.

Yet there is no government action. I thinkthat the government ought, forthwith, toaddress this question urgently, and I hope thatthe minister will take on board the concernsof the many tens of thousands of students andtheir parents. And, particularly because theyare in the area of small business, this govern-ment ought to give it a paramount position interms of taking some action to resolve theproblems. If they do not, many of these kidswill not get to go to university, or will not beable to continue their studies. I hope that thegovernment senators here who seem veryinterested in this matter will take it on boardand pursue their minister to do somethingabout it.

Ministerial ResponseSenator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(1.43 p.m.)—Indeed, we will, Senator Mur-phy. I thank other senators for their contribu-tion to this most interesting matters of publicinterest debate.

Sitting suspended from 1.44 to 2 p.m.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

The Senate: FundingSenator SHERRY—My question is direct-

ed to you, Madam President. Is it a fact thatthe Department of Finance has refused tosupplement the Department of the Senate forthe 12 extra sitting days that the Senate satlast year to get the government’s budget


program through the Senate? Is it also a factthat the government has refused to supple-ment the $33,000 that it will cost to upgradeSenator Colston’s staff position? Has theDepartment of Finance offered to extend theSenate department’s capacity to borrow fromnext year’s budget to fund the $171,000shortfall that this has created? Fourthly, giventhat the Senate has to forgo $171,000 fromnext year’s budget, what cuts to senators’services are likely to result from this short-fall?

The PRESIDENT—There were four partsto the question. In relation to the first one,there was a refusal, but it was contained in aletter from the Minister for Finance, not theDepartment of Finance. The upgrade wasapproved without supplementation in thisfinancial year, but the letter contained thewords, ‘You may wish to raise the matteragain in the budget context.’ This is beingdone.

In answer to the third question, again, thisproposal came from the Minister for Finance,not the department. If it does come to furthercuts to services, that will be a matter todiscuss with the Senate Standing Committeeon Appropriations and Staffing. In the mean-time, the Senate is seeking the funds referredto in this year’s budget.

Senator SHERRY—I have a supplemen-tary question to the answers you have given,Madam President. Is it not a fact that youresisted the upgrade for Senator Colston’sstaffer for a considerable period of time buteventually passed on Senator Colston’srequest by letter to the Prime Minister on 15November? Did the Prime Minister or anymember of his staff contact you prior to 15November? Why was your letter hand-deliv-ered to Nicole Feely rather than through thenormal processes?

The PRESIDENT—Nobody contacted mefrom the Prime Minister’s office in relation tothe matter. I have most of the letters I send tothe Prime Minister’s office hand-delivered tomake certain that they get to the person whomI want to see them.

Inflation: Interest Rates

Senator KNOWLES—My question isdirected to the Assistant Treasurer. The

release of the latest CPI figures in themidyear review show that Australia hasdecisively entered a low inflation era. Howdoes low inflation contribute to a low interestrate, high investment environment and createthe jobs needed to tackle the unacceptablyhigh unemployment rates left by the Laborgovernment after 13 years? Is there anyfurther good news to report on recent devel-opments in home mortgage rates?

Senator KEMP—The honourable senatoris quite right when she says that the latest CPIfigures show that Australia has decisivelyentered a low inflation environment. Australianow enjoys one of the lowest inflation envi-ronments in the world. Our inflation rate iswell below the OECD average. The so-calledall groups CPI rose by 0.2 per cent in theDecember quarter of last year. It is the lowestquarterly rise since the December quarter of1993. The three-year growth was 1.5 per cent.

The last time Australia experienced inflationrates this low was in the early 1990s when theeconomy was in recession. The maintenanceof low inflation over this cycle suggests thatAustralia has returned to an inflation perform-ance not seen since the 1960s. The Decemberquarter CPI is consistent with the midyearreview that headline inflation will be just oneper cent in 1996-97 and underlying inflationin the order of two per cent.

Low inflation is good for jobs. I wouldhave thought that the Labor Party would havewelcomed these low inflation figures. Thetragedy for the opposition is that they hategood news. This is a singular group of Aus-tralians who seem to hate good news on theeconomic front. Low inflation is good news.It is good news for jobs, it promotes soundand balanced investment decisions, it providescertainty for business in making decisions onwages and prices and it particularly helpsolder households by protecting the real valueof savings. Of course, low inflation is aprerequisite for low interest rates. Low inter-est rates are simply not sustainable unlessinflation is low. Low inflation and a respon-sible fiscal strategy have sliced 1.5 per centoff official interest rates since the election.

Senator, you asked me whether there is anygood news on the mortgage home interest rate


front. I can inform you that today theCommonwealth Bank, the largest homelender, has unilaterally cut 0.7 per cent off itsstandard variable home rate, which nowstands at 7.55 per cent.

Senator Bob Collins—What do you mean‘unilaterally’? Senator Watson, did you hearwhat he just did to the English language?

The PRESIDENT—Senator Collins, do notshout across the chamber please.

Senator KEMP—It is incredible that Laborfrontbenchers, who were responsible forrecord levels of interest rates, should becomplaining about this good news, which isgood news for home owners.

You will be aware, Madam President, thatyesterday on the interest rate front in relationto small business I mentioned that AussieHome Loans have entered this market and arecreating more competition. People will re-member, Senator Collins, that under yourgovernment interest rates to small businesspeaked at 20 per cent. That is the Laborpolicy—the high inflation, high interest ratepolicy.

Senator Cook—But it was not.

Senator KEMP—If it was not your policy,why didn’t you get it right in 13 years? Youhad 13 years to get it right and you compre-hensively failed. Official interest rates havefallen 1.5 per cent. All major banks have cuttheir home rates by at least 2.25 per cent, andnow the Commonwealth Bank has cut its rateby 2.95 per cent. This is almost double theofficial cut in interest rates.(Time expired)

Senator KNOWLES—Madam President,I ask a supplementary question. Minister,what would the effect on inflation and jobs beif the ACTU’s living wage claim was imple-mented? Would that create any threat to thelow inflation environment?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator KEMP—A perfectly sensible andresponsible question leads to jeers from theother side. The ACTU’s so-called living wageclaim—which the ALP essentially supports;is that correct, Senator; what a deathly silencecomes from the opposition front bench—iscompletely irresponsible. It would put at risk

our low inflation environment, it would leadultimately to higher interest rates, it wouldlead to a shift away from enterprise bargain-ing and, above all, it would be a job destroy-er. It is a sad thing that the Labor Party havelearnt nothing, having been hurled from officebecause of their miserable failure over 13years. They are still supporting high inflationand high interest rate policies, and the com-munity will remember that.

Telstra: Operator Assisted CallsSenator SCHACHT—My question is to

the Minister for Communications and theArts. Minister, is it a fact that the LiberalParty’s communications election policydocumentBetter communicationspromised,‘A coalition government will not permitcarriers to charge for operator assisted callsand will set an overall requirement that 90 percent of all operator assisted calls be answeredwithin 10 seconds. This requirement willcover directory assistance, emergency calls,long distance and international calls and faultreporting’? In view of this promise, will youtoday direct Telstra not to introduce a 50ccharge for directory assistance calls for the013 number?

Senator ALSTON—I think—Senator Bob Collins—‘The document was

only issued by campaign headquarters andwasn’t actually mine.’

The PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, youwill answer Senator Schacht’s question.

Senator ALSTON—Yes; perhaps we mightget more enlightenment if I proceed, MadamPresident. The fact is that I think SenatorSchacht is accurately quoting our policycontained in theBetter communicationsdocument released at the last election. Beyondthat point, there is no proposal currentlybefore the government. Until we see such aproposal, of course it is entirely premature tobe ruling out or giving directions or any suchthing. If a proposal comes forward in duecourse and it clearly contradicts our electionproposals, it will not go ahead.

Just in case Senator Schacht thinks thatthere is a formal proposal there, let us look atwhat he said in his press release. He managedto extend himself to about 15 lines yesterday


in the press release he put out, and it startsoff by saying:

The Labor opposition believes that Telstra is aboutto introduce . . .

That is not a very sound policy basis for thegovernment to make decisions on, I wouldn’thave thought. Most people have not got a cluewhat Labor believes these days—whether youare still chasing the chardonnay or cappuccinovote, which basically props you up thesedays, having given the battlers away. Whyshould we treat your beliefs on these issues asany sort of policy basis?

The fact is that the draft press release Ihave seen from Telstra says that it is only aninformal proposal at this stage and Telstra iskeen to discuss all aspects of the proposalwith consumer groups before presenting aformal proposal to the government. Quiteclearly there could be a lot of water to gounder the bridge before we get anywhere neara formal commitment.

The fact is of course that Senator Schachtwas actually given information about theseproposals yesterday and had all the time inthe world to absorb the detail of it. But whatdo we get? Not a mention of the fact that thisservice is growing by 20 to 25 per cent ayear—more than 400 million calls out there.At the present time people are experiencingsignificant congestion on the system.

Senator Robert Ray—Why did you makethe promise? You were the shadow ministerwho made the promise!

Senator ALSTON—Did I say we did notmake the promise? All of those problemswere just skated over by poor, old SenatorSchacht, who of course was the one who toldthe Australian on 29 June last year that hedelights in opposition because there is nomore paperwork involved. He said, ‘Some ofus were never overly sucked in by the cabinetprocess,’ and I think I reminded him at thetime that he was not actually in cabinet; buthe obviously empathised with his colleagueswho were actually doing the hard work.Nonetheless, he felt ‘there was too much time

spent debating the minutiae’, as he called it,‘of administration and not enough purepolitics’.

That is certainly pretty evident from theinterview you managed to give to Liz Jacksontoday. You went on 2CN. You thought itwould be a nice free kick and that you wouldbe able to trot out the usual lines of hysteria,fear and loathing. But, no, what did we get?Liz Jackson asked you, ‘Isn’t it a fact thatmany of the people who use this service useit at work?’ Of course, this was essentially apolicy proposition; so the best SenatorSchacht could do was to say, ‘And a lot ofpeople use it at home, too.’ In other words, herefused to address the issues. It is no wonderthat people in the industry are talking aboutyou as a low impact facility. It is a veryserious situation. Unless and until you can getdown to the detail of these issues, you cannotpossibly expect us to take them seriously.

Senator SCHACHT—Madam President, Iask a supplementary question. Minister, inview of your refusal to clearly rule out thecharge of 50c to a directory assistance call,does this mean you were more interested inimproving the sale price of Telstra thanprotecting the Australian public from thisincrease which is contrary to your own elec-tion promise and that this is of course justanother in the long list of your own brokenpromises?

Senator ALSTON—Thank you very muchfor that supplementary, because it does giveme the opportunity to say what I did not havea chance to say a moment ago. In the LizJackson interview, Senator Schacht trotted thislittle line out, too:But the idea that this price should be jacked upwith nothing more in mind in the than this willimprove the price of Telstra’s privatisation isoutrageous.

Putting aside for one moment the utter inco-herence of the answer, what he was trying todo was suggest that somehow this is justTelstra taking the money, putting it in its backpocket and fattening up the calf for sale. Thatis the sort of proposal that was served up inrecent years; I acknowledge that. But, as Iunderstand this draft proposal that has beenfloated—


Senator Robert Ray—Have you read it?

Senator ALSTON—I have seen their pressreleases—is designed to be revenue neutral.Clearly they are addressing that. You evensaid that giving back $50 million is notenough. You acknowledge they are givingback $50 million, so why turn around andpretend that somehow this is all going tomake Telstra more attractive in the float? Itis sufficiently attractive already, and everyAustralian except your good selves will be onboard.(Time expired)

Native Title

Senator BOSWELL—My question isaddressed to the Minister representing thePrime Minister. I refer to rights of negotiationthat native title claimants have in relation tomining activities on land with native titleclaims. In view of the Wik decision onpastoral leases, will this leave a situationwhere native title claimants have, even priorto the determination of their claim, a right tonegotiate but the pastoral leaseholder of thesame land where he may have carried on hispastoral activities for many years has abso-lutely no right to negotiate?

Senator Bob Collins—I think I understandwhat he is saying, but I am not sure.

Senator BOSWELL—Does this create aposition of two classes of citizens, one withrights and the other without rights over thesame land?

Senator Robert Ray—Sit down. It is beinganswered in the other place at the moment bythe Prime Minister.

Senator HILL —To help Senator Collins,I think what is being asserted is that minershave to negotiate with—

Senator Bob Collins—This is the miningcompanies?

Senator HILL —Yes—native title claimantsbefore any claim has been proven, whereaspastoralists do not have the same rights. Inother words, miners do not have to negotiatewith pastoralists even though they may havebeen there for 60 years.

Senator Bob Collins—Except in WesternAustralia.

Senator HILL —This does seem to provide,as Senator Boswell said, an unequal situation.For a party such as the Labor Party that hasalways regarded rights of equality as sacro-sanct, I would have thought that that wouldbe causing you some concern. But of coursethis has come about from the fact that you soconfidently told the parliament when youbrought down the Native Title Bill thatpastoral leases extinguished native title.

Senator Bob Collins—That is the advicewe had; that’s right.

Senator HILL —You did, Bob, too. Youvery confidently told us we could rely on thatadvice, and former Senator Evans, the leader,did likewise. As a result of the error that youmade and the error that you brought to theparliament, there now seems to be a newinequality within our society, and that obvi-ously is contributing to the stresses that areassociated with this matter.

So I understand the distress of the pastoral-ists to whom Senator Boswell refers. Theyfind it difficult to see why one sector of thecommunity should have a right over andabove theirs. All this really does is to demon-strate how important it is to resolve thismatter as quickly as possible and to resolveit in a way that is fair and that providescertainty for all parties, including pastoralists.That is the position of the government, as hasbeen made clear by the Prime Minister onmany occasions. He is probably making itclear again right now, Senator Ray, if as youtold me he is answering this question now—atwhich I would be surprised, anyway—

Senator Robert Ray—You are doingbetter.

Senator HILL —Thank you. I think it isworth while to remind those opposite that thePrime Minister has consulted with all affectedparties—states, miners, pastoralists and Abo-rigines; that last week we met twice withrepresentatives of the Aboriginal community,first with ATSIC representatives and, at thesecond, larger meeting, with ATSIC and otherAboriginal spokespeople; and that the discus-sions were described by the Aboriginal repre-sentatives as being cordial and pleasing. Infact, I think it is generally agreed that themeeting was constructive. The next step in the


process is a round table meeting with thePrime Minister this Friday involving repre-sentatives of the Aboriginal community,farmers and mining interests, the purpose ofwhich is to ascertain what common groundcan be achieved.

Madam President, as you are aware, thePrime Minister has left open the direction thatchanges to the native title will take. Hebelieves it is critical to canvass all viewsbefore deciding which alternatives to take up.This is a high priority of the government. Weall accept that there are no simple answers tothis very stressful issue, but we are workingconstructively to achieve progress and ulti-mately a resolution that is both fair andlasting. We will seek to do that as quickly aspossible.

Ms Gabi HollowsSenator FAULKNER—My question is

directed to the Minister for Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Affairs. Minister, is ittrue that you wrote to Ms Gabi Hollows on 6May offering to arrange an alternative posi-tion for her in your portfolio area if sheagreed to the Minister for Transport’s requestto resign from the Civil Aviation SafetyAuthority board? Why did you attempt toinduce a Commonwealth office holder toresign from her position by offering her otherbenefits? Minister, at whose instigation didyou write the letter? Did you discuss thismatter with the Minister for Transport eitherbefore or after making the offer?

Senator Cook—You’re in trouble.Senator HERRON—No, I am not in

trouble. As a matter of fact, Fred Hollowswas a friend of mine, a very great Australianand a fellow colleague. I met Mrs GabiHollows through her husband. I am appalledthat you should impute some motives to mein relation to this matter. I met Gabi, if I maybe so—

Senator Vanstone—Bold.Senator HERRON—bold as to call her that

here—that is what I call her to her face—previously and discussed the lens implantprogram, a worldwide program in Eritrea. Isaid to her that I would love to have herinvolved because of her involvement with

people overseas and with the Aboriginalcommunity, which Fred had been involvedwith for many years. I said I would like to gether involved in Aboriginal and Islander affairswhen the opportunity arose. I did write to her.I have the letter with me, if you would like tohear from it.

Senator Cook—This is a defensive letter,is it?

Senator HERRON—No, I wrote to her on6 May. I said:

As you may be aware, the federal governmentwill be undertaking measures to improve healthoutcomes for Aboriginal people.

Okay? I also wrote:Health conditions in Aboriginal communities areappalling.

I did not say that you had been in governmentfor 13 years and that they were appalling. Isaid:Health conditions in Aboriginal communities areappalling and it is a national disgrace that indigen-ous people in this country are living in thoseconditions. Given your experience in this difficultand sensitive area, I believe that you could makea significant contribution to the improvement ofAboriginal health. I would appreciate an earlyopportunity to discuss with you the ways in whichyou would contribute through an appointment toone of the organisations under my ministerialresponsibility. I have discussed this matter with myministerial colleague Mr Sharp.

I did. I can keep going. The letter continues:I hope that we can work together to achieveimproved health outcomes for Aboriginal peopleand look forward to discussing this issue with you.

So I did.

Senator Bob Collins—Why?

Senator HERRON—I wanted to seewhether she was available and whether shewas interested and I would be happy toappoint her. I see no difficulty with that.

Senator FAULKNER—Madam President,I ask a supplementary question. Can I ask theminister: was it the Minister for Transportwho asked you to make this approach? If so,what was the nature of your discussions withthe Minister for Transport? Will you under-take to table a copy of the letter from whichyou were reading?


Senator HERRON—I will check all thefacts and bring them back.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator HERRON—No. I have told youthe answer. I will check if any letters havebeen exchanged. As I said, I have certainlydiscussed it with the Minister for Transport.I wanted to see whether it was feasible andwhether there were any problems associatedwith her being on more than one board. Thatis quite a reasonable thing to do, I wouldhave thought. I certainly did approach her andspoke to her. In fact, she approached me forassistance in relation to the lens implantprogram. I have known her for some years. Isee no impropriety in that at all. I will checkthat out for you and see if I have anythingfurther I can give you to assist you. I will seewhat I can do and see if I can produce any-thing further that would be of assistance.

Senator Robert Ray—I raise a point oforder. I ask Senator Herron to table thedocument that he quoted from.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Herron may doso if he wishes to do so. He is not obliged totable the letter. I call Senator Allison.

Senator Robert Ray—So what does thatgesture mean?

Senator Faulkner—What are you coveringup?

The PRESIDENT—Order! There is far toomuch noise in the chamber. I have calledSenator Allison and I am entitled to hear herquestion.

Senator Vanstone—I raise a point of order,Madam President. I draw to your attention yetagain by way of question an imputation beingcast by someone on the other side. SenatorFaulkner, in his usual bullying tactics, yellsout, ‘What are you covering up?’ His questionwas not, ‘Are you covering something up?’;it was in fact, ‘What are you covering up?’He repeatedly does this. I just think it isappropriate to repeatedly bring it to yourattention so that the practice ceases.

Senator Faulkner—On the point of order,Madam President, I did interject across thechamber and say to the Minister for Aborigi-nal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, ‘What

are you covering up?’ I did so because he wasasked to table a letter from which he wasquoting and, if he does not table it, I stand bythe statement. It is a cover up.

The PRESIDENT—Order! The minister isnot obliged to table any letter from which hehas quoted.

Senator Robert Ray—On the basis ofconfidentiality, you should add.

The PRESIDENT—There are far too manypeople interjecting at the present time.

Senator Faulkner—Don’t you destroy anycorrespondence, either.

The PRESIDENT—Order!Senator Schacht—On a point of order,

Madam President. I know that under standingorders it is at the discretion of the minister asto whether he chooses to table or not. Whenyou pointed out his discretion, he shruggedhis shoulders. Could we find out whether thatmeans, yes, he will table, or, no, he will nottable?

The PRESIDENT—The minister hasindicated that he is not tabling the letter. Heis entitled not to table the letter. It is a matterthat you can take up in a separate manner. Atthe present time—

Senator Faulkner—As usual.Honourable senators interjecting—The PRESIDENT—I would point out that

when the President rises the Senate shouldcease to interject. I have called SenatorAllison to proceed with her question.

Senator Hill—I take a point of order. WhatI am seeking in my point of order is a rulingon that point of order which was made bySenator Vanstone. As I understand it, it isoutside the standing orders to infer impropermotive. There is a procedure. If you wish toassert improper motive, there is a positiveprocedure that you are entitled to take underour standing orders. The point is that we allhave to operate under the one set of rules andthe point that Senator Vanstone made Ibelieve is correct, Madam President. There-fore, I put it to you for your consideration andI would appreciate a ruling.

The PRESIDENT—I do not believe thatthe Leader of the Opposition was imputing


motives to the minister at the time. There areother ways that the matter can be debated atother times within the Senate procedures.

Telstra: Operator Assisted CallsSenator ALLISON—My question is to the

Minister for Communications and the Arts,Senator Alston. It relates to the previousquestion by Senator Schacht. I hope theminister has had time to absorb the detail andcan answer my question.

Senator Carr—So will you table the letterlater?

The PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I amattempting to hear what Senator Allison isaddressing to Senator Alston.

Senator ALLISON—Is the minister awarethat, in spite of Telstra’s comments aboutchoice, this deal to which Senator Schachtreferred would not give customers any choiceat all? Is the minister aware that customerswill pay more under this deal even if theymake only one call a month to directoryservices? Is the minister aware that this dealis not revenue neutral as has been suggested,but in fact will cost consumers more than$150 million extra every year? And has theminister discussed this deal with Telstra andwill he direct Telstra to withdraw this propo-sal immediately?

Senator Calvert—Madam President,Senator Woodley has an advertisement placedconveniently for the television. I draw yourattention to that fact. It is against standingorders.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Woodley, Iwould ask you to refrain from doing that.

Senator ALSTON—Madam President—Opposition members interjecting—The PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too

much noise in the chamber.Senator ALSTON—It is very disappointing

that Senator Allison should think that grand-standing on an issue entitles you to ignore thefacts.

Senator Carr—You never grandstand, doyou!

Senator ALSTON—Well, you can grand-stand with facts. I can tolerate that, but I find

it very difficult to accept propositions that arecast in such general terms that they bear norelationship to the facts. This happens to beSenator Allison’s press release of today.

Opposition members interjecting—The PRESIDENT—Order! Would senators

on my left please remain quiet enough for meto be able to hear.

Senator ALSTON—This is what today’spress release from Senator Allison, the spacecadet extraordinaire, has to say:All customers will be forced onto this ‘deal’ . . .

The fact is that if she had looked at theTelstra draft proposal or informal proposal—

Senator Schacht—You said you haven’t.You said before in answer to my question thatyou had not seen it.

Senator ALSTON—It is very sad. You justdo not listen. I said that I had seen the draftpress release and I then proceeded to readfrom it.

Senator Schacht—The Telstra press re-lease.

Senator ALSTON—If you want to turnoff, I can understand the short concentrationspan, but we only expect you to listen for anhour a day and when you ask a question Inormally think you will listen for about threeor four minutes. If you didn’t hear me readout the Telstra draft press release you have avery serious auditory problem and I am surethey would be prepared to accommodate you.

What did the draft press release say interms of the informal proposal? There werefour different categories of people who wouldnot be affected—people who make calls frompay phones, people who cannot read, hold oruse the white pages directory, those who arenot in the white pages and new and changednumbers. Game, set and match.

How can you possibly put out a pressrelease saying that ‘All customers will beforced onto this "deal"’ when if you had readit you would find that 70 per cent of numberslisted are already listed in the white pagesdirectory, so presumably 30 per cent are notand therefore would not be covered by thisproposal. It is preposterous to think that youcould somehow put out a press release, hope


you get a headline and think no-one willbother to analyse the implications of what youare saying.

Senator Allison not only now asks me torule something out but has said in her pressrelease that we have approved it or condonedit, it would seem. She starts off by saying thatwe ‘now seem to want to go back on thatpromise’. Well, I am not aware of anyone onour side having said ‘Boo’ yet. We knowwhere all the noise and bluster is comingfrom, but we have not said a word. So whatis the basis for saying that we ‘now seem towant to go back on that promise’? The pressrelease states:Yet again we are seeing this Government penalising. . . people

It is just very silly nonsense and I would hopethat Senator Allison will go back and do herhomework, read the press releases or draftsthat come across the table, understand whatthe proposals are about and respond to them.

I have made it perfectly clear where westand on this. Nothing has come before thegovernment, so how could we possibly makea decision on it? It may well be that Telstrawill not proceed with it. They may proceedwith it in an entirely different shape or form.They say that they want to consult with con-sumer groups. I presume this is the start ofthe process. So to be putting out press releas-es saying that ‘we are seeing this governmentpenalising . . . people’ is simply outrageous.

Senator ALLISON—Madam President, Iask a supplementary question. I would like toremind the minister that he has the power todirect Telstra and, at this stage at least,Telstra is in public ownership. Given that, canthe minister please give an undertaking to theSenate that he will reprimand Telstra formaking a proposal which is so clearly outsidecoalition government policy? If not, how canthis government ever expect Australians tobelieve what they say?

Senator ALSTON—That has to be one ofthe most extraordinary propositions I haveever heard. There are clear statutory rules onthis. If Telstra wants to put forward a propo-sal, I am obliged to consider it. I have theright to refer it to Austel, and then I have theright to make a judgment on their recommen-

dation. And she wants me to reprimand thiscrowd for having the temerity to put forwarda proposal!

The PRESIDENT—Senator Alston—Senator ALSTON—Well, you can under-

stand why I am getting a bit excited. I do notoften get provoked to this extent, MadamPresident.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, youshould refer to Senator Allison as ‘SenatorAllison’, not ‘she’.

Senator ALSTON—If we ever get to thestage where government business enterprisesor other statutory authorities are to be rebukedfor putting forward proposals in the publicarena, not putting forward a proposal togovernment but merely floating something,we would have inquisition after inquisition.Presumably, we would have to go rightthrough an organisation of some 70,000-oddto find out which person actually leaked it. Iwould have thought that is no mean task. Itjust defies imagination to think that somehowSenator Allison ought to be taken seriouslywith this sort of nonsense.(Time expired)

Government AppointmentsSenator FAULKNER—My question is

directed to the Minister representing the PrimeMinister. Minister, do you consider it appro-priate for a government minister to offer aninducement to secure the resignation of aboard member of a statutory authority? Doyou further consider it appropriate that suchan inducement take the form of a positionwithin the gift of a government minister andfunded by the taxpayer?

Senator HILL —This is a hypotheticalquestion, of course, isn’t it? It bears norelationship to any previous question today,I assume, otherwise you would have said it inthe question. I would certainly, at the veryleast, regard it as somewhat odd to offer aninducement to resign. But I can imagine ahypothetical situation, Senator, when youwere in government and so wished to closedown one board and establish another, per-haps with slightly different terms of reference,and you went to a board member and said, ‘Iwant to close this down. I would be pleasedif you would resign to help facilitate that and


we will appoint you to the other board.’ Iwould not have thought that was extraordi-nary.

Opposition senators interjecting—The PRESIDENT—Order! There are far

too many interjections in the chamber.Senator HILL —I can also imagine hypo-

thetical situations where I would regard it asimproper. I think it really depends on thefacts and circumstances and perhaps if youput the facts and circumstances to me in asupplementary question I will have a go atanswering.

Senator FAULKNER—Madam President,I have a supplementary question that I do notthink even you, Senator Hill, could define ashypothetical. Are ministers in your govern-ment required, before approaching peopleconsidered for government appointments, toclear the appointment with the senior ministerfrom the state or territory in which the nomi-nee resides and to consult other relevantministerial colleagues, particularly whenproposing to appoint officers employed inanother portfolio to a position within theirown portfolio?

Senator HILL —I do not know about this‘consulting the senior minister in the samestate’ nonsense. That must have been somepractice that was adopted by the previousregime.

Senator Campbell—No, you have to go tothe senior factional boss.

Senator Robert Ray—Tell us who that isin South Australia, if you are so smart! Whois this in the Liberal Party in South Australia?

Honourable senators interjecting—The PRESIDENT—Just wait, Senator Hill.Senator HILL —I appreciate the interjec-

tions, because now it all starts to fit intoplace. You could not appoint somebody fromthe Left to a position that was the gift of theRight without getting the consent of thefactional leader of the Left. In this instance,that is Senator Faulkner. Yes, I would thinkthat, if there were some cross-portfolio ap-pointment, you would probably speak to theminister associated with the other portfolio.Again, this is a hypothetical question. Perhaps

the next time the senator asks the question hemight put the factual base to it and he willget a better answer.

Senator Bob Collins—You should not havelet Sharp get that one up on you. He said hecame to you.

The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Collins,stop shouting across the chamber.

Senator Bob Collins—Yes, Madam Presi-dent.

Perth AirportSenator MARGETTS—My question is

addressed to the Minister for the Environ-ment. I refer to the response given by theMinister for the Environment to my questionon 6 November 1996 in relation to the listingof the bushland and wetlands at Perth airporton the Register of the National Estate. I alsorefer to the recent announcement that theAustralian Heritage Commission has agreedto delist this area from the register followinglegal action by the Federal Airports Corpo-ration. I ask: what was the basis of the legalchallenge by the Federal Airports Corpora-tion? Is it true that the Australian HeritageCommission still considers that the bushlandand wetlands at Perth airport are of nationalsignificance? What action will you now taketo ensure the protection of this environment-ally significant area?

Senator HILL —I should remind SenatorMargetts that the AHC, the Australian Heri-tage Commission, is an independent statutoryauthority. I am not sure whether she is invit-ing me to take an action of political interven-tion in this matter, but I will set that aside forthe moment. I thought I said on the lastoccasion that the basis of the action was thatthere had been some procedural deficienciesin the listing process by the AHC. In otherwords, as I understood it, it was very much acase being made on a technical point. I thinkI probably said on the last occasion that I wassomewhat unimpressed with two statutoryauthorities spending hundreds of thousands ofdollars of taxpayers’ money in fighting eachother over a technicality. Certainly I was sounimpressed that I had asked my then parlia-mentary secretary, Senator Campbell, to seewhether he could use his good offices to bring


about a sensible resolution without seeking tointerfere in the statutory role of either authori-ty.

As was hinted at by the senator, what hashappened is that in December the two partiesapplied to, and obtained from, the FederalCourt an order to the effect that the AHC’sdecision of 12 February to enter parts of Perthairport on the Register of the National Estatehad ceased to be effective. The order of 23December 1996 means that the areas of Perthairport are not included from that date in theRegister of the National Estate on theregister’s interim list. I understand the AHCdecided to take this step to bring to a conclu-sion lengthy litigation which was leadingnowhere and costing an enormous amount ofmoney.

It is important to note that the AHC settledthe proceedings on the basis that it did not inany way concede that the commission’sdecision involved any error in law. In otherwords, the commission is not in any wayimplying by its decision that the place doesnot have heritage significance. It is now opento the AHC to consider further the questionof entering or re-entering any parts of thePerth airport on the register. I am advised thatno decision has yet been made by the com-mission about this possible course of action.

Senator MARGETTS—Madam President,I thank the minister for his answer but, bymeans of a supplementary question, I wouldlike to ask: given that this delisting took placeprior to the closing date for tenders to leasethe Perth airport, could the minister advisewhether the tenderers were required to in-corporate any costings in their bids withrespect to the management of the bushlandand wetlands that are the subject of thisdispute? If so, does the minister agree that thedelisting of this area has affected thetenderers’ attitudes and costings in relation tothis issue?

Senator HILL —I do not think so because,as I said, the delisting was only on the basisof settling a case on a technical issue. As Isaid to you a minute ago, the AHC do notimply by their decision to settle that the areadoes not have that heritage significance. It isnow open to the AHC to further consider the

question of entering or re-entering any partsof the Perth airport on the register. I do notwant to interfere in their province, but I amsure that they will meet their full obligationsunder the act. Therefore, if the areas inquestion have the values which you attributeand to which the AHC obviously believedthey had before, I would have thought acertain action would logically follow.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORSThe PRESIDENT—I draw the attention of

honourable senators to the presence in thechamber of members of the French SenateCommittee for Foreign Affairs, Defence andArmed Services led by the president of thecommittee, Monsieur Xavier de Villepin. Onbehalf of honourable senators, I have pleasurein welcoming you to the Senate and trust thatyour visit here will be both informative andenjoyable.

Honourable senators—Hear, hear!


Prime MinisterSenator ROBERT RAY—I direct my

question to the Minister representing thePrime Minister. Can you explain to the Senatehow the Prime Minister’s name came to beappended to his statement in theHerald-Sunthat ‘we do not support the introduction of awork for the dole scheme’ given that he isnow proclaiming he deliberately avoidedrejecting this possibility during the campaignperiod? When he or his office first saw theresponses in theHerald-Sunarticle, why didhe not immediately correct the record or is itthe case that he was happy for this perceptionof coalition policy to be perpetuated? Howwill the Australian people be expected todifferentiate between the Prime Minister’spromises and those made in his name by theapparatchiks at Robert Menzies House? Howare we to know which campaign statementsor election promises made under the PrimeMinister’s name were made without consulta-tion with him or his staff and therefore willnot be honoured?

Senator HILL —As I understand it, aprocess was adopted by the particular news-paper to provide public information during the


election. The process was that they set anumber of questions which they said that theygot from their correspondents. As I under-stand it, they expected the answers to be inthe name of the leader of the respectiveparties and that is why these answers, whichwere prepared by the party campaign organi-sation, came out in Mr Howard’s name on ourpart and, I presume, in the name of MrKeating on the part of the Labor Party.

If you are suggesting to me that Mr Keatingsat down and checked all of those answersthat were published under his name, I wouldregard such a suggestion as extraordinary. Isuggest that what is more likely is that youprobably adopted a process somewhat similarto ours and that is that the party organisationwrote the answers on the basis of existingpolicy and had that checked with the relevantminister or shadow minister, as the case mightbe. So that is the background, as I understandit, and in all those circumstances it is under-standable.

Senator Bob Collins—How can the voterstell when you have your fingers crossedbehind your back that you are not—

The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Collins!It is Senator Ray’s opportunity to ask asupplementary question.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Madam Presi-dent, I ask a supplementary question. I stillcome back to the question—not going back tothe past any more, Senator Hill, but to thefuture. When newspaper articles appear in thename of the Prime Minister in future, or hisname and photograph are associated withthem as author, will you give us a guaranteethat it will be the Prime Minister’s work? Ifit is not the Prime Minister’s work, will youat least guarantee that he approved of it andthat that policy will be extant? Will you alsogive us a guarantee that if, in fact, it is notthe Prime Minister’s work, he will put out aretraction pointing out to the public that it isnot his view?

Senator HILL —I think that, in relation tothe last part, I can. I am sure that, if some-thing was published under the name of thePrime Minister and was brought to his atten-tion and he regarded it as incorrect, he wouldmake a correction. That being so, I do not

think that really answers what is your concernand that is that during the course of a cam-paign, when literally forests are harvested toproduce public information that is publishedunder the names of the party leaders, it is notsimply all written by the party leaders.

Senator Robert Ray—Just explain the coreand non-core.

Senator HILL —You know that. I knowthat. Best efforts are made to ensure accuracy.In this instance, apparently there was amistake.

Senator Cook—Why didn’t he correct itthen?

The PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Cook!

Work for the Dole SchemeSenator TROETH—My question is ad-

dressed to the Minister for Employment,Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Minister, the Howard government’s work forthe dole initiative has been well received bythe Australian public. They believe youngAustralians should be given the opportunityto make a contribution in return for their dolepayments. The extent to which Labor is outof touch with mainstream Australia has beenshown in its opposition to this proposal. Themedia has reported in recent days that theDepartment of Employment, Education,Training and Youth Affairs has published areport rejecting the concept of work for thedole. Are these reports true? If not, can theminister correct the record?

Senator VANSTONE—I thank SenatorTroeth, through you Madam President, forthat question. There was a report referred toon the ABC. That report was entitledVolun-teering in Australia. It was actually undertak-en and published by ACOSS. The purpose ofthe report was to investigate that use ofvoluntary—that is unpaid—work as a pathwayto some type of paid employment. The reportwas not about work for the dole. Work for thedole is about being paid award rates forhourly work done up to the value of yourdole payment. The report in question makesno recommendations at all on the subject ofwork for the dole. None at all. The reportdoes state that some organisations would notwant to provide or be capable of providing an


appropriate pathway from unemployment tovoluntary work to paid unemployment. How-ever, that is completely irrelevant to thegovernment’s work for the dole scheme andthe reason for that is that the government willbe inviting proposals from interested organisa-tions, not those which are not interested, notthose which do not want to be involved andnot those which are not capable of providingwhat is required.

Work for the dole we believe will contri-bute towards breaking the cycle of despon-dency and despair experienced primarily byyoung unemployed Australians. We believethat it will give them some work experienceand let them make a contribution back to thecommunity. The proposal has the overwhelm-ing support of the community: 95 per cent ofthose responding to aHerald-Sunphone pollon this issue were in favour of the scheme.You can attribute a significant degree of errorto a phone poll—I understand that—but itdoes not matter where you go from 95 percent; you are going to end up with a verysignificant majority in favour of the work forthe dole proposal to trial about 30 pilotsaround Australia. As Senator Troeth rightlysays, Labor’s kneejerk reaction against thisproposal and its refusal to see if this mightmake a difference and a contribution is justanother example of their having created amess and having no policies and no ideasabout how to fix that mess. Their oppositionto this shows just how out of touch with thecommunity they really are.

Madam President, it is no surprise to methat Senator Faulkner is now on his feet andturning his back to me, because I suspect thathe knows what I am about to say. I believethat Senator Faulkner recently raised thisreport in the chamber. If he was referring toanother one, I would be very happy for himto tell me about it. In his usual smug way, hewanted to infer, through a question, that mydepartment had published such a report, whenwe had not.

I can only assume that Senator Faulknerheard this on ABC radio and, having no ideason policies and no ideas on questions, thoughthe would give it a run. I remind him thatthere are a lot of parents of Australian sailors

who once thought their kids were in troublein the Gulf War because the ABC ran a reportthat one of our destroyers had some collision.It turned out that the ABC had heard thatfrom a Sydney cabbie. I do not know whetherSenator Faulkner has a better source for hisquestions. Perhaps he has got this report butinquiries by my department have not beenable to find it. What he did was come in hereand pretend that there was a report opposedto work for the dole, when he should haveknown that that was not the case.

SuperannuationSenator CONROY—My question is to the

Assistant Treasurer. Minister, regarding thecollection mechanism for the government’snew half a billion dollar a year tax on super-annuation, which you call a surcharge, canyou provide details of organisations thatsupport the collection mechanism? What hopedo you have of convincing the people ofAustralia of the fairness and equity of thecollection mechanism when your backbenchyesterday cut it to pieces?

Senator KEMP—I thank Senator Conroyfor that question. We will just get a couple ofthe facts on the table for you, Senator, be-cause I know that, unlike most of your col-leagues, you like some facts. The Labor Partysupports the 15 per cent surcharge—correct?

Opposition senators interjecting—Senator KEMP—Ah, right—that is exactly

what we wanted.Senator Sherry—Yes, but not the collec-

tion mechanism.Senator KEMP—Oh, not the collection

mechanism! I am interested to know whatcollection proposal the Labor Party—

Senator Sherry—You give us the legisla-tion and—

Senator KEMP—You will get that soon.The PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, address

your remarks through the chair and not toanswers across the chamber.

Senator KEMP—Thank you, MadamPresident. I was being shouted at, it has to besaid, by Senator Conroy. He asked a question.You try to provide him with an answer andthen he shouts at you. Senator Conroy, we


have established that you support the sur-charge. That is good. The Labor Party be-lieves, as we do that, in order to achievefairness and equity in the superannuationsystem, the surcharge is important. But thereis a vagueness as to how the Labor Partywants to have it collected.

Senator Sherry—What about John Wat-son? What is his view?

Senator KEMP—Your colleague SenatorSherry in front of you, Senator Conroy—putdown an option. That option would involvethe direct involvement, in an expensive way,of 900,000 people in small business.

Senator Sherry—What about your scheme?It is going to cost $200 million. Small busi-nesses will be severely affected by yourscheme.

Senator KEMP—I raised this with SenatorSherry, who then said, ‘Oh, that wasn’t theLabor Party’s proposal; it was only an op-tion.’ So, you have got a chance, SenatorConroy, in your supplementary question—Iam going to give you a bit of warning onthis—to outline the Labor Party’s policy onthe collection of the 15 per cent surcharge.That is the challenge before you, SenatorConroy, and you have got exactly 40 secondsto get the policy right.

I can assure you, Madam President, that wehave gone through the various options for thecollection of the surcharge and we havedecided on the option which we think is thebest. It is an option which has been out on thetable now for a long period. The Labor Partydoes appear to be going around and tellingpeople a variety of things in relation to theirpolicy on the collection mechanism. SenatorConroy, I am going to sit down now. Youstand up and tell us what the Labor Party isproposing on the collection mechanism?

Senator CONROY—Why is the Treasurerstill issuing press releases as late as last week,Wednesday, 5 February, attempting to clarifythe collection mechanism, in which he states:

There are constitutional issues associated withapplying the administrative and payment mecha-nism to some schemes, in particular, those run bythe Commonwealth and the states.

The government will be consulting the states andterritories to achieve a workable outcome for theirschemes.

Why weren’t these difficulties taken intoaccount in the development of the originalproposal and how much revenue is at risk ifthe superannuation tax cannot be collectedfrom the states?

Senator KEMP—Senator, you duck thereal issue there; that is noted. So, the LaborParty has not got a clue, or it says secretlywhat its option is. But you duck that issue,Senator. The reality is that you support the 15per cent surcharge. Therefore, you believe thatit is fair and equitable. It was explained, Ithought very clearly, in the press release bythe Treasurer what the government is propos-ing to do on this.

But, Senator Conroy, before you are givenquestions in relation to the surcharge, makesure that you have got your own party policyin line. It did reveal today, when you askedthat question, that there is a gaping hole inthe Labor Party’s approach. Senator Sherryhad better stop going around giving comfortto people when he probably can’t deliver.

Honourable senators interjecting—The PRESIDENT—Honourable senators

should stop interjecting so that I can call thenext question.

AustudySenator STOTT DESPOJA—My question

is addressed to the Minister for Employment,Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Inlight of widespread community concern, willthe minister give an undertaking to immedi-ately review the Austudy means test and makethe finding of that review public; make publicthe departmental Austudy policy guidelinesmanual chapter which deals with the Austudymeans test—that is, chapter 7, the only onethat is not publicly available; and release thedetails of the number of applicants who havebeen refused Austudy as a result of theapplication of the Austudy means test.

Senator VANSTONE—Senator StottDespoja, I do not know whether you werehere the other day, but Senator Harradine hasalready raised these concerns. He is ahead ofyou by about a week actually. If you were


here and otherwise dreaming or having astrawberry chocolate frog, as is your prefer-ence—

Senator Carr—Strawberry chocolate frogs!Gee, we are right into it now, aren’t we?

Senator VANSTONE—She likes straw-berry chocolate frogs. She is only young, shehas not grown out of that flavour yet. SenatorHarradine, Senator Stott Despoja is ahead ofyou by about a week.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT—Order! There is toomuch noise in the chamber to hear the an-swer.

Senator VANSTONE—Most of them heardthe answer last week. It seems only SenatorStott Despoja was not around to catch up withSenator Harradine. Maybe it will be the hareand the tortoise, I do not know.

Senator Stott Despoja, if you were here,you would have heard that I think there is acouple of problems that need to be ironed out.I gave Senator Harradine an undertaking thatI was working on them. I said that, as soon asI was able to come back and give an indica-tion to him and the Senate of what washappening, I would do so. The same answerapplies to you.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA—MadamPresident, I ask a supplementary question.With respect, Minister, I did hear the answeryou gave Senator Harradine. It was preciselybecause you did not address the issue ofmaking public the guidelines that I raise thatissue here today. When the ALP introducedthe Austudy means test, Senator Hill, the theneducation minister, stated:The coalition is far from convinced that theseregulations are in what we would call satisfactoryform . . . if we are successful at the next electionwe will commence an immediate review of them;we will not wait for that two-year period . . . wewill want to be satisfied that they are fair, that theyare not unduly intrusive and that they are notprejudicial to those who are self-employed . . .

So, Minister, will you now undertake topublicly review the guidelines and thushonour your government’s pledge? Yes or no?

Senator VANSTONE—Senator, I think Iunderstand the document that you are seeking

access to. I will have a look at that. If it isfeasible in the very near future to give youthat document, I will. If it is not, I will comeback and explain to you why not.

Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask thatfurther questions be placed on theNoticePaper.

Defence

Nursing Home Entry Fees

Medical RecordsSenator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister

for Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)—On16 December, Senator Margetts put a questionon the Notice Paper for the Minister forDefence. I now have the detailed answer,which you will see is quite substantial. I amsorry it has taken as long as it has.

I also have two further answers to questionsthat have been asked this week in the Senateby Senator Mackay and Senator Neal. I seekleave to incorporate those answers.

Leave granted.

The answers read as follows—

Senate Question on Notice No. 361

Senator Margetts asked the Minister representingthe Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16December 1996:

With reference to the Tandem Thrust DefenceExercises to be held in March 1997:

(1)(a) What is the explanation for the fact thatthe department is not required to refer the exerciseto the Commonwealth Environment ProtectionAuthority (EPA) under the Environmental Protec-tion (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (the Act)? (b)how do the environmental requirements of theEnvironmental Certificate of Compliance differfrom the standard of requirements expected underthe Act? and (c) who is responsible for the stand-ards of compliance under the EnvironmentalCertificate of Compliance?

(2)(a) Where are the destinations for rest andrecreation for ‘Tandem Thrust’ personnel while inAustralia? and (b) can details be provided of arrivaland departure dates and numbers of personnelinvolved?

(3) Can the Minister assure the Senate that nonew activities, which have not previously beenconducted in the Shoalwater Training Area, willtake place?


(4)(a) Does the Minister concede that no activi-ties at this scale have previously taken place in theShoalwater Training Area? if so, is this not groundsfor a reference to the Commonwealth EPA underthe Act? (b) were the Kangaroo Exercises notreferred to the EPA under the Act? if not, why not?

(5) (a) Can details of the environmental restric-tions placed on exercise planners be provided? and(b) can a copy of the Environmental Annex to theExercise Plan be provided to the Senate as soon aspossible?

(6) How far away will the United States nuclear-powered submarine be from the Great Barrier Reefduring the exercises?

(7) What contingency or emergency plans dolocal authorities and Defence have in order to dealwith a leak or radiation accident from the nuclear--powered submarine?

(8) Can a map of the Shoalwater Training Areain relation to the Great Barrier Reef be provided?

(9) Are there any dangers involved in allowingnuclear-powered submarines in water of less than50 fathoms from blocked exhaust systems whichcould lead to a nuclear accident or leak? if so,please provide details?

(10)(a) Who are the people in the EnvironmentalMonitoring Unit set up to report on environmentalcompliance during the exercises? and (b) pleasedetail each of their areas of expertise?

(11)(a) Can details of the numbers of personnelinvolved in ‘Tandem Thrust’, by country, beprovided? (b) will Papua New Guinea and Indo-nesia be involved in these exercises? and (c) candetails be provided of their troop numbers, aircraft,ships, and any land based equipment they will bebringing to Australia?

(12) As a result of Tandem Thrust DefenceExercises, will the US be prepositioning any of itsequipment in Australia; if so, what equipment andwhere will it be prepositioned?

(13)(a) How many nuclear-powered or armedsubmarines or warships will be involved in theexercises in total? (b) has the Government con-sidered, or will it consider, the impact of theInternational Court of Justice decision on theillegality of nuclear weapons in relation to thelegality of the Tandem Thrust Defence Exercisesand the presence of nuclear warships during theexercises?

(14)(a) What is the projected level of environ-mental damage? and (b) has Defence assessed arange of potential adverse effects? if so, what arethey?

Senator Newman—The Minister for Defence hasprovided the following answer to the honourablesenator’s question:

(1)(a) Rather than referring all Defence activityproposals to the department responsible for theenvironment for decision regarding potentialsignificance, the then Environment Minister and thethen Minister for Defence agreed to a Memoran-dum of Understanding which was signed on 28August 1991 which states that the decision as towhether a Defence proposal or activity is likely toaffect the environment to a significant extent, maybe taken by the Minister for Defence or his/herMinistry. This administrative procedure is consis-tent with the requirements of the EnvironmentProtection (Impact of Proposal) Act 1974 whichcharges the action Minister to determine if aproposal should be referred to the EnvironmentMinister. To assist Defence in assessing the signifi-cance of the affect of a Defence proposal on theenvironment, the Ministers agreed on broad guide-lines. On the basis of these guidelines, it wasagreed that if, ‘after full and proper consideration,taking into account all relevant environmentalimplications’, Defence considered the environmentwould not be affected to a significant extent, theprovisions of the Environment Protection (Impactof Proposals) Act 1974 would be satisfied.

(b) The Department of Defence, in agreementwith the Environment Minister in 1980, introducedthe Environmental Certificate of Compliance as ameans of ensuring that the Department meets, anddischarges its responsibilities, for environmentalassessment under the provisions of the EnvironmentProtection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. TheEnvironmental Certificate of Compliance is signedby the Department of Defence delegate whensatisfied that all environmental aspects of a propo-sal have been adequately investigated, and that theaction is not an environmentally significant action.The Environmental Certificate of Complianceconforms to Defence’s requirements under theEnvironment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act1974 and therefore does not require referral to theMinister responsible for the environment.

In addition, this Certificate allows for conditionsto be placed on the proposal that must be strictlyadhered to.

(c) The Assistant Secretary Resources andProject Management is the Departmental delegateresponsible for approving and ensuring ExerciseTandem Thrust 97 is conducted in compliance withthe conditions set in the Environmental Certificateof Compliance.

(2)(a) and (b) A mixture of Australian Navy,Army and Air Force, and US Army, Navy, Marineand Air Force personnel will be based in Towns-ville (1,824), Rockhampton (1,280), Gladstone(937) and Amberley/Brisbane (1,134) during theexercise. These numbers are for the peak period 10-22 March 1997. Numbers will begin to build frommid February, with all personnel departing by the


end of March 1997. Up to two thirds of thesepersonnel may be granted leave outside of normalworking hours. A maximum of 8,609 personnelfrom all services will be located in the ShoalwaterBay Training Area (SWBTA) in the peak period10-22 March 1997. It is unlikely any of thesepersonnel will be granted leave during this period.13,126 Australian and US Navy personnel will beat sea during the exercise (all figures quoted in thisparagraph are expected estimates, but are subjectto change prior to and during the exercise). Thepersonnel on ships at sea will conduct goodwillvisits to Australian ports before and/or after theexercise. The ship visit program is still beingdeveloped and therefore, arrival and departure dateshave yet to be resolved. However, ships will bedispersed amongst ports to reduce the impact of thevisits and spread the economic benefits to a numberof communities. It is anticipated US Navy shipswill visit Cairns, Brisbane, Sydney, Townsville,Hobart and Fremantle. The largest port visit islikely to be conducted by five US Navy ships toSydney, a city well used to, and capable of, hostingthis number of ships. Four Australian Navy shipswill be conducting post exercise visits to Gladstone,Cairns and Brisbane. Up to two thirds of a ship’scompany may be granted leave at any one timeduring these visits.

(3) With one exception, all activities associatedwith Exercise Tandem Thrust have been conductedin the SWBTA in the past. The new activity is toexercise the US Maritime Pre-Positioning Force(MPF). This will involve the off load of MPFequipment and supplies at Freshwater Beach in theSWBTA, including the pumping of freshwater froma ship at anchor to the beach. This activity has notbeen conducted before in the SWBTA as theAustralian Defence Force (ADF) does not possessthis capability. The Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority and the Queensland Department of theEnvironment conducted a feasibility study andcomprehensive survey to determine the viabilityand preferred location for the conduct of theactivity. It has also been briefed to the SWBTAEnvironmental Management Advisory Committeeand the Australian Quarantine and InspectionService. All bodies involved and consulted haveagreed to the conduct of this activity.

(4)(a) Exercise Tandem Thrust 97 is indeed asignificant exercise, however, it is not the largestexercise to have been conducted in the SWBTA.Numerous Brigade and higher level exercises, andjoint/combined exercises, have been conducted atSWBTA since June 1974.

(b) The Kangaroo Exercises were referred to theEPA under the Environment Protection (Impact ofProposals) Act 1974. On the basis of informationprovided to the EPA by the Department of De-fence, and in accordance with paragraph 3.1.1(a) of

the Administrative Procedures, the Minister for theEnvironment, Sport and Territories determined thatneither a Public Environment Report nor an Envi-ronmental Impact Statement was necessary. Theinformation provided to the EPA was prepared inconsultation with the Australian Nature Conserva-tion Agency, the Australian Heritage Commission,the Queensland Department of Environment(previously Environment and Heritage), the West-ern Australian Department of EnvironmentalProtection, and the Conservation Commission ofthe Northern Territory. The provisions of theEnvironment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act1974 were satisfied.

(5)(a) and (b) The Exercise Plan and the subse-quent Annex T (Environmental Annex) are UnitedStates documents, ie issued by the United StatesExercise Executive (Commander Seventh Fleet) toExercise participants, and includes some referenceto operations. These documents are not normallyreleased, however, I am happy to provide theSenate with the Executive Summary to the Environ-mental Assessment which includes the safeguardingmeasures in respect to the Exercise (this documentis attached at Annex A).

(6) Exercise Tandem Thrust is a free playoperational and tactical level exercise, wherefreedom of manoeuvre is essential for units to gainfull value from the activity. The movement of theUS submarine has not been pre-scripted and adefinitive answer to this question cannot be given.It is, however, the nature of nuclear-poweredsubmarine operations to avoid shallow ornavigationally constricted waters. Additionally, theAustralian Government has imposed restrictions onthe use of most anti-submarine sensors within theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park. Exercise plannershave consequentially designed the majority of thesubmarine activities to be well clear of the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park.

(7) Every port in Australia has a general planwhich would apply in the unlikely event of anaccident involving any conventional and nuclearpowered foreign warship. The risk, however, of amajor collision involving a foreign warship in anAustralian port is considered to be very remotebecause of navigation practices and port restrictionson shipping movements. So remote are the risks,the Department of Defence assesses the chances ofa contained accident occurring at less than 1 in10,000 years, and the chances of an accidentinvolving the release of radioactive material to befar more remote.

(8) Yes (the map is attached at Annex B).(9) The Australian Government does not have

definitive information on this aspect of nuclear-powered submarine operations. In any event, it isnot anticipated that the US nuclear-poweredsubmarine will be operating in less than 50 fathoms


of water during the exercise. Both Australia and theUS have stringent safety procedures to minimiseany risk for the environment and for its personnel.US nuclear-powered ships and submarines havevisited over 150 ports in over 50 countries aroundthe world without experiencing a reactor accidentof any sort that resulted in the release of radioac-tive material. Both the US and Australian Govern-ments have complete confidence in these units andin the personnel who operate them.

(10)(a) and (b) The Environmental MonitoringGroup (EMG) will assist in achieving the success-ful conduct of Exercise Tandem Thrust 97, byproviding specialist and expert local environmentaladvice in support of Exercise Commanders andparticipating Units. The EMG will have both USand Australian components. The Head of the EMGwill be the Director of Environment and Heritagefrom the Department of Defence, who will be theliaison point between the US and Australiancomponents and the Combined Exercise ControlGroup. The EMG will be responsible for providingexpert environmental advice, conducting environ-mental inspections before, during and after ExerciseTandem Thrust 97, responding to reported environ-mental incidents, and to be the key liaison pointbetween the Exercise Commanders and the externalstake holders. The EMG will be staffed by six USrepresentatives and four Australian representatives.The US contingent will consist of environmentalmanagement specialists, with expertise in facilitiesengineering, hazardous waste management, hazard-ous materials management, land and sea oil spillmanagement, and ground water and soil investiga-tion. The Australian contingent will include theDirector of Environment and Heritage from theDepartment of Defence, the SWBTA Environment-al Management Officer, a South QueenslandLogistics Group Engineer, and an expert onSWBTA from the Commonwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organisation. In addition, therewill be constant liaison as required with representa-tives from the Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority, Queensland Department of the Environ-ment, and a local civil engineering firm, prior to,during and after Exercise Tandem Thrust 97.

(11)(a) Australia and the US are expected to havean estimated 5,500 personnel and 20,500 respec-tively that will participate in the exercise.

(b) No countries other than Australia and the USwill be participating in this exercise (this includesobservers).

(12) There is no intention for the US to preposi-tion equipment in Australia as a result of ExerciseTandem Thrust.

(13)(a) One Los Angeles Class nuclear-poweredsubmarine will participate in the exercise. It is USpolicy to neither confirm, nor deny, the carriage ofnuclear weapons on US naval ships. The Australian

Government accepts this policy and does notrequire the US to disclose whether nuclear weaponsare on board their visiting warships. The Govern-ment is satisfied that the standards required byNATO countries, with respect to nuclear weaponssafety, and with the safety precautions taken onboard visiting warships, effectively preclude thepossibility of an accidental nuclear detonation.

(b) On 8 July 1996 the International Court ofJustice handed down an advisory opinion as towhether the threat or use of nuclear weapons is, inany circumstances, permitted under internationallaw. The Court reached the conclusion that the useof nuclear weapons, in all but the most extremecircumstances, would be illegal. The Court was,however, unable to find any evidence suggestingthat the possession of nuclear weapons is illegalunder international law. The Court was not calledupon to consider the legality of nuclear poweredships. Exercise Tandem Thrust does not includescenarios anticipating the use of nuclear weapons.The Australian Government does not consider thatthe presence of nuclear powered warships inExercise Tandem Thrust is in breach of internation-al law.

(14) After full and proper consideration, takinginto account all relevant environmental implica-tions, Defence considers that the environmentwould not be affected to a significant extent.

Question Without Notice

Senator Mackay—10 February 1997

Nursing Homes: Entry Fees

Senator O’Brien—My question is directed to theMinister for Social Security. Minister, do you agreewith the calculations of the Principal of Communityand Aged Care Consulting Services, Mr DavidSmith, of the entry contribution costs for nursinghomes? Mr Smith wrote in the November editionof National Healthcare that:The entry contribution to be paid is subject to theresident being left with 2.5 times the annualpension ($22,000) in assets after having paid theentry contribution. If the resident sold a home sayfor $120,000, the maximum entry contributionpayable would be $98,000.Do you also agree with Mr Smith’s statement that:It is possible to charge entry contributions at levelsabove the $88,500 level.The Government will continue with the policyinstigated by Labor in 1988 which did not prescribethe amount providers can charge.The amount a resident will pay as an accommoda-tion bond is agreed between the resident and thenursing home or hostel.


There is no fixed or maximum amount payable.However, regulations will provide clear safeguardsfor residents investments in accommodation bonds.Residents who pay a bond must be left with aminimum level of assets of $22,500 for a singleperson, or $45,000 for a couple.

The Government will also determine how much ofthe accommodation bond a provider can retain, andwill provide specific protections for spouses andcarers. The maximum that providers are able toretain has been set at a maximum of $2,600 peryear for a period not exceeding 5 years (a maxi-mum of $13,000 in total).

Question Without Notice

Senator Neal—11 February 1997

Medical Records

Senator Neal—My question is directed to theMinister representing the Minister for Health andFamily Services. Has the Minister’s attention beendrawn to the concerns expressed by the ActingPrivacy Commissioner that private health funds areobtaining access to patients’ health records in orderto verify claims without their permission? Is theMinister aware that Medibank Private enjoys thiscontractual right to access medical records and thatit does not require the patient’s consent? Shouldn’tprivately insured patients enjoy the same privacyprotection as those in the public sector—that is thatthe personal consent of the patient or a court orderis required prior to access to medical records beingprovided?

The Acting Privacy Commissioner has recentlyraised concerns over the issue of informed consentby fund members prior to a health fund accessingclinical medical records in the course of audits orcontractual disputes with hospitals and health careprofessionals.

In this context, the legislation governing therelationship between hospitals and health fundswhich enter into contracts provides some guidanceto the current legal position. The National HealthAct 1953 was amended in 1995 to allow healthfunds to enter into hospital purchaser-provideragreements. Section 73BD of the Act sets out theprovisions which must be included in any suchagreement. Paragraph 73BD(2)(c) requires hospitalswhich enter into such agreements to provide tohealth funds the information specified in theHospital Casemix Protocol, as prescribed byregulation. This includes information on thepatient’s condition and treatment, length of stay inhospital and other factors which determine the costto the fund. Accordingly, the Labor Party’s 1995legislation allows that such information be provided

to funds so that they can assess whether theaccount rendered by the hospital is accurate.I would be concerned if this provision was beinginterpreted as allowing open-ended access, byMedibank Private or any other health fund, tocomplete medical records without the knowledgeor authority of patients. The Government will bereviewing the need for legislative amendment toaddress this issue. In the meantime, the Departmentof Health and Family Services is discussing theissue with the Acting Privacy Commissioner witha view to ensuring that access to medical recordsfor benefit purposes is exercise sensitively andappropriately.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Austral-ia)—I am just checking procedures here. CanI take note of that explanation?

The PRESIDENT—Not at this stage. Iunderstood that you had a matter you wishedto raise about an unanswered question.

Senator MARGETTS—That was it, but bythe minister doing that does that mean I haveno ability to question why it has taken solong?

The PRESIDENT—This is the matter youwere raising?

Senator MARGETTS—Yes.The PRESIDENT—I need clarification of

what you are attempting to do, Senator.Senator MARGETTS—I had indicated to

the minister that I was going to ask for theanswer today and that, of course, meant thatI did have the opportunity to make a com-ment on the tardiness of it so far. I was justchecking whether or not, the minister havingjumped before I did, I still have the oppor-tunity of commenting on this question?

The PRESIDENT—Once we get to thehalf-hour to take note of answers, you willhave the opportunity to do so.

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONSSenator KERNOT (Queensland—Leader

of the Australian Democrats)—I wish to makea personal explanation as I believe I havebeen misrepresented by the Prime Minister.

The PRESIDENT—Please proceed.Senator KERNOT—In the other place, Mr

Howard referred to a letter he had written tome clarifying the position he was taking overstaff reductions for my leader staff numbers.


I believe he has misrepresented the factsabout this matter and I would like to take aminute or so to put them on the record.

Senator Faulkner—He probably didn’tremember!

Senator KERNOT—Well I have got theletter. I advised the Prime Minister that Ibelieved he was taking the first step from afalse base. He was saying, ‘I am going tomake across-the-board reductions, therefore,the Democrats have to lose two positions.’

I pointed out to the Prime Minister that,over the past six years, staff allocations forministers and parliamentary secretaries roseby 68 positions, which was 23.6 per cent.When the former opposition leader DrHewson was making everybody a shadowminister, the number rose by 17 positions, by29.3 per cent. Over those same six years, theDemocrat’s positions were increased by one,nine per cent.

I believe the Prime Minister was making hiscalculations from a false basis. I believe heaccepted that argument. I will table this letter,because I do not need to read it all out. Hehas in the other place made an inference thatI was seeking some kind of payment, somekind of special treatment. I was not; I wasproceeding on the basis of fact and faircomparison.

Secondly, I wish to make the point that Iasked the Prime Minister to reconsider hisdecision to apply an across-the-board cut. Herang me to say he had been pleased to do so,that he had considered my arguments and thathe would not be taking that staff memberaway. For him to infer in the other place—

Senator Bob Collins—As he did.Senator KERNOT—As he quite clearly

did, that this constitutes some deliberateaction on my part to seek a benefit is anaction unworthy of this Prime Minister andfalls into the category of pure payback.


Prime MinisterSenator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (3.07

p.m.)—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by

the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), to

a question without notice asked by Senator RobertRay today, relating to the endorsement of the PrimeMinister (Mr Howard) of a ‘work-for-the-dole’scheme for the unemployed.

It was only 85 years ago that the PrimeMinister of Australia, Alfred Deakin, wrotenewspaper articles for theLondon MorningPost anonymously praising himself anddescribing the full events of cabinet meetingsin government. What a great transition over85 years: we now have a Prime Minister whohas articles with his own photograph andname appended to them that he has neverbefore seen. What a great day the PrimeMinister (Mr Howard) has had today!

First of all, we had Senator Alston’s indeci-sion when giving answers defending Telstrawhile his Prime Minister was treating him likea doormat in the other place dumping the 50cfee. It is gone. While he was in form, thePrime Minister knocked off the $500,000chair. Even better, while he was really hittingthem in the middle, he dumped SenatorHerron right into it. He is now starting todistance himself from a minister in trouble.

Senator Bob Collins—And Sharp.

Senator ROBERT RAY—And he isdistancing himself from Sharp. But as Sharpis part of the National Party brotherhood, thePrime Minister cannot really turn on them andget them, as Senator Collins well knows.

The whole question of the Prime Minister’scredibility was raised because articles appear-ing in his name are no longer election promis-es. This is not a core promise, this is not anon-core promise; this is a view put by theapparatchiks at Robert Menzies House in hisname that he will no longer stand by. Thedoubt it raises in our mind is how many otherpromises were made in the election campaignwhich he will not stand by and for which hewill shift the blame up the road to RobertMenzies House. We do not know.

However, we do know that he sent one ofhis senior ministers into run the Count Yorgadefence this morning. Anyone who listens toAM would realise that Senator Herron’spathetic efforts of the day before had well andtruly been matched. I want to quote one thingfrom Dr Kemp:


All those statements before the election campaignsimply said it wasn’t our policy at the time of theelection campaign.

The moment the campaign is over, the prom-ises no longer stand. They absolutely havenothing to do with it.

On the question of promises, let me remindthe Senate of what the Prime Minister said onthe Ray Martin program. He is not going toowell on that program. He said:I think credibility is very important and I want tomake it very clear, Ray, that I’m not going topromise anything in the lead-up to the next electioncampaign that I know in my heart I can’t deliver.I would rather promise half of what the peoplewant me to promise and deliver a lot when I amPrime Minister than promise everything they askfor and find I’ve got to take half of it back after Iget there.

We know he has taken it back. There is awhole string of broken election promises. Onething you should never renege on is the ‘Ishan’t’. Saying ‘I will’ at least gives you achance over time to get the timing right.Because you can say, ‘We have promised todo that, but we cannot because of budgetaryand other reasons.’ When you give a categori-cal ‘we shall not’, you should not break it.

It was said time and time again by theemployment minister that they would notbring in a particular program. It was said timeand time again by him that they did notfavour that scheme. In nine or 10 months theyget into political trouble and one of theirparliamentary secretaries implodes. So whatis the distracter? Ring up the Laurie Oakesprogram and say, ‘I will let you cross-exam-ine me on that but I’ve got a big story foryou.’ There has been no consultation in thePublic Service about this. Senator Vanstone’soffice did not even know about it when thepress turned up on Sunday afternoon—allbecause it has been tipped out by a desperatePrime Minister.

An article appeared on 16 July 1996 headed‘Time to bite the bullet’ with a ban thatappeared in the Prime Minister’s name withhis photograph on it. I asked at an estimatescommittee hearing whether he actually wrotethis article and whether he had the prescienceto know that ‘Time to bite the bullet’ wouldbe the advertising agency’s slogan months

later after the fix was put in to give theirparty mates the contract on this. Did thePrime Minister write this article or not? Thatis what I want to know. If he did, who gavehim the lines? Did he approve it, or did henot approve it? Or is this just another exampleof the chief political adviser or Robert Men-zies House writing a diatribe, putting thePrime Minister’s name and photo to it andthen letting him deny all responsibility?

Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister forCommunications and the Arts) (3.12 p.m.)—The important thing that seems to be missedtime and again here is that the Australianpublic elected us to do a job. What theyexpected was that we would make some harddecisions. Those who voted for you last timearound—albeit record lows—also expectedyou to address your mind to the issues. If youhave an argument, they expect you to debateit. They do not expect you to snipe on thesidelines about who signed a document orwhether someone said ‘will’ instead of ‘willnot’.

They want to know where you stand onproposals like work for the dole and, if youare opposed to them, why you are opposed tothem. Why do you not like the idea of peoplebeing expected to do something in return fortaxpayers’ funds being made available tothem, within the safety net arrangements, onthe basis that it can provide them with on-the-job training? We do not hear a word aboutany of that. All we get is carping minutiae,which it seems is a favourite term of SenatorSchacht.

There is no doubt that the public is verydisappointed to find that a Labor opposition,after almost 12 months, has not got around tothinking about the important policy issues.Times do change. Things move on. There arenew issues that arise every day. If you aresimply going to lock yourself into the pastand pore over documents to find commas outof place, you will find that you will simplyget another resounding thrashing at the nextelection. What you ought to do is take theissue seriously and decide whether or not youare prepared to show leadership. That is whyMr Howard has been performing so well inthe minds of the Australian electorate.


Senator Crowley—Ha,ha! He can forgetanything; he’s got a great memory!

Senator ALSTON—Eat your hearts out. Asyou well know, even Mr Beazley has beenforced to say things such as ‘The honeymoonhas gone on a bit longer than we thought’ and‘Yes, it takes a while for them to forget whatliars, cheats and thieves we were’ and ‘No-one will be listening to us for the first 18months’—in other words, concessions quiteimplicit, if not explicit, that the PrimeMinister is on the right track.

The Prime Minister is on the right trackbecause he can read the mood of the peopleand he understands that they want decisionsmade and these issues addressed. That is whatyou ought to face up to—not simply trying tofind procedural deficiencies in documents, butgiving us the merits of the argument, anaction which would be totally foreign toSenator Schacht. I have offered him help onthese things, but you can only go so far. If hewants more information or material, I amhappy to provide it. But let us have a sensiblepolicy discussion.

I know you enjoy politics. You can do thatall around the traps. But you should not do itto the exclusion of policy formulation. Youhave to come up with a document in duecourse. The sooner you start, the better. I cantell you that it is a lot easier if you get themind working, test a few propositions, go outaround the traps and ask them what theythink. They will be quite impressed. Youmight be off to a slow start, but they will say,‘Well, at least the bloke’s trying. We knowthat he has a long way to go, but at least he’sprepared to explore.’ But if they just see thisbloke getting to his feet every second day inparliament, giving people another serve andnot addressing the issues, they will say, ‘Whyshould we ever give them another chance?’

That is the dilemma you have. You canplay politics for so long. But the day ofreckoning will come when they will askwhether we have taken the hard decisions anddelivered the goods and whether you haveany sensible alternatives. So far, you have noteven shown a skerrick of them.

Senator SCHACHT (South Australia)(3.16 p.m.)—On the same matter, I find it

extraordinary that Senator Alston can stand upand enter this debate, after having just suf-fered the most humiliating put-down by thePrime Minister (Mr Howard) in the House ofRepresentatives this afternoon. Twice todaySenator Alston—who in his remarks abusesus for lack of policy content—refused to ruleout the imposition of a 50c directory assist-ance fee. He obfuscated, he made all sorts ofexcuses, but he would not rule it out. At thesame time this is being said by him in thischamber, in the other chamber, withoutequivocation, Mr Howard is saying, ‘I rulethat out; there will be no directory assistancecharge. This was our promise to the people atthe last election; we will not introduce it’—bang, crash, wallop.

Not only did the Prime Minister rule thatout, he ruled his minister out, he chucked himoverboard. He let his minister come in hereand humiliate himself by trying to obfuscatearound this issue.

Senator Bob Collins—This is the fourthtime.

Senator SCHACHT—This is the fourthtime this minister has been made the doormatof the Prime Minister. The Prime Ministerdumped on him on the ABC. The PrimeMinister dumped on him regarding the inquiryinto cross-media ownership rule. The thirdtime the Prime Minister dumped on him waswhen he suggested full privatisation ofTelstra.

Senator Bob Collins—This is No. 4.Senator SCHACHT—No. 4. It is not three

strikes and you are out; it is now four strikesand you are dead—you are dead meatchucked overboard. There have been fewother occasions in politics where we haveseen a Prime Minister dump more deadweight overboard than the Prime Minster hasdumped today. He has dumped SenatorHerron overboard. He has dumped theMinister for Communications and the Artsoverboard. I find it extraordinary that thePrime Minister never chose during thismorning’s preparation for question time to tellAlston, the Deputy Leader of the Governmentin the Senate, the senior minister who ranksNo. 4 in the Liberal Party hierarchy, ‘This iswhat I am going to say in the House of


Representatives today, if I am asked.’ Instead,he let Senator Alston come in here andhumiliate himself.

Towards the end of question time SenatorAlston, after having refused to rule out adirectory assistance charge, abused SenatorEllison and me for our temerity at evenraising the issue. We then saw him receivethe phone call. The white phone came up tothe ear and then he was given the message,‘The Prime Minister has just dumped youoverboard.’ Next we saw the minister’scheeky face dissolve to a whiter shade ofpale. You should have seen the look on hisface. He suddenly realised that this PrimeMinister had done him over. As I say, this isthe fourth time he has become the doormat ofthe Prime Minister.

I wonder what power of policy this ministerhas? He has none, yet he gets up there andabuses us for having a lack of policy content.On every major issue in the last 11 monthssince Senator Alston became a minister, thePrime Minister has dumped on him. I find itagain extraordinary that today, for four hoursbefore question time, nobody had the wit inthe office of the Deputy Leader of theGovernment in the Senate, the Minister forCommunications and the Arts, to ring thePrime Minister and check, ‘What is yourview, Prime Minister?’ It is even more extra-ordinary for the Prime Minister not to haveasked his staff to go and tell Senator Alston’sstaff, ‘If I’m asked, I’m ruling out a directoryassistance fee, which is absolutely in line withour policy.’

The extraordinary bumbling of this govern-ment, the lack of communication between aPrime Minister and the Deputy Leader of theGovernment in the Senate, the No. 4 ministerin his own cabinet, is just extraordinary. Itreally shows why this government administra-tively keeps going from one disaster to thenext. And we had other examples of thisbeing exposed during question time today.

I think Senator Alston ought to be demand-ing of the Prime Minister, ‘What is goingon?’ Clearly, he should say to the PrimeMinister, ‘Prime Minister, don’t you have anyconfidence in my ability? Why do you keepdumping on me? Why do you keep pulling

the rug out from under me and contradictingthe answer I was giving in the Senate today?’It is an extraordinary thing. It would havetaken one phone call to get the one answerfrom both.

Mr Howard was quite happy—in the termsof Richard Nixon—to let this minister ‘hangand twist in the wind’. This minister is deadmeat. He has no credibility in our eyes—andwe had already made up our minds on that—but also he has been left with no credibilityat all through the actions of his own PrimeMinister.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I justremind the speaker that on a couple of occa-sions he did not use the proper form ofaddress. Obviously it was a slip, but perhapsyou had best be made aware of it.

Senator Schacht—It was a slip of thetongue.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (3.21 p.m.)—If the people of Australia ever need proofpositive that this opposition is devoid ofpolicy and has no idea of where it is going,they should be listening to this debate today.What they would hear is a motion beingmoved to take note of a particular answer notgetting anywhere. So during the debate, wehave a traversing of all the answers fromSenator Herron, Senator Alston and SenatorHill, backwards and forwards, even traversinginto the other House, and the whole focus ofthe attack is supposedly on Senator Hill’sanswer.

The fact is that the opposition could not laya glove on Senator Hill. So they tried SenatorHerron, on to Senator Alston, then the PrimeMinister—and they will undoubtedly move onto the backbench as they continually fail toland a punch. I suppose one of these days,one of us here on the back bench might evenget mentioned in despatches as they becomemore and more desperate.

If we are going to talk about electionpromises, the situation very clearly is thatthere was one big con job during the lastelection, and we all know what it was.

Senator Sherry—By you!Senator ABETZ—The big con job, Senator

Sherry, was that the former Minister for


Finance, your now leader, the Leader of theOpposition (Mr Beazley), promised theAustralian people that the budget was insurplus. We now know that that was untruth-ful to the tune of $10 billion. Senator Cook,Senator Collins, Senator Schacht—all thosewho have contributed to this debate—andeven Senator Robert Ray, sat round thecabinet table. One has to ask the question: didthey accept the Treasury briefings? Did theyknow what was happening in the country thatthey were required to govern? Did you knowwhat the Treasury advice was when you wentaround this country day after day, hour afterhour saying that the new government, nomatter which it was, would be given a budgetsurplus? That was wrong to the tune of $10billion, and you have the audacity to come inhere and try to snap at our heels about thework for the dole scheme. I ask you!

What is the important issue that this countryis facing? Is it really the work for the dolescheme or is it the $10 billion legacy that youleft us? The Australian people know. I cannotunderstand how you can have remained sodetached from your fellow Australians forsuch a long time. I would have thought that2 March 1996 would have taught you asalutary lesson about being detached from theAustralian people, but you are persisting withyour detachment. Quite frankly, we on thisside are delighted, because the longer youremain detached, the longer you will leave usin government unopposed.

The people of Australia are giving the workfor the dole system overwhelming support. Iam sure if senators opposite were to be honestthey would acknowledge the overwhelmingnumber of phone calls coming into theirelectorate offices—as they are coming intomine—supporting this proposal. The Ministerfor Employment, Education, Training andYouth Affairs (Senator Vanstone) indicatedthe overwhelming result in theHerald Sun—95 per cent support. You can snap at ourheels and say, ‘Look, the wording wasn’tquite correct,’ or say that something was notquite correct. But, when 95 per cent of theAustralian people want us to do something,are we supposed to ignore that and say,‘Because of the tittle-tattle of the Labor Party

saying that we might have something wrong,we will not do it’? The people of Australia—

Senator Bob Collins interjecting—

Senator ABETZ—If ever you want to talkabout categorical assurances, Senator Collins,let me remind you of the 1993 election. Laborwent to the people and said, ‘L-a-w tax cuts.’Remember that? Never delivered. You wentto the 1996 election promising an electionsurplus. Never delivered. A $10 billiondeficit, and yet you have the audacity to walkinto this chamber—having been ministers,having sat around the cabinet table—knowingthe dishonesty of that assertion. If you did notknow it was dishonest, you should haveknown.

You are caught in a cleft stick. You cannotwriggle out of it. We on this side are gettingon with sound policy, fixing up this country.You people can continue to immerse yourselfin the self-pity and the nitpicking that you goon with but, until you address the real issues,the people of Australia will continue to rejectyou.

Senator CROWLEY (South Australia)(3.26 p.m.)—I am very pleased to see thatSenator Abetz is now beating a retreat fromthis chamber. He tried to trawl over every-thing except the issue under discussion andwhy the opposition rose to protest the answerby the Minister for the Environment andLeader of the Government in the Senate(Senator Hill).

Senator Hill was answering on behalf of thePrime Minister (Mr Howard). He was not inhere as just any passing backbench senator;he is the Leader of the Government in theSenate and represents the Prime Minister.Speaking on behalf of the Howard coalitiongovernment and the Prime Minister, he putforward a very feeble—in fact, ineffectual—defence for what is causing a great amount ofanguish and pain for the Labor opposition.The point that we want to raise is that MrHoward is not holding to his promise to raisethe standard and maintain integrity, honestyand honour in government. He has broken hisword at every opportunity. Mr Howard saidhe would lift the bar and raise the standard ofintegrity in parliament.


You only have to go through the litany tosee what Mr Howard has done since hebecame Prime Minister and why we areprepared to take note of his answer today. Itis just another example of Mr Howard duck-ing and twisting away from the label ‘HonestJohn’. Mr Howard is no longer worthy of thattitle. He has lowered the standards of integrityin this place. He has done so in particular bysaying that the government would have awork for the dole program in the face ofcategorically denying that he would do that inthe lead-up to the election. The question is:why did Mr Howard say, ‘We will not dothat,’ in the lead-up to the election? He isprepared to do it now because he thinks it ispopular, but he thought it might have been abit unpopular in the lead-up to the election.He has changed his face and his mind aboutit.

It is interesting to note that Senator Abetzargues that, because a large number of peoplerang or wrote to theHerald Sunor rang atelevision station, it constitutes the mind ofthe people, the majority, and that is all. But,even if it were a majority, Mr Howard is notprepared to support the majority will of thepeople on the question of euthanasia, forexample. The majority of people in thiscountry say that they are perfectly happy toallow euthanasia under certain circumstances,and yet a majority in the House of Represen-tatives, on conscience, have voted againstthat. Let us not use that feeble argument,Senator Abetz. It is pathetic, and you know it.

What we are complaining about is theshifting ground of policy of this government.That is why it is entirely appropriate forSenator Schacht to raise the other shift thatwe saw right before our eyes during Senatequestion time. Senator Alston was saying onething about policy and his leader in the otherplace was pulling the rug from under his feetand changing that policy on the run, to theacute embarrassment of his minister in thisplace.

Of course we all raise those points becausethey all go to the integrity of the PrimeMinister—a Prime Minister who can soconveniently forget a briefing from hisAttorney-General about the Australian Federal

Police investigating a senator, a PrimeMinister who can so conveniently forget whatpolicies he put his name to in the last electionand a Prime Minister who can suddenlychange the rules of the game when it comesto his ministers owning shares and being in astate of conflict of interest. He just changesthe rules on the run.

That is the point at issue for this opposi-tion—the integrity of the Prime Minister. It isan integrity that is crumbling in front of theeyes of the Australian people. What sense doyou make of a Prime Minister who says onRay Martin’sA Current Affair in 1995:I think credibility is very important and I want tomake it very clear, Ray, that I’m not going topromise anything in the lead-up to the next electioncampaign that I know in my heart I can’t deliver,and I would rather promise half of what peoplewant me to promise and deliver the lot when I’mPrime Minister than promise everything they askfor, and find I’ve got to take half of it back afterI get there.

That is what he said in 1995 and that isexactly contrary to what he has been doingsince he became Prime Minister. That is thepoint at issue for this opposition. It is not anyparticular example, although each one of themwould do. This Prime Minister’s integrity isin tatters.

That is what this opposition is for. We areasking for integrity in parliament. We areasking for Prime Minister Howard to stand upand actually do what he said he would do.We are pointing out at every opportunity thathe is not. He is forgetting meetings, hismemory is very questionable and his integrityand his requirement for ministers changesfrom minute to minute depending on whatthose ministers are up to. Policy that doesaffect every person in this country is changedjust like that when it suits the Prime Ministerand he forgets what his ministers say.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia)(3.31 p.m.)—My advice to Senator Crowleywould be to listen to the talkback radio showsaround this country and to read the news-papers of the capital cities. It is from thosevery important aspects of feedback that youwill see that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)is doing precisely what the people of Austral-ia want him to do—that is, provide some


incentive for people to find employment andassist young people to find jobs. The work forthe dole scheme does just that. It is a verypopular proposal for the people of Australia.You do not have to just listen to one talkbackradio program. You do not have to just readone paper. Read the lot. Listen to all of thoseradio stations.

In my state the response has been over-whelmingly in favour of this proposal. ThePrime Minister is doing what the people wanthim to do. The Prime Minister is governingthe country as he was elected to do. He isdoing no more and no less. What more couldyou ask of a Prime Minister than that?

Today the opposition was like a ship at seawith its questions. In fact, I would not besurprised to see in the employment column inthe Canberra Timestomorrow the advertise-ment, ‘Wanted: new questions committee.Apply to the Senate ALP opposition.’ Nonewas more desperate than the question toSenator Herron. What an absolutely bobby-dazzler that was! The question to SenatorHerron was about inducing someone to standdown from a board. The allegation was thatthere was some inducement, some interfer-ence, with a Commonwealth officer in theperformance of her duty. That was just outra-geous. Senator Herron had approached GabiHollows because of her experience withAboriginal people, particularly in the healthsphere, to look at making a contribution to hisportfolio.

This opposition talks about policy but itdoes not talk about its policy because it doesnot have one. Senator Herron was demonstrat-ing that this government wants to increasefemale representation on Commonwealthboards and bodies, and is doing so. In fact, ithas increased under this government. Whatthey will not talk about is how we haveincreased female representation on our side ofpolitics and they have not. We did not needa quota to do it.

Senator Herron was doing the unforgivablein trying to put more women on to bodies orbringing them in to assist in his portfolios andemploying someone who had experience inthe sphere of Aboriginal affairs, particularlyin relation to Aboriginal health. That is

precisely what the Minister for Transport andRegional Development (Mr Sharp) said in theother place. He said that in the course of hisdiscussions with Gabi Hollows it becameapparent that she did not have any aviationexpertise but she did have a distinct interestand expertise in the area of Aboriginal health.He contacted the Minister for AboriginalAffairs and told him that he had someonewho could help in his portfolio. What iswrong with that?

I say to the people listening to this broad-cast that it would be negligent of a govern-ment minister, if they came across someonewho was not suited to the portfolio they werein, not to say, ‘Look, this person can help inanother portfolio’ and that would be in Abo-riginal health, where Gabi Hollows had suchexpertise.

The opposition used the word ‘inducement’.They said, ‘Did you induce?’ That always hasnefarious connotations. TheMacquarie Dic-tionary says that ‘induce’ means ‘to lead ormove by persuasion or influence, as to someaction, state of mind, etc’.

What Senator Herron did was make anoffer. He was doing something which wasentirely appropriate. He was making an offerto someone with expertise who would help inhis portfolio. There was no inducement. Therewas no motive to interfere with the exerciseof an officer in the employ of the Common-wealth. There was nothing of the sort. Yetthat was the implication that the oppositionwould like to bring. When you look at that,I can quite understand how you could well beadvertising for a new questions committeetomorrow. Let us see whether they can do abetter job in tomorrow’s question time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Thetime for taking note of answers has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Days and Hours of MeetingSenator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)- byleave—I give notice that, on the next day ofsitting, I shall move:


That on 26 February and 27 February 1997,being days on which estimates hearings have beenscheduled:

(1) The hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am toadjournment.

(2) The routine of business shall be as follows:(a) Tabling of government documents (Wed-

nesday only)(b) Questions(c) Motions to take note of answers(d) Petitions(e) Notices of motion(f) Postponement and rearrangement of

business(g) Any proposal to debate a matter of public

importance or urgency.(3) The Senate shall stand adjourned after the

conclusion of the consideration of thebusiness as set out in paragraph (2) of thisorder without any question being put.

Employment, Education and TrainingReferences Committee

Senator CROWLEY (South Australia)—byleave—I give notice that, on the next day ofsitting, I shall move:

That the Employment, Education and TrainingReferences Committee be authorised to hold apublic meeting during the sitting of the Senate on24 February 1997, from 12.30 pm to 2 pm, to takeevidence for the committee’s inquiries into theprivate and commercial funding aspects of govern-ment schools, and the developments in adult andcommunity education in Australia since the 1991report of the Standing Committee on Employment,Education and Training entitledCome in Cinder-ella: The Emergence of Adult and CommunityEducation.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

EconomyThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The Presi-

dent has received a letter from Senator Sherryproposing that a definite matter of publicimportance be submitted to the Senate fordiscussion, namely:

The publication of the Liberal Government’smid-year economic review and the revelation of theCostello $3 billion black hole and the failure of theGovernment’s policies as revealed by the upwardrevision in unemployment.

I call upon those senators who approve of theproposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators requiredby the standing orders having risen in theirplaces—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understandthat informal arrangements have been madeto allocate specific times to each of today’sspeakers. With the concurrence of the Senate,I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accord-ingly.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—DeputyLeader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.40p.m.)—The matter of public importancebefore the Senate this afternoon is themidyear economic and fiscal outlook of 1996-97 released just over two weeks ago by thevery arrogant Treasurer, Mr Costello. I intendto highlight a number of major contradictionsin the position of Mr Costello and the Liberalgovernment that are illustrated by his releaseof this document and some comments hemade in reference to it as well as somecontent in it.

The first comment I want to make is inrespect of the nature of this document. MrCostello was not quite in the swaggering formthat he normally is, but I will get to thereason why a little later. He released thisdocument to the public boasting that it wassome 100 pages long and that this, by thevery length of the document, represented inpart at least some massive new contributionto economic and fiscal debate in this country.

But of course what we should remember isthat the document, in terms of the contentrelating to the economic and fiscal statisticsthat are laid out, is approximately 36 pageslong. The majority of the document in fact isan outline of some government promises thathave been implemented. If the length of thedocument is to carry any weight at all, thenI think we should remember that particularpoint. Labor introduced midyear economicstatements and if we were to have hyped upthe media and the public by highlighting thelength of the document then we could haveadded 100 or 200 pages highlighting variouselection promises—or the breaking of electionpromises, in this government’s case.

I did refer to the arrogant Treasurer’sswagger. It was slightly less than normalbecause if we look at page 1 of the document


we see that he had to confess to a deteriora-tion of some $2.9 billion on budget esti-mates—a deterioration of almost $3 billion insix months. We certainly hope that this levelof deterioration does not continue over thisgovernment’s term in office, otherwise $3billion every six months is going to make ouralleged black hole look like a small ditch incomparison.

Senator Ferguson—You’ve admitted it.Senator SHERRY—No; I said, ‘alleged

black hole.’ What is important in highlightingthe deterioration in terms of this $3 billion isthe great difficulty that you have in accuratelymaking forecasts and estimates. It is importantto highlight to the Senate that in fact themajority of the alleged back hole that was leftby the Labor government in fact was due toa change in economic outcomes and forecasts.

The Treasurer is always arrogantly assertingthat we left a $9 billion or $10 billion blackhole and he refuses to concede that, in signifi-cant part at least, that alleged black hole wasdue to a deterioration in our forward budgetestimates. And he is confronted by the sameproblem—$3 billion—primarily because of ashortfall in company tax receipts.

There was no fabrication; but what isTreasurer Costello’s response to this $3billion deterioration in company tax collec-tions? His response is, ‘You blame everyone,but don’t blame me.’ That is the standardapproach of this government and the standardapproach of this Treasurer. He blamed Treas-ury; he blamed Finance; he blames the Sen-ate; he blames the previous government—‘Blame anyone but the Treasurer: me, thearrogant Mr Costello.’ This has become thetypical approach of this government. Whenthere is any good economic news, the Treas-urer says, ‘Ah ha! I take the credit. TheLiberal government takes the credit.’ Whenthere is any bad economic news, he blamesanyone else—usually the former Laborgovernment.

Inflation and interest rates also highlightthis. The Treasurer continues to highlight thevery low inflation rate we currently enjoy. Noeconomic spokesman in this country whom Ihave heard comment about the low inflationrate we now enjoy has not acknowledged the

fact that inflation was crushed under a Laborgovernment, but we never hear anything ofthis from Treasurer Costello or indeed fromSenator Kemp.

Returning to company tax collections: thismidyear economic review, as I said earlier,highlights the difficulty of relying on futureestimates and projections. But the other aspectof this midyear economic and fiscal outlookis that it does highlight the failure of thegeneral economic approach of the govern-ment. Their general approach, slash and burn,has slowly strangled the economy. We heardSenator Kemp boast today about low interestrates. It is good that interest rates are comingdown as a result of low inflation, as a resultof the contribution the Labor governmentmade to strangling inflation in this economy.

Senator Kemp, who must have been soambitious in his climb to becoming AssistantTreasurer, cannot be listening to small busi-ness. Certainly small business in my state andaround Australia are complaining about thelack of demand in the economy, the lack ofconfidence in the economy, which is havinga very serious effect on consumption, onconsumer expenditure. Again, we have seenrecent figures on that.

Senator Cook—Retail figures were down.Senator SHERRY—We only have to look

at the retail figures, as Senator Cook men-tions. Retail actually fell in the three monthsup to Christmas. I certainly cannot remembera year when retail figures fell in the threemonths before Christmas. I think it is prob-ably 13 or 14 years since that has happened.It is certainly the biggest three-monthly fall inthe last 13 years. We could quite easily seenil economic growth—my colleague SenatorCook will spend more time on this matterthan I will—in the next quarter because thegovernment has slowed the economy quitedeliberately.

Another aspect of this slash and burnapproach of the government and the problemthey now have involving the additional $3billion—the Costello chasm, as it is beingdubbed by the media—is that the governmentwill have to be even tougher in a range ofexpenditure areas in the lead-up to the nextbudget. Apparently the Prime Minister (Mr


Howard) has ruled out cutting the diesel fuelrebate. He and the Treasurer have ruled outcuts to education and health, despite theircontinuing assertions that they will not engagein pre-budget speculation. At least the Nation-al Party managed to get a commitment fromthem with respect to the diesel fuel rebate. Itis about the only thing the National Party canwin these days, I might add.

What will be the government’s approach inthe lead-up to the next budget? It looks asthough the states are in for a hammering yetagain. We can all recall the last meeting withthe states at the Premiers Conference. Forover a week the arrogant Treasurer, MrCostello, got lambasted by his own politicalcolleagues for the very extensive cutbacks tothe states. Cutbacks usually mean two things:cuts in services and increases in taxes. Thisgovernment promised not to introduce newtaxes or increase existing taxes but it cutrevenue to the states and forced them to putup taxes, which is exactly what has happenedin almost every state in Australia, or it re-defined what a tax is and called it a sur-charge.

We now have the infamous superannuationsurcharge, as the government continues toinsist it be called. No-one else in this coun-try—no economist, no superannuation writ-er—refers to it as a surcharge. They refer toit as a tax. In fact, it is the largest revenueraiser in this budget—a half a billion dollars.

Senator Campbell—It hasn’t got muchcompetition.

Senator SHERRY—It does not have muchcompetition, Senator Campbell, but it is stilla breach of your election commitment not tointroduce new taxes and not to increaseexisting taxes. I want to briefly draw to theSenate’s attention a problem with the revenueestimate for this superannuation so-calledsurcharge—half a billion dollars over the nextthree years. One of the issues was highlightedtoday in question time by my colleagueSenator Conroy: the government is expectingto collect this money from state superannua-tion funds, yet last week the Treasurer—hispress release was the subject of heated debatein the government caucus room yesterday—

Senator Ferguson—We don’t have acaucus room; you’re the only ones that havea caucus.

Senator SHERRY—You do not have acaucus, but you certainly had a heated debateabout this new 15 per cent tax on superannua-tion. But the problem the government faces isthat, constitutionally, it cannot collect themoney from state superannuation funds. Whyis the government, six months after it hasannounced this new tax, finally turning itsattention to this problem? Why has thegovernment taken six months to discover that,constitutionally, the states can quite readilyrefuse to pay the tax? That will lead to aproblem in the estimated revenue of half abillion dollars.

Another problem with this new tax is that40 per cent of the people who will supposedlypay the tax can elect to contribute money tosuperannuation. It is not compulsory. I knowfrom the extensive industry contacts that Ihave—not one of these industry contacts, bythe way, supports the collection mechanismof this surcharge—that extensive switching isalready taking place.

Senator Ferguson—You wouldn’t expectthem to, would you.

Senator SHERRY—You would know this,Senator, because you were one of the onesraising a fracas about this issue in the LiberalParty meeting yesterday. Significant switchingis taking effect. I say now to the Senate: youwill not collect your half a billion dollars inthe superannuation tax each year over thenext three years because of the switching andthe other sorts of problems that have arisen.

I have one final point. Table 18 shows thehypocrisy of the arrogant Treasurer, MrCostello, to blame the Senate. Table 19outlines the impact on revenue—$376million—which he says the Senate causes.But, right beside it on table 18, there is $358million in new expenditure—new announce-ments—by this government since the budget.The Treasurer has the hypocrisy to abuse theSenate and accuse us of obstructionism andfiddling with budget outcomes when, on thevery next page—page 30—he admits that,since the budget, they have engaged in $358


million over four years of additional expendi-ture.

This further highlights the hypocrisy andthe excuse making of this government andthis Treasurer. This is a Treasurer who takesthe attitude, ‘Blame anyone but me. I’ll takethe credit, but blame the states, blame theLabor Party, blame the Senate. I will take thecredit all the time.’

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Manager of Government Business in theSenate) (3.53 p.m.)—I also thank the DeputyLeader of the Opposition in the Senate (Sena-tor Sherry) because today he has put his nameand his moniker on an important document inAustralian political history. Indeed in thepolitical debates of 1996 much time was spenton discussing the Beazley black hole or theBeazley bankcard and the Labor legacy.

Of course Labor always denied that therewas this legacy, that there was this black holeor that there was the Beazley bankcard thathad been burnt out. That applied to some ofthe Australian Democrats too. For example,Senator Murray, although he will admit thatthere is a black hole and that we do have adeficit problem, disputes the size of that blackhole. He prefers to think that it was only $6billion. We claim that it was more like $11billion.

What Senator Sherry has done here todayhas been to sign on—to create documentaryproof over his signature—that indeed there isa multibillion dollar black hole. But what hehas neatly done—and I think he has made afool of himself in so doing—has been to say,‘Okay, there really is a black hole. But whatwe’ll do is slice off just under a third of itand we’ll call it the Costello portion of theblack hole.’ No-one who follows anything todo with economics in Australia and who hasread the midyear economic review woulddoubt that the cause of the shortfall is indeedfailed Labor policy. Senator Sherry has reallysaid, ‘We admit there’s a $3 billion blackhole. We won’t talk about the other $9 bil-lion. We won’t talk about the fiscal task—theLabor legacy—that was left for this govern-ment to sort out, but we’ll say that you’vehad the honesty to produce this midyeareconomic review.’

This is the first time in Australian historythat a government has actually produced asubstantial document which goes into somesignificant detail about the state of the econ-omy and the state of the nation’s finances andmakes predictions for many years hence. Notonly do those opposite criticise us for beinghonest. Senator Sherry was prepared to talkabout hypocrisy. I congratulate Senator Sherryfor being able to—it will be interesting to seeif Senator Cook can pull off the sameachievement—actually stand up here and talkfor just over 10 minutes about hypocrisy!They come into this place and criticise thisgovernment for introducing a charter ofbudget honesty—we look forward to seeinghow Senator Cook and Senator Sherry vote onthat bill—and for coming clean in relation tothe nation’s finances.

We produced a 98-page document—if youwant to do a comparison of how many pagesthat document is—released only very recentlyby the Treasurer. It gave updated forwardestimates for both the budget and generalgovernment sectors. It updated the economicforecasts for 1996-97, major economic param-eters for the three years beyond the budgetyear in terms of growth of gross domesticproduct, employment growth, wages andprices, the projections of aggregate tax ex-penditures for the three years beyond thebudget year and a detailed statement of riskswhich may affect any aspect of those fiscaloutlooks. So it is a significant forecast docu-ment.

I ask all senators—indeed any person whocares to take an interest in the economy ofAustralia—to compare that with Labor’srecord when it came to telling the Australianpeople what was happening to their govern-ment and to taxpayers’ money when theLabor Party last had the opportunity to do so.The last midyear economic review that wasissued by an Australian government was an11-sentence report contained within a pressrelease of no more than three pages. It isinteresting to know what it did not contain. Itdid not contain any economic or fiscal projec-tions. It did not report on the underlyingdeficit. It did not include loan repayments.


Indeed, the document claimed that the budgetwas still in surplus.

Of course we found out four months laterthat the budget was not in surplus. The three-page press release issued by the previousAustralian Labor Party government coveredup the fact that there was a deficit in excessof $10 billion in that fiscal year. It did notcontain any information on tax expendituresand not a skerrick of information about anypotential risks to the fiscal outlook.

I think anyone who is listening to thisdebate, Labor Party senators opposite andanyone concerned with honesty, integrity andreporting fairly to the Australian people—andindeed to the parliament—about the nation’sfinances, would be fascinated to know onwhat day that document was released. It wasreleased on 21 December, which was theThursday before a Monday Christmas Day.The Labor Party was so concerned to ensurethat this document—if you could call a three-page press release with exactly 11 sentencesdevoted to fiscal outlook a document—wasreleased that they released it on the Thursdaynight, which was virtually Christmas Eve.Tremendous!

This document did cover up the fact thatthere was a $10 billion deficit. Mr Beazley,the now Leader of the Opposition, whosename will be attached to the $10 billion blackhole or the $10 billion burnt out bankcard,was indeed the chief person in the lead-up tothe last election who was given the job ofgoing onto the radio waves and onto thetelevision sets of Australia to inform peoplethat the budget was balanced, that there wereno problems and that everything was goingalong swimmingly.

Indeed, he could almost have stolen SenatorCook’s words in the Senate on 16 March,when he was talking about one of the fiscalparameters, the current account figures thathad been released on that day, and, I think itwould be fair to say, referring generally to theeconomy:. . . I would do so by saying that the wind is in oursails, we are on a calm sea, we are on a broadreach, we are reaching well and we are on course.

Senator Cook was reassuring the Australianpeople what a rosy situation, what a rosy

scenario, the then government had created forthe economy. He made me feel a bit sad thatI was sitting in the Senate that day and notactually out there on a boat sailing on a broadreach. He was very poetic but he was inaccu-rate—just as inaccurate as Mr Beazley was inthe lead up to the election about the state ofAustralia’s economy.

What has this government done in relationto the economy in the relatively short time wehave been in power, not yet one year? Wehave attacked the underlying deficit problem.We have achieved something like $7.2 billionoff the 1997-98 deficit projections. We havea lot further to go but the problem of deficitreduction has well and truly been broken andthat is not an easy problem to have to battle.Trying to reduce that sort of deficit, that sortof black hole, is hard work and it meanssacrifices in many parts of the Australiancommunity.

I said that we have got further achievementsto make. We do still remain committed to ourpolicy objective of balancing the budget overthis term of the parliament but we want to domore. We want to ensure that people get thebenefits of that fiscal restraint. We want toensure interest rate reductions because thereductions in the deficit of the government dolower interest rate pressures. We have seensignificant reductions in interest rates. Mort-gage rates have fallen something like 2¼ percent in the term of this government—a sig-nificant advantage for Australian families—and, of course, business rates are also begin-ning to fall. The government has made itquite clear that we would like to see thoserates fall faster so small businesses canexpand and offer more opportunities foryoung Australians to get jobs.

We have done all this with a low inflationeconomy. Senator Sherry quite misleadinglysaid that if you slash and burn the economywhat do you expect? You expect low infla-tion. But the difference between this govern-ment and the previous government is that theywere able to achieve the miracle of havinghigh inflation and low growth and basicallynot achieve any employment gains.

What we have been able to achieve in ashort time is a very significant and steady


growth of 3.5 per cent—and that is the pre-diction for the next couple of fiscal years.Sure, retail spending is down. We are notpleased with those results. But on the otherside of the coin, investment spending andpredictions for investment spending arebubbling along at 17 per cent. I am sureSenator Cook would welcome that side ofthings.

The reality is that under Labor, particularlyin that last year or so—Senator Cook, wehave had arguments about this before; youused to proclaim from the rafters that Austral-ia had a low inflation economy—even if youlook back to, say, June 1995 in the last yearof their term, Australia was still going alongwith inflation rates of four-ish per cent. Thatwas much higher than our OECD partners thatwere averaging between 1.9 and 2.1 percent—and I refer toEconomistof 24 June1995.

We were beaten in the inflation stakes onlyby Italy and Spain. All the other OECDnations had lower inflation rates than Austral-ia did. It was possible for a government thatwanted to deceive people to say that we werea low inflation economy because under Laboryou had been used to inflation rates of up to10 per cent or more. So four per cent seemssmall but the reality is that we were compara-tively still a high inflation economy underLabor.

The other deception was that as interestrates came down or at least nominal interestrates came down you were able to say, ‘Wehave interest rates down.’ But the fact wasthat real interest rates in Australia were stillamongst the highest in the world. In fact, Ithink only Italy beat us month in and monthout for real interest rate figures. During theterm of the Keating government, Australiatopped the table for real interest rates invirtually every year. Under the previousLiberal administrations, in terms of realinterest rates we were ranked in the middle ofthe OECD. You guys had the incredibleachievement of having some of the highestreal interest rates in the world for all of thatterm.

Furthermore, and in conclusion to allowtime for other senators to make contributions,

this government has been committed todelivering reforms to make the labour marketmore efficient. The workplace relations act isin place. It is already making achievementsand will assist small business, particularly inrelation to the unfair dismissals changes.

You have had three interest rate cuts underthis government. You have had reductions incapital gains tax, roll-over provisions forsmall businesses, significant reductions—acommitment from Mr Moore—in the paperburden on small businesses, and a wholerange of measures which will assist smallbusinesses to get back on their feet and, ofcourse, to encourage more people into smallbusiness. I repeat: it is the height of hypocrisyfor a Labor Party to come in here and movethis sort of motion, complaining about themid-year review, when they had none andtheir record as economic managers wasabysmal.

Senator FERGUSON (South Australia)(4.05 p.m.)—As I rise to speak to this matterof public importance, it seems as though theAustralian Democrats are not going to takepart in this debate. I can only wonder why. Itwould appear as though perhaps the wordsthat have been used by Senator Sherry inbringing forward this matter of public import-ance certainly are not agreed to by the Demo-crats and, as a result of that, they do not wishto take part in this debate.

But that does not diminish my willingnessto take part in this debate because I could nothelp but notice when Senator Sherry wasspeaking earlier that he very often used thewords our ‘arrogant Treasurer’. I think Sena-tor Sherry has a nerve to start talking aboutan arrogant Treasurer when not so very longago we had a Labor government Treasurerwho stated publicly:I have Treasury in my pocket, the Reserve Bank inmy pocket, wages policy in my pocket, the finan-cial community both here and overseas in mypocket.

So if you want to talk about arrogance youonly have to look at the performance of theLabor government and the speech that wasmade by the former Prime Minister andformer Treasurer, Paul Keating, in an addressto the Canberra press gallery.


In saying that, the Labor Party of today, theopposition of today, is trying desperately toshake off that sort of arrogance and approachto fiscal matters that was taken by the formerPrime Minister, a former Treasurer. They arecontinually trying desperately to escape fromtheir record of those years, which is wellknown to all of us and all of the Australianvoting public who so comprehensively reject-ed them at the last election.

We should also remember that the formerPrime Minister in one of his more candidmoments said, ‘Labor is the architect ofwhere Australia is today.’ I could not agreewith him more. Labor is the architect ofwhere Australia is today. If you ask thepeople of Australia what they remember most,they remember the difficulties that the previ-ous Labor government has left them with. Thegovernment is desperately trying to findsolutions for them in order to make their livesbetter and make the conditions in which theyhave to run their businesses far better thanthey have been for the past 13 years, becauseAustralia today is not where it ought to be. Ifit had not been for the legacy that was leftafter those previous 13 years, I can tell youthat the Australian business community,particularly the Australian small businesscommunity, would not be in the situation thatthey are in today.

As if you need reminding, let me tell youthat at the conclusion of 13 years of Laborgovernment, in 1994-95—which was the lastfull year of the Labor government—they hada deficit equal to six per cent of the GDP,which was the worst in the OECD. They hadrecord deficits in that last year of government.They had high interest rates. At that stage,they had the second highest bank prime rateamongst developed nations. Unemploymentstood at over 730,000 Australians, with a veryhigh youth unemployment component. At thatstage we had a $181 billion foreign debt—an800 per cent increase during the term of their13 years of government.

Senator Sherry has a hide to come in hereand talk about what this government has donein producing a mid-year review. It is a com-prehensive mid-year review of some 100pages which, as my colleague Senator Camp-

bell said, compares most favourably with thelast Labor mid-year review, which containedthree pages, a couple of tables and just 11sentences dedicated to the fiscal outlook.

We had all this at a time prior to an im-pending election where the Labor Partycontinued to tell us that the budget was insurplus. That was their mid-year outlook. Wehave presented this mid-year review tellingthe Australian population the truth aboutexactly what is happening. It is a situationthat was forecast by Treasury which hasproven to be wrong, and it has left us with adeficit that is much larger than was anticipat-ed.

During the 13 years of Labor government—which most people do not need remindingfinished only some 10 months ago—the worldper capita income ranking had fallen from10th to 22nd in the 10 years to 1993, withpoverty and income inequality worsening.Throughout all of that time—when they weresupposedly looking after those people whomthey say they represented—the inequality wasworsening. National savings were lower thanthey were at the depths of the 1982-83 reces-sion and, at the time they lost government,household savings were at historical lowlevels.

We were at the situation where there hadbeen six consecutive underlying budgetdeficits, and there had been massive assetsales to fund current expenditure. So therewere underlying budget deficits, yet therewere still massive asset sales to try to fundthe current expenditure. The Commonwealthdebt itself was up some 300 per cent in thefour years to reach nearly $100 billion.

Added to that, we had an increasinglycomplex tax system, which was adding aburden to Australian taxpayers and, evenmore importantly, was adding a burden toAustralian small businesses. They werefinding it complicated to find the time neces-sary to complete the paperwork, particularlyin very small businesses. It was most onerousand made life much more difficult than itneeded to be.

So we have the situation where we have acriticism from this government about thepublication of a Liberal government mid-year


economic review and the revelations of thatreview when, in fact, for the first time thisgovernment has been prepared to tell theAustralian voters exactly as it is. They havenot been afraid to tell the Australian votersexactly what the economic situation is andwhat the future holds. Compare that with thelast review, which did not contain any eco-nomic or fiscal projections and which insistedthat the budget was in surplus when, in fact,all the time they knew that it was in deficit.They did not report the underlying deficit andincluded loan repayments as outlays offsets toclaim that the budget was still in surplus.

Let me say that there is no deceit in thismid-year review. It is telling everybodyexactly as it stands, which is something thatthe Labor Party never managed to do in their13 years in government. So Senator Sherryshould not try to tell us on some moral highground that what we are doing is not quiteright and that we should not be saying thesorts of things or printing the sorts of thingsthat are in this review, because it is somethingthat you never did. Our Treasurer (MrCostello) has gone out of his way to makesure that the Australian people know exactlywhat the situation is.

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (4.14p.m.)—I rise to speak in this debate andsupport the remarks of my colleague SenatorSherry. I do so by opening and making anobservation directly about the Australianeconomy and the state it is in now. Theeconomy is very flat. The growth levels of theeconomy are very low. What we are lookingat is a loss of consumer confidence, becausethe retail trading figures for the year are at arecord low. What we are looking at as well isa high level of bankruptcies. The bankruptciesfor the last quarter to the end of Decemberwere at a record high. What we are lookingat as well is a revision downwards by all theforecasters on what the profit level for privatecorporations in this country will be.

That is not an edifying scene. This govern-ment was elected on the basis of pushing theinterests of small business. The best smallbusiness policy is a growth economy. Lastyear this government chose to bring in acontractionary budget for the domestic Aus-

tralian economy and to pin their hopes ongrowth for the Australian economy on interna-tional growth; that is, economies outside ofAustralia are growing faster and pulling us upbecause we are a trading nation.

This was a budget that had no expansionfor the domestic economy at all. It contractedthe domestic economy, and it did so byslashing and burning a lot of governmentoutlays. The effect of that is now being felt.The economy is flat, employment prospectsare worse than they were before, when thebudget was brought down, and many privatesector economists believe that the figurespublished in the mid-term review by thegovernment overstate the case, are rubberyand are not reliable. In fact, the consensus ofprivate sector economists is that the govern-ment figures are too high, that growth will bedown but unemployment will be up, and thatprivate consumption will be down, meaningthat at the end of the day, when this budgetfinally tallies its figures and is reported to theparliament, there will be a bigger hole in itthan there is currently forecast. It is a deliber-ate policy of the government, it should beremembered, to do those things, because theychose the settings that have now broughtabout that outcome.

There are essentially four points that Iwould like to make in this debate whentalking about this mid-term review. The firstpoint is that the mid-term review, which isbeing bruited by the government as beingsome spectacular example of their being openwith the community, is not new. It happensevery year. It happened every year we werein government, and every year we were ingovernment we reported on the state of theeconomy and the state of the budget at themid-term. So nothing new is happening here.

Senator Ferguson—Three pages.

Senator COOK—Certainly the governmentbrought out a thicker book than we did, andit did so because it had a huge set of appendi-ces and tables attached to it. Well, bully foryou. But let there not be any pretension herethat what is being done is some startlinglynew policy in open government. The mid-term review is a standard mechanism foreconomic reporting in this country.


The second point is that what the reviewdid show is that the government has blown a$3 billion black hole, or a Costello chasm, inits own forward estimates. It did so by under-estimating the amount of taxation it wouldrecover from the business sector, and it got itsfigures wrong. It is now collecting some $3billion less than it anticipated and the budgetdeficit is therefore much greater. The problemthat all the slashing and burning was sup-posed to have resolved last year is intractableand unresolved by this. The government istherefore looking at a budget for the 1997-98year, to be brought down on 13 May, thatwill have to go into further cuts, and furthercuts obviously will take in health, welfare,education, defence and all the services thatare the big spending departments of thisgovernment and areas that people in Australiarely on for some assistance and support.Those areas are all, of course, under the knife.My colleague Senator Sherry spoke in somedetail on the new $3 billion hole and I willleave it there.

The third point I would make about whatthe mid-term review reveals is that it revealsa callous government, because this govern-ment has no strategic economic policy to dealwith the most intractable economic issue inAustralia today, and that is the problem ofunemployment. Unemployment is the No. 1economic issue for this nation. This review ofthe budget’s performance reveals that thegovernment has no policy to deal with it,because what this review shows is that unem-ployment will rise in the budgetary period andgrowth will rise, in the government’s ownestimates, from 3.25 per cent—from 3.5 percent to 3.75 per cent. I will get the figuresright.

Senator Ferguson—You never used to getthem right.

Senator COOK—We did, absolutely. Thatfigure is well below what the private sectoreconomists believe is the growth rate neededto get unemployment down. The LiberalParty’s seemingly house-trained economiststhat advised them on the Fightback policyestimate in their most recently publishedestimates that unemployment will hit nine per

cent by about the middle of the year, and thatforecast is not an isolated forecast.

So we have no strategy to deal with unem-ployment, no sign of a strategy to deal withunemployment. Work for the dole is justputting people who are unemployed in andout of jobs; it is not a strategy to deal withthem in the long term. This need not havebeen the case, because the slashing andburning we have seen in the economy neednot have occurred. I repeat that—they neednot have occurred. The Howard governmentran a confidence trick on the Australianpublic to try to sensitise them to the need formassive budget cuts. They need not haveoccurred, because the deficit in the Australianbudget, by world comparisons of developedeconomies, was low and was repairing itself,and the way to repair it faster would havebeen to opt for growth in the economy, not toopt, as they did on this occasion, to contractthe economy. Of course, those cuts destroyedindustry policy, and industry policy supportsthe ability of industry to grow. Because thosecuts have affected industry policy adversely,industries are not growing as rapidly, and thatis not surprising.

Finally, on the unemployment elements ofthis budget, I quote the Prime Minister him-self. In a 1995 headland speech he said:The government’s—

the government was then the Labor govern-ment—economic projections for the next four years weredowngraded below four per cent. This is an admis-sion by the Government that it cannot sustaingrowth in the range necessary to further substantial-ly reduce unemployment rates . . .

In other words, what Mr Howard is saying isthat you need a growth rate in the economyof four per cent so that when all the schoolleavers come on the market they get jobs andyou eat into the number of people who arestill unemployed. What is the forecast for thisbudget? The forecast is 3.5 per cent growth.So he is half a per cent below the growthlevel you need to deal with unemployment.That is not a strategy for dealing with the No.1 most important question in the Australianeconomy. That is a strategy for ignoring it orfor putting it on the backburner and saying


that sometime in the distant future it may takecare of itself. I must say that when yousurvey private sector economists, again noneof them believe it is likely to be about 3.5 percent. The majority believe on average that itis going to be around 3.1 per cent—muchreduced below what the budget forecasts are.

That leads me to the fourth point that Ineed to make in this debate, and that is that,while we have a mid-term review, the mid-term review is remarkable in that, if youcompare it with what is being said elsewhereby economists whose job it is to forecastchanges in the economy, the mid-term figuresare rubbery. They are rubbery and, I wouldhave to say, unreliable. Let us go to a coupleof examples of that. In the MelbourneAge inJanuary of this year they conducted a surveyof 28 economists: 10 bank economists, eightbusiness, academic and policy group econo-mists; and 10 economists who work for stock-brokers or other forecasters.

What did they estimate? These are peoplewho have the same estimate tools in front ofthem as does the Treasury. They had a scat-tering of estimates, but their average is 3.1per cent economic growth for the budgetaryyear, whereas the budget forecast is 3.5 percent. This was the estimate of 28 economistsfrom the leading banks, academia, brokers andother forecasters.

In December,Business Review Weeklyconducted a similar survey under the heading‘Rare accord on next year’s growth’. Itconducted a survey of 12 economists, someof whom were the same as theAge’s econo-mists. What did they concur on average wasthe growth for the economy? They said 3.1per cent. The ANZ bank conducted a surveyof 20 leading market economists. Again, someof them are the same. What did they say thatthe GDP growth for the year would be? Theysaid 3.1 per cent. They said that unemploy-ment would be 8.7 per cent—above the levelforecast by the government.

On 3 February, the National Australia Bankpublished their most recent forecast on theeconomy. What did they forecast for thegrowth rate in the economy? The forecast ofAlan Oster of the National Australia Bankwas 2¾per cent. We have here a substantial

variation between what the private sector andthe professional experts believe is the likelyperformance of the economy and what Treas-ury say it is. They are sufficient to raise asubstantial doubt about how reliable thesefigures are and whether they are being put toprovide a mere cosmetic argument for thegovernment that growth will be higher thanwhat it will be. So that is where we go as faras growth is concerned.

We know, in terms of unemployment, thatat least one of the major forecasters is fore-casting 9 per cent. In summary, those privatesector economists say about 8.8 per cent—again, substant ial ly higher than thegovernment’s even now upwardly revised rateof unemployment.

Private consumption is an important indica-tor. Private consumption takes up about 60per cent of GDP in the economy. Privateconsumption is down. We know that thetrading cycle over Christmas was a shockerand we see in the mid-term review thatprivate consumption is revised downwardsagain.

The summary of that position is simple. Ifthe government’s optimistic figures are real-ised, the economy will grow at about 3.5 percent. No-one much believes that. They thinkit is more likely to be a lower growth ofabout 3 per cent, meaning fewer job oppor-tunities, more unemployment, with the unem-ployment figure higher, private consumptiondown and private consumption expected toreel down a couple more steps. This meansthat, by the end of this budgetary period, theforecast will be totally out of whack, and thebudgetary deficit will be a great deal biggerthan the forecast now. It will be biggerbecause people are not in work paying taxes,because we are having to pay unemploymentbenefits and because people are frightened ofthe future, and they are not consuming.

That is not the environment for smallbusiness and that is not the environment forthe economy. It is the environment that thisgovernment has foisted on Australians. Aus-tralians do not want that environment, and Iam sure will reject it. It is a mark of thefailure of this government to actually managethe economy as they promised.(Time expired)


Senator FERRIS (South Australia) (4.26p.m.)—In this MPI today, Senator Sherryregaled us with a collection of Henny-Pennyscare stories about what’s going up, what’sgoing down and what’s going to be shutdown. We have had an economics lecturefrom Senator Cook. These people forget whocaused these problems.

This time last year, Australia was sufferinga very public malaise. In fact, the patient wasvery sick. The symptoms were obvious. Let’shave a look at them. There was 11½ per centunemployment, the highest since the Depres-sion—in fact, an average rate of unemploy-ment over 13 years of 8.7 per cent. It washigher than 10 per cent for nearly three yearsof the previous government. And for 32consecutive months under Labor, unemploy-ment was its highest since World War II.

How many new full-time jobs did thisgovernment create—not people down rabbitburrows on training programs that led themnowhere but kept them off the statistics, thoseterrible statistics, but real jobs? Was thispatient sick! Yet, Senator Schacht in thisplace on 29 August 1995 proudly said:I believe that the support this government has giventhrough Working Nation to tackle long-termunemployment, including youth unemployment, isan example that we can all be proud of.

Not me, Senator Schacht and certainly notthousands of Australians.

Labor failed a generation of people and, inparticular, a generation of young people, andyet the malaise continued. Ten months agoAustralians got the chance to change thedoctor and to change the treatment. Thou-sands of them voted for new specialists toreview the problem and to try to speed up therecovery process. So what’s happened sincethen to get Australians working again, and torepair and restore this nation? The coalitionhas created four times as many full-time jobsas Labor in its last five years. There havebeen three interest rate cuts, the lowest sinceBW—before Whitlam; we all remember thattime.

The government has established a smallbusiness task force to look at ways to helpremove red tape and compliance costs and theresponse to that report is due very soon. We

have reviewed the unfair dismissal laws. Wehave reformed the IR policies and, veryimportantly, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)has created a cabinet subcommittee to look atunemployment. He has given it his highestpriority.

There is a new apprenticeship and trainingscheme to help young people and businessand the green corp initiative, a $41 millionprogram, offers great opportunities for youngpeople in our environment. Interestinglyenough, within 10 days of advertising vacan-cies and expressions of interest in this pro-gram, there have been 1,100 responses for the230 initial places to be made available.

Our latest policy of work for the unemploy-ment benefit has been widely welcomed notonly by young people but by their parents,who are very anxious that their children getsome work experience to improve theirmorale and their sense of wellbeing and at thesame time, very importantly, to help thecommunity. Still Labor refuse to lend theirsupport to these initiatives. They ratherremind me of a group of hypochondriacs,wringing their hands and enjoying the experi-ence.

In office, Labor tried to disguise just howill this patient really was. We found the $8billion black hole that we heard so muchabout this afternoon only after we came togovernment. Now, in office, Labor still refuseto lend support for our fresh, new and popularapproach.

The coalition is determined to restoreAustralia to a good state of health and inparticular to give our young people a sense ofpurpose, of hope, the chance for independenceand the sense of optimism that we had whenwe approached our mature years.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Crowley)—That concludes the timeallowed for the MPI.

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT (1996-97 BUDGET

MEASURES) BILL 1996

In Committee

Consideration resumed.


The CHAIRMAN —The committee isconsidering schedule 1 of the Veterans’Affairs Legislation Amendment (1996-97Budget Measures) Bill 1996, parts 2 and 3 ofwhich the opposition intends to oppose.(Quorum formed)The question before thechair is that parts 2 and 3 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [4.39 p.m.](The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 2

——

AYESAbetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.*Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Colston, M. A. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, JGibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.

NOESAllison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Childs, B. K.Collins, J. M. A. Collins, R. L.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Crowley, R. A. Faulkner, J. P.Foreman, D. J.* Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.

PAIRSCrane, W. Cooney, B.O’Chee, W. G. Carr, K.Woods, R. L. Sherry, N.Alston, R. K. R. Denman, K. J.

* denotes teller

(Senator Chris Evans did not vote, tocompensate for the vacancy caused by thedeath of Senator Panizza.)

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN —Earlier today we leftthe government amendments because certainsenators wanted to have another look at them.The committee will now return to the govern-ment amendments.

Amendments (bySenator Newman) pro-posed:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 8 to 10), omit sub-

clause (1), substitute:

(1) The following provisions commence on theday on which this Act receives the RoyalAssent:

(a) sections 1, 2 and 3;

(b) Part 1, items 5 and 7, and Parts 6 and 9,of Schedule 1;

(c) Schedule 2.

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 5 and 6), omit sub-clause (4).

(3) Clause 2, page 2 (line 9), after "commence",insert ", or are taken to have commenced,".

(4) Clause 2, page 2 (line 11), after "commences",insert ", or is taken to have commenced,".

(5) Schedule 1, item 66, page 25 (lines 21 and22), omit "1 January 1997", substitute "the dayon which this Act receives the Royal Assent".




Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.44p.m.)—I thank the chamber for allowing thecommittee time to examine the effect of thegovernment amendments that have beenmoved by Minister Newman. I indicate thatthe opposition will support the amendments.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (4.44p.m.)—I simply indicate that the AustralianDemocrats will support these governmentamendments. By and large, they are verybeneficial.


Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.44 p.m.)—I likewise indicate that the Greens take thesame position.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN —The next item on oursheet is an opposition amendment.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.45p.m.)—I think you indicated, Mr Chairman,that you would prefer me to move amendment3 separately and not 3, 4 and 5 together. Imove:

(3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (lines 6 to 13),omit the formula and definitions of terms usedin the formula, substitute:

Compensation part of lump sum

Average weekly earnings

I am happy to have moved amendment 3standing in my name, but obviously I am nothappy then to prolong the debate for amend-ments 4 and 5. These amendments effectivelyprevent the introduction of a revised divisorfor calculating the lump sum compensationpreclusion period. This, as honourable sena-tors would recall, was something that wasagain debated at some length during debateon budget measures relating to social security.We opposed this for social security recipients.Our proposals at that time were not successfuland we were defeated.

But I would say that the revised divisor willmean that the lump sum preclusion periodwill be longer. It will mean that people willbe precluded from payment for longer and, ofcourse, will be forced to use up their compen-sation payment at a lower rate so as to haveincome for that period. I think the argumentsthat were advanced on behalf of the opposi-tion when the Senate canvassed these issuesat length before still stand. I certainly standby them, and I urge the majority of senatorswho did not support the opposition on thatoccasion to reconsider their votes on thismatter. I commend opposition amendment 3to the Senate and indicate that, after it is dealtwith, I will just deal in a pro-forma way withopposition amendments 4 and 5 cognately.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (4.47p.m.)—I indicate that the Democrats will besupporting the Labor Party’s amendment here.I would just check with Senator Faulkner: Ipresume that with your formula you arerestoring the previous situation.

Senator Faulkner—That’s correct.

Senator WOODLEY—If that is so, wewould certainly want to support that. Again,let me say that I am disappointed that thegovernment is introducing, in such a sneakyway, the change of a formula. Previously theydebated the complexity of the earnings creditscheme. What they are doing, of course, isintroducing a very sneaky and complexchange to the formula. If I could, I would liketo boomerang their own argument back onthem and say, really, if you want to makethese kinds of changes, be up-front aboutthem rather than using these kinds of tactics.

Senator Bob Collins—They’re a verysneaky bunch.

Senator WOODLEY—I kind of keephoping. I am one of those eternal optimists,Senator Collins.

Senator Bob Collins—Typical Democrat.

Senator WOODLEY—I repeat that we willbe supporting the opposition’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (4.48p.m.)—I follow the lead of the Leader of theGovernment in the Senate not to discuss thesematters which were discussed at length on aprevious occasion in respect of anothermeasure.

Senator Faulkner—Opposition leader,sadly, Senator Harradine.

Senator HARRADINE—I am sorry, theopposition leader. I am supporting the bill asit stands—although, as it stands, on page 10at line 8 of the bill, should that be ‘OFFAL’?I thought that offal was fed to pigs.

The CHAIRMAN —I think that is a typo.I should be able to fix that up. I do not thinkoffal is relevant there.

Senator HARRADINE —Just for thebenefit of those who may be listening, line 10says:


OFFAL (ordinary income free area)means theamount specified in column 3 of item 1 in Table D-1 in point 41-D4.

Senator Newman—Thank you, SenatorHarradine, for drawing that to our attention.

The CHAIRMAN —Your having broughtit to my attention, I will be able to amend itas chairman. Thank you, Senator Harradine.

The CHAIRMAN —Before I put thequestion, I would like to indicate to thosehonourable senators who were not here thatthere was a typographical error in the bill.Instead of having the initials OIFA, it readOFFAL. I indicated to the committee at thetime that I would be able to change that byway of a chairman’s amendment. I was inerror, because this actual bill originated in theHouse of Representatives, so it will have tobe by chair’s amendment in the House ofRepresentatives. But it will be changed.

The committee divided. [4.55 p.m.](The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston)Question put:That the amendment (Senator Faulkner’s) be

agreed to.

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 2

——AYES

Allison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Childs, B. K.Collins, J. M. A. Collins, R. L.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Faulkner, J. P. Foreman, D. J.*Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Kernot, C.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. 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. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.

NOES

Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.*Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Short, J. R.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSCooney, B. Crane, W.McKiernan, J. P. O’Chee, W. G.Evans, C. V. Woods, R. L.

* denotes teller

Question so resolved in the negative.

(Senator Carr did not vote, to compensate forthe vacancy caused by the death of SenatorPanizza.)

Items 28 and 33.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.00p.m.)—The opposition proposes the followingamendments:

(4) Schedule 1, item 28, page 10 (line 16) to page11 (line 2),omit the item.

(5) Schedule 1, item 33, page 11 (line 29) to page12 (line 15),omit the item.

I indicate to the committee that this matterwas well canvassed just a moment ago. Icommend the amendments to the committee.Given that the substantive amendment—thatis, amendment 3—has been lost, it would notbe my intention to propose that the committeedivide on this matter.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (5.01p.m.)—We will also oppose the governmentproposal at this stage, but realise that there isno point in calling a division.

The CHAIRMAN —The question beforethe chair is that items 28 and 33 of schedule1 stand as printed.

Items 28 and 33 agreed to.

Part 7.


Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.02p.m.)—We propose the following amendment:(6) Schedule 1, Part 7, page 13 (line 2) to page 16

(line 25),omit the part .

I would like to remind you, Minister, that on13 December last year you said:Three years ago most of the banks in Australiawere paying pensioners one per cent. The introduc-tion by the previous government of bank deeming. . . has seen a dramatic improvement in the waybanks have treated pensioners. We are continuingthat.

. . . . . . . . .We are now moving to make sure that right downto the last dollar pensioners have the opportunityto get a decent return on their money.

You went on to say:A number of financial institutions are alreadypaying the deeming rates right down to the lastdollar. We are introducing this measure to encour-age those who are still paying only one per cent tothose on smaller amounts—the ones under $4,000.

I think we now have a clearer picture of whatthe banks will do in relation to this. In fact,I was very interested to read this commentfrom an article in theWeekend Australianof1-2 February:

ANZ and the National Australia Bank aremaking changes to the terms of their pensionerdeeming accounts which will result in reducedbenefits to account holders.

. . . . . . . . .Under the original terms of its deeming account,

NAB paid the higher rate on the whole balance ofthe account once it went over $30,000.

Now the bank will pay 0.25 per cent on balancesunder $2000, 4 per cent on balances over $2000and up to $30,000 and 6 per cent on that portion ofan account balance that exceeds $30,000.

It went on to say in the same article that thatsplit rate approach is also being adopted bythe ANZ. I just make the point to the commit-tee that this is hardly, to use the minister’swords, paying the deeming rate down to thelast dollar.

I say to the committee that I know it hasbeen canvassed at great length when wedebated the social security package, but Ireally believe this is why this concession is soimportant. I ask senators around the chamberagain to reconsider the position they took

during debate on this matter in the socialsecurity package. I commend the opposition’samendments to the committee.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (5.05p.m.)—I indicated in my speech in the secondreading debate that we would support thegovernment on this. Perhaps it might beuseful to get a couple of comments from theminister that would help us. We have chasedthis one around the mulberry bush for months,as has everyone. My understanding is that asingle person with under $2,000 in an accountwould not have to pay, because of the waythe pension is arranged. That amount is under$4,000 for a couple. I would be happy if theminister could confirm that.

I would have to say—even the ministerwould agree—that the point at which I amnervous is the point at which we trust thebanks to do the right thing. I am guilty ofbashing the banks at times. On this occasionI expect that the minister will be able to exertsufficient pressure on the banks that they willcontinue to do the right thing. SenatorFaulkner has raised a real issue for us—thatis, can we trust the banks in terms of thatdeeming rate on their deeming accounts? Ifyou could address those couple of issues,Minister, that would help, but at this stage wewill be supporting the government.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(5.06 p.m.)—I thank Senator Woodley for hiscontribution. He is right in his assumptionabout people who have under $2,000 in theiraccounts. I also say that I would have con-cerns too about what the banks’ intentions aretowards pensioners.

Under the previous government, whendeeming was introduced first, pensioners weregetting a very raw deal from the banks, in myview. Therefore, as an opposition we support-ed the introduction of deeming so that pen-sioners would get a better go and be able tomaximise their income. It had the possibilityof having some benefits to revenue but, moreimportantly, it gave them a fair return on theirincome. Banks were, in fact, borrowing verylow from their pensioners and letting theirmoney out very high, and I do not think any


of us think that is a great way to treat theelderly in our society.

What I said in the debate last year stillstands, but I would like to add a few otherpoints. Most deeming accounts offer nointerest currently on the first $2,000. But thepast experience of the introduction of deem-ing in the first place is that financial institu-tions set the rate of interest paid to thedeemed rates for deeming accounts in orderto remain competitive. This is one of thethings that these financial institutions have totake into account.

These pensioners have an enormous amountof clout. If they are well informed and deter-mined to get a fair go for themselves, they arenot silly old men and women, they will movetheir money where they will get a fair go—and of course they should, and the govern-ment endorses that. We believe these amend-ments, like the original introduction of deem-ing, will enable pensioners to increase theiroverall income. But there has been a dramaticimprovement over the last few years in theway the banks have treated pensioners. Webelieve these amendments will continue that.

I thought you might like some informationabout the current state of play, SenatorWoodley. The total number of institutionscurrently offering deeming accounts are 121.Of those, 37 currently offer the deeming rateon account balances under $2,000; but noneof the major banks offer these accounts asyet. The more sizeable financial institutionsthat do are Bankwest, Challenge Bank, Townand Country, IOOF and Suncorp BuildingSociety. There are another 19 institutionsfrom the 121 offering deeming accounts thatalso pay four per cent on account balancesbelow $2,000. However, these 19 do not offeraccounts that mirror the deeming rates onlarger balances as the 37 indicated above do.However, where people have only smallbalances to invest, there are a total of 56accounts available to them currently payingfour per cent on balances below $2,000.

My intention is to make sure, to the best ofmy ability, as the minister responsible forsocial security, that all elderly people in oursociety have access to the most up-to-dateinformation on these financial institutions and

what they are offering. If you like, I think itis an area where we could do aChoiceexer-cise on the financial institutions, because it isunrealistic to expect elderly people, as SenatorWest said earlier, to go from bank to banktrying to find out that information. Someelderly people are physically incapacitatedand would find doing that difficult and per-haps a little confusing. Nevertheless, I see itas a responsibility that I am happy to shoulderto make sure they have up-to-date informa-tion. Perhaps that will also help to make thefinancial institutions realise that we meanbusiness about giving pensioners a fair go.

Having said that as Minister for SocialSecurity, I acknowledge that we are on aveterans bill; but I know that the Minister forVeterans’ Affairs (Mr Scott) has a similarconcern to make sure that information goes topensioners, and he will be doing what he canin that area as well. Of course, you should notforget that we have FIS officers in the Depart-ment of Social Security. Elderly people cango and talk to them about their financialposition and get advice about maximisingtheir income. We have also set up half adozen retirement services centres aroundAustralia where there are representatives ofVeterans’ Affairs, Social Security and Tax-ation, and older people are finding it veryvaluable to be able to go and get the advicethey need.

So I think the combination of advice,availability of information and, if you like,the record of financial institutions whendeeming was first introduced means thatveterans and other pensioners will be muchbetter off as a result of extending the deemingin the way we are doing. Of course, from anadministrative point of view it makes itsimpler, too, and less confusing for people asto where the deeming cuts in as it does nowat $2,000 and $4,000.

The CHAIRMAN —Order! The question isthat part 7 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [5.17 p.m.](The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 16

——


AYESAbetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Kernot, C.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Stott Despoja, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Woodley, J.

NOESBishop, M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Childs, B. K.Collins, R. L. Conroy, S.*Cook, P. F. S. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P.Foreman, D. J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. West, S. M.

PAIRSCrane, W. Cooney, B.O’Chee, W. G. Evans, C. V.Vanstone, A. E. Mackay, S.Watson, J. O. W. Collins, J. M. A.Woods, R. L. Carr, K.

* denotes teller

(Senator Sherry did not vote, to compensatefor the vacancy caused by the death of Sena-tor Panizza.)

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Part 7 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; reportadopted.

Third ReadingBill (on motion bySenator Newman) read

a third time.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME AMENDMENTBILL 1996

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 10 December 1996,

on motion bySenator Brownhill:That this bill be now read a second time.

Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (5.22p.m.)—The Proceeds of Crime AmendmentBill 1996 has two principal purposes. Thefirst is to facilitate cooperation betweenAustralia and other nations to pursue theproceeds of criminal activity. It does so byallowing Australia to pay out the proceeds ofcrime to foreign nations which have assistedus in the seizure of those proceeds. Further,the bill also allows Australia to receive theproceeds of crime paid to this country by thenations which Australian authorities haveassisted to seize proceeds offshore. This aimof the bill of course is entirely laudatory and,on behalf of the opposition, we express ourunequivocal support for these measures.

Increasingly, organised crime—desperate asit is to evade scrutiny—moves the proceedsof its activities through the world’s interna-tional monetary system. Money laundering,for instance, particularly if money is obtainedthrough the drug trade, can be done aroundthe world at the blink of an eye, through anyone of a number of tax havens, sham transac-tions or the use of common technology.

Pursuing these assets, of course, can takeconsiderable time and resources. But, at theend of the day, criminals want to enjoy thespoils of their wrongdoings and, sooner orlater, their ill-gotten gains wind up in count-ries where they can be seized—and seized ofcourse they must be.

Just as the means of the internationalcriminal have become more complex, so toohave the investigative techniques and re-sources available to law enforcement agen-cies. Just as it is imperative for internationallaw enforcement agencies to cooperate toarrest the criminals themselves, so too is itimperative that the proceeds of their crimes beseized. Any assistance that the Australiangovernment can provide to not only our ownbut also overseas authorities to seize assetslaundered through the international monetary


system will clearly help in the greater struggleagainst these malefactors.

In his historic speech to the joint sitting ofthe House of Representatives and the Senatelate last year, President Clinton identified thefight against international drug trafficking andagainst international organised crime as partof the next great challenge facing all nations.President Clinton said:As we deal with these challenges to our security,we must recognise the new ones which are emer-ging and the new approaches they require. Terror-ism, international crime and drug trafficking areforces of destruction that have no tolerance fornational borders. Together we must show zerotolerance for them . . .

It means, in short, pursuing a concerted strat-egy—intelligence and police co-operation world-wide, co-ordinated action in every country to stopmoney laundering, shutting down grey markets forguns and false documents, and increasing extradi-tions. It means security co-ordination . . . andgiving, in each of our nations, our law enforcementofficials the tools they need to co-operate andsucceed.

Such cooperation is essential. I do recogniseand thank the government for introducing thisaspect of the bill before us. It provides amaterial way through which all parties in thisparliament can reaffirm their commitment tothis most important struggle. The commitmentto war against drugs and organised crimemust be more than just words. As the Presi-dent said, we must give all ‘our law enforce-ment officials the tools they need’.

It is with great disappointment that I turn tothe second aspect of this bill. Item 6 ofschedule 1 of the bill repeals section 34D ofthe Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 and it insertsa new provision. The purpose of this amend-ment to the act is to allow the government totransfer funds distributable from the confis-cated assets trust fund to consolidated rev-enue.

At present, funds seized under the Proceedsof Crime Act are paid into the trust fund untilsuch time as any legal proceedings in relationto those funds are determined. When theCommonwealth is successful in proving thatthose funds or assets are the proceeds ofcrime, those funds are distributable for thepurposes of the act.

Since the establishment of this trust fund,some $29.8 million has been paid in, $26.4million of which has been as a result of fundsseized pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act1987. A further $3.3 million has been paid inpursuant to the Customs Act 1901 and$22,000 pursuant to section 9 of the CrimesAct 1914. As at 31 July this year, the trustfund had a total of $7.25 million credited toit, of which $5.9 million was available fordistribution.

Under the present legislation as it nowoperates, available funds are distributed onceper year by the Attorney-General for twopurposes. Half the funds are available for thefunding of special law enforcement projects.In 1995, funding of about $5.4 million waspaid out of the trust fund to some 10 lawenforcement projects. These projects, quitemeritorious, included, for instance, $450,000to enhance the Insurance and SuperannuationCommission’s fraud detection system;$290,000 to the Department of Immigrationand Multicultural Affairs’ movement alertsystem, a system which has been recentlyupgraded and which was designed to detectand monitor the attempted movement ofundesirables to Australia; and some $1.8million to the NCA, the National CrimeAuthority, to assist with its telecommunica-tions intercept capabilities—another importantproject. Other recipients included the AFP, theAustralian Securities Commission and theAustralian Institute of Criminology. In the1994 funding round, a further $5.2 millionwas distributed to some 20 law enforcementprojects in sums ranging from $54,500 to$675,000. Recipients included the AustralianCustoms Service and the Australian TaxationOffice.

It cannot be denied that, collectively, allthose measures have provided an invaluableboost to Australia’s law enforcement capabili-ties. That can be said collectively and indi-vidually. These measures have also been quitecritical to the agencies that have been able tobenefit from them.

The other 50 per cent of funds are availablefor drug education and rehabilitation projects.Since 1992-93, the Department of Health andFamily Services has received a net total of


$7.638 million from the trust fund, $11.68million gross. These moneys have also beenused for quite valuable projects. They havebeen used to support, for instance, additionalprojects under the national drug strategy.

It is also worth remembering what sorts ofprojects we are talking about here, and re-membering that, in the future, funding willnot be available for these sorts of projects.Activities funded during the period I men-tioned include: the second phase of the‘Speed catches up with you’ public educationawareness campaign, a critical campaignwhich was designed to promote awarenessabout the effect of amphetamines; an interna-tional conference held in Sydney in June 1994on the principles of developing and imple-menting a balanced national drug strategy toaddress the problems of drug abuse; a pro-gram which involved the production of ageneral resource document on the healtheffects of cannabis and a time series analysisof the patterns and use of and communityattitudes towards that drug; a technical studyof the toxic effects of MDMA, otherwiseknown as Ecstasy; and the national initiativesin drug education, NIDE, program.

This NIDE program consisted of twophases: the ongoing comprehensive trainingof teachers to develop both skills and know-ledge in relation to drug education and,subsequently, the extension of this educationto parents, industry and community groups.As I say, these are quite invaluable programsin terms of raising awareness in our com-munity about some particular drugs andgenerally about drugs and other substanceabuse.

The trust fund has also been used in thepast to supplement the budget of the nationaldrug strategy when funds were otherwiseunavailable. In two years the base funding ofthe strategy was supplemented by $2 millionadvances against future allocations from thetrust fund. The use of these advances explainsthe $4 million differential between net andgross figures I mentioned earlier for alloca-tions from the trust fund.

As I said, these programs have all beenvaluable. They have increased awareness ofthe impact of drugs in our community. They

have provided us with the resources that weneed to tackle difficult and complex problems.So what now is the problem? What is wrongwith these funds being transferred to consoli-dated revenue rather than directly to theseprojects? There is of course a fundamentalproblem with that. At a time when govern-ment is cutting back on funding, particularlyin the Attorney-General’s Department, therewill not be funding around for programs likethis in the future.

The government has tried to defend thedecision to transfer these funds to consolidat-ed revenue on two bases, firstly, by arguingthat the hypothecation of these funds for lawenforcement purposes may divert law enforce-ment agencies from their primary goal of lawenforcement. The Attorney-General stated inthe House of Representatives on 9 December1996:Distortion of the operations of law enforcementagencies will result if the focus is too much on therecovery of funds rather than on the prevention ofcrime and the apprehension of criminals.

I find this particular approach insulting to thecommitment demonstrated daily by our lawenforcement officials. It is insulting to suggestthat they would be more interested in increas-ing the budgets of their respective organisa-tions than pursuing criminals. I hope theAttorney-General did not mean that, but theinterpretation of his words, I think, is quiteclear.

But such remarks also ignore the operationof the trust fund as it now stands. No lawenforcement agency would reasonably betempted in this way because any funds paidout from the trust fund are paid out, firstly, atthe discretion of the Attorney and not neces-sarily to the agency that collects the fundsand, secondly, a considerable time after thefunds were placed in the trust fund in the firstplace. Both of these factors mean that noagency would seriously rely upon fundsplaced in the trust fund as a source of futurefunding. The Attorney’s suggestions in thisregard shows, I think, his complete failure tounderstand how the trust fund currentlyoperates.

The government also tries to defend thisproposal by saying that the mere transfer of


the funds available under the trust fund toconsolidated revenue will not stop fundsbeing available for these purposes. I am surethat is what the minister, when she comes intothis chamber, will say in her defence. Indebate in the House of Representatives, MrWilliams stated:That is not to say that there will not be fundingdirected to law enforcement projects and to drugrehabilitation and education programs.

But the budget makes a lie of that assertion.Across the board it cannot be disputed thatthis government has cut appropriations to ourlaw enforcement agencies. The AustralianFederal Police will have its budget cut bysome $26.5 million over the next two years.The Australian Customs Service will be cutby $73 million over four years. Cuts alreadyannounced to the Customs Service haveresulted in a loss of adequate border protec-tion in many major regional centres and thevirtual conversion of the Australian CustomsService to a 9 to 5 operation. If only crimi-nals worked office hours!

The National Crime Authority, Australia’spremier law enforcement agency in the fightagainst organised crime, will have its budgetcut by $11.3 million over the next threeyears—almost 20 per cent of its budget. Thatis a cut which the chairman of the NCA, MrJohn Broome, has already admitted will, farfrom making the NCA more efficient asclaimed in the government’s election commit-ments, reduce the authority’s investigativecapacity.

This will be particularly noticeable in myhome state of South Australia and in the stateof Western Australia. Staff at the authority’sAdelaide office are being reduced from—youjust cannot believe this!—33 to only 10. InPerth staff numbers will be cut from 27 to 15.That is an enormous cutback in those states,states which have drug problems and organ-ised crime problems, and a cutback which inno way has been attempted to be justified bythe Attorney—33 to 10 in the South Austral-ian office of the NCA and 27 to 15 in WA.

I must say in fairness to other officers ofthe NCA who have been affected by thesecuts that a further 20 staff have lost their jobsin Melbourne, 12 in Sydney and three in

Brisbane. However, when you look at thosefigures the relative impact of these cuts willbe most noticeable in the Adelaide and Perthoffices. There has been no justification forthat. There has been no pretence of trying toexplain that maybe there has been a reductionin the incidence of crime and organised crimein those two states. In fact, those states willnow be left mainly unprotected because ofthis enormous cutback in their staff contin-gents.

I do not know how the Attorney justifiesthat. How you could exclude South Australiaand WA from priority areas in terms of thefight against drug importation and organisedcrime is something which is quite incredible.All Australians should be concerned that thisgovernment has given the drug barons andcrime lords a green light in South Australiaand the West. I do say as a South Australianthat South Australians are concerned.

The government has also cut half a milliondollars, some 15 per cent, from the budget ofthe Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board.You wonder how that body will continue toeffectively assist Commonwealth and statelaw enforcement bodies coordinate theiractivities after a cut of this magnitude, par-ticularly since last year the Commonwealthadded to the responsibilities of CLEB thecoordination of the new uniform national gunlaws as well as the national paedophileregister and the National Missing PersonsBureau. It is law enforcement on the cheap.We really should not tolerate it.

Finally, the government has cut another$160,000 from research on the criminaljustice response to violence against women.This funding had been announced under theprevious Labor government’s justice state-ment. So despite all the posturing before theelection about the need to protect womenfrom domestic violence, this government hasactually turned around and cut funding to aprogram that would help us all to understand,so as to fix, one of the principal reasons whytoo many women choose not to report domes-tic violence. Of course the problem is thecriminal justice system.

In total, what we are talking about here isa cutback in the federal budget of some $120


million out of Australia’s fight against crime.So much for giving our law enforcementofficials the resources they need. So much forgiving Australian families the protection theyneed. So much for giving Australian youngpeople the protection they need.

We have to give the government somecredit where it is due. The only new spendingproposal in the law and order field is thegovernment’s establishment of the nationalcampaign against violence and crime. Theadditional $3 million to be allocated over thenext three years is a welcome addition to the$1 million per year announced in the justicestatement for the safer Australia program. Imust also indicate a disappointment that that$3 million is less than the $5 million prom-ised to the Australian people by the coalitionin its law and justice policy.

I could go on, but it saddens me to say thatin terms of programs like safer Australia thereneeds to be a continuing commitment here. Interms of those programs and the programs Imentioned earlier, I think there is an increas-ing responsibility on the government to ensurethat funding resources are available. So it isdisappointing. The Attorney’s handling of thisprogram—like so many other areas in hisportfolio—has been lackadaisical to say theleast.

What can we conc lude abou t thegovernment’s law and order budget? Whilstno-one would suggest that this governmentactively supports organised crime, its inaction,its negligence and its lack of commitmentmark it out as a government that really doesnot have the fortitude for the fight. In therealm of law and order, the budget representsa litany of broken promises and lies. MrWilliams and Mr Howard have betrayed theAustralian people. In doing so they have putordinary Australians, particularly youngerAustralians and Australian families, in thefiring line.

Their record on drug education and rehabis not much better either. What we are talkingabout here is a cessation of funding to soundand proven programs—programs that reducethe likelihood of crimes, not just drug relatedcrimes, being committed in the future. Thedrug culture in Australia is surrounded by the

commission of property offences and violentcrimes. A large proportion of home break-insin this country, for instance, are carried out bydrug users seeking cash or readily saleablegoods, such as VCRs and Cds, to fund theirhabits.

We all too regularly talk about drug relatedkillings, not to mention the often high levelof non-lethal violence that permeates drugculture. Prostitution, youth homelessness andabuse are all too often connected with theprevalence of drugs in our community. Thisgovernment’s withdrawal of funding, whicheither stops young Australians entering thisunsavoury world or helps drug users kick thehabit, will only see this blight on our societyspread.

So we believe that this aspect of the bill isill-conceived and short-sighted. In thisgovernment’s desperate dash for cash, it haslost sight of the reason why we are elected togovernment: to make Australia a safer andhappier place for us all.

The amount involved in this bill is amiserly $12.83 million over four years. Evenif we make the assumption, which I do notbelieve we can make, that all moneys current-ly held in the trust fund will be ultimatelydistributable, that is the amount you aretalking about. Small though these amountsmight be, in total these funds provide muchneeded additional assistance to our lawenforcement agencies and help those who areotherwise tempted by drugs and help them tosay no.

So in the committee stage of this bill—andI do not think I will speak to the amendmentat this stage—I will move an amendment toomit from the bill item 6 of schedule 1. Asimilar amendment was moved in the Houseof Representatives, and I do ask senators tosupport this particular amendment.

I also indicate in closing that the oppositionwill support the bill but, once again, we askthe government to really reconsider what theyare doing in respect of the confiscated assetstrust fund. It is a dash for cash. It is one thatreally cannot be justified and one that leavesAustralian families and Australian youngpeople unprotected from the growing evils,


not the lessening evils, of international organ-ised crime.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia) (5.41 p.m.)—I rise to speak on behalfof my colleague Senator Bourne, who wasresponsible for this bill, and on behalf of theDemocrats to discuss the Proceeds of CrimeAmendment Bill 1996. As we have heard,there are two purposes to this bill. The firstpurpose enables the Commonwealth to distri-bute the proceeds of crime to a foreign coun-try or to receive proceeds of crime from aforeign country where that country has assist-ed Australia in criminal matters.

The act already allows for the Common-wealth to divide the proceeds of crime withinan Australian state or territory if those pro-ceeds have been recovered with their assist-ance. This is something that we considerentirely appropriate. As we understand it, theprovision to allow for the sharing with aforeign country shall operate in a similarmanner. Again, the Australian Democrats findthis entirely appropriate. Indeed, this clausemay add an incentive to a foreign country toassist Australia in its law enforcement oper-ations for criminal matters.

So the Democrats do not have a problemwith that particular section of the bill, and wewill support it. But, like Senator Bolkus, wedo have a problem with the second provisionin the bill that allows for the redirection offunds from the confiscated assets trust fundaway from law enforcement and drug rehabili-tation and education programs into consolidat-ed revenue. That is, under the new section,any money in the consolidated assets trustfund available for distribution will go intoconsolidated revenue. We consider thatentirely inappropriate, and we will not besupporting that particular section of the bill.

Since 1991 all assets recovered under theProceeds of Crime Act and the narcoticprovisions of the Customs Act were paid intothe fund. Currently, the Attorney-Generalmust also decide what proportion of the fundis available for distribution. Then half of thebalance is paid to law enforcement projects,as selected by the Attorney-General. Theother half is to be paid to drug rehabilitation

and drug education projects chosen by theminister for health.

Through the fund, the law enforcementsector has been able to increase its ability toinvestigate and arrest drug importers. TheAustralian Federal Police, the AustralianSecurities Commission and the AustralianInstitute of Criminology have also beenrecipients of grants from the confiscatedassets trust fund.

I do not think anyone would deny theimportance and the value of these particularprojects of which Senator Bolkus has out-lined. Of course, drug rehabilitation andeducation projects have been proven as a wayand a method for reducing the incidence ofdrug abuse in our society.

Some examples have been mentioned, butthere are also others apart from the ‘Speedcatches up with you’ amphetamine awarenesscampaign. There have been studies on com-munity attitudes to drug taking. There hasbeen teacher training in drug related issues.Other examples include the production ofhealth related resource materials, technicalstudies on the side effects of drugs andinternational conferences on implementing thenational drug strategy. Senator Bolkus men-tioned the ‘Say no to drugs’ campaign;perhaps we should have a ‘Say no to section34D’ campaign in relation to this bill. But no-one doubts the worth and the importance ofthese particular drug education and rehabilita-tion programs.

As of July 1996, the fund had a total of$7.25 million in credit of which $5.9 millionwas available for distribution. Comparatively,this is not a great deal of money but, ofcourse, it is a lot of money when it is put inthe context of drug education and healthprograms. So the Democrats are questioningthe government today as to why it seems sokeen on saving a pitiful $7.25 million in thisbudget and a miserly $1.86 million each yearuntil the year 2000 by transferring the pro-ceeds of crime to consolidated revenue. Weregard this amendment to the Proceeds ofCrime Act as no more than a pitiful money-grabbing exercise by the government. I mean,$7.25 million is the total amount that theconfiscated assets trust fund currently con-


tains. I have no doubt that the transfer toconsolidated revenue would mean that thegovernment would not necessarily be planningto fund those vitally important drug andhealth related education programs because ithas certainly not topped up the budgets ofother relevant agencies to make up the short-fall.

Senator Bolkus has referred to the cuts thathave been made in other crime fighting andinvestigative agencies, such as the NationalCrime Authority. Senator Conroy, as a col-league on the National Crime Authoritycommittee, would share the concerns thatSenator Bolkus has already outlined about thedrastic and dramatic impact on their budget asa result of the budget cuts. Of course, in myhome state of South Australia, as I am surethe minister would be aware, I am veryconcerned that the reduction in staff—from 33to 10—in the National Crime Authority officewill have a deleterious impact on investigativework in that agency and on other crimefighting ones. Again, budget cuts to Customs,to the police, the NCA and to the justicesystem—the legal aid system generally in thiscountry—will have a negative impact oncrime fighting in this nation. As SenatorBolkus pointed out, that will affect the mostvulnerable in society certainly through themassive legal aid cuts as we are alreadyseeing the impact of those particular cuts.Indeed, as he said, young people will beparticularly affected and hit hardest.

I think one of the most offensive thingsabout this debate is that too often we hearpolicy-makers and politicians talking aboutyoung Australians and drug taking and theeffects of drug taking or stereotyping anddenigrating young people as criminals in oursociety. In fact, as a young person in NewSouth Wales you have got a better chance ofgetting in the paper if you commit a crimethan for any other reason. Certainly I wouldnot find this debate so offensive if the govern-ment met its rhetoric about concern for drugsand the impact on young people in our soci-ety and if it actually matched that with somefunding for education and rehabilitationprograms. Essentially, this government,through a pathetic attempt to save 0.005 per

cent of the total budget outlay, is prepared togive up important drug related educationprograms and thus deny our law enforcementsector from being able to increase its abilityto catch drug importers as well as researchimportant criminal justice issues. It is aregretful stance. The Democrats do not sup-port it and we certainly do not support theproposed new section 34D.

Senator VANSTONE (South Australia—Minister for Employment, Education, Trainingand Youth Affairs) (5.48 p.m.)—In conclu-sion, I would like to thank Senator Bolkusand Senator Stott Despoja—and if I havemissed anybody I am sorry—for their contri-bution to the debate. It might be appropriateif we were to move to the committee stages.

Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.

In CommitteeThe bill.Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (5.49

p.m.)—I have a question to ask the ministerat this particular stage. I wish to raise thequestion of one particular program and I willrefer you to the fact that Australia is on abody targeting money laundering through theOECD. We do, in fact, fund our involvementin this program through the OECD throughmoney provided under the confiscated assetstrust fund mechanism. That project has theobjective of ensuring that the money launder-ing agencies set up in South-East Asia can betargeted through the free exchange of infor-mation between law enforcement agencies.My advice also is that this program, which isquite important in terms of ensuring a coordi-nated network between law enforcementagencies in the region, will not be funded inthe future. I wonder if you can give us someadvice on that. Is the funding for that programbeing stopped? Is there a guarantee that it willbe continued as a short-term program? Myconcern is that a project like this, given theway information flows and drug traffickerscan operate the new technology, would bequite critical in combating that.

Senator VANSTONE (South Australia—Minister for Employment, Education, Trainingand Youth Affairs) (5.51 p.m.)—Senator


Bolkus, I am advised with some caution by anofficer—she has indicated it is not her par-ticular area but she is none the less pretty sureand we will check this in any event for you—that the funding you were talking of wasnever intended to be permanent long-termfunding, that it was indicated to be for alimited time period. In any event, no decisionhas been made. The matter is under consider-ation. All I need to come back to you aboutat some stage is that fact, which you presum-ably might have some memory of over andabove the officers from your role representingthe Attorney in this place. The bottom lineanswer to you is that the matter is underconsideration.

Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (5.52p.m.)—My concern is that the people in-volved were under an apprehension that therewould be continuing funding for at least afurther part of the involvement in the programand that the project has now been told thatthe money is going back to consolidatedrevenue—obviously through this legislationproviding that funds go to consolidatedrevenue. I might have a bit more information.That extra information is that there was anexpectation that Australia’s involvement in abody targeting money laundering through theOECD, and particularly focusing on ourregion, will be ended prematurely because ofthis legislation going through and thegovernment’s budget decision to rip themoney out of the program and to put it intoconsolidated revenue. I would appreciate it ifyou would come back to us as quickly aspossible on that.

I do have an amendment. I made all mypoints in respect of that amendment in myspeech during the second reading stage. Thebasic point of the amendment is to ensure acontinuation of the programs and projects thatwere introduced by the previous governmentby the diversion of funds from the proceedsof crime into those areas that I mentioned inmy speech.

I think it is quite regrettable that importantand valuable programs will not be continued.I am sure that the minister will say that therewill be resources in other parts of the port-folio. I will not go through the statistics to the

lengths that I did earlier when I mentionedthat some $120 million dollars were rippedout of the law enforcement capability by thisgovernment in this budget. Once you rip thatsort of money out, the resources for the sortsof programs we are talking about obviouslywill not be a priority. These programs will bemissing out at an enormous rate. Therefore,the opposition will oppose item 6 of schedule1.

Senator VANSTONE (South Australia—Minister for Employment, Education, Trainingand Youth Affairs) (5.54 p.m.)—There are acouple of matters that I would like to raiselest anyone readingHansard or listening isunder some misunderstanding. Senator Bolkusquite rightly raises the question of moneylaundering practices with the change in thetrends of crime being committed. Moneylaundering is a very serious matter which anygovernment would rightly give appropriateattention to. Simply because, as he believeshe has been advised, one element of fundingfor some concentration on money launderingis not going to continue, it certainly does notmean that the government is not interested inmoney laundering and that everything will fallapart. I do not suggest for a minute thatSenator Bolkus is making that suggestion. ButI wanted to underline very briefly that thisgovernment does take its law enforcementrole very seriously and recognises the import-ance of chasing money that is meant to belaundered.

Having said that, the next point that Iwould like to make in respect of this is thatthe government also believes that it should bethe government of the day that decides theamount of money that goes to law enforce-ment and, for that matter, to drug rehabilita-tion programs, and it should not really be amatter of luck as to whom you have been ableto confiscate some assets from. Some senatorsopposite might argue that that is a moot point.I do not think it is at all. In a sense, whatSenator Bolkus is proposing leaves us with asemi bounty hunter type of attitude where, ifyou chase the people with more money, youwill get more money, which means that theyare the people who will be chased and notperhaps some other crimes that have equal, if


not more substantial, effects on individualAustralians. So, I am reasonably confidentthat the proposition that Senator Bolkus isputting is no longer appropriate. I think it wasinitially introduced on the basis of giving lawenforcement agencies incentive because someof the money, in the end, would come back.

But in the end, the Australian people electa government. They elect a government in thelower house and, for better or worse, theyelect a Senate as well. The Senate has thecapacity to say, ‘Look, I am sorry’ and to usethe political process to be critical about howa government is spending its money, and thatis the process that we want to return to. Wethink this is appropriate rather than saying tolaw enforcement agencies—and, in effect,offering them a carrot—‘Come this way andthere will be money.’ What about the otherpath that might be equally appropriate tofollow—that of the other criminal where thereis not as much money? Is that person goingto get less attention because the other guy hasgot more money? I think that is a seriousproblem with your suggestion, SenatorBolkus.

I raise a third point, rather than get upagain, and Senator Stott Despoja might beable to help me: as I am advised by one ofthe Attorney’s advisers, the Democrats, onhaving a briefing on this bill, indicated thatthey were prepared to support it, and theyhave now changed their minds. If that is thecase, I would be very grateful, Senator, if youcould give an indication of why it is the case?

Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (5.57p.m.)—With all due respect to the minister, Ithink she does not know what she is talkingabout. I say that because she was not here forthe second reading debate. She came in at theend and she may have missed some of thepoints that were made in debate.

The way this trust fund works is that themoney received through seizure of assets ofthose involved in the crimes that are subjectto the scheme is put in trust and it is at thediscretion of the Attorney-General as to wherethe money goes. The agency can in no waybe seen to be a bounty hunter and I wouldobject to a bounty hunter arrangement. Butwe are talking here of money seized, money

confiscated—50 per cent of the money goingto law enforcement agencies for programs andprojects and 50 per cent going towards pri-marily community sectors for items such asdrug education, research into the impacts ofdrugs and so on. No-one knowing these factswould, in any sense at all, argue that we aretalking here of bounty hunters.

I mention, for instance, the immigrationdepartment’s development of the MAL sys-tem. This alert system, which has been up-graded quite substantially over the last threeor four years, taps into new technology toensure that Australia has state-of-art technol-ogy, mechanisms, structures and operationsthat can protect us against the movement intoAustralia of terrorists, drug runners and thelike. These sorts of programs are prettyimportant and money for them was foundthrough this particular trust fund. That is oneexample of it. The education programs andthe research into ecstasy are quite critical.

Minister, we are not talking here of bountyhunters; we are talking here of a schemewhich in so many diverse ways over the yearshas provided quite a number of millions ofdollars to ensure that we can upgrade ourcommunity infrastructure to protect againstdrug runners and organised crime and upgradeour community support structure, particularlyfor young people and families, who may verywell be the victims of this.

So, Minister, for you to come in heresaying that this is a scheme which leads us toa system of bounty hunters is quite inappro-priate. Though it might reflect the commentsmade by the Attorney-General in the Houseof Representatives when this bill was passedthere, to some extent I am pleased to say thathe was not as gauche as you in accusingorganisations of being bounty hunters. He wasconcerned that there might be an extra incen-tive. But, as I say, the money does not goback to the agency; the money goes into afund and the Attorney-General determineswhere those resources can be best spent. Withthat mechanism in place, you can protectagainst the bounty hunter aspect.

The other point is that we are talking hereof an area which is a growth area. We are nottalking here of an area which has a shelf life


or a decreasing role in our community; we aretalking here of an area which has an increas-ing role. It affects all parts of the country—allregional centres as well as the capital cities.It is not just Kings Cross and Fitzroy Streetthat are hit by this; it is all over.

In terms of organised crime, no longer arewe talking about the real crime of concern tolaw enforcement authorities being somethingin our suburbs, something based in one cityor something in our backyard. It has gotregional and international implications. Drugrunning and money laundering are part of aninternational network. So do not try to arguethat this program had a limited time span. Itwas always going to have a very strongimperative in terms of community concern forsuch a program to continue.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia) (6.02 p.m.)—Minister, in response toyour query about the Democrat position,obviously, I am not the portfolio holder inthis area, but I can assure you that, even inthe briefing papers that came to our partyroom, the recommendation was and has beenall along that we would support the bill onlyif section 34D were removed. That is myunderstanding of the Democrat position—what it has been and is at the moment.

I am not aware of any changed position. Ihave spoken to Senator Bourne, who main-tains that she has always had concerns aboutthat particular section for the reasons I out-lined. If there are any other comments fromyour advisers, we might follow that at a laterstage.

Senator VANSTONE (South Australia—Minister for Employment, Education, Trainingand Youth Affairs) (6.02 p.m.)—Senator, itdoes not add to the bill, but that is perhaps amatter that the Attorney-General’s officemight take up with Senator Bourne’s officeand Senator Kernot’s office. I am advised thatan adviser, having been instructed as to theimpact of the opposition’s amendment andthen speaking to the opposition, then eitherrang the Attorney’s office back or was rungback and said that our position would besupported.

So either there has been a very badmisunderstanding or something has gone

wrong. Senator Stott Despoja, I appreciatethat you are not in charge of that portfolioand you cannot answer that. I just give yousome indication that I think the Attorney’soffice might want to follow that up.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (6.03p.m.)—I do not know how relevant the recentexchange has been to the bill that we arediscussing. Arrangements made betweenpersons outside this chamber are for them, Iguess, so I have no comment on what has justtranspired.

There are legitimate arguments for both theposition taken by Senator Bolkus and theposition taken by the government. I aminclined to the position taken by the govern-ment because, whilst the funds would bedistributed at the discretion of the Attorney-General—that is the current situation—whyshould that be so? Why should the Attorney-General set priorities for law enforcement orfor programs which may be research programsthat he has an interest in? Is this not a respon-sibility for the government as a whole? Theeducation minister might have a better appli-cation for certain of the confiscated moneyswhich are the proceeds of crime. Why shouldit be the Attorney-General? Where is thisgoing to end?

I get the impression sometimes—I perishthe thought, of course—that some of thesespeed traps are a little bit excessive. In otherwords, they seem to be to my mind revenuecollection measures rather than anything else.That is probably a prejudicial observationwhich I should not make. Nevertheless, I amjust wondering where it all goes to. I knowthat at the present moment it goes to consoli-dated revenue.

Senator Bolkus, I said—and maybe youwere discussing the matter with some of yourown people—that I understand the point youmake. I think there are genuinely held viewson both sides of this argument, but I aminclined to the view of the government onthis—that is, to repeal section 34D and addnew section 34D which is before us.

Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.07p.m.)—I am disappointed that SenatorHarradine is taking that position, but it is notsurprising given that we have had some


indication of it. I would like to comment onthe issue Senator Harradine raised of speedtraps. It raises the role of law enforcementagencies and whether we should be usingthem as revenue raising institutions.

When we talk about the proceeds of crime,we are talking about a very legitimate andprobably increasingly important role of lawenforcement agencies: that is, to seize theassets of drug runners and money launderers.It is only when you start seizing their assetsthat you make an impact on their organisa-tions. That is why I think this is an importantmeasure.

At the same time, as I come from SouthAustralia, I cannot help thinking every timeI drive through Adelaide that I am in a policestate. Everywhere I go there is a speed cam-era. People doing 71 kilometres per hour ina 60 kilometre zone are hit with a bill of$117, and that is a normal occurrence. I donot think there is any pretence in that stateany longer about those speed cameras beingthere as a revenue raiser. I do not think thatis a legitimate use of the police force in thatstate. Where people speed in areas that arenotorious for accidents, I think it is legitimateto use speed cameras.

There is also a legitimate demand andexpectation on behalf of the public that therebe some warning of speed traps. But technol-ogy has moved on so far that the balance isnow in the hands of those who have thecameras. You have to ask whether what theyare doing is legitimate in terms of reducingthe road toll. If speed cameras reduce the roadtoll in the areas in which they are used, thenobviously they have a legitimate purpose.However, too often police resources aredeployed for a revenue raising measure ratherthan the public benefit of a reduction in roadtolls and accident rates.

I often think that those police who areraising money for government and who arenot really making an impact on the road tollwould be better deployed in traditional rolessuch as being on the beat, protecting commu-nities and pursuing drug runners. In somesenses, I think it is a misuse of resources.There is a role for it, but in the case of SouthAustralia it has gone too far. Those police

would probably be better served doing some-thing else.

This bill is about the confiscation of assetsand the deployment of confiscated assets fromorganised crime to enhance the monitoringsystems and the law enforcement capabilities.To the extent that this bill takes resourcesaway from that purpose, we on this side aremoving the amendment to try to redress thesituation.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; reportadopted.

Third ReadingBill (on motion bySenator Vanstone) read

a third time.

COMMITTEES

National Crime Authority CommitteeMembership

Motion (by Senator Vanstone)—byleave—agreed to:

That Senator Ian Macdonald be discharged fromthe Joint Committee on the National Crime Auth-ority and Senator Ferris be appointed a member ofthe committee.

STUDENT AND YOUTH ASSISTANCEAMENDMENT (WAITING PERIOD)

BILL 1996

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 7 November 1996, on

motion bySenator Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.

Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.14p.m.)—I rise to speak briefly to the Studentand Youth Assistance Amendment (WaitingPeriod) Bill 1996 whilst my colleague SenatorCarr extricates himself from a meeting toargue the case for the opposition. This bill hasreceived close attention, and the oppositionwill be supporting an amendment to this billby Senator Margetts. Given that Senator Carris now in the chamber, I am sure he will nowaddress this amendment.

Senator CARR (Victoria) (6.15 p.m.)—Iapologise for the delay. I did not realise thatthe bill was coming on. As I understand it, we


are discussing the Student and Youth Assist-ance Amendment (Waiting Period) Bill 1996.

The first Howard budget included a seriesof measures which will slash some $527million in total from spending on studentassistance over the period of the forwardestimates. These measures include increasingthe age of independence for receipt ofAustudy benefits from 22 to 25 years, whichis expected to save some $241 million overfour years; the particularly petty pair ofmeasures seeking to stop payment for school-ing incidentals allowance for secondarystudents on the homeless rate of Austudy andto cease case management of secondarystudents on the homeless rate, which willinvolve some $25.5 million over four yearsand which, of course, is especially galling;and the measure which we are dealing with inthis bill which is also obnoxious and whichwe intend to oppose.

The government intends to introduce a 104-week waiting period for access to Austudy fornewly arrived migrants. Introduction of thiswaiting period is expected to lead to savingsof some $5.6 million in 1996-97, some $12.3million in 1997-98, $12.6 million in 1998-99,and some $13 million in the year 1999-2000.

If this bill is passed, most categories ofmigrants—including New Zealand citizens—who arrive in Australia after 1 January nextyear will be subject to the two-year waitingperiod. This measure is part of an overallpackage of changes in this area, most ofwhich apply to social security payments. Thecoalition did say before the election that theywould introduce a two-year waiting period forcertain payments. But they also specified thatcertain areas of payment would be exemptfrom the ambit of these measures, and theseof course included Austudy. This is yetanother clear example of a broken promise,something for which this government has nowmade itself somewhat famous—or, more tothe point, infamous.

The whole structure of the income supportwhich was built up under the previousgovernment was aimed at creating a compre-hensive security safety net which included themany payments made under social securityand also the payments made through the

Department of Employment, Education,Training and Youth Affairs—payments suchas Austudy, Abstudy and assistance forisolated children. This structure was designedto minimise the likelihood of the developmentin this country of an underclass of destitutepeople cut off from what would be regardedas normal and appropriate opportunities in lifeand reasonable standards for a civilisedsociety—and was designed especially toprovide vital opportunities such as access toeducation and assistance for education pur-poses.

Labor introduced a six-month waitingperiod for certain payments, it is true. It didthis, on the one hand, in order to strike somereasonable balance between creating a deter-rent to people seeking to migrate inappropri-ately but also, on the other hand, to avoid asituation where people were deprived of anysource of support for protracted periods oftime.

This government is proposing ‘from sixmonths to two years,’ which is a huge differ-ence and an unjustifiable leap. It has not beenpreceded by any thought or considerationother than, clearly, a determination to securesome revenue implications. It once againindicates this government’s failure to under-stand how education is the key to nationalprosperity and social harmony, as well asbeing a key ingredient for individual fulfil-ment and attainment.

It is important to think about how all ofthese important decisions are going to cometogether. There is provision under thegovernment’s proposal that people may beable to access special benefits within the two-year period if they can demonstrate someunforeseen or unforeseeable change of cir-cumstances. This is an extremely difficult testand, if they pass it, they will be able to assessonly the most basic rate of special benefit,plus the very low rate of basic family pay-ment over and above that, but not the addi-tional level of family payment which isavailable for people on low incomes andwhich is highly targeted.

It is also important to remember that one ofthe payments we are talking about here isAustudy, which is designed to provide access


to education. The people most likely to beaffected by the provision of this bill aredependent high school and university agedchildren in migrant families. Why should theybe penalised for a decision made by theirparents?

But we should not be looking for common-sense in any of the decisions being made bythis government. Commonsense certainly doesnot underlie most of the changes the govern-ment is trying to make to student assistance.It is seeking to deny the independence rate ofAustudy to students under 25. The Laborgovernment lowered the independence rate to22 years. Given the absurdity of trying toclaim that a person aged 24 is, or somehowstill should be, dependent on parental support,this is obviously John Howard’s way ofkeeping the family together and saving thegovernment money—and I think saving thegovernment money is really the high priorityhere.

What is it about these changes that we seemost clearly? That saving money immediate-ly, taking it out of the pockets of the‘battlers’—as they are called by this govern-ment—is what this government is really allabout when you look at their actions in thedetail. Yes, Mr Howard is keen on takingmoney out of the pockets of those who canleast afford it.

What is even more silly is that this sort ofapproach is also counterproductive in the longrun. Not investing in education and not givingpeople access to education is more likely inthe long run to cost money, not save it. It isalso more likely to cost individuals emotional-ly as well as financially. It will cost thiscountry culturally, socially and economically;and it will cost individuals in personal terms.

We are seeing this sort of behaviour fromthis government almost everywhere we look.Labour market programs which addressEnglish language programs and help migrantsto become job ready have also been substan-tially cut. What is to replace them? The factis that without basic skills, such as reasonableEnglish proficiency, people are much lesslikely to be able to find employment; andwithout the sort of assistance provided byAustudy, which this legislation seeks to

restrict, we are simply worsening the educa-tional disadvantage faced by people from non-English speaking backgrounds.

The government should open its eyes beforeit is too late. We in the Labor Party havemajor concerns about this legislation, and wewill not be supporting it.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-tralia) (6.23 p.m.)—It is unfortunate that theStudent and Youth Assistance Amendment(Waiting Period) Bill 1996 comes on the tailof the debate that we have had about theSocial Security Legislation Amendment(Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting Periodsand Other Measures) Bill 1996 this morning.It concerns me that, for the second time in asmany days, I am standing to talk aboutdiscrimination on the basis of someone’s race,specifically discrimination against migrants,and that I am having to point out the sameconcerns to the government. This legislationconflicts with the basic issues of justice andrace. I am sorry that they continue to be afeature of the legislation before this chamber.

The Student and Youth Assistance Amend-ment (Waiting Period) Bill 1996 introduces atwo-year waiting period for access to Austudywhich will apply to newly migrants in Aus-tralia after January 1997. In the same waythat we were disappointed with the measurescontained in the social security legislation, theDemocrats find this a mean spirited, pennypinching piece of legislation that is actuallymotivated by revenue considerations ratherthan considerations of basic fairness andsocial equity.

The scheme will pick on those most social-ly disempowered and economically disadvan-taged, as well as showing considerable discri-mination, I believe, by stratifying our society.We only have to look at the positions thatwere presented to this chamber today and lastnight. Senator Harradine changed his vote onsome of the social security measures whichwere to apply two-year waiting period. Heexpressed his concern and his fear that, if theSenate insisted on certain amendments, wemight find ourselves in a double dissolutionelection situation, and thus people would begoing to an election based on the politics ofdivision and race.


As I have mentioned over the last few daysand again this morning, we objected to themean spirited nature of those measures as,indeed, we object to the particular measuresrelating to Austudy. Underpinning this, ofcourse, is the Democrats’ consistent supportfor access to student financial assistance bymigrants in this society, in this community, aswell as by all other people living in thiscountry. We believe it is a measure to whichstudents should be entitled once they meetcertain qualifications and certain eligibilitycriteria. For that reason, it is very distressingthat this two-year waiting period is beingapplied to Austudy as well.

We saw the social security measures thismorning. We have seen the same meanspirited thrust with the regulations to do withsponsorship eligibility. We had that debate inthis place last year. The Democrats believethat these legislative programs bring intoquestion the government’s protestations aboutracism in this country, and that they challengethe commitment of the Prime Minister (MrHoward) to racial tolerance. I remind thischamber that, on 30 October 1996, thisparliament made a joint statement on racialtolerance. On page 6065 it states:

That this house:

(2) Reaffirms its commitment to maintaining animmigration policy wholly non-discriminatory ongrounds of race, colour, creed or origin.

For the term ‘origin’ to have any meaning inthis parliament, it must apply equally tomigrants. For this reason, the parliamentshould adhere to the joint statement andaccept that denying benefits to newly arrivedmigrants is a form of discrimination on thebasis of their origin.

I have spoken a number of times on thediscriminatory legislation that has comebefore this parliament. I repeat what I said forthe benefit of the government. Over statutoryrule 211, I said that honourable senators willappreciate that, in the recent political climate,it is absolutely essential that not only aregovernment principles non-discriminatory, butthere must also be a reasonable perceptionthat they are. When I talk about discrimina-tion, I am referring to what we all understand

the term to mean—that is, as set out in theRacial Discrimination Act, which says:It is unlawful for a person to do any act involvinga distinction, exclusion, restriction or preferencebased on race, colour, descent or national or ethnicorigin which has the purpose or effect of nullifyingor impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise,on an equal footing, of any human right or funda-mental freedom in the political, economic, social,cultural or any other field of public life.

Section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Actsays:If, by reason of, or of a provision of, a law of theCommonwealth or of a State or Territory, personsof a particular race, colour or national or ethnicorigin do not enjoy a right that is enjoyed bypersons of another race, colour or national or ethnicorigin, or enjoy a right to a more limited extentthan persons or another race, colour or national orethnic origin, then, notwithstanding anything in thatlaw, persons of the first-mentioned race, colour ornational or ethnic origin shall, by force of thissection, enjoy that right to the same extent aspersons of that other race, colour or national orethnic origin.

For the purposes of the present bill, thismeans that, when a person is eligible forsocial security benefits—in this case studentassistance benefits—eligibility for a migrantwill be prevented by these particular amend-ments.

This bill proposes that a person whomigrates to Australia will be denied studentfinancial assistance to which all other eligibleAustralians will be entitled. The only factorthat distinguishes every other Australian inrelation to these benefits is that the person isa migrant. The Australian Democrats will beopposing this bill because of its discrimina-tory impact and its effects on migrants. I callon other senators to reject this bill for thosereasons as well.

I turn to the issue of Austudy generally, andthe fact that this government has failed tomeet its election pledges in relation to fund-ing assistance for Australian students. Mostrecently we have seen the actual means testhit hardest at the most vulnerable families—those in rural and remote areas. They havehad difficulties in the actual means testcalculation. As a consequence of their includ-ing anticipated Austudy income as well asanticipated boarding school costs, et cetera, it


seems that they have been pushed over thethreshold, and thus eligibility, for certainAustudy benefits.

We all know that student financial assist-ance in this country is at a meagre level. Weknow that in order to obtain the independentrate of Austudy, you have to meet incrediblystringent criteria. The maximum level ofAustudy and the independent Austudy rate isonly around 68 per cent of the poverty line.Indeed, the majority of students who are onAustudy in this country are living on around35 per cent of the poverty line. In fact, stu-dent financial measures in this country arebleak enough without restricting even furtheraccess to such benefits by the bill before ustoday by imposing a 104-week waiting period.

In the Senate chamber both this morningand over the last couple of days we heardevidence from community groups such asFECCA and from various heads of the ethniccommunities councils and state and otherrepresentative ethnic organisations, includingMs Angela Chan and Victor Rebikoff, ex-plaining how these measures to do withstudent financial assistance, along with othersocial security changes involving a two-yearwaiting period, will hit hardest at the mostvulnerable in our community and women andother migrants in many cases.

The biggest perception that has floatedaround this debate, not just during the lastfew days but last year when the legislationwas introduced originally, was the notion thatsomehow migrants do not pay their way inour society and that somehow migrants arenot contributing economically or in otherforms. Indeed, I think it is important that weknock the assumptions on the head thatmigrants are bludgers or that they come tothis country and then access benefits to whichthey should not be entitled.

In fact, we know that migrants contributeeconomically in other ways indirectly anddirectly through taxation and through meetinga series of character and health and othereconomic checks, including the provisions ofassurances of support. So it is not as if wehave people who are coming to this countryfor the sole reason of obtaining certain socialsecurity benefits or student financial assist-

ance. These people are only obtaining thesebenefits in certain and special circumstanceswhen they are, indeed, at their most needyand vulnerable.

So I am concerned that the motivationbehind this bill, taken in context with theother social security measures that we havedealt with in the last few days, does not savelarge amounts of money for the governmentbut, in fact, in this case would have a deleteri-ous impact on migrants who are hoping toenter into and pursue education at secondaryand higher levels in this country. To cut offthose opportunities for anyone in our society,let alone newly arrived migrants, is unfortu-nate. For that reason, the Australian Demo-crats will not be supporting these measures.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(6.33 p.m.)—The Student and Youth Assist-ance Amendment (Waiting Period) Billintroduces a two-year or 104-week waitingperiod for newly arrived migrants seekingAustudy. The bill goes hand in hand with theDepartment of Social Security legislation,bringing in a two-year waiting period for allDepartment of Social Security benefits. Thebill applies to all migrants after they apply forpermanent residency after 1 January this year.If a migrant comes to Australia but does notapply for permanent residency, the wait canactually be longer than two years because thetwo-year time frame only starts once they arepermanent residents. On top of this, if amigrant goes overseas for any period oftime—this could include a funeral—that timespent abroad must be added to the two-yearperiod.

There are potentials for an out. If someonecan prove change of circumstances, theymight be eligible for a special benefit. Anexample of hardship is when the circum-stances of someone under the age of 21change and they no longer have parentalsupport. Perhaps we could indicate that thatcauses a great magnitude in need.

When the ALP was in government theybrought in a six-month waiting period forNew Zealand citizens. So they have done itas well but at a different level. The newsystem will keep New Zealand citizens on asix-month waiting period. Future migrants


from New Zealand will also have to wait twoyears, like other migrants.

The bill is quite simple. We do not see a lotof point trying to amend it because it ismostly made up of definitions—such thingsas resident, partner, spouse and visa categoriesand dependant child. So, therefore, we will beopposing the bill.

The coalition talks a lot about brokenpromises. I have never pushed the idea of amandate but prior to the election the coalitionsaid it would bring in a two-year waitingperiod but that Austudy would be exemptfrom this. Here we go—another brokenpromise! Don’t try claiming a mandate forthat.

I think it is pretty hard to deny that there isthe poll-driven scapegoatism that this tends toride on. It tends to be involved with the levelof uncertainty that many people face. Peopleoften talk about industry uncertainty, but thisjust adds to the uncertainty that many peoplein our community face. It is also an exampleof hip pocket nationalism. I am sure that thepolling being done by the Liberal Party andthe coalition is showing that this is a popularmeasure—a popular measure to hit migrants.Once again, it finds somebody to blame otherthan economic policy and the flood of inter-nationalism which has occurred in the last fewyears, which is changing life for many people.

This legislation is an example of whencitizens are treated merely as consumers underuser pays public services. We lose the notionof citizenship and citizens. As permanentresidents, they should have the same rights ascitizens. In international law permanentresidents should not be denied the same rightsand freedoms as the citizens of the samecountry. That is under the treaty in education,for instance.

The Greens opposed the measure in thebudget in 1993 that was brought in by theALP that permanent residents should bedenied Austudy. We consistently oppose thismeasure again. Migrants will be abandoned,to be supported by their families. Circum-stances can change. I am wondering exactlywhat the government will be doing.

There will probably be a great deal ofdifficulty proving circumstances of change.Many people might find difficulty gettingaround the system to do this. They will besupported by their families and communities,which places a bigger burden on families andextended families. It forces people to livetogether, which might not always be a goodidea. It can lead to domestic violence in thehome and crime in the streets. It can com-pound literacy and language fluency problemsfor migrants if they cannot get assistance tosend their children to high school or universi-ty. If they have language problems, you areperhaps compounding the situation into thenext generation.

It seems that the whole policy of the currentgovernment in relation to migrant schemes isfairly venal. Basically it is talking about whatindustry can get and what kind of pressureindustry can put on the workplace to makesure that, instead of training people properlyfor skilled positions, as soon as the price ordemand for particular skills goes up they canbring people in. So it is a very narrow policy:‘When people come to this country, let’s getwhat we can out of them, let’s rip out themoney and let’s somehow or other think thatthat equals a social policy.’ I do not think itis good enough, I do not think this bill isgood enough and we do not support it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Crowley)—I am advised, Senator,that you would like to add your name to thelist.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (6.38 p.m.)—Iwould indeed, Madam Acting Deputy Presi-dent; thank you for that. We are dealing withthe Student and Youth Assistance Amendment(Waiting Period) Bill, which amends theStudent and Youth Assistance Act 1973 andwhich includes a two-year waiting periodbefore newly arrived migrants can access theAustudy payments. As part of our electionpolicy commitments, we announced ourintention to introduce a two-year waitingperiod before newly arrived migrants couldaccess certain social security payments. Thepolicy has now been extended to Austudy asa 1996-97 budget measure.


In the contributions to date, we have notheard one word from those opposite as to whythis sort of measure had to be introduced asa budget measure. The fault clearly lies onthose on the other side of the chamber, theprevious government that left us with a $10billion hole to fill. If the people opposite weregenuinely concerned about the plight of themigrants, as they claim they are, then theyshould have thought about that before theyoverspent and emptied out the coffers andbasically left us with no alternative but tofund their black hole, their extravagance.

Senator Carr—Is that Costello’s black holenow? Is it Costello’s black hole?

Senator ABETZ—Senator Carr veryfoolishly interjects, because he talks nowabout Costello’s $3 billion or whatever it maybe black hole. But of course the reality is thatwe attempted with all our best endeavours tofill that black hole, and even with all our bestendeavours there is still a $3 billion shortfall,which shows the absolute mess that you leftus. Those on the other side were complainingthat our $10 billion budget deficit target wasdraconian and outrageous and that we hadgone far too far. It has now been shown bythe figures to those opposite that in fact ourmeasures did not even go far enough becausewe ourselves did not realise the full extent ofthe devastation those opposite occasionedupon the Australian economy.

Senator Carr—That you got the tax re-ceipts quite wrong. That is what it shows. Itshows that you got the receipts wrong.

Senator ABETZ—If you want to engagein a discussion about budget measures, keepinterjecting and I will quite appropriatelyrespond to you. But of course—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Abetz, I remind you and all senatorsof the standing order requirement to refer tocolleagues in this place or in the other placeby their proper names. So references to‘Costello’ really ought be ‘Mr Costello’ or‘Treasurer Costello’.

Senator ABETZ—Absolutely; I fullyagree. The Treasurer is doing a fantastic job.When you see quality such as Mr Costello onthe frontbench of our side and then see people

such as Senator Carr being Manager ofOpposition Business in the Senate, you reallydo come to recognise the divergence of thetalent bank that each side has to draw upon.

The bill was drafted to mirror the SocialSecurity Legislation Amendment (NewlyArrived Resident’s Waiting Periods and OtherMeasures) Bill 1996. The Senate Legal andConstitutional Legislation Committee, onwhich I serve, looked at that bill. We foundthat the bill is based on sound and appropriatepolicy considerations and is supported by theAustralian community, including the broaderethnic community. Of course, the sameprinciples apply to this legislation. Havingserved on the Legal and Constitutional Legis-lation Committee, I can see that that is amirror of the social security legislation.

Senator Carr—Which ethnic communitiessupport this bill? What is the evidence forthat? Which ones? Name them.

Senator ABETZ—If we want to namepeople—and I know the Aust ra l ianDemocrats’ contribution named one person,Victor Rebikoff—

Senator Stott Despoja—Two.Senator ABETZ—Two people; but the one

person I wish to refer to is Victor Rebikoff.The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —

Mr Victor Rebikoff?Senator ABETZ—He is not a parliamentar-

ian, Madam Acting Deputy President. I wouldhave thought that with a name like Victormost people might assume that it would be‘Mr’; but of course in this day and age some-body might have a male Christian name butstill be a female—I do not know. I will referto him as Mr Victor Rebikoff for you, MadamActing Deputy President.

I understand the sensitivity of those oppos-ite when I raise that name, because he put upa valiant effort for the Australian Labor Party.Two or three days before the last election hewas still appearing on the TV screens urgingpeople to vote Labor. Of course, the ethniccommunities around Australia—and I speakin this debate not only as a Liberal senatorbut also as a migrant, myself, with contactsthroughout the ethnic communities—rejectedthe Victor Rebikoff line. They thought it was


a joke and that the views he was expressingon election night clearly did not represent theaspirations of the migrant and ethnic commu-nities in this country.

That those who are opposing this legislationshould still rely on Mr Rebikoff as some kindof authority really indicates that they are stillin the past, that they do not realise that thingshave moved on and that the Labor Party andtheir supporters within the community are nolonger dictating policy but we are dictatingpolicy with the support of the Australianpeople. It was good to hear from Senator DeeMargetts of the Western Australian Greensthat this has the support of the Australianpeople. Shock, horror—we as a governmentare introducing a measure that clearly has thesupport of the Australian people.

I suppose that is why we get in rough terms50 per cent of the vote as compared withwhat the Western Australian Greens get. I amnot sure what percentage of the vote they gotat the last election other than that they lostone of their Green senators from WesternAustralia. I suppose the fact that we do listento the people of Australia may be why wegained that many votes and her party gainedso few votes.

Senator Margetts—Yes, it’s called scape-goat politics.

Senator ABETZ—No. We do listen to thepeople of Australia and we try to live up totheir expectations.

Senator Margetts—Populist politics—thatis what it was.

Senator ABETZ—And now we are beingaccused of populist politics and all sorts ofthings. If the Australian people believe, asSenator Margetts is telling us, that this is agood measure and they want it introduced, Isuppose we as a government ought to say,‘Absolutely not. The people might actuallylike this measure, so we won’t introduce it.Surely we couldn’t introduce a measure thatthe Australian people support.’ If that is theway Senator Margetts thinks the governmentought to operate, no wonder she is withoutany other colleagues in this chamber. Wehappen to govern for mainstream Australia,and we have—

Senator Kernot—That’s right. Not for allof us—not for all of us, though.

Senator ABETZ—We do. We do governfor all of us and, for the benefit of all of us,we have to deal with the budgetary mess ina way that will ensure that all Australians—migrants, women, whoever—can face thefuture with some degree of certainty. I stillrecall Senator Stott Despoja’s maidenspeech—

Senator Stott Despoja—First speech.Senator ABETZ—First speech—my

apologies.Senator Stott Despoja—Spare my blushes,

Senator Abetz.Senator ABETZ—I will ignore that inter-

jection. The assertion was made, I think quiteproperly, in that first speech by the AustralianDemocrat who contributed to this debate thatthere was a requirement for intergenerationalresponsibility in relation to the environment.I agree with her, but where were the com-ments about intergenerational responsibility inrelation to the economy? Don’t we as aparliament have a responsibility to ensure thatthe next generation of Australians is not facedwith a huge debt burden left by our profligacyand overexpenditure in enjoying a lifestyle attheir expense.

Having young children of my own, I amconcerned about ensuring that when thisgovernment leaves office they will be able tosay that the people who governed Australiafrom 1996 onwards were concerned abouttheir future, that they spent within theirmeans, that they gave them a real future. Butthe young people of today are faced with aneconomic mess, a burden of debt unparalleledin Australia’s history, and we have set aboutin as fair a way as possible to try to overcomethose problems. We have admitted in relationto this legislation that it is a budgetary meas-ure—

Senator Carr—That it’s unjust; that it’sruthless; that it’s cruel. Yes, you’ve admittedall of those things.

Senator ABETZ—And why does it haveto be a budgetary measure? Because of thesort of mess that you, Senator Carr, and yourcolleagues left. No amount of interjection,


which of course is highly disorderly, willovercome your legacy. The people of Austral-ia will not forget your legacy. If you were sogenuinely concerned about the plight ofmigrants, you would not be using them tostack branches in Victoria, Senator Carr. Youwould not be using them like cheap numbersto try to win your factional warfare. We onthis side of the chamber treat them withrespect. We know that they want a fixedeconomy, and we are going to deliver it tothem.

DOCUMENTSThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—

Order! It being 6.50 p.m. we turn to theconsideration of documents.

Foreign Investment Review BoardSenator BISHOP (Western Australia) (6.50

p.m.)—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.

The Foreign Investment Review Board admin-isters one of the most significant inputs to oureconomy. Accordingly, it is a report whichmust be understood by all members of parlia-ment seeking to involve themselves in thedebate about our economy. Foreign invest-ment, the way in which we seek it and fromwhere it comes are some of the most signifi-cant issues facing Australia.

This being the case, I was pleased to drawfrom the report the acceptance by the boardthat investment was important and theirwillingness to work to ensure investment wasencouraged. I was also pleased to read thatinvestors were made aware of governmentpolicy by the review board and that it workedto ensure that investment fell within thesepolicy frameworks.

Four points stood out in this report. Firstly,I was happy to read in the report by theForeign Investment Review Board that appli-cations are dealt with quickly with the im-portance of investment paramount in theirmind. In 1995-96, 82 per cent of applicationswere decided within 20 days upon receipt ofcompleted application forms, and 94 per centwere completed within 30 days.

This processing time is an important point.If the bureaucracy becomes too time consum-

ing and filled with red tape, incentive forcompanies to invest in Australia is reduced.Governments should always be aware thatcompetition occurs not just between industriesbut also through access to markets. Govern-ment policy and administration can influencethis access and administration greatly. Anefficient application process is an advantagefor Australia. The FIRB has an excellentrecord in this regard.

The second pleasing aspect of the report isthe areas in which foreign investment wereencouraged. Importantly, the sector whichaccrued the highest investment proposal wasmanufactures. From approvals flowed $17.2billion in proposed investment. I would beinterested to learn from the board how muchof this proposed investment has occurred, andwhen the remainder is due to occur, becausethose figures are not detailed.

The proposed investment in our manufactur-ing base is a clear indication of world trendsin regard to manufacturing, a factor whichAustralia should not fight against. In the areaof investment in Australia’s commodity base,mining far exceeded that of the rural sector.Other significant growth areas were theservice industries and tourism.

The third important factor stemming fromthe report regards those countries which areinvesting in Australia. The United States wasAustralia’s major investor. Proposed invest-ment from the US totalled 42 per cent of totalapplications to the review board. Importantlyfor Australia, Japanese investment increasedin 1995-96 after several years of declininginvestment. Other significant proposals stemfrom Singapore, Hong Kong and the UnitedKingdom.

The fourth important point from the reportrelates to the flow of foreign investment.Contrary to some mythology, foreign invest-ment in Australia is not a one-way street.Australian investment abroad is significant.Chart 3.1 on page 32 of the report showsAustralian investment abroad overtaking thatof foreign investment in Australia in 1993-94.While the situation has returned to foreigninvestment increasing above Australianinvestment abroad, the gap is still not yetsubstantial. The real test for Australia is


whether Australian companies investingabroad are reinvesting returns back to Austral-ia and whether Australian companies havesufficient interest and incentive to invest inAustralia and keep the returns here.

Foreign investment in Australia is extremelyimportant. As the report, in appendix A,states:Capital from other countries supplements domesticsavings and provides scope for higher rates ofeconomic activity and development. Foreign directinvestment also provides access to new technology,management skills and overseas markets.

The report from the FIRB is a sound one. Thepolicy of the government through 1995-96resulted in increased investment in the rightareas of manufactures. The first test over thenext 12 months will be whether investmentproposals increase again. This will depend oncurrent government trade and industry policy.Importantly, in order for there to be highreturn for Australia, investment must be in thearea of manufactures. The trend of past yearsmust continue. We will monitor investment tosee if this is the case.

The second test will be whether currentgovernment policies provide incentive andopportunities for Australian companies toinvest in Australia. This too will depend oncurrent Australian government industry policy.

Senator KERNOT (Queensland—Leaderof the Australian Democrats) (6.54 p.m.)—Ihave long taken an interest in reports from theForeign Investment Review Board. I do nothave the same optimistic view as SenatorBishop has just expressed. I do not opposeforeign investment, but I do wonder whetherthis government is actually putting in placesome rules that mean that there is some neteconomic benefit to Australia as a result offoreign investment.

There are some interesting key points inthis report. There were 4,536 applicationsconsidered: 4,005 of them were approved and,of those, 2,494 were with conditions—it isinteresting that there has been a lot of com-ment about whether FIRB has sufficient staffto monitor compliance with conditions im-posed—85 were rejected and 446 were with-drawn. Of the approved applications, $57.3billion was approved and, of that, $13.8

billion was conditional. That was mostly inreal estate. There was a huge jump in foreigninvestment in real estate in this report.

The point I made yesterday in question timewas that, of the $57.3 billion, only $8.6billion was for proposed new investment. Therest, $48.8 billion, was for the takeover ofexisting businesses. I want to raise that pointagain. How can this be in Australia’s besteconomic interest when experience of the lastdecade particularly shows us that takeoversalmost automatically lead to downsizing andjob losses?

The other point I want to make as aneconomic argument is that we are now seeingthat profits paid to foreign investors havemore than doubled, to $12.4 billion, duringthe past three years and now constitutes 60per cent of the current account deficit. I madethe point yesterday, and I make it againtoday: we make a big deal about foreign debtin this country. We had the debt truck whichlost its wheels. That debt truck should havehad a great big 60 per cent chunk for profitspaid to foreigners because, while with reason-able economic management we might eventu-ally pay off debt, we will do nothing aboutthis component of our current account unlesswe have a policy change—and that is in thehands of this government.

On that matter, I notice that the WTO ispushing for global foreign investment rules.An article from theFinancial Reviewof 18October said that the World Trade Organisa-tion had embarked on a concerted campaignto introduce global rules to govern foreigninvestment practices. Here we go again. Wehave had GATT and now we have the WTOturning their attention to foreign investment.In this country we have a policy which hassome screening. The Liberal Party, in its pre-election statements, made certain commit-ments to some screening of foreign invest-ment in key sectors. I want to return to thatif I have time. TheFinancial Reviewarticlealso said that any move by the internationalcommunity to establish new foreign invest-ment rules could significantly weaken thepowers of Australia’s Foreign InvestmentReview Board. The report confirmed for usthat Treasury is revising foreign investment


policy under the negotiations of the OECDmultilateral investment treaty, under theAPEC individual action plan and the competi-tion principles agreement regulation review.So out there in Treasury there is a hugerethink going on.

While they are rethinking, I just want to goback to the coalition’s recommendations tothe Senate select committee, when we lookeda couple of years ago in 1994 at how FIRBoperated. The recommendations were:10.2 That the government incorporate all compo-nents of its foreign investment policy into a singlestatute.10.3 That the legislation include a comprehen-sive statement of the goals of foreign investmentpolicy and identify those sectors of the economywhich should be subject to foreign investmentregulations.10.4 That the legislation contain the criteria whichshould be used to determine applications by foreigninvestors and that it should also provide, whereappropriate, that the interests of domestic biddersbe taken into account.

There is a lot more. I am just wondering howa coalition government is going to marry whatthey said in 1994 and what Mr Costello saidon the record just prior to the last electionwith what the WTO is now asking of us as aglobal citizen. I look forward to thecoalition’s policy announcements.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(7.00 p.m.)—I agree with a great deal of whatSenator Kernot said in relation to this report.The Foreign Investment Review Board is andhas been for some time somewhat of a tooth-less tiger. We do still have some investmentcriteria. Basically I think it is the role of anycountry to say, ‘If people want to buy part ofthe country’s productive capacity there shouldbe some sort of criteria under which they dothat.’ As Senator Kernot has indicated, thereis a lot of pressure on Australia to drop theremaining criteria. Yet we have seen, as wecan see in the last section of this report, thatover the years there have been a lot of reduc-tions in the criteria to even have scrutiny ofwhat is invested and what the implicationsare.

For instance, in July 1986, acquisition ofdeveloped commercial real estate would beallowed provided there was 50 per cent

Australian equity. Previously there was avirtual prohibition. In 1987, passing amend-ments to the Foreign Takeovers Act exemptedfrom notification takeovers below $5 million,or $3 million for rural investment. In thesame year there were improvements to thebenefits associated with naturalised or natural-ising status; namely, that all takeovers or newbusinesses involving naturalised or naturalis-ing companies would be approved unlesscontrary to the national interest. I have neveractually seen much in the way of nationalinterest proved or how that is calculated, butit is always good to throw it into the calcula-tion.

Senator Kernot—What the Treasurer saysit is.

Senator MARGETTS—That is right—what the Treasurer says it is. In September1987, the $600,000 examination threshold wasabolished. In April 1993 the governmentdecided to increase the maximum permittedforeign investment interest involvement inmass circulation of newspapers by a singleshareholder to 25 per cent. In September1995, the Treasurer announced that the limiton foreign investment of provincial andsuburban newspapers would be increased to30 per cent.

There used to be a couple of areas whichwere sacrosanct in terms of some level ofcontrol—they were media and telecommunica-tions. We know what has happened to them.There is very little in relation to domestic realestate. Why should this concern SenatorKernot and me in relation to domestic realestate? Because it is an issue of benefits andwelfare. What is the actual benefit to Austral-ia of people speculating in real estate? Iwould say: very little. If you are a personwho is trying to make money out of buyingand selling real estate, maybe there is benefit.But the family home is usually the biggestsingle investment the average person trying tolive makes.

If what you have is the desire to makeinvestment figures look good by a high levelof speculative investment in real estate, thatis what we seem to be getting to. The figuresin this report probably bear very little reflec-tion to what is going on. I am not sure how


many people there are actually working forthe Foreign Investment Review Board thesedays but I am sure they do not have thenumbers to check how many people do report.It is very narrow list of types of investmentwhich need to be reported these days, and Iam sure they simply do not have the peopleto check on every real estate investment.

I really do think there is a point where wehave to talk in our country about what are theoutcomes we would like to see from trade andinvestment policy. I think we have beenpushed around a lot. I think we have beenvery naive in relation to our negotiations withGATT and the World Trade Organisation andI think the outcomes in relation to the ForeignInvestment Review Board reflect that. Butthere are a pressures now to get rid of whatis left. We should stand up and say that wehave the right to make decisions about ben-efits to Australian trade and investment andwe should demand to keep that right to makethose decisions about whether investment isof benefit to Australia or not.

Debate (on motion bySenator McGauran)adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Chapman)—Consideration ofgovernment documents has now concluded. Iput the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Antarctic

Senator PATTERSON (Victoria) (7.05p.m.)—I wish this evening to talk about myrecent experience in the Antarctic and put anumber of things on the public record. At thebeginning of December last year I, with twoother federal colleagues—one from this Houseand one from the House of Representatives—and two state members of parliament had theprivilege, and I must say that is ‘privilege’ incapital letters, of joining theAurora Australison the ANARE trip to all the Australianbases. We went to Mawson and Davis. Whileat Davis we went to the Chinese base ZhongShan, then on to the Russian base Mirny, toCasey and then on to Macquarie Island.

I think I have come back a little different.I was told by others who have been on thistrip that I would come back changed and I amsure that is the case. It was invigorating. Itwas a wonderful experience. It was awe-inspiring. It was thought provoking. It was, Ithink, soul restoring. Much of what happensin this place is sometimes soul destroying andwe do not often have opportunities to havesoul restoring experiences; this was a soulrestoring experience.

To see the majesty of the sea, the ice, theicebergs, the icecap, the ice plateau, and thebeauty of the animals—the Antarctic birds,the seals, the penguins—and to see how thoseanimals can survive in very hostile conditionswas an experience for which I am verygrateful. I am very grateful to the people ofVictoria that I was elected to the Senate sothat I had that opportunity. There are lots ofthings you do in this job that you wished youwere not doing, but this was a great excite-ment and a great privilege.

But with all privileges come responsibili-ties, and one of the roles that we played ingoing down there was to look at Australia’sinvolvement in the Antarctic program. Wehad to evaluate our performance of what weare doing down there and to make sugges-tions, as the Antarctic division has a foresightproject—a project which looks at its programfor the coming years.

I believe we need to ensure that we do notget so caught up in maintaining and develop-ing the infrastructure that we lose sight of thereal reason for our presence in the Antarctic,and one reason for our presence is to under-take research. There is a great deal of re-search being undertaken there. There is anenormous amount of meteorological databeing gathered. That data has an immediateuse in predicting weather in Australia but italso has a long-term use. We have researchgoing on that is looking at global warming.There are astrophysicists working therelooking at the upper atmosphere. There arelots of biological projects looking at aspectsof the wildlife.

For example, they are looking at penguinsand their response to humans. They arelooking at penguins and their distribution and


whether they would be affected by possiblechanges in the availability of their foodsource. Penguins are high up in the foodchain, and any change to them will give anindication of what is happening, especially inthe oceans. They are looking at research onthe Antarctic birds and the seals as well.

There is also some fascinating researchbeing done in cooperation with a university inEngland. Students from Nottingham Universi-ty are working on one of our bases, lookingat anti-freeze proteins in bacteria. That hasimplications for the preservation of food,because there is a problem with food formingcrystals when it is frozen. This research maybe able to be used. It also has implications formedicine in terms of organ transplants andpreserving organs and preserving parts ofbodies that might happen to be severed inaccidents—for example, industrial accidents—until they can be reattached.

So there is a wide range of research, and Iwas quite surprised at some of the research.Research is also being done on theexpeditioners who go down there. They arelooking at their immune systems and otheraspects of their health. They are looking atthe effects of isolation and extreme cold, etcetera.

So an enormous amount of research isbeing done, but I think we need to make surethat we get that balance right. That is one ofthe messages that I brought home from thatexperience. We need to get the balancebetween ensuring that we have people therein comfort and in safety and also that we donot end up having that dominate so that welose sight of one of the real reasons for beingthere.

I also want to speak tonight about some-thing that I think we all, as Australians, oughtto know about, and that is the cooperationthat is occurring between nations in theAntarctic. I said in my interview on ChristmasDay with Radio Australia that one of thelessons you learn is that down there, whenyou are isolated in the freezing cold, you relyon other people and on other nations. It isbecause of that isolation and the risk and thedanger that people are forced together. Theyhave to actually do things and work together.

It seemed to me that it was a message in thatwe are a planet and our environment is at riskin a number of ways. It seemed that if wecould learn the lesson from the cooperationwe see in the Antarctic, it is a great lesson fornations as a whole. So it is a tremendousexample of the way in which countries cancooperate when they have to. They have todown there because they are forced to do soby necessity.

An example of this cooperation would bewhen we delivered some fuel to the Russianbase. They had a problem with their resupply,and we agreed to deliver fuel, for which theypaid. I have to pay a compliment here to theway in which there was cooperation betweenthe full-time ANARE staff; the meteorologicalbureau staff; the expeditioners, who werevirtually temporary staff with ANARE; thosewho were round tripping; those who weregoing just for the summer; and thoseexpeditioners who were there for the winter.

Between those private enterprise peoplewho were there manning the helicopters, thehelicopter pilots and the helicopter engineers,the members of the various maritime unionsand the politicians, there was this enormoussense of cooperation. We had a goal: we hadto get in, get the changeovers done and getout. We saw the helicopter pilots shiftingfood. We saw the pollies moving food. Wesaw various people helping.

When we got to Mawson and we weredoing the changeover, we encountered ablizzard. We saw the members of the variousmaritime unions—and that includes theengineers, the ratings and people like that,because they belong to different unions—working together. We saw the captain, theengineers and the ratings working in cooper-ation with the full-time ANARE staff, themeteorological bureau people and theexpeditioners. When you saw the unionmembers using the cranes to put crates andlarge containers onto the barges, which werebeing manned by ANARE staff, and whenyou saw the cooperation between union andnon-union people working in extreme condi-tions—when we looked out from the bridge,we could see that the snow was coming inhorizontally—you had to say there was a


lesson in that for all Australians as well.There was a lesson in that when there wassomething to be achieved, when there was agoal, they were all committed to that goal,and they could work together in a cooperativeand sensible way.

We saw that, for example, at Mirny whenwe came in to deliver the fuel. The Russianswanted to knock off at 4 o’clock, because thatis the time they knock off. Our guys—our‘polarmen’, as we jokingly called them—said,‘No, we want to continue.’ They hooked upthe line and we finished refuelling by 3o’clock in the morning and were able to leaveat about 3.10 a.m.

I wish the Senate would give me an exten-sion so I can actually name the people whoare on the crew, because I think they do notoften get named. Perhaps I can do that in thelast minute of my speech. I congratulateCaptain Tim Archer; the ice pilot, GustavHenriksen; the officers, Murray Doyle, ScottLaughlin and Cameron Harris; the engineers,David Crane, Doug Haig, Julian Grant andRobert Cave; the cooks, Paul Brown, BillRobinson and Colin Murray—and let me saya ship does travel on its stomach, and theywere fantastic; the stewards, Frank Soutter,Sue Pickering, Terry Reid and Lee Hardman;the IRs, Per Larsen, Big Al Hornsby, ElvisHarcombe, Phil Hayes, Cole Pritchard, GovCurphey, George Jhugaroo and Richard Perry;and the TIRs, the trainees, Brent Stewart andRon Dalrymple. I must say to them, well donefor an example they set on how we canachieve things when there is cooperation.

Charleville

Senator HOGG (Queensland) (7.15p.m.)—That is a hard act to follow thisevening, I think. I wish to speak about thetown of Charleville in western Queensland.Charleville is a town rich in the history ofthat western area and, of course, it has beenbeset by floods in recent times, most recentlywithin the last week or so and before that in1990. On both occasions the floods were quitedevastating to the town, although on the lastoccasion not as much. The floods in them-selves did attract a great deal of governmentand community support for the people in

Charleville, and that was very gratefullyreceived.

The issue I specifically want to address thisevening is another problem that has beset thepeople of Charleville, and that is that on thenight of 12 January this year the WesternExports Pty Ltd abattoir burnt down. Thismight not appear to be a grave problem inmany communities, but in the community ofCharleville it was quite a grave problemindeed. I quote from the ToowoombaChroni-cle of 13 January:

This $6.5 million plant, owned and operated byWestern Exports Pty Ltd, was officially opened inlate October by Queensland Premier Mr RobBorbidge.

It was a major employer for the region, somuch so that, again quoting from the articlein the Chronicleof 13 January:

In December the workforce was around 65, all ofwhom were recruited in the Charleville area.

With employment being a problem in therural communities, here we had an industrythat had started up, an abattoir, which wasemploying a substantial number of people andwas later described as being a major employerin that area, suffering a major disaster on thenight of 12 January.

Immediately I heard about this I calledupon the federal government and the stategovernment to look at the situation in Charle-ville to make sure of the needs of the peopleand to see if they could intervene to accom-modate the employment needs of the peoplein that area. Interestingly enough, in theToowoombaChronicleof 14 January the stategovernment in Queensland, through the localmember, Mr Howard Hobbs, made thisstatement:

Member for Warrego and Minister for NaturalResources Mr Howard Hobbs said the fire wouldhave a devastating effect on the local communityas the meat processing plant was one of the town’sbiggest employers.

Further interest was shown by the Queenslandstate government through the rural communi-ties minister, Mrs Di McCauley. In the Too-woombaChronicleof Friday, 17 January shesaid:


I’m told that some 60 people will be stood downfor between six and eight months while the worksare re-built.

Further on in that same article she is quotedas saying:The people of Charleville have hardly had an easytime in the past seven or eight years. But the townhas tremendous community spirit and will over-come this latest hurdle.

I believe that the country people, as resilientas they are, would like to have thought thatafter a fire there would not have been a flood.I think what was really needed in the instanceof Charleville was some government interven-tion.

The ToowoombaChronicle had a greatinterest in this particular fire, because in theChronicleof Monday, 20 January the impactof that fire on the local economy starts toemerge. The article of 20 January states:Its destruction—

that is, the destruction of the meatworks—devastated the region, throwing 65 people out ofwork for at least 10 months and depriving the localeconomy of an estimated $25,000 a week in wages.

In many other communities, that might nothave a major effect, but in a rural area suchas Charleville it has a profound effect indeed.

That was exacerbated by the floods thatcame not more than three to four weeks afterthat. There is a real problem in Charlevilleand the call that I made on 13 January seek-ing intervention by both state and federalgovernments is not without some merit in thisparticular set of circumstances, because theloss of jobs in that particular community willhave a severe impact on the rural communityitself. When those jobs are lost, as has beenseen from the articles, for up to six to eightmonths, they are not easily replaced and itmeans that there is a crisis emerging withinthe community itself. There are no othermajor employers within that community whowould be able to absorb those temporarilyunemployed, and I believe governments, bothstate and federal, have a responsibility to lookat the Charleville case in isolation as a specialcase and something which is owed to the ruralpeople in Australia and in particular ofQueensland.

One of the unforeseen consequences of thefire was that, as a result of the changes madeby the government to the social securitylegislation, some young people suffered. I donot know whether this consequence wasforeseen, but the particular concern was raisedby a person who is under the age of 18, whowas told that he was ineligible to receive anyform of social security until he turned 18 orleft home. This was a young person who wentout, got a job in the meatworks and wasprepared to stay at the meatworks and who,for no reason other than fate, found himselfunemployed. He was a taxpayer whilst he wasat the abattoir and, because he believed hehad ongoing employment and some security,he took out a hire purchase agreement for acar. As I have said, through no fault of hisown, he lost his job.

The sad part was that, because of thechanges the government had made previously,there was no safety net to pick him up otherthan to place an obligation upon his parents.I think that is basically and fundamentallywrong. It is patently unjust to place thisperson in that position when he had been ataxpayer. That person should at least have hadthe opportunity to pick up the appropriateunemployment benefits when, through nofault of his own, he had been placed on theunemployment list. Of course, there is no realprospect of that young person retrieving hisjob for at least another eight to 10 months.

What will happen, in the intervening period,to the undertakings that that person has madeon the purchase of his car? There are onlytwo things that can happen: either the parentsof that person will bail him out—and I am notsure that the circumstances of the parents ofthat particular young person will enable thatto happen; or he will lose his car.

I believe that, whilst this is not a major casein its own right, the fact that 65 people didlose their jobs and the fact that $25,000 aweek has gone out of the local economy inthe Charleville area, mean that rural Queens-landers deserve a better deal. They deservesome special intervention on the part of boththe state and the federal governments in thisparticular case. Whilst the state governmenthas made some noises, nothing has really


been done, and I would like to think that thefederal government will see its way to doingsomething for the people of Charleville.

Mobile Phones

Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (7.25 p.m.)—I rise again to speak tonight on the subject ofelectromagnetic radiation and its possiblehealth effects. I am prompted to raise thismatter again because of a number of recentevents of which I believe the Senate shouldbe aware. Just two weeks ago, Telstra ran avery large advertisement in theAge—and, Ipresume, in other daily newspapers—featuringa young girl in a school uniform, holding amobile phone to her ear and announcing toher mother that she had made it into the team.The ad stressed the importance of keeping intouch. On 17 January, Telstra also featured intheir magazineOur future, on page 2, a girlof just eight years of age who had won adesign competition, and she was shownclutching a mobile phone.

I do not single out Telstra as being the onlyone to attempt to increase their market shareby targeting children. No doubt other carrierswill jump on this bandwagon if it proves tobe profitable, if they have not already doneso. But as a former teacher, I can imaginesome problems which might arise for schoolsif large populations of children suddenlybegin taking mobile phones with them toschool. However, my main concern here is inrelation to risks to health which parents mightunwittingly be exposing their children to byproviding them with this technology.

I have heard, here and in other places,people scoff at the idea that there might behealth risks associated with telecommunica-tions equipment, and I have heard people whoare concerned about this matter categorised asthe lunatic fringe. Of course, the telecom-munications industry, with so much to losefrom evidence which might establish any suchlink, is also keen to marginalise views of thissort, and to see that those in government donot look too closely at the growing body ofscientific evidence which ought to at leastmake us cautious.

So my aim this evening is to acquaintsenators with some of the scientific work

which has been done, which points veryclearly to the danger associated with mobilephone use by children. I want to begin witha paper by Dr Ivan Beale from the Universityof Auckland, published in 1993 entitled, ‘Bio-logical effects of weak radiofrequencyradiation’. He says:Our current safety standards are based only onresearch showing adverse effects of body tissueheating in animals exposed for brief periods torelatively high radiation levels.

He says that there are no research studies ofthe long-term animal or human exposures tothe complex type of radiation emitted from,for instance, mobile phone towers. For thisreason, he questions the legitimacy of theexisting exposure standards. He says that,whilst exposure of the general public toradiation levels of more than a fewmicrowatts per square centimetre is rare, eventhat amount is millions of times higher thanthe levels of radiofrequency radiation arisingfrom natural sources. He says:Given their circumstances and considering also thelack of relevant research studies and the limitedapplicability of current exposure standards, aresponsible course of action is to minimise un-necessary exposure . . . prudent avoidance is nowbeing widely applied for addressing the uncertain-ties regarding health risks from non-ionizingradiation. Its application is particularly appropriatein situations involving exposure of more vulnerablesections of the public, such as children, who maybe particularly prone to effects of exposure andmay have limited ability to protect themselves.

The operation of cell sites (mobile phone towers)on or near kindergartens or school properties islikely to result in large increases in radiofrequencyexposure for groups of children. This is contrary tothe principle of prudent avoidance and inconsistentwith good health protection policy.

Dr Beale forms this view in the light ofthousands of studies of biological effects ofradiofrequency/microwave radiation. He saysthat this area of research is developing rapid-ly, but it is generally accepted that there ismuch more to learn than we already know. Ithink this is a very important point.

The industry argue that research has beendone and has not proved that electromagneticradiation emitted by their equipment is asignificant health risk. Some would say thatthe onus of proof should be upon the industry


to prove that their equipment is safe. How-ever, what is clear is that we are dealing witha very complex number of fields of scienceand that no one study could ever be expectedto prove the case either for or against. Likethe case against tobacco, a body of researchon electromagnetic radiation will need to bebuilt up, probably over a very long period oftime, before we can establish a high level ofprobability or otherwise.

Biological studies of enzymes and humancells exposed in vitro to radiofrequen-cy/microwave fields have shown a number ofeffects which cannot be explained simply bythe heating effects of radiation on which ourcurrent standards are based. These includechanges in cell membrane permeability topotassium, sodium and calcium; changes inthe composition or behaviour of blood-form-ing and immunological cells; alteration ofcalcium ion exchange in nerve tissue; changesin the firing patterns of neurones; and changesin levels of cancer related enzymes.

In spite of the fact that there are some 60million mobile phone users worldwide in whatcould well be described as an experiment ofmammoth proportions, there have been—forquite obvious reasons, I suppose—very fewstudies of controlled exposure of humanvolunteers. Some studies have shown awarmth and pain phenomenon in which thefrequency pulses are experienced as clicks,buzzes or chirps.

There have been a number of surveys andreports of accidental exposure to radiationabove recommended safety limits. The report-ed effects include severe anxiety, hyperten-sion, headaches, nausea and fatigue. In onecase a pilot inadvertently stood for fiveminutes in front of an air fighter radar anten-na and in addition to physical symptoms suchas oedema and necrosis of the neck muscles,he experienced memory loss and extremesleepiness.

There are also numerous epidemiologicalstudies of people who are known to have beenexposed to higher than background levels ofradiation. There are obvious difficulties inlocating control groups with epidemiologicalstudies, however, Dr Bruce Hocking’s studyof TV transmitter towers in Sydney which

found a higher incidence of childhood leukae-mia in the area is a case in point. If Australiawere to adopt the principle of prudent avoid-ance, then this study would lead us to dowhat New Zealand has done and avoid locat-ing mobile phone towers adjacent to schoolsand kindergartens.

The Minister for Health and Family Ser-vices (Dr Wooldridge) made a speech late lastyear when Dr Hocking’s study was published.He dismissed this study somewhat by sayingit probably represented a cancer cluster. I aminformed that a careful re-examination of DrHocking’s paper would show that the in-creased incidence of acute leukemia in chil-dren was uniform across the suburbs proxi-mate to the towers. This is a very strongargument against such a cluster effect. I thinkwe have here yet again an example of a headin the sand approach by government andperhaps a propping up of that industry line.

Other epidemiological studies have shownthat chronic exposure may increase the inci-dence of physical symptoms such as heartdisease, cancer, birth abnormalities, pregnancymiscarriage, memory problems and lensopacities, otherwise known as cataracts. DrNeil Cherry from New Zealand in his paperentitled ‘Potential and actual adverse effectsof cellsite microwave radiation’ said:. . . dozens of epidemiological studies of largepopulations and large numbers of workers occupa-tionally exposed to radiofrequency/microwaveradiation show statistically significant increases ofa wide spectrum of cancers, and there can be littleor no doubt that chronic low level exposure toradiofrequency microwave radiation producesincreased cancer risk.

A recent study in Belgium found that veryclose range exposure to microwaves from acellular phone base station increased theeffect of a chemical mutagen on human bloodcells, leading to increased chromosomalaberrations. The assistant director of a Kuwai-ti cancer centre a few days ago warned thatmobile telephones can cause headaches,memory loss and chronic ear inflammation.He advised against using cellular phonesexcept in emergency cases and for not morethan 30 minutes at a time.

An information sheet put out recently byAustel, the Australian Radiation Laboratory,


Spectrum Management Agency and a sectionof CSIRO, entitled ‘Safety of mobile phonesand towers,’ says in answer to the question:‘Do radio waves from mobile phones increasethe risks of cancer?’—(Time expired)

Young Australians: Drug Use

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania) (7.35 p.m.)—The youth of our country are our most valu-able asset. Our youth suicide rate, level ofyouth unemployment, level of homelessnessand level of drug involvement are all a verysad reflection on how we, individually and asa nation, have failed to provide leadership andexample to our next generation. With thisbackground in mind, it is vital that we in thisplace provide leadership, guidance and sup-port.

In recent times, the Australian Democratshave embarked upon a youth poll in which atquestion No. 17 they ask the youth who arepolled whether or not they have partaken ofcertain substances—namely, amphetamines—such as LSD. In launching the youth poll, theDemocrat senator involved was asked howshe would answer that question. We got avery cutsie sort of answer according to mediareports. The senator, we are told, diplomati-cally declined to answer the question, ‘Haveyou ever tried amphetamines?’ She told 13that she did not want to upset her mother withthe answer.

I do not think you need much of an imagi-nation to understand what that answer actuallymeant. Could you imagine the mother referredto breaking down sobbing uncontrollablybecause the senator confessed to not havingtried LSD and other drugs? Or the mother, inbetween hysterical sobbing, saying, ‘Howcould you have not risked your health? Howcould you have not lined the pockets of drugpeddlers? Why do you regard your life sohighly as to not have tried drugs?’

In making these comments, I do not in anyway seek to condemn anyone who maypartake—or may have in the past partaken—of drugs. We have all made mistakes or havedone things which, on mature reflection, wemight regret. So the purposes of my contribu-tion tonight—

Senator Stot t Despoja—They aremischievous.

Senator ABETZ—should not be seen inthat light. But it is the message that I amconcerned about that we, as leaders of thecommunity, portray to the public at large.This is especially so when today, I am reli-ably informed, during the debate on theproceeds of crime bill the government wascriticised for not spending enough on drugeducation.

Senator Stott Despoja—That’s why wewant education programs today.

Senator ABETZ—I believe the averageAustralian would not mind if a person said,‘Look, I have experimented. I am one of thelucky ones to live to tell the story, and I warneveryone against it.’ That is the sort ofmessage that is expected by leadership. It isa mature approach to this problem. I stressagain: I do not seek to condemn drug takingby those individuals involved, but we have aresponsibility for the message that we presentto the community at large.

It gives me no joy to say that the followingquestions were drawn to my attention: haveyou ever tried marijuana—yes, no; shouldmarijuana be legalised—yes, no; have youever tried amphetamines, such as ecstasy,speed or LSD? A follow-up question as towhether it ought to be legalised is not asked.

Senator Stott Despoja—Wait till you seethe Young Liberals’ survey. You’ll be veryembarrassed by it.

Senator ABETZ—We are also not askedwhether we know of anybody who, havingpartaken in those sorts of drugs, has suffereddeleterious effects. I think it is incumbentupon those of us who serve in this place togive very serious consideration to the sort ofmessage we send out to the community atlarge when we engage media to promote ourcause. I do not criticise that, but, when thesecutesy type answers are given that basicallysay it is okay, that message is one that theyoung people of this country do not need.

I dare say that every one of us on bothsides of this chamber know of relatives orfriends who have had young people involvedin the drug scene and they know of the


trauma suffered by those individuals. Indeed,the cost to society at large is so horrendousthat I make the plea that, when we discussthese issues in public forums with media, wedo not—even inadvertently—send out themessage that it is okay to experiment withthese substances. There is a huge list ofyoung people whose lives have been de-stroyed because it started with one experi-ment.

Senator Stott Despoja—That’s all it takes.

Senator ABETZ—Because that is all ittakes: one experiment then leads to theabsolute destruction of a life and often afamily, of friendships and of relationships,and often causes a huge degree of trauma.

I will conclude now because I think SenatorStott Despoja wishes to respond, given herinterjections. I had not mentioned her namebut, given her continual interjections, I amreferring to the senator. I tried not to refer toher. I think it is important that we deal withthese issues on a more serious level when werealise the trauma that is occasioned in thecommunity even by one experimentation withthese sorts of drugs.

Young Australians: Drug UseSenator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus-

tralia) (7.43 p.m.)—I was not going to re-spond this evening because, unlike SenatorAbetz, I would like to take time to preparesome research on this issue, such as present-ing to the chamber a New South WalesYoung Liberals survey of young people’sattitudes on issues affecting them in which Ithink he might find similar issues and ques-tions raised about drug abuse. But SenatorAbetz, I will stand by youth poll, as I havefor six years, as being the only survey con-ducted by a national political party into theviews of young Australians 15 to 25 years ofage—and this year of those aged 15 to 20years. There is six years worth of researchthat has gone into those polls; six years wherewe have assessed everything from drugtaking, sure, right through to young people’sopinions on what substances should be legal,illegal and decriminalised.

From youth poll you will find, quite heart-eningly, I am sure, that young people are very

concerned about drug taking and drug abusein their society, have a commitment to in-creased education and rehabilitation cam-paigns, and also the majority of them opposethese substances being legalised. But I sup-pose you have not actually looked at theresults of youth poll ‘92, ‘93, ‘94, ‘95 or ‘96,let alone looked at them in detail.

I will respond in more detail because Ithink reading that particular article tonightwas beneath Senator Abetz. I find his com-ments mischievous. I believe that if he reallycared about young people in this country, letalone the specific problem of young peopleand drug taking, he would have approachedthis matter from a very different perspective.And that would have been without the usualstereotypic and negative baggage that isapplied to young Australians and withoutusing me—admittedly, not until the end of hisspeech did he use my name—as an exampleof sending the wrong messages when I con-clude that it is only the Australian Democratsthat are sending the right messages to youngpeople in this country: that they are worthy,that their self-esteem should be assisted andincreased and that, if they have drug prob-lems, perhaps we should treat that as thehealth and social and destructive issue it is asopposed to the legal, moralistic and conserva-tive issue that some people in this placewould prefer to treat it as.

Senate adjourned at 7.46 p.m.

DOCUMENTS

Tabling

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasur-er (Senator Campbell) tabled the followingdocuments:

Audit Act—Employment Services RegulatoryAuthority—Report for 1995-96.

Copyright Act—Copyright Agency Limit-ed—Report for 1995-96.

Foreign Investment Review Board—Report for1995-96.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commis-sion Act—Human Rights and Equal OpportunityCommission—Federal Race DiscriminationCommissioner—State of the Nation: Report onpeople of non-Engl ish speaking back-grounds—Report for 1996.


Tabling

The following documents were tabled bythe Clerk:

Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regula-tions—Instrument No. CASA 29/97.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations Nos18-21 of 1996.


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Telecommunications(Question No. 51)

Senator Bourne asked the Minister forCommunications and the Arts, upon notice,on 8 May 1996:

(1) Has the Government begun planning for thereview of carrier powers and immunities from Stateand local environmental, heritage and planning lawsforeshadowed in the Telecommunications PolicyPrinciples: Post 1997; if so (a) what are thereview’s terms of reference; and (b) do they includethe possibility of ending the current carrier powersand immunities.

(2) Will the review be conducted by AUSTEL,by the Minister and the Department or a parlia-mentary inquiry.

(3) Can the Government guarantee that the publicwill have adequate notice and time to make sub-missions to the inquiry.

(4) What relationship, if any, is there betweenAUSTEL’s current review of the operation of theTelecommunications National Code and the pro-posed review of carrier powers and immunities.

Senator Alston—The answer to the honour-able senator’s question is as follows:

I thank the honourable senator for her question.I realise that there has been a considerable delaysince the question was asked, and I apologise fornot responding earlier. However; during the latterhalf of 1996, the Government was intensivelyinvolved in developing a major package of changesto laws governing carrier network rollout activities.These changes are designed to address communityconcerns on this issue.

(1) Following consultation with interested parties,including State and Territory governments, theGovernment announced in December 1996 theregulatory regime for carriers powers and immuni-ties. The approach is that State and Territoryplanning and environment laws will generally applyto the rollout of telecommunications infrastructurefrom July 1997 with limited exceptions.

There are three limited exceptions to this generalrule. First, there will be some standing exemptionsfor inspection of land, maintenance of facilities,installation of low impact facilities, and temporary

defence facilities. Second, a limited case-by caseappeals process to a Panel of the Australian Com-munications Authority will be established to coverinstallation of facilities in situation of nationalsignificance. Third, there will be continuation ofsome specific powers and immunities from thecurrent Act.

(2) and (3) The regime for carriers powers andimmunities post-30 June 1997 was developed inconsultation with interested stakeholders. There hasbeen extensive discussion of these issues publicly.

(4) The reviews which were conducted byAUSTEL and the Department, of the Telecommuni-cations National Code relate specifically to tighten-ing the arrangements in place prior to 1 July 1997.The review of carrier powers and immunitiesrelates to arrangements to apply post 1 July 1997.

Fishing(Question No. 363)

Senator Brown asked the Minister forResources and Energy, upon notice, on 17December 1996:

(1) With reference to the stated policy of theAustralian Fisheries Management Authority(AFMA) of taking an ecological and precautionaryapproach to the management of fisheries: (a) whatscientific basis is used to implement an ecologicaland precautionary approach; (b) what data isrequired to support this approach; and (c) whatmethodology is used to calculate Total AllowableCatch (TAC).

(2) What specific actions has AFMA taken togive effect to its stated policy of managing thefollowing fisheries with an ecological approach anda precautionary approach: (a) the Macquarie Islandfishery; and (b) the Heard Island fishery.

(3) Is it a fact that the AFMA has set the newTAC for Macquarie Island at the same level as themaximum tonnage caught in preceding years; if so,is this a coincidence.

(4)(a) What data was used and how was the TACfor Macquarie Island calculated; and (b) how doesthe TAC compare to calculations based on tagreturns of the fish.

(5) In relation to the Macquarie Island TAC: (a)was any advice taken from scientists other than fishbiologists; if so, (i) who provided that advice, and


(ii) what is their area of expertise; and (b) how hasthis advice been taken into consideration in thefinal decision about management of the fishery andthe total allowable catch.

(6) Given that AFMA’s policy demands thatlikely impacts will be addressed in a documentprior to the fishery starting, what environmentalimpact assessment has been done of the fishery onthe Macquarie Island marine and terrestrial environ-ment.

(7) What money has been spent in each of thepast 10 years on: (a) assessment of the stock ofPatagonian toothfish; and (b) assessment of theenvironmental impact of the fishery.

(8) What money is available to be spent on theassessments referred to in 7(a) and (b).

(9) What contingency plans have been put inplace if the fishery injures or kills: (a) a seabird ofany species; (b) an albatross of any species; (c) awandering albatross; and (d) a seal of any species.

(10) What are the legal ramifications of injuringor killing a wandering albatross, and is this anoffence under the Endangered Species Act.

(11) What actions will be considered or taken bythe Government if a wanderer is injured or killed.

(12) Has the licence for fishing been granted yetfor Macquarie Island; if so: (a) when was this done;(b) what are the conditions of the licence; and (c)can a copy be provided.

(13) (a) How many observers have been requiredto accompany the licensed fishing boat; and (b)what are their qualifications.

(14) (a) What priorities have been allocated forobserver work; (b) what funding has been allocatedto observer work; and (c) if this funding is notfrom AFMA where is it expected to come from.

(15) Who is responsible for funding: (a) fishstock assessment work; (b) environment assessmentwork; and (c) if funding is not provided by AFMA,how does AFMA ensure that it is complying withthe objectives of its Act and managing fisheries onan ecologically-sustainable basis.

(16) Who makes recommendations about fishinglicences and conditions within AFMA.

(17) Is AFMA complying with Convention onthe Conservation of Antarctic Marine LivingResources (CCAMLR) approach to a new fishery,as requested by CCAMLR for an associated fishery,for example, one next to the CCAMLR regionwhich is the area within the Antarctic convergence.

(18) What are the roles of the Antarctic Division,Australian Nature Conservation Agency and theDepartment of the Environment, respectively, in themanagement of the Heard Island region fisheries.

(19) What is the financial expenditure andincome to the Australian Government resulting

from granting a licence to fish at: (a) MacquarieIsland; and (b) Heard Island.

(20) What other benefits are there to the Austral-ian economy and community from allowing fishingat: (a) Macquarie Island; and (b) Heard Island.

(21) Is there any evidence of pollution arisingfrom the fishing activities around Macquarie Island,for example, has any net washed up on the islandwhich has (or could have) come from a fishingvessel; if so, was this loss accounted for by thevessel; and if not accounted for, but shown to befrom the vessel, what action will AFMA take,given the obvious implications of having ghost netsin the region of this nature reserve.

Senator Parer—The answer to the honour-able senator’s question is as follows:

(1)(a) The scientific basis used by AFMA toimplement an ecological and precautionary ap-proach has been implemented through the develop-ment of a rigorous process of ecological, environ-mental, stock assessment and economic advice tothe AFMA Board through Management AdvisoryCommittees (which in turn generally have researchsubcommittees), Fisheries Assessment Groups andthe AFMA Research and Environment Committee.

AFMA has direct control over only very limitedresearch funds for the investigation of scientificissues such as stock assessment and ecologicalinteractions. Considerable effort has also been putinto influencing research fund providers (e.g. theFisheries Research and Development Corporation)to obtain sufficient funding for high priorityCommonwealth fisheries research that is notalready paid for by industry.

At the same time, it has been recognised thatthere is a need to obtain greater certainty inscientific advice on stock assessments, and AFMAhas encouraged peer review of scientific assess-ments by either external international experts orsome of the leading Australian scientific communi-ty (many of whom are also internationally regardedas leaders in their field of fisheries assessmentexpertise). Where fisheries are linked to internation-al bodies (such as the Commission for the Conser-vation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources—CCAMLR) AFMA also utilises information andresults from these bodies to introduce ecologicallysustainable management arrangements.

Fishery Assessment Groups are specifically setup for each of AFMA’s major fisheries to providestock assessment information, and recommendresearch programs. These groups include stockassessment experts, external fisheries consultants,economists, industry representatives, fisherymanagers and invited observers from various NGOsand conservation organisations.


(b) There is a significant body of data requiredto support the scientific approach being taken in themanagement of fisheries. The data required variesfrom fishery to fishery depending on the speciesbeing managed, the method of fishing and themethod of fishery assessment. The data requiredinclude life history information, fishing catch andeffort, areas of occurrence, biological samples,length frequency information, tagging data on fishcaught, tagged and then released, data on fishingconditions (e.g. sea temperature), data on observedoperations and any interactions that these operationsmay have on species such as seabirds or mammals;benthic samples, daily logbook information and soon.

Data collection is an extensive part of theresearch program in any fishery. However, stockassessment and environmental impact assessmentmust be undertaken with a less-than-perfect know-ledge of precisely what is occurring and can onlybe based on the best information available at thetime.

(c) TACs for fisheries are set through a processwhich involves several steps. These steps may varyfrom fishery to fishery, but in general the followingprocess is adopted:

1. Advice is received from the Fishery Assess-ment Group which has undertaken modelling workto assess the status of the fishery. The modellingprocess adopted depends on the fishery. Factorsinfluencing the methodology utilised for stockassessment, and therefore ultimately TAC setting,include the species under consideration, the fishingmethod/s utilised, the area of fishing, the quantity,resolution and reliability of fishery dependent data,the availability of fishery independent data, and theavailability of ageing and length frequency data.Methods used may include Virtual PopulationAnalysis, Delay-Difference models, age-structuredpopulation modelling, surplus production models,stock reduction models as well as numerous othermethods.

2. This advice is considered by the ManagementAdvisory Committee for the fishery and/or its sub-committees who review the range of the catchlimits recommended by the Fishery AssessmentGroup together with other relevant informationagainst the objectives and biological referencepoints for the fishery and make a recommendationto the AFMA Board of an appropriate TAC for thefishery.

The AFMA Board considers the advice of theFishery Assessment Group and the ManagementAdvisory Committee together with the views ofAFMA management and any other relevant groups(such as the Sub-Antarctic Ecological Assessmentgroup in the case of the Macquarie Island Develop-mental Fishery) and sets the TAC.

(2)(a) Macquarie IslandEcological ApproachTo manage the Macquarie Island Developmental

Fishery on a sound ecological basis, AFMAestablished two expertise-based groups, the Mac-quarie Island Developmental Fishery Stock Assess-ment Group (MacSAG) and the Sub-AntarcticEcological Assessment Group (SEAG).

MacSAG was made up of participants from arange of relevant research and management organi-sations, independent fisheries stock assessmentconsultants and the commercial operator withprevious experience in the fishery and provided theAFMA Board with stock assessment advice on thestatus of the Patagonian Toothfish stocks aroundMacquarie Island.

SEAG provided advice on a number of environ-mental issues relevant to the fishery, includingadvice regarding methods of minimising potentiallyadverse ecological impacts of commercial fishingaround Macquarie Island.

The advice of both of these groups has formedthe basis of the Macquarie Island DevelopmentalFishing Policy.

Specific actions taken by AFMA to manage thefishery on an ecological basis are included in thepolicy in the form of restrictions on and mandatoryrequirements of the licensed commercial operator.

Commercial fishing in the waters around Mac-quarie Island is restricted to the methods of demer-sal and pelagic trawling. Given the current endan-gered status of the Macquarie Island wanderingalbatross population, and the extensive seabirdpopulations that breed on the island, exploratorylongline fishing is not currently permitted in theMacquarie Island AFZ.

A minimum mesh size of 120 mm applies forPatagonian Toothfish, and a minimum bobbindiameter of 52 cm will apply unless, as part of theresearch into the environmental impacts of trawling,there is a need to monitor the effects of differentbobbin sizes.

The commercial operator is required to take allreasonable steps to minimise the potential collisionand mortality of seabirds with the vessel. Lightingon board the vessel is to be kept to the minimum,particularly at those times when the likelihood ofseabirds colliding with the vessel are considered tobe high.

The policy states that a requirement of no offaldischarge will be trialled during the 1996/97 fishingseason. However, if this is not possible (for exam-ple, due to mechanical breakdown), contingencyarrangements will be developed between thecommercial operator and AFMA, based on advicefrom the relevant working groups with the aim ofensuring that no offal is made available to seabirds.


Also, no poultry products (including egg shells) orbrassicas (broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, brusselsprouts, kale, etc.) are to be discharged from thefishing vessel.

Carriage of two observers approved by AFMAis mandatory for the 1996/97 season, to ensure thatappropriate fisheries data, samples and environ-mental data are collected from each trip. Thecommercial operator is required to provide assist-ance to the observers to facilitate:

the collection of scientific data and samples;recording the number and types of interactions

with seabirds or mammals;‘real time’ reporting of any marine mammal or

seabird deaths or injuries;the return of any dead seabirds to the Tasman-

ian Department of Environment and LandManagement for scientific study; and

the return of any dead marine mammals forscientific study, as practical and if required byAFMA.The observers will also record other species

bycatch information (e.g. fish, coral etc.) as well asinformation about the gear used, in relation to thetake of the bycatch. This information will be usedto further refine bycatch management arrangements.A tagging program will be implemented to monitorthe effects of trawling on local populations ofsleeper sharks.

In addition to completing a logbook detailingdaily shot-by-shot information, including completedetails of any incidental bycatch, the commercialoperator is required to report any loss of fishinggear or other non-biodegradable products from thevessel.

The commercial fishing operator and skipper ofthe vessel are required to be aware of:

MARPOL, including requirements to retain allplastics and non-biodegradable products onboard, and in relation to the disposal of any oilproducts;

Endangered Species Protection legislationregarding albatrosses; and

other legislation relevant to fishing in theMacquarie Island region.AFMA is currently developing contingency

arrangements to address the following problemswhich may arise while fishing around MacquarieIsland:

breakdown of the meal plant;capture, injury or death of marine mammals;

capture, injury or death of seabirds;

loss of fishing gear; andinjury or incapacity of observers.

Input to the development of these contingencyarrangements has been sought from members of theSub-Antarctic Ecological Assessment Group.

A comprehensive research program, as developedthrough the MacSAG and SEAG processes, will becarried out during the remainder of the develop-mental fishing phase, and the information obtainedwill be used to develop appropriate arrangementsfor long-term management of the fishery. Furtherconsultation with interested groups and individualswill be undertaken in developing these longer termarrangements.

Precautionary Approach

AFMA’s precautionary approach to managingthis fishery includes limiting access to one vesseluntil more is known about the status of the stocksand environmental impacts associated with thefishery and setting annual TACs based upon theadvice received from the Fishery AssessmentGroup. TACs are set for known and unknownfishing areas in the AFZ around Macquarie Islandin order to limit the possible impact on knownareas and encourage exploration of previously un-fished areas.

Development of the Macquarie Island Develop-mental Fishery Policy has involved extensiveconsultation with a broad range of interestedparties, including both Government and non-Government environmental agencies. The finalpolicy was approved following a determination inaccordance with the Administrative Proceduresunder the Environment Protection (Impact ofProposals) Act 1974, that neither an environmentalimpact statement nor a public environment reportwas required and that AFMA’s assessment processhad identified the relevant environmental issues andmeasures needed for the protection of the environ-ment.

(2)(b) Heard Island

The Interim Management Policy for the HeardIsland and McDonald Island Exploratory Fisheryhas yet to be finalised. The following reflects thecontents of the draft policy as circulated to a broadrange of interested parties in November 1996.

Ecological Approach

The ecological approach taken by AFMA inmanaging the exploratory fishery in AFZ watersaround Heard and McDonald Island is similar tothat taken for Macquarie Island, however someadditional data summaries (less detailed thanrequired by AFMA) will be compiled to ensure thatAustralia meets its CCAMLR data obligations forthis area which forms part of CCAMLR sub-area58.5.2.

AFMA is aware that Australia’s two sub-Antarctic fisheries have different characteristics,however the two fisheries are based on the same


species of fish, same fishing method, and both arein an exploratory or developmental phase. Theyalso have similar environmental issues, so much sothat when SEAG formulated its advice for Macqua-rie Island they specifically noted that it also appliedto Heard Island and McDonald Island.

The scientific permits issued by AFMA will notallow any fishing within twelve nautical miles ofHeard and McDonald Islands. The Islands them-selves and surrounding territorial waters out to 12nautical miles form the Heard Island WildernessReserve, which is managed by the AustralianAntarctic Division, under a formal ManagementPlan established under the Heard and McDonaldIslands Environment Protection and ManagementOrdinance 1987. The Management Plan, which wasestablished in September 1995, prohibits commer-cial fishing within the 12 nautical mile territorialwaters around the Islands.

Commercial operators will be required to take allreasonable steps to minimise the potential collisionand mortality of seabirds with their vessels. Light-ing on board vessels is to be kept to the minimum,particularly at those times when the likelihood ofseabirds colliding with a vessel are considered tobe high.

The policy states that a requirement for no offaldischarge will be trialled during the 1996/97 fishingseason. However, if this is not possible (for exam-ple, due to mechanical breakdown), contingencyarrangements will be developed between thecommercial operator and AFMA, based on advicefrom the relevant working groups with the aim ofensuring that no offal is made available to seabirds.Also, no poultry products (including egg shells) orbrassicas (broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, brusselsprouts, kale, etc.) are to be discharged from anyfishing vessel.

Carriage of two observers approved by AFMAwill be mandatory, to ensure that appropriatefisheries data, samples and environmental data arecollected from each trip. Commercial operators willbe required to provide assistance to observers tofacilitate:

the recording of all information required byCCAMLR for the Ten-day Catch and EffortReporting System as specified in CCAMLRConservation Measure 61/XII;

the recording of all information required byCCAMLR for the Monthly Fine-scale Effort andBiological Data Reporting System as specified inCCAMLR Conservation Measure 117/XV;

the collection of scientific data and samples;

recording the number and types of interactionswith seabirds or mammals;

’real time’ reporting of any marine mammal orseabird deaths or injuries;

the return of any dead seabirds for scientificstudy; and

the return of any dead marine mammals forscientific study, as practical and if required byAFMA.

The observers will also record bycatch informa-tion of other fish species as well as informationabout the gear used, including changes in gear, inrelation to the take of bycatch and target species.

In addition to completing a daily logbookdetailing daily shot-by-shot information, includingcomplete details of any incidental bycatch, com-mercial operators will be required to report any lossof fishing gear or other non-biodegradable productsfrom the vessels.

The commercial fishing operators and skippersof the vessels will be required to be aware of:

all relevant CCAMLR Conservation Measuresand other regulations;

MARPOL, including requirements to retain allplastics and non-biodegradable products onboard, and in relation to the disposal of any oilproducts;

Endangered Species Protection legislationregarding albatrosses;

the Management Plan for the Heard IslandWilderness Reserve; and

Australia’s nomination for World HeritageListing of Heard and McDonald Islands.

AFMA, in consultation with members of theSub-Antarctic Ecological Assessment Group, iscurrently developing contingency arrangements toaddress the following problems which may arisewhile fishing around Heard and McDonald Islands:

breakdown of the meal plant;

capture, injury or death of marine mammals;

capture, injury or death of seabirds;

loss of fishing gear; and

injury or incapacity of observers.

As part of their application for access to thefishery during 1996/97, each potential operator willbe asked to provide a fishing plan which outlinestheir proposed fishing activity and a research plan.The operators will be required to demonstrate howthe research elements of their plan will complementthe broad outcomes of the research programdeveloped for Macquarie Island.

Drafting of a longer-term management policy forthe Heard Island and McDonald Island Fishery willcommence during 1997 and will be based on theinformation collected during the 1996/97 fishingseason to address the management needs, environ-mental impacts and commercial viability of anylonger term fishery. Further consultation with


interested groups and individuals will be undertakenbefore the plan is finalised.

Precautionary ApproachIt is proposed that the Heard Island and

McDonald Island Exploratory Fishery will involveexploratory fishing carried out under ScientificPermits granted by AFMA in respect of a maxi-mum of three commercial fishing vessels. Theexploratory fishing to be undertaken during 1996/97will seek to provide initial information on thepotential environmental impacts and commercialviability of any longer term fishery.

Under the terms of the Interim ManagementPolicy for the Heard Island and McDonald IslandExploratory Fishery, which AFMA is currently inthe process of finalising, the fishery will be man-aged in accordance with the CCAMLR ‘ecosystemapproach’.

TACs for Patagonian Toothfish, ice fish andother species for the statistical sub-area 58.5.2 havebeen set by CCAMLR, after considering advicefrom prominent stock assessment experts from alarge number of CCAMLR countries. These expertscome together as a Fish Stock Assessment WorkingGroup to consider all the available information andprovide advice to CCAMLR’s Scientific Commit-tee. The Scientific Committee considers this adviceand then provides advice to CCAMLR, recom-mending precautionary catch limits which take intoaccount the needs of predators and other elementsof the ecosystem, as well as other managementmeasures which should be considered.

The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) playeda key role in developing the technical stock assess-ment and management advice to CCAMLR for theHeard and McDonald Islands region, drawing uponapproximately three years of research work whichAAD had undertaken in the area. AAD is fullysupportive of the resulting CCAMLR decisions.

In developing the Interim Management Policy forthe Heard Island and McDonald Island ExploratoryFishery, AFMA has relied on the CCAMLRnetwork and final outcome of CCAMLR’s decisionin providing the best available advice on appropri-ate precautionary catch limits for the area whichincludes the AFZ around Heard and McDonaldIslands.

CCAMLR has set TACs for sub-area 58.5.2 at3,800 tonnes for Patagonian Toothfish, 311 tonnesfor ice fish and 50 tonnes each for any other deepwater species.

In accordance with the relevant CCAMLRConservation Measures, if the bycatch in any onehaul of the species Lepidonothen squamifrons,Notothenia rossii, Channichthys rhinoceratus orBathyraja spp. exceeds 5% of the total catch byweight, the fishing vessel will be required to moveto another fishing location at least 5 nautical miles

distant and not return to that location for a periodof at least 5 days.

Access within the AFZ waters will be limited toa maximum of three vessels. This limitation willallow exploratory fishing to take place in a con-trolled manner to identify the potential commercialviability of the fishery and provide the informationneeded for developing an appropriate longer termmanagement policy.

(3) During the previous fishing expedition(1995/96) conducted around Macquarie Island atotal of 970 tonnes of Patagonian Toothfish wascaught by the vessel Austral Leader.

The Macquarie Island Stock Assessment Group(MacSAG) recommended to AFMA a scientificassessment, that a catch of approximately 1000tonnes per year, taken of juvenile fish for a periodof 2-3 years, was not likely to cause long termharm to the Toothfish stock. This would allowfurther fishery development activity while thenecessary research information was collected torefine the TAC estimation. The AFMA Board setthe TAC based on this advice as well as input fromSEAG, the Minister for the Environment and publicsubmissions.

(4)(a) Data used included:shot-by-shot catch data,catch per unit effort data, andpreliminary tag recapture data.The methods used to calculate the TAC included:

comparison of the Macquarie Island commer-cial fishery data with the results of a randomstratified trawl survey undertaken in the Austral-ian Fishing Zone around Heard Island andMcDonald Island by the Australian AntarcticDivision to provide estimates of total abundanceof fish populations,

consideration of methods developed by theFish Stock Assessment Working Group ofCCAMLR (initially around South Georgia) toprovide total abundance estimates for specificage classes of the population by comparing trawlsurveys with longline fishing, and

preliminary analysis of the first year’s taggingdata obtained around Macquarie Island to providean estimate of the total number of fish in theknown fishing grounds.The approach taken by the Macquarie Island

Stock Assessment Group produced a range ofprecautionary catch levels from around 370 to2,000 tonnes for the Macquarie fishery during thedevelopmental phase.

(b) The analysis of a preliminary tag recaptureexperiment carried out in the 1995/96 fishingseason suggests a TAC of about 370 tonnes basedon a 10% exploitation rate. However, MacSAG


advised that in considering these results it shouldbe noted that the analysis

is based on only very limited preliminary data,applies only to the vulnerable segment of the

population in the known fishing grounds,will under-estimate the populationas tag mortality was not included, anddue to the limited opportunity for mixing of

tagged fish with the full population(5) In relation to the Macquarie Island TAC: (a)

was any advice taken from scientists other than fish

biologists; if so, (i) who provided that advice, andwhat is their area of expertise; and (b) how has thisadvice been taken into consideration in the finaldecision about management of the fishery and thetotal allowable catch.

(a) Advice on the TAC for the fishery wasreceived from both the Macquarie Island Develop-mental Fishery Stock Assessment Group (MacSAG)and the Sub-Antarctic Ecosystem AssessmentGroup (SEAG).

(i) These groups are composed of the followingmembers:

MacSAG SEAG

Dr Keith Sainsbury(Chairperson)

CSIRO Ms Karen Weaver(Chairperson)

AFMA

Mr Bernard Bowen Fisheries Consult-ant

Dr Cameron Bell University of Tas.

Dr Jean Chesson BRS Dr Nigel Brothers Tas. Parks WildlifeMr Martin Exel AFMA Dr Harry Burton AADMr Murray France Austral Fisheries Mr Geof Copson Tas. Parks WildlifeDr Norm Hall Fisheries Consult-

antMr Rob Ferguson AAD

Mr David Johnson AFMA Dr Rosemary Gales Tas. Parks WildlifeDr Bill de la Mare AAD Dr Simon Goldsworthy Tas. Parks WildlifeDr Jeremy Prince Fisheries Consult-

antDr Mark Hindell University of Tas.

Dr Dick Williams AAD Mr Neil Hughes Environment Aust.Ms Jenny Scott Tas. Parks WildlifeMs Kerry Truelove Environment Aust.Mr Dick Williams AADMr Al Wiltshire Tas. Parks Wildlife

(ii) The expertise of the members of these groups include fish biology, stock assessment, marinemammals, seabirds and Antarctic ecosystems.

(5)(b) In reaching its decision on the TAC for thefishery the AFMA Board considered the reports andrecommendations of both MacSAG and SEAG aswell as the response from the Minister for theEnvironment. The Board took particular account ofthe following information:

the scientific basis for a specific TAC recom-mendation is weak, with analysis being verypreliminary and implying TAC values rangingfrom 370 tonnes to about 2,000 tonnes;

a catch of about 1,000 tonnes per year, takenof juvenile fish for a period of 2-3 years, is notlikely to cause long-term harm to the stock, andit allows fishery development activity to occurwhile the necessary research to refine the TACestimate is being done;

the TAC which has been set is for the 1996/97season only and will be reviewed for the 1997/98season; and

there is not likely to be any detectable ormeasurable difference in the ecosystem by taking750 tonnes or 585 tonnes in the known area ofthe fishery.

(6) On 11 June 1996, following two seasons ofexploratory fishing activity at Macquarie Island,AFMA designated itself as proponent for theproposal to adopt and implement the MacquarieIsland Developmental Fishery Management Policy,under the Environment Protection (Impact ofProposals) Act 1974 (‘the Act’). The EnvironmentProtection Group of Environment Australia under-took an assessment of the proposal and providedadvice to the Minister for the Environment.


On 4 November 1996 the Minister for theEnvironment, in accordance with the AdministrativeProcedures under the Act, determined that neitheran environmental impact statement nor a publicenvironment report was required to meet the objectof the Act for the proposal. In making this determi-nation, the Minister noted that his Department hadadvised him that the assessment process undertakenby AFMA leading to the development of theproposed Policy had identified the relevant environ-mental issues and measures needed for the protec-tion of the environment. The Minister also statedhis view that the management arrangements andaccompanying research program in the proposedPolicy should ensure that the fishery is managed ina sustainable way and that fishing is compatiblewith the heritage values of Macquarie Island.

(7) (This question is answered in respect of theMacquarie Island Developmental Fishery.)

Advice from relevant Commonwealth Depart-ments and Agencies indicates that the AustralianFisheries Management Authority (AFMA), theAustralian Antarctic Division (AAD) and CSIROhave all spent funds in relation to assessment of thestock of Patagonian toothfish. AFMA has alsospent funds in relation to assessment of the envi-ronmental impact of the fishery, while CSIRO hasalso spent funds on several research projects whichare highly relevant to the issue of environmentalimpact.

(i) Australian Fisheries Management AuthorityThe following figures provided by AFMA detail

combined spending in relation to (a) assessment ofthe stock of Patagonian toothfish and (b) assess-ment of the environmental impact of the fishery.AFMA has advised that it is not possible to furtherbreak down these figures into separate amountsrelating discretely to (a) or (b).

YearIndustry (Austral Fisheries)

$Government (AFMA)

$Total

$

1995/96Meetings*Observers

07,125

5,26947,444

5,26954,569

Total 7,125 52,713 59,8381996/97Meetings*Observers

067,542

34,19015,924

34,19083,466

Total 67,542 50,114 117,656

* Meetings include MacSAG and SEAG meetings

(ii) CSIRO(a) CSIRO advises that it became involved in

Patagonian toothfish research during 1995/96. Theresearch to date has consisted of:

Chairing the first meeting of the MacSAG atwhich information and analysis available fromthe Australian Antarctic Division and from othernations was reviewed. Preliminary indications ofthe stock and its likely productivity were derivedfrom this review, and the broad research needsfor scientific assessment of the stock during thenext 3 years were identified.

Developing, jointly with the Australian Antarc-tic Division, a detailed research proposal toaddress the main research needs identified by theMacSAG. This research proposal is currentlybeing reviewed by the Fisheries Research andDevelopment Corporation (FRDC), and if suc-cessful would commence in July 1997.

The total CSIRO expenditure to date in relationto item (a) has been:

1996/97—$11,000(b) CSIRO has not been involved in any research

to specifically provide an environmental impactassessment of the Patagonian toothfish fishery, butCSIRO has conducted several research projectswhich are highly relevant. These include:

Estimation of the level of bycatch of albatrossfrom Southern Bluefin Tuna fishery operationsin the Southern Ocean, and the development ofalbatross population assessment models andtechniques. These population assessment modelsare designed to estimate the significance of thecatch to the albatross populations and to quanti-tatively evaluate the effectiveness of recoveryand monitoring programs. The results of thiswork will be available for assessment of theMacquarie Island albatross populations.

Development of methods to identify the keyseabed habitats at water depths of 500-1500mand assessment of the effects of trawling onthese habitats. Preliminary application of thesemethods is planned as part of the research


proposal (described in item (a) above) whichCSIRO has submitted to FRDC.

Development of biochemical methods torapidly identify the food-chain linkages anddependencies among marine populations. A trialapplication of this methodology to selectedmammal, fish and plankton populations aroundMacquarie Island was successful. It is intendedthat a detailed research proposal for applicationof this methodology to the marine food-chainaround Macquarie Is will be developed during1997/98.The total CSIRO expenditure to date in relation

to item (b) has been:1994/95—$200,0001995/96—$228,0001996/97—$78,000(i) Australian Antarctic DivisionThe Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) has

advised that it is not possible to identify the totalamount which it has spent on the assessment ofPatagonian toothfish in the Macquarie Island area.

In 1995/96 and 1996/97 approximately $12,000and $39,000 respectively was spent by the AAD onequipment directly related to assessing the toothfishstock in the Macquarie Island area. These figuresdo not include the cost of staffing resources, whichcannot be readily calculated. However, the totalemployment costs of the commitment by AAD staff(estimated to be in the order of two person years)is estimated at $175,000.


AFMA has a range of funding available forresearch on these items. CSIRO has advised that,if its joint research proposal with AAD is approvedby FRDC, relevant funding will be available forthree years commencing in 1997/98. The Environ-ment Protection Group of Environment Australiahas advised that, although it uses funds for the con

duct of environmental impact assessments eachyear, such funding is not identified in advance.

(i) Australian Fisheries Management AuthorityA comprehensive research program has been

developed through the MacSAG and SEAG pro-cesses which will address the relevant fisheriesresearch needs, as well as the assessment anddetermination of a wide range of ecological impactsand interactions.

In October 1996, AFMA called for MacquarieIsland research applications which would meet theresearch program developed by the two workinggroups (MacSAG and SEAG).

AFMA received four fisheries research submis-sions and one seabird submission, which weresubmitted to the AFMA Research and Environ-mental Committee (REC) of the AFMA Board.

The REC met to consider these research submis-sions. In addition to considering applications forfunding from the AFMA Research Fund (ARF), theREC also acts as the Commonwealth FisheriesResearch and Advisory Board (FRAB) in providingrecommendations to the Fisheries Research andDevelopment Corporation (FRDC) on the priorityof proposed research.

The REC has supported four research proposalsand has advised the successful applicants to submitfinal research applications to the FRDC for fundingconsideration.

FRDC is currently in the process of consideringthese funding proposals, which will be completedover the next 3 years and will require approximate-ly $1.2 million. During the first year of devel-opmental fishing operations, the majority ofresearch projects will consist of data collectionfrom the observers on board the commercial fishingvessel. Requested funding for the first year of thisdevelopmental phase will be in the order of$570,000.

Project submissions currently being consideredfor funding by FRDC are:

Title Applicant

Ecologically sustainable development of the fishery for PatagonianToothfish around Macquarie Island: population parameters, populationassessment and ecological interactions.

CSIRO/AAD

Ecological assessment of the Macquarie Island Fishery. Tas. Parks & WildlifeDetermination of Patagonian Toothfish age, growth and populationcharacteristics based on otoliths.

ANU

Estimation of age, growth and mortality of Patagonian Toothfish. MAFRIGreat albatross foraging in the AFZ. Peninsula TAFE


AFMA has also made provision for funding of$34,190 in 1996/97 to cover the cost of the meet-ings of MacSAG and SEAG.

The current permit holder has proposed tocontribute $50,000 per annum towards research, aswell as significant time and activity by the vesselto participate in research activities (estimated tocost around $20,000 per day to run the boat).

(ii) CSIROIf the joint CSIRO/AAD research proposal

referred to in relation to Part 7(a) is approved andfunded by FRDC, then there will be a 3-yearresearch project starting in 1997/98 to addressecologically sustainable development of the fishery.The project will:

provide the basic biological information on thePatagonian toothfish necessary to refine thepresent course assessments of the size andproductivity of the population;

develop methods for identifying the extent towhich the Macquarie Island fish mix with thoseof other regions;

quantify the extent and type of by-catch in thefishery; and

examine the broad physical and ecologicalbasis of the toothfish production and interactionsbetween target and non-target species in theregion.This project is projected to expend a total of $2.9

million over 3 years, with CSIRO contributing $1.5million.


No formal contingency plans have yet been putin place with respect to items (a), (b), (c) or (d).However, AFMA is currently in the process ofdeveloping a range of contingency arrangements.Input has been sought from members of SEAG andthe current fishing operator.

While formal contingency plans are not yet inplace, the current management arrangements underthe Macquarie Island Developmental Fishery Policyrequire the commercial operator to provide assist-ance to observers to facilitate:

‘real time’ reporting of any marine mammal orseabird deaths or injuries;

the return of any dead seabirds for scientificstudy; and

the return of any dead mammals for scientificstudy, as practical and if required by AFMA.

The current arrangements also impose certainconstraints on the commercial operator, designed tominimise the potential for incidental capture of aseabird or marine mammal. These constraints inc-

lude a prohibition on the discharge of offal fromthe fishing vessel, restrictions on the amount oflighting used on the vessel, and a stipulation thattrawling be the only fishing method used.

(10)(The following information has been provid-ed by the Biodiversity Group of EnvironmentAustralia.)

The Macquarie Island subspecies of Wanderingalbatross is a species listed under Schedule 1 of theEndangered Species Protection Act 1992 (‘the ESPAct’). They are protected to the extent that Sub-section 87(1) of the ESP Act provides that ‘aperson must not knowingly or recklessly take,trade, keep or move any member of a listed nativespecies that is in or on a Commonwealth area’.Basically, unless the take is knowing or reckless,it is not illegal. In this context, ‘take’ includes ‘kill,destroy, damage or collect’. The penalty forcontravening Subsection 87 (1) of the ESP Act is$50 000 or, for a body corporate, $250,000.

With the exception of the area within threenautical miles of Macquarie Island, the area of seaabove the continental shelf is a Commonwealtharea for the purposes of the ESP Act and theEnvironment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act1974. Accordingly the "take" provisions of the ESPAct would apply.

Subsection 87(3) of the ESP Act provides that aperson who carries out an activity that results,directly or indirectly, in the taking (other thanknowingly or recklessly) of an albatross in aCommonwealth area must inform the Director ofNational Parks and Wildlife and provide relevantdetails. The penalty for failing to do so is $10,000,but an offence will not have been committed if theaction was done in accordance with a permit orother governmental approval issued under certainCommonwealth Acts, was provided for in arecovery or threat abatement plan, or was necessaryfor law enforcement purposes.

(11) AFMA is currently developing a contin-gency plan, in association with members of SEAGand the current fishing operator, to address suchevents.

While the contingency plan is yet to be finalised,it is likely that AFMA’s response will depend, inpart, on the circumstances in which the wanderingalbatross was injured or killed. Possible responsescould include:

the temporary or permanent cessation offishing;

the imposition of additional permit conditionsto prevent the situation arising again (e.g. theinstallation of black-out curtains and a ban onnight-lighting, or a ban on fishing during daylighthours).


In addition to the above, the Biodiversity Groupof Environment Australia has advised that it wouldexamine the circumstances under which an alba-tross had been injured or killed and seek advicefrom the Commonwealth Director of Public Pros-ecutions as to the appropriateness of prosecutionaction under the Endangered Species Protection Act1992.

It is important to note that Australian sub-Antarctic fishing is subject to specific constraintswhich are directed at reducing the risk of albatrossdeath or injury to a minimum. Most notably, nolongline fishing will take place, as fishing methodhas been restricted to trawling only. Other con-straints specified in the Macquarie Island Develop-mental Fishery Management Policy include a banon the discharge of offal from the fishing vesseland restrictions on the amount of lighting used onthe vessel.

(12)(a) Fishing permits for the exploratory phaseof the fishery were granted to Austral Fisheries PtyLtd for the periods:

2 April 1994 to 1 May 1995; and

2 May 1995 to 30 April 1996.

Scientific permits were granted to AustralFisheries Pty Ltd under the Macquarie IslandDevelopmental Fishery Management Policy tocover the periods:

11 November 1996 to 17 December 1996; and

17 December 1996 to 20 December 1996.

A fishing permit was granted to Austral FisheriesPty Ltd under the same Policy on 20 December1996. This permit expires on 17 December 1997.

(b) and (c) A copy of the conditions on thefishing permit (as at 28 January 1997) is attached.


(a) Two.

(b) Observers are drawn from AFMA’s programof experienced permanent and seasonal observers.They have generally had experience over manyyears of operating on foreign and domestic longlinevessels, and hold some form of scientific ortechnical qualifications. They have been trained indata and sample collection and sea safety. OfficialAFMA observers may be supplemented by specificpurpose observers nominated by other agenciessuch as the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service,the Biodiversity Group of Environment Australiaand the Australian Antarctic Division.

Collectively, the observers have a range ofexperience, skills and qualifications in one or moreof the following areas:

fish; fishing operations and techniques; seabirds;pinnipeds (seals and sea lions); cetaceans; and

some experience with marine invertebrates andbenthic communities.

The observers currently on board the AustralLeader are Martin Scott and Tim Reid.

Senior observer Martin Scott has significantskills in fish, fishing operations and techniques,with some experience relevant to marine inverte-brates and benthic communities. His experiencewith observing on board trawlers and Japaneselongliners dates back to 1990.

Observer Tim Reid was formally an ornithologistspecialising in seabirds with Tasmanian Parks andWildlife. He also has an understanding of issuesrelating to pinnipeds and, to a lesser extent, ceta-ceans. Tim also has experience in observing onboard Japanese longliners.


(a) The two observers on each trip collect arange of information, including fisheries data andenvironmental data (e.g. seabird observations, etc.).One observer will have prime responsibility for thefisheries data, while the other observer will haveprime responsibility for collecting the environment-al and ecological data. However, both observers arerequired to work closely together as part of anoverall team, in order to meet the objectives of theresearch program.

(b) Funding for Sub-Antarctic observer work inthe current financial year is $83,466.

(c) AFMA observers are funded by AFMA.However, 100% of the costs of observers arerecovered from the operator under AFMA’s costrecovery arrangements.


(a) AFMA and industry, as well as some coreAAD and CSIRO funds.

(b) AFMA, FRDC, industry, as well as somecore BRS, AAD and CSIRO funds.

(c) Not applicable (funding is provided byAFMA).

Note: There is a complex interconnection ofDepartmental and Agency responsibilities, to ensurethat the scientific needs of fish stock assessmentand environmental assessment are met and thatfisheries are developed in an ecologically-sustainable manner. CSIRO, for example, while notlegislated to fund stock assessment or environ-mental assessment work, actively undertakesresearch activities in support of ESD and contri-butes significant resources (both separately and injoint projects with other agencies) to providescientific information to assist in the achievementof Government policy in relation to fisheries.


(16) The power to issue fishing concessions andimpose or vary conditions on fishing concessionsis delegated to Senior Licensing Officers andGeneral Managers within AFMA.

Recommendations on the issue of fishing conces-sions and the conditions which apply to fishingconcessions are made by the staff of the FisheriesBranch. In developing permit conditions andmaking recommendations, staff of the FisheriesBranch take into account various factors which mayinclude:

decisions of the AFMA Board;policies established by the AFMA Board;policies established by AFMA Management;policies established by the Ministerial Council

on Fisheries, Forestry and Aquaculture;advice and requirements of other areas of

AFMA (e.g. legal, compliance, monitoring,observers);

advice of relevant Management AdvisoryCommittees or consultative groups (e.g.MacSAG, SEAG);

advice of other relevant organisations, such asother Commonwealth and State GovernmentDepartments and Agencies, research bodies andNGOs.(17) The Macquarie Island Developmental

Fishery (MIDF) does not meet CCAMLR’s defini-tion of a new fishery under CCAMLR conservationmeasure 31/X, therefore the measures whichCCAMLR apply to CCAMLR new fisheries are notappropriate for MIDF.

The MIDF would fit more appropriately withinthe CCAMLR definition of an exploratory fishery.CCAMLR measures for an exploratory fishery(outlined in CCAMLR conservation measure65/XII) include the need to:

collect data;put in place a research plan;limit fishing capacity and effort by a precau-

tionary catch limit; andcarry an observer.

AFMA is meeting, or exceeding, these CCAMLRrequirements in respect of the MIDF by applyinga variety of relevant measures, including:

setting a TAC for Patagonian Toothfish andplacing a limit on the catch of other species;

limiting fishing to one vessel;requiring two observers on each trip;requiring the provision of detailed catch and

effort data;requiring a Vessel Monitoring System; andimplementing a three year research strategy.

(18) The role of the Biodiversity Group (formerlythe Australian Nature Conservation Agency) ofEnvironment Australia in the management of theHeard Island fishery is to ensure the conservationof wildlife in the Australian Exclusive EconomicZone around the Island. To achieve this, the Grouphas established a cooperative approach with AFMAto seek fishing policies and practices that minimisethe impact on the marine ecosystem in general and,in particular, on endangered or vulnerable speciessuch as albatross.

The Environment Protection Group of Environ-ment Australia does not have a formal role in themanagement of the Heard Island fishery. However,it does administer (on behalf of the Minister for theEnvironment) Commonwealth legislation whichmay be relevant to fisheries in the Heard Islandregion, namely the Environment Protection (Impactof Proposals) Act 1974.

The Australian Antarctic Division of the Depart-ment of Environment, Sport and Territories pro-vides input to the development of the Department’sposition on the Heard Island fishery. Specifically,the Division:

administers, on behalf of the Minister for theEnvironment, the Territory of Heard Island andMcDonald Island which includes a 12 nauticalmile territorial sea;

administers, on behalf of the Minister for theEnvironment, the Antarctic Marine LivingResources Conservation Act 1981, which is theprimary legislative means of implementingAustralia’s obligations under the Convention onthe Conservation of Antarctic Marine LivingResources (CCAMLR);

provides advice on Australia’s obligationsunder CCAMLR;

conducts terrestrial and marine research in theTerritory and the Heard Island region; and

provides scientific advice on the sub-Antarcticecosystem and the management of a Patagoniantoothfish fishery, including advice regarding theeffects of harvesting on Patagonian toothfish,other fish stocks and dependent and relatedspecies.(19) Currently AFMA does not separate expendi-

ture on individual sub-Antarctic fisheries.The total cost of managing Australia’s sub-

Antarctic fisheries is estimated to be $198,6721 in1996/97. This figure incorporates the costs associat-ed with the management of both the MacquarieIsland Developmental Fishery and the Heard Islandand McDonald Island Exploratory Fishery.

Of that $198,672 total anticipated cost, AFMAwill recover an anticipated $156,0001 in levies fromindustry (i.e. this figure represents the recoverablecosts of management under the current terms of the


draft Interim Management Policy). Other revenuewhich is anticipated to be received by AFMA in1996/97 is $100 for the grant of a fishing permit.

In addition to the anticipated AFMA revenueoutlined above, the Commonwealth can expect toreceive additional revenue derived from the usualtypes of sources associated with commercialactivity of this kind, e.g. tax on company profits,personal income tax, sales tax, etc.

1. Please note, however, that these estimateswere prepared early in this calendar year beforeAFMA was aware of the recent substantial increasein the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of Patagoniantoothfish for the area surrounding Heard andMcDonald Islands (the TAC for the area wasincreased from 297 tonnes to 3,800 tonnes at the1996 meeting of the Commission for the Conserva-tion of Antarctic Living Marine Resources). AFMAis currently finalising arrangements for fishingaround Heard and McDonald Islands, and it isestimated that an additional cost of $202,000 willbe incurred in providing observer coverage for thethree vessels which AFMA anticipates will beoperating in the area. Under the current draftinterim policy for the Heard and McDonald IslandExploratory Fishery, the costs of observers will befully recovered from the operators who are grantedpermission to fish in the area.

(20) Benefits to the Australian economy andcommunity from allowing fishing at these locationsinclude:

direct employment of Australians in thefishing, processing, marketing and promotion ofthe fish product;

export revenue, contributing to improvementsin the national balance of payments;

utilisation of a renewable natural resourcewithin the principles of ecologically sustainabledevelopment;

utilisation by Australians of a resource foundin Australian waters, as opposed to foreignexploitation of the same resource in lieu thereof(as permitted under the provisions of the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea1982);

improved knowledge of, and possible deterrentto, any possible illegal activities by foreignfishing vessels in the Heard and McDonaldIslands region, through having an increasedpresence of Australian vessels in the region.

development of an Australian offshore fishingindustry which has the necessary expertise andcapability to operate in international waters andto compete on world markets;

increased scientific understanding of thefisheries and related flora and fauna species ofthe Antarctic region through the use of fishing

vessels as research platforms (where this haspreviously only been undertaken by researchvessels at significant cost to the Australiantaxpayer); and

(21) There have been two specific incidences ofpossible gear loss from the vessel Austral Leader.

Firstly, Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife advisedAFMA in May 1996 that a section of netting (11mx 6m) had been washed ashore on MacquarieIsland. This loss had not been reported by theAustral Leader. When the vessel’s operator, AustralFisheries Pty Ltd, was advised of the find, itoffered to pay for the retrieval of the net and itstransport to Hobart, so that it could be identifiedand traced to its source if possible. After beingsupplied with samples of the net, the companyconceded that it was of the same type as that usedon the Austral Leader and could conceivably havecome from the vessel. The matter was also referredto the Australian Maritime Safety Authority(AMSA) for investigation. After investigation, andconsultation with AAD, AMSA was satisfied withthe action that had been taken by Austral Fisheriesto prevent net losses and has decided not to takeany further action.

The second incident occurred on the AustralLeader’s current fishing trip to Macquarie Island.On 4 January 1997 the vessel lost four yellowplastic floats with a diameter of 14 inches. The lossof gear was reported to AFMA on 6 January 1997as part of the regular weekly report. This informa-tion was passed on to the Tasmanian Parks andWildlife Service, in case the floats should wash upon the island. Preliminary advice of the loss hasbeen passed to AMSA. AFMA will seek furtheradvice from the observers on board the vessel onits return to port.

In addition, the Australian Antarctic Division hasadvised that three lots of netting have recently beendiscovered on Macquarie Island, by AustralianNational Antarctic Research Expedition personnelconducting their monthly survey of beach debris onthe island. The netting is a mixture of both cargoand fishing nets. The Australian Antarctic Divisiondid not advise of any evidence which might suggestthat some or all of this netting might have originat-ed from the Austral Leader or, for that matter, fromany other Australian vessel.

Permit Number 61500H

Area of Waters/Fishery and Conditions

SCHEDULE 4—CONDITIONS

1. This Permit allows the taking of PatagonianToothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) by themethods known as demersal trawl and pelagictrawl in the area of waters as specified inSchedule 2 above.


2. The amount of fish of the species referred toin Schedule 4—Condition 1 that may be takenunder the authority of this permit must notexceed 1000 tonnes, of which:

(a) not more than 750 tonnes may be taken inthe area of waters specified in Schedule 2(a)above; and

(b) not more than 650 tonnes may be taken inthe area of waters specified in Schedule2(b) above.

3. The amount of finfish species other than thosespecified in Condition 1 that may be takenunder the authority of this permit must notexceed 200 tonnes Liveweight in the area ofwaters specified in Schedule 2(a) and 2(b)above.

4. The mesh size of the trawl nets used must notbe less than 120 millimetres at any part of thenet when measured in accordance with condi-tion 5.

5. For the purposes of this permit, a net must bemeasured by either one of the following 2alternative methods:

(a) measuring using a metal rule:

(i) immediately before a measurement istaken, the part of the net to be measuredmust be soaked in fresh or salt water fornot less than 5 minutes.

(ii) The part of the net to be measured mustthen be suspended vertically and a weightof 3.18 kilograms (7 pounds) must besuspended from one knot of that part ofthe net.

(iii) the distance between the surface of theknot from which the weight is suspendedand the surface of the knot in the diago-nally opposite corner of the mesh im-mediately above the first mentioned knotmust be measured with a metal rule to 1.6millimetres (the nearest 1/16th part of aninch)

(b) measurement using a two-arm device:

(i) immediately before a measurement istaken, the part of the net to be measuredmust be soaked in fresh or salt water fornot less than 5 minutes.

(ii) The part of the net to be measured mustbe suspended vertically. The distancebetween the surface of a knot and thesurface of the knot diagonally oppositethe first-mentioned knot in the same meshmust be measured by means of a devicedesigned for the measuring of the meshof nets by means of two arms, the upperof which, when the device is in use, isfixed to the body of the device and the

lower of which, when the device is inuse;

A) is directly below the upper;B) moves freely in relation to the upper; andC) has a weight of 3.18 kilograms (7pounds) acting on it.

(iii) The device must be suspended in such amanner as to ensure that the upper edgeremains in a fixed position and that thelower edge can move freely in relation tothe upper edge, within the confines of themesh to be measured.

(iv) The device must be equipped with a scalefrom which the distance between theupper edge of the upper arm and thelower edge of the lower arm can beascer ta ined, at any t ime, to 1.6millimetres (the nearest 1/16th part of aninch).

6. Where bobbins are used, the bobbin size mustbe at least 520 millimetres in diameter andwhere "rock hopper" rubber discs are used, thedisc size must be at least 400 millimetres indiameter.

7. The permit holder must carry two approvedAFMA observers on board the boat andprovide those observers with:

(i) reasonable access to all areas and facilitiesof the vessel necessary to collect data,samples and other information necessary toallow an independent assessment of the totalcatch and effort and interaction with theenvironment;

(ii) a grade of accommodation and victuallingsatisfactory to AFMA, preferably on asingle basis and of an equivalent standard toa junior officer on board; and

(iii) reasonable daily access to the vessel’s radioor satellite communication facilities topermit the observer to make scheduledcommunications with AFMA or its agents.

8. The permit holder must provide assistance toobservers to facilitate:

(a) collection of scientific data and samples asrequested by AFMA;

(b) recording the number and types of interac-tions with seabirds or mammals;

(c) real time reporting of any marine mammalor seabird deaths or injuries;

(d) returning any dead seabirds to the Tasman-ian Department of Environment and LandManagement for scientific studies; and

(e) returning any dead marine mammals forscientific study, as practical and if requiredby AFMA.


9. The boat must be fitted with an ICVMSwhich:

(a) includes, or consists of, a vessel monitoringsystem of a type that has been approved byAFMA and

(b) is operating at all times unless:(i) the procedures set out in conditions 11

and 12 are being followed; or(ii) prior arrangements are entered into with

AFMA10. If the boat is being used for fishing, then a test

message will be transmitted to the boat eachday by AFMA. The test message will betransmitted between 0630 and 0700 UTC andwill contain the words ‘AFMA MonitoringSystem Test’.

[Note: Operators should avoid transmitting fromthe ICVMS each day between 0630 and 0700UTC]

11. If the AFMA test message is not received bythe ICVMS by 0700 UTC then the master ofthe boat must immediately give a positionreport and give further position reports every8 hours afterwards to Link Communication on(03)9625 4483 including:

(i) the name and distinguishing symbol of theboat;

(ii) the position of the boat; and(iii) a request that Link Communications pass on

the position report to AFMA as soon aspossible; until the ICVMS is confirmed tobe operational by way of confirmationreceived on the ICVMS under condition 10.

12. If it is not possible to make any one or moreof the further position reports under condition11 or acknowledgment of any of those reportsis not received, then the master of the boatmust:

(a) immediately stow the fishing gear and takethe boat directly to a port; and

(b) as soon as possible, report to AFMA thatthe boat is being, or has been, taken to portwith gear stowed, due to failure of theboat’s ICVMS.

13. The permit holder must seek to avoid any lossof gear or other non-biodegradable productsfrom the vessel and ensure that any suchlosses are reported to AFMA.

14. The permit holder of this fishing permit mustensure that while in the AFZ around Macqua-rie Island:

(a) there are no poultry products (including eggshells) or brassicas (broccoli, cabbage,cauliflower, brussel sprouts, kale etc) dis-charged from the fishing vessel; and

(b) there is no offal (waste products from fishprocessing) discharged from the fishingvessel, unless the procedures set out incondition 15 are being followed.

15. In the event of mechanical breakdown whereit becomes practically impossible to retain alloffal onboard the vessel, the operator must:

(a) notify AFMA immediately, and(b) comply with contingency arrangements

advised by AFMA at that time.16 The permit holder is to ensure that all lighting

on board the fishing vessel be kept to aminimum, particularly at those times when thelikelihood of seabirds colliding with the vesselare considered to be high, (during foggy nightsetc.). However, during hauling and setting ofgear, adequate lighting must be maintained inorder to maximise operating safety levels.

17. The permit holder must take all other reason-able steps to minimise the potential collisionand mortality of seabirds with the vessel, andmake all reasonable efforts to comply withmeasures suggested by the Observers for thoseconditions during which they consider there isan increased likelihood of collision with thevessel.

18. This Permit is not tranferable.19. This Permit does not allow the carrying of fish

taken with the use of another boat.20. This Permit does not allow the transshipping

of fish.21. The holder of the Permit must ensure that in

respect of each day that the boat spendsfishing in the area specified in Schedule 2 theGreat Australian Bight Trawl Fishery log(GAB03) is accurately and fully completed inaccordance with the instructions contained inthe logbook and lodged with AFMA within 14days of the boat’s return to port. Informationabout all fish taken, including details ofincidental by-catch whether fish or othermarine organisms, must be recorded in theGAB03 logbook. The type and number of anysea birds or mammals killed during fishingactivity shall be kept and submitted to AFMAwithin 14 days of the boat’s return to port.

Telecommunications Code(Question No. 364)

Senator Allison asked the Minister forCommunications and the Arts, upon notice,on 17 December 1996:

(1) When was Austel notified of the proposals inthe draft Telecommunications National Code,released on 3 December 1996, recommending thatit: (a) audit the broadband cable roll-out; (b) deter-


mine the technical feasibility of co-locating mobilephone infrastructure; and (c) arbitrate disputesbetween carriers over the terms and conditions ofco-location.

(2) Were these proposals developed in consulta-tion with Austel.

(3) What are the cost implications to budget ofthese proposals.

(4) What staff resource requirements do theseproposals entail.

(5) What additional resources would be providedto Austel to enable it to undertake the extra work-load this would entail.

(6) When would such resources be provided toAustel.

(7)(a) How many staff does Austel currently havein: (i) Adelaide, (ii) Sydney, and (iii) Brisbane; and(b) what functions do they perform.

Senator Alston—The answer to the honour-able senator’s question is as follows:

(1) AUSTEL has been made aware of policyproposals concerning the TelecommunicationsNational Code that might concern it at varioustimes. Specifically, (a) AUSTEL was first informedon 13 November 1996 that it might be required toundertake an audit role in relation to the code; (b)AUSTEL itself has for some time raised concernsabout the treatment of co-location issues in regula-tion, and has suggested technical feasibility as apotential solution; (c) AUSTEL currently arbitrateson disputes between carriers over the terms andconditions of co-location.

(2) Yes. I am advised by the Department ofCommunications and the Arts that AUSTEL wasconsulted on the matters in paragraph 1, and itsviews were sought.

(3), (4), (5), and (6) AUSTEL has an ongoing,role to ensure compliance with the Telecommunica-tions National Code. The implication of referrals toAUSTEL about compliance with the Code is consi-dered as a part of AUSTEL’s overall budgetary

needs. As such, all funding requests for-AUSTEL,in common with all Commonwealth agencies, isconsidered as part of the Budget process. (7)(a)As of 23 December 1996, AUSTEL advises that itemployed the following number of staff in its StateOffices:

(i) South Australian State Office in Adelaide: 2staff

(ii) NSW State Office in Sydney: 3 staff(iii) Queensland State Office in Brisbane: 3 staffIn addition, the following staff are employed in

its remaining State Offices:Victorian/Tasmanian State Office in Melbourne:

2.5 staffWestern Australian State Office in Perth: 2 staff(b) AUSTEL advises that its State Office staff

perform the following functions:licence telecommunications cablers through an

examination process (prior to 1 January 1997);inspect customer cabling on a complaint driven

basis;liaise with, and educate the cabling industry on

regulatory cabling requirements. Provide respons-es to enquiries regarding the requirements of theregulatory cabling standards, and how these areto be applied to particular installations;

inspect customer premises cabling for compli-ance with regulatory cabling standards andlicensing conditions, on a complaint driven basis;

carry out investigations of non-compliancewith customer cabling and customer equipmentregulatory requirements, and liaise with theDirector of Public Prosecutions where it isconsidered legal action is warranted;

carry out inspections of the ComplianceFolders of the holders of customer equipmentpermits; and

provide an AUSTEL front office capability inthe relevant areas, handling public enquiries,giving out AUSTEL reports, forwarding enquiresto Central Office where necessary, etc.