Ds 220997 2016

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
SENATE
Official Hansard
MONDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 1997
THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSIONFIFTH PERIOD
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

CANBERRA
CONTENTS
MONDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER
Representation of New South Wales and South Australia
Senators: Swearing In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Broadcasting Services Legislation Amendment Bill 1997
Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1997
Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1997
Second Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill 1996
Second Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ministerial Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Questions Without Notice
Superannuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rural Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Overseas Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public Service Redundancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M2 Motorway, Sydney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Workplace Relations Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Remote Aboriginal Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restricted Government Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black Hawk Board of Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coastal Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Interest Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Landmines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ministerial Responsibility: Tariffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Answers to Questions Without Notice
Superannuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Public Service Redundancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Workplace Relations Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ministerial Responsibility: Tariffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Condolences
Mother Teresa of Calcutta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petitions
Repatriation Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Notices of Motion
Pensioners and Superannuants Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hazardous Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Pacific Cruise Lines Pty Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North West Cape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Greenhouse Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACIL Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Newcastle and Hunter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Landmines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee . . . . . .
South Pacific Cruise Lines Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Genetically Modified Foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Greenhouse Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6531
. . 6531
. . 6531
. . 6535
. . 6538
. . 6538
. . 6545
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6550
6551
6551
6552
6553
6553
6554
6555
6556
6556
6557
6558
6558
6559
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6560
6560
6560
6560
6560
6560
6560
6560
. . 6568
. . 6572
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6572
6572
6572
6573
6573
6573
6573
6574
6574
6574
6575
6575
6575
CONTENTScontinued
Sirenuw Pty Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation
Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Victoria: Local Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Order of Business
First Speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Extradition (Hong Kong) Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leave of Absence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Legal and Constitutional References Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adult Learners Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References
Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Committees
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Extension of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Order of Business
Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References
Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee . . . .
Committees
Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteeExtension of Time .
Order of Business
Corporations and Securities Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy
Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Committees
Privileges Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
National Red Nose Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
First Speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Matters of Urgency
Greenhouse Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assent to Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Documents
Industry Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Committees
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee Report .
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public Accounts CommitteeExtension of Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund
CommitteeReference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Native Title Amendment (Tribunal Appointments) Bill 1997
Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1997
First Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Second Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South Pacific Cruise Lines Ltd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill 1996
Second Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment
Bill 1997
Second Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adjournment
Redbank Power Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Senator Foreman: Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Senator Foreman: Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6575
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6576
6577
6577
6577
6577
6577
6577
6577
6577
6577
6581
6593
6593
6597
6597
6597
6597
6597
6597
6597
6598
6600
6600
6603
6617
6617
6628
6630
6631
6632
6632
CONTENTScontinued
Documents
Tabling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Indexed Lists of Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proclamations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Questions on Notice
Students with Disabilities(Question No. 572) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Schools and Literacy(Question No. 650) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department of the Parliamentary Library(Question No. 665) . . . . .
Minister for Finance: Media Monitoring Services(Question No. 718)
Minister for Science and Technology: Media Monitoring Services
(Question No. 725) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Logging and Woodchipping(Question No. 739) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6633
6633
6634
6634
6636
6636
6637
6637
6637
6638
6638
6638
6639
6640
6641
6691
6701
6702
6702
6703
SENATE
Monday, 22 September 1997
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.
Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m.,
and read prayers.
REPRESENTATION OF NEW SOUTH
WALES AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA
The PRESIDENTI inform the Senate
that on 10 September 1997 the GovernorGeneral received a letter from Senator Childs
resigning his place as a senator for the state
of New South Wales, and on 15 September
1997 the Governor-General received a letter
from Senator Foreman resigning his place as
a senator for the state of South Australia.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 21 of the
Constitution, the Governor-General notified
the governors of New South Wales and South
Australia of the respective vacancies in the
representations of those states caused by the
resignations.
I have now received through His Excellency
the Governor-General facsimile copies of a
certificate of the choice by the houses of
parliament of New South Wales of George
Campbell to fill the vacancy caused by the
resignation of Senator Bruce Childs, and a
certificate of the appointment by the Governor
of South Australia of John Andrew Quirke to
fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of
Senator Dominic Foreman. I table the documents.
SENATORS: SWEARING IN
The following senators made and subscribed
the oath or affirmation of allegiance:
George Campbell
John Andrew Quirke
BROADCASTING SERVICES
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
1997
TELEVISION LICENCE FEES
AMENDMENT BILL 1997
RADIO LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT
BILL 1997
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion
by Senator Campbell:
6531
That these bills be now read a second time.
upon which Senator Brown had moved by

way of amendment in relation to the Broadcasting Services Legislation Amendment Bill:
At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate is
of the view that Australias cross-media ownership
rules should not be changed until a full, open and
independent public inquiry has been held".
Senator SCHACHT (South Australia)

(12.37 p.m.)I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Legislation Amendment Bill
, which the opposition has always indicated
has been non-controversial. Some senators did
not want to treat it that way, so it has come
under normal government business and
Senator Brown has moved an amendment on
the issue of cross-media ownership rules. As
a result of this bill now no longer being noncontroversial, the opposition will move an
amendment to Senator Browns amendment.
The PRESIDENTOrder! There are too
many people moving about in the chamber. I
ask honourable senators to take their seats or
to move outside.
Senator SCHACHTI take this opportunity to be the first on the record to congratulate
Senator Campbell and Senator Quirke on their
swearing in today.
Senator FergusonYou never miss an
opportunity, do you?
Senator SCHACHTIt is my first opportunity to congratulate them on their appointment to the Senate.
Some people might say that, because of the
backdown of the minister and the government
three or four weeks ago to drop completely
any move to change cross-media ownership
rules in Australia until possibly after the next
election, Senator Browns second reading
amendment or my second reading amendment
are no longer relevant. We still think it is
very relevant to put on the record in the
Senate that this Senate is opposed to the
suggestion of cross-media ownership rule
changes in Australia that would allow the
further concentration of media ownership.
I think my second reading amendment is
technically better worded than Senator
Browns amendment, although I do not
disagree that the thrust of Senator Browns
amendment is in the same spirit as what the
6532
SENATE
opposition has put forward. The first part of

my amendment to the second reading motion
points out that the bill we are dealing with
now is a technical amendment to deal with a
particular case that has already been well
described in the second reading speech when
the bill was introduced. It deals with what we
believe is an unintended consequence of
cross-media ownership rules affecting radio
and newspapers in the Brisbane and Ipswich
area.
We have indicated from the very beginning
that we would support the legislation now
before us. However, with this second reading
amendment we now have the opportunity to
put on the record our opposition to any
further concentration of media ownership in
Australia. The first part of my amendment
says that we are more than happy to deal with
technical amendments to the Broadcasting
Services Actand that is what this is
however, if we are going to have major
changes to cross-media ownership rules in
Australia, they should be put forward only
after there has been a full, open and independent public inquiry.
The government should have no problem
supporting paragraph (a) of my amendment.
Why? Because in their better communications
policy document for the last election, that is
what Senator Alston, as the shadow minister
for communications, promised. Unequivocally,
without any amendment and without any
qualification the government promised that
they would hold a full, open and independent
public inquiry.
Of course, over the last 15 months there has
been an extraordinary change in the minister.
First of all he backed down from having a full
public inquiry. He junked and broke his own
promise. He then said the department would
conduct an internal review and seek submissions. That went forward. There were submissions sought, but the submissions were not
automatically made public unless those
making them wanted them to be made public.
People who wanted to make a secret submission, could make one to that departmental
inquiry.
When the inquiry apparently completed its
work, the report never saw the light of day.
The minister did make some remarks which

he later said he did not say, but it was reported by Anne Davies in the Sydney Morning
Herald some months ago that he, the minister
himself, said that his own departments report
was a tired document and not much use. That
is what he did to his own department. He
bagged his own department and bagged the
report he asked them to complete.
Then we went through several months
where the minister kept putting up different
options for cross-media ownership rule changes in this country. He, apparently, was in
almost endless meetings with his own parliamentary backbench. They were hostile to any
proposals he put forward. He never put any
rationale other than this was apparently some
arrangement that would bring good favour
from Mr Packer. We believe this parliament,
this Senate, should have an opportunity to
declare that we support what the government
promised at the last electiona full, open and
independent public inquiry.
Paragraph (b) of my amendment says:
that inquiry has established that the change will not
in any way lead to further increases in the concentration of media ownership in Australia".
We want to make it clear that any such

inquiry should have as a guiding principle no
further increase in the concentration of media
ownership in this country. If there are ways
in which we can increase the diversity of
media ownership, we would support it.
But this government in doing a deal with
Mr Packer and apparently making some
promises in private before or at the time of
the last election said, No, we will allow you
to be able to purchase a newspaper chain
namely, the Fairfax chainand still maintain
the ownership of Channel 9 when the present
law specifically prohibits people from owning
a newspaper chain and a television network.
We have yet seen no evidence from the
government why this ought to be changed.
Then we got the extraordinary backdown.
Cabinet overruled Senator Alston and told
him to tell people privately he was backing
away and that the government had more
important things to deal with. This is extraordinary because for 15 months Senator
Alston did nothing else but go all over the
SENATE
country talking to every media proprietor and

every media interest group he could get hold
of, including his own backbench, to convince
them to change the law to allow Mr Packer
and his organisation to buy Fairfax.
For 15 months this issue was a very high
priority for this minister and this government.
We had the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on
several occasions saying that he disagreed
with the present legislation that prohibits the
owning of a television network and a newspaper chain in this country. So this was a
major issue.
Apparently, this issue was discussed several
times at cabinet and they could not reach
agreement. In the end, the cabinet and the
Prime Minister dumped on this minister and
said, You will not proceed with this. We are
putting this off the agenda until after the next
election.
The Prime Minister again has proved that
this minister is his doormat. He dumped on
Senator Alston and told him what to do about
cuts to the ABC and cuts to Radio Australia.
Now, after 15 months of effort, he has told
Senator Alston, Forget about changing the
cross-media ownership rules. This is getting
too tricky, too sticky and too tough to deal
with, and my government cant reach an
agreement.
That is why we still believe it is important
to move this second reading amendment as an
expression of opinion from the Senate that,
even after the next election and even if,
unfortunatelyand I emphasise unfortunatelythe Liberal Party is re-elected to
government
Senator ForshawNo chance.
Senator SCHACHTI agree with you,
Senator Forshawno chance at all, given the
way they have handled the bungling of media
issues in Australia. Even if the government
unfortunately did win, we want to make it
clear that it will not be able to change these
rules to suit a deal for a particular proprietor
to give a greater concentration of media in
this country. We believe that the Senate
should express its view on this important
principle and this legislation gives us the
opportunity to do so.
6533
With those few remarks, I commend to the

Senate my amendment to Senator Browns
amendment. I think the oppositions amendment is technically more correct. However,
we are not opposed to the sentiments that
Senator Brown expressed during the second
reading debate.
Of course, the amendment does not change
the substance of the legislation itself, which
we support. We have indicated our support on
a number of occasions. We believe that the
legislation addresses an unintended consequence that affected the ownership of a
regional newspaper in Ipswich and a radio
station in Brisbane. The cross-ownership rules
were not in any sense designed to catch them.
We believe that support for this amendment
will not compromise the cross-ownership
rules. We have made that very clear. I hope
that the Senate will support my amendment.
I commend both the amendment and the bill
to the Senate. I move:
Omit all words after "the Senate is of the view
that", substitute "apart from technical amendments
to address unintended consequences, Australias
cross-media ownership rules should not be changed
unless:
(a) a full, open and independent public inquiry
has been held; and
(b) that inquiry has established that the change
will not in any way lead to further increases
in the concentration of media ownership in
Australia".
Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.48

p.m.)I will be very brief. I had not intended
to speak at all. I do have an amendment but
I am convinced that as this is a technical bill
it may not be the best possible vehicle for my
amendment. I understand that further amendments will be proposed to the broadcasting
services legislation by a bill which will be
introduced into the parliament this month or
thereabouts. It may well be that the most
appropriate timing to move my amendment
would be then.
As to the amendments, I believe that there
needs to be a greater and more in-depth
discussion than we have had about this matter
thus far. This is a matter that affects us all. I
have not heard any arguments, other than
those that have been advanced by Senator
Brown and Senator Schacht. To be quite
6534
SENATE
frank, some of those arguments are quite

compelling. I believe that these sorts of
amendments ought to be the subject of a
debate of greater depth than we have had thus
far. No doubt the two honourable senators
would be able to apply themselves to that
task.
Frankly, without having heard all of the
argumentsand I would certainly like to hear
the arguments from the government; we do
not have the minister here today and I have
expressed my view about thatI am not in a
position to vote on the amendments to this
technical bill.
Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)
(12.50 p.m.)Firstly, I would thank the
senators who have made contributions to this
debate, both today and on a Thursday many
weeks ago. I thank those senators who have
indicated support for the technical nature of
the bill. The main topic of debate, however,
has nothing to do with the billit has been
to do with the debate on cross-media ownership laws. The government concurs with
Senator Harradine that it is an important
matter.
Quite clearly, it is in the hands of opposition senators to debate this matter at a time
that suits them. They could move it as a
general business notice of motion and spend
all Thursday afternoon debating it. If they
wanted to they could spend an entire Thursday afternoon debating the ins and outs of
cross-media policy. I know that would be a
very sensible opportunity to do so.
The minister has been available on virtually
all of the occasions that the bill has been
listed for debate. It has become somewhat of
a saga actually getting this bill to the stage
where it is about to receive a second reading.
But, as all of us in this place know, bills do
not always come up on the day on which they
are listed. In fact, the odds of that occurring
are very low. Senator Alston does have to be
in another city of our great nation of Australia
at this time and I think he would particularly
want to apologise to Senator Harradine for not
being here to answer some questions that I
know he has on a matter which is vaguely
related to this topic. I am sure that, on his
return to the fine city of Canberra, he will

make himself available to talk to Senator
Harradine.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT
(Senator Watson)The question is that the
amendment moved by Senator Schacht to
Senator Browns amendment be agreed to.
Question put:
The Senate divided.
[12.59 p.m.]
(The PresidentSenator the Hon. Margaret
Reid)
Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Majority . . . . . . . . .
0
Allison, L.
Bolkus, N.
Brown, B.
Carr, K.
Collins, R. L.
Cook, P. F. S.
Evans, C. V.
Forshaw, M. G.
Kernot, C.
Lundy, K.
Margetts, D.
Murphy, S. M.
Neal, B. J.
Quirke, J. A.
Schacht, C. C.
Woodley, J.
Abetz, E.
Brownhill, D. G. C.
Campbell, I. G.
Eggleston, A.
Ferguson, A. B.
Gibson, B. F.
Herron, J.
Kemp, R.
Lightfoot, P. R.
MacGibbon, D. J.
Minchin, N. H.
OChee, W. G.
Payne, M. A.
Synon, K. M.
Tierney, J.
Watson, J. O. W.
Denman, K. J.
Cooney, B.
Gibbs, B.
Reynolds, M.
Sherry, N.
AYES
Bishop, M.
Bourne, V.
Campbell, G.
Collins, J. M. A.
Conroy, S. *
Crowley, R. A.
Faulkner, J. P.
Hogg, J.
Lees, M. H.
Mackay, S.
McKiernan, J. P.
Murray, A.
OBrien, K. W. K.
Ray, R. F.
Stott Despoja, N.
NOES
Boswell, R. L. D.
Calvert, P. H.
Coonan, H.
Ellison, C.
Ferris, J.
Heffernan, W. *
Hill, R. M.
Knowles, S. C.
Macdonald, I.
McGauran, J. J. J.
Newman, J. M.
Parer, W. R.
Reid, M. E.
Tambling, G. E. J.
Troeth, J.
PAIRS
Vanstone, A. E.
Crane, W.
Chapman, H. G. P.
Patterson, K. C. L.
Alston, R. K. R.

West, S. M.
SENATE
PAIRS
Macdonald, S.
* denotes teller
Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:
That the amendment (Senator Browns) be
agreed to.
The Senate divided.

[1.02 p.m.]
Reid)
Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Majority . . . . . . . . .
0
Allison, L.
Bolkus, N.
Brown, B.
Carr, K.
Collins, R. L.
Cook, P. F. S.
Evans, C. V.
Forshaw, M. G.
Kernot, C.
Lundy, K.
Margetts, D.
Murphy, S. M.
Neal, B. J.
Quirke, J. A.
Schacht, C. C.
Woodley, J.
Abetz, E.
Brownhill, D. G. C.
Campbell, I. G.
Eggleston, A.
Ferguson, A. B.
Gibson, B. F.
Herron, J.
Kemp, R.
Lightfoot, P. R.
MacGibbon, D. J.
Minchin, N. H.
OChee, W. G.
Payne, M. A.
Synon, K. M.
Tierney, J.
Watson, J. O. W.
Cooney, B.
Denman, K. J.
Gibbs, B.
Reynolds, M.
Sherry, N.
AYES
Bishop, M.
Bourne, V.
Campbell, G.
Collins, J. M. A.
Conroy, S. *
Crowley, R. A.
Faulkner, J. P.
Hogg, J.
Lees, M. H.
Mackay, S.
McKiernan, J. P.
Murray, A.
OBrien, K. W. K.
Ray, R. F.
Stott Despoja, N.
NOES
Boswell, R. L. D.
Calvert, P. H.
Coonan, H.
Ellison, C.
Ferris, J.
Heffernan, W. *
Hill, R. M.
Knowles, S. C.
Macdonald, I.
McGauran, J. J. J.
Newman, J. M.
Parer, W. R.
Reid, M. E.
Tambling, G. E. J.
Troeth, J.
PAIRS
Crane, W.
Alston, R. K. R.
Chapman, H. G. P.
Patterson, K. C. L.
Macdonald, S.
West, S. M.
6535
PAIRS
Vanstone, A. E.
* denotes teller

Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bills read a second time.
In Committee
BROADCASTING SERVICES
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1997
The bill.
Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.06 p.m.)
I have a number of amendments to this bill in
the following terms:
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 6), TO
BE OPPOSED.
(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 to 24), TO
BE OPPOSED.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 25) to page 4
(before line 1), TO BE OPPOSED.
There is opposition to these schedule items

because this legislation is a backdoor means
of changing the cross-media ownership rules
in Australia. As I have said before, it effectively gives the nod to what has been an
anomalous situation for a regional newspaper
in Ipswich to be outside the cross-media
ownership rules. Its circulation breaks those
rules because it is in the same region as a
radio station owned by the same proprietor,
the OReilly group of Australian regional
newspapers. To get around this, they have
been putting some 6,000 copies a week of
their Ipswich newspaper into the Toowoomba
market next door. They have been allowed
that technical means of getting around the
current cross-media ownership rules.
This legislation in relation to the current
cross-media ownership rules says, We wont
even have you go to that expense. Well
change the rules. Well change the rules in
such a way that youll be able to continue to
sell your newspaper in Ipswich where you
also have a radio station covering the same
territory. The problem with this change to the
rules is that three other regional newspapers
also are free from the binds of the previous
6536
SENATE
rules. Those newspapers are in Warwick, on

the Gold Coast and in Maitland.
If you make another small change to the
rules which is very consistentjust change
the percentage that is named in these regulations from two per cent to four per centyou
get around the current protection for the
Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, and you
have the situation where Mr Packer may
purchase those newspapers. If you are going
to have this rule for somebody who owns a
radio station altered to allow the continued
ownership of a newspaper in a regional area
outside the current rules, why not make a
consistent small change to allow a television
proprietor to purchase newspapers in
metropolitan areas? It is all very consistent.
The pattern is set. The breach of the rules has
been made legal. Why not extend the two per
cent to four per cent?
The problem with this legislation is that it
is not a technical change. It is a major change
to the media cross-ownership rules being
validated under the guise that it is only a
small change affecting somewhere in the rural
region. It is not. It is a very clear change to
the rules opening the way for another consistent change to the rules, which also can be
labelled minor, to change in a major fashion
the media ownership structure in Australia
and to breach the very strong feeling there is
in our community that we already have too
much of an agglomeration in the hands of too
few people of the media outlets in this country.
That is why the Greens stand very strongly
against this. We are the only party in this
chamber that does stand strongly against this
change that is occurring here today. I have
given the other reasons for our opposing it in
the past, but we believe this change should
not come without a major, thorough public
inquiry. I am disappointed that we have just
seen the government, aided by the absence of
Independent Senators Harradine and Colston,
block the amendments which would have
required a proper and open inquiry before any
changes to the media ownership rules were
permitted.
It is backdoor. It endorses an anomalous
situation which the authorities had been
turning a blind eye to. It sets the pattern for

much more worrying changes in the media
ownership rules to allow further agglomeration of media ownership in this country
where there is very, very strong and popular
opposition to that sort of thing happening. It
is going through the parliament this afternoon.
It is going through the Senate this afternoon.
If the Australian public knew the ramifications of this piece of legislation, they would
be outraged.
(1.11 p.m.)On behalf of the opposition, we
oppose these amendments. We believe that
these are unnecessary, and we have previously
stated why we support this bill.
Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)
(1.12 p.m.)Just very briefly, I think the
silence on this amendment is extraordinary.
The reason it is extraordinary is that we know
the kind of lobbying that has taken place in
Parliament House. We know the kinds of
pressures. We know that the lobbyists involved quite clearly are not lobbying about a
small rural newspaper. You know that and we
know that. That is why there is silence in this
chamber now. This is disgraceful. When the
ramifications of this do become
Senator SchachtYoure trying to provoke me, are you, Dee?
Senator MARGETTSYou might well
be, but I just wonder why a major lobbyist for
the major concerns here is worried about a
small concern like a country newspaper. It is
not about a country newspaper and you know
it.
(1.13 p.m.)I said that Senator Margetts may
have provoked me, and unfortunately she has.
I just want to make it clear that the opposition
has stated on a number of occasions that the
position that was put before us by the
OReilly newspaper group or Australian
Provincial Newspapers was done openly.
They have lobbied the government. They have
lobbied everybody. It has not been a secret
lobbying, I have to say. In fact, it has probably been persistent, if I can use that word.
They have been very open about it.
SENATE
The Labor Party has discussed this amendment at some length through all its internal
processesthat is, the caucus committee, the
shadow cabinet, the full caucus and now here.
So we reject completely Senator Margettss
claim that there is silence on our part.
The simple case of why we believe this is
a sensible technical amendment is that there
is no increase in concentration of media
ownership taking place as a result. It means
that because Australian Provincial Newspapers
own a radio station in Brisbane and they own
a newspaper in Ipswich, and because the
definition of a metropolitan radio market
means Brisbane takes in Ipswich, which is
geographically close by, under the existing
rules they cannot own a newspaper unless that
newspaper has 50 per cent of its circulation
outside that radio defined market.
So what would the Ipswich newspaper have
to do? It would have to print extra copies of
newspapers to the level that they would give
them away for free in Toowoomba and
elsewhere in Queensland, outside the defined
market, so that their actual sales come below
50 per cent. It is a wasteful arrangement. I
have to say to the Greens, who are always in
favour of saving trees, that this idea might
have actually saved some newsprint, but that
is a minor point.
The point is that the radio station they own
in Brisbane is not the sole radio station. The
metropolitan radio market now is extremely
diverse. Many stations are going broke and
are being resold. It is not a closed market.
Anybody who wants to make a reasonable bid
to get hold of a radio station in metropolitan
Brisbane will get one soon. There are community licences; there is the ABC. So it is not
as though Mr OReilly is locking up all the
radio stations in Brisbane and the only newspaper. It is an Ipswich newspaper that has
some circulation outside of Ipswich into
Brisbane, but very little.
We believe this is a sensible amendment. I
have to say to you, Senator Brown, if it turns
out that, because of the way the amendment
had to be written, another example comes up
where there is a loophole and someone says,
This does mean that Mr Packer can get hold
of Fairfax, I would be the first person in here
6537
to apologise to you, and I would be the first

to demand that we amend the legislation
accordingly. So we have made it very clear
why we have supported this amendment. We
believe it is reasonable and, therefore, we
oppose your amendments.
Let me make it clear that that argument about
trees was used on me by Mr OReilly, and I
did not fall for it because we have the crossmedia ownership rules here and we should not
be diverted from those. Let me also say that
the alarm bells began ringing about this item
when former Senator Graham Richardson rang
me late last year. I do not know what suasion
he may still have in the Labor Party but
Senator SchachtWell, he had none on
Fairfax because we took the opposite position.
Senator BROWNWhat I am aware of is
that he sits in the employ of the Packer
organisation. He rang me and said that he was
concerned about the fact that the environment
was not on the front pages any more. He
asked what we could do about it and, by the
way, would I see the lobbyist for the OReilly
group? It then seemed to be a time for me to
do some checking. When I checked with the
community groups involved, they said, Dont
touch this piece of legislation with a barge
pole, because it does open the way to a later
Packer takeover
Senator SchachtOf what?
Senator BROWNOf the Herald and/or
the Age further down the line by a simple
further modification.
Senator SchachtBy law, having to come
back here, Senator.
Senator BROWNYes, it has to come
back here, but we are back here now as a
result of the last changes to the cross-media
ownership. If we wanted to get this right,
what we should be saying to Mr OReilly is,
Divest yourself or either your radio station in
Brisbane or your newspaper in Ipswich. Stick
by the rules like other citizens have to. But
no, he has the ability through the use of
numbers in this place and influenceand it
may be influence of straight argument for
youto get a change to those rules. We
Greens do not have the numbers, and I accept
6538
SENATE
that. But I do say that getting a call out of the

blue from somebody in Mr Packers employ
was not enough to change my mind. It started
the alarm bells ringing. The argument about
trees
Senator SchachtRicho will be very upset
about that imputation on his reputation.
Senator BROWNI think Richo is turning
out to be a very formidable lobbyist. He just
ran into his match when he rang me. Let me
say that the
Senator ForshawAre you telling the
truth?
Senator BROWNThat is an opinion,
isnt it? I am sure he has a contrary one. We
do not always agree on everything, although
we have had some marvellous agreements in
the past. Let me say this: when somebody on
an issue like this starts arguing about trees
with me, that sets the alarm bells ringingit
did on this occasion. I was very pleased that
I did not sign up, as everybody else in this
place didLabor, Liberal, Democrat and even
Senator Harradineto agree that this should
be discussed as a non-controversial matter. It
is a most controversial matter. As the public
understood, it would be even more controversial. The fact is that it is going to go through
here this afternoon, but only with our opposition.
Question put
That Schedule 1, items 1 to 3 stand as printed.
The committee divided.

[1.24 p.m.]
(The Temporary ChairmanSenator M.
Reynolds)
Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Majority . . . . . . . . .
23
Allison, L.
Campbell, I. G.
Crowley, R. A.
Ellison, C.
Harradine, B.
Kernot, C.
Lundy, K.
Murray, A.
Parer, W. R.
Reid, M. E.
Stott Despoja, N.
AYES
Bourne, V.
Conroy, S.
Eggleston, A.
Forshaw, M. G.
Kemp, R.
Lightfoot, P. R.
Murphy, S. M.
OChee, W. G. *
Payne, M. A.
Schacht, C. C.
Troeth, J.
Watson, J. O. W.
Woodley, J.
Brown, B.
AYES
West, S. M.
NOES
Margetts, D. *
* denotes teller
Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Brown) negatived:
Schedule 1, item 9, page 10 (line 29) to page 11
(line 19), omit subitems (1) and (2).
Bill agreed to.

The Television Licence Fees Amendment
Bill 1997 and the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1997 agreed to.
Bills reported without amendment; report
adopted.
Third Reading
Bills (on motion by Senator Campbell)
read a third time.
TRANS-TASMAN MUTUAL
RECOGNITION BILL 1996
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 3 March, on motion
by Senator Campbell:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator COOK (Western Australia) (1.29

p.m.)The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill 1996 concedes mutual recognition on
both sides of the Tasman to various regulatory
standards for occupations in Australia and
New Zealand and enables the enactment of
legislation applying uniformly throughout
Australia, so that the two important areas are
picked up.
In mutually recognising the standards for
regulations and occupational qualification
between Australia and New Zealand we bring
the two countries closer together into a form
of common marketthat is, we merge the
economies of the two countries more closely
together. If there is a standard and uniform set
of rules, it makes it easier for business to be
conducted in New Zealand or any state or
territory in Australia. If there is recognition of
Australian trade and other qualifications and
of New Zealand ones too, it means that
people who have undergone training in any
state or territory of Australia and/or in New
SENATE
Zealand can be recognised in both nations for

the skill that their qualification confers on
them and can conduct or business or carry on
their trade in a normal way.
This is a bill that is best described as
harmonising the standards between the two
countries. It is a bill which had its genesis in
1992 under the Labor government when,
while in office, we initiated improved mutual
recognition between the countries. But this
bill specifically arises from an agreement
signed by the New Zealand government and
the council of Australian government
ministers in the middle of last year, following
on that process initiated by us in 1992.
I have said a few words about what this bill
does. I will summarise it more particularly.
Firstly, goods can be sold between Australia
and New Zealand without restrictions caused
by differences in product standards and other
regulatory requirements. Secondly, persons
registered to practise in a mutually recognised
occupation are given mobility between the
two countries without the need to undergo
further testing or examination. The bill also
contains a number of exclusions and exemptions which go to medical practitioners, to the
field of quarantine, to endangered species, to
firearms, to censorship and to certain chemicals.
The opposition supports this legislation.
However, in the committee stages we will be
moving an amendment. The amendment will
have the important effect of placing the Trade
Practices Act, a number of other acts concerning fair trading and consumer affairs in
Australia and the safety of hazardous goods
into a special exemptions clause. That exemptions clause will automatically exempt those
areas from harmonisation for 12 months.
At the end of that time, the Australian
Tribunal, as it is referred to in the acta
body consisting of the Commonwealth
government, all of the state and territory
governmentswill review what can happen
with respect to each one of those acts that are
now to be put aside if our amendment is
carried. They will then be brought back into
this act or extend the time for which they are
exempted. That will be a decision for the
Australian Tribunal, as it is referred to, or the
6539
council of ministers, as it might normally be

called. When that body meets with the New
Zealand government, the effect of the harmonisation can proceed or not, according to the
needs of each of these pieces of legislation
that have been put aside in the exemption
clause.
I foreshadow now that I will be asking the
minister during the committee stages of this
bill whether or not, if our amendment is
carried, the government will be indicating to
the parliament what it intends to do with
respect to each item of legislation referred to
in our amendment. I mention that now to alert
the minister at the table, the Minister for
Customs and Consumer Affairs and Minister
Assisting the Attorney-General (Senator
Ellison), to this question.
In conclusion, mutual recognition promoted
by this legislation ought to encourage greater
economic growth in both economies. It ought
to encourage therefore higher employment
opportunities in both economies. New Zealand
is the only country in the world with which
Australia has a free trade agreement in effect,
and the ANZAC free trade agreement, the
closer economic relations with Australia
agreement, does enable greater economies of
scale to be made between us. People might
argue that we should have them with other
nations in the world, but that is not an argument for this bill. This bill does underpin the
free trade agreement with considerable force.
I commend the bill to the chamber, with the
undertaking that I will be moving an amendment in the committee stages.
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (1.35 p.m.)The Australian Democrats
support the basis of mutual recognition of
regulatory standards for goods and occupations between Australia and New Zealand.
However, we believe that the mutual recognition must be an equitable recognition of both
Australias and New Zealands interests. I
therefore address an issue which I believe
fails to equitably recognise the interests of
Australias consumers and which should be
incorporated into this Trans-Tasman Mutual
Recognition Bill.
The amendments that I will be moving on
behalf of the Australian Democrats address
6540
SENATE
this omission by recognising the existing

product safety standards in our trade practices
laws with respect to goods. The mutual
recognition principle means that if goods can
be legally sold in New Zealand they may be
legally sold in an Australian jurisdiction and
vice versa. This is a worthy goal, but it
should not be achieved at the expense of
Australian consumers health and welfare.
The bill in its present form includes a
number of exclusions and exemptions, such
as quarantine, endangered species, firearms,
certain chemicals and fireworks, among the
lists of Commonwealth, state and territory
laws which are exempted or excluded from
the operation of the bill. These exclusions and
exemptions recognise that there are differences between Australia and New Zealand
and that some matters should fall outside this
mutual recognition.
I believe this should also be extended to
product safety standards so that Australians
are not subject to products which fall below
the standards that currently are set in Australia. Australia has a comprehensive and evolving scheme of product safety standards. These
standards are relatively high by world comparisons, and we need to be sure that these
standards are not circumvented to allow consumers in Australia to be exposed to unacceptably dangerous and harmful products.
If that is the intention of the government
with this particular piece of legislation, then
it should introduce legislation which dismantles the current product safety laws in Australia. This bill should not provide an avenue for
products to be used by Australian consumers
where they would be excluded because they
are unsafe or dangerous under existing Australian laws and standards.
Under the proposed arrangements, products
which can be sold in New Zealand may then
be imported and sold in Australia without
having to meet Australian product safety
standards. The same does not apply to reverse
trade as New Zealand will rely on its customs
control regime to restrict any product that
does not meet New Zealands mandatory
standards.
Section 33 of the New Zealand Fair Trading
Act deems any good a prohibited import
under section 48 of the Customs Act if that

good breaches a mandatory product safety
provision. This customs control regime is
specifically recognised in the Trans-Tasman
Mutual Recognition Agreement. There is no
equivalent provision in Australian laws, and
specific exemption is required in Australian
law to prevent the import of goods from New
Zealand that do not otherwise meet Australias product safety laws. The amendments
that the Australian Democrats are proposing
should address this concern.
The Trade Practices Act 1974 was amended
in 1986 to introduce detailed product safety
measures to ensure manufacturers and importers had the initial responsibility for a
products safety. The scheme gave Australian
law-makers the control over setting standards
for the safety of Australian consumers by
providing for temporary and permanent bans
on unsafe goods, setting mandatory product
safety and information standards, the recall of
unsafe goods and the review of bans and
recalls.
At the time of this amendment the then
Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, said of the
product safety provisions:
The new provisions, dealing with product safety
and product information, represent a most important
development in measures for the protection of
consumers. . . In circumstances where there is an
imminent risk of illness or serious injury the
Attorney-General will be able to make an order
without delay. In those cases which involve a
declaration that goods are unsafe, there will be an
opportunity for a conference after the event to
review the declaration. The review procedures will
provide opportunity for full canvassing and testing
of the issues consistent with quick action when
necessary to protect the safety of the public.
So this scheme has served us well and should

not be undermined at the expense of Australian consumers health and welfare by introducing inconsistent legislation. This bill is
inconsistent because it enables a product to be
sold in Australia which does not comply with
the Trade Practices Act provisions where that
good can be lawfully sold in New Zealand.
This undermines the Trade Practices Act and
consumer protection.
This may be illustrated by example. Australia leads the world in the development and
SENATE
requirement for car child restraints. The rest

of the world is following Australias lead in
this particular area. However, New Zealand
presently accepts the existing US and European standards, which are not of the same
high standard that Australia has set and, by
Australian standards, are inferior and therefore
unsafe.
Under the bill in its present form, a car
child restraint, imported and made for sale in
New Zealand, would be able to be imported
and sold in Australia even though it does not
satisfy Australian standards. Further, a similar
car child restraint could not otherwise be
imported and sold in Australia. This sets up
an unsatisfactory product safety scheme in
Australia and will affect product safety standards set in this country.
Other goods include sunglasses, vehicle
jackets, support stands, motor bike and bicycle helmets, childrens flotation toys,
childrens nightclothes, fire extinguishers,
exercise bikes, et cetera. The vice versa of
this recognition is inequitable. Australian
goods will be required to comply with New
Zealands product safety standards. This will
affect all these areas such as childrens nightclothes, bicycles, toys for children under
three, et cetera. These standards will require
Australian manufacturers importing these
goods into New Zealand to comply with these
standards. New Zealands product safety
standards are not undermined by this bill.
I have therefore proposed amendments to
this bill which will recognise the importance
of product safety standards in Australia and
New Zealand and exclude those standards
from the operation of this particular bill. The
amendments will maintain the operation of
the product safety standards and product
information requirements that are set out in
the current Trade Practices Act. The amendments fall within the categories of exemptions
which are already addressed in this bill, so
these amendments merely cover an area that
is consistent with the scheme as it presently
stands, but has not been specifically identified
as an issue for exclusion at this point. The
amendments will maintain the existing product safety scheme under the Trade Practices
Act 1974.
6541
The proposed amendments will exclude all

product safety standards from the operation of
the bill. However, where particular standards
are identified which are consistent with the
standards of all jurisdictions, it will be possible under the existing bill to regulate for
those standards to be subject to the operation
of this law.
The amendments will ensure that Australian
standards are not compromised by oversight.
This bill, without amendment, will also have
flow-on effects which will be removed by the
amendments. The bill will provide importers
of goods that do not meet Australian standards an unfair advantage over both importers
from countries other than New Zealand and
Australian manufacturers.
Where a good is imported directly into
Australia and does not meet Australian standards, it will not be covered by the mutual
recognition principles. This provides a direct
advantage to those that import from New
Zealand. Perhaps more importantly, there are
likely to be direct effects on the manufacture
and sale of Australian manufactured products
at the highest safety level which will be
required to comply with much more rigorous
standards. I commend the amendments to the
Senate as fixing an omission from the bill,
and suggest that product safety for Australian
consumers should be protected.
I will make a general comment in relation
to this legislation before the Senate which is
in the form of a code agreed to by the
government for which it is seeking Senate
approval. The Senate is not a place for rubber-stamping executive agreements between
the government and other parties at the
expense of Australian consumers. We had no
part in the making of this agreement and we
cannot ignore this particular oversight. However, the agreement requires only that the
Australian draft bill be in substantially the
same terms as that agreed by the government.
The proposed amendments leave the bill in
substantially the same terms and recognise the
importance of Australias consumer protection
set out in the Trade Practices Act.
I should also note that this bill actually sets
out provisions for addressing privacy. In the
last session we heard from the government an
6542
SENATE
attempt to defend its rejection of a comprehensive privacy scheme for all Australians.
This bill is directed towards breaking down
barriers to trade and employment, but requires
privacy provisions so that it conforms with
New Zealands privacy scheme. So, if
Australias privacy laws are so adequateI
ask this of the governmenthow is it that
there is a need for these particular provisions
in this bill?
I think most people know the answer, and
that is that the existing privacy laws in this
country are far from adequate, and these
provisions are evidence of this inadequacy. So
this governments failure to do as it promisedthat is, to extend privacy laws to the
private sectorhas left us in a position where
we may find trade and employment opportunities affected, especially with countries like the
European Union, Hong Kong and, of course,
New Zealand, because they are among the
countries that are actually doing something to
address the issue of privacy. I would be
curious to know what the governments
response is to the idea that this bill needs to
set out privacy considerations if its laws in
this country are so adequate.
Finally, I welcome the governments recognition that products banned from sale under
the Trade Practices Act would be excluded
from the operation of this bill using the
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations.
This concession recognises that there are
omissions in this bill and that there is place
for a review of this legislation by the Senate.
From my perspective, I think the recognition
should go further. The amendments I propose
should be accepted as full recognition that
these amendments plug a hole in this bill.
(1.46 p.m.)The Trans-Tasman Mutual
Recognition Bill 1996 is, I believe, a disaster
from a consumer standpoint. Australian
standards do not need to be met; New Zealand standards mostly do, under their customs
prohibited import regulations. The New
Zealand Minister for Consumer Affairs acknowledges this and called this a win for New
Zealand.
The areas that are not covered are: safety
standards; quality standards; performance
standards; use by and age dating of food;

labelling, including country of origin; and
ingredient labelling. While some areas of
product regulation are covered in New Zealand, labelling does not seem to be. New
Zealand parliamentarians have concern that
this bill will actually undermine their proposed requirements for labelling of food
containing genetically modified products
which we do not have in Australia. Health
and safety warnings are not necessarily
included. That includes tobacco health warnings, which are not.
The harmonisation of differing standards
creates a lowest common denominator effect.
This benefits, of course, corporate interests,
not countries or people. Where Australia has
higher standards, as with baby car seats or
cigarette health warnings, our regulations will
be undermined. Where New Zealand has
higher requirements, as with the potential
requirement for labelling of genetically
modified food, these will be undermined.
Even when regulations are currently in sync,
this law will prevent any tightening from
being effective unless it occurs in both countries. It is hard enough getting regulations
tightened here. This government does not
want to require industry to do anything by
law, so I do not think it is going happen.
Evidence from the World Trade Organisation experience around quarantine is that
assurances of sovereignty and protection are
meaningless. We currently have World Trade
Organisation cases against Australian quarantine regulations for chicken meat and salmon
as being anti-competitive behaviour or potentially anti-competitive behaviour. My views
on inequalities in trade and the race to the
bottom at the expense of nature, workers,
industry andas in this case and others
consumers are well known. This is not about
New Zealand products. Product from anywhere in the world can enter Australia without complying with our laws as long as they
comply with New Zealands laws and have
come through Auckland or some other New
Zealand jurisdiction. Just think about the
implications over time. I will specifically talk
to those later.
SENATE
We are setting a precedent that will be used

as a model. I can imagine the government
using this model to take to APEC or some
body of ASEAN nations in order to establish
a regional trade agreement. Even if there were
no regional agreements, I can imagine other
bilateral agreements with other countries, for
instancethis is what I was talking about
beforeFiji or Tonga, who then have connections with India. So, perhaps New Zealand
will enter a bilateral agreement with Fiji or
Tonga on acceptance, perhaps a mutual
recognition bill, and Fiji or Tonga, having
strong connections perhaps with India, will
have a mutual recognition bill with India. In
reality, instead of flag of convenience shipping we will have country of convenience
trade.
We are setting a precedent that may be used
as a model. A network of bilateral agreements
would allow the lowest standards in the
network to prevail. An example is goods
made to Indian standards, on-sold to Fiji
through a bilateral agreement and imported
into Australia under this bill. The goods
would be made and labelled to Indian standards and would be labelled as imported from
New Zealand.
Imagine the outcome if imported Indonesian, Vietnamese or Laotian goods were
made and labelled to their standards rather
than to Australian standards. That is what is
on the cards heretrade agreements are rarely
isolated occurrencesor is the government
saying, This is a once only. We dont want
or expect New Zealand to enter into similar
agreements with other countries? I do not
think we can actually control the outcome of
New Zealands trade with their other trading
partners. The mutual recognition principles, as
stated in section 10 of this bill, say:
The Trans-Tasman mutual recognition principle is
that, subject to this Part, goods produced in or
imported into New Zealand, that may lawfully be
sold in New Zealand, either generally or in particular circumstances, may, by virtue of this Act, be
sold in an Australian jurisdiction either generally
or in particular circumstances (as the case may be),
without the necessity for compliance with further
requirements imposed by or under the law of that
jurisdiction as described in section 11.
6543
This is a worry. What I have talked about is

a fanciful scenario. The implication is that if
a particular circumstance, such as this mutual
recognition treaty, exists or comes to exist in
New Zealand, goods can be legally imported
into New Zealand that fall below their national standards. The goods can then be legally
imported here. This a formula for rendering
our standards useless in relation to imports of
anything that is not included in section 12.
There is also potential in establishing
regional or network bilateral agreements for
nations to become regulation shelters, where
low regulation levels mean that global producers import to the shelter country then onsell to higher standard countries with mutual
recognition. This is not a fantasy. We are
going to see potential flag of convenience, tax
shelter nationsperhaps nations with low
regulations on, and costs for, pornographic
phone calls. The latter situation has arisen
with telecommunications deregulation, where
Pacific Island countries provide a large portion of phone sex services to the United States
and Europe.
In such a circumstance, I think we must
consider safety standards on quality, composition and performance and labelling requirements as crucialparticularly labelling. If we
are going to make this a free-for-all, with
products of vastly different qualities and
performance standards, consumers need to
know where the products come from and what
is in them. There is a minimum requirement
to allow any kind of effective consumer
choice. Free choice in a market usually, and
even according to the theory, means full
information.
The only time this bill will be needed is
when standards differ. It is not an argument
to say that many standards are the same.
Identical standards present no problem for
importing. When standards differ, this bill
says that the lowest ones apply. Any importer
can import to either country through the other
with the lower standard. This is the lowest
common denominator principle or the race to
the bottom.
In relation to the Democrat amendments, I
believe the government has sorted out the
issues in relation to drafting, but this is not a
6544
SENATE
treaty agreement or covenant which we are

being asked to ratify. It is Australian law
drafted as amendable legislation. This is not
the place for the department of trade to usurp
their prerogatives and power of parliament
within a democracy.
There are problems with the way treaties
and covenants are drafted without the consultation of the parliament. We have talked about
this on many occasions, but this does not
even have that status. To suggest that there
might be an agreement between Australia and
New Zealand that this parliament has to go
through with a certain model is rather bizarre.
I believe the proposal to omit clause 11(a) is
problematic. Clause 11 is an even more
detailed version of clause 10.
Non-compliance will always be worse than
what we require, since standards are minimum
standards. Standards are not set for everything
and they are not imposed on producers for
fun. If it was worth setting the standards, they
were set for a reason. If the government
believes there is no reason to have them, it
should honestly argue for their removal, rather
than requiring them of Australian producers
and all other foreign producers except those
in New Zealand. It is a bit like the current
review of the competition policy legislation
throughout the country. Basically, there are
some aspects applied to those, but the rest of
the reasons why parts of legislation were there
in the first base are not really being argued on
a fulsome basisjust on a very narrow
criteria. Even in relation to performance, I
cannot see why there would be exceptions to
something deemed important enough to have
a regulation or law about the performance of
some goods.
In relation to food standards, they would
largely be set up by the Australian New
Zealand Food Authority. I note that section
10(e) of the National Food Authority Act used
to say:
In developing standards for food and variations of
the standards, the Authority must have regard to the
promotion of consistency between domestic and
international food standards where these are at
variance, providing it does not lower Australian
standards.
Consistency of food standards was explicitly

the least important of five items. The other
four in importance were protection of health
and safety, provision of information to enable
consumers to make informed choices, promotion of fair trade and promotion of trade and
commerce. Protection of health was the most
important issueif order on the list was to be
taken into accountand the issue that raised
the critical protective phase in the fifth subsection was the promotion of consistency
providing it does not lower the Australian
standard. That was actually removed at the
end of 1995.
At the time, Senator Sherry was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary
Industries and Energy. The issue was harmonisation of food standards, and the fear was
that the change would allow a reduction in
food standards of the sort I have brought up
in the past in relation to World Trade Organisation bills. At that time, Senator Sherry
referred to the fact that, at the time this transTasman mutual recognition arrangement
comes into force, Australia can seek temporary or permanent exemptions for food standards and quality, and he passed on the assurance of government that, if standards for
maximum permitted contaminants, or MPCs,
and maximum residue levels, or MRLs, in
relation to food were not harmonised, then
such an exemption would be sought.
Further, Dr Theophanous, as Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for Human Services
and Health, gave a letter of assurance of a
much broader ambit saying that Australian
food standards would not be dropped to
international standards and the quality of food
would not drop. Of course, there has been a
change of government since then, and the
phrase about not allowing standards to be
lowered in harmonisation is now gone from
law. I would be keen to find out from the
relevant minister whether this government
would allow food quality to dropwill he
allow a reduction in MRLs or MPCs? I will
ask that in the committee stage.
In our amendments, I oppose clause 11(b),
which would allow all imports through New
Zealand to be an exception to our labelling
standards where New Zealand regulations are
SENATE
lower. Senators would be aware that labellingboth food and country of origin informationis a highly contentious issue. There
is no reason for setting up a situation where
there are exceptions to our labelling laws, nor
a situation where changes to our legislation
are reflected in labelling.
I will be arguing these issues when we put
our amendments. There is a stronger case in
my belief for our amendments and those of
the Democrats, but I will certainly be looking
at the ALP amendments when they are put in
the committee stage.
Debate interrupted.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Senator HILL (South AustraliaLeader of
the Government in the Senate) (2.00 p.m.)
by leaveI inform the Senate that Senator
Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs, will
be absent from the Senate chamber, including
question time, from today, 22 September,
until 25 September inclusive. Senator
Vanstone is currently travelling to Seoul,
where she will attending an APEC meeting.
En route she will attend meetings in Hong
Kong with the Hong Kong Science and
Technology University and the Australian
Education Centre.
During Senator Vanstones absence, Senator
Kemp will take questions relating to employment. I will take questions relating to education, training and youth affairs and to the
portfolio of immigration and multicultural
affairs.
I also inform the Senate that Senator Richard Alston will be absent from the Senate
chamber for question time today. During
Senator Alstons absence, Senator Ellison will
take questions relating to the portfolios of
communications and the arts, workplace
relations and small business, and to the Public
Service and the Sydney 2000 games. Senator
Parer will take questions relating to the
portfolio of transport and regional development.
Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (2.01
p.m.)by leaveSenators would be aware
that it has not been the oppositions practice
6545
to rise on every occasion that the Leader of

the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill)
has sought to change ministerial arrangements
in this chamber. In fact, in the 18 months
since the election, I have previously not commented. It was something that was a very
regular occurrence from Senator Hill, and I
think all senators in the chamber would know
that.
As far as the opposition is concerned, we
consider that Senator Vanstones absence
from the chamber this week is outrageous,
given the appalling performance that we have
seen from her, especially over the last couple
of weeks. I do not think she should be allowed out of the country, let alone to represent the country. You have got to ask yourself: what does Senator Vanstone have to
offer her APEC colleagues? If they want to
know how to denigrate a public education
system, if they want a blueprint to destroy
higher education, if they want to promote job
insecurity, perhaps they should ask Senator
Vanstone. But she ought to be here. Her
primary responsibility is to be here in the
Senate chamber, not attending overseas
conferences. When Senator Hill was Leader
of the Opposition, he was very keen to point
out ad nauseam that ministers were paid real
money to attend parliament, and that they
should meet their first responsibility, which is
to front up here.
I think it is probably the case that Senator
Vanstone finds it absolutely impossible to
defend what has been an appalling performance. We frankly do not believe that she is up
to facing questions this week in the parliament. We will be very interested in, and will
be pursuing questions about, Senator
Vanstones management of the South Pacific
Cruise Lines fiasco. We consider this absence
to be nothing more or less than a pathetic
attempt to avoid her responsibilities.
We on this side of the chamber note, as I
hope other senators will note, that apparently
Senator Vanstone is also going to be absent
to attend an OECD function from 3 October
to 19 October. This is the minister who said
that she would front up to the Senate estimates committee. There is only one reason
that Senator Vanstone is out of the country
6546
SENATE
for three out of the next four weeks; that is,

to escape her responsibilities. As far as we are
concerned, we will be progressing those
issues of interest to the Australian community
and to the parliament. We are not going to
accept that Senator Vanstone can hide from
her responsibilities with these relaxing overseas junkets that are obviously at significant
cost to the public purse.
In relation to Senator Alston, we heard at
11 oclock today from Senator Hill that his
deputy leader would not be present in the
chamber.
Senator SchachtWhat is he doing?
Senator FAULKNERSenator Schacht
asks, What is he doing? We are surprised to
hear what he is doing, because we think that
he would have very little to contribute to this.
He is attending a meeting of the board of the
Australian Foundation for Culture and Humanities. Obviously, they do not know as
much about Senator Alston as we do, because
we know that he could make no contribution
to that.
This situation is not good enough. We have
been given short notice in relation to Senator
Alstons absence for a function that obviously
he can make no contribution to. And Senator
Vanstone is ducking her ministerial and
parliamentary responsibilities for three out of
the next four weeks. Let me assure you that
she will not get away with it. We are going
to hold Senator Vanstone to account in
relation to her ministerial responsibilities and
the South Pacific Cruise Lines fiasco.
Senator KERNOT (QueenslandLeader
of the Australian Democrats) (2.06 p.m.)by
leaveWhen Labor was in government, I
joined with the then opposition in criticising
some of the ministerial absences.
Senator Ian MacdonaldThat would be
rare.
Senator KERNOTI would be very fair,
Senator Macdonald.
Honourable senatorsRare!
Senator KERNOTNo, I joined with you.
The point I want to make is that I concur with
Senator Faulkners comments. We had a
number of questions we wanted to put to
Senator Vanstone today, particularly on the

revelation that major employment agencies
are going to bypass the tender process and the
so-called wonderful benefits that are going to
come with the privatisation of the CES.
Nobody else can satisfactorily answer those
questions, because the minister has bypassed
the Senate on this matter. She is in charge
and she is the one best placed to answer
questions on this issue. The second matter we
wanted to ask about was, again, the failure of
her management on the South Pacific Cruise
Lines issue.
Senator Vanstone and Senator Alston
between them are responsible for seven major
portfolios. I think that takes out of question
time a lot of valuable opportunities for nongovernment senators to ask legitimate questions.
Senator AbetzYoure too scared to ask
Richard Alston questions.
Senator KERNOTI am not scared of
Senator Alston, you ask him that.
I remember when this happened. If it was
good enough when the government was the
opposition for the opposition to criticise
Labor, it is fair enough for us to now ask the
same questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Superannuation
Senator SHERRYMy question is to the
Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Minister, can you explain to the 67,000
Australians aged over 55 but below pension
age who have had their income support
payments stopped or reduced from last Saturday why your government has included their
superannuation assets in the means test,
effectively forcing them to retire in order to
survive before they are ready? Why has your
government shifted the goal posts with these
retrospective measures which hit over 55s
who have done the right thing and invested in
superannuation for their retirement?
The PRESIDENTI call Senator Newman.
Senator HILLMadam President, I am
not surprised you called Senator Newman
SENATE
because I would have thought that she would

have responsibility for the
Senator SherryShe cant answer!
Opposition senators interjecting
Senator HILLBecause the government
believes it is an asset that should properly be
taken into account.
Senator SHERRYMadam President, I
ask a supplementary question. Thank you,
Senator Hill. You are hitting Australians over
the age of 55 at one of their most vulnerable
timesthat is, when they are unemployed.
Perhaps you could have a go at explaining
why your new income maintenance test
includes any cashed out annual leave, sick
leave, long-service leave or maternity leave
and why the new liquid assets test will retrospectively slug 103,000 Australians who have
lost their jobs who will now have to wait
much longer before they can access social
security payments?
Senator HILLThat was more of a speech
than a question. I think hidden within it there
are some subtle issues that require more indepth analysis. I will take advice on the
matter and come back to the honourable
senator.
Economy
Senator COONANMy question is to the
Leader of the Government in the Senate and
relates to the sound economic management of
the Howard government. Will the minister
outline for the Senate further positive economic news in the form of improved housing
affordability, and business and consumer
confidenceconfidence that was so badly
undermined by 13 years of Labor government?
Senator BolkusGive us a subtle answer
this time.
The PRESIDENTSenators on my left
will cease interjecting!
Senator HILLThis matter is not too
subtle; this matter gives us the opportunity to
remind Australians what they had under Labor
and how they have better opportunities under
the coalition. No better example can be given
than what has happened in relation to interest
rates.
6547

Senator HILLScoffed at by Labor
because they were the party of high interest
rates. In less than 18 months under the coalition we have achieved five reductions in
interest rates which have delivered further
good news, particularly for Australians wanting to purchase their home. Over the year to
the June quarter, there was an 18.9 per cent
increase in housing affordability, according to
the latest City Bank-REIA house affordability
index.
The PRESIDENTOrder! There are too
many interjections. Senators on my left will
cease interjecting.
Senator HILLI know they are embarrassed by this. But since Labors depressing
record of high interest rates, there has been a
54.8 per cent increase in housing affordability. Senator Bolkus, that is since 1989.
It is also good to see that there has been an
increase in consumer and business confidence.
That is very important. Last week the
Westpac-Melbourne Institute survey revealed
a 4.2 per cent rise in consumer confidence.
The latest ACCI and Westpac national survey
on business trends also found that business
confidence remains firm. Sound economic
management and stable leadership are being
demonstrated by the coalition government.
Speaking of leadership, we have noted a
certain amount of jostling within the Labor
Party of late as the young turks have started
to assert themselves. It seems that Mr Latham
and Mr Tanner are becoming impatient; the
young and the restless are getting fed up.
What did Mr Latham say in the big profile,
self-promotion piece headed The Anointed
One in the Good Weekend magazine of 13
September? The article said:
Right now, hes
Mr Latham
frustrated. Disengaged. Hes battling incipient
boredom and impatience.
Mr Latham was then asked whether he saw

Mr Tannerthat is Senator Faulkners factional colleagueas a rival. He said:
6548
SENATE
No, I dont find him a rival at all. Anyone whos

interested in policy reform I take as a colleague.
We are getting a little bit touchy between the

factions it seems. He went on to say:
The people who are the true conservatives
Senator Faulkner, that is not too good

arent interested in reform, they just want to go
back to the things that had the appearance of
working well in the past but are no longer relevant.
Theyre the ones Id treat as rivals.
Mr Tanner, who is on the record as looking

for tax reform and prepared to engage a GST,
is regarded by Mr Latham as a conservative.
When he was asked who in the ALP precisely he was thinking of, he said, You will
have to work that one out for yourself, and
he then laughed. Who is Mr Latham talking
about? Who is disappointing him so much
within the leadership of the Labor Party? Is
it Senator Faulkner, is it Mr Evans, is it Mr
Martin Ferguson or Mr Crean, or is he, in
fact, having a go at the leader, Mr Beazley?
Senator FaulknerI raise a point of order,
Madam President. I have been listening to
Senator Hills answer to the question he was
asked and I know how popular Senator Hill
is amongst his own colleagueswe are all
well aware of that. But, do you believe that
the answer Senator Hill is giving in relation
to a whole series of very impressive members
of the Labor opposition has anything at all to
do with the question that Senator Coonan
asked?
The PRESIDENTIt was a broadly based
question but I think Senator Hill has allowed
himself to spread somewhat more broadly in
the answer. Senator Hill, perhaps you should
stick to the question that was asked.
Senator HILLI accept your invitation,
Madam President. What the question was all
about was leadership. Interest rates came
down under the coalition after record high
levels under the Labor Party. This is very
important. There has been leadership in other
ways.
Opposition members interjecting
The PRESIDENTOrder! Labor senators
have taken a point of order wanting an answer
to the question Senator Coonan asked. I think
you think should listen to the answer.
Senator HILLThe butt of the issue is:

when is the Labor Party going to come up
with some alternative policies?
(Time expired)
Senator COONANI have a supplementary question, Madam President. Will the
minister elaborate further on the state of
business and consumer confidence, and
improved business conditions?
Senator FaulknerI raise a point of order,
Madam President. I think the supplementary
question is out of order because it would be
impossible for Senator Hill to elaborate
further on a matter he has not mentioned in
his primary answer.
The PRESIDENTSenator Hill has dealt
with part of the answer and I think this is
supplementary to it.
Senator HILLThe point is that business
and consumer confidence is very important.
If you can achieve five interest rate reductions
in just 18 months it demonstrates that you are
heading in the right direction. Contrast Labor.
The young Turks are rising. They want to
push out the old guardthe Senator Cooks,
the Senator Bolkuses, the Senator Schachts.
They are giving them the message: it is time
for them to move on and give the young
guard a go.
Madam President, it is also important in
relation to policies. We were asked for two
years before the election, Where are your
policies? It is about time we started asking,
Where are the policies of the Labor Party?
Are the young guard going to provide policies
that the old guard has not been prepared to
deliver and give a real alternative to Australians as they face the next poll?
Unemployment
Senator BOB COLLINSMy question is
directed to the Leader of the Government in
the Senate, Senator Hill. Minister, is it a fact
that Australians need less job security in
order to reduce unemployment? Does this
represent government policy?
Senator HILLNo, they do not need less
job security and it does not represent government policy.
SENATE
Senator BOB COLLINSI ask a supplementary question. Minister, can you confirm
that this statement was made by none other
than the Minister for Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, Senator
Vanstonein other words, the most senior
cabinet minister responsible for government
policy in this area? Can you confirm that she
said, You have to haveit might be described as lessened job security. It is not a
message everyone wants to hear? Is it not a
fact that the very evident lessened job security
that Senator Vanstone is under at the moment
has done nothing to improve the performance
of Senator Vanstone? In fact, the more job
pressure she is under, the more mistakes she
appears to make.
Senator HILLIt is true that we believe
a more flexible labour market gives a greater
opportunity for employment and we have
strongly advocated freeing up of the labour
market. The introduction of Australian workplace agreements is a positive step in that
direction. What it gives is the opportunity for
employers and employees to work out workplace relations that best suit their mutual
circumstances. With that we have the best
chance of increasing job employment in this
country.
Rural Package
Senator BOSWELLMy question is addressed to the Minister representing the
Minister for Primary Industries and Energy.
Senator SchachtSugar, sugar!
Senator BOSWELLI would just consider the 1,300 workers that work in Golden
Circle that you are costing jobs on sugar. So
just watch that one1,300 workers and
$750,000. I refer to the rural policy package,
AgricultureAdvancing Australia, released
jointly last Sunday week by the Minister for
Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, and the Prime Minister. Senator Parer,
this package has brought a great deal of joy
and lifted the spirits of rural Australia. Could
you inform the opposition and the Democrats,
because they do not take much interest in this,
on the finer details of the integrated package
and how it has been received by rural and
regional Australia?
6549
Senator PARERI would like to thank

Senator Boswell very much for that question.
AgricultureAdvancing Australia is an
appropriate name for the Howard governments integrated rural policy package. It is,
indeed, a triple A package. I want to make the
point that the coalition government has
always recognised the vital importance of
agriculture to this nation. The industry accounts for more than one quarter of all exports and provides the raw materials for the
nations biggest manufacturing industry, that
is, food processing.
The package includes effective measures to
address the key issues of rural adjustment:
farm business management and skills development; drought; farm family welfare; and rural
community development. The farm sector is
critical to Australias future prosperity. Improving the profitability, sustainability and
competitiveness of our farmers will develop
benefits for the whole nation. It is critical if
we are to secure the substantial new market
opportunities that are available to our farmers
as a result of international trade liberalisation.
This is the aim of AgricultureAdvancing
Australia.
Senator PARERI note, as reflected in
the interjections from the Labor Party, that all
they have been able to do in response to this
is give the normal insipid whingeing criticisms that we have come to expect from their
side of politics. When in government the
Labor Party simply floundered when it came
to getting good policy in place for rural
Australia.
The policy has been very widely welcomed.
Let me give you a few examples. The National Farmers Federation
Senator ForshawReally! An independent
source?
Senator PARERReally! says the Labor
senator. The National Farmers Federation is
the peak body in Australia. Surprise, surprise!
The integrated rural policy package is a wellbalanced series of measures which set the
framework for self-reliance in Australias
rural industries. The Grains Council of
Australia said:
6550
SENATE
The government should be congratulated for a

practical approach to the package and has identified
key objectives to help individual farmers businesses manage the significant climatic and price risks
inherent in farming while ensuring access to
adequate welfare safety nets.
The Cattlemens Union said:

The government has kept faith with the bush. The
package is consistent with the governments preelection policy Reviving the heart land.
The New South Wales Farmers Federation

said:
The gifting provision will benefit many older
farmers who, caught in a financial position
Who by? Those on that side for 13 years

were unable to hand the farm onto their children
and retire from farming.
The Council of the Ageing congratulates the

government for taking some fair and progressive initiatives to help older Australians on the
land into retirement. The United Graziers
Association said:
There is good balance between tax relief, training
and social assistance and I am very positive about
the package.
Two woolgrowers from the Darling Downs,

Don and Judy McLeish, believe the new
assistance measure to help one generation
pass the family property onto the next is the
most important step the federal government
has taken towards rebuilding rural Australia.
Department of Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs
Senator HOGGMy question is directed
to the Leader of the Government in the
Senate. Has the ministers attention been
drawn to reports of the visit of the secretary
of DEETYA to the departments Townsville
office? Can the minister confirm that the
secretary berated and swore at staff present
including responding to a grade three officer
who asked about her future in the job, Well,
we cant shoot you all, can we? Is this what
Senator Vanstone had in mind when she
recently told a CEDA meeting that lessened
job security was required to get unemployment down? Is the minister aware that Mr
Sedgwicks demeanour was so poor that he
has since offered a written apology to the
staff concerned? What counselling is available
for this individual and what other morale
boosting visits to regional offices does Mr

Sedgwick anticipate?
Senator HILLI know what I have read
in the press, which is very similar to what
you have recited in that questionthat is, Mr
Sedgwick apologised for certain statements
during a visit to the Townsville office. You
may think there is some benefit you can gain
in raising the conduct of particular public
servants in this place. That is your judgment,
I guess. I am pleased to have noted that he
has apologised for his conduct.
Overseas Aid
Senator KERNOTMy question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime
Minister. Minister, isnt it true that in 1995
Australian aid to the Pacific island nations of
Nauru, Tuvalu and Fiji as a percentage of
total aid was 72 per cent, 44 per cent and 32
per cent respectively? Isnt it true that in
1996-97 Australia will commit $129 million
in aid to 16 South Pacific countries? Isnt it
true also that on the issue of greenhouse gas
emission targets, an issue of vital importance
to these island nations, Australia has used the
aid lever to apply extreme pressure on these
nations to water down their opposition to
Australias stance?
Senator HILLI am pleased that the
honourable senator acknowledges the support
that the Australian government gives to South
Pacific states, which on most indices would
be disproportionate but it nevertheless recognises the geography and our special relationship and responsibility towards these small
island states. We know the economic difficulties they are facing. That has been often
reported, as well as other difficulties of a
social, educational and cultural type. The
relationship has remained very good between
Australia and the South Pacific states. There
was absolutely no relationship between any
discussions on greenhouse gas that occurred
last week and the issue of aid to Pacific
islands.
Senator KERNOTMadam President, I
ask a supplementary question. Minister, I
notice you did not mention their environmental difficulties being well reported. Can you
confirm that of the 15 nations in the South
SENATE
Pacific forum Australias hardline stance was

initially backed by only two nationsPapua
New Guinea in return for agreement by Australia not to formally recognise Bougainville
as a nation state should Bougainville secede
and Fiji in return for Australias support for
readmission into the Commonwealth?
Senator HILLFirstly, I do not accept
that Australias position represents a hardline
stance. Australia is actually interested in a
good greenhouse outcome at Kyoto, one that
over time will result in a better global environmental outcome. How you can describe
that as a hardline stance, I do not know.
Obviously, it requires differentiated targets to
achieve that goal because anything that is
other than fair and equitable that comes out
of Kyoto simply will not work. As I said in
relation to aid, I say in relation to the other
matters you raise. There has been absolutely
no connection at all between Australias
position in relation to readmission of Fiji or
Australias support in overcoming the difficulties in relation to Bougainville and the issue
of greenhouse gases.
Public Service Redundancies
Senator MACKAYMy question is
directed to Minister representing the Prime
Minister. Is it true that prior to the election
Mr Howard promised to ensure that reductions in staffing levels in the Public Service,
which incidentally he estimated would be
2,500 over three years, would be by national
attrition and not forced redundancies? Did
you inform the Senate Finance and Public
Administration Committee on 18 August that
the government believed that the avenue of
imposing involuntary redundancies should
only be used as a last resort? Why then is the
Australian Taxation Office currently in the
process of imposing compulsory redundancies
on up to 25 staff?
Senator HILLI did say that forced
redundancies were a last resort and, as I
understand it, there have been very few forced
redundancies.
Senator Mackay interjecting
Senator HILLHow many?
Senator MackayTwenty-five.
6551
Senator HILLTwenty-five were there?

There were some involuntary redundancies
under the last Labor government. There have
been a few under this government. I do not
really see that you have done more than to
confirm that the statement made by Mr
Howard before the election stands as valid
and sound.
Senator MACKAYMadam President, I
ask a supplementary question. Minister, are
you aware that there are other tax office staff,
some at the same level as those who are being
made compulsorily redundant and performing
similar functions to them, who have been
refused access to a voluntary redundancy? Are
you aware that the tax office is currently
employing approximately 200 temporary staff
to perform the duties of the permanent staff
faced with compulsory redundancy? Finally,
are you aware that the tax office has the
option of avoiding compulsory redundancies
altogether by moving work between tax office
branches? What action will you take to ensure
the Prime Ministers promise that there would
be no forced redundancies in the Public
Service is honoured?
Senator HILLAs I said, in the honourable senators question she, in effect, confirmed the validity of the promise that was
made by Mr Howard. She now says that
circumstances are different in the Australian
Taxation Office. That would surprise me, but
obviously we will take that on notice and
pursue it, because it remains the policy of the
government that involuntary redundancies
should be a last resort. That remains the
policy of the government. If certain agencies
are not acting in accordance with that policy,
then we will pursue the matter.
M2 Motorway, Sydney
Senator BROWNMy question is to the
Minister Assisting the Treasurer. I refer to a
letter from the Sydney Transport Action
Group to the Australian Securities Commission dated last Thursday and to weekend press
reports. Firstly, has the Hills Motorway
Group, builder of the M2 motorway in Sydney, failed to make its promised September
quarter payment to investors and, if so, why?
Is it true that the group, which is the builder
and operator of the M2, is effectively insol-
6552
SENATE
vent and should cease trading? If the group

were to cease trading, what would be the
impact on the Hills Motorway Trust? Is that
trust in breach of its trust deed? Is the structure and financing for Sydneys eastern
distributor similar to that for the M2? Finally,
how much superannuation money from average, hardworking Australians is at stake in the
M2 and the eastern distributor projects? What
will the government do to ensure that no more
is put at risk?
Senator KEMPSenator Brown, you
asked a number of questions in relation to the
motorway. I have sought advice from the
ASC. As you know, the ASC is an independent authority responsible for the administration of the Corporations Law.
Senator SherryWe know that!
Senator KEMPAt least you know
something, Senator Sherry. That has been
confirmed. We are delighted to hear that,
Senator Sherry.
Honourable senators interjecting
The PRESIDENTOrder! Senators will
cease interjecting.
Senator KEMPThank you, Madam
President, and I am sorry I was diverted by
Senator Sherry from this important question.Senator Brown, I am advised by the ASC
that it has inquired into the Hills motorway
prospectus and found that the prospectus was
satisfactory and that directors of the Hills
motorway had not fallen short of their obligations to investors. You also asked me a
question about the structure and financing of
Sydneys eastern distributor and whether it is
similar to that of the M2. Senator, I do not
have any information on that. If I can obtain
it, I will inform the Senate.
Senator BROWNMadam President, I ask
a supplementary question. I have particular
concern for the superannuation investments
that are involved. I know that the minister
cannot direct the Securities Commission to
investigate a specific matter but can direct it,
publicly, to investigate policy matters. Will
the Treasurer direct the commission to investigate government policy relating to all aspects
of the construction and financing of roads and
other infrastructure projects by private com-
panies? Does he agree that that investigation

should pay particular attention to the risk
posed for superannuation funds and small
investors when traffic forecasts are concocted
or fraudulent and when the financing arrangements are highly contrived?
Senator KEMPSenator, I think you may
have missed a key element of my response to
you. There were two elements to the question.
I repeat that the ASC has inquired into the
Hills motorway prospectus and found that the
prospectus was satisfactory and that the
directors of the Hills motorway had not fallen
short of their obligations to investors. That is
the advice that I have received from an
independent body. We have a very extensive
and comprehensive roads policy. I will not be
instructing a change in that roads policy.
Workplace Relations Act
Senator JACINTA COLLINSMy question is to Senator Hill representing the Prime
Minister. Minister, can you confirm that it is
the governments view that the Workplace
Relations Act should be given time to work?
Why then did Senator Vanstone state that in
order to get unemployment down you have to
have a freer industrial relations system?
Does this mean that without further reforms
to the Workplace Relations Act the government does not anticipate unemployment
falling? Has the Prime Minister discussed this
matter with Senator Vanstone following her
comments?
Senator HILLIt is true that we believe
the Workplace Relations Act will need time
to work, as you put it. It recently came into
effect. We believe that it is an act that will
provide greater flexibility and therefore a
better opportunity for employment expansion
in this country. That will be good for all
Australians. Therefore, our goal in freeing up
the industrial relations system has been
achieved through the passage of that legislation. Just give it a little time. But not by
itself; when you add all the other reforms
lower interest rates and other benefits to small
business that we have announcedyou create
an overall atmosphere with the opportunity
for employment growth. That is our goal.
SENATE
Senator JACINTA COLLINSMadam

President, I ask a supplementary question. I
ask the minister again: has the Prime Minister
discussed this matter with Senator Vanstone
following her comments?
Senator HILLNot that I know of, but I
would not think that he would because what
she was saying was to recognise the importance of a freer industrial relations system,
which we have significantly achieved through
the reforms in the Workplace Relations Act.
That will, in time, lead to an environment of
increased employment, and that will be good
for Australia.
Remote Aboriginal Communities
Senator FERGUSONMy question is
directed to the Minister for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron.
I refer the minister to his recent visit to
Aboriginal communities in South Australia,
including Oak Valley, where the army has
been assisting in the provision of vital infrastructure to remote indigenous communities.
Minister, can you provide to the Senate an
update of the ATSIC-army project in that
community and steps that are being taken to
better deliver essential services to these
communities in South Australia?
Senator HERRONI thank Senator
Ferguson for the question. As a devoted South
Australian senator, he would be aware of the
many improvements that are occurring.
Senator CookIs there an election in
South Australia?
Senator HERRONYes, there is, Senator
Cook. You are probably aware of it. But,
Senator Cook, I went to Oak Valley and
visited the other indigenous groups at Ceduna,
Whyalla, Port Augusta, Gawler and Berri. I
saw many positive advancements towards
improving living conditions for indigenous
Australians in those places.
I am pleased to report that one of the six
army-ATSIC projects, launched by the
government earlier this year, is well under
way. Stage 1 of three stages has been completed. Stage 1 comprised the construction of
two shed tanks, a rubbish tip, a temporary
airstrip upgrade and local roadworks as well
as a clean-up. Work on stage 2, which will
6553
comprise three community houses, a staff

house and a power station, will commence
soon. The sealing of roads and the airstrip,
stage 3, will take place in the new year.
The people of Oak Valley are delighted
with the project and wish to continue with the
planned infrastructure developments. The
upgrading of the airstrip in particular has had
an enormous impact on the community. The
flying doctor service can now fly into the
community. Previously, patients had to be
driven for two hours across the desert to
receive medical attention.
Despite an enormous amount of negativity
and cynicism about this project from those
opposite, it is proving to be very successful.
This government is serious about improving
living conditions for indigenous Australians.
It is going to take a long time, nonetheless, to
clean up the mess that was left us after 13
years, but this government will stand on its
record, not on the rhetoric.
I would also like to congratulate the South
Australian government for finalising an
agreement with ATSIC for the provision of
essential services to South Australian Aboriginal communities. The agreement was signed
on 4 September by ATSIC chairman, Gatjil
Djerrkura, and Aboriginal affairs minister,
Dean Brown. The provision of essential
services agreement covers water, power,
sewerage, internal community roads and, by
agreement, rubbish collection.
Restricted Government Documents
Senator FAULKNERMy question is
directed to the Leader of the Government in
the Senate, Senator Hill. Minister, are you
aware of the convention that governments not
access the records of previous administrations
without seeking permission of former ministers? How then do you explain Mr McLachlans office circulating a military cable from
1985 which was stamped restricted? Why
was no permission sought from former ministers prior to this document being circulated?
Given your previous critical comments of
leaks from the department of foreign affairs,
how do you justify the circulation of a restricted document by a minister other than in
terms of political opportunism?
6554
SENATE
Senator HILLI do not actually represent

Mr McLachlan in this place, but I think the
best thing I could do would be to get details
of the allegations that Senator Faulkner is
making and his explanation for it and let you
have them in due course.
Senator FAULKNERI ask a supplementary question. I did direct my question to
Senator Hill, the Minister representing the
Prime Minister, but perhaps he can also
inquire of the Prime Minister how he can
justify this breach of due process, how he can
justify this breach of convention. Is this just
another convention that, through expediency,
the Liberal government has thrown out the
window?
Senator HILLI would not concede any
breach of due process, as has been alleged,
without ascertaining the facts, and I have
already said I would do that. I said I would
get it from Mr McLachlan because, if I asked
the Prime Minister, he would seek the information from Mr McLachlan, and that would
take even longer. But I will ascertain the facts
and report back to you in due course.
Black Hawk Board of Inquiry
Senator BOURNEMy question is to
Senator Newman, the Minister representing
the Minister for Defence. Is it the case that
the defence minister has refused to seek
independent intervention of the Defence Force
Ombudsman in any inquiry into the administration of the Black Hawk board of inquiry
despite serious questions having been raised
over the inquirys outcome? Is it also the case
that the minister has ordered an independent
investigation into the conduct of a RAAF
board of inquiry and has ordered the ADF to
cooperate with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, who is also the Defence Force Ombudsman, in drawing up terms of reference for that
investigation? Why is the minister taking an
inconsistent position in respect of these
inquiries? Finally, especially as the outcome
of the Black Hawk inquiry involves the future
of three junior officers so closely, does the
minister agree that justice must be seen to be
done?
Senator NEWMANI do have some answers here which may go some of the way
towards answering the senators question, but

I suspect that they will not be sufficient in the
detail for which she has asked. In relation to
the status of the disciplinary action, as provided in the answer from the Minister for Defence, the report of the board of inquiry and
the evidence before it was separate from the
disciplinary processes which followed.
The board of inquiry recommended disciplinary action but, as it had no relevant
authority, it did not and could not initiate
action. Because disciplinary action was
recommended, a separate investigation to
gather evidence took place. As a result of that
disciplinary investigation, the land commander
directed that charges be preferred.
The convening authority, the support commander, army, will now decide whether there
should be courts martial or other disciplinary
proceedings and, if so, when and where they
will be held. That process may take some
time. It should be understood that the judicial
process must be allowed to run its course and
that any comment by me or by the minister
could be prejudicial to that.
In terms of the relationship with the other
inquiry, I understand that Minister McLachlan
informed the House of Representatives that he
had asked the VCDF, Admiral Barrie, to
investigate the circumstances under which
information was provided. Sorry
Senator CookCant you read it?
Senator NEWMANI have more than
one, havent I? I cannot read two at once.
A board of inquiry was appointed on 24
October 1995 to investigate allegations of
harassment, inappropriate behaviour and
assault at RAAFs No. 92 wing detachment in
Butterworth, Malaysia. The board has yet to
present its report. In July 1997, on becoming
aware of complaints to the Defence Force
Ombudsman about the boards investigation,
the minister asked the VCDF to work with the
Chief of the Air Staff and the Defence Force
Ombudsman to appoint an investigator as
soon as possible and to take steps to ensure
the investigation is conducted with complete
independence.
Investigation into the board will be conducted as soon as possible after the board has
SENATE
finished its report which, it is understood, will

happen shortly. Given the sensitive nature of
the allegations and the privacy issues involved, once again it would be improper to
comment further on the matter. That is the
most I can give you today, Senator, but we
will look at the detail of your question and
follow it up if it needs further answer.
Literacy
Senator CARRMy question without
notice is to the Leader of the Government and
the Minister representing the Prime Minister
in the Senate, Senator Hill. Are you aware
that the Victorian education minister, Mr Phil
Gude, has supported the stance of the federal
opposition in stating that, Dr Kemp has only
been a minister for a year and his track record
is reduction, reduction, reduction? Was Dr
Kemps total rejection of the states $512
million literacy initiatives endorsed by the
cabinet or by his senior minister, Senator
Vanstone? Does the government really concur
with Dr Kemps assertion in regard to teaching literacy that, The real issue is not one of
resources; the real issue is one of will? Isnt
it the case that the real issue for Dr Kemp is
about how to grab media headlines? When
will the Prime Minister intervene to bring Dr
Kemp under control and stop his consistent
grandstanding, which is designed to strengthen his campaign to undermine his senior
minister, Senator Vanstone?
Senator HILLI should commence by
congratulating the honourable senator on
being appointed acting shadow minister for
education. It is a long road ahead. With some
of your friends on your side, you will find it
a rocky road as well, Senator. At least you
have one foot on the track, and that is good
to see.
Senator Faulkner interjecting
Senator HILLThe trouble is that the old
guard are hogging those front seats. The issue
is a very important one; that is, literacy
standards for young Australians and the
achievement of adequate literacy and numeracy levels. The research that has been undertaken would suggest that such standards being
achieved are not as good as we would wish,
and what Dr Kemp has said is that he would
6555
like to see improvements. He has recognised

the fact that the Commonwealth has put a lot
of money into education conducted by the
states in recent times.
Senator CarrHe has taken a hell of a lot
out as well!
Senator HILLI can give you all the
figures if you like, but the Commonwealth
has put a lot of money into education, which
is run by the states. In this critically important
area, we want to see a better outcome.
What is pleasing is that the state ministers
have decided that, in fact, there should be
benchmarking of standards for year 3 and
year 5. In other words, there is an acknowledgment by the states of the need to be able
to objectively assess whether children are
achieving the levels of literacy and numeracy
that are desirable, and that is a good start. The
dispute seems to be whether it needs more
money to achieve that goal or, if money that
is being expended is spent better, could you
achieve the outcome that is being sought?
What Dr Kemp is saying to state ministers is,
Please demonstrate that the very large sums
of public money that are being spent are
being spent in a way to achieve the best
possible outcomes.
Senator CARRMadam President, I ask
a supplementary question. Isnt it the case that
Dr Kemps only real achievement has been to
unite the states in a concerted opposition to
the federal governments education policies?
How long does the Prime Minister intend to
let the situation deteriorate? Will he be
intervening to restore order to the education
planning and to redress the damage inflicted
by Dr Kemps reckless behaviour?
Senator HILLSenator Carr will not be
acting shadow minister for long if he keeps
that up. The point is that Dr Kemp has, in
fact, tapped a nerve; that is, that many parents
in this country are concerned about the levels
of literacy and numeracy being achieved in
primary schools. He has been a party to
research that has given a factual basis to that
concern and that will be the first step towards
achieving better outcomes. Now the debate is
how, through the state education system,
those better outcomes can be achieved. I
would have thought recognition of the fact,
6556
SENATE
acknowledgment of the problem and steps

towards achieving a better outcome should be
something that Senator Carr applauds rather
than condemns.
Coastal Surveillance
Senator KNOWLESMy question is to
the Minister for Customs and Consumer
Affairs, Senator Ellison. The minister and I
are both Western Australians and, as Western
Australians, we consider that the surveillance
of our coastline is of major importance in
safeguarding Australian territorial sovereignty.
Would the minister outline what recent
initiatives he has taken to strengthen that
surveillance?
Senator ELLISONI thank Senator
Knowles for that question. Of course, Senator
Knowles, coming from Western Australia,
understands the importance of Customs
Watch. Customs Watch is a program which
has been in place since July 1995, and it
operates in much the same form as Neighbourhood Watch does in local communities.
That Customs Watch is designed to encourage
all Australians to watch out for Australia. In
relation to that, there is a 24-hour toll-free
number, 1800 06 1800, where people can call
to report any suspicious activity.
On 16 September this year, I attended
Bathurst Island and launched the Customs
Watch awareness program for remote communities. I must say that the communities of the
Tiwi islands were the most appropriate people
to launch this program with, because they
were the people who first saw the impending
invasion from Japan in the last war. Furthermore and more importantly, about three years
ago they assisted Customs in the biggest
heroin seizure in the countrys history, when
124 kilos of heroin was seized.
In tailoring the program to the specific
communities, promotional items were produced which used the peoples affinity with
sport to gain their involvement in the program. In the Tiwi Islands, these were footballs
and basketballs. Of course, it is no secret that
the Tiwi Islands have a proud history in
relation to football and have produced some
famous Australian Rules footballers. It is
through this affinity with sport that Customs
was able to launch this program, which is so

important.
I am very keen to extend this to other
remote areas and acknowledge that in Western
Australia, the home state of Senator Knowles,
this is a most important area which needs to
be looked at and I intend to address that issue
in the more remote areas of that state.
Unemployment
Senator CONROYMy question is addressed to Senator Hill, Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can the minister confirm
whether Senator Vanstone responded to the
latest disastrous job figures by saying:
I feel like a farmer who is watching the clouds and
saying, This drought is going to break.
At a recent CEDA dinner she stated:

You have to have lessened job security.
Do you fully endorse these statements?

Senator HILLWhat I endorse is the fact
that the government has put in place a foundation for job growth. It started when we
inherited a domestic deficit of $10.3 billion.
Whilst that remained, pressure was constantly
going to be on interest rates and inflation. It
tackled that expenditure and, in fact, will
achieve a surplus within its first three years
of government. We are seeing the benefit of
that now in terms of lower interest rates,
which I talked about earlier in this question
timefive reductions of interest rates within
18 months of government. We have seen the
benefits in terms of lower inflation rates,
which give confidence to business to invest.
We have put in place the Workplace Relations Act which will free up the industrial
relations system and therefore encourage
employment growth. We are wrestling with
taxation reform, which is another of the major
pillars of economic reform which is necessary
and which Labor was not prepared to tackle.
We have made a number of reforms and
changes in relation to small business, which
have been applauded, changes to the capital
gains tax and changes to the fringe benefits
tax. The point is: all of these changes together
add up to a better environment for job opportunity. It is as simple as that.
SENATE
Labor has a short memory. Labor was the

party which drove unemployment rates up to
record levels, the highest level since the Great
Depression. That is Labors record, Madam
President.
Senator CookThats not true!
Senator HILLIt is true that the coalition
inherited high unemployment rates. It is true
that the reforms that have been necessary to
turn that around have required radical change.
Those changes have been introduced and
largely passed. It therefore logically follows
that with a continuation of positive economic
growth we will achieve our job targets as
well. As I have said several times already in
this question time, that is good for Australia.
We do have the fundamentals right. We have
been prepared to take the hard decisions to
introduce the economic reforms that are
necessary to create real jobs, not make-believe
jobs. I have every reason to believe, on that
basis, that the prospects for employment
growth are good as well.
Senator CONROYMadam President, I
ask a supplementary question. Senator
Vanstone said:
I feel like a farmer who is watching the clouds and
saying, This drought is going to break.
Will you fully endorse those comments?

Senator HILLObviously the honourable
senator was not listening. The point is: reforms have been put in place which will
encourage economic growth and will achieve
and improve job outcomes. That was the point
that Senator Vanstone was making. As has
been recognised by most independent and
objective authorities, the foundation has been
laid for improved job outcomes, and that is
the objective.
Interest Rates
Senator WATSONMy question is
directed to the Assistant Treasurer. The
minister would be aware of recent indications
that longer term inflation and interest rate
expectations are still falling. Minister, would
you explain to the Senate the benefits of
lower long-term interest rates?
Senator KEMPThank you for that
important question. Senator Watson has
6557
pinpointed that this government is a low

interest rate government, in contrast to the
high interest rate government of the Labor
administration. Not one of them ever complained about the very high interest rates
which occurred under their government.
Senator Conroy interjecting
Senator KEMPSenator Conroy, you can
shout and scream all you like, but you are not
at an ACOSS meeting now; you are in the
Senate.
One of the very many sad legacies Labor
left Australia was a very high public debt due
to exploding debt levels and debt which had
been issued at high interest rates. Some of
Labors debt, which the government is still
repaying, was incurred at interest rates in the
order of 14 per cent. We are turning that sad
legacy around.
Last Mays budget reported that net debt as
a share of GDP would be almost halved by
the year 2001, which is less than four years
away. The government is also reaping the
benefit of lower long-term interest rates. In
July, for example, the government issued
October 2007 stock at an interest rate of 6.5
per cent. At noon today, the yield on the 10year bonds was just 6.13 per cent. You have
to go back almost a quarter of a century to
find yields around that level. Over time, lower
interest rates will have substantial benefits in
terms of lower public debt and interest cost to
the budget, thereby providing significant
benefits to the community. Lower bond yields
are possible because the inflation outlook is
good.
Australia has decisively joined the ranks of
the low- inflation economies. There will be
substantial benefits arising from this, one of
which will be increased business certainty and
reduced pressure on interest rates. It is probably worth recalling that our annual underlying inflation rate is the lowest since the
series began in 1972.
Senator CookThanks to Labor!
Senator KEMPAlways one with the
funny comments! That was the funniest thing
I have heard in question time for a long time.
Labor is responsible for low interest rates and
low inflation! Werent you a minister in that
6558
SENATE
government? Dont you remember the level

of interest rates? Dont you recall what
happened to housing rates when Labor was in
office, when Captain Wacky had the levers?
Dont you recall all that stuff? Madam President, I appreciate the interjection from Senator Cook, because it has given the Senate a
chance to reflect and to be reminded of the
appalling record of the Labor government on
issues such as interest rates, which was a truly
bad record.
Long-term low interest rates are of course
not just good for government and taxpayers
who have to fund repayments. They are good
for people taking out fixed rate home loans;
they are good for people in business. Many
senators will be aware that fixed rate home
loans were cut substantially last week. (Time
expired)
Senator WATSONMadam President, I
ask a supplementary question. Minister, you
mentioned significant benefits to the community. What impact will this have for
Australias employment? Minister, you will
also be aware of a report
in todays
Australian Financial Review that the era of
cheap money for Australian home buyers and
big companies looks set to continue for at
least another decade. Would you agree with
that?
Senator KEMPIndeed, and I thank
Senator Watson for reminding the Senate of
this article in todays Australian Financial
Review. I happen to have the quote here
myself, Senator Watson, which says:
The era of cheap money for Australian home
buyers and big companies looks set to continue for
at least another decade.
One of the things that that means is that this

government will continue in office, because,
if Labor ever got back into office, you know
what would happen to interest rates: up they
would go again; deficits would go up again;
inflation would go up again. It is no good
shaking your head, Senator Cook, because
that is what happened for 13 years.
I believe that everyone in the community
welcomes the policies that the government is
following to maintain that downward pressure
on interest rates. That is precisely what has
happened. Under this government, interest
rates have fallen, which will have very positive effects on employment. (Time expired)
Senator FAULKNERMy question is
directed to the Minister representing the
Minister for Defence. Minister, is it a fact that
a Mr Jim Bonner, a staff member of the
Minister for Defence, faxed to journalists
covering the recent South Pacific Forum
meeting in the Cook Islands a copy of a
Defence cable that was marked restricted?
Who provided this cable to Mr Bonner? On
what basis was the cable provided to Mr
Bonner? Was the minister, Mr McLachlan,
consulted about access to this file and document? Does the government support the
publication of such classified material?
Senator NEWMANI think the Leader of
the Opposition in the Senate has a problem
with the difference between secret and
restricted. Perhaps it would be an idea if he
went and had a briefing from the former
Minister for Defence, Senator Ray, who was
presumably responsible
Senator Robert RayI wasnt.
Senator NEWMANHe wasnt. It was
your predecessor, Mr Beazley, was it? I do
not have any detailed information on the
questions you have asked, but I will be happy
to get anything that the minister is able to
provide for you.
Senator FAULKNERMadam President,
I ask a supplementary question. Given the
seriousness of this issue, and given that these
are questions of fact and ought to be able to
be responded to very quickly, I would have
thought, could the minister respond to these
issues today?
Senator NEWMANI will refer the
question to the Minister for Defence, as I
said, and I will see how he wishes to respond.
Landmines
Senator BOURNEMy question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill. As the
minister would be aware, almost 100 countries attending the Oslo conference on landmines have formally adopted a text of a treaty
banning anti-personnel landmines to be signed
SENATE
in Ottawa in December 1997. Given that the

text for the treaty was formally adopted in
Oslo, why has our government backed away
from committing Australias signature to the
agreement, despite voting in favour of the
treaty? What are the so-called national
interests that the Foreign Affairs and Defence
ministers are using to explain why Australia
will not commit to sign the document?
Senator HILLWe have a different
process now. Basically, I think it will interest
the Senate if I confirm that we are committed
to the goal of achieving a global landmines
ban. We signed the Brussels Declaration of
Principles on a Global Landmines Ban on 15
August and participated in the negotiations for
a landmines ban, which were held, as you
said, in Oslo.
The treaty is a stronger document than the
draft on which the Oslo conference began
work, thanks in no small part to the efforts of
Australia on key issues such as definitions
and verification which are central to the
effectiveness of any arms control treaty.
Cabinet will now consider whether Australia should sign the treaty in Ottawa in December. As with any treaty which is proposed for
our signature, the government will first need
to assess how the treaty stacks up against
Australias national interests and goals,
including the goal of an effective global
solution to the landmines problema goal
which will require further work, given that a
number of countries central to the landmines
equation, major users and producers, have
made clear that they will have nothing to do
with the Ottawa treaty. We will continue our
efforts in the conference on disarmament to
ensure the major producers and exporters of
landmines are brought into the process of
finding a solution to the landmines problem.
We are also pleased that Australia was
among the first states, the 10th in fact, to
accept strengthened protocol 2 to the Inhumane Weapons Convention. Whilst disappointed that it stopped short of a total ban, we
were pleased that the protocol offers enhanced
protection from APL to civilians and peacekeeping forces. The new protocol also contains an enhanced review mechanism through
6559
which further strengthening of the protocol

can be pursued.
Key countries absent from the Ottawa
process are engaged on the landmines issue in
both the conference of disarmament and the
IWC. The government is committed to continuing to lead by example in building international support to address the appalling
humanitarian crisis brought about by past
misuse of landmines.
Senator BOURNEMadam President, I
ask a supplementary question. Minister, could
you tell us when cabinet will be considering
whether Australia will be signing that document?
Senator HILLAs I just said, cabinet will
now consider whether Australia should sign
the treaty in Ottawa in December, so I presume cabinet will be giving it early consideration.
Ministerial Responsibility: Tariffs
Senator SCHACHTMy question without
notice is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. I draw your
attention to the Prime Ministers guide on the
key elements of ministerial responsibility
where it states:
Decisions of cabinet are reached collectively and,
unless in exceptional circumstances, bind all
ministers as decisions of government. In exceptional cases ministers who were not present for a
discussion may, if they believe there are difficulties
of which cabinet would have been unaware, seek
to re-open discussion.
All ministers must give their support in public
debate to decisions of the government.
Therefore, Minister, can you confirm that Mr

Downer was at the cabinet meeting that
decided the TCF tariff freeze? If so, how do
you reconcile the requirement of the ministerial guide with Mr Downers comment on
Lateline when he said that tariffs were not an
efficient way of providing assistance to
Australian industry?
Senator HILLIt took a long time to get
to the nub of the question, but it does give me
an opportunity to recognise the importance of
the decision that the government made in
relation to TCF. It is true that it is a difficult
time for Australian industry; it was not helped
6560
SENATE
by 13 years of Labor that drove so many

Australian businesses to the wall.
I have to say on reflection, Madam President, thinking of an earlier question today
when Senator Cook claimed credit for low
interest rates, that we will never forget the
1990 period when his government drove up
interest rates to dampen demand and drove so
many small businesses in this country to the
wall.
Senator CookWhat has that got to do
with TCF?
Senator HILLIt demonstrates that the
last 13 years has been a very difficult time for
business in Australia. What the government
has done through this decision is to provide
for a little more stability. But, consistent with
our international obligations to
Senator CookI have a point of order,
Madam President, regarding relevance. This
question was not about a ministerial statement
on what the government did on TCF. This
question was not about what happened in the
last 13 years. This question was quite directly
about ministerial responsibility, the Prime
Ministers code of conduct, and a blatant
breach of that code by the foreign minister.
The Leader of the Government is avoiding
answering that questionit may be that it is
inconvenient for himbut you should direct
him, Madam President, to answer the question
that was put, not fabricate side issues and
answer those that were not put, but directing
his attention to the actual question.
The PRESIDENTI draw your attention
to the question, Senator Hill. Please continue
with your answer.
Senator HILLThank you, Madam President. Senator Cook is very sensitive today
about Labors record on interest rates, which
I can well understand because, if we had
achieved a 10.2 per cent interest rate, I would
be embarrassed as well.
Senator CookIf I could take a point of
order, Madam President, the Leader of the
Government is once again diverting from your
ruling. You directed him to answer the question, and he then proceeded to flout your
ruling and not answer it. For the record, let
me say I am happy to debate Senator Hill at
any time. This is question time and not an
appropriate time for a debate, but at any time

he wishes I am happy to debate him. However, he has flouted your ruling. You should
again direct him to comply with it.
The PRESIDENTSenator Hill, I am sure
you are aware of the question you are answering.
Senator HILLMr Downer supports the
position of the government.
Senator SCHACHTMadam President, I
ask a supplementary question. In view of the
last part of your answer, Minister, that Mr
Downer supports the governments position,
will he have his attention drawn to his remarks after the decision was announced by
cabinet where he said that tariffs were not an
efficient way of providing assistance to
Australian industry and that, as a result, he is
in breach of the ministerial guidelines?
Senator HILLIt is true that Australian
companies would not want to rely on tariffs,
but they do not rely on tariffs alone. The
point is that Australian companies now can
rely on a sound economic foundation that can
give them confidence in the futurelower
interest rates, more incentives, a better taxation system, better small business policies
and, ultimately, tax reform. That is what will
be critically important and that, I believe, is
the point that Mr Downer was making.
Madam President, even though I might have
got the next dorothy dixer, I ask that further
questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT
NOTICE
Superannuation
Unemployment
Public Service Redundancies
Workplace Relations Act
Literacy
Ministerial Responsibility: Tariffs
Senator SHERRY (TasmaniaDeputy
p.m.)I move:
SENATE
That the Senate take note of the answers given

by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill)
to questions without notice asked by opposition
senators today.
In commencing my remarks, I refer to the

question that I posed to Senator Hill about the
changes to social security assessment procedures and processes which came into effect on
Saturday. Saturday will go down as a very
black day indeed for Australian workers who
look forward to some sort of securitynot
just job security from this government which
has failed to deliver in that area, but also
some security in respect to their various
superannuation and other entitlements.
Senator FergusonI take a point of order,
Madam President. Is it in order for a senator
to rise and take note of all answers given by
a minister even though the subjects were not
all the same? Senator Sherrys question was
directed to superannuation. Some other questions were directed to Senator Hill with regard
to the environment; some questions related to
jobs. I want to know whether it is in order for
a senator to take note of all answers given by
a minister in question time. I would have
thought it would need to be for a particular
answer, otherwise we could have somebody
speaking on a wide range of subjects and not
specifically asking for a response to any
particular answer.
The PRESIDENTThe practice has grown
of people taking note of multiple questions.
Today there is certainly a very broad range of
questions. It is matter that the Procedures
Committee might like to look at. Certainly in
recent times it has become the practice to take
note of all questions put to a minister. But
this is certainly a much broader range of
questions than has been the case previously,
I think.
Senator SHERRYThank you, Madam
President, I can understand why Senator
Ferguson looks somewhat puzzled, given this
governments very poor record of addressing
the critical need of job security for Australians.
Saturday was a black day for Australians
who have reached the age of 55. The importance of what happened on Saturday is that for
the first time when Australian workers lose
6561
their jobs they will have their superannuation

assets assessed for the purposes of social
security payments. What does this mean?
Some Australian workers have conscientiously, over the last 10, 20, 30 yearswhatever
the time period may beaccumulated, in
many cases voluntarily, superannuation for
their retirement. But, of course, 55 is not the
age of retirement in this country; 65 is the age
of retirement.
What is occurring at the present time
Senator Ferguson would do well to take note
of the many thousands of complaints that
have been expressed about this particular new
provisionis that if an Australian worker
loses their job and is unemployed for nine
months they are faced with the prospect of
having their social security payments reduced
or cut out altogether. What is their response
to thisI do not refer to it as just being
nasty; it is viciousnew policy of this
government? They will be forced to draw
down on all or part of the superannuation that
they have accumulated, struggled to accumulate, in many cases, over the last 10, 20 or 30
years.
When we questioned Senator Hill about it
today he referred to it as a subtle policy
change. It is none too subtle for those
persons affected by this new deeming provision of superannuation. They will be hit with
a literal financial brick wall when they reach
the age of 55 and nine months. They will be
required to draw down on part of or all their
superannuation.
This change represents, as I said earlier, a
very nasty, a very vicious, measure directed
not just at Australians who have saved for
their retirement in respect of superannuation
but at a group of Australians who are at their
most vulnerable: Australians who are 55 and
have lost their jobs. In the current economic
climate
Senator FergusonIt is voluntary retirement.
Senator SHERRYIt is not voluntary
retirement, Senator Ferguson. You are wrong.
You front up to the Newcastle workers who
have lost their jobs or are going to lose their
jobs. You front up to the workers from my
own part of Tasmania at Tioxide or the pulp
6562
SENATE
and paper mill. They have complained long

and hard about this particular measure. Those
workers lost their jobs at the age of 55 and
have very little chance and very little opportunity of finding alterative employment.
Senator Hill refers to this as a subtle government measure!
Of course, other measures came into effect
on Saturday as well. It is not just superannuation that is affected; it is also annual leave,
sick leave, long service leave, maternity leave
or any other liquid assets, excluding the
family home, in excess of $5,000 for a couple
or $2,500 for a single person. As I said
earlier, they are vicious and nasty measures.
These last measures will affect just over
103,000 Australians. The worst news for
battling Australians who lose their jobs at the
age of 55 is that more and more people who
have accumulated superannuation assets when
they reach the age of 55 and cannot find
another job after nine months are being
effectively forced to declare themselves
retired to access their superannuation money
before they reach retirement age.
The government has not heard the last of
these measures from out there in battling
Australia. Battlers, particularly battlers at the
age of 55, strongly resent these measures.
(Time expired)
Senator CRANE (Western Australia) (3.20
p.m.)I rise to speak on the motion. I am
absolutely amazed to find that Senator Sherry
has to take note of a broad range of questions.
That indicates quite clearly to me that he has
no expertise or knowledge about anything. He
is just throwing a few things into the ring.
The reality of the situation with which this
country is faced today is that that lot over
there broke the spirit of this country: they
broke the spirit of small business, they broke
the spirit of large business, they broke the
spirit of the miners, they broke the spirit of
the people on the land and so on, as you work
through the whole issue.
Why did they do that? How did they do
that? In your period of government you
oversaw the highest unemployment since the
Great Depression. That is your record. You
oversaw the highest level of bankruptcy since
the Great Depression. That is your record.
You want to remember that. You had the

highest interest rates since the Great Depression. I well remember debating these particular issues in this place. Remember when
housing interest rates were at 17 per cent?
Remember when business was paying between 23 and 27 per cent? That is your
record. That is your legacy to this country.
That is the damage you did. We have set
about rebuilding it. We have made a significant number of changes.
I will address some of those changes right
now. Interest rates are at their lowest since
the mid-sixties. What have we done with
small business? We have introduced a capital
gains tax rollover so that they can expand and
go on to other businesses. They can be flexible. They can deal with the issues beforehand. But they have to get their confidence
back before they can start employing people.
You will see that very soon, might I suggest.
We have made reforms to the fringe benefits
tax. What did you do? You put a fringe
benefits tax on the right of somebody to park
their car. That is the sort of action you took.
You drove people away from the work force.
You put the cost of business upyou consistently did that. We brought in a one-stop shop
for small business. We can go on through the
list as far as small business is concerned.
Let us look at what was done for rebuilding
rural and remote Australia. Labor drove our
producers into the ground. That is what you
did. You drove them into the ground. I reemphasise that a large number of people came
to us and said that they were forced out by
virtue of the fact that they were paying
interest rates of between 23 and 27 per cent.
And you want to try to run a business. If you
had ever run a business, you would not have
let that happen. It takes a lot for people to get
over that, but they are getting over it. They
are reducing their debt. They are getting their
businesses back into perspective and, to assist
them, we announced last week a new farm
management deposit scheme.
I remember that, after our drought inquiry,
then Labor senator Bryant Burns said in this
place that people on the land must have a
system where they can put aside a haystack
of money. But what did you do about it?
SENATE
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. That is what you

did about it. We have done something about
it. We put the farm management scheme in
place and it will bring reform.
What have we done in terms of introducing
a mechanism to allow people to get out of the
industry, so that the next generation can
continue on with the operation but not have
the liability of trying to keep two and three
families on the one property when retirement
ages come? Once again, we have done something about that, and you will see enormous
benefits flow from that.
Senator MackayWhen?
Senator CRANEYou will see it very
quickly, might I tell you; it only came in last
week. We did something about it. That is
more than you did. All you lot did was talk,
talk, talk.
Finally, how much damage did you do with
your disastrous 1993 native title legislation?
You held up billions and billions of dollars of
projects$8 billion worth of projects in my
state of Western Australia alone.
You have the challenge now with the 10point plan coming into this place in the next
week or two. If you went and spoke to the
people who work in the mines, the people
who work on the land and the people who
work in the transport industry and other
industries, you would see that they want you
lot on that side to support the 10-point plan,
to streamline the right to negotiate, to get the
country working again, to get these projects
off the ground, to get certainty to the pastoralists, to get certainty to the farmers and to get
certainty to the small businesses in towns like
Kalgoorlie, for example. They want you to
support that because it is fair, because it is
equitable and because it will bring stability
back to this countrythe stability that you lot
on that side of the chamber destroyed. (Time
expired)
Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (3.25
p.m.)I want to speak on the same matter. If
I were not in this chamber, I would not have
believed my ears
Senator FergusonWhich matter?
Senator MACKAYOn the same matter,
the various answers given by Senator Hill.
6563
Senator SherryNon-answers.
Senator MACKAYYes, non-answers.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder!
Senator Mackay, would you like to address
the chair and ignore the interjections.
Senator MACKAYThank you, I will.
Let us just remind senators opposite exactly
what the unemployment situation is at the
moment. We have heard members of the
government say, Wait for the drought to
break, and, Things are going to happen very
soon. The issues Senator Sherry raised are
very subtlesubtle as a brick, I think, in
relation to unemployment figures, growth
figures and so on.
Let us remind the chamber exactly what the
unemployment situation is at the moment. At
the moment, we have 8.7 per cent national
unemployment. Somebody in this chamber
who is actually not here at the momentsaid,
In order to get re-elected, you wouldnt have
a show unless you got unemployment down
below eight per cent. Who said that? She is
not here at the moment, is she? It was Senator
Vanstone, the Minister for Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Senator SherryAnd Dr Kemp.
Senator MACKAYDr Kemp as well?
Senator Vanstone and Dr Kemp said that this
government would not have a chance of being
re-elected unless they got unemployment
below eight per cent. But now she says, Oh,
no. Were not doing that now. What you have
to do in order to get re-elected is get a big
tick for effort. Through you, Madam Deputy
President, I suggest that this government go
out and talk to the 38,000 people who have
lost their full-time jobs recently. Go and say,
We tried. Give us a big tick and re-elect us.
Why dont they go and talk about youth
unemployment? The number of unemployed
youth, based on the trend figure, is 82,500.
The governments own forecast of 8.25 per
cent unemployment by the middle of next
year is completely unachievable. So you do
not get a big tick for effort; you get a big
cross for effort. And you are also not going
to get unemployment below eight per cent, on
the words of your own employment minister.
6564
SENATE
While we are talking about the minister for

employment, let us look at precisely what she
has said. She has spoken about a number of
things over the last couple of weeks, and I do
not think any of them were particularly
helpful to the other side. The reason I think
Senator Sherry took the opportunity to take
note of various answers given by Senator Hill
is that there is so much to talk about. There
was so much to talk about, we just could not
choose. We decided that, rather than take note
of one answer, we would go for the smorgasbord approach and take note of all of those
answers. It is the smorgasbord approach.
Let us look at precisely what Senator
Vanstone said. She said, We need a freer
labour market and lessened job security to
reduce unemployment. That is what she said;
that is a fact. She said, You have to have, it
might be described as, lessened job security.
Its not a message everyone wants to hear.
That is also a fact. People do not want to hear
that message. She also said earlier this week
that the governments spending cuts were
partly to blame for high unemploymenta
claim Mr Howard was forced to deny.
Senator SherryTrue.
Senator MACKAYThat is also fact. That
is right. The governments spending cuts have
contributed to high unemployment, and Mr
Howard was forced to deny that. Let us see
what else Senator Vanstone said. Senator
Vanstone conceded that faster economic
growth would not lead to rapid jobs growth.
Who was it who saidand he is not in this
chamber; he is in another placethat you had
to get growth up to at least four per cent
before you could make a major dent in unemployment? Who was that?
Senator SherryDr Kemp?
Senator MACKAYNo, it was not Dr
Kemp. It was Mr Howard. He said you had to
get growth up to four per cent before you
made a major dent in unemployment. What is
he saying these days? Let us have a look. The
Financial Review reported:
Mr Howard told reporters in Sydney: "Unemployment is always the last of the major economic
indicators to come right . . . There will be no
change at all in the fundamental strategy, because
it is correct. Departing from our strategy would
stunt growth and depress the prospects for a fall in

unemployment."
That is wrong according to Senator Vanstone.

Senator Vanstone completely disputes that.
She said that high levels in growth do not
accord with a rapid decrease in unemployment. Just who is right in this place? This
government does not know what it is doing,
and Senator Vanstone is very conveniently
away teaching other people how to undermine
their own governments. There was no opportunity for us to ask her about this today, so
we asked Senator Hill. I think he had a
wonderful time. We certainly did.
Senator FERGUSON (South Australia)
(3.30 p.m.)I was very interested to hear
Senator Mackay say that today the opposition
is taking a smorgasbord approach to taking
note of answers given during question time.
The only reason that you would take a smorgasbord approach to taking note of answers is
that you have no idea what to focus on and
no priorities whatsoever. This was the tendency of the opposition in taking note of answers
during the previous two weeks of sittings. I
distinctly remember Senator Schacht, having
been hit from pillar to post by Senator Alston,
getting up to take note of the answer so he
could get in another round or two. The only
reason that you take a smorgasbord approach
is that you have no priorities. I would suggest
that you have some strategy meetings in the
mornings prior to coming in here to talk
about where perhaps you could target your socalled attack; you could do that in the questions committee.
We have Senator Sherry crying crocodile
tears about a system of superannuation and
the changes that have been made, when in
fact all the changes that he says we are
responsible for were part of his governments
policy until 1993. Until 1993, Senator Sherry,
we did not hear you saying that accumulations for over 55s should not be included
Senator SherryAnnual leave and sick
leave wasnt.
Senator FERGUSONThe point that I am
making to you
The DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator
Ferguson, if you would like to address your
SENATE
remarks through the chair, it might reduce the

interjections.
Senator FERGUSONCertainly. The
point that Senator Sherry is trying to make is
that people are being forced to access their
superannuation accounts if they are over the
age of 55 and are no longer in employment.
What I am saying is that Senator Sherry ought
remember what the policy of the Labor Party
was for 10 years prior to 1993; that is, that
people should access it.
Senator Sherry refers to the workersthe
battlerswho are forced to access their
superannuation accounts. Senator Sherry is
very fond of using the term workers, as
though they are the only people who ever
accumulate superannuation. In the early 1980s
those people who had some sort of accumulations in general terms were those who were
not the workers. The people who are now, to
use your term, being forced to accessthose
who are being forced to use any accumulation
they haveare in no different a position to
the position of a small businessman who
owned a corner shop and poured all of his
resources into that shop without having a
separate superannuation account. If he sells
that shop or if he goes out of business and
has only a small amount of assetsfor instance, $100,000under the system of your
government, right through until 1996, he was
forced to access that before he could access
any job program or any pension whatsoever.
Senator SherryDo you give the same
exemption for people in small business?
Senator FERGUSONAll I am saying to
you, Senator Sherry, is that in those days you
were quite happy for a person who had no
superannuation to have to access any accumulation that he had in his own name. The only
thing that you said was sacrosanct was any
superannuation contribution which he might
have had in his name, whether or not that
person chose not to work or even to seek
work until the age of 55.
Senator Mackay does her little bit of play
acting, asking herself rhetorical questions and
supplying predictable answers. She talks about
levels of unemployment. Senator Mackay, you
must have a very short memory. Although
you were not in this place between 1990 and
6565
1993, I am sure that, in your role in Tasmania, you were heavily involved in the union
organisation. I cannot remember you ever
making any major complaints to the then
government, when in fact that government
was responsible for the highest unemployment
levels this country had seen for 60 years.
Were you as outspoken in your position then
as you are today about levels that are somewhat lower than they were in 1990-93? I
think close to 11 per cent was the highest
it got to.
During that time when we were having the
recession that we were told we had to have
the Labor government said we had to have a
recessioninterest rates were almost the
highest they had been in history, to my
knowledge. So many people that I know were
forced out of small business. Many people on
the land were forced out of business because
they found themselves paying 24-27 per cent
interest rates.
We now have a situation where this government has low inflation and low interest rates.
It is trying to remedy the position that we
found ourselves in upon taking office in 1996
and being left with the 13-year legacy of
those opposite. (Time expired)
Senator HOGG (Queensland) (3.35
p.m.)I do not believe that I have heard
some of the things that have come out of the
mouths of government senators today, particularly the last comment about the wonderful
deal that is being done on interest rates for
people on the land. If Senator Ferguson really
wants to know what that is about, he should
go and talk to some people on the land. The
other day I spoke to people who complained
loudly and clearly to me that, whilst this
government goes around touting that it has
lowered interest rates, they have to pay high
interest rates on their overdrafts and so on.
That is the very thing that they are complaining about. You go out and tell them that you
are a low interest rate government. They do
not believe you.
Senator FergusonWhat rate are they
paying?
Senator HOGGI thank the dear senator
for that interjection. I have been told that they
are paying in the order of 16-17 per cent. The
6566
SENATE
fact of life is that this government has not

performed well. It has performed utterly
badly.
In addressing the smorgasbord of issues that
are before the chair today
Senator FergusonWhich one are you
going to talk about?
Senator HOGGThe particular issue that
I want to look at is the issue that you have
caused the greatest trouble with; that is, job
security. You have ruined job security in this
nation. You have done so systematically in
the Public Service. You have ruined the
expectations of people who had a job in the
Public Service, who earnt an income, who
earnt a living. All you have to do is look
around Canberra to see what you people have
laid to waste in your period in government. It
does not just stop there.
Someone earlier in the debate spoke about
the Australian Taxation Office. I met someone
from the Australian Taxation Office who had
come near to being tapped on the shoulder.
That is what it is about. We hear that there
are no compulsory redundancies; there are
nice taps on the shoulder. It is going on
currently in Foreign Affairs. No-one is going
around railroading anyone out of a job. You
get a polite tap on the shoulder and you are
told, Its about time that you moved on. Its
about time that you stopped filling up the
space here. Weve got to create some more
unemployment. That is what you are the
government of, and that is the way it is
approached.
So what do we see? We see people like this
driver who was previously with the Australian
Taxation Office saying because of the great
uncertainty created by this government,
Enough is enough, and getting out. That is
pretty much the story around town and around
the Public Service throughout Australia. The
great uncertainty that this government has
caused has led people in despair to take a
package and to get out. There is uncertainty
about where the next dollar is going to come
from. So what do they do? They opt out
and
Senator SherrySlug them if they are
over the age of 55.
Senator HOGGThat is right, and that is

the other option that is available.
In the answers that Senator Hill gave us
today we heard some nice rhetoric. We heard
about reforms in place, economic growthas
my colleague Senator Mackay has already
alluded to, there is no economic growthand
the foundation has been laid. One would think
this was a chookery with us getting things
laid now. The truth of the matter is that small
businesses have no confidence in this government whatsoever.
For Senator Crane to make the assertion
that they are rebuilding the rural and remote
areas is a nonsense. If one looks at what has
happened in rural communities alone over the
last 12 months, one will see that there have
been a substantial number of bank closures.
Banks are one of the major areas that provide
employment in those rural areas. If you look
at recent statistics that came out of the Reserve Bank, you will find that, in the last 12
months, 400 branches of banks closed
throughout Australiain my state alone, 57
branches closed. This leads to a lot of job
insecurity because of the policies of this
government.
The paramount thing on the lips of people
these days is job security. All we see are the
policies of this government making people
feel more insecure. When giving answers
today, Senator Hill spoke of flexibility.
Flexibility is one of the key words associated with the casualisation of the work force.
Casualisation breeds nothing else other than
uncertainty in the work force and pessimism
among the work force.
But what do we see? We see this government persisting with these policies and going
down the path of causing more heartache and
more stress in the working community. This
government has to live with the fact that it is
against real job security for people in the
community and it has done nothing with its
economics to underpin and lay down a successful platform for jobs. (Time expired)
Senator TROETH (Victoria) (3.40 p.m.)
Out of the smorgasbord of opportunities that
has been presented by the opposition today,
I would have to say that it is not a particularly appetising meal.
SENATE
Senator SherryCertainly not given what

your government has done.
Senator TROETHPerhaps you would
leave that for me to comment on, Senator
Sherry. If we are talking about job security,
we need to ask why in September 1997
employers are still very wary of putting on
extra employees and taking that step which
would lead to increased employment.
Senator SherryNo confidence.
Senator TROETHI suggest that the no
confidence that the employers are displaying
is due to historical facts, of which I would
like to name a couple.
Firstly, employers have only just gained
more certainty in the way in which their
businesses are run by the introduction of a
much fairer unfair dismissal law, which came
through in the coalitions workplace industrial
relations policy which went through the
Senate last year. I understand that the number
of unfair dismissal applications has been cut
by half compared with those applications that
went through before that legislation was dealt
with. This means that an employer can employ someone and know that, if the due
procedures take place and if that person
proves unsatisfactory, they would then not
have to keep that person on, as was the case
under the previous legislation. That gives
them a great deal more certainty to employ
people in the first place.
Secondly, I suspect that employers are still
recovering from the 1990 recessionthe one
which you will remember the then Treasurer
Mr Keating described as the recession that we
had to have. That proved to be extremely
unfortunate for small business. As Senator
Hill pointed out today, record numbers of
both small businesses and individuals were
plunged into bankruptcy. Interest rates were
so high that many Australian businesses and
individuals went to the wall.
Thirdly, businesses are still recovering from
the uncertain economic climate created by
other comments made by Mr Keating during
his time as Treasurer indicating that this
nation could go down the path of a banana
republic. What does that do to inspire business confidence in anyone?
6567
On the other hand, what do we have today

in the realm of job security created by this
government? The Treasurer (Mr Costello) has
announced that there has been a growth lift in
the June quarter for the national accounts. We
have the lowest inflation for 30 years. We
have had five cuts in the interest rate since we
gained office.
I would like to point out to Senator Hogg,
who, unfortunately, has just left, that the
deregulation of the financial system announced by the Treasurer in his acceptance of
the Wallis report will mean the entry of new
providers into the financial system and that
will mean that there will be a much greater
dare I say the wordsmorgasbord for
businesses to choose from as to who is going
to loan them money. That competition alone
would mean a reduction in interest rates.
The cuts in spending that we have had to
make to reduce the deficit from the $10
billion that it was when we gained office have
meant that this country has been placed on a
much better economic footing. Similarly, the
Treasurer has noted a growth in business
investment which must predicate that business
is starting to spend money. You would expect
that further down the track that will lead to a
growth in jobs.
There is also a high level of vacancies. The
Herald-Sun telethon on the weekend pointed
out that there are jobs available. The fact that
employers are willing to go into the public
eye and put those jobs forward means that
there are jobs there. In due course those jobs
will become available.
I would like to point out to Senator Hogg
again that the rural package announced by the
Prime Minister some 10 days ago does give
hope to the farming sector as far as job
security is concerned. Intergenerational transfer from father to son means job security.
Banks have closed, which is a commercial
decision by them, but again the deregulation
of the financial sector will mean that other
lending providers will come to the fore in the
country.
We have taken the hard decisions and put
to shame the abysmal 13-year tragic record of
the opposition in failing to create job security.
6568
SENATE
That is the one thing that the coalition

government has moved to do.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
CONDOLENCES
Mother Teresa of Calcutta
The DEPUTY PRESIDENTIt is with
deep regret that I inform the Senate of the
death on 5 September 1997 of Mother Teresa.
by leaveI move:
(1) That the Senate records its deep sadness at
the death, on 5 September 1997, of Mother
Teresa, the former head of the Missionaries
of Charity and expresses its deep sympathy
to the members of the Society of the
Missionaries of Charity order and the people
of India in their bereavement.
(2) That the above resolution be conveyed by the
President, on behalf of the Senate, to the
Government of India, the Holy See and to
Sister Nirmala Joshi, Superior General of the
Missionaries of Charity.
Mother Teresa was an exceptional human

being, recognised internationally for her work
with the poor, the sick and the dying. Although reward was not sought, she received
numerous awards and prizes for her work,
perhaps the most significant being the Nobel
prize in 1979.
For Australians, Mother Teresa will be
remembered particularly because of her
Missionaries of Charity order, which has
established missions in Sydney, Melbourne,
Queanbeyan, Bourke, Orange, Dareton,
Wagga Wagga, Tennant Creek, Katherine and
Darwin. She visited Australia half a dozen
times and in January 1982 she was appointed
an Honorary Companion in the Order of
Australia for services to the community of
Australia and humanity at large.
Mother Teresas compassion and determination to make the world a better place was an
inspiration and example for all of us. For half
a century she touched the lives of millions of
people all over the world. Her passing will
leave a void not only in the Society of the
Missionaries of Charity but in the hearts and
minds of all who share her vision and compassion. A woman of resolute spirit and
unerring faith, she was a symbol of selfless

commitment. Her legacy will live on through
the missions she established in her lifetime.
I am sure that all senators join with me in
expressing our deep condolences to the
members of the Society of the Missionaries of
Charity and to the people of India. I commend this motion to the Senate.
p.m.)I rise on behalf of the opposition to
also offer our sincere condolences on the
death of Mother Teresa. There are very few
people in our history who have inspired
humanity, received global accolades and gone
about their modest business of giving succour
to the very disadvantaged, to the poor and to
the ill in our community. Mother Teresa, of
course, was one of the few.
Mother Teresa, by birth, was an Albanian.
She was the daughter of a middle class, in
fact, well-heeled businessman. In 1950 she
founded her order, the Missionaries of Charity, to help the poorest of the poor, the sick,
those dying in the slums, the beggars, the
lepers and the thousands of abandoned children. Her faith and determination was quite
extraordinary, faced with what could only be
described as a daily parade of human suffering and hopelessness. It is also true to say
that lesser spirits would have cracked under
those sorts of trying conditions.
Dominique Lapierre, the author of the book,
City of Joy, describes Calcutta as a cauldron
of misery, injustice and violence. Mother
Teresa said she received her call to tend the
suffering of Calcutta while on a train, travelling through a railway tunnel on the way to
Darjeeling. She responded to that call. Her
mission over the past 45 years has been to
ameliorate some of the suffering that has been
caused by the massive poverty of India. Her
hospice has assisted more than 100,000
people over those years. Her calling, obviously, has motivated thousands to follow her. I
think there are now 5,000 sisters in the order
which spans all continents. The order is
assisted by many millions of lay workers.
I am sure that Mother Teresas call will not
be lost by her passing. There is no doubt that
the women in the Missionaries of Charity and
SENATE
many other organisations will continue to be

inspired by Mother Teresas indomitable spirit
and the example that she has set, and will
continue to work to alleviate the sufferings of
the very disadvantaged in our society. I join
with the Leader of the Government in the
Senate (Senator Hill) in extending to all those
who are involved with the Missionaries of
Charity our most sincere sympathy. The world
has lost a humble but a very inspiring leader.
Senator BOSWELL (QueenslandLeader
of the National Party of Australia in the
Senate) (3.52 p.m.)I rise to associate members of the National Party in the Senate with
the condolence motion moved by the Leader
of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill.
We learned of the death of Mother Teresa two
weeks ago. I was informed of that particular
event at the National Party conference in
Canberra. A motion was moved in relation to
the death of Mother Teresa and a tribute in
the form of a minutes silence was observed.
Everyone there was deeply saddened to hear
of the passing of Mother Teresa, whose life
was an example and an inspiration to many
people throughout the world.
Mother Teresa was born in 1910 in what is
now Macedonia. Her mother, a devout Catholic, instilled in her a special awareness of the
needs of the poor. At the age of 18 she left
home and joined the Order of Loreto, whose
nuns worked in India at the time. In 1948,
Mother Teresa received the blessing of the
Pope to begin her own order which was set
up to serve the poor. Her order, the
Missionaries of Charity, began in the slums
of Calcutta and then expanded throughout the
world.
In 1952, she founded her first home in
India. The following year the mission spread
internationally from Venezuela to Rome,
Tanzania and New York. In 1969, the
Missionaries of Charity opened a centre for
Aborigines in Bourke. The charity now owns
more than 450 centres in over 100 countries
around the world, feeding 500,000 families a
year. The size of the mission is a reflection
on her strength and tireless efforts.
Mother Teresa was devoted to her work and
it is said that she would sleep for only four or
five hours a night, spending her days working
6569
hands-on at schools and hospitals, administering her order and praying. Her efforts were
rewarded many times. She received the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1979, the Nehru Award for
International Understanding in 1972, and an
honorary Order of Merit from the Queen in
Delhi in 1983. She was also awarded the
Companion of the Order of Australia in 1982,
which is the highest general award that can be
presented by this country.
Her efforts were felt here in Australia as
they were around the world. In recent years,
Mother Teresa had experienced ill health. She
suffered a heart attack and underwent surgery
but still continued as head of the order until
early this year. Mother Teresa worked to
provide dignity for all people through hospitals, schools and missions. She provided
education, medicine and hope. She will be
sadly missed, but her charities will survive as
a monument to her life.
We all mourn the loss of such an outstanding woman. On behalf of the National Party
in the Senate, I wish to extend our deepest
sympathy to the members of the Missionaries
of Charity and all those associated with the
work of Mother Teresa.
Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (3.56
p.m.)I also wish to associate the Democrats
with this motion of condolence on the death
of Mother Teresa. St Paul addressed many of
his letters to the New Testament churches
with the words To all the saints who are in
this or that city. Most of those who were
addressed by St Paul were less than saints, at
least as we understand that term todaythat
is, in some way close to perfect. Rather,
Pauls saints were human beings with all the
failings for which human beings are known.
The saints in the church of Corinth, for
example, caused Paul great concern. But the
critical factor for St Paul was that they responded to the call of Jesus Christ to follow
him in caring for those who live at the edges
of life.
The call for Mother Teresa to be recognised
in a formal sense as a saint by the Roman
Catholic church is appropriate. In another
sense, the sense in which it was used by St
Paul, Mother Teresa in her earthly life was
already a saintthat is, a human being
6570
SENATE
subject to human failings but someone who

responded magnificently to the call of Jesus
Christ in her life. Nor does one need to agree
with everything that a saint says to recognise
the depth of their commitment. Her views on
contraception and abortion were controversial.
However, in responding to the call of Jesus
Christ, Mother Teresa fulfilled, to a remarkably high degree, the words of Jesus Christ in
Matthews gospel:
For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and
you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you
received me in your homes, naked and you clothed
me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison
and you visited me.
In the article referred to by Senator Faulkner,

Dominique Lapierre refers to Mother Teresa
as a saint in this sense. He says:
I have followed many of these saints in the
homes for the dying, in the leprosy centres, the
orphanages, the asylums of the City of Joy
that is, Calcutta

and of almost every city in India, as well as in
Beirut, Rome, Paris, Sydney and even in the South
Bronx of New York City.
Each time it was to be the witness of the same
miracle as if, through a vibration carrying hope,
they wanted to announce to all the destitute of the
world: "We are here, we love you, fear no longer."
Then at the end of his article he refers to one

of the catalysts for Mother Teresas crusade.
He says:
A short rickshaw ride separates the walls of the
old Woodlands clinic where she died from the
place where Mother Teresas crusade began. The
cataracts of the monsoon were pouring over
Calcutta that summer of 1952. The woman who
was still only Sister Teresa was trotting under the
deluge when her feet stumbled over the body of a
dying old woman. Sister Teresa stopped, closed her
eyes, made the sign of the cross and prayed near
the woman for a moment.
"Dogs are better treated in this city than human
beings," she reckoned with anger.
And so she began the crusade for which we

honour her today. In some ways these words
were the catalyst for the rest of her life and
for this we honour her memory today.
p.m.)I am loath to make a contribution to
this condolence motion today because I
suspect that the subject thereof would probably not be wanting us to be heaping praise
on her. She did not seek praise. However, she

did in fact accept the Nobel Peace Prize.
There is a good deal of money involved in
that and she applied that to helping the poor.
She was materially poor herself, as are her
congregation. She put all of the money to
assisting the poor and vulnerable. She accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for the glory of God
and for the good of his creatures.
She is admired by all, and one wonders
why. She did not distinguish between persons.
She did not distinguish between Hindus,
between Muslims or Christians. She accepted
that all were created and that they had an
inherent human dignity that should not be
violated as a result of that gift of life from
God. Her key to her mission was her humble
simplicity. Asked who she was, she once said
of herself:
By blood and origin, I am Albanian. My citizenship
is Indian. I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I
belong to the whole world. As to my heart, I
belong entirely to the heart of Jesus.
As Senator Woodley said, she followed in the

steps of the Lord, and she did that how? The
first Bishop of Jerusalem, James, said in his
epistle that true religion is caring for the
widow and orphanthe most vulnerable of
human beingsand keeping uncontaminated
from worldly values.
Certainly she cared for the most vulnerable.
She was often misunderstood, but she cared
for the most vulnerable not only in the areas
of assistancephysical and medicalbut in
more profound areas of person to person
contact. She and her sisters believed that
spending time with people, particularly the
dying, was far more important than the
technology that might be applied at that
particular time.
She established homes to care for those
AIDS sufferers who were dying. She established three such homes in the United States
of America. It is very revealing to see how
she and her sisters, not judging at all but
caring for those people, seek to ensure that,
as she said, they do not die in distress but die
knowing that somebody loves them and die
with gratitude, because that time of death is
probably one of the most important times of
a persons life.
SENATE
She spread the message of joy. She and her

congregation cared for the beggars, the destitute, neglected mothers and their babies, and
the lepers. As you would know, many of
those lepers became deeply attached to her
and to her sisters. She was able to understand
the meaning of suffering, something which we
find very difficult, and how it can build an
understanding compassion which then can be
spread to others.
As I said, she was sometimes misunderstood. I saw an article the other day which
was somewhat critical but I noted that it was
based on what the Calcutta cocktail set
observed as to why certain of the money she
got did not go to the building of clinics, et
cetera. Of course, much of the money did go
to that, but, as she said, she and her congregation were not primarily social workers; they
were in fact following in the footsteps of the
Lord and caring for the poorest of the poor.
She did accept and encourage persons in the
medical profession and the legal profession
and in other callings to also follow in those
footsteps and use their particular capabilities
and their training for uplifting the downtrodden. She did attract many volunteers from all
over the world to work with her, particularly
with her work in India.
The second part of Jamess explanation of
religion, of course, is to remain uncontaminated from the values of the world. Mother
Teresa prayed the prayer of deliverance from
the desire to be extolled, from the desire to
be honoured, from the desire to be praised,
from the desire to be preferred, from the
desire to be consulted and deliver me Lord
from the desire to be popular.
She held to the view, and lived it out, that
silence holds an important place. Interestingly
enough, she established her first house of
contemplative nuns in New York city. In the
midst of the rowdiness of New York city, she
established her first contemplate conventan
oasis of silence in that raucous city.
As she said, the fruit of silence is faith. In
the silent depth of ones heart, one can hear
then more clearly the word of God. The fruit
of silence then is faith, and love is the fruit of
that faith and understanding of who God is
and the fruit of love is service and the fruit of
6571
service is peace. I wonder whether that

attainment of peace is the preserve of persons
like Mother Teresa, or is there a message for
us here in the parliament? It seems a bit rich
at first glance, in our occupation to be praying
for deliverance from the desire to be popular.
Senator WoodleyIt is a bit of a problem.
Senator HARRADINEIt is a problem.
I suppose I am a bit of a hypocrite in saying
that because I can remember that one of my
election campaign slogans was Harradine
the name says it allbugger all! Of course,
Mother Teresa was talking about the inordinate desire to be popular, to be consulted. But
if we look at those things that she was talking
aboutthe inordinate desire of being praised,
the inordinate desire of being consulted, the
inordinate desire of being approved, the
inordinate desire of being popularit is
something that we should consider. After all,
if politics is about the harmonious arrangement of the civil order with a view to establishing a more human society, unselfish
virtues are more important than many of the
other traits that we exhibit in our daily activities.
I would like to join with my colleagues in
honouring Mother Teresa and in recognising
the inspiration that she has given to so many
people not only those for whom her inspiration has been part of the call to be members
of her particular congregation, but all of those
who have helped and are continuing to help
to uplift the downtrodden. I congratulate the
government, the opposition, all of the partiesthe Australian Democrats, the Greens
and all of the members of this parliament for
supporting this motion put before us. I guess
this is not something that Mother Teresa
would have sought, but it is certainly something that is worth while for us in our quest
to do our bit to uplift the downtrodden.
Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.
PETITIONS
The ClerkA petition has been lodged for
presentation as follows:
6572
SENATE
Repatriation Benefits
To the Honourable the President and Members of

the Senate assembled in Parliament:
This petition of certain citizens of Australia,
draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that
members of the Royal Australian Navy who served
in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only
Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose
service has not been recognised in three important
areas:
1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the
Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial
alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties;
2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised
with the visible signs of service to Australia; the
Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval
campaign medal; and
3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as
eligible service for the Australian Service Pension,
while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans
from 55 other countries is.
Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served
during the same period in Malaya had their service
fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya.
In the 1997 Budget the Government partly
recognised that R.A.N. service was operational
and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting
from that service. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new
excuses, to deny the above 3 points.
Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate
acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and
fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the
same recognition and benefits for that service. The
cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of
pensions from age as paid by the Department of
Social Security, to service pensions, paid by the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
by Senator Faulkner (from eight citizens).

Petition received.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Pensioners and Superannuants
Federation
Senator WOODLEY (Queensland)I give
notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall
move:
That the Senate
(a) recognises the valuable work which the
Australian Pensioners and Superannuants
Federation does as an advocate for older
Australians;
(b) expresses its deep concern at the decision of
the Federal Government to cut funding to
the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants

Federation, which was previously provided
through the Community Sector Support
Scheme;
(c) notes the Governments refusal to comply
with the Senates return to order seeking the
tabling of the full final report of the review
of the Community Sector Support Scheme;
(d) opposes the developing trend of government
cutbacks reducing the ability of organisations to voice community concerns about
government actions; and
(e) calls on the Government to restore funding
to the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation as a matter of priority.
Hazardous Chemicals
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia)I give notice that, on the next day of
sitting, I shall move:
That the Senate
(a) notes:
(i) the research and announcement by
Greenpeace about the levels of hazardous
chemicals in soft PVC toys, and
(ii) the implications for Australian consumer
parents and children likely to be exposed
to these hazardous chemicals; and
(b) expresses concern there has been no action
from the Government to undertake tests or
use its powers under the Trade Practices Act
to set standards for these unsafe products.
South Pacific Cruise Lines Pty Ltd

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)I
give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I
shall move:
That the Senate
(a) notes that:
(i) the Minister for Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs (Senator
Vanstone) has indicated her willingness
to attend a resumed Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs Legislation Committee estimates hearing for
further examination of matters associated
with South Pacific Cruise Lines Ltd, and
(ii) the Ministers busy schedule would not
allow this to occur during the current two
parliamentary sitting weeks;
(b) directs that the Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs Legislation
Committee meet before 16 October 1997;
and
SENATE
(c) requests that the following departmental

officers be made available for the hearing:
(i) Mr Greg Ashmead,
(ii) Mr Ed McShea,
(iii) Mr Dennis McCarthy,
(iv) Mr Wayne Gibbons,
(v) Mr Paul Rowland, and
(vi) Ms Sheila Butler.
North West Cape

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)I give notice that, on the next day of
That the Senate
(a) notes that:
(i) the Western Australian Environment
Protection Authority (EPA) has recommended approval for oil and gas exploration on the North-West Cape, and
(ii) the Conservation Council of Western
Australia and other environment groups
have called on the Premier of Western
Australia (Mr Court) to initiate moves to
have the Cape Range Peninsula/Ningaloo
Marine Park/Exmouth region nominated
for World Heritage listing due to its
interconnected and interreliant areas of
unique biological, geological, archaeological and aesthetic value; and
(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment
(Senator Hill) to consult with the Western
Australian Minister for the Environment
(Ms Edwardes) to ensure that the EPAs
recommendation is not implemented and,
instead, a full environment protection policy
process is implemented to ensure that the
importance of the area is fully understood
and statutory processes are in place before
any decisions are made about development
activities in the region to ensure that future
activities on the Cape are ecologically sustainable.
Greenhouse Gases
Senator BROWN (Tasmania)I give
move:
That the Senate
(a) notes that the 1995 report of the International Panel on Climate Change, the worlds
most authoritative body on climate science,
states that the balance of evidence suggests
that there is a discernible human influence
on global climate;
6573
(b) calls on all industrialised countries, including Australia, to commit themselves to

uniform and binding greenhouse gas reduction targets at the Kyoto Climate Change
Convention; and
(c) requests the President to inform relevant
governments of the Senates resolution.
ACIL Economics
Senator OBRIEN (Tasmania)I give
move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister
representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Senator Alston), no later than 5
pm on the next day of sitting:
(a) all documents relating to the tender and
awarding of the consultancy contract to
ACIL Economics on or about 15 May 1996
relating to waterfront reform;
(b) the report arising from the contract awarded
to ACIL Economics on or about 15 May
1996;
(c) the terms of reference for the contract
awarded to ACIL Economics on or about 20
June 1997 relating to the waterfront reform
and all related documents;
(d) a list of all organisations contacted by ACIL
Economics pursuant to the contracts let to
it on or about 15 May 1996 and 20 June
1997; and
(e) a list of all sites visited and travel undertaken by ACIL Economics pursuant to the
contracts let to it on or about 15 May 1996
and 20 June 1997.
Newcastle and Hunter

Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales)I
shall move:
That the Senate
(a) notes that the Parliamentary Bipartisan Steel
Industry Advisory Committee has presented
its report, The Australian Iron and Steel
Industry, which now forms part of the
Howard Governments comprehensive
response to the announcement by BHP that
it will cease steel-making at its Newcastle
plant by late 1999;
(b) congratulates the Howard Government for
having committed approximately $65
million in federal funding designed to assist
Newcastle and the Hunter reposition the
regional economy with job creation for
displaced BHP workers; and
(c) supports:
6574
SENATE
(i) the committees recommendation that the

Prime Ministers special projects
facilitator, Mr Bob Mansfield, assume an
enhanced role in assessing new investment projects in iron and steel products
and associated industry for the Hunter
region, especially the Ozsteel proposal for
an electric arc furnace steel-making
operation, and
(ii) the recommendation that the Commonwealth appoint a representative to the
Steel River project working party charged
with the task of developing an industrial
park on BHP land in Newcastle.
Landmines
Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)I give notice that, on the next day of
That the Senate
(a) notes that:
(i) negotiations for an international, comprehensive ban on landmines were recently
held at the Oslo Conference of the Ottawa Process,
(ii) in a Joint Declaration issued in Switzerland on 3 September 1997, the President
of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, and the
President of Switzerland, Arnold Koller,
reminded states gathered at the Oslo
Conference that a historic opportunity is
offered to them to take a substantial step
towards solving the problems and human
suffering which antipersonnel mines cause
in many countries around the world,
(iii) they called upon the states participating
in the Oslo Conference to make use of
this opportunity and to commit themselves with all determination at these
negotiations to a comprehensive prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production
and transfer of antipersonnel mines without exception as well as an obligation to
clear antipersonnel mines which have
been laid and to destroy antipersonnel
mines which are stockpiled,
(iv) the United States of America sought:
(A) a permanent exception for its use,
production, stockpiling and trade of
certain types of antipersonnel mines,
(B) a permanent exception for Korea, and
(C) a lengthy delay of entry-into-force of a
treaty, and
(v) the Ottawa Process was intended to be an
urgent response to a global crisis, with no
exceptions, no loopholes and no reservations; and

(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) condemn the United States lack of support for a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel mines,
(ii) take the spirit of urgency from the Ottawa
Process to the Conference on Disarmament for negotiations on antipersonnel
mines,
(iii) accept the call of Presidents Mandela and
Koller through supporting a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel mines, and
(iv) sign the agreement reached at the Oslo
Conference without hesitation.
Finance and Public Administration

Legislation Committee
Senator GIBSON (Tasmania)I give
move:
That the Finance and Public Administration
Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a
public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on
24 September 1997, from 9.30 am, to take evidence
for the committees inquiry into the provisions of
the Public Service Bill 1997 and the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1997.
South Pacific Cruise Lines Ltd

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)I
shall move:
(1) That there be laid on the table by the
Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Senator Vanstone),
no later than 5 pm on 29 September 1997,
the following documents:
(a) all written and e-mail communications
between the Department of Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs
(DEETYA), the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training (Dr Kemp)
or the Ministers offices relating to the
contract let by DEETYA with South
Pacific Cruise Lines Ltd under the Training for Employment Program;
(b) all written communications between the
Victorian, Queensland and Commonwealth Governments relating to this
contract;
SENATE
(c) all written communications between any

of the organisations associated with the
contract and DEETYA, the two relevant
Ministers or their offices; and
(d) copies of due diligence and/or probity
checks on South Pacific Cruise Lines Ltd
carried out by, or on behalf of, or in the
possession of DEETYA.
(2) If commercial confidentiality is to be
claimed as a reason for the non-release of
any of this documentation, the Secretary of
DEETYA should be responsible for excising
whatever elements of the documents give
rise to this claim.
Genetically Modified Foods

That the Senate
(a) notes that foods which are or contain genetically-modified materials are available for
sale in Australia; and
(b) expresses concern that:
(i) there are still no laws in Australia setting
standards for labelling of foods which are
or contain genetically-modified materials,
and
(ii) submissions were received by 3 April
1997 for the proposal P97 concerning
food derived from gene technology and
there has been no progress on implementing a food standard according to that
proposal.
Greenhouse Gases
Senator BROWN (Tasmania)I give
move:
That the Senate
(a) recognises that the consequences of global
warming are likely to be horrific for people
and for the environment;
(b) deplores the Australian Governments
campaign to undermine international agreement on uniform and binding greenhouse
gas reduction targets for industrialised
countries, and its plan to increase, not
decrease, Australias greenhouse gas emissions;
(c) notes, in particular, that rising sea levels and
the increased incidence of storms resulting
from global warming may result in millions
of people being forced from their land and
homes;
6575
(d) considers that Australia should welcome and

resettle its share of the people who become
refugees through failure to avert the impact
of global warming; and
(e) calls on the Government to make a public
commitment to do so.
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

That the Senate
(a) notes that the students involved in the recent
occupation of the Royal Melbourne Institute
of Technology (RMIT) have achieved a
referendum on the RMITs decision to
introduce up-front undergraduate fees;
(b) supports the case against the decision of the
University Council to introduce up-front
undergraduate fees; and
(c) calls on other universities which have
approved the introduction of up-front fees
from the 1998 academic year to similarly
review their decisions through referenda.
Sirenuw Pty Ltd

Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria)I give
move:
That the Senate
(a) notes that the Minister for Employment,
(Senator Vanstone) has invested in Sirenuw
Pty Ltd as a trustee of a pig trust;
(b) commends Senator Vanstones investment
in the rural sector, both for its potential for
value-adding and for its employment opportunities;
(c) notes:
(i) that Senator Vanstone has accepted the
advice of a great Australian, Mr Keating,
who said:
I should have thought that members of the
Coalition both the Liberal, and especially
the National Party. . . which prides itself on
seeing, it says, the development of a rural
industry. . . would like to marry the comparative advantage of the Australian pig
industry with the high technology of world
leaders,
(ii) the hundreds of hours of parliamentary
time wasted by Coalition muck-rakers in
attacking the former Prime Minister, Mr
Keating, and their absolute silence about
Senator Vanstones investment, which
6576
SENATE
was made as a Minister, unlike the former

Prime Minister, who made it as a backbencher, and
(iii) that Senator Vanstone said in the Senate
on 17 March 1994:
If people have a responsible position, they
should make sure they do not have a conflict. I think people should get out of the
conflict rather than simply declaring it. I
think declaring it is going half-way; and
(d) requests that the contents of the above
resolution be conveyed to Australias Consul-General in New York.
Environment, Recreation,
Communications and the Arts Legislation
Committee
Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia)On behalf of Senator Schacht I give
notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will
move:
That the time for the presentation of the report
of the Environment, Recreation, Communications
and the Arts Legislation Committee on the examination of annual reports be extended to 2 October
1997.
Victoria: Local Councils

Senator ALLISON (Victoria)I give
move:
That the Senate
(a) notes that:
(i) the Victorian Government has introduced
legislation which will give the State
Government Minister for Planning and
Local Government (Mr Atkinson) unprecedented powers to decide the composition of local councils,
(ii) the bill invests in the Minister the sole
power to decide whether a council should
consist of ward representatives and/or
representatives for the municipality as a
whole, and
(iii) this power would be exercised without a
requirement for consultation with affected
councils;
(b) condemns the Victorian Government for in
effect creating a gerrymander at the
Ministers convenience; and
(c) calls on the Victorian State Government to
recognise the democratic right of Victorians
to exercise their voting rights in accordance
with a fair system of geographical representation.

ORDER OF BUSINESS
First Speech
Motion (by Senator Ellison)by leave
agreed to:
That consideration of the business before the
Senate today be interrupted at approximately 5 pm,
but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to
enable Senator George Campbell to make his first
speech, for a period not exceeding 20 minutes,
without any question before the chair.
Extradition (Hong Kong) Regulations

Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:
That business of the Senate notice of motion No.
4 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today,
relating to the disallowance of the Extradition
(Hong Kong) Regulations, be postponed till 20
October.
Adjournment
agreed to:
That the time limit of 40 minutes for the adjournment debate, as specified in standing order 54
(5), not apply to the adjournment debate today and
that the Senate adjourn at the conclusion of the
debate.
Leave of Absence
Motion (by Senator Harradine)by
leaveagreed to:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator
Colston for the period 22 September to 27 November 1997, on account of illness.
Legal and Constitutional References

Committee
Adult Learners Week
Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed
to:
2 (relating to the reference of matters to the Legal
and Constitutional References Committee) and
general business notice of motion No. 726 (Adult
Learners Week) standing in her name for today, be
postponed till the next day of sitting.
Communications and the Arts References
Committee
Motion (by Senator Brown, at the request
of Senator Margetts) agreed to:
5 standing in the name of Senator Margetts for
SENATE
today, relating to the reference of a matter to the

Environment, Recreation, Communications and the
Arts References Committee, be postponed till 24
September 1997.
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and
Transport Legislation Committee
Extension of time
Motion (by Senator OChee, at the request

of Senator Crane)by leaveagreed to:
of the committee on the Sun Fund Bill 1997 be
extended to 20 October 1997.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
6577
That general business notice of motion No. 405

standing in the name of Senator Murphy for today,
relating to the reference of a matter to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and
Securities, be postponed till 29 September 1997.
Socio-Economic Consequences of the

National Competition Policy Committee
Motion (by Senator Brown, at the request
of Senator Margetts) agreed to:
That general business notice of motion No. 688
standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today,
relating to the appointment of a select committee
on the socio-economic consequences of the national
competition policy, be postponed till 29 September
1997.
COMMITTEES
Communications and the Arts References
Committee
Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed
to:
Privileges Committee
Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed
to:

1 standing in the names of Senator Stott Despoja
and Lees for today, relating to the reference of a
matter to the Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee, be
postponed till 10 sitting days after today.
NATIONAL RED NOSE DAY

Motion (by Senator Denman) agreed to:
Rural and Regional Affairs and

Transport References Committee
Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:
3 standing in the name of Senator Allison for
today, relating to the reference of a matter to the
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, be postponed till 24 September
1997.
COMMITTEES
Legal and Constitutional Legislation
Committee
Extension of Time
Motion (by Senator OChee, at the request

of Senator Abetz)by leaveagreed to:
of the committee on the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1997 be extended to 2 October 1997.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Corporations and Securities Committee
Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:
That the Senate endorse the findings of the Committee of Privileges at page 25 of the 67th report.
That the Senate

(a) notes:
(i) that 29 August 1997 was National Red
Nose Day, and
(ii) the importance of the need to raise funds
for continuing research and education
with regards to Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome; and
(b) congratulates the national organisation, each
State and Territory Sudden Infant Death
Society, and all those volunteers and participants involved in the coordination and
promotion of National Red Nose Day.
FIRST SPEECH
The PRESIDENTOrder! Before I call
Senator Campbell, I remind honourable
senators that this is his first speech and,
therefore, I would ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him.
Senator CAMPBELL (New South Wales)
(4.35 p.m.)It is a great privilege for me to
stand here today as a new senator representing
the great Labor state of New South Wales,
and to follow in the footsteps of Senator
Bruce Childs, who represented the Labor
6578
SENATE
movement of New South Wales in this chamber for many years, with great passion, humility and commitment. Having worked
closely with Bruce over many years, I sincerely hope I can make as significant a
contribution in this chamber on behalf of the
working people of New South Wales as he
did. I take this opportunity to wish him well
and every success in his new role as President
of the Evatt Foundation.
I come to this chamber as a representative
of the Australian Labor Party, one of the
oldest and greatest social parties, a party
forged out of the great union struggles of the
late 1800s to give workers a parliamentary
voice, a party charged with the responsibility
to represent their class interests and a party
whose foundations have been built on values
that I have always been committed to: fairness, equality of opportunity and social justice
for all.
I also come here after spending virtually the
whole of myy working life as a full-time
official of the trade union movement. I have
been active on both the industrial and political
sides of the labour movement since I arrived
in this wonderful country in 1965.
I am particularly proud to have been afforded the opportunity to have worked as a fulltime official of the trade union movement for
some 26 years and to have played a part in
the achievements of the movement over that
period of time. Its list of achievements on
behalf of ordinary working people have been
many. For example, to name but a few, there
has been maternity leave, adoption leave,
parental leave, family leave, standard working
hours, redundancy provisions and superannuation, as well as continuous improvements in
many others such as occupational health and
safety, annual and sick leave, wages, and
other general working conditions.
These are conditions of employment many
in the work force today take for granted but
for which their forebears fought and sacrificed
to achieve, and which now, in the new industrial environment, are continuously under
threat. Amongst those who were at the leading edge of those struggles were unions such
as the metals, building, mining and maritime
workers. It should be understood that when
unions such as these are under attack our

union heritage is under attack. Those trade
unionists will not surrender that heritage
lightly.
I know it is popular for those on the other
side of this chamber to decry those achievements and to vilify trade unionists, but you
cannot ignore the facts and you cannot rewrite
history. Madam President, the trade union
movement has been and continues to be a
critically important institution in a democratic
society, not only in promoting and protecting
the interests of its own members but also in
contributing to both the production of wealth
and the production of our society as a whole.
I am proud and privileged to be a part of it.
I am acutely aware of the decline in union
membership that has occurred in recent times
as the union movement, like others in our
community, has had to grapple with the
impact of economic rationalism, globalisation
and structural change. Despite that decline,
and unlike the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), I have
every confidence that the union movement
will be around as a force for good in our
society for a long time to come and, I suspect,
for a long time after the minister and his party
have become relics of history.
My involvement in the labour movement
has been particularly rewarding as it has
enabled me to contribute in a meaningful way
to the development of my adopted country
and, most importantly, to improving the
general standard of living of working people.
I should declare now, if it is not already
evident, that I have an abiding bias on behalf
of working people and those in our society
who are less well-off. It is a bias for which I
make no apologies and which guides all of
my thoughts and actionspast, present and
future.
Madam President, I believe in a fair society
and I believe in a socially cohesive society.
I believe it is the responsibility of every
citizen, either collectively or individually, to
contribute to achieving that goal. Regrettably,
at present, Australia can claim to be neither.
Instead we have a society that is racked by
insecurity, divisiveness and inequity. The
challenge we face as politicians and as a
SENATE
community is to find the solutions to those

problems that are at the heart of that insecurity, divisiveness and inequity, the greatest of
which is the spectre of unemployment.
Unemployment no longer confronts those
currently employed but also those currently
unemployed. The significant shifts in employment trends globally over the last decade or
so, which have seen the rise of contract,
casual and part-time employment, as well as
rising numbers of self-employed and unemployed, have contributed significantly to the
fear and anxiety that grips much of todays
work force.
In fact, it is fair to say that the spectre of
unemployment has become a management
tool in some industries and enterprises, particularly in the non-union sector, to intimidate
and control the work force. This has led to
the development of the high stress, low trust
workplace culture being a major feature of
our enterprises in the 1990s. This is an inhibiting factor in achieving the levels of
competitiveness necessary to compete in the
global marketplace.
Madam President, if we are to build a
socially cohesive society in this country, then
we have to tackle head-on the preoccupation
with economic indicators. We have to challenge the sanctity of the market, and we have
to put the interests of people ahead of theoretical, economic purity. This will require us
to focus monetary and fiscal policy on achieving broader social objectives such as full
employment, greater equity in disposable
incomes and comprehensive health and
education services and away from narrow
economic objectives such as zero inflation,
low interest rates and a balanced budget.
It is not that these objectives are unimportantthey arebut our economic agenda
should be driven by the needs of our people,
not by the sectional interests of the finance
markets. Our economic solutions do not
depend on selecting one set of objectives over
the other, but in achieving harmony with
both. Regrettably, however, in this current
environment, when major issues of social
concern arise it is the views of the leading
finance market analysts that tend to dominate
the public debate.
6579
It is a sad reflection on our society, for

example, that announcements of rising unemployment can be greeted with rising share
prices, as has occurred in recent times, or that
a decision by one of our largest companies,
BHP, to close its steel making facilities at
Newcastle, affecting the lives of thousands,
can boost its market value and lead to windfall profits for it shareholders. There is something askew in our society when some can
benefit from the misery of others.
Madam President, we need to harness all of
the creativity and resources of our society in
seeking the right political solutions to our
current unemployment crises. We need to
develop a national political agenda, the central
feature of which is a comprehensive, national
and regional industrial development strategythe essential building blocks to a diversified economy capable of sustaining high
levels of employment and improving living
standards across all sections of the community.
That national agenda should be focused on
trade and industry development policies to
expand and strengthen the tradeable sector
and its component parts; stabilisation policies
to assist and sustain annual growth at fourplus per cent over the course of the business
cycle, and supporting policies that contribute
to the goal of reducing and sustaining unemployment levels at less than five per cent.
Key elements of such a national development strategy must be: promotion and support
of innovation by individual companies, including incentives to encourage a greater
direct contribution to research and development; adequate supply of venture capital for
start-up companies, as well as changes to the
tax act to encourage and reward patient
capital over the pursuit of short-term profit
taking; a suite of initiatives aimed at assisting
our companies to expand their activities into
the global market by improving their export
performance; the development of a bank of
regional and national infrastructure projects
that can be initiated at various times over the
life of the economic cycle to sustain high
growth rates in the economy; effective skills
development and labour market programs that
enhance the opportunities for the unemployed
6580
SENATE
and underemployed to obtain sustainable

long-term employment consistent with the
needs of the economy; and recognition of the
role that information and communication
technologies will play in improving and
sustaining the competitiveness of our industries into the future.
It is critically important that we identify
where information technology can be utilised
across our economy as a major tool of economic growth and, more importantly, to
ensure that it is effectively exploited. This
will require the deployment of significant
resources directed at rapidly raising the level
of computer literacy across all levels of our
society.
As a nation, Australia sits at the crossroads.
We have a small window of opportunity over
the next five to 10 years to position Australia
for an exciting future in the global economy.
That future can be as a central player with a
sophisticated mixed economy and a strong
hold in the emerging industries such as food
processing, information technology, particularly software development, and biotechnology,
to name but a few, or we can be relegated to
the role of fringe dweller providing the raw
materials out of which others will extract the
real added value. Whether or not we take
advantage of the opportunities that come our
way in the global marketplace of the future
will be determined by the capacity of our
companies in the tradeable goods and services
industries to produce and trade well. If we as
a nation wish to stake our claim to that future,
then the time for visionary decision making
is now. The current debate around the
Mortimer and Goldsworthy reports and the
future direction of industry policy will test the
substance and courage of our current political
leadership.
Madam President, it is not appropriate for
Australia or Australians to seek to play an
inclusive role in the global community in an
economic sense whilst seeking to play an
exclusive role in an social sense. We cannot
expect to be embraced by the global community in economic terms whilst there are
those amongst us who reject that embrace in
social terms.
I have watched the debate develop in this

country over the past 12 months initiated by
the maiden speech of the Member for Oxley
(Ms Hanson). It has reminded me of my own
political experiences as a young person
growing up on the streets of Belfast where it
was not uncommon for politicians to wrap
themselves in a cloak of nationalism of
whichever brand happened to appeal and to
promote a platform based on ignorance, fear,
prejudice and hatred. I can see no difference
between the approach of the One Nation party
and the politicians who strutted the streets of
Belfast in the fifties and sixties. We should
heed the calls of those who have said to put
One Nation last, for those who do nothing to
stop this cancer growing are, in the end, just
as culpable for the outcomes.
Ultimately, a cohesive society is one whose
philosophy is built on community interest, not
single-minded selfishness, and it is one which
is motivated by community spirit, not by
individual greed. That is the society I will
strive to build as long as I am a member of
this parliament.
Madam President, I wish to conclude by
expressing my thanks to my party for nominating me to this important office, and to
those many comrades and good friends right
across the Labor movement who, over many
years, have supported and encouraged me.
There are far too many to name personally. I
want to express particular thanks to the
members of my union who showed faith in
me by continually electing me as their representative. I will always be in their debt.
I want to express my gratitude to my two
children, Geordie and Cory, for sharing me
for years with my extended family, the trade
union movement. They have turned out to be
good citizens, despite an absentee father, and
I am proud of them both. To my wifes
parents, Trudi and Oscar Weil, whose support
and encouragement has been unwavering, I
express my deepest gratitude. Finally, Madam
President, to my partner, Kerrie, who for the
last 12 months or so has been my political
sounding board, my adviser, my personal
trainer, my soul mate, my wife and my best
friend, I owe her more than I can ever repay.
I thank honourable senators.
SENATE
Honourable senatorsHear, hear!

MATTERS OF URGENCY
Greenhouse Gases
The PRESIDENTI have received the
following letter from Senator Lees:
Dear Madam President
Pursuant to standing order number 75, I give
notice that today I propose to move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following
is a matter of urgency:
The need for Australia to agree to legally binding
targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Yours sincerely
Meg Lees
Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required
by the Standing Orders having risen in their
places
The PRESIDENTI remind senators that
there has been an agreement as to the time
allotted for speeches in this debate, and I
believe that has been circulated. I ask the
clerks to set the clock in accordance with that
agreement.
Senator LEES (South AustraliaDeputy
Leader of the Australian Democrats) (4.53
p.m.)I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following
The need for Australia to agree to legally binding
emissions.
The reason we have moved this urgency

motion is that it is obvious that our government is very reluctant, indeed determined, not
to have a part of what we will argue today is
essentialthat is, binding greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets. Why do we need
them to be binding? I think it is fairly obvious to all of us that the softly, softly
approach, how about we get on with it,
isnt this a nice idea? has not worked. We
need binding targets if we are actually going
to seriously address this huge problem.
If Australia signed on to these targets, it
would firstly, and most importantly, help it to
protect the environment, but it would create
jobs, it would be of long-term benefit to our
6581
economy and, as far as the international

community is concerned, we would actually
be a part of it, rather than a renegade. We
would actually take our place as an important
playeras I believe we should be. After all,
we share this planet and we must be responsible for its long-term wellbeing.
I will not spend a lot of time on the environmental impacts. I think most of us are well
aware now of the predictions of sea level
rises, the impact on biodiversity, the loss of
biodiversityindeed, the loss of entire ecosystemsthe increasing frequency of storms
and the growing regularity of the oscillation
between drought and flood. Even the insurance industry, particularly in the United
States, is becoming more and more active as
it realises the cost to it of doing nothing about
the increasing frequency of storms.
The governments reaction to the environmental impacts has changed between trying to
put them down as minor and suggesting that
anybody who seriously considers them is talking about an apocalypse. I suggest that the
Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill)
should look at who is actually making these
suggestions. If he did, he would find it is a
group of the worlds most eminent and leading scientists in this areaindeed, it is the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Even Brian Fisher, the head of ABARE and
the man who produced the Megabare model
on which you base your position, does not
dispute that sea levels are going to rise. His
frightening suggestion though is that, rather
than worrying about it, we should invite those
people from the South Pacific over and have
them here as environmental refugees. He
suggests that that would be more economically efficient. I suggest that is an attitude this
government should not sign up to.
Australia is one of the highest per capita
emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, yet
here we are trying to build a special case to
say that, basically, we should be left alone
and we should be allowed to have it our way.
This government is using very hollow rhetoric
in saying that Australia really is entitled to
argue from that position. If you actually
examined the facts, you would see how
hollow that is. The government asserts that
6582
SENATE
we are doing the best we can and that we

have voluntary systems in place, but let us
just look at some of the facts.
Let us start with land clearing. Land clearing is about 25 per cent of the problem; it,
therefore, has the potential to be 25 per cent
of the solution. What does this government
do? It lets the Natural Heritage Trust go
through and gives money, through that trust,
to state governments that are still engaging in
wholesale land clearing. Here again, I point
out the activities in Queensland. It would not
only be a good idea for the greenhouse
problem if we stopped that wholesale land
clearing; it would be a good idea for our
fragile soils, our need for water resources and
our biodiversity.
If we look at what the industrialised world
has been able to do, we see that it has reduced its energy use per unit of economic
output by 25 per cent in the last five years.
Australia has only managed five per cent.
There is a huge potential to do something
better.
Then we can look at the domestic sector.
The estimates are that Australia could halve
its emissions from the domestic sector, and
they are at 17 per cent, by encouraging things
like solar hot water services, by actually
requiring appliances to have energy efficiency
standardsI must stress here that this is
normal in the rest of the OECD; we are again
so far behind on thisand by implementing
decent building codes, something else on
which we are so far behind. I am reminded
here of a recent article I read that stated that
a piggery in Germany requires better insulation than homes in Australia.
Thirty-nine thousand times Australias daily
energy requirements fall on this country every
day in the form of solar energy, yet only four
per cent of our domestic hot water services
are solar. Californian wind farms generate
more electricity than the entire Victorian coal
fired system. There are real opportunities out
there for Australia to develop new technologies, to get clever and to tackle the greenhouse and unemployment problem at the same
time.
Our Prime Minister (Mr Howard) keeps
saying that agreeing to cut greenhouse gas
emissions will cost the economy jobs. Even

if that were trueand I stress that it is not
he does not make mention of the damage to
our economy of not cutting greenhouse gas
emissions. What is going to happen to Australia if exports are affected? If Europe or the
United States decide to impose the same
energy efficiency standards on imports as they
do on domestically produced products, what
will that do for Australian jobs?
What happens if climate change caused by
greenhouse gas emissions disrupts our climate
patterns, causing more extreme weather
conditions, more droughts and more floods?
Of course we will suffer. We only have to
look at what is happening now under El
Ninoand I acknowledge here that the jury
is still out as to whether or not there is a
connection between greenhouse and El
Ninoand the impact of that short-term
climate change over the last few months and
the $2 billion that it is now estimated it will
cost the Australian economy to see what longterm environment change will do to our
agriculture sector.
But will cutting greenhouse gas emissions
actually cost jobs? The government keeps
citing ABARE researchfunded of course by
the coal industrybut how credible is that?
It fails to factor in the economic cost of doing
nothing. It fails to actually acknowledge that
industry can make significant advances on
fuel efficiency and that industry can switch to
alternate energy sources. Even in the short
term, if it is a bridging fuel such as coal,
enormous savings in emissions can be made.
What they fail to mention is that a proactive
government, a clever government, could put
in place a mix of policies which would
achieve significant reductions in greenhouse
gases and actually benefit the economy. The
House of Representatives environment committee in 1994 commissioned a study of the
economic effects of climate change and policy
changes to cut greenhouse gases. In that study
they modelled a tax on carbon emissions big
enough to reduce greenhouse gases back to
1990 levels. That would have raised enough
revenue to completely abolish payroll tax. So
we would tax energy more and tax employment less. The results from the study were a
SENATE
rise in GDP of about a billion dollars, a rise

in employment of 55,000 jobs and a fall in
carbon dioxide emissions of 11.7 per cent. I
think those results are very exciting. What
does this government do? It ignores them.
The challenge of needing to meet binding
targets would create new industries in this
countryhigh-tech jobs in areas like renewable energy, energy conservation and efficiency, recycling, insulation and so on. All of
these technologies would be of immense
benefit to us and we could then export them
into Asia as the developing countries are
brought on line once the developed world
those of us who have the financial ability to
make the necessary initial changeshave set
the standards and set the example. (Time
expired).
Senator HILL (South AustraliaMinister
for the Environment) (5.01 p.m.)The contribution of the Australian Democrats on this
matter, which is of international importance
and national importance, continues to be
disappointing. The subject that they have
chosen today is the issue of legally binding
requirements. Basically, what they are demanding of Australia is that it accept a legally
binding requirement before we even know
what that requirement would be. One would
have thought that that could only be interpreted as an irresponsible position to take, but, on
the basis of what we do know about the likely
cost to Australian industry and to Australian
jobs if that legally binding target were of the
type that is being talked about by Europe, it
is an even more irresponsible position to take.
What the Australian Democrats are saying
is that they want Australia to adopt a certain
position, even if it costs literally thousands of
Australian jobs. In other words, Australian
jobs are not important to the Australian
Democrats. I think that that is disappointing.
They would make out a stronger case if the
sacrifice of Australian jobs actually achieved
a better global outcome. But the sad thing is
that it will not. That fact was not addressed
within Senator Leess contribution either. All
she wants to do is, to use her words, paint
Australia as a renegade, paint us as somebody
who is claiming or wanting to be left alone,
when quite the contrary is in fact the case.
6583
Her errors continue with her claim that much

of the problem relates to land clearing. Land
clearing in Australia is slowing and therefore
it is a reducing contribution.
Senator MargettsIts still growing.
Senator HILLIt is not growing. I regret
that this debate is not being set on a factual
basis, which would therefore be less alarmist
and a more useful contribution to public
discussion.
The important thing is that Australia wants
to contribute to achieving a better global
greenhouse outcome. We accept the science.
We accept that climate change is occurring.
We accept that there is a warming of the
environment, that it is occurring more rapidly
than records indicate that it has occurred in
the past, that the likelihood is that it is a
result of human actionsthis is what is
different from the pastbut that the full
consequences of that are still unknown. That
is the scientific fact, which is accepted by all
of us.
Senator FaulknerExcept John Howard.
Senator HILLThat is accepted by John
Howard. You did not listen to what he said.
On that basis, it is sensible to behave in a
prudent way. It is acceptable to adopt a
cautionary position. That is the position that
the Australian government has adopted. That
is why we want to be part of a strong outcome from Kyoto, one that can give hope for
the future that the pace of the increase in
climate change can be restrained, that we can
actually achieve a position of stability and
then ultimately a position of reduction.
We are, of course, talking about a long-term
issue. Nobody is suggesting that in the next
20 or 30 years there will be any substantial
change at all. Certainly there will not be
under the Berlin mandate, because any reductions that occur on the part of developed
countries will be taken up by developing
countries. Nevertheless, it is prudent to take
action now to ensure that in the long term a
basis is put in place to give confidence that
the international community as a whole will
join together to provide a better greenhouse
outcome.
6584
SENATE
So there is no dispute about where we as a

government stand on that issue. Our position
is quite consistent with what the previous
Labor government held as well; that is, that
it is an important international debate, that we
need to be part of it, and that we need to be
part of a solution.
The next issue is: what is a solution that
will work? The position that we have always
adopted is that, for a Kyoto outcome to work,
it will have to be seen to be fair and achievable. In other words, if countries are asked to
take a disproportionate share of the burden, it
will fall down; it will not succeed.
One of the lessons that should have been
learnt from the pledges that were made postRio is that, unless they are realistic, unless
they have been thought through, they will
simply lead to disappointment, because nearly
all of the countries that made these pledges
post-Rio have not met their expected claims.
It has to be a fair outcome. The facts of life
are that a uniform reduction will apply an
unfair burden upon Australia. It will treat
Australia unfairly. In fact, it will treat Australia more unfairly than any other country. This
is simply because of the nature of our economy.
The fact that we are a major energy producer, the fact that we are a large consumer of
coal because it is such an economic fuel in
this country, the fact that we are a major
player in terms of agricultural and other
primary production, and the fact that we are
a major processor of basic mineralsall add
up to a unique economic picture that means
that Australias production of emissions is
comparatively high and is likely to increase
even with efficient production and efficient
industry.
If you are going to ask Australia to take a
burden 20 times as high as a European state,
then it will simply not work. You are asking
Australia to make an unfair sacrificeI would
have thought any senator in this place would
recognise that. You are also asking for an
outcome at Kyoto which will ultimately fail.
That is why we have argued the position of
differentiation. In other words, differentiate
the economies, work out what are the substantial differences in the economies of annex one
countries and work out what pain each would

have to bear to equitably share the burden. If
an agreement can be reached to achieve that
outcome, then certainly Australia wants to be
a party to it. We are vigorously and purposefully negotiating to that end.
Unfortunately, because of the fact that the
cost to Australia is much greater than to most
other states in the negotiation, it is difficult to
get other parties to adopt the principle of
differentiation. They do not need to to achieve
an outcome that is satisfactory for their
purposes. It is hard to convince a Britain that
converted from coal to North Sea gas because
it was cheaper that it should be recognised
that Australia would be converting from a less
expensive fuel to a more expensive fuel to
achieve the same outcome. In other words, the
sacrifice that Australians would have to bear
to achieve the same environmental outcome
would be much greater.
It seems to be difficult to convince some
parties of this. It is surprising in a way that it
is difficult to convince Britain of it, because
Britain has been prepared to accept it as a
whole for European statesto allow differentiation between the states. Nevertheless, we
are making some progress on that point.
I was pleased last week to have heard the
Singaporean environment ministerI think
for the first timestate that differentiation
makes sense and to recognise that it needs to
be incorporated to achieve a workable outcome in Kyoto. It is pleasing that the Pacific
states, despite the particular critical consequences that they face from global warming,
are prepared to recognise the particular burdens that face Australia as well. There are
burdens on the Pacific states and there are
burdens on Australia.
If we can achieve an equitable outcome so
that we each share the burden fairly, then
Australia wants to be part of that process. We
want it to work. So it is not just the developed countries but the developing countries
that have to come on board as well. There is
no point in pushing an Australian alumina
factory offshore and have the greenhouse gas
produced elsewhere. The global consequences
are the same. Some of these aspects should be
SENATE
approached more realistically by the Australian Democrats. (Time expired)

p.m.)On behalf of the opposition I would
like to take this opportunity to say what we
believe the government ought to be doing on
the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It was
Labor who committed Australia to participate
in an international effort to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The Labor government did
argue that the climate change issue was the
most significant global environment issue that
we faced.
In 1992 Australia became a signatory to the
Rio framework convention on climate change.
We committed ourselves, along with other
developed countries, to the aspirational nonlegally binding goal of stabilising greenhouse
gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000
as a first step in a process to begin international cooperation. Labors view is we were
right to be involved then and we believe it is
right to be involved now as the international
community moves towards decisive action on
greenhouse.
However, we do believe that the urgency
motion that has been proposed by Senator
Lees, whilst well-motivated, is oversimplistic.
In particular, it gives no attention to issues
such as how the international community
should deal with specific national circumstances and different industry energy intensity
factors, which we have always argued ought
to be taken account of in the process. We do
share the concern of the Democrats that
Australia must commit itself to emission
reduction targets and to emission reduction
strategies.
The Labor Party has argued and will continue to argue that Australia has specific and
legitimate concerns. We argue that those
concerns need to be negotiated at Kyoto. For
the agreement there to be fair, it has to
incorporate measures which deal differentially
with specific aspects so that Australia is not
unfairly disadvantaged. For example, if
Australia were to repatriate downstream
processing of our primary production and
manufacture efficiently in Australia, then we
should not be penalised for such actions.
6585
There would need to be negotiated recognition of such movements by way of greenhouse gas credit.
The opposition also believes there is a need
to draw in developing countries. It may well
be that, whilst the industrialised world must
lead on this issue, a comprehensive strategy
could involve voluntary and/or lesser commitments by developing countries and a time
frame which differs from that that applies to
the industrialised world.
I have to say that overshadowing all this is
the science of greenhouse. I have got to say
that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and this
government really appear to have no idea at
all of how to go about articulating the case
for Australia. There has been a lot of huffing
and puffing from the government on this
issue, but the government is yet to tell us
what Australia will be taking to Kyoto. We
do not know even whether this government
will be proposing at Kyoto reductions or
increases in gas emissions. The only clear
statement on this matter has come from the
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer)
pretty unusual for him, I grant youwho said
that the only acceptable outcome would be
one which allowed Australia to increase
greenhouse gas emissions. We said that that
sort of proposal is entirely unacceptable. Our
resolution is clear: we demand an appropriate
and a far-reaching reduction strategy.
We have also got the Prime Minister, in the
fiasco of his visit to the Pacific islands for the
South Pacific Forum, questioning the science
on greenhouse. This puts the Prime Minister
completely on his ownabsolutely isolated
amongst international leaders. His position has
placed Australia at an all-time low in terms of
our relations with our neighbours. But, worse,
it risks completely isolating Australia in the
lead-up to Kyoto and this will be of enormous
detriment to Australia. For Australia to benefit
we need most of all to be in there arguing the
case, and we have to be able to argue the case
credibly.
Of course, we have totally lost credibility
on a number of frontsgreat credit is due to
Senator Hill for that. You have got the Prime
Minister desperately trying to have us believe
that his efforts in the Pacific islands were a
6586
SENATE
great win for Australia, yet if you just have a

cursory look at the media reportsa flick
through of what the journalists were saying
you find unending criticism of the Prime
Ministers style and ridicule of his efforts at
the forum meeting. The cartoonists have had
a field day lampooning John Howard and the
way in which he bullied the island states into
a position which clearly ignored their concerns, simply to try to save himself from
humiliation.
Yet Mr Howard had the temerity to tell
reporters that he got a very good outcome for
Australia and that the outcome recognises the
particular problems of the small island states.
That is preposterous. That is a porky of
extraordinary proportions, even for someone
like Mr Howard. It is a complete joke. You
only had to see the body language of the
leaders from those island states when they
emerged from the meeting to work out what
they really thought of the outcome, and what
they really thought of our weak and sneaky
Prime Minister, John Howard. Of course,
some of them later put their feelings, in no
uncertain terms, into words.
Let me refer to some of the comments in
the media. Todays Financial Review had this
to say in its editorial on Mr Howards island
diplomacy:
Australias ham-fisted diplomacy at the South
Pacific Forum got the desired result, but at what
cost? By forcing the leaders of poor Pacific nations
dependent on Australian aid to soften their calls
. . . the Federal Government has created new
tensions with these island states. Relations had
already been soured in July, after the inept leaking
of an Australian intelligence document
Was a compromise possible?, the editorial

asks. The editorial continued:
It appears the leaders of five small island states
were determined to include a call for a mandatory
20 per cent cut in greenhouse emissions in the final
South Pacific Forum statement. There is a dispute
over whether the 10 other forum participants aside
from Australia agreed, howeverPrime Minister
John Howard says not. This hints a less heavyhanded approach might have sufficed. Australia
cannot be suggesting global warming does not
matter
I mentioned the science of greenhouse. Let

me contrast that with what the President of
the United States has said about this issue and
his stand on greenhouse. It is worth comparing and contrasting it with Senator Hills.
This is what Mr Clinton said about the science of greenhouse:
The overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory but now
a fact that global warming is for real. The worlds
scientists believe that if we do not cut our emissions of greenhouse gases we will disrupt the
global climate. In fact, there is ample evidence that
human activities are already disrupting the global
climate and that if we stay on our current course
the average global temperatures may rise two to six
degrees fahrenheit during the next century. To put
that in some context, the difference in average
temperature between the last ice age, which was
10,000 to 12,000 years ago, and today is about nine
degrees fahrenheit. So we could have two-thirds of
that change in 100 years unless we do something.
President Clinton went on to say:

If we fail to act, scientists expect that our seas will
rise one to three feet and thousands of square miles
here in the US, in Florida, Louisiana and other
coastal areas, will be flooded. Infectious diseases
will spread to new regions. Severe heat waves will
claim lives. Agriculture will suffer. Severe droughts
and floods will be more common. There are things
that are reasonably predictable.
What does Senator Hill say about it in a

recent speech?
Australia recognises the importance of climate
change as a major environmental problem which is
supported by credible scientific evidence.
What has the Prime Minister said about the

same point? This is what he said at the South
Pacific Forum:
There is nonetheless quite a bit of debate about the
science so far as greenhouse effects are concerned
and it is not all one way. It is not allhow should
I put it?the apocalyptic view of the world and of
life.
This government really has diminished our

credibility in the international arena. It has
diminished our national interests by cutting a
number of programs that Labor put in place
programs that went to significantly reduce
emissions through the greenhouse challenge
program, that provided a renewable energy
industry program and established the Renewable Energy Cooperative Research Centre.
With less than 100 days to go before the
Kyoto conference the government is attempting to convince the world that we are serious
about this problem by announcing now that it
SENATE
will implement programs that it had previously cut.

This is preposterous. As far as we are
concerned, we demand that the Australian
government make a commitment on behalf of
this country to emission reduction. We hope
that the Democrats will join us in that and not
use this opportunity to grandstand on this
issue. I accept that we have a lot in common
with Senator Lees on this particular issue, but
the government ought to reinstate the programs which we in the Labor Party put in
place when we were in government and which
the coalition government has cut.
We are not looking for an excuse or a free
ride on this issue. Labor is currently thoroughly reviewing all its policies, and we are
developing a concluded view as to how we
should respond to any proposal that may
emerge from the Kyoto summit which results
in legally binding agreements whether differentiated or otherwise. We are very isolated
because of Mr Howards failed leadership on
this issue. It is difficult to imagine how it
would be in Australias interest if we are
going to be further isolated in Kyoto. I am
sure this government poses a real risk of
Australia being further isolated if it continues
with its intransigent position which will not
convince the increasingly sceptical world
leaders.
We have said that the minimum credible
position Australia should take at Kyoto is to
accept commitment to the reduction target
agreed at Riothat is back to 1990 levels by
the year 2000 and stabilisation past that
pointwhilst acknowledging that cutbacks in
Australias greenhouse programs since the
election of the coalition government may have
made implementation by the year 2000 highly
problematic. As I have said, we are reviewing
our greenhouse policy. I have to say that at
this stage we are not in a position to support
the Democrats motion. Accordingly, I seek
leave to move an amendment to the motion.
Leave not granted.
Senator FAULKNERI am not going to
worry about a suspension of standing orders.
Instead of the motion before the chair I
wanted to propose the following amendment:
6587
The need for Australia to develop for the Kyoto

Summit detailed and credible cases in support of
(a) specific differential emission reduction targets
based on particular national circumstances, and
(b) extension of any reduction regime to developing countries
and for the Australian Government to make a clear
and unequivocal commitment before the Summit to
an appropriately far-reaching domestic emission
reduction strategy.
In the event of leave not being granted in that

miserable, mealy-mouthed way by the minor
parties, we will not support your motion.
(5.26 p.m.)I imagine that Senator Faulkner
is greatly relieved that we did not support the
moving of that amendment because it actually
makes the position the Labor Party is taking
quite clear. In terms of what the government
is doing or not doing, I want to remind
honourable senators that the former government, before their greenhouse package was
put forward, looked at it and said, Whoops!
This is only $25 million. What are we going
to put in it? Guess what? Another $25
million went into it, which was a coal subsidy
for coal technology. That was the previous
government. They may have said better things
about greenhouse but they did not do much
better. On the international arena they made
a few noises but their actions perhaps helped
create the situation we have now which is that
greenhouse grew at the rate it did.
The prospect of the Australian Prime
Minister (Mr Howard) arguing that greenhouse science is incorrect, that the mass of
scientists trained in atmospheric physics are
wrong, and doing so at the conference of
Pacific island nations, who will be among the
worst affected, leaves one aghast at the
unmitigated gall and unparalleled insensitivity. In 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, IPPC, the working body
representing the worlds best climate scientists
and representing 40 governments, issued a
statement that climate change is real and there
is no credible uncertainty about the phenomenon or its anthropogenic sourcethat is, it
is created by humans. International scientific
bodies have periodically reinforced this
message over the last 7 years. There is no
credible doubt.
6588
SENATE
The scientific community and responsible

governments will not believe the sincerity of
Australias doubt for a moment. Is this
government really claiming that the greenhouse effect is a conspiracy to promote an
illusion? It is painfully clear that this government is bent on an attempt to deny reality in
pursuit of its desire to shirk responsibility. In
the face of over 10 years of information10
years of attempting global agreement for
actionsuccessive governments here have
done almost nothing to reduce greenhouse
emissions.
Senator Hill mentioned: what about Australias contribution? If Australia is working in
the international fora to undermine agreements, it is not just Australias greenhouse
contributions that are adding to this. It is the
undermining of international and regional
agreements that is doing even more damage
than Australias growth in its own greenhouse
production.
Emission levels in Australia have not
declined. They have not stabilised. They have,
in fact, grown steadily and strongly. At the
same time, the energy efficiency as measured
by the amount of gross domestic product
earned per tonne of greenhouse emission has
declined. Let us look at the governments
major greenhouse strategy, a voluntary agreement with industry. Even that agreement is
not to reduce greenhouse gas; that agreement
is to reduce the increase of greenhouse gas.
The one major centrepiece of the governments proposal is not even going to reduce
greenhouse gas. It does not talk about anything domestically. It does not talk about the
rural industry. It does not talk about the level
of land clearance. The one voluntary agreement is actually an agreement to increase
greenhouse emissions.
The environment movement attempted to
responsibly put forward ways to reduce
energy use without penalising amenity
things like insulation standards on houses. It
is so simple. It does not make people cold in
winter or hot in summer. It allows them to be
comfortable while reducing their power bills.
That is hardly radical. Where are the building
codes? Where is the support for retrofitting?
It does not exist, and so we waste huge
amounts of energy for no apparent purpose

other than to raise the temperature of the
earth.
The Howard government now has the
affront to say we should not have to reduce
our emissions because we use a lot of energy.
That is like saying Australia should be rewarded for profligacy. What kind of example
is that setting the rest of the world? There
will be massive costs to the Australian economy in terms of Australian agriculture. Climate change associated with El Nino patterns
will affect our fisheries and our forests. That
could not have occurred in less than several
thousand years by any normal events.
We have already spent billions of dollars in
Australia as a result of climate change. It is
time we worked positively to see what we can
do in the future to amend the situation and to
show real leadership in our region and in the
world to bring together the forces for positive
change. We need to move towards real employment and positive change for dealing with
the greenhouse effect.
Senator HEFFERNAN (New South Wales)
(5.32 p.m.)Senator Lees and the Australian
Democrats are well-known political opportunists. Her Labor mates are desperate to get
back in the headlines. I have to say that the
strategy adopted in the chamber this afternoon
is novel. I can tell you, jeopardising Australian jobs is not the way to go about promoting
yourself.
Senator Faulkner earlier accused the Prime
Minister (Mr Howard) of being weak and
sneaky. Gareth Evans is the one who is weak
and sneaky and as powerful as a pansy on the
world stage with his irrelevancy depravation
syndrome. Gareth Evans, in this very place in
relation to greenhouse gas emissions, said:
Australia will not take action which would have net
adverse economic impacts nationally or on
Australias trade competitiveness.
I have to say that he has had a strange change

of direction in opposition. How can anyone
come out in support of legally binding targets
to address the reduction of greenhouse emissions when the nature and effect of these
targets is unclear? How can we agree on a
legally binding target when our country is the
fastest growing nation in the OECD and when
SENATE
our regional neighbours are growing and

developing at a significant rate and depend on
us for food and energy?
The market is there for us to provide for.
We cannot put a cap on that market now. We
cannot say to our industry and primary producers that we can only export a certain
amount and that to do otherwise would
contravene our legally binding targets. Who
will lose in this scenario? I will tell you who.
First and foremost, Australians who will be
without jobs will lose. Our industries which
will be without markets will lose. Australia,
because industry will be forced to go offshore
to developing countriesto non-annex one
countrieswhere legally binding restrictions
do not exist, will lose. Most importantly, the
environment, through carbon leakage, will
losethe very thing we have set out to
protect.
Senator Leess motion is about Australia
losing on all fronts. The coalition is about
providing Australians with jobs, security and
economic growth while at the same time
protecting the environment. In Kyoto this
December we want an outcome which is fair.
Legally binding targets are not necessarily
fair. Asking this government to sign a blank
cheque to the world without having our
concerns met is dangerous and irresponsible.
While the opposition got used to signing
blank cheques and leaving the consequences
to others while in government, the Democrats
are behaving like Al Grassby. Maybe he was
a closet Democrat. Al was a wunderkind of
promises in opposition but was not worth a
squirt in government.
The Howard government is about responsible government and will not be induced by
a reckless backdown to some vague international bottomless pit of lobbyists. We will not
risk Australian jobs, we will not risk Australian industry and we will not risk the environment. Legally binding targets could significantly and disproportionately harm the Australian economy compared with our competitors. ABARE assessments in April of this year
indicate that, if Australia is forced to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions to 10 per cent
below 1990 levels by 2020, it would impose
6589
costs on Australia of $9,000 per person in net

present value terms.
Senator MargettsWhose model is that?
Senator HEFFERNANWe would be
expected to sacrifice Australian jobs. How
could the senators interjecting on the other
side support such a betrayal of the Australian
people? Australias relatively high per capita
emissions reflect the structure of our economy
and our role as an efficient exporter of energy
intensive products. In 1990, 80 per cent of
Australias production of energy and emission
intensive goodspetroleum products, basic
metals, minerals and resources, agriculture
and food products, meat and dairy products,
and chemicalswere exported. Legally
binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions would unfairly penalise
such domestic industries.
While we seek differential targets, we are
taking responsibility in the international arena
for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
through exporting our technological advances
and through the exporting of environmentally
friendly energy and energy technology while
bringing down neighbouring countries emission levels, which, ironically, increase our
own levels at the same time. For instance,
Australias liquid natural gas exports will be
used by our regional neighbours to replace
more polluting energy sources but, because
this liquid natural gas production process
results in greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, we face a penalty at the national level
while the countries which import our product
obtain a greenhouse benefit.
Legally binding benefits would also affect
research and development, which in the long
term would reduce gas emissions in a global
context but for Australia, again in the production process, would increase emissions. For
instance, Ford Australia is investing in a pilot
magnesium processing plant in Queensland.
It is exploring the option of using magnesium
in car components. Again, Australia has a
natural endowment in magnesium, which is a
lighter metal than aluminium per unit of
strength. The bad news is that we may produce more greenhouse gases in this process;
the good news, however, is that globally the
lightweighting of vehicles is likely to save
6590
SENATE
four times the emissions, for which we will

get credit.
Australias global contribution in these
circumstances is not recognised under the
rules of the convention. If we are tied by
legal targets, our efforts to address greenhouse
gas emissions globally will be hindered to the
detriment of other communities in the world.
Why should we be penalised for our emission
level when in a global perspective we are in
fact playing a significant role in the reduction
of emissions? Why do the Democrats ask us
to tie the hands of Australians preventing
them from achieving for both national and
global good?
A fair balance is what is needed. A fair
balance is what this government is attempting
to achieve in the international arena. The
Howard government is committed to achieving protection of the environment in ways that
safeguard both our economic future and the
jobs of Australians. (Time expired)
I congratulate Senator Lees on her motion,
which reads:
That in the opinion of the Senate, the following
the need for Australia to agree to legally binding
emissions.
It is a very simple, poignant statement of

Australias obligations to join the rest of the
world community in a responsible redress of
the mounting global warming problem which
threatens the planets environment, its economy and its social order in the next century.
Instead of that, we have both old parties on
both sides of this chamber saying they will
not vote for ita petulant display by the
Labor Party, which teamed up with the coal
industry during its last years of office to itself
go to the world fora and try to pull the rug
from under the efforts of more responsible
nations to address global warming.
The Labor Party should hang its head in
shame for its record and for paving the way
for John Howard to swan across to the South
Pacific and to do in the interests of the South
Pacific nations with that extraordinarily
embarrassing and damaging asseveration that
the future welfare of whole nationssmall
nations, albeit in the South Pacificwas less

important to him than a general commitment
to the coal industry here in Australia.
This codswallop about jobs is really about
the big boys in the mining industry who line
the election coffers of the big parties year
after year. Amongst other things, they have
put nearly a million dollars into the ABARE
model to try to give specious argument to the
faltering faults and irresponsible policies of
both parties towards the rest of the worlds
efforts, as I said, to redress the problem.
We have only to look at the more independent think tank, the Australia Institute. Dr
Clive Hamilton says that, on estimates taken
from European figures, Australias contribution to future generations indebtedness from
greenhouse gas emissions just last year was
$75 billion. That is the indebtedness left on
the sideboard for future generations. Talk
about jobs! What about this government
putting some money into the renewable
energy industries where the real jobs are?
What about giving some research and development assistance? What about transferring
some of the massive amounts of money going
into the coal industry and other mining
industries across to more responsible future
industries where we could proudly export to
the rest of the world and create thousands
more jobs than those that might be threatened
by a change of policy on this important
matter?
I refer to the speech given to the United
Nations by the President of the Republic of
Maldives, His Excellency Mr Maumoon
Abdul Gayoom, on 24 June last which really
speaks eloquently for the island nations that
Australias Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has
cheated in the last few days. He told the
United Nations this:
Ten years ago, I stood at this podium and spoke
about the impending dangers to my country, the
Maldives, from sea level rise. Much has happened
since then, but the threat to my country has remained as alarming and as urgent as ever. The
irony, too, is no less painful: my country is
amongst the least contributors to environmental
degradation; but it would certainly be amongst the
most helpless in dealing with the potential catastrophic effects of climate change and global
warming.

...
...
SENATE
...
For small island states the biggest environmental

threat would stem from climate change. Increased,
or even the present level of emission of greenhouse
gases will lead to a degree of global warming that
would cause a worldwide rise of ocean levels. The
process may be too gradual to make sensational
headlines, but the threat, nevertheless, would be no
less real. According to the Inter-Governmental
Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC), as a result of
global warming, sea levels would rise between 30
and 100 centimetres by 2100. 80% of low-lying
islands, such as those of the Maldives and many in
the Pacific Ocean, would be totally submerged.
He goes on to point out the threat to other

countries right round the world and major
cities, not excluding cities in this country,
threatened by such a sea rise with hundreds
of millions of potential refugees. What irresponsibility by Labor, Liberal and National
parties. What a failure of vision. What an
abrogation of their duty to future generations.
What a spiteful and small-minded way to be
treating the interests of other nations on this
planet. (Time expired)
Senator IAN MACDONALD (QueenslandParliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for the Environment) (5.44 p.m.)It is
disappointing that the Senate is again debating
this irresponsible approach by the Democrats.
It is an approach that is almost unAustralian.
It is an approach that is again knocking
Australia and knocking the leadership that
Australia has taken in many fields and, in this
case, in the important matter of global warming.
I am pleased to see that the Labor Party
does understand the problem and does have
some interest in the jobs that the Democrats
approach would lose for our country. I would
say in response to Senator FaulknerI was
not able to write down his amendmentthat
we would be interested in what the Labor
Party would propose at Kyoto. We are somewhat reluctant though to proceed with our
proposals publicly at this stage.
We are interested in the fact, though, that
neither the Labor Party nor the minor parties
have asked the United States or Japan what
their approach is going to be to Kyoto. That
is strange when the United States produces
some 47 per cent of OECD emissions and
6591
more than one-fifth of the global emissions,

and the European Union accounts for some 30
per cent of OECD emissions, whereas Australia has a meagre three per cent of OECD
emissions and 1.4 per cent of the global
emissions. Yet these minor parties seem to be
attacking and criticising Australia without
looking at the nations that are producing the
majority of greenhouse gas emissions.
The government agrees that greenhouse gas
emissions have to be reduced in Australia. I
am very pleased to say that the Antarctic
Division and the Bureau of Meteorology
both elements within the Department of the
Environment, Sport and Territories for which
I have responsibilityhave been doing a lot
of leading work on that particular subject.
The science, of course, is not clear. There
are many detractors from the accepted science. I go along with the accepted view, but
I do point out that scientists such as Jane
Francis, the eminent British scientist of Leeds
University, said that the whole issue was to
an extent a beat up. There are a number of
articles from leading scientists, and I refer to
one in the New Scientist of 19 July 1997,
which throws some doubt on it. I do not agree
with that, but then I am not a scientist. I
accept the general view, but the science is not
clear. There are a number of eminent scientists who disagree.
We must have pure air and we must look
after the people in the world who are entitled
to a non-polluted atmosphere. That is why the
Australian government is doing so much to
reduce Australias greenhouse emissions. We
believe that we have to explore alternative
power sources. Solar, wind and wave energy
sources are just some. I notice that the minor
parties often hold Britain up as a great example of a country which is reducing its greenhouse gases. I notice they do not mention,
though, that Britain gets a hell of a lot of its
power from nuclear power. I wonder whether
the minor parties are suggesting that perhaps
nuclear power is the way that we should
overcome greenhouse gases. I would be very
interested to hear their arguments on that
because certainly uranium would not produce
greenhouse gases.
6592
SENATE
I cannot understand why the Democrats and

Greens are so unAustralian, so wanting to
cost jobs, so wanting to export jobs overseas
and, at the same time, exporting the greenhouse gas problem to countries which are not
as well equipped to contribute to greenhouse
science and emission reductions. I wonder
why the minor parties promote the targets that
have been talked about without taking into
account the sink effect that Australia has.
The mantra of these overseas countries has
been picked up by the carpers, the whingers
and the Australian knockers. These people are
always knocking Australiaand the workers
that we support, and our standard of living.
I do point out that the science of this whole
thing is in no way settled. I had the honour
last Monday to attend a conference of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
which was held in Rockhampton. It was a
particularly interesting conference. I do wish
that the Greens and the Democrats would
attend some of these conferences and get
some idea as to the real problems involved.
This was a conference of some of the leading
scientists around the world. While a lot of it
was beyond my technical comprehension, it
was very clear to me while I was sitting there
listening to it that there is no unanimity at all
with the science of emissions and sinks.
I am very pleased to say that this conference resolved that science should look not
only at emissions but at the net effect of
greenhouse gases. That was taken a step
forward. What the minor parties and some of
the OECD countries look at all the time are
the emissions. You do not look at Australias
greater capacity to act as a greenhouse gas
sink. You are not interested in the science that
is being done to look at just where Australia
stands as a sequester of greenhouse gases.
Interestingly, this conference, attended by
leading scientists around the world, said that
we really had to have another look at the
impact on global climate change that our
grazing lands have as sinks. It is interesting
that, as a result of that conference last week,
a recommendation has gone to the Maldives
and will eventually get to Kyoto suggesting
that really that question has to be looked at
more widely. There are parts of the scientific
debate which have not yet been considered

and which really that question need to be
looked at much more closely.
Senator Hill and Senator Heffernan have
put the case for the government, and I do not
want to repeat that. I simply want to emphasise that there is a lot of good work being done
by Australia and by Australian scientiststhe
type of work that these sorts of people, the
minor parties, should be supporting and
encouraging rather than knock, knock, knocking all the time. The science is not settled,
and they should know that, but I suspect their
ignorance and desire to make political points
for whatever constituency they happen to
represent overcome their desire to get to the
real truth of this matter.
If you went and had a talk to some of these
people, you would understand that the way
Australia is managing its forests and the way
our land practices have improved is work that
is well appreciated. It had not been taken into
account but is now being taken into account.
Senator Margetts interjecting
Senator IAN MACDONALDYou can
whinge and carry on all you like, but why
dont you go and talk to some of these people
who understand what it is about?
Senator MargettsI do.
Senator IAN MACDONALDYou cant
have, Senator. If you had, you would not be
making these inane interjections. If you
understood, you would be supporting
Australias efforts to get the correct outcome
from Kyotonot an outcome which costs
Australia jobs but an outcome which is good
for the world environment. You are not
interested in that; you just want to attack.
(Time expired)
Senator LEES (South AustraliaDeputy
Leader of the Australian Democrats) (5.52
p.m.)Where to start in my two minutes?
Perhaps I could just go to jobsthat is all
this debate seems to have been about as far as
the government is concernedand ask the
government to look at the jobs which they
have got rid of. We could start with the
public sector, but we will put that to one side
and look at the ethanol industry which they
have effectively sunk in the sink that they are
SENATE
talking about. We could look at the whole

issue of energy efficiency: they are not interested in that. Concerning research into solar
and harnessing wind energy: Sorry, we cant
really worry too much about that research.
I stress again: there are tens of thousands of
new jobs out there waiting to be funded, waiting to be done. Yes, the coal industry is going
to see a loss of jobs. Why? Because we hope
the world will actually be using less coal. The
idea is to switch from fossil fuels over to renewable energy. What about all those other
energy intensive industries that you have talked so eloquently about? Why dont they
switch? Part of the reason is that you are subsidising fossil fuels for them. From the diesel
fuel rebate on, they do not find it economic
because of your government subsidies.
As for the ALP, I think their hypocrisy
knows no bounds. In other words, they would
have gone over to the South Pacific islands
and basically taken exactly the same stance
that your government adopted. They also
would have pushed their weight around to
make sure greenhouse fell off the agenda.
And as for differentiation, I would like to
warn both sidesLabor and Liberalthat, if
we sign up to differentiation, if we promote
differentiation, we could actually be worse
off. We could end up in a situation where
they say, Yes, great idea. Australia should
have a different target. It should have a higher
target because per capita your emissions are
amongst the worst, if not the worst, in the
developed world.
Yes, Senator, of course we have a lot of
coal, but we also have a lot of sun. As we
have pointed out during this debate, your
government is doing nothing in the simple
areas of mandating solar hot water services,
et cetera. (Time expired)
Question put:
That the motion (Senator Leess) be agreed to.
The Senate divided.

[5.58 p.m.]
Reid)
Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
Majority . . . . . . . . .
31
Allison, L.
Brown, B.
Lees, M. H.
Murray, A.
Woodley, J.
6593
AYES
Bourne, V. *
Kernot, C.
Margetts, D.
Stott Despoja, N.
NOES
Bishop, M.
Calvert, P. H. *
Campbell, G.
Carr, K.
Collins, J. M. A.
Collins, R. L.
Conroy, S.
Cook, P. F. S.
Cooney, B.
Crowley, R. A.
Denman, K. J.
Ellison, C.
Evans, C. V.
Ferris, J.
Forshaw, M. G.
Gibbs, B.
Heffernan, W.
Hogg, J.
Knowles, S. C.
Lightfoot, P. R.
Lundy, K.
Macdonald, I.
Mackay, S.
McGauran, J. J. J.
McKiernan, J. P.
Minchin, N. H.
Murphy, S. M.
Neal, B. J.
OBrien, K. W. K.
Parer, W. R.
Payne, M. A.
Quirke, J. A.
Reid, M. E.
Schacht, C. C.
Synon, K. M.
Tambling, G. E. J.
Tierney, J.
Troeth, J.
Watson, J. O. W.
West, S. M.
* denotes teller

ASSENT TO LAWS
Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported informing the
Senate that he had assented to the following
laws:
Carriage of Goods by Sea Amendment Bill 1997
Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1997
Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No.
1) 1997
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill
1997
International Monetary Agreements Amendment
Bill 1997
Constitutional Convention (Election) Bill 1997
Health Insurance (Pathology Services) Amendment Bill 1997
Transport Legislation Amendment (Search and
Rescue Service) Bill 1997
DOCUMENTS
Industry Commission
The PRESIDENTPursuant to standing
order 166 I present report No. 59 of the
Industry Commission which was presented to
Senator Ferguson, a Temporary Chairman of
6594
SENATE
Committees, on 18 Setpember 1997. In

accordance with the terms of the standing
order the publication of the document was
authorised.
Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)
(6.03 p.m.)by leaveI move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I wish to take note of the Industry Commission report, primarily because I was reminded
this weekend by a somewhat quixotic remarkif that is the right descriptionthat the
Industry Commission was really a creature of
the Laberals. What the person who said that
meant was that throughout the period in
which the Industry Commission has been
operating the Labor and Liberal partiesthe
Laberals as this person referred to them
had been consistent in their support for the
Industry Commission. It was as a result of
that consistency that we have seen a series of
reports and actions which, by and large, have
not been in the interests and to the net public
benefit of Australian industry or the Australian community.
However, one thing should always be said
about the Industry Commission, and that is
that it has consistently been true to itself. In
other words, it has followed a coherent and
consistent line, even if that has been a line
that I disagreed with. In contrast, in recent
times the Labor and Liberal partiesthe
Laberalshave turned a corner in terms of
their decisions on, firstly, the car industry
and, secondly, the TCF industries.
The Australian Democrats have welcomed
that, but we have been under no illusions as
to what that has meant, because primarily it
has meant a change in timing and not direction. Until such time as both those parties
adopt the doctrine of reciprocitywhich is
that you only cut tariffs and non-tariff barriers
when you have an equivalent agreement
bilaterally and multilaterallythey really are
continuing along the lines of Labors Industry
Commission and continuing to support their
views. It was disappointing for us to see yet
again with the TCF report that economic
rationalism and its terribly narrow view that
society is there to serve economics continues
to prevail. However, I have conceded and will
continue to concede that at least the Industry
Commission is consistent and quite determined in the pursuit of that ideological

dogma.
In its recent final report into the car industry, the Industry Commission arrived at
similar conclusions and recommendations to
those it had reached six months previously.
The question in the minds of those who make
submissions and have alternative views is:
what is the point of continuing to put those
submissions and alternative views if little
credence is given to them? That, in turn, has
drawn the observation that the commissioners
and their senior staff are inflexible in terms of
being able to present the alternative viewpoint.
The same occurred with the draft and final
reports into the textile, clothing and footwear
industries. Such inflexibility is not the only
cause for concern. In the car industry report,
for example, the commissions economic
modelling was used to underpin the claim that
consumers would benefit to the tune of
$3,700 per vehicle or a total consumer benefit
of between $1.7 billion and $4.5 billion a
year if suggested tariff reductions were pursued.
Modelling which was undertaken later
revealed this to be an overestimate, and
revision suggested a meagre consumer benefit
of $100 million a year. That has been one of
the major problems with the TCF and car
reportsand other reportsin that the modelling itself has been subject to question, and
the conclusions on which the ideology has
been pinned have been identified as being in
error in some respects.
The question that arises now is whether the
government has ignored the Industry Commission. The purpose of my rising to talk is
really to say to the Senate and the media
and I regret that the media have been somewhat superficial, I think, in their reporting on
this matterthat we have to recognise that
the government has not ignored the Industry
Commission and that, really, it has changed
the timing and not the direction.
I have seen all the articles about how a
tariff freeze has been arrived at. But the tariff
freeze occurs only in the year 2000. In the
meantime, every year, every month and every
SENATE
day, the tariffs continue to fall and, in the

TCF sector, factories continue to close and
jobs continue to be lost. The media themselves need to start digging a little deeper in
terms of assessing the Industry Commission
and its reports, and assessing the way in
which both the Labor and Liberal parties have
dealt with it, because the real question of
reciprocity still evades discussion in the
mediathat is, we should do only what we
are able to negotiate with others to do on both
a bilateral and multilateral basis.
Commentators have claimed that the commission is possibly irrelevant. The two major
industry reports have cost taxpayers over a
million dollars. Commentators have claimed
that the reports have been totally ignored and,
on that basis, that their worth must be called
into question. However, I regard the Industry
Commission reports as being very helpful
because they continue to propose, explain and
present the economic rationalist view. That
provides those of us who are opposed to it
with a very useful and continuing counterpoint to argue against.
We know that the Liberal, Labor and
National partiesand the National Party in
particularare still fundamentally opposed to
visiting and reviewing economic rationalism
in a really fundamental way, and to finding an
alternative intellectual and theoretical viewpoint which is not merely an adjustment in
emphasis but is, in fact, an alternative economic doctrine. I am hopeful that some of the
very capable people on either side of the
debate will eventually come to deal with that,
because deal with that they must.
I take the opportunity of the presentation of
this report to remind both parties that there is
unfinished business out there. The media and
the community recognise it, and that is why
we still have insecurity, uncertainty and a
sense of a lack of direction and leadership. It
is only the intellectual alternative which will
provide us with the means to defeat what has
delivered us, over 20 years, appalling unemployment, appalling debt and the loss of many
of our great industries and companies that
have been either closed down or sold to
foreign interests.
6595
At present, the end result is that we continue with the unilateral approach, with
unilateral reductions and with a situation in
which we are making ourselves more and
more defenceless in the face of countries and
regional agreements in which our competitors
continue to maintain exceptionally aggressive
industry policies and protection devices for
their own industries and jobs.
It is profoundly foolish for a country of our
size to continue with that policy. For instance,
TCF tariffs in developed countries are generally higher than for industrial products overall. Prior to the Uruguay Round, the developed country average bound tariff on textiles
and clothing was 15 per cent. The USA has
an average textile and clothing tariff rate of
14 per cent and a maximum rate of 48 per
cent for footwear. The European Union has a
maximum rate of 13.4 per cent on textile and
clothing products. (Time expired)
(6.13 p.m.)There has been an expectation
over time that the Industry Commission
produces reports which tend to project the
interests of large industries and corporations.
We have to understand that these days large
corporations are rarely simply based in one
country. Even Australias largest corporations
generally have interests overseas, or are
controlled or owned to a substantial extent by
overseas operators.
The interesting thing is that almost none of
the assessments have been very thorough in
relation to such things as the impact of free
trade. It is a real pity that, this far down the
track since the agreements in 1994, we as a
country have not done a thorough assessment
of the impact of the free trade agreement we
signed up to back then. I would love to see a
systematic approacheven in footwear,
clothing and textilesto look at the impacts
on consumers. We cannot just look at the
price, although that is important; we have to
look at the range and choice that people have.
From the consumers point of view, we
have also got to look at whether or not the
things that they could get before, the kinds of
outlets that they could access before, are still
able to be accessed. We have also, in my
opinion, got to look at such things as whether
6596
SENATE
or not with so-called free trade we actually do

have a free market in distribution.
I have mentioned on a number of occasions
that in the textiles, clothing and footwear
industries it matters not a pin that some
people are being paid $1 a day or $2 dollars
a day to produce, say, a Nike shoe. It matters
not a pin if there is a monopoly in distribution and marketing which means that there are
huge profits. Those huge profits are not
necessarily made in Australia; they might be
made elsewhere. It matters that the consumers
are not necessarily getting a better deal out of
so-called free trade and that the consumers are
not getting a better deal out of exploiting very
low wages in whichever country pays the
lowest wage.
It concerns me greatly that the overall
impact of free trade has not been looked at.
This includes whether or not people have the
ability to buy the goods and services that they
need in their daily lives. It should never be
forgotten that this is part of the process. It is
not just about free trade; it is about free
investment policies, and it is almost gloves
off, no rules. Once more and more of the
companies that have been operating in a
country like Australia are swallowed up, then
they control the markets. They can actually
tell consumers what it is they need and want,
because not too many people will be able to
stand up against them and offer an alternative.
This goes to the very basics of our existence;
the very basics of processed food, hardware
and many of the goods and services that we
use.
The irony here is that we have a so-called
commitment to free trade, but we do not have
a commitment to make sure that that trade
really is fair. It seems to me that there has
been no real indication whether there is
anything at all in the mythical level playing
field. Most people, when they look at it
carefully, will realise there is not.
When companies and services are swallowed up it generally leads to a oligopoly, or
eventually a monopoly, which means that the
consumers are the ones that lose. If it is an
oligopoly in distributionit often is with the
textiles, clothing and footwear industries
what is the real impact on consumers? I put
it to you that not only do they not necessarily

pay lower prices but also they end up, in my
opinion, with fewer choices in types and
styles and in those things which are not
necessarily moving at the same level as other
things are moving.
We are going down the track of so-called
international competitiveness, but when that
translates to a local market it means that those
people who need special fittings in shoes,
clothing and so on have few choices. They
might have to go further. The little shops that
used to be able to service their needs are no
longer able to survive.
We need to lookit is well overdueat the
impacts of internationalisation and globalisation on Australia. At the very least, we need
to look fully and comprehensively at the
consumer impact. I would argue that we also
need to look at the impact on jobs. We need
to look at the overall impact on the cost of
living. We need to look at the balance of
trade. We also need to look at such things as
the environmental impact of free trade. We
also need to look at the idea that you can
push down the margins on many of those
goods and services, and the fact that people
have to produce more and more of these
goods and services to get the same return.
I would put to you that that love affair with
free trade has never been properly analysed in
Australia. The textiles, clothing and footwear
industries are screaming examples of the lack
of detailed analysis. It is time for government
entities to do this. I do not mean entities like
the Industry Commission. I think it is time
that the government realised we do need to
put some effort into this. We are three years
down the track. It is well overdue for us to
assess Australias commitment to international
free trade and tariff reductions, and also the
impact of the changes in access to investment
and the ability of companies to take over
entire industries.
Whether the impacts are on the textiles,
clothing and footwear industries or whether
they are on other industries, it is time that we
looked at those impacts. In the end we could
become a country which seems to be simply
a quarry or a farm at the expense of our
environment. We cannot wait until we get to
SENATE
the point of being an arid, dusty, polluted

mess and then realise that we have gone the
wrong way, because future generations will
pay for that in money and in the amenities in
their real lives.
We just had a debate on greenhouse. It
seems to me that a lot of the debate on free
trade is also about the kinds of options we are
giving ourselves, and whether or not we are
moving to the point where it seems that there
are fewer and fewer choices except dirty and
polluting industries and value adding industries serving the basic needs of society. Those
basic needs are food, clothing and shelter. If
we cannot produce those in Australia, then we
ought to be looking very carefully at why not,
what we can do about serving the needs of
consumers and workers, and the industries
producing those basic food, clothing and
shelter needs in Australia.
COMMITTEES
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Legislation Committee
Report
Senator HEFFERNAN (New South

Wales)On behalf of Senator Troeth, I
present report No. 2 of 1997 of the Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on the scrutiny of annual reports.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Membership
(Senator Watson)The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate seeking variations to the
membership of certain committees.
agreed to:
That senators be discharged from and appointed
to committees for the period 22 September 1997 to
27 January 1998 as follows:
Environment, Recreation, Communications and the
Arts Legislation Committee
Appointed: Senator Tierney.
Discharged: Senator Patterson.
Regulations and Ordinance CommitteeStanding
Appointed: Senator Coonan.
Discharged: Senator Patterson.
6597
Membership
Messages from the House of Representatives were reported acquainting the Senate
with the appointment of members of the
House of Representatives joint committees as
follows:
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public
Works, Mr Tuckey in place of Mr J N Andrew,
resigned.
Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Mr E H
Cameron and Dr Theophanous in place of Ms
Gambaro and mr Martin, respectively.
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade, Dr Southcott in place of ms
Worth, resigned.
Public Accounts Committee

Extension of Time
A message from the House of Representatives was reported acquainting the Senate with
the resolution of that House relating to an
extension of time for the Joint Committee on
Public Accounts to present its advisory report
on the Public Service Bill 1997 and related
bill to 23 September 1997.
Native Title and the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Land Fund
Committee
Reference
A message from the House of Representatives was reported acquainting the Senate with
the resolution of that House referring proposed changes to the Native Title Act 1993
and other acts contained in the native Title
Amendment Bill 1997 to the Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Native Title and the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land
Fund for consideration and report by 27
October 1997.
NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT
(TRIBUNAL APPOINTMENTS)
BILL 1997
MIGRATION LEGISLATION
AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1997
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator ELLISON (Western Australia
Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs
6598
SENATE
and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General)

(6.24 p.m.)I indicate to the Senate that
those bills which have just been announced
by the Acting Deputy President are being
introduced together. After debate on the
motion for the second reading has been
adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have
the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper.
I move:
The first amendment removes the requirement that

the Registrar be admitted to legal practice for 5
years and replaces it with a requirement that a
person may not be appointed as Registrar unless the
person is legally qualified and has had substantial
experience in relation to:
That these bills may proceed without formalities,

may be taken together and be now read a first time.
any other activities considered relevant to duties

of the Registrar.

Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General)I table revised explanatory memoranda
relating to both bills and move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading

speeches incorporated in Hansard
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows
NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT (TRIBUNAL
APPOINTMENTS) BILL 1997
This bill contains four amendments to the Native
Title Act 1993 in relation to the National Native
Title Tribunal. The first two amendments concern
the qualifications for appointment of the Registrar
and presidential members of the Tribunal, the third
amendment provides for the temporary appointment
of the Registrar by the President of the Tribunal
and the fourth amendment provides further clarification of when a member of the Tribunal is considered to have a conflict of interest in relation to
an application or inquiry before the Tribunal.
The bill will not have any significant financial
impact.
The functions and roles of presidential members
and the Registrar will change as part of changes to
the role of the Tribunal necessitated by the High
Courts Brandy decision. These changes are
included in the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997.
Under the changes all applications for compensation and native title determinations will be made to
the Federal Court and the Court will have sole
responsibility for making determinations of native
title. The changes mean the main role of the
Tribunal will be in the area of mediation of native
title claims.
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander societies; or

the law; or
administration; or
As the Registrar will no longer have any role in

deciding whether or not applications should be
accepted, it is appropriate that the qualifications for
appointment be changed. This amendment will
allow a more diverse field of suitably qualified
candidates to be considered for the position of
Registrar of the Tribunal.
The second amendment concerns presidential
members of the Tribunal. Currently, a presidential
member has to be a judge of the Federal Court or
a former judge of the High Court, Federal Court,
Family Court or State or Territory Supreme Court
in order to be eligible for appointment. The amendment adds a further class of persons who may be
appointed as a presidential member of the Tribunalnamely, persons who have been admitted to
legal practice for at least five years. Again, this
amendment ensures that a more diverse field of
highly qualified people may be considered for
appointment as presidential members.
The third amendment provides that the President of
the Tribunal may appoint an acting Registrar. This
will ensure that the Tribunal can quickly and
efficiently deal with any temporary vacancy in the
position of Registrar.
The last amendment provides further clarification
on when a member of the Tribunal is considered to
have a conflict of interest in relation to a particular
application before the Tribunal.
This amendment relates to majority recommendation 9 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Land Fund in its report on the Native Title
Amendment Bill 1996. That recommendation
considered the possibility of a conflict of interest
where members of the Tribunal may be conducting
consultancies in native title matters.
This provision addresses the concerns of the
community that members of the Tribunal are
impartial, and are seen to be impartial, but is
flexible enough to allow people experienced in
native title matters to continue to be appointed to
the NNTT.
I commend the bill.
SENATE
MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT

BILL (No. 4) 1997
This bill implements a number of the Governments
important policy initiatives within the Immigration
and Multicultural Affairs portfolio, particularly in
relation to merits review.
The measures contained within the bill are consistent with the Governments commitments to
improve the immigration decision-making system
and continue the process of restoring community
credibility in the management of immigration
matters.
On 20 March this year, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs announced a range
of significant changes the Government would make
to refugee and immigration decision-making and
review systems. These changes will improve the
efficiency, credibility and accountability of immigration decision-making.
One major change is the streamlining of the current
two tier review process of non-refugee visa decisions into a single review by an independent review
agency. The bill gives effect to this by merging
existing internal review undertaken by the
Migration Internal Review Office of the Department Immigration and Multicultural Affairs with
the external merits review carried out by the
Immigration Review Tribunal.
Under the changes introduced by this bill, the
single tier review will be conducted by a new
external review body, the Migration Review
Tribunal. Review of non-refugee decisions by the
Migration Review Tribunal will commence on 1
July 1998.
The Migration Review Tribunal will be required to
conduct fair, impartial and expeditious review of
migration decisions, at lower cost to the Australian
taxpayer. This will be achieved through the introduction of more streamlined and flexible review
decision-making processes.
The Tribunals Principal Member will have clear
authority to apply efficient processing practices.
This may include the introduction of a case management system where much of the preliminary
research and investigative work would be undertaken by administrative staff of the Tribunal. Tribunal
members would be responsible for directing that
any further investigation be undertaken, and for the
final decision.
Migration Review Tribunal members will be
independent decision-makers, able to reach their
own conclusions on a decision under review, in
accordance with the law. However, this independence does not amount to non-accountability.
Members will be accountable, on matters of
procedure, to the Parliament through the Principal
Member for ensuring that they conduct reviews,
6599
fairly and expeditiously. The bill will give the

Migration Review Tribunals Principal Member
power to make directions on the efficient conduct
of reviews. These directions only relate to review
procedures. The Principal Member can not make
directions on policy issues related to the merits of
a case.
For the purposes of ensuring efficient conduct of
reviews, the Principal Member will be able to
reconstitute the Tribunal provided specific preconditions are satisfied. Reconstitution may only occur
where, following consultation with the member
constituting the Tribunal and a Senior Member of
the Tribunal, either:
the Principal Member is satisfied that there is
insufficient material before the Tribunal for it to
decide the review; or
the prescribed time has elapsed since the case
was constituted to that member.
These preconditions emphasise that reconstitution
is solely for ensuring efficient and timely reviews
and safeguard against misuse of the power.
These changes will set the framework for significant reductions in both the time and costs of review
of general migration visa decisions. However, I
should stress that the bill will not alter the entitlements of persons to seek review of decisions by the
Department refusing or cancelling visas. Those
persons who are currently able to seek review of
particular decisions by the Migration Internal
Review Office or the Immigration Review Tribunal
will be able to seek independent review of those
decisions by the Migration Review Tribunal.
The Principal Member of the Refugee Review
Tribunal will be provided with the same authority
to apply efficient processing practices as those of
the Principal Member of the Migration Review
Tribunal. This includes clear authority to give
directions on the operation of the Refugee Review
Tribunal and the efficient conduct of reviews.
The provisions allowing the Minister to appoint
persons to act in a senior office of the Refugee
Review Tribunal for periods of up to 12 months
will be brought into line with the equivalent
provision which currently exists for the Immigration Review Tribunal and that proposed for the
Migration Review Tribunal. This will allow the
Minister to appoint members to act as Senior
members.
The bill also includes certain safeguards for applicants by introducing a code of procedure for both
the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee
Review Tribunal which is similar to that already
applying to decisions made by the Department.
This code includes such matters as the giving of a
prescribed notice of the timing for a hearing, and
a requirement that applicants be given access, and
6600
SENATE
time to comment, on adverse material relevant to

them.
In addition, the bill contains a number of measures
to allow for more flexible processes in both Tribunals. These include:
enabling the Tribunals to use telephone or other
media to conduct personal hearings or to require
other witnesses to appear before them; and
allowing Tribunals to proceed to a decision
without delay, if an applicant does not respond
to a notice to attend a hearing or provide comment.
Taken together, these changes mean that people
with bona fide review applications will be given a
decision more quickly and a better decision if the
initial decision is wrong. Those persons intent on
fraud, deception or delay will not have the benefits
of a delayed decision.
These changes are consistent with foreshadowed
Government moves to introduce further reform of
merits review tribunals across all portfolios by
consolidating all tribunals into one, new Tribunal.
The bill includes a number of other changes. These
relate to measures to enhance the visa cancellation
powers, including:
the power to ensure that there is more effective
cancellation of visas which were granted on the
basis of incorrect information, for example,
where a previous visa was granted on the basis
of incorrect information; and
the tightening of certain notice provisions which
are integral to the visa cancellation process.
One further measure which is consistent with other
proposals in this bill to improve flexibility in
migration processes, is the introduction of a waiver
of the condition which is placed on certain visas to
prevent the visa holder from being granted a further
visa.
In relation to citizenship, legislative changes to
implement strengthened deprivation provisions
came into effect earlier this year. However, these
changes meant that the penalty provisions in the
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 were not in line
with general Commonwealth policy. The proposed
amendments rectify this anomaly.
Finally, I would like to emphasize the fact that this
bill is part of a continuing process adopted by this
Government to ensure that the integrity of the
migration program is not undermined as well as the
strengthening of those controls over who can be
granted, or continue to hold, Australian visas. This
Government will be introducing further legislation
in this area later this year.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Chris

Evans) adjourned.
Ordered that these bills be listed on the

Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
SOUTH PACIFIC CRUISE LINES LTD
(6.25 p.m.)On behalf of the Minister for
Employment, Education, Training and Youth
Affairs (Senator Vanstone), I table documents
relating to the South Pacific Cruise Lines
contract which were referred to in the debate
on this matter in the Senate on 4 September
this year. Copies were provided to the opposition on that day.
TRANS-TASMAN MUTUAL
RECOGNITION BILL 1996
Second Reading
Debate resumed.
Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.25 p.m.)
The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill
1996 has been discussed and there has been
much good debate about it, but there are two
issues which I would like to raise. They
perhaps do not go to the essential substance
of the bill, but in my view they are of considerable importance. If the minister had the
mind to do so, I would be interested in his
comments on these two matters.
The first issue is how parliaments of the
various states and territories, of the Commonwealth and of New Zealand could have an
input into this matter. The issue is perhaps
best explained by reading some passages from
the explanatory memorandum to the bill. The
explanatory memorandum says:
The Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement was signed by all Australian Heads of
Government at the meeting of the Council of
Australian Governments held on 14 June 1996. The
Arrangement was subsequently signed by the Prime
Minister of New Zealand on 9 July 1996.
What has been pointed out there is that the

heads of the various governments all had an
input into this bill. The next paragraph of the
explanatory memorandum goes on to say:
The Parties to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement have agreed to submit to their
respective Parliaments legislation implementing the
Arrangement, and to use their best endeavours to
secure the passage and bringing into force of
SENATE
legislation by early 1997. The participating parties

to the Arrangement will be those which have
secured the passage or the making of legislation
implementing the Arrangement and caused that
legislation to come into force and remain in force.
I am not sure what has happened with that

particular proposition, but I would be interested to see to what extent the various parliaments around the country have had an effective ability to do something about this legislation. The third paragraph I want to read
perhaps goes towards explaining that question,
but I am not sure whether it does fully. The
paragraph reads:
To come into effect, the trans-Tasman mutual
recognition scheme requires at least one State to
enact legislation referring or requesting the enactment of a Mutual Recognition Act to the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The Trans-Tasman
Mutual Recognition (New South Wales) Bill 1996,
introduced into the Parliament of New South Wales
on 30 October 1996, refers to the Parliament of the
Commonwealth under paragraph (xxxvii) of section
51 of the Commonwealth Constitution the power
to enact an Act in the terms, or substantially in the
terms, set out in the schedule to that Bill.
It is clear that there is an attempt to give the

parliaments some say in this, but I just wonder how much say they have and how effective it has been. It is going to be the sort of
issue that becomes more and more important
as our relationship with the country of New
Zealand becomes closer and closer. In fact,
the constitution of the British parliament
makes it clear how close they thought New
Zealand was coming to Australia, because
clause 6 of that billclause 9 setting out the
constitution itselfsays:
"The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.
"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of
New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland,
Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South
Australia, including the northern territory of South
Australia, as for the time being are parts of the
Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as
may be admitted into or established by the
Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts
of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State."
Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30

p.m.
Senator COONEYI was saying before
the dinner break that the relationship between
Australia and New Zealand is very close and
6601
has always been very close. It was seen to be

so even at the time of Federation, although
New Zealand did not join the other colonies
that were contemplated by the Imperial Act as
entities that might join a federation. Nevertheless, a close relationship has been maintained.
It is clear that the relationship between the
two countries is becoming closer and closer,
and that is a good thing. However, they are
two separate national states and the relationship between the two should be developed in
a sensible and proper fashion, suiting the
interests not only of the governments and
parliaments of those countries but also of the
various people who live in them. The Australian states and territories have a responsibility
to their citizens, particularly in regulating the
provision of goods and services. A states
prime responsibility is to its own citizens.
The other issue I wanted to raise was that
of privacy. Other speakers in this debate have
already addressed this matter. Privacy is an
issue that we have to wrestle with. Very early
in the life of this government, the AttorneyGeneral, Daryl Williams, indicated that he had
a plan to see that proper privacy provisions
were brought into operation in Australia in
respect of matters not only to do with government but also to do with the private sector
and other sectors of the community. That
initiative has, at least for the while, gone on
the backburner, but it is a matter that should
be kept in the minds of all legislators.
It is interesting to see that this issue is
raised in the bill which is now before the
chamber, the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill 1996. We have heard already in the
debate that in New Zealand the provisions for
the protection of the privacy of its citizens are
different from, and perhaps more rigorous and
effective than, such provisions in Australia.
People are entitled to privacy in respect of
those matters that are properly theirs, that
they properly own. The way in which people
go about their private lives, what they do in
their homes and, indeed, what they do in their
business are matters that should attract privacy laws because they are matters that are in
the proper possession of the people concerned. Those aspects of life should be intruded upon only for very powerful reasons, such
6602
SENATE
as the investigation of serious crime. When

privacy is breached in that way, it should be
breached only under the terms of a properly
issued warrant.
If the proposition is that privacy should be
increasingly stripped away from people, that
people have nothing to hide, then everything
should be opened up. Either everybody has
privacy or nobody has privacy. If the lives of
private citizens are going to be made public,
the affairs of government and government
departments and of businesses, whether
private or public, should be made public. In
any event, that is digressing a bit.
This legislation sets out the principles of
privacy and contains particular provisions to
protect privacy in accordance with those
principles. I am interested to know whether
there are any means by which those matters
set out in schedule 5 can be enforced or
whether they are simply a statement of what
the Commonwealth considers important. In
other words, are there any sanctions by which
the matters set out there can be enforced or
protected?
Those are the two issues that I wished to
raise. Firstly, in this new scheme of things,
where all the states and territories of Australia
and New Zealand are to come to an agreement about the way goods and services are to
be handled across the Tasman, how can these
provisions be properly scrutinised by all the
parliaments? Secondly, there is the issue of
privacy. I would find it very helpful if the
minister could explain these matters in his
usual lucid way, either in his reply or during
the committee stage.
(7.37 p.m.)I will be brief in my response to
the contribution made by opposition senators
and senators from the Democrats and the
Greens on the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill 1996. In relation to Senator Cooks
query as to what the government would be
doing with respect to each item of legislation
mentioned in his amendment, the government
will be agreeing to the amendment proposed
by Senator Cook. I think that answers his
question in relation to that.
In relation to the question of privacy raised

by Senator Cooney and Senator Stott Despoja,
the government would point to schedule 5 of
the bill, as mentioned by Senator Cooney.
That sets out the principles to be applied in
looking after the information that is supplied.
That relates to information received from the
New Zealand side of the equation.
As for information which is given from the
Australian side, that is protected under clause
38 of the bill. Clause 38 says that the law of
the jurisdiction where the information is
received protects that information. So any
Australian details, if you like, that are supplied to New Zealand would receive the
protection of the New Zealand legislation. In
turn, any information received from New
Zealand would have the principles as mentioned in schedule 5. I think that spells out
how the question of privacy works in relation
to this legislation.
Senator Cooney also asked what has been
done by the respective parliaments to implement this legislation. As I understand it, the
New South Wales parliament by its legislation
has referred to the Commonwealth the ability
to pass this legislation. That is pursuant to
section 51(xxxvii) of the constitution. I
understand the ACT has recently passed
legislation in the same way.
As for the remaining states and the Northern Territory, I understand that they are taking
the course that, once the Commonwealth
legislation is passed, they will adopt the
Commonwealth legislation. So the states have
a choice: either they refer a power to the
Commonwealth for the Commonwealth to
pass the legislation or they wait for the
Commonwealth to pass the legislation and
then they adopt it.
With respect to other matters raised, the
government rejects that this bill would diminish the rights of consumers and the protection
for consumers. I point to the fact that just
recently the government has banned the sale
of disposable and cheap refillable cigarette
lighters. There was a safety problem in
relation to this. I think in this exercise you
can see how a temporary exemption would
operate under this bill.
SENATE
What happened there was that the import of

non-complying disposable lighters was banned
from 1 March this year and their sale was
banned from 1 October this year. The scenario mirrors the proposed new administrative
arrangements which would mean that products
banned under the Trade Practices Act would
automatically be banned from import under
the customs prohibited imports regulations.
This temporary exemption which is mentioned does mean that products which are
unsafe could be exempted from the operation
of this arrangement. Indeed, in Senator
Cooks amendment you can see that very
wide coverage has been includedthe Sale of
Hazardous Goods Act, the Consumer Affairs
and Fair Trading Act, the Trade Standards
Act, the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer
Affairs Act. Senator Cook really has included
a very wide ambit in his amendment. I would
say that that amendment goes to meeting the
concerns that have been raised in relation to
product safety.
With respect to food and food standards, the
Australia New Zealand Food Authority is
embarking upon uniform hygiene standards
throughout Australia and New Zealand. I
think this is a highly desirable result. In the
most important way, food safety is already
being addressed. The target is that, over the
next couple of years, we will have uniform
standards between New Zealand and Australia
in any event and that would go to labelling as
well. So from the food side of things that
question of safety is being addressed.
In relation to the temporary exemption, the
matter goes to the ministerial council concerned which deals with this. As a result of
any exemption, the question of harmonisation
of standards is then addressed. So the temporary exemption raises the matter and then the
ministerial council concerned irons out a
harmonisation of standards. I think that
addresses the matter. Unfortunately, time does
not permit me to go into further detail, but I
say that the amendments as foreshadowed by
the Greens and the Democrats cannot be
supported by the government.
Bill read a second time.
6603
In Committee
The bill.
(7.46 p.m.)Madam Deputy President, I
notice that the running sheet shows that
Greens (WA) amendments 1 to 4 are to be
moved by leave together. If I had my druthers, I would have thought that Greens (WA)
1 and Democrats 1 go as a pigeon pair, and
then Democrats 2. The next one is a little way
later. I will move Greens (WA) amendment
1, and then perhaps move 2 to 4 separately.
I do not mind which order.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENTThey are
your amendments.
Senator MARGETTSFine. I move:
(1) Clause 11, page 8 (lines 27 to 30), omit
paragraph (b).
In relation to my amendment 1, paragraph (b)

of clause 11 says explicitly that goods satisfying the standards of one country in regard to
requirements for packaging, labelling, date
stamping or age do not need to meet the
requirements of the other country. Greens
(WA) amendment No. 1 would delete this.
Senator Stott Despoja and I have given the
arguments as to what the issues are here.
There are very good reasons why, over time,
state and federal governments have come to
standards over labelling. We know that there
are very important issues with regard to
health. I know that the Australian Medical
Association is rather upset about the proposal.
All the efforts made in lobbying on such
things as cigarette labelling may mean very
little if you end up replacing a large warning
with something which is, in fact, subliminal.
We would seek to delete paragraph (b) of
clause 11. We would ask again why the
government has sought fit to sign up to such
an agreement.
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (7.47 p.m.)I want to acknowledge
Senator Margettss amendments, which the
Australian Democrats will be supporting.
Specifically, can I clarify whether Senator
Margetts was referring to her latter three
amendments and not the first one that you are
dealing with.
6604
SENATE

(Senator Murphy)As I understand it, we
are dealing with amendment 1. Senator
Margetts has sought to move that separately.
Senator STOTT DESPOJAI express the
support of the Democrats for that amendment.
p.m.)Senator Margetts has accurately
pointed out that she and the Democrats are
moving a series of amendments. In their
speeches during the second reading stage they
addressed the merit of those amendments. The
opposition does not disagree with the issue of
merit, although the language we would use
would be more moderate perhaps or the
examples more true to the real possibilities of
what may occur. I say that with no disrespect,
but I think some of the examples are exaggerated.
Senator MargettsWhat! Cigarette labelling is exaggerated?
Senator COOKNo, I have not said that.
But some of the re-export examples or possibilities that you gave in your speech during
the second reading debate are not matters that
I particularly want to argue about. However,
you have raised the matter. In that speech you
made a couple of forays into explaining that
goods imported into New Zealand could be
re-exported to Australiathat part is right
but goods imported into New Zealand that do
not meet New Zealand standards cannot be reexported to Australia
Senator MargettsUnless they form
another agreement with a second or third
country, just like we are forming now. That
is why I said it is a scenario that could well
happen.
Senator COOKWe are dealing with the
state of the law as it is. People can say these
things may happen and, based on the premise
that these things may happen, proceed to paint
a picture. I am not arguing about your right
not to do that. I am saying that the language
we would prefer would be more moderate and
the examples would be, in my considered
view, less exaggerated than the views you
have put.
What I am saying, though, is that at heart
we see the same problem but not in quite the
degree of the terms you have expressed it.

Where we differ is not about the issue but
rather about the ways in which it is best dealt
with. I therefore rise at this point to say that
we will not be supporting the amendments of
the Greens and the Democrats. We will be
moving our own amendment and that amendmentwhen we come to itwill adequately
address the issue. I just want to get our
position on the record.
(7.50 p.m.)I would simply take the same
line that Senator Cook has in relation to the
amendments as posed by the Greens. We in
the government believe that Senator Cooks
amendments cover the matter quite appropriately. In any event, without those amendments
the government had always intended to
invoke a temporary exemption in order to
harmonise these standards, and that would
apply to tobacco labelling. We believe that
Senator Cooks amendments address the
situation.
(7.50 p.m.)Although I addressed a couple
of these issues by way of interjection, I think
it would be worth while if I put on the record
the scenario I outlined in my speech during
the second reading debate. I have to say that
the scenario is not specifically related to my
amendment to delete paragraph (b), and it is
not a particularly fulsome argument against
paragraph (b). In my speech, I said: consider
the scenario when, or if, New Zealand forms
a similar agreement with another country.
There are other countries with which New
Zealand has close ties. What is to stop New
Zealand forming a mutual recognition agreement with Fiji? What is to stop New Zealand
forming a mutual recognition agreement with
Tonga? The point is that once we have signed
a mutual recognition agreement with New
Zealand, that means that there could be a
situation in the future where we do have a
sort of lowest common denominator coming
through, from whichever country has the
lowest standards.
We have been prepared in this chamber to
sit up and acceptit seemsa situation
SENATE
where Australia is prepared to take different

standards and New Zealand, to a lesser extent,
is prepared to take different standards. They
have been a bit smarter than Australia. We
have been prepared to take the bad end of
things. But if we have been prepared to do so,
we can do nothing. Australia cannot stop New
Zealand entering into another arrangement
with another country.
You may well say that is in the future, but
this is the kind of issue we ought to be
considering now, before we go blindly into an
agreement like this which, in fact, is saying
Your standards are our standards. Then, if
they have a similar agreement with another
country, maybe in the end it will be discriminatory if you do not have an agreement like
this. Maybe we all are movingthat is what
we are arguingwith the new world trade
regime into a lowest common denominator
standard regime.
The runs are already on the board. We
already know that Australia has had to lower
its own standards under the World Trade
Organisation. This is not a fanciful scenario.
We know it has happened already. For example, there have been all sorts of changes or
differences to radiation levels. We know
about the salmon. We know about the imported chicken meat. We know there are things
we have had to accept through the so-called
free trade regime which we would not have
had to do otherwise. All I am saying is: be
warned. Go into this with your eyes open
instead of pretending it is just a fanciful
scenario that might or might not happen in
the future. This is happening already in
various ways. We are walking into this as if
we do not know anything about what has
happened already.
This particular amendment is about goods
satisfying the standards of one country. Why
should we pick out labelling and date stamping? Why should we? What was the good
reason why Australia accepted use by dates?
Why should other standards that might be
different or lower than Australias be acceptable? Why did we choose that standard in the
first place or is that now totally irrelevant?
That is what is in question in this particular
amendment.
6605
Senator CookRead the protections in the

bill. There are protections built into the bill.
Senator MARGETTSNo. There are no
protections. This is the clause of the bill
which says that goods satisfying standards of
one country in relation to requirements for
packaging, labelling, date stamping and age
do not need to meet requirements of other
countries. That is what the bill says and that
is what we would like to delete.
Amendment negatived.
(7.54 p.m.)I move:
(2) Schedule 2, page 43 (after line 25), after
clause 2, insert:
2A Health Warnings
A law of an Australian jurisdiction in relation
to labelling and providing health warnings
against harmful goods, substances, and activities, to the extent that it is enacted or made
substantially for the purpose of protection of
health of persons within the jurisdiction and
applies equally to all products regardless of
origin.
Schedule 2 is the schedule of permanent

exemptions. This seems the most appropriate
place for issues like product and packaging
standards. This is where issues such as quarantine laws and laws on endangered species
and so on are included. We have had a lot of
debates on quarantine laws in this chamber.
My amendment No. 2 is to part 1 of schedule
2, the general coverage of law section, which
would create a permanent exemption for laws
and regulations requiring health warnings.
Basically, we do not think that is appropriate.
We are asking for Australian jurisdiction in
relation to labelling and providing health
warnings against harmful goods, substances
and activities to the extent that it is enacted
or made substantially for the purpose of
protection of health of persons within the
jurisdiction and applies equally to all products, regardless of origin.
It is hard to imagine how simply putting a
temporary exemption so that health warnings
can be harmonised will necessarily lead to an
increase in health warnings, for instance, in
New Zealand, or will there be a specific
category of goods that are traded from New
Zealand that have different labelling from the
6606
SENATE
rest of the goods in New Zealand? Simply

having a temporary exemption and with the
assumption that some kind of harmonisation,
whatever that means, might take place could
still mean that Australian standards are reduced or that you meet a standard somewhere
in between. We are none the wiser for that.
As I say, in the case of cigarette health
warnings, perhaps the minister might like to
clarify exactly what position the government
has in relation to health warnings. How long
is this exemption? Where are we at in terms
of negotiation between Australia and New
Zealand in relation to health warnings on
cigarettes?
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (7.57 p.m.)On behalf of the Democrats, I express our support for amendment
No. 2 that Senator Margetts has moved.
Again, these amendments recognise other
deficiencies within the bill. While we thought
some of these things were apparently being
dealt with by the government, just to make
sure there is no outstanding problem or such
deficiency, we will support it to be on the
safe side. Some of the matters that Senator
Margetts addresses in her second, third and
fourth amendments are recognised by the
amendment that I will seek to move in relation to clause 12.
(7.58 p.m.)I am wondering if the minister
is going to answer the question about where
the government is at in negotiating between
Australia and New Zealand on cigarette health
warnings, for example.
(7.58 p.m.)We have not started because the
bill has not been passed yet. Once this bill is
passed then we can get under way and embark upon harmonisation. In relation to the
protection you are talking about, in the meanwhile that is provided by the amendments
proposed by Senator Cook. He includes the
Trade Practices Act, and that includes health
warnings. Even if Senator Cook did not have
this amendment we could still use a temporary exemption, which would exempt it for 12
months. During that time we would go to the
Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs and

harmonisation would be thrashed out there. In
any event, Senator Cooks amendment picks
it up. Harmonisation can be embarked upon
once this bill is made law.
(7.59 p.m.)It is extraordinary that we have
had fairly heated debates, and a number of
them from the Labor side of politics, in
relation to such things as wanting regulations
tighter on cigarettes. In fact, we may end up
with a situation which currently, from the
ministers answer, is in a state of uncertainty.
That is where we are. We are going to be
running into a state of uncertainty, not really
knowing what the outcome will be.
p.m.)Just to try to clear up the position
from my point of view, I believe my amendment adequately takes care of this issue. It
does so because it requires those elements of
the Trade Practices Act to in fact be exempted
from the operation of this bill for 12 months.
It enables the ministerial council to do its job.
In that time, one would expect that the problems could be sorted out. If they are not, then
of course the time can be extended; if they
are, well and good.
For the record, just so anyone reading the
Hansard of this debate is not in any doubt, I
have a photocopy here of cigarette packets
from New Zealand and cigarette packets from
Australia. The New Zealand one bears the
legend Smoking causes lung cancer. The
Australian one bears the legend Smoking
causes lung cancer in larger type. It is not
that the warning is not on both; it is the
prominence with which the warning is displayed.
Senator MargettsAnd whether it is on
the front or the back or the sides. It is only on
the front in New Zealand.
Senator COOKYes, in the case of New
Zealand, it is on the front. Whether it is better
or not, I am not sure. To be honest, I prefer
the larger type. The point that I am making is
that anyone impartially reading what is said
here could have thought that there was no
warning at all on the New Zealand package.
There is a warning on the New Zealand package.
SENATE
The second point, and the more important

one, is, in any case, this will not operate if
my amendment is carried. The government
has signified support for it and it will be
carried; therefore, it will not operate for the
next 12 months. This can be sorted out.
(8.01 p.m.)I would like to indicate that it
was our office that supplied that photocopy.
That was just one. I am not a smoker, but I
gather that if you buy cigarettes in Australia
they have a variety of warnings so that it does
not become a subliminal message. Yes, it is
on each side. It is on the back and so on. It
is actually written in a different sort of type
as it is something that is supposed to catch
the eye.
Our understanding from the pack which was
photocopied and sent from New Zealand was
that it is actually in the same colour and on
the same background and it is in the same
type as the name of the cigarette and so on,
on the front of the packit is virtually
subliminal. There is no doubt there are differences in the way the warning is displayed,
and there are choices that have gone into
those differences.
In the last week that we sat we had people
from your benches arguing very strongly that
what is currently in Australia is not good
enough. Perhaps you will have to deal with
them in the party room, Senator, but I am
going to have to deal with it in the chamber
and say that I still urge support for this
amendment, but I will not delay the chamber
any further.
(8.02 p.m.)I move:
(3) Schedule 2, page 43 (after line 25), after
clause 2, insert:
2B Consumer Product Information
A law of an Australian jurisdiction in relation
to labelling and providing product information
on labels, to the extent that it is enacted or
made substantially for the purpose of providing information upon which informed choice
may be made by persons within the jurisdiction and so long as it applies equally to all
products regardless of origin.
6607
This amendment is a more general amendment to the same section which would create
a permanent exemption for laws and regulations requiring consumer product information.
If people are able to make reasonable decisions, they have to do that with full information. I am not sure why, after a certain time,
they will not require that any more. Once
again, if we had any sort of indication that
New Zealand is likely to harmonise with
Australian standards in providing information
that currently is not provided on packaging,
then we might have some sort of indication
that at any interim time it would be reasonable to assume that everything will come out
in the wash.
It does not seem to be a reasonable thing to,
in the future, go to a standard which might,
in fact, not provide information. It could be
things like Made in Australia or Manufactured in Australia and so on. It could be a
whole lot of issues which we have had a fair
amount of debate on in Australia in relation
to consumer information.
A lot of people do want to make wise
choices. They want to make choices about
ecological sustainability. They want to make
choices about providing jobs within their
region. They want to make all sorts of choices. It is not unreasonable to give consumers
access to that information so they can make
those choices. Funnily enough, the dollar is
not the only reason people make consumer
choices. I do not think it is reasonable to
suggest that consumers will be without that
ability to make more varied choices or have
less ability than they have at the moment.
(8.04 p.m.)I move:
(4) Schedule 2, clause 3, page 44 (after line 5), at
the end of the clause, add:
Tobacco Health Warnings
Trade Practices (Consumer Product Information Standards) (Tobacco) Regulations
Finally, amendment No. 4 is an amendment

to schedule 2 which permanently exempts
specific legislation. It is the minimal position
and only deals with tobacco health warnings
but does so absolutely specifically. There is
6608
SENATE
no reason why any other party should not

support this since a permanent exemption for
this is not inconsistent with a special exemption for labelling in general, which I believe
is the ALP position. Perhaps as a last-ditch
effort we should make a specific permanent
exemption for tobacco health warnings on the
basis that there are very good health reasons
why we should do this. There is nothing I can
see in terms of harmonisation which should
lead to something less than what we have
now.
will be supporting the amendment moved by
Senator Margetts in relation to tobacco labelling. We believe the identification of tobacco
labelling as a matter that will be overridden
by this bill highlights a particularly serious
deficiency in the bill. We believe that it is
essential that the paradigm, if you like, of this
bill is altered so that we know which laws the
government intends to override, and we insist
that they are expressly stated. We need to be
absolutely certain which laws we are, in
effect, repealing. This amendment identifies
another area not adequately addressed by the
bill, and for this reason we support this
amendment.
On that note, could I seek clarification from
Senator Cook in relation to section 65C of the
Trade Practices Act and in particular health
warnings. I wonder whether Senator Cook is
convinced that his amendment will cover
health warnings per se. Senator, are you
certain that that includes tobacco labelling and
tobacco warnings in particular?
p.m.)Our amendment is to schedule 3. The
heading of schedule 3 is Special exemptions,
and it reads:
The laws specified or described in this Schedule are
exempt from the operation of this Act.
Our amendment relates to section 2, Hazardous substances, industrial chemicals and

dangerous goods. The preamble to that
section reads:
The following laws, to the extent that they deal
with packaging and labelling of hazardous substances, industrial chemicals and dangerous goods and
would be affected by Part 2 of this Act:
And then it goes on to list them. The effect of

my amendment would be to add further acts
to that list, and one of those is the Trade
Practices Act. So the way I read it is that the
labelling of packages of cigarettes, which are
hazardous, is covered here and, therefore,
picked up by the exemption in this section.
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (8.07 p.m.)I seek further clarification,
if Senator Cook is willing and perhaps given
the ministers support for this particular
amendment, in relation to the effect and the
effectiveness of a temporary exemption, given
that it requires all jurisdictions to agree. I am
wondering, to your knowledge, whether New
Zealand representatives in Australia or New
Zealand representatives obviously in New
Zealand will agree, given that they have to be
involved in agreeing to a temporary exemption. Have they agreed or have they suggested
that they will agree?
(8.08 p.m.)My understanding is that twothirds have to agree. It does not have to be
unanimous. There has been no discussion with
the New Zealand representative. There is only
one because you have two territories, six
states, one Commonwealth and one New
Zealand. That would only arise once this bill
is passed and the question of harmonising
standards is raised. But two-thirds is what is
required, so you could get by with New
Zealand disagreeing.
(8.09 p.m.)Just a clarification: I think
Senator Cook mentioned section 65C about
tobacco warnings, and perhaps the minister
can clarify this. Is it section 65C? Which
section of the act deals with tobacco warnings?
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)Senator Margetts, I think it
was Senator Stott Despoja who raised the
particular section of the act.
p.m.)As a final clarification, this is sort of
a bit out of order only in the sense that what
my amendment is about would have been
addressed by me in full when I came to it.
SENATE
But, in answer to a question from Senator

Stott Despoja, my amendment is about division 1A, product safety and product information, and the subsections are 65B, 65C and on
it reads. So I take it that my amendment
covers the whole of that division and not just
the section that has been referred to by Senator Stott Despoja.
(8.10 p.m.)Before we vote on this, I just
want to point out that this is one of those
bills, if I recall correctly, which we were
being urged to deal with as non-controversial
at the end of the last session. Amongst other
things, people were grumpy and getting
annoyed with the Greens because we said,
We think theres more in this and it ought to
be looked at more carefully.
I have to say that there have been potentially some alterations and some improvements
on this bill. At least we are having a debate
about it. I would just like to say that, sometimes when we say, We think we need to
look into this a bit further, there are very
good reasons why such a bill ought not to be
pushed through at a lunchtime.
(8.11 p.m.)Just for the record, I do not
recall getting grumpy with the Greens because
they wanted to have some debate on this. If
that was thought to be the case, it was
misunderstood.
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (8.11 p.m.)by leaveI move:
(1) Clause 11, page 8 (lines 23 to 26), omit
paragraph (a).
(2) Clause 12, page 10 (after line 13), at the end
of the clause, add:
(5) The fourth exception is that the principle
does not affect the operation of any laws
of an Australian jurisdiction regarding the
goods themselves, including, for example,
requirements relating to their production,
composition, quality or performance, so
long as:
(a) those laws apply equally to goods
produced in or imported into the jurisdiction; and
6609
(b) those laws are directed at matters
affecting health and safety of persons
in the jurisdiction or at preventing,
minimising or regulating environmental
pollution (including air, water, noise or
soil pollution) in the jurisdiction.
First of all, the first amendment omits paragraph (a) of clause 11, which contains requirements for goods that do not need to be
complied with such as standards for the production, composition, quality or performance.
This arguably includes product safety standards, which are set out in the Trade Practices
Act. The Democrats and I think it is essential
to remove this paragraph.
Clause 10 of this bill is the operative
provision while clause 11 adds further requirements. These requirements should not
include standards with the effect of ignoring
goods standards about safety, production,
composition, quality or performance, et cetera.
Excluding paragraph (a) will not change the
effectiveness of the operative clauses of this
bill but will require those laws which are to
be repealed by the operation of this bill to be
identified.
I have actually sought from the government,
in particular from Minister Moore, a list of all
the laws which are affected by this particular
paragraph. I have been informed that there is
no such list and that there is no certainty as
to which laws will be overwritten by this
particular paragraph. So, to get around this
problem, I have proposed an amendment to
clause 12 which would maintain the goods
model proposed by the bill. Clause 12 sets out
criteria that need to be complied with unless
specifically excluded from the operation of
this bill.
Finally, the Australian standards are a
minimum requirement. Any goods that meet
this lower standard will not be affected by
this particular amendment. However, this
amendment will make sure that all those laws
which are affected by this provision which
have not been identified will not be done
away with. I have undertaken a cursory
review of the Commonwealth laws that will
be affected and the amendments proposed by
both the Democrats and the Greens show that
there are laws which would have been overridden by this bill.
6610
SENATE
Amendment No. 2, if I may address that

now, adds a new subclause to clause 12
which excludes the production, composition,
quality or performance of goods from the
operation of the TTMR principle. This maintains the goods model proposed by requiring
goods to comply with Australian standards
about safety, production, composition, quality
or performance, et cetera, as those laws relate
to health, safety and environmental pollution.
I have set out before the reasons I believe
this clause is essential, and I did so mainly in
my second reading address. I do not believe
it will alter significantly the goods model
proposed by the bill. I say again that, unless
this provision is included, a range of unidentified laws will be overridden by this bill.
The Trade Practices Act amendment that I
propose proves that there are laws which
should have been maintained but would have
been lost. I do not accept that this Senate
would consider it appropriate to introduce
legislation that will have unknown and mostly
unwarranted effects. To make sure this does
not happen, I urge all senators to support the
amendments I have moved, particularly this
one which recognises that it does not alter
significantly the effect of the goods model
that is set out in this bill.
(8.15 p.m.)I missed when we actually voted
on my amendment No. 4.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)We did that before.
Senator MARGETTSI do not know how
that happened. Obviously I was on the phone.
I asked a question of the minister, and I did
not get an answer. I know Senator Stott
Despoja mentioned something in relation to
the question, but I did not get an answer from
the minister to the question, which is: what
section of the Trade Practices Act deals with
product health warnings? Section 65C deals
with safety standards and section 65D deals
with information. Exactly what section of the
Trade Practices Act actually deals with health
warnings?
(8.16 p.m.)I understand it is under division

1A. It is another section which occurs in
division 1A. I do not have a copy of the act
with me, but it is the regulations that are
made pursuant to division 1A.
Senator MargettsYou have got the
experts with you. So its division 1A of what?
Senator ELLISONOf the act. It is the
regulations that are made as a result of that.
It is the regulations which actually provide
the safety and the sections which provide the
overall provision. You have division 1A,
which is headed Product safety and product
information. Then 65C deals with the trade
of unsafe goods and deals with product safety
standards.
Senator MargettsYes, and nothing about
health warnings. There is nothing in there that
mentions health warnings.
Senator ELLISONSection 65D is entitled Product information standards, and that
says that you cannot trade in goods without
having certain information attached. That
would be a health warning under the regulations. If product information standards do not
include a health warning, then I do not know
what else it could include. It is fairly straightforward. Section 65D is capable of supporting
any of the regulations you would want included. The tobacco regulations you mentioned
would come within that section.
(8.18 p.m.)I wanted to say that we will be
supporting the Democrats amendment. It
states specifically that the goods satisfying the
standards of one country in regard to the
requirements of production, composition,
quality or performance do not need to meet
the requirements of the other country. We
support this dilution.
Amendments negatived.
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (8.18 p.m.)by leaveI move:
(3) Schedule 1, clause 1, page 39 (line 23), at the
end of subclause (1), add:
; and (e) consumer product safety standards
but only to the extent that the laws
provide for the imposition and administration of consumer product
safety standards and relate to the
SENATE
requirements for the sale of goods

set out in section 11.
(4) Page 42 (after line 2), at the end of Part 1,
add:
6 Consumer product safety standards
Trade Practices Act 1974 of the Commonwealth
Laws of a State imposing or providing for the
imposition and administration of consumer
product safety standards.
Amendment No. 3 adds a new paragraph to

schedule 1 of the bill, clause 1, subclause (1),
which includes consumer product safety
standards as laws which are to be excluded
from the operation of the bill. The words
consumer product safety standards are used
in the Trade Practices Act, and they refer very
specifically to prescribed standards. This is
not an open class, rather a specifically defined
set of standards.
Adding this provision may require the
unanimous agreement of the heads of government of the participating parties; that is,
states, territories, the Commonwealth and
New Zealand. This is unfortunate but, given
the important nature of consumer protection,
the specific Trade Practices Act scheme
addressed product safety and the executive
nature of the agreement. I think, specifically,
our government should have thought about
this before, together with those other participating parties.
This delays the introduction of the scheme.
I should point out that the agreement is
already eight months late. As I understand, it
was supposed to happen by 1 January this
year. I believe that consumer protection is so
important that this should have been considered much earlier. I have to concur with
Senator Margettss comments in relation to
the alleged initial non-controversial nature of
this piece of legislation. We were gravely
concerned when we heard that it was listed as
non-controversial and that that status had not
been challenged by anyone else.
Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the Senate
is not here to rubber-stamp executive agreements. Our task is to make sure that good
legislation is implemented, and I would doubt
the government will get that level of support
from consumers if they are going to propose
6611
a scheme that undermines basic consumer

protection. So, without this particular measure, consumers will be exposed to unsafe
products which cause harm.
Amendment No. 4 adds to the Trade Practices Act the consumer product safety
standards, which should be excluded from
the operation of the bill. Again, I have set out
the arguments before, and I reiterate that I
really do doubt the level of support that this
government would get from consumers if they
persevere with legislation that undermines
these basic and important consumer protections and standards. So I urge my colleagues
to support the amendments before them.
(8.19 p.m.)Schedule 1 is the schedule of
excluded laws. It includes basic trade framework such as customs regulations, corporate
law, copyright, intellectual property and other
laws concerning international obligations. I
am not sure that this is the best schedule for
this amendment, but we will still be prepared
to support the amendments because they are
obviously better than the legislation in its
current form.
There might be little difference between
these included here and those included in
schedule 2maybe they should have been in
schedule 2. My understanding is that in New
Zealand customs prohibited imports regulations which would be covered here include
stipulation that goods must meet various other
regulations on composition and performance.
It was this that gave rise to the comment of
the New Zealand Minister of Consumer
Affairs in their newsletter that, This is a win
for New ZealandI am not surprised
which would have had many of their standards protected while Australia would not. It
seems to be fairly indicative of the way
Australia has gone into trade negotiations in
recent years, coming out thinking, I wonder
how we got that signed so quickly. Ah, yes,
we know.
Senator Stott Despoja interjecting
Senator MARGETTSYes, that is true.
Amendment 3 is the general coverage of laws
establishing general exemption for consumer
product safety standards, and it links them to
clause 11, though the product standards, as I
6612
SENATE
mentioned before, might not be in clause 11.

It applies, I guess, to any product which is
covered. Amendment 4 is to part 2 of schedule 1 and deals with specific laws covered in
excluded laws. They include the Trade Practices Act here as a specifically named act
under a category of product safety. As I say,
I am prepared to support anything that tries to
move this legislation in a little more sensible
direction. I support these amendments.
Amendments negatived.
p.m.)I move:
(1) Schedule 3, clause 2, page 53 (before line 1),
at the end of the clause, add:
Trade Practices Act 1974 of the Commonwealth,
Division 1A of Part V
Fair Trading Act 1987 of New South Wales,
sections 26, 30, 31 and 38
Consumer Affairs Act 1972 of Victoria, Part IV,
sections 57C, 57D, 59 and 61A
Fair Trading Act 1989 of Queensland, sections
81, 83, 85 and 85A
Trade Standards Act 1979 of South Australia,
sections 23, 26A and 33
Consumer Affairs Act 1971 of Western Australia,
sections 23Q, 23R and 23U
Fair Trading Act 1987 of Western Australia,
sections 50 and 59
Goods (Trade Descriptions) Act 1971 of Tasmania, sections 16 and 17
Sale of Hazardous Goods Act 1977 of Tasmania,
sections 6, 7 and 8
Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act 1990 of
the Northern Territory, sections 25, 30 and 38
Consumer Affairs Act 1973 of the Australian
Capital Territory, sections 15FBA, 15FCA,
15FB, 15FC and 15FD
I partly explained this amendment as the

proceedings have unfolded and I referred to
it in my speech in the second reading debate.
There are a number of acts of the Commonwealth, states and territories that this schedule
adds to schedule 3, the special exemption
schedule of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill 1996, and to the section dealing
with section 2, hazardous substances, industrial chemicals and dangerous goods. For the
Commonwealth, it is of course the Trade
Practices Act and the relevant division of that
act.
For the states, it is the Fair Trading Act of

New South Wales, the Consumer Affairs Act
of Victoria, the Fair Trading Act of Queensland, the Trade Standards Act of South
Australia, the Consumer Affairs Act of Western Australia, the Fair Trading Act of Western
Australia, the Goods (Trade Descriptions) Act
of Tasmania, the Sale of Hazardous Goods
Act of Tasmania, the Consumer Affairs and
Fair Trading Act of the Northern Territory
and the Consumer Affairs Act of the Australian Capital Territory. This amendment refers
to the relevant sections of each of those acts
as exempt from the provisions of this bill,
once it is proclaimed as an act. That exemption will apply for a period of 12 months.
Upon the conclusion of that period, it may
be extended by the ministerial council, or it
may not. It depends on what developments
have occurred during that period to resolve
the issues that have been referred to in this
debate. I think it covers many of the concerns
that have been fairly expressed as to the basic
concern from the Greens and the Democrats
as well. It does it differently from the way in
which they have proceeded but I think, on
balance, this is the preferred way and the one
certainly which the opposition chooses to
move.
Senator Margetts did, in an intervention
earlier this evening, draw attention to the fact
that there was a need for this debate. I do not
dispute that. I think it has been a worthwhile
exercise. Let me acknowledge that and let me
also acknowledge that I have some sympathy
with the concerns that have been raised.
However, I think this is the better solution.
I do have, as foreshadowed in my speech in
the second reading debate, a question for you,
Minister. It is my understanding that in part
you answered this question in your reply to
the second reading debate. But, with this
amendment, of course, as I have said, the
relevant sections of the various acts would be
suspended or exempted from this bill for a
year, once it was proclaimed. Will the government notify the parliament close to the end of
that yearabout a year henceas to what the
ministerial council proposes to do with each
of these bills? If you could, preferably, indicate that the government is disposed to advise
SENATE
the parliamentso that the decision is not

something that is captured just within the
executives of governments at the Commonwealth, state and territory level and at the
New Zealand government level but is shared
with the parliamentthat would enable us to
maintain contact with the way in which these
issues have been pursued and, I think, to test
some of the concerns that have been put in
this debate against the way in which those
charged with the responsibility handle them
and bring them to a conclusion. My question
is: will the government notify the parliament
as to the outcome of the issues prior to the
expiration of the 12-month period.
(8.28 p.m.)I am advised that, in any event,
the government would have to make a regulation to extend the special exemption. That
alone will bring the matter to the attention of
the Senate. No doubt the matter would have
been raised at the Ministerial Council of
Consumer Affairs, which I attended just
recently, and which would be meeting well
before the expiration of 12 months. At that
meeting, the matter would be fully ventilated.
In any event, I can say to you that the
government would be advising the Senate of
its intention in relation to these matters.
Precisely as to the time I cannot say, but it
would be timely enough for any regulation to
be gazetted.
(8.29 p.m.)Perhaps I can throw this into my
brief comments on the ALPs amendment.
The minister might like to answer how often
these ministerial councils meet. You have
mentioned that the Trans-Tasman Mutual
Recognition Bill 1996 has not gone through
yetalthough you have obviously been trying
since the end of last year in some way to
finalise this agreement. If there has been no
actual discussion between the two countries
about the standards and so on, out of curiosity
I ask: how often do the countries meet and
what reasonably is the time frame up to when
some sort of decision will be made?
Schedule 3 is the schedule of special exemptions, and this section provides 12 month
6613
exemptions. Unlike the temporary exemptions,

the term of exemption can benot has to
beperpetually renewed, whereas temporary
exemptions can be renewed only once. That
would have been a big worry if, during this
process, as concerns have been expressed
already, such things had not been resolved
within a 12-month span.
The ALP has included, in the specific acts
covered by schedule 3, division 1A of part V
of the Trade Practices Act and equivalent
state and territory acts. This covers clauses
65B to 65T on product safety and product
information standards, including recall and
product safety information clause 65D. It
basically does similar things to our amendment (2) and the Australian Democrats
amendments (3) and (4), without making the
exemptions permanent. It is also much more
specific than the other bills specifying the
exemption of only division 1A.
This is the coverage area of major concern
within the community, and I would like to
think the government will not oppose this. I
would also like to think that our pushing for
this change from the opposition and the
government has meant that the time between
seeing this bill and its being presented today
may have come up with some reasonable
results, though not as good as we would have
liked.
will be supporting the Labor Party amendment, not because we think it is an entirely
satisfactory amendment but because we
believe that it is a last gasp for consumer
product standards in this country.
I want to address some of the concerns that
we have with the Labor Party amendment. I
note that it sets out a number of laws as
special exemptions in schedule 3. We acknowledge that this is a significant advance
on what the bill proposed, because it does at
least recognise the importance of consumer
product safety standards. Again, I acknowledge and welcome the governments acceptance of this amendment, and I do so because
it is an acknowledgment by the government
that the bill has failed to recognise the importance to Australians of some laws which
6614
SENATE
protect consumers from unsafe products. That

is the only way that we can read the
governments acceptance of this particular
amendmentthat they acknowledge that this
bill had serious shortcomings, especially in
relation to product safety standards.
I am concerned because I think this represents a poor response from the party that
introduced the very good product safety
standards and that particular scheme that is in
the Trade Practices Act. This amendment falls
short of a proper recognition of the product
safety standards and general consumer protection laws.
I do not believe that this amendment will
maintain the protection set out in the Trade
Practices Act, because it will place consumer
safety standards under ongoing, regulatory
protection every 12 months and under the
view of other governments. If the intention is
to maintain these measures until the Trade
Practices Act and other acts are repealed or
amended, then those laws should be permanently exempted. A rolling special exemption
is the sort of measure that leads to laws being
undermined and subjected to repeal by powers
outside this parliament. This is the central
concern that the Australian Democrats have
with the bill as it stands, but we also do not
believe that this amendment effectively
addresses those concerns.
We think that the Labor Party should be
very proud of their consumer protection laws
and should not allow them to be dismantled
in this manner. The only solution is a permanent exemption as was set out in the amendments moved by the Democrats. If the intention is to dismantle these laws, then the laws
themselves should be amended.
I want to briefly outline how the special
exemption provisions operate and why we
believe that this amendment is a poor compromise. Clause 48 of the bill makes provision
for a special exemption for Australian laws
set out in schedule 3. This exemption lasts for
12 months from the commencement of this
bill. The government may then extend that
period for further periods of up to 12 months,
with two-thirds support from the states and
New Zealand and if the previous regulation
has not expired.
There is a saving provision for matters

relating to an exemption where that exemption has expired or ceased to be in force. This
in effect means that a law exempted in schedule 3 must be identified each year by regulation for ongoing exemption. This regulation
will need to be made or the exemption will
expire; it will no longer have effect and the
regulation will require the support of twothirds of participating jurisdictions. Even if
there is a rolling special exemption every 12
months into the future, this can become an
exclusion or permanent exemption only by
regulation and the endorsement of all participating jurisdictions. I understand that New
Zealand is unlikely to agree to this regulation.
The provision in clause 45(5) will not apply
to this measure, as that provision requires the
laws set out in schedule 5 and will not take
effect for five years after the commencement
of clause 48. This means that section 65C of
the Trade Practices Act will retain its current
operation only if there is a yearly regulation
for a special exemption to that effect.
I received a letter, dated 3 September, from
the minister, in relation to the Labor Partys
amendment. Senator Ellison stated:
I believe that a special exemption for trade practices legislation would resolve your concerns in this
area. It would remove the need to rely on the
government to make a regulation invoking a
temporary exemption after the bill had been passed.
The TPA and related legislation would continue to
be a special exemption until the parties had agreed
to harmonise standards or, where such an agreement could not be reached, that certain products
should become permanent exemptions. At that time,
there would be a requirement for the government
to make a regulation to remove the TPA from the
special exemption schedule. Such a regulation
would be subjected to review by parliament.
The Democrats were not entirely sure as to

what you meant by these words, Minister,
because we set out why we believe a permanent exemption is an unlikely solution. We
have said all along that a temporary exemption was never a solution, so this leaves the
agreement to harmonise standards. This is not
a solution. As we say, the product safety
scheme should remain intact and should not
be dismantled. The harmonising process will
place this scheme on the table for negotiation,
which has been our concern from the very
SENATE
beginning. This is not a negotiable scheme.

We have made that plain all along, including
in our amendments.
For these reasons, the Democrats do not
believe that the Labor Party amendment is
satisfactory. All we can do is ask the government to provide an assurance to the Senate
that it will introduce regulations every 12
months, and that it will not harmonise away
the consumer product safety scheme. Of
course, we ask the opposition to give the
same assurance. I will give you the assurance
of the Australian Democrats that, when we
are in government, we will ensure that consumer product safety is maintainedthe point
being that I seek from the minister an assurance, today, in this place, that he will not
whittle or harmonise away the very good and
very important product safety standards and
laws that we have had in this country, which
were introduced by the former government.
We will be supporting the amendment. We
see this as a last resort, given that the Greens
and the Australian Democrats amendments
were not passed. We believe it is necessary as
a last gasp of consumer product standard
protection, but we think it has significant
flaws.
I want to end by providing to the Senate an
example of why consumer product safety
standards must be maintained. Some of you
may know that, last week, the ACCC instituted civil proceedings in the Federal Court
against a supplier and retailer of hydraulic
jacks which did not meet Australias mandatory consumer product safety standards. The
ACCC alleged that the jack was insufficient
to withstand the claimed load, and that there
was insufficient labelling or instructions. The
ACCC alleged serious safety concerns and
sought a recall of this particular product. With
the amendments proposed, there will be no
guarantee that Australian consumers will be
protected from these dangerous goods.
As I have said on behalf of the Democrats,
this bill makes this safety issue negotiable,
and it is unlikely that the consumer product
safety scheme will ever be permanently
exempt from the Trans-Tasman Mutual
Recognition Agreement.
6615

(8.39 p.m.)I would like to set the record
straight. The government does not believe that
its bill was so deficient that it had to support
the oppositions amendment. Its support for
the amendment does not mean that. The
government has made it very clear that there
are temporary exemptions, and that they
provide for the safety of consumers which is
sought.
As to the question of harmonisation, it is a
brave person who says that food regulation
throughout Australia and New Zealand should
not be harmonised or, at the very least, made
uniform. In fact, ANZFA is setting about
doing that. Harmonisation, if you are interested in consumer affairs, can only result in a
better state of affairs for consumers.
The government can say to Senator Stott
Despoja that it will not harmonise away the
protections for consumers. Indeed, harmonisation will enhance the protection for consumers, just as ANZFA is setting out to do with
the uniform food hygiene regulations that it
is seeking to achieve in the next few years.
Any question of harmonisation presenting
some sort of mischief to consumers is just not
on.
In answer to Senator Margettss question as
to how often the ministerial council meets, the
council meets once a year. But that does not
stop business being conducted outside of
session. Senator Cook would remember from
his time as a minister that ministerial councils
do a lot of business outside of the meeting. If
you think that that is strange, it is in fact the
norm. Therefore, if you think, They only
meet once a year; they dont do much, you
are quite wrong. You need to know a bit
more about ministerial councils before you
say that, because a lot of work is conducted
out of session.
8.41 p.m.)I was asking about decision
making times, so once a year means that there
will be one decision making time between
each exemption.
Senator EllisonNo, there wont. Its done
out of session.
6616
SENATE
Senator MARGETTSI am just taking

your own words that there will be one
ministerial council meeting in between each
exemption. We have just heard that it is
potentially quite difficult to keep up this
process year after year. So, if it is not done in
one ministerial council, I can see that there
may well be potential problems in the future.
I do take exception to the double speak we
have heard just now. I take exception to the
statement that somehow or other we will not
harmonise away standards. We are talking
exactly that. We have talked about the fact
that New Zealand were actually smarter than
Australia and made sure that a lot of their
standards could not be lowered. We were not.
So, if we harmonise, the only way we can go
is down. How do we harmonise up if New
Zealands standards are lower than Australias
on such things as product labelling? How are
we going to harmonise up for heavens sake?
We either bring an unwilling New Zealand to
whatever standards Australia has chosen on
some of these issuesand they have not
necessarily indicated that they are willing to
changeor we go down.
There is no way that you can stand here
and say, There wont be standards that are
lowered as a result of this process. Is that
what you are saying? Are you actually trying
to sayand I would be very happy for you to
promise thisthat not one standard of packaging, labelling or product warning will be
lowered as a result of this process? Is that
what you are saying? I would love to hear the
promise.
(8.43 p.m.)For a start, you need a twothirds agreement. So, if Australia does not
want to adopt a standard that New Zealand
has, it does not have to accept it. I say at the
outset that you are absolutely wrong when
you say that the harmonisation will necessarily mean a downward trend; it will not. It is a
two-thirds majority; that is the protection.
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (8.44 p.m.)I, too, find it necessary to
respond to the comments made by the
minister. Firstly, in relation to harmonisation,
I was not suggestingand I am certainly not

that brave person you referred to who was
that harmonisation in itself is a bad thing. I
recognise, however, that harmonisation or
standardisation of laws does have potentially
negative consequences if you are talking
about potentially inequitable outcomes or
standards.
The Australian Democrats, as I have stated
for the record a number of times, are committed to the mutual recognition principle. There
is absolutely no suggestion that we are opposing that per se. We see the potential for great,
positive and progressive things as a result of
mutual recognition principles. Indeed, in other
parliaments in this country we have supported
this concept. However, we do get very concerned when this concept is used to whittle
away, reduce or weaken in some way particular laws and standards. I think, as Senator
Margetts has rightly commented, when it
comes to consumer product safety standards
we are looking at being on the losing end of
the deal here.
We are reducing, as a consequence of this
particular bill, the standards that we have in
this country. I have commended those standards and commended the former government
for introducing those particular consumer
product safety standards in the Trade Practices
Act. That is why I have made a plea and
requested an assurance from this government
that they will not harmonise away those
standards. Certainly there is the potential for
that to happen, as it is indeed already happening in this bill.
I understand that the minister would be
reluctant to acknowledge that his acceptance
of this amendment shows that his bill has
some deficiencies. I am probably a little naive
to suggest, Senator Ellison, that you stand up
and say that it does. But certainly that is the
only way that the Australian Democrats can
read it. I am curious as to why you would
accept the Labor Party amendment if you
thought that the bill was sufficient without
that.
I return to an earlier comment in relation to
privacy and privacy laws in this country. I
took on board your comments, Senator
Ellison, in relation to section 38 of the bill in
SENATE
relation to receipt of information. You said to

me that privacy was protected or commented
on or addressed in this particular bill in
section 38. I say to you that the arguments
that you used in this chamber actually support
the argument that I put forward, that is, that
it has to be included in section 38 of this bill
because the current laws in Australia are
inadequate for the purposes of dealing with a
country like New Zealand. That is why it has
been included.
Of course we have to do something about
protecting the receipt of information. It would
be okay for us when sending information that
is received in New Zealand; their information
would be protected under their laws, under
their privacy arrangements. But information
received in Australiathat is, New Zealanders sending some kind of information to Australiais not protected because our privacy
laws in this country are blatantly inadequate.
That is why that section has been included in
the bill. So I suggest, Minister, that your
comments earlier in this debate in relation to
the inclusion of privacy and receipt of information in this bill simply bear out the Democrat claims in relation to privacy laws in this
country.
(8.48 p.m.)The minister has been quite
provocative tonight. I would just like to
mention that ministers can negotiate down
what standards the parliament sets. This has
been illustrated by the agreement on the
Australia New Zealand Food Standards
Council. We are actually presented with a
negotiating down fait accompli, to a certain
extent. It has happened already. You are
saying, Trust us, were the government. We
wouldnt put up with a standard that is lower. You have done it already.
p.m.)I earlier asked the minister a question
and he was kind enough to provide an answer. I would like to follow up that question
with a further question in view of that answer.
The question I asked is related to the expiry
time for the exemption of the various bills
that are the subject of my amendment. The
answer was that of course, if the government
sought to extend that period, parliament
6617
would be notified because a regulation would

need to proclaimed. What would be the
situation as far as parliaments knowledge
from the executive wing of governmentif
the exemption was not sought to be extended?
Would the government in those circumstances
undertake nonetheless to notify us that it was
not proceeding in a particular area?
(8.49 p.m.)Yes, I can give that undertaking.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report
adopted.
Third Reading
Bill (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a
third time.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
(INTERCEPTION) AND LISTENING
DEVICE AMENDMENT BILL 1997
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 19 June, on motion
by Senator Brownhill:
That this bill be now read a second time.
(Quorum formed)
Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (8.53
p.m.)The Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Bill
1997 has two primary purposes. These purposes are, firstly, to allow telecommunications
interception information to be provided to the
newly established New South Wales Police
Integrity Commission and, secondly, to permit
deputy presidents and senior members of the
AAT to issue telecommunications interception
warrants.
I will start with the provisions of the bill
which relate to the New South Wales Police
Integrity Commission. The commission has
been established by the New South Wales
government as a permanent authority to
continue the anti-corruption work undertaken
by the highly successful Wood royal commission into that states police services. It goes
without saying that the commissionthe
establishment of which was recommended by
6618
SENATE
Commissioner Woodis essential to the

maintenance of public confidence in and
discipline within the New South Wales police
force.
The Labor Party wholeheartedly supports
the availability of telecommunications intercept material to this particular body. The
provision of that information to the PIC will
serve as an invaluable tool in the fight against
corruption in that state. Any suggestions that
have been made to the contrary by both the
federal government and members of the
Liberal Party in New South Wales are totally
unfounded and scandalous.
If I turn to the issue of who should have the
power to issue telecommunications interception warrants, that is a different matter altogether and it raises a matter of grave concern
not just to the Labor Party but to a broad
spread of members of our community. These
provisions proposed by the government would
allow deputy presidents and senior members
of the AAT to issue telecommunications
intercept warrants. Traditionally, telecommunications intercept warrants have only been
issued by persons who are judicial officers.
That is the current state of the law as it is
reflected in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, the Australian Federal Police
Act 1979, the Customs Act 1901 and the
Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988.
It is important to place on the record why
judicial officers have traditionally performed
this function. This was recognised by the
Attorney-General (Mr Williams) himself in an
answer he gave to the House of Representatives just a few weeks ago, when he said:
Interception through the use of telecommunications devices is very intrusive, and on both sides of
the House there has been support in the past for
these warrants being given out sparingly. It has
been common that they should be given by federal
judges
The use of telecommunications interception

warrants is a very highly invasive technique
that, if abused, would threaten the privacy of
all Australians. Australians therefore are
entitled to expect that, when they engage in
their day-to-day telephone or Internet conversations with their friends, relatives or business
acquaintances, these conversations would not
ordinarily be listened to by third parties,

including law enforcement agencies, without
some good cause. It should only be when law
enforcement agencies can justify the need to
intercept or to listen to a particular conversation or transmission for the purpose of investigating specified criminal offences, whether
actually undertaken or still in contemplation,
that the authority should have the right to
breach the right of privacy which should
otherwise be enjoyed by all Australians.
In this context, it is appropriate that law
enforcement agencies should only be allowed
to issue intercept warrants over our private
conversations when they have proven the
need to do so before an independent, impartial
arbiter who is skilled particularly in the
criminal investigation process. It was in this
context that the original decision was taken
on a bipartisan basis, as acknowledged by Mr
Williams, for judges only to carry out this
task.
It is important to note at this juncture that
judicial officers do not carry out this function
as part of their responsibilities in exercising
the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The
issuing of telecommunications interception
warrants was held by the 1985 High Court
case of Hilton v. Wells to be an exercise of
executive power which, under the relevant
statutes, is vested in a person who happens to
be a judicial officer.
Following that decision, the Hawke Labor
government amended the Telecommunications
(Interception) Act 1979 to provide that the
judge must expressly consent to perform the
function before he or she may be nominated
by the Attorney-General. So a judicial officer
may refuse to be vested with the power to
issue telecommunications interception warrants if he or she wishes.
Judicial officers have been traditionally
selected to perform this task because, as
individuals, they possess certain skills as a
result of having this judicial experience.
Examples of such skills include exhibiting
neutrality, detachment and disinterestedness;
and experience in receiving evidence, assessing its credibility, evaluating submissions
upon it and reaching conclusions comfortable
SENATE
6619
with the law which are expressed with efficiency and promptness in a stated conclusion.
July, the President of the New South Wales

Law Society, Mr Patrick Fair, said:
It could be argued, as it has been by the

government in seeking current amendments,
that deputy presidents and senior members of
the AAT also possess these skills. The Attorney has noted that, to be appointed to each of
these positions, a person must, firstly, have
been enrolled as a legal practitioner of the
High Court, another Federal Court or the
Supreme Court of a state or territory and,
secondly, been so enrolled for a period of not
less than five years.
Because of the necessity of ensuring that appropriate safeguards of privacy are maintained, along
with the integrity of innocent conversations transmitted by telephone, the Law Society has long
expressed the view that any warrant to intercept
these communications should only be granted by a
judicial officer. Accordingly, the Criminal Law
Committee
Let me say at this point that there is no

dispute between the government and the
Labor Party that deputy presidents and senior
members of the AAT do exercise these skills
in the performance of their admin law related
duties. However, despite their considerable
skills in the area of admin law, most deputy
presidents and senior members of the tribunal
lack formal judicial experience. In particular,
they lack experience of the criminal jurisdiction essential to the performance of the power
to issue telecommunications interception
warrants. This experience is not one that can
be gained solely through the issuing of telecommunications interception warrants.
To understand the use of these warrants and
their effect on the criminal investigative
process, it is important for the decision maker
to have some experience of the effect of the
use of the interception or listening devices on
the prosecution of offenders. Only persons
such as judges, who may ultimately hear
matters in which telecommunications interception or listening devices are used or in which
the product of such a device is used, have the
requisite experience. As I have noted previously and often, this cannot generally be said
of deputy presidents and senior members of
the AAT.
As I said a little earlier, this is not a criticism of such people, of the deputy presidents
and senior members of the AAT. Rather it is
an acknowledgment that their expertise lies in
another area. As I also said earlier, Labor is
not the only organisation which is concerned
about this issue. For example, in a letter sent
to both me and the Attorney-General on 22
of the Law Society

does not support the devolution of the power to
issue telephone interception warrants to members
of the AAT.
The Attorney, in his second reading speech,

advanced two reasons for wanting to allow
AAT to exercise the power to issue telecommunications interception warrants. The Attorney noted in that speech that in the past there
was bipartisan support for only judicial
officers of federal jurisdictionsfederally
appointed judgeshaving the capacity to do
so, but he now he proffered two reasons for
wanting to deviate from a policy which had
had bipartisan support in this place for over
a decade.
First, he argued that Federal Court judges
were refusing to exercise the power because
they had expressed concern about the workload involved. In particular, the Attorney
noted the concerns expressed by judges to
both the present and previous governments
that the performance of the duties associated
with the issuing of warrants should not interfere with the performance of their duties as
judges. Of course, it is a curious state of
events when you find this Attorney lobbying
for, advocating on behalf of, the judiciary. He
does not do it consistently, he does not do it
often.
Secondly, Mr Williams noted that the High
Court had recently indicated that the use of
judges as designated officials to perform
certain admin functions may be incompatible
with the performance of their judicial functions, thereby undermining public confidence
in the independence and integrity of the
judiciary.
Finally, in answer to a question in the
House of Representatives just a couple of
weeks ago, he added a third reason as to why
6620
SENATE
he believed it was inappropriate for judges to

continue to perform this function. He contended that judges had also expressed concern
that they may be subject to judicial review by
members of their own court in relation to
admin decisions made by them in respect of
telecommunications interception warrants. Mr
Williams noted that this may turn out to be a
cause of embarrassment to the judges concerned.
While these arguments have some probative
force on their face, none ultimately support
the contention advanced by the Attorney. The
second and third reasons simply do not
withstand rational debate and the first of itself
is not an argument for granting the power to
AAT.
Let me turn to this concern which has been
expressed by judges about their workload.
Judicial officers have expressed the view that
this current workload precludes them from
issuing warrants, and that is obviously a
matter of grave concern. Recent High Court
cases, such as the Wilson case, have recognised that if judicial officers are to be validly
vested with the power to issue telecommunications interception warrants, then they must
be provided with the resources to enable them
to carry out this function in such a way so as
not to interfere with their primary function as
judicial officers.
The governments solution to this problem
is to try to vest this power in people who are
evidently less qualified. No serious consideration has been given by this government or
this Attorney to providing additional resources
to the judges or to making additional judicial
appointments. This is a government of slash
and burn when it comes to the administration
of justice, from the enforcement agencies to
the courts. At a time when there is some
pressure on the courts to perform their functions, from the High Court down to other
courts of more limited jurisdiction, this
governments response is not to solve the
problem at the source but to try to deviate
from essential policy considerations, policy
tenets which have been held strong and firm
by the Australian public.
Over the last two years this government has

kept judicial resources relatively static, despite
considerable increases in the judicial workload. It should be noted that there was a
considerable reduction in financial resources
to the courts in the 1996-97 financial year.
Some of that funding has been restored
because of workload increases in 1997-98, but
the total number of judges, for instance, has
remained relatively static over this period. So
whilst funding has remained relatively static,
the value of these resources has not. When
the effects of inflation and salary increases are
included, the loss of resources to our federal
courts has become significant. We have a
ridiculous situation here, one that was highlighted quite well over the weekend by the
Chief Justice of the High Court in expressing
his concerns about the impact on Australias
judicial system. His concern has been highlighted by the fact that the High Court cannot
even remain open to the public on weekends.
This sort of penny-pinching mindlessness is
something which obviously must concern the
judges of all jurisdictions. As a consequence
it is not surprising that, when they see the
frugality of this government, they should
threaten to withdraw their labour. There has
been static funding in actual terms but not in
real terms, but the workload has increased
some 4 per cent over the last two years. The
Family Courts workload has increased by
approximately 10 per cent. The High Court
cannot stretch that much further. Its workload
has remained relatively static.
The Federal Court is also now being asked
by this government to take on additional
responsibilities in industrial relations, native
title and human rightsall those areas
without any adequate compensation in terms
of increased resources. On the other hand, the
Family Court has had its services cut all over
Australia, particularly the judicial counselling
circuits which hit hardest regional centres. We
have gone through those before. The government has put pressure on judges and is now
screaming at the outcome of the governments
pressures.
The second concern raised by the AttorneyGeneral relates to the appropriateness for
judges to exercise the admin power to issue
SENATE
Telecom interception warrants. The AttorneyGeneral said in his second reading speech that
the High Court had recently expressed concerns in this regard. Either the AttorneyGeneral has not bothered to read the High
Court cases or he is deliberately misrepresenting them. The concerns expressed by the
Attorney-General are simply unfounded. In
the most recent High Court authority on the
subject, the Grollo case, the High Court held
six to one that the exercise of the power to
issue Telecom warrants by a judge, provided
certain basic conditions were met, was not
inconsistent with the exercise of judicial
power.
The more general issue of the constitutionality of federal judges exercising the admin
power of the Commonwealth was discussed
again by the High Court in last years Wilson
case. The case concerned the appointment of
Justice Mathews in respect of the Hindmarsh
Island bridge. In that particular case, all the
judges noted that the issuing of Telecom
interception warrants was not an issue before
the court and specifically accepted the previous authority on the subjectnamely, the
Grollo case.
I do not think there is any cause at all for
the concern expressed by the AttorneyGeneral in respect of this particular counsel.
I note this view is also supported by the Chief
General Counsels legal advice provided in
May last year in relation to the Crimes
Amendment (Controlled Operations) Bill.
Whilst I sometimes disagree with Mr
Burmester, I note that on this issue he said:
. . . the majority
and he was talking about in Grollo

was prepared to uphold the particular exercise of
power in question as it was the judges "deciding
independently of the applicant agency whether an
interception warrant should issue that separates the
eligible judge from the executive function of law
enforcement. It is the recognition of that independent role that preserves public confidence in the
judiciary as an institution."
Once again I do not known why the AttorneyGeneral has proffered this particular argument, but it is not supported in any sense at
all by the law.
6621
The final reason proffered by Mr Williams

is that it is in some way inappropriate for
judges issuing Telecom interception warrants
to be subject to judicial review by judges
within their own court. It may not have
occurred to the Attorney-General that judges
are already subject to judicial review by way
of appeal in relation to decisions that they
make in exercising their judicial power.
Judges are no strangers to review by their
fellow judges. In the course of judicial review, decision makers merely submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court reviewing the matter. They do not ordinarily appear
as witnesses nor are they cross-examined on
the basis of the decision. Rather, a statement
of reasons is submitted in evidence. That
statement either stands or falls on its own
merits. So in practice this is no different to
what happens when judicial determinations go
on appeal. To suggest that in some way this
process is inappropriate is not worthy of the
Attorney-General. In summary, none of the
reasons offered by the government have any
probity or weight. They have no real substance at all.
Before concluding there is one matter I
would like to comment onthe assertion
made by the Attorney-General in both the
press and the House in recent days that the
Labor Party is driven by some hidden agenda
to remove from our law enforcement agencies
the power to issue Telecom interception
warrants.
I and every member of the Labor Party are
offended by this gross assertion. For the very
detailed and logical reasons I have explained
we do have some genuine concerns about the
governments proposals in this area. The
government and opposition may well generally disagree about the level of privacy protection that needs to be afforded to Australian
citizens in issuing these warrants, but to
suggest that we would want to jeopardise
future criminal investigations is simply contemptuous.
The Attorney-Generals comments, for
instance, ignore the long and proud history
that we have had in this place of not just
supporting but also initiating initiatives in this
area to ensure that law enforcement agencies
6622
SENATE
have access to this useful investigative technique, subject to adequate privacy safeguards
and controls. His comments ignore the fact
that it is this government, not the Labor Party,
which has cut close to $40 million from the
Australian Federal Police budget over the last
two years. It is his government that has cut
$7 million from last years budget of the
National Crime Authority. It is his government that has cut funding to other law enforcement agencies such as Austrac, the
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the customs office.
In short, the suggestion made by the
Attorney-General is scandalous and can very
easily be rebutted. If anything, it is this
governments history in this area which
demonstrates the reason for the position it has
taken in relation to this issue. It wants to
fudge. It wants to blame someone else for the
fact the heroin is prevalently available on the
streets of Australia at the moment and young
kids are dying day after day from it. It wants
to blame the other side of parliament for its
inefficiency and inadequacy.
You cannot rip the guts out of our federal
policing networks as this government has
done and then claim that, because we are not
going to accept one measure in this parliament, we are not dinkum about law enforcement. We are. It is this Attorney-General and
this government that slashed law enforcement
agencies funding over the last two budgets.
It does not matter how much power you
give the agency, if they have not got the
resources to exercise that power, then they are
not going to be able to do their job. This
government stands condemned of ripping
away those critical and vital resources. It also
stands condemned of trying to fudge and
scam its way out of having responsibility for
that. It will not be allowed to do that.
Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)
(9.13 p.m.)Since 1979 Australian law
enforcement agencies have had the power in
specified and controlled circumstances to
intercept telecommunications in this country.
At the time this legislation came into being,
the Australian Democrats voiced their concern
about possible incursions on the privacy and,
therefore, the civil liberties of the Australian
people. But we recognised then, as we do

now, that the issue is one of balance and of
appropriate protection for the community.
Nineteen years ago the then Leader of the
Australian Democrats, Senator Don Chipp,
had the following to say in his speech during
the second reading debate on the Telecommunications Interception Bill 1979:
During the last state campaigns I attended, when I
walked through streets in St Kilda in Melbourne
and Kings Cross in Sydney I was shocked in a
period of half an hour, to actually meet and see 14
young Australians who were addicted to heroin
...
Needless to say, if former Senator Chipp were

to go on a similar walk down the street on
any given Friday or Saturday night 19 years
later, not only have things not changed much
but they might well have got worse. The
difference now is that he need not limit
himself to the streets of St Kilda and Kings
Cross. A similar story is now played out in
the cities and suburbs of Perth, Adelaide,
Brisbane, Darwin, Hobart, and in major
regional and country centres. Sadly, former
Senator Chipps prediction in 1972, when he
was Minister for Customs and Excise, that by
1980, heroin would be the greatest single
problem of our young people has come true
in many respects.
This is all relevant because a cursory look
at the report produced under the Telecommunications Interception Act for the year
ending 30 June 1996 illustrates that overwhelmingly most interception warrants are
used for law enforcement against the trafficking of drugs, particularly hard drugs. I refer
honourable senators to page 19 of that report
and the table contained therein. It states that
in the categories of serious offences, under
which intercept warrants were issued, the
following numbers were recorded for the
1995-96 period: murder, four warrants; narcotics offences, 207 warrants; loss of life,
three warrants; trafficking of drugs, nine
warrants; serious fraud, six warrants; and
serious loss of revenue, two warrants. The
total is 15 for non-drug offences and 216 for
drug offences. In 1994-95, the warrant record
was: murder, one; narcotics offences, 213;
loss of life, four; trafficking in drugs, eight;
SENATE
serious fraud, four; and serious loss of revenue, zerothe same pattern.
Clearly, the area of law enforcement which
has the greatest demand for telecommunications interception warrants is drug law enforcement and I expect it will continue to be
so. Villains do not have concern for civil
liberties, nor do they care much for issues of
privacy, the rule of law, or for that matter, the
value of human life. They care for profits
built on the misery of other human beings.
They are people totally devoid of conscience
or morality. That is not to say that all victims
who use drugs are criminals, or indeed should
be considered as such. Users and dealers, and
especially the big-time dealers, are different
categories.
Indeed, the Australian Democrats have been
at the forefront of the debate in trying to seek
a rational, enlightened approach to the issue
of heroin addiction, such as the now scuttled
ACT heroin trial. The government does not
have the answers, we do not think Labor has
the answers and we doubt that we have the
answers. But we certainly do believe that we
should continue to explore methods of finding
the answers.
The response of the Prime Minister (Mr
Howard) to the ACT heroin trial is the classic
reactionary position of putting your head in
the sand. It stands as a testament to the lack
of any attempt to find new solutions to this
problem. As I have clearly outlined in my
quotes from former Senator Chipp, this is a
longstanding problem, and we have to deal
with it.
Just a month ago, on 25 August, Senator
Lees asked the following supplementary
question on the heroin trial:
I thank the minister for his answer. I am aware that
some of the states are now tackling this issue in a
variety of ways, but what specifically is the
Commonwealth now going to do in particular to
support those people, particularly young people and
their families, where heroin addiction is already a
problem?
Senator Herron, for the government, replied:

The Commonwealth has an overriding responsibility. I think the message that we have sent in relation
to the restriction on the trial in the ACT is a clear
demonstration that the government believes that a
trial of that nature will not succeed in developing
6623
a clear strategy to solve this problem. What we are

doing in facilitating this meeting of the national
drug strategy group so that further consultation can
occur.
In our view, what Senator Herron was saying

was: we do not know what will or will not
work, so we will continue along the same
ineffectual path and simply ignore constructive attempts to find a solution, such as the
ACT heroin trial. While young Australians are
being exploited by the big boys in drugs and
are indeed dying, Senator Herron has told the
Senate that the government is going to have
a meeting. It is a sad and tragic irony that the
amendment bill currently before the Senate
to provide warrants that will be used primarily
in drug law enforcementis about as much
as is being done at present about the terrible
figures of heroin addiction in this country.
While this bill is not about the ACT heroin
trial, I have taken the opportunity to illustrate
the importance of this particular mechanism
in the fight against drugs, and to illustrate as
well that it remains, unfortunately, one of the
prime methods of identifying those who prey
on our people, particularly our young people.
Law enforcement is an intrusive exercise,
but so is criminal activity. What we are
talking about here is trying to strike a balance
between what is reasonably necessary to
promote public safety and adherence to law
on the one hand, and the safety mechanisms
which prevent an abuse of the states power
on the other.
Unlike many of the theoreticians who I hear
talking to me about these matters, I am aware
of what it means to be oppressed by an
oppressive government with oppressive
powers. I tell you, when I look at this bill and
the amendments, I do not feel that hot, heavy,
fatal hand that can lie behind excessive abuse
of powers. I think this bill, by and large,
maintains the balance which retains
Australias foremost place among the most
enlightened of countries in the world.
Telecommunications interceptions are not
a new phenomenon in Australia. As I have
stated, the enabling legislation came into force
in 1979. However, confidence in the administration of the law is the responsibility of the
government of the day. Just last Friday, the
6624
SENATE
Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard

Brennan, emphasised this point when he said
in his address on the state of the judicature,
in illustrating what is to be governed by the
role of law:
If we are to be governed by the rule law, we must
have a Judicature to administer it . . . it must be a
judicature that has the confidence of the people,
without which it loses its authority and thereby
loses its ability to perform its functions.
Australians have a right to be treated justly

and to also feel they are being treated justly.
The principle is often cited as justice needs
not only to be done but to be seen to be
doneto be transparent, to be open, to be
above board. This means that when intrusive
law enforcement is deemed necessary, as it is
in drug law enforcement, sufficient safeguards
and monitoring procedures need to be in
place. By and large, the Telecommunications
(Interception) Act 1979 provides for an
extensive range of safeguards. Chief amongst
those is the requirement that interception
warrants be issued by Federal Court judges
but it also includes substantial reporting
procedures to the parliament.
Federal judges have a limitation. They are
not usually experienced or operating on a
daily basis with criminal law. It is fallacious
to argue that they have that understanding as
deeply as do Supreme Court judges operating
in the states. But coming from their background of course they understand criminal law
and the necessities of the rule of law. I have
never been concerned that Federal Court
judges do not have quite the same interaction
with criminal law as do other judges.
Clearly, the Commonwealth is in a dilemma
as a consequence of the Grollo decisiona
dilemma, I might add, that has not been of the
governments making. You can blame them
for a lot of things but that is not their fault.
Without going into the complex constitutional
arguments, the High Court has said in the
Grollo case that the issuing of those telecommunications warrants is indeed an administrative not a judicial function. It was quite clear
on that point.
As a consequence of the separation of
powers under our constitution, this in practical
terms means that judges cannot be compelled
to perform functions, although I acknowledge

that the High Court has also said that it was
permissible for judges to continue in that
function as a designated person. I think the
use of that word compelled needs to be reemphasised. To those who have argued to me
that judges and no-one but judges should do
this job I have said, Yes, I agree with you,
but what happens if they dont? They said,
You must make them. I think that is not
only improper but impossible.
It is clear that most Federal Court judges
have declared they no longer wish to or do
not feel legally able to perform the function
of issuing telecommunication intercept warrants. In the second reading speech the
Attorney-General was quite clear, and the
judges have had plenty of time to rebut it if
it were untrue. He said:
These amendments are necessary because the
eligible judges of the Federal Court have decided
that they should no longer perform this function.
In plain English that is impossible to

misunderstand. That is a very clear statement.
Once again, for those people who say that
they and no other should do it, I say, What
happens if they stop doing it? They shrug
their shoulders. Quite frankly, I treat with
contempt people who shrug their shoulders
when asked a legitimate question, because
they have to offer a solution. If the judges
will not, what then are we to do? What is the
government to do? Stop the process of interception warrants that deal particularly with
the area of drug lords and their kind?
The governments proposal is to allow what
they considerand they very clearly consider
itto be a second best or a next best option;
not second best in the sense that it is utterly
unacceptable but second best in the sense that
the Attorney-General and this government
have made it quite clear they would prefer
judges to continue with this role. They have
said that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
members should be used as eligible persons
to issue interception warrants. I quote the
Attorney-General again, who said:
I should also point out that the amendments do not
in any way alter the provisions which permit judges
to issue warrants should their views change at some
time in the future.
SENATE
Judges will continue to have precedence and

to be asked to give precedence in this matter.
There has been some concern that the use of
Administrative Appeals Tribunal members
may in some way compromise the integrity of
this process. Unfortunately, I did not have
time to check my figures, but I recall that 15
members of the AAT are either judges or
qualified to be judges.
It is important to note from the outset that
the Australian Democrats have great faith in
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and its
personnel and we think it has a very credible
record. Indeed, the presidential member of
that tribunal is required by law to be a judge
of the Federal Court. So there for one is an
argument against the view that no-one within
the AAT should be licensed to issue intercept
warrants. It is important also to note that both
presidential and deputy presidential members
of the tribunal have the same tenure granted
to them as chapter III of the constitution
judges, although I acknowledge they do not
have the same constitutional protection.
It is important to note that it would require
an amendment to the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal Act 1975 if that were to change. I
think therefore that much of what has been
said on this matter is an attempt by some to
talk up some of the fears that people legitimately hold about the intrusive nature of
interception warrants. It concerns me that
some to date have been critical of the
governments approach but have not put
forward constructive and workable solutions.
This is what the Australian Democrats will be
doing.
We will move what we believe are constructive and workable alternatives to enlarge
the pool of judges that may be called upon.
We would hope that the government would
look favourably on that issue since they
themselves have declared judges as their first
choice before any other. Supreme Court
judges in particular, as I have outlined, have
extensive criminal experience.
Our alternatives will not only meet the dual
requirement of attempting to assist the
government in its dilemma, but also build in
appropriate alternatives which we think that
they have not attended to in somewhat limit-
6625
ing their alternatives. The Attorney-General

in his second reading speech stated that he is
reluctant to see changes resulting in warrants
being issued by non-judicial officers and
noted that the settling on the proposed new
arrangements was not an easy task.
We note the Attorneys reluctance, and we
believe him, to move towards non-judicial
officers, and we note that if that is truly the
case then the amendments we propose, which
should have been circulated by now, should,
we hope, attract support. We have tried to
strike a balance by allowing the government
the option of approaching judges first, and
only approaching AAT members once judges
are unable to do the job, either at the federal
or at the state level.
I close by saying that this is a particularly
prickly issue. This is an issue which goes to
the heart of state power. This is an issue
which goes to the heart of individual fears
about the abuse of state power. All of us in
this Senate would be foolish to believe that
that power could never, not once, be abused,
and that abuse needs to be guarded against
and continually focused on as a fear. The
other side of the coinnot to have warrants,
not to perform this function and not to give
this power, appropriately managed, to governmentwould be absolutely unacceptable. I
look forward to the debate tomorrow.
Senator COONEY (Victoria) (9.32 p.m.)
Senator Murray, in a very lucid speech, has
talked about the balance that ought be struck
in giving out or restraining the ability to intercept telecommunications. Originally the
central point of this act was to protect the
privacy of conversations between citizens of
this country. It is becoming more and more
apparent that that protection that was so
jealously guarded before 1979 is being more
and more eroded. The central section of this
act ought to be section 7 which reads:
Telecommunications not to be intercepted
7. (1) A person shall not:
(a) intercept;
(b) authorise, suffer or permit another person to
intercept; or
(c) do any act or anything that will enable him or
another person to intercept;
6626
SENATE
a communication passing over a telecommunications system.
There is a penalty of two years imprisonment

provided for under section 105 of the act.
It would be very interesting to knowand
perhaps the minister knowshow many
prosecutions have been brought under section
7 of the act. I do not mean prosecutions of a
citizen who goes about tapping the phones of
another citizen or intercepting the telecommunications of another citizen, but an authority that has power, when properly obtained, to
intercept telecommunications who either has
not adhered to the warrant or not got a warrant. I think the answer to that would be not
many, if any at all.
The issue is: just how effective is the
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979
in protecting the privacy of the citizens of this
country? There is always good reason for
allowing telephones to be tapped, but if we
really are jealous about our rights, then should
we surrender more and more of the protection
we have, not to have our telephones tapped?
People talk about drug pushers and corrupt
police and so on. In the present instance, as
I understand it, the act as amended will allow
the Police Integrity Commission the power,
when properly obtained, to tap the lines of
police officers. They tap the lines of not only
the people who are corrupt or who may be
corrupt but also others who are suspected of
that. It is simply not, and we should not start
to think this way, a matter of obtaining
powers to prove that somebody who is guilty
is guilty. It is a matter of obtaining powers to
investigate somebody who is suspected of a
particular crime. That is a matter that we
ought to look at very carefully.
Because a person is a policeman or because
a person is anybody else does not make him
or her any less a citizen than the rest of us. I
would not like this legislation passed on the
basis that the police themselves are somewhat
lesser citizens than other people and that they
are fair game, because that would be wrong.
It should be passed on the basis of a very
principled approachthat is, that this will
help in the investigation of serious crime.
I have witnessed over the years the legislative creep that has come about in this legisla-
tion not only under this government but under

previous governments as well. Whenever an
application is made to extend the provisions
of this act, we ought to get up in this chamber, as Senator Bolkus has done and as
Senator Murray has done, to raise the great
issuesand they are great issuesof civil
rights, of privacy, and of the way we want to
live in this society.
The Telecommunications (Interception) Act
enables investigating authorities to obtain
intelligence and then to obtain evidence. The
problem that comes about with any evidence
and any intelligence is that a lot of it depends
on the way people interpret it, and people can
be put into difficult positions because of a
particular spin put on conversations that might
otherwise be innocent.
So, as I understand it, the power is to be
extended to the new body, to the Police
Integrity Commission, and so be it. It has
been extended to other bodies before. I think
there has always been some protest about that,
and that is a good thing. I hope the next
application which will be madeand there is
no doubt that there will be another application
madein respect of some other body that
similarly issues things such as these is debated.
If I can just say this, and it arises out of the
royal commission in New South Wales, one
of the things that concerns me about the
evidence that came out from that is that many
a person was convicted on false evidence. So
this issue of evidence, and this issue of
intelligence, is an important one. It is a matter
of some concern that the judicial process, as
carried out in New South Wales in any event,
was not able to identify those people who
were innocent in some cases, and people were
imprisoned who should never have been
imprisoned. That is a great tragedy. Indeed,
it is a great blight upon the nation that anybody should spend time in incarceration when
he or she should not.
One of the problems with legislation like
this is that it is put in as a substitution for
good, solid legal work. The minister in this
particular instance, who was an outstanding
advocate and who did, I may say, put evidence to the test and did so successfully on
SENATE
many occasions, would understand the proposition I am makingthat is, things like the
Telecommunications (Interception) Act and
the extensions of it that have taken place over
the years should not be a substitute for the
proper judicial processing of cases that come
before the courts.
As I say and repeat, it is a tragedy and a
blight upon this nation that people have been
convicted who should not have been. I hope
that, when this legislation becomes an act, it
will be used to ensure that only those who are
guilty of offences are so found and that the
evidence and the intelligence that come from
this legislation are not used in some way to
enable an innocent person to be convicted.
The issue has been raised as to who should
issue the warrants. The big thing is that
warrants should be issued. The matter is one
of great seriousness and, therefore, the people
who process it should be at the highest level
and should make sure that any warrant that is
issued is issued correctly. One of the problems is that there is no check, or not sufficient checks, on warrants. This is an issue I
have raised over the years and which I raise
here again. The judges who issue warrants do
not really have a sufficient ability to check to
see whether those warrants were correctly
issued or not.
There are some provisions; I think we are
going to go into the committee stage now,
and I may raise some other ones. When an
attempt is made to increase the powers under
this act, I hope that I will be here listening to
people like Senator Bolkus, Senator Murray
and, no doubt, the minister himself in bygone
days who will get up and raise these issues of
civil liberties which I think are of great merit.
I see that you are instructed by some very
eminent people too, Minister, so no doubt
they will help you in the committee stage.
Very briefly, I want to flag the Greens
opposition to the matter of warrants in the
Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Bill being taken
out of the hands of judicial officers. We
believe that, when it comes to telephone
interception, it is a very grave invasion of
civil liberties. It must not be done lightly. The
6627
faith of the people will be in the judiciary,

and nothing short of the judiciary, to ensure
that it is done only as a matter of extreme
gravity.
During the Franklin River campaign, there
were lots of clicks and taps on the telephone
and, as with many other citizens, it was very
easy to fall prey to the paranoia that you were
being listened in to. I always took the attitude
that you should not bother. We had nothing
to hide. If there were people listening in to us,
all the betterspread the word a bit, get a bit
more information out about the value of
protecting the Franklin.
However, after the 1983 election, there was
a change of government. The Hawke government came in. I was amazed when it was
decided to challenge the Hydro-Electric
Commission in Tasmania and the Tasmanian
government on the matter. It was headed for
the High Court.
Besides the embarrassment we felt at the
overflight of an F111 jet to get information
about the Franklinsomething we could have
arranged any afternoon with a piloted flight,
taking pictures at a much closer level and a
much slower level than an F111the Australian Federal Police were brought into the
matter. They were gathering evidence towards
the court case. They told me that they would
not receive calls from the Wilderness Society,
that I had to go and use a public telephone
because our lines were tapped. That pointed
to the reality that, if you are in public life
particularly if you are involved in a contentious issue, particularly if you are on the nonbig business side of that issueyou must
expect that your lines are being tapped. That
is an invasion of civil rights. It is an extremely worrying situation.
Since 1983, the technology has improved
enormously, and the ability to listen in and to
invade peoples privacy has grown enormously. That said, it is up to us, as legislators, to
ensure that some restraint is put on the invasion of peoples privacy in the name of trying
to trap or get evidence against wrongdoers.
That is where we need the protection of the
judiciary. I would stand strongly opposed to
anything short of that, and I do so in so far as
this legislation is concerned. We will be
6628
SENATE
supporting the oppositions amendments

which are aimed to protect the citizenry from
just that sort of improper invasion of civil
liberties as is inherent in this legislation.
(9.46 p.m.)I might touch on the last point
that Senator Brown made, and that was in
relation to the case dealing with the Franklin
River dam. Obviously there was some concern back then. He said that lines were being
tapped. At that stage you had judges who
were in charge of issuing the warrants. So I
suppose you could infer from that that it does
not matter who you have regulating the
situation, there is always going to be a suspicion.
Senator BrownNo, the judges werent
warranting that. Somebody on the other side
was illegally tapping the phones.
Senator ELLISONFrom what Senator
Brown said, I understood that he had been
warned that his phones were tapped.
Senator BrownBy the legal authorities.
Senator ELLISONIf that were done
illegally, it is a different matter. Nonetheless,
the fact remains as correctly stated by Senator
Murray, that the exercise of this power goes
to the very heart of the exercise of absolute
power by a state over the individual or individuals within the community. I do not think
the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) has said
anything less than that when he has addressed
this matter.
The problem is that we have a situation
where the previous Labor government amended the legislation as a result of a High Court
decision. That brought in the situation where
you had a provision which allowed judges to
be able to refuse to exercise this power in
relation to warrants.
Then more recently, as pointed out by
Senator Murray, you had the Grollo case,
which was beyond the control of this government. It decided that the decision in relation
to the interception of telecommunications was
an administrative function. That being the
case, the government cannot force unwilling
judges to exercise this power. Indeed, I
understand the Chief Justice of the Federal

Court has written to the Attorney-General
indicating that the Federal Court judges do
not want to exercise this power. I understand
that the same applies to the Family Court
judges.
So you are left with a situation where the
government has a judiciary that, for one or
more reasons, just does not want to exercise
this power. So the government could sit by
and say, Well, in that case, well do nothing.
That then means that we do not have any
legitimate issuing of warrants for the legitimate exercise of law enforcement. As Senator Murray pointed out, the majority of this is
for drug detection, particularly in relation to
highly organised crime. So, if we had a
situation of status quo, nothing would happen.
In fact, the law enforcement aspect of
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The PRESIDENTOrder! It being 9.50
p.m., I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Redbank Power Station

Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales)
(9.50 p.m.)I rise in this adjournment debate
to inform the Senate of the Howard
governments decision to provide assistance
to the Redbank power station project in the
Hunter Valley. The Prime Minister (Mr
Howard) is being hailed in the Hunter for
keeping his commitment to delivering the jobs
that he promised when he came to Newcastle
in July to investigate the effects of the downsizing of BHP. The Redbank power station
project will be a major boost to the Hunter
Valley following that downsizing. It will be
a major boost for job creation and a major
boost for confidence.
Let me come back to the specifics of the
Redbank project and its massive benefits to
the region shortly. First, I want to put in
context the impact of this BHP decision on
the region. Newcastle and the Hunter face the
loss of 2,500 direct jobs with the end of steel
making in the Hunter in 1999. Some 900
families are in the local area that I live in
Maitlandwhich is in the seat of Paterson
SENATE
that is held by my Liberal colleague Bob

Baldwin. There are a further 1,000 contract
positions to go from BHP. There will be a
loss of up to 7,000 jobs in total in the regiona region that has suffered unemployment levels four per cent above the national
average right through Labors 13 years of
government.
So how has the Howard government responded to this crisis? It has responded with
job creation and some $65 million in targeted
assistance to Newcastle and the Hunter.
Minister Vanstone met with the BHP employee transition team and provided $4 million in
SES labour market programs. A further $4
million was announced for business incubator
centres in the Hunter as well. The Hunter
Regional Tourism Organisation, which is
promoting the Hunter world wide, received a
further $1 million in assistance.
A cabinet subcommittee, including cabinet
ministers John Moore and John Sharp, came
to Newcastle to take soundings on how the
Hunter could reposition its economy. The
Prime Minister spent a full two days in the
Hunter Valley in July, telling the rest of
Australia that Newcastle and the Hunter were
not crippled by the BHP decision. He committed the federal government to one or two
major infrastructure projects using the pooled
money, to be provided by BHP, the federal
government and the state government,
amounting to $30 million.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
for Transport and Regional Development,
Michael Ronaldson, was put in charge of
making recommendations following further
consultations with New South Wales on how
this $30 million was to be allocated. It is to
be noted that the Redbank Power Station is
separate and additional, and not part of this
announcement of $30 million by the Prime
Minister in July. There will also be additional
money provided by the Minister for Schools,
Vocational Education and Training, Dr David
Kemp, which he announced will be forthcoming with the creation of 4,000 new apprenticeships in the Hunter Valley at a cost of
$10 million.
Last week, Minister Bishop came to Paterson and, on the banks of the Hunter River,
6629
joined with entrepreneur Steve Forgacs in

announcing the rebirth of steel shipbuilding in
the Hunter at the vacant Carrington Slipways
site. Now on top of all this investment and
job creation in the Hunter comes the Redbank
Power Station project. Over a four-year
period, $30 million will be delivered by the
Commonwealth under the new infrastructure
borrowing tax rebate scheme to guarantee the
commencement of this project. The owner
will be National Power Australia and the
construction company will be ABB Power.
Construction of the $300 million Redbank
project can now begin as early as next month.
There will be 200 construction jobs on-site
and 1,000 jobs off-site; that is, 1,200 jobs at
the same time as the downsizing of BHP.
When in operation this power station will
employ 50 people directly and another 200
indirectly. It will inject $10 million annually
into the Hunter economy.
The infrastructure bond scheme will lead
not only to the construction of this power
station but, down the track, to the construction of Redbank No. 2 which will be of
similar size and will multiply the benefits to
the Hunter. There will be some $600 million
in infrastructure investment by the private
sector as a result of this decision of the
Howard government: two power stations and
massive job creation at the same time as the
downsizing of BHP.
This decision by the Prime Minister has
done much more than simply guarantee new
power station jobs in the Hunter. The Prime
Minister has demonstrated that his government will support investment and employment
opportunities in regional Australia.
The Redbank project has impeccable environmental credentials. It relies on world-first
technology in using coal tailings in the Hunter. This was formerly waste which went into
ash dams, so this project will help clean up an
environmental eyesore that is developing in
the tailings ponds that exist across the Hunter.
It will provide, when recycled, cheap, clean
fuel. The researchers at the University of
Newcastle have developed this project with
the Jameson Cell technology which optimises output per tonne of coal used, generating
the cheapest power in Australia. Because it
6630
SENATE
cleans up the ash dams which generate methane gas on a consistent basis, it will help
reduce greenhouse gases as a result of this
new technology. It is world leading technology and has the potential to export this
Australian design back to power stations in
the United States and Asia.
Finally, I quote the President of National
Power, Roy Alper, when he said on the
federal governments role in facilitating this
new venture:
We are delighted by the Commonwealth
Governments decision . . . The Prime Ministers
guarantee is a major boost to enable us to begin
construction immediately . . . we are grateful that
Mr Howard found the time to list our case when he
visited the Hunter.
This is a major project for the Hunter. It

comes on top of a very wide range of assistance provided by this federal government
since the announcement of the downsizing of
BHP in April. Under this federal government,
the Hunter can proceed with confidence.
Senator Foreman: Retirement
p.m.)I rise to speak in the adjournment
debate tonight on the occasion of the resignation of Senator Dominic Foreman from the
Australian Senate. As honourable senators
would be aware, with the announcement of
the election in South Australia and because of
ill health which has unfortunately dogged
Dominic in recent times, he decided that now
would be an appropriate time to retire from
the Senate. As we did not have an opportunity
to do this in Dominics presence tonight, I
think it is very proper that we take this
opportunity to record his very considerable
achievement and very meritorious service in
this place and to talk about the career of
someone who, I believe, was a very popular
senator and a very popular representative of
the state of South Australia on all sides of the
parliament.
Senator Foreman has been a senator for 16
years. That is a very considerable innings. He
was elected to represent South Australia in the
1980 federal election and his term began in
1981. He served in many different roles in the
parliament. I would particularly like to remind
senators of the contribution which he made

for a long period of time as the Deputy
Government Whip in the Senate from 1988
until Labors defeat in the federal election in
March last year; and until the last few days he
served as Deputy Opposition Whip.
I really do think that he performed these
roles with extraordinary diligence and reliability. He gave a great deal of commitment to
that role. I think that most of us who have
spent some time in the Senate do understand
that the jobs of the whips, particularly of the
major parties, can be a tough ask at times.
You have to be an effective negotiator and
you have got to be able to work under pressure. Dominic performed those tasks and
performed them well.
I think that the best thing you can say about
a whip or a deputy whip is that they have
never let the side down. Never once in the
entire time he fulfilled that function on behalf
of our party did Dominic Foreman let us
down. I want to say how much we appreciated what he did, particularly in that role.
As a former deputy government whip, I
knowas you would know, Madam President, as a former whipthat sometimes you
have to have the patience of Job to sit in here
hour after hour listening to what at times can
only be described as long, tedious and boring
debates. You always have to have your wits
about you, you always have to know what is
happening and you always have to keep a bit
of a weather eye on proceedings in this place.
As I said, Dominic did that and did it without
fault.
He served on numerous parliamentary
committees, including as chair of the Joint
Statutory Public Works Committee from 1983
to 1987. He was chair of the Joint Electoral
Matters Committee from 1993 to 1995. I
served with him on a number of parliamentary
committees, including the Senate legislative
and general purpose Standing Committee on
Transport and Communications for some
considerable time.
As I said, I think you will find that colleagues on both sides of the parliament talk
about a man who is a very decent, reliable
and considerate person, a person who always
fulfilled his responsibilities with generosity
SENATE
and with a spirit that many of us could only

admire from afar. I would like to be able
and I know that Senator Hill would feel the
same wayto adopt the same approach at
times.
He worked hard for his constituents in
South Australia. He never forgot the fact that
his background was as a trade union official.
He was State Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of South Australia.
He came to the Senate with those experiences
and never forgot the interests of the people he
represented. He never forgot the fact that the
needs of working people were paramount. He
spent a lot of time withand I think he had
a lot of interest inpeople who came from
rural and regional Australia, especially young
Australians in the bush. He worked very
tirelessly to see that the interests of Australian
workers were represented in this place. He
always had a great insight into the interests
and concerns of working Australians and their
families.
I recall that when Kim Beazley heard of
Dominics resignation from the Senate he
reminded us all in the shadow cabinet of
Dominics friendship with the late Mick
Young. It was something that was quite
legendary about Dom. They were close mates.
I recall very well the contribution that Dominic Foreman made during the condolence
debate at the time of Mick Youngs death.
Along with Mick Young he worked tirelessly,
particularly in South Australia and in Port
Adelaide, to give a lot of people the sort of
representation that they wanted to see in this
parliament. We respect him for that and we
appreciate the efforts that he put in.
I thank Dominic for what I believe has been
long and distinguished service to the Australian Labor Party. He never forgot and never
deviated from his core commitment to the
Labor Party and to Labor principles. I think
everyone on both sides of the parliament
would acknowledge that. On this side of the
parliament we particularly appreciate it. We
thank him for his distinguished service to our
party. We thank him for his distinguished
service to the Senate. We wish him, his wife
Shirley and other members of his family the
very best for the future.
6631
We say thanks to Dominic Foreman for the

good times, the support, the friendship and for
keeping us all up to the mark in terms of our
responsibilities in the Labor movement to
serve the interests of Australian workers and
their families. Thank you, Dominic Foreman,
for a great job well done.
I rise to recognise the contribution of former
Senator Dominic Foreman to Australian politics and to his party, and to wish him well in
his retirement.
Dominic came into the Senate at the same
time as I did and, in some ways, it might
have been as close as we ever came to each
other in the last 16 years. I remember that
there was a debate within the Department of
Administrative Services as to which room I
should have in the old AMP Building in
Adelaide, and they decided to toss a coin. I
remember it because DAS asked whether we
wished to attend to witness the tossing of the
coin. Both of us decided that we could rely
on the honesty of the Department of Administrative Services officials, and Dominic was
duly told that he had won; he got the better
room.
I guess you do have something of a bond
with those whom you start with. As I remember it, six of us started that day in the Senate:
four Labor and two Liberal senators. Three
are now down, and there are three to go.
Senator Childs retired recently; Senator
Crichton-Browne retired before him; and now
Senator Foreman, which leaves Senators Ray,
Bolkus and Hill from that fine batch of 1 July
1981. I was listening to Senator Faulkner
refer to it as long service and, compared with
the average in this place, 16 years certainly is
long service.
Dominic came from a union background; he
was the State Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia, and
we remember his union leadership in South
Australia. He retained his commitment to that
industry during his term in the Senate. I
remember that, whenever there was a motor
industry issue on the table, Dominic partici-
6632
SENATE
pated in the debate. It is clearly an industry

that is very close to him, and he was very
committed to those who worked within it.
It is also worth noting the level of service
that he gave to the organisation of his party,
which I often mark down as a sign of a
professional politician. He served on the ALP
state executive in South Australia, and became state president of his party from 1979
to 1980.
Senator FaulknerHe won his ballot.
Senator HILLAnd he won his ballot,
too. We remember his service in the Senate
as whip and deputy government whip. I know
that he was always trusted and respected by
the whips on my side of politics; they regarded Dominic as not only a good bloke but
somebody who would stand by his word, and
he was never any problem in that regard.
I mention in passing his significant contribution to the Senate committee system. He
chaired a number of different committees
across a diverse range: employment, finance,
rural and regional affairs, to name but a few.
Dominic never forgot his union background
or commitment, and that was important to
him and to his contribution in this place. He
was always loyal and true to his party. He
was a genuine and trusted senator. I guess in
some ways he was a quiet and determined
man. He certainly deserves his retirement, and
I hope that his health improves and that he
and his wife can share a long and happy
retirement together.
Senator BOSWELL (QueenslandLeader
of the National Party of Australia in the
Senate) (10.12 p.m.)I would like to add my
comments to those of the Leader of the
Government in the Senate (Senator Hill) and
the Leader of the Opposition (Senator
Faulkner) on the retirement of Senator Dominic Foreman. I have now been in here for
almost 15 years and his was the term in front
of me.
Senator HillYou are ahead of the average, too.
Senator BOSWELLThe average is
seven, I think. Dominic Foreman was a
survivor, and I have been a bit of a survivor,

too. I never had a great deal to do with
Dominic, except to sit next to him on the odd
plane trip or to meet him in the corridors of
the Senate, but I always found him to be a
very delightful person: a person that you
could have a chat with, and I felt that he was
a really top sort of guy. I know that his
colleagues in the Labor Party hold him in
absolute high respect. He was, as has been
said, an apprentice in the car industry, and he
then went on to be the State Secretary of the
Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of
Australia. I know that he always held that
industry close to his heart.
I would like to take this opportunity to wish
Dominic Foreman and his wife a very happy
and long retirement; I think he deserves to
have a long and restful retirement. I add my
comments to those of Senator Hill and I, too,
hope that Dominics health does improve, and
I wish him all the best in his retirement.
Senator BOURNE (New South Wales)
(10.14 p.m.)The impression I mostly have
of former Senator Foreman is of a very quiet
and very sincere person. We have heard a lot
about his committee service tonight, but I
knew him best as the deputy ALP whip for
many years. I think I started as whip in about
1991 or 1992, just after I got in. He was
already the deputy ALP whip then. He took
that position very seriously, and he was
always prepared to put in a lot of very hard
work in the position.
He still has a lovely sense of humour, I am
surehe is just not using it around the Senate
any more. He was always, and still is, a very
considerate, very hardworking person. I
cannot imagine that at the moment he is
pining for the Senate, having left, because in
fact he is not even in Canberra today. Fair
enough, too. On behalf of all the Democrats,
I say to him: Dominic, good luck for the
future. Your sincerity, your decency and your
goodwill towards others, which was always so
obviousit always has been, and I am sure
it always will bemust hold you in good
stead in the future. We all wish you well.
SENATE

p.m.)I would like to honour Dominic
Foreman by speaking as he would want me to
speakshort and to the point. He is a man
who is gifted in that particular regard. What
he had to say you listened to. This was
particularly the case with his very great work
on the committees of this parliament. Those
committees, as far as I am concerned, are
very important indeed. I have a great deal of
gratitude for those honourable senators who
do work on the committees, because I gain a
lot of concentrated information from the work
of those committees. Dominics committees
were well up there, in my estimation. Certainly when he had anything to do with particular
committees I could always guarantee that they
were worth while.
Dominic was elected in 1980, five years
after I was elected. He was very considerate
to me when he was elected. It was at a time
that, as some of you may know, was a most
difficult time in my personal life. I always
remember his consideration with a great deal
of gratitude. He is the type of person who
tends to know what problems are about. He
would use his kindness, his gentleness and his
strength in coming to the assistance of others.
I would like to join with the Leader of the
Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), the
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner), the Leader of the National
Party of Australia in the Senate (Senator
Boswell) and the Australian Democrats whip
(Senator Bourne) in wishing Dominic all the
best in whatever he may do. Of course, those
good wishes go to his dear wife as well.
Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia) (10.18 p.m.)I wish to join in making a
few remarks on the retirement of Dominic
Foreman from the Senate. I had the pleasure
of working with Dominic both when he
chaired the Joint Standing Committee on
Electoral Matters when I first entered the
parliament and of course more recently, since
the last election, when I was elected as
opposition whip. Dominic served as one of
the two deputy whips, and so I have worked
6633
very closely with him over the last 18 months

or so.
I must say that I grew very fond of Dominic during that time. I have a great deal of
respect for his values. Key among them are
his loyalty, his commitment, his reliability
and his common decency, so he was a very
easy man to work with and a pleasure to work
with. I for one will miss him in this place.
Dominic is a very quiet man and he does
not possess a lot of the ego which is allegedly
so common among parliamentarians. Dominic
makes very acute assessments of people, but
he tends to keep them to himself a bit. He is
a good judge of character and a good judge
of and commentator on events, in my experiencewhen he shares those with you. I also
learned in the last 18 months or so what a dry
sense of humour Dom possesses. I came to
appreciate it very much. Among those assessmentsI am sure that my other deputy whip
will not mind me saying thishe coined a
nickname for our other deputy whip of Here,
there and everywhere. It was his way of
describing his inability sometimes to locate
the other deputy whip when it was his turn to
do duty. Unfortunately for Senator Conroy, I
think that will stick for a while among his
fellow whips. Maybe I have helped with that.
I am sure that Dom would enjoy that.
Dominic is Labor to his bootstraps. He
served an apprenticeship. He worked in the
vehicle industry, he worked as a trade union
official and then he was elected as a parliamentary representative for Labor. So he had
a traditional working class Labor career. Dom
always appreciates the opportunities he is
given in life. He worked hard to honour those
opportunities and to honour the people who
supported him. He has been very loyal to
those Labor traditions and values. I think that
is a great mark of the man, a great mark of
his character. He is highly respected on both
sides of this parliament because of the sorts
of values he brought to everything he did.
I am sorry that health problems saw Dominic decide to retire from the Senate. He held
on so as not to cause a by-election in South
Australia, but I know Dominic was very keen
towards the end to leave the Senate. He has
got plans for an active and enjoyable retire-
6634
SENATE
ment. I hope he and his family get to enjoy

that. He has mentioned to me that he will be
travelling around Australia. There will certainly be a very warm welcome for him in Perth,
if and when he gets that far.
Senator FERGUSON (South Australia)
(10.22 p.m.)I rise briefly to associate
myself with the remarks that have been made
on the retirement of former Senator Dominic
Foreman. I did not know Dominic Foreman
before I came to this place. I think it is also
fair to say that I was here for 12 months and
I still did not know Dominic very well because he was not exactly the most gregarious
person that you would ever meet in your life.
But I had the good fortune in 1994 to be
chosen to be part of a delegation that went
away. I represented the Liberal Party in the
Senate and Dominic represented the Labor
Party. It was at that stage that I first really got
to know Dominic very well.
Wives, as it usually happens, accompanied
us on that trip. I must say that my wife,
Annethat being the first time she travelled
awaytreated the trip with some sort of
trepidation, not knowing another soul who
was leaving. That was until she met Shirley.
I can say that, from the time we first met
Shirley at a meeting prior to our leaving, they
formed a very, very close friendship, and that
friendship has remained all of the time that
Dominic has been here in the Senate, and I
guess it will remain for some time in the future.
We got to know Dominic and Shirley very
well on that trip, and I can only say that you
would have to go a long way to find better
company than both Dominic and Shirley if
you were travelling overseas because Dominic, although he did things in his own quiet
way, was very much respected and very
reliable. Shirley, of course, was the exact
opposite, being the life of the party most of
the time. I know that we certainly valued their
friendship.
I have distinct memories of our first two or
three days in London. My wife came from a
fairly frugal background and Shirley, with the
background of first coming to Australia as a
single mother with a couple of children, was

also very frugal. Between the two of them,
they decided that there was no point spending
the sort of money that the hotel charged to
have shirts or any other clothes washed.
Dominics and my last vision of them one
morning was of them going down to catch the
tube to find the nearest laundromat so they
could come back with clean clothes for
Dominic, me and them.
Certainly, Dominics contribution in this
placeindeed, the contribution of anybody
who has served this parliament for 16 years
deserves a special mention. It is a commitment that anybody makes, regardless of the
levels they achieve within their own party or
within the Senate. Dominic for 16 years has
been a very loyal South Australian, a very
loyal South Australian colleague and a loyal
Labor Party man. No matter what else you
spoke to Dominic about, you always knew
that he was very true to his roots and his
background. He and I had something similar
in our backgrounds in that we were both born
in the country and were country boys. Dominic, I think, was born in Clare. I will stand
corrected if that is not right, but I think he
was born in Clare before he went to Adelaide
to work.
I particularly want to take this opportunity
to wish both Dominic and Shirley the very
best in their retirement. I thank them very
much for the friendship that they have shown
to us in the past and which we hope will
continue in the future.
Senator QUIRKE (South Australia) (10.25
p.m.)On advice from the clerk, I indicate
that this is not my first speech. I am not sure
what status it will actually be given, but
apparently I have to indicate that my first
speech is an item that senators will have to
suffer in the very near future.
Dominics retirement brought to an end not
only a 16-year Senate career but a lengthy
working career that went back some 46 years
in the Labor movement. He worked in the
vehicle building industry until 1966, when he
was elected as an organiser for the VBEF, as
it was known in those days. He went on to
SENATE
become the State Secretary of the Vehicle

Builders Employees Federation in 1975, a
position that he held until he came into the
Senate in July 1981.
I worked for Dominic for something like
4 years. When I came back here today, I
had a look around and saw some of the faces
here in question time, and I must say that
there were not all that many familiar faces
here. In fact, at one time I started counting
how many people were also here in 1989, and
I have not got up to 20 yet. That indicated to
me just how short a political life in the Senate
in general really is. One of the previous
speakers, either Senator Harradine or Senator
Boswell, mentioned that Dominic was here
much longer than the average senator. I
suspect he was in the Senate for probably
twice the average length of time.
Dominic has had some ill health in the last
year or so, but he is now ready to have an
active retirement. I know that because earlier
this year I went down to his home and saw
that he and Shirley, his wife, have planned a
trip around Australia. They have purchased a
caravan and they are going to do all the sorts
of things that, I guess, in a sense, I never
thought Dominic would do, because Dominic
has a couple of features about himone is
that he is an immensely private man and the
other is that he loved to stay at home and
watch TV when he was not on a plane coming here, going somewhere else on committee
service or whatever. He is now intending to
go around Australia in a caravan and see a
number of places that, quite frankly, he never
had the time to see in all those active working
years.
As for his family, as Senator Ferguson
mentioned before, Shirley is certainly a very
gregarious person. I think she is very happy
to have Dominic home and, although she has
not said it, the old adage that she is happy to
have him in sickness and health but not for
lunch every day is not true in this case. I
think she is happy to have him for lunch
every day and, in many respects, as most
people who know those two will testify,
Dominic and Shirley are really the ideal
couple. Senator Ferguson mentioned before
about the trip that he and his wife went on
6635
with Dominic and Shirley. I think there are

plenty of other stories like that around here in
the Senate.
His children, Luke and Lindy, and his
grandchildren are a very important part of
Dominics life because, as well as being an
immensely private man, he is a very committed father, and I think that needs to be said
here. Working with him for the years that I
did and knowing him for all the years of our
friendship afterwards, the one feature that
came across well was his absolute devotion to
his children and his grandchildren. At the
small retirement party that he had about 10
days ago, his grandchildren and Luke and
Lindy were there and it was very much a
family occasion, as I am sure Dominic would
have wanted it to be.
Another feature of Dominics time in
politics was his encouragement of others.
Unlike many people, Dominics attitude was
that you encouraged those people with talent
to move on, you helped them. One of the
largest groups of people at the retirement
party at his office the other week was the
Young Labor people who had received, in one
form or another, large amounts of encouragement to fight the fight on our side of politics.
That goes back for all the years that I have
known Dominic. He was not the sort of
person who ever let his ego get in the way of
encouraging somebody within the Labor Party
and, in particular, in Young Labor, from
following in his footsteps.
It was mentioned before that Dominics
great friend was the late Mick Young. That is
true. Dominic had a circle of people whom he
was very close to here in the time that I
worked for him in the late 1980s. Mick
Young was always at the centre of that group.
Progressively over the years, a large number
of the people who were in that circle have
retired or gone on to other things. One such
person sat in the seat which you are in now,
Madam President; that is, Terry Sibraa. I also
think of Benny Humphreys and a whole series
of other people whom we have not heard in
this chamber or the other for some years.
Dominic was getting ready for and making
preparations for his retirement. His ill health
came at a time when I think that he knew
6636
SENATE
that, in any case, he would be retiring in the

near future. I hope he has a long and well
deserved retirement. I hope the trip around
Australia and all the other things that Dominic wants to do are an enormous success.
This man is somebody who has served to
the best of his abilities not only this Senate
but the Australian Labor Party. As a number
of speakers on this side have said, he served
it with loyalty, devotion and integrity. I have
never known a time when Dominic did not
get in there and put in his absolute best.
He enjoyed being the deputy whip. Somebody said before that being the deputy whip
needs the patience of Job. I do not know that
the image of Job, sitting on what Job had to
sit on, is the appropriate image to talk of in
respect to this, except to say that Dominic did
enjoy the challenges of that particular position. He certainly fulfilled it.
When the change of government came in
1996, Dominic took to opposition in a way
that I suspect many others could not have,
because he had served in the parliament long
enough to remember what opposition was
like. He had been here before the 13 years of
Labor government. I think it was Dominics
work that enabled a smooth transition for
those of us on this side, because Dominic
knew the ropes.
I wish to finalise my remarks by saying that
I owe a personal debt to this man. Not only,
as one speaker here has said, did he wait until
the state election after the party preselected
me for his casual vacancy, but he gave me a
start in this business. I can speak from the
heart by saying that this bloke actually encouraged people on our side of politics
wherever he could. I commend him to the
Senate.
Senator DENMAN (Tasmania) (10.34
p.m.)I too wish to make a few brief comments about Dominic Foreman on his resignation due to ill health. Dominic is one of the
most decent people I have met in this place,
one of the most unassuming, with a great deal
of integrity and an enormous loyalty to his
colleagues. I have never once heard him
denigrate anyone. He made astute comments,
and very accurate ones, but not in a derogatory manner.

Dominic has a very dry sense of humour
which I think Senator Bourne has already
alluded to, one that is not evident when you
first meet him. He has the ability to sum up
people and situations very accurately, with a
droll sense of humour and with very few
words.
One of Dominics greatest attributes is his
reliability. One could always be confident that
Dominic would be on time to relieve whoever
was on duty. I know that, because it was
often me. Dominic, in his quiet manner,
always offered me support and for that, I
thank him. I wish he and his wife, Shirley, all
the best in their retirement.
Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (10.36
p.m.)Briefly, I wish to be associated with
the valedictory for Dominic Foreman. On
behalf of the government whips in this place,
I place on record our appreciation for
Dominics cooperation and the hard work that
he did as deputy whip on both sides of the
parliament. I had a lot to do with Dominic
one way or the other when I was deputy whip
in opposition and on the Selection of Bills
Committee. We could always rely on Dominic
to be on time and to be there when you
needed him.
I also worked with Dominic on the Public
Works Committee and the rural and regional
affairs committee. He did a particularly fine
job on the inquiry into the sale of the railways. He had a particular interest there and
participated very strongly on behalf of the
unions in the sale of the South Australian
railways.
I am sure that if our good friend the late
John Panizza were here, he would like to say
that he appreciated Dominics company and
that he looked upon him as a fine man.
Dominic was also, to my knowledge, a fine
judge of fish restaurants. There is one particular fish restaurant in Adelaide which he
introduced me to. I hope in his retirement that
he and Shirley have plenty of time to travel
around Australia and sample some of the
good fish restaurants, particularly those in my
SENATE
state of Tasmania. I wish them both the very

best.
Senator CROWLEY (South Australia)
(10.37 p.m.)I am pleased to say some
words on my own behalf about my colleague
Senator Foreman. He came into the Senate
just ahead of me by some three years or so.
I have always regarded him as a person to
whom I could turn for advice or information
regarding what it is like to be a new chum in
the Senate. Dominic was always fulsome and
willing with that information.
I support the comments of my colleagues.
I will not go over the same kinds of things. I
do remember Dominic particularly for his
loyalty and his reliability. I also remember
Dominic ever present at state conference, state
council, branch and party functions. He was
very reliable and regular at all those party
functionsI would have to say very reliable
and regular at every party raffle, which meant
he was ever reliable and regular.
I want to thank my new colleague Senator
Quirke for reminding my of Senator
Foremans close friendship with Benny
Humphreys. Whenever I could not understand
Benny Humphreyss rhyming slang, Dominic
interpreted it for me. People in this place may
not know what astute practitioners they were,
along with Mick Young, of the art of rhyming
slang. That no end added to my education. I
will not entertain the Senate with much of
what I learnt from them, tempting as it is.
One particular interest of mine when I came
into this place was occupational health and
safety. I was particularly interested to note
Dominics commitment to that. He was committed to rights for workers absolutely, particularly wages and conditions, and also the
question of safety for workers, particularly in
his own field of interestthe vehicle builders
union, which I was entertained to discover
was the VBEF because I have always know
it as the VBU. Dominic Foreman and the
VBU were almost like a mantra.
But in the vehicle building industry there
were people who suffered accidents at work.
That campaign for conditions, particularly
safety in the workplace, was one of the first
6637
things I got to know about Dominic. I was

pleased that he and I travelled together for
that area of our work in the Senate. Still a
matter of great regret to him and to me is the
number of people who die in working situations in Australia each year. Despite our
efforts to see that that is changed, it is not a
matter of any satisfaction or relaxation. Far
too many people die in the workplace. It was
an area of great concern for Dominic.
This is an opportunity to join my comments
to those of my colleagues, not to reiterate all
those things that have been said about Dominic. I would particularly like to finish by
acknowledging his great contribution to the
people of South Australia, to the Labor Party
and to this parliament. It would be hard to
pick which in all of those was his prior
concern. He was unfailing, reliable, loyal and
dedicated in all of those areas. I am particularly pleased to wish him, Shirley and their
family happiness in their retirement.
Senator COONEY (Victoria) (10.41
p.m.)I met Dominic Foreman when I first
joined the Senate. I found him to be a man of
grace, a man of intelligence and a man generous in spirit. Since then I have never found
him otherwise. I wish him well for the future.
Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia)
(10.42 p.m.)Brevity is calling at the moment as we rise to honour Dominic Foreman
and his contribution to the Australian Labor
Party, to his electorate of South Australia and
to the Senate of the Parliament of Australia.
Dominic was, as my leader has said, a great
team player, particularly in his role as Deputy
Government Whip when he was in the
government side of things. Senator Chris
Evans recognised that as well.
I add my words because I had the honour
at one time of being acting government whip
on that side of the chamber. I think it was
opposite you, Madam President, as opposition
whip. Dominic served with dignity and with
honour in the position that he occupied. He
was a magnificent team player in this place.
6638
SENATE
It is with regret that he has left the place

with some ill health attached to him. But,
hopefully, that ill health will be kept at bay
while he and Shirley enjoy a wonderful
retirement.
I wondered during question time why his
successor, John Quirke, had his shoes off.
Now we know; he was counting the number
of senators who had been here since 1989
less than 20. I really cannot explain to Dominic how somebody tonight in the valedictories
could get up and say all those nice things
about Dominic and still, technically, according to the clerks, have not spoken in this
place. There are people who make Irish jokes.
I suggest maybe we have started somewhat of
a Senate joke here tonight?
Senator FaulknerWhat do you mean
started a Senate joke? It has been going on
for a long time!
Senator McKIERNANThank you,
Senator Faulkner. Senator Foremans wit has
been recognised here and has been described
as being a dry wit. That is not how I would
describe it. It was a very sharp wit.
I think Senator Calvert, Senator Chris
Evans, Senator Faulkner and Madam President might share this sentiment. As whips,
you know a lot of what happens around this
place and you get together and share tales
about the rest of us in this place. Dominic has
a library full of tales that he could tell. Hopefully, he will not spend his retirement writing
a book, because it could be very embarrassing
to us all.
I think he has done the right thing by
himself, his party and his constituents in the
manner in which he has retired. I join with
everybody else who has previously spoken in
the debate in wishing him, Shirley and the
rest of their family a most enjoyable retirement.
Senator SHERRY (TasmaniaDeputy
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)
(10.44 p.m.)I rise briefly to put on the
public record my thanks to Dominic Foreman.
On a number of occasions in my seven years
in the Senate, he gave me some honest,
forthright and very valuable advice. As has
been noted, Dominic was a person of great

loyalty. It was not misplaced loyalty in the
sense that he totally committed himself to the
Labor Party and the Labor movement over the
40-odd years of his working life.
He was a man of great integrity, great
honesty and considerable incisiveness in his
judgment of other people. On occasions he
would share that view with you, as I can
recall the advice he gave me on a number of
occasions and, indeed, the encouragement. He
was not renowned as a gregarious person with
an effusive personality, but he made a dedicated commitment to the cause of the labour
movement and the Labor Party in his own
way. In his own way, he will be missed. I
wish him, and his wife, Shirley, and his
family, all the very best in his retirement.
The PRESIDENT (10.45 p.m.)I think
Dominic Foreman would expect us to be brief
on an occasion like this. I enjoyed his company when we both worked in our respective
whips offices. I think I got to know him
quite well. Listening tonight, the recurring
words are reliability and loyalty, and I
think any senator who retires with those being
the most common words said about them can
feel that they have done a good job. I would
like to wish Dominic and Shirley well in their
retirement, and good health to both of them.
Senate adjourned at 10.46 p.m.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by
the Clerk:
Air Navigation ActRegulationStatutory
Rules 1997 No. 230.
Air Services ActDirection under section 16
Instrument No. M94/97.
Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land
Management) ActNational Capital Plan
Certification of Draft Amendment No. 18.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act
RegulationsStatutory Rules 1997 No. 231.
Census and Statistics ActAustralian Bureau of
StatisticsStatement of disclosure of informationStatement No. 3 of 1997.
SENATE
Christmas Island ActCasino Control Ordinance

Appointment of Administrator of Casino
Operations (Amendment), dated 28 August
1997.
Authority to use offshore bank accounts, dated
28 August 1997.
Civil Aviation ActCivil Aviation RegulationsCivil Aviation Orders
Amendment of section 40, dated 27 August
1997.
DirectivePart
105, dated 7, 13, 25[5], 26[9] and 27[10]
August 1997.
106, dated 1 September 1997 [2].
107, dated 6 and 25 August 1997 and 12
September 1997.
InstrumentCASA 210/97 and CASA 214/97.
Family Law ActRegulationsStatutory Rules
1997 No. 232.
Federal Airports Corporation ActRegulation
Statutory Rules 1997 No. 233.
Fisheries Management ActRegulations
Health Insurance ActDeclarationQAA No.
2/1997.
Higher Education Funding ActDeterminations
under section 15T19-97 and T20-97.
Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act
Insurance ActRegulationsStatutory Rules
1997 No. 235.
Insurance (Agents and Brokers) ActRegulationsStatutory Rules 1997 No. 237.
Insurance Contracts ActRegulationsStatutory
Rules 1997 No. 238.
Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act
OrdinanceNo. 1 of 1997 (Fire Management
Ordinance 1997).
Lands Acquisition ActStatements describing
property acquired by agreement under sections
40 and 125 of the Act for specified public
purposes.
Life Insurance ActRegulationsStatutory
Rules 1997 No. 239.
Navigation ActMarine OrdersOrders Nos 6
and 7 of 1997.
Proceeds of Crime ActRegulationsStatutory
Rules 1997 No. 240.
Public Service Act
Locally Engaged Staff Determinations
1997/22-1997/25.
6639
Senior Executive Service Retirement on

Benefit Determinations 1997/73-1997/85.
Remuneration Tribunal ActDeterminations Nos
4 and 6-9 of 1997.
Retirement Savings Accounts ActRegulationsStatutory Rules 1997 No. 242.
Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods)
ActRegulationsStatutory Rules 1997 No.
241.
SafetyRehabilitation and Compensation Act
Directions relating to the waiver of debts due
to Comcare No. 4 of 1997.
Notices of DeclarationNotices Nos 5 and 6
of 1997.
Seat of Government (Administration) Act
OrdinanceNo. 3 of 1997 (National Land
(Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1997).
Student and Youth Assistance ActDetermination of courses for the purpose of paying
AustudyDetermination No. 1997/1.
Superannuation Act 1976Declaration
Superannuation Act 1990Declaration
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act
Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner
Determination under section 153Applications for single premium superannuation
interests, dated 1 July 1997.
Taxation Ruling TR 97/18.
Telstra Corporation ActRegulationsStatutory
Rules 1997 Nos 244 and 247.
Therapeutic Goods ActDetermination under
section 19A, dated 26 August 1997.
Trade Practices ActRegulationsStatutory
Rules 1997 No. 245.
Veterans Entitlements ActInstruments under
section 196BInstruments Nos 57-78 of 1997.
Workplace Relations ActRegulations
Indexed Lists of Files

The following documents were tabled
pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May
1996:
Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for
the period 1 January to 30 June 1997
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
Austrade.
Australian Customs Service.
6640
SENATE
Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology
Organisation.
Australian Tourist Commission.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Comcare Australia.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
Department of Administrative Services and
portfolio agencies.
Department of Finance.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural
AffairsCentral Office.
Department of Industry, Science and Tourism
Central Office.
Department of Primary Industries and Energy.
Department of Primary Industries and Energy
portfolio agencies.
Department of Transport and Regional DevelopmentCentral Office.

National Standards Commission.
Public Service and Merit Protection Commission.
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that he had
proclaimed the following provisions of Acts
to come into operation on the dates specified:
Aged Care Act 1997Act, except for Division
11 October 1997 (Gazette No. GN 37, 17
September 1997).
Primary Industries and Energy Legislation
Amendment Act (No. 2) 1997Amendments
made by the Act to the Petroleum (Submerged
Lands) Act 1967 [Schedule 6]4 September
1997 (Gazette No. S 347, 4 September 1997).
Primary Industries and Energy Legislation
Amendment Act (No. 2) 1997Item 1 of Schedule 84 September 1997 (Gazette No. S 347, 4
September 1997).
SENATE
6641
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
The following answers to questions were circulated:

Students with Disabilities
(Question No. 572)
Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Schools, Vocational
Education and Training, upon notice on 6
May 1997:
(1) What is the budget for integration of students
with disabilities in kindergartens, primary and
secondary schools in the 1997 calendar year: (a) by
State and Territories; and (b) by government,
catholic and independent sectors.
(2) With reference to: (a) the statement made by
the minister in the Senate, on 27 November 1996,
that the legislation will provide $92 million in
1997 specifically to assist students with
disabilities; and (b) the answer to a question on
notice no. 44 relating to the committees inquiry
into the States Grants (Primary and Secondary
Education Assistance) Bill 1996, in which the
department advised that the Commonwealth
provides approximately $10.6 million through per
capital grants for special education programs for all
eligible students with disabilities and provides a
further $90 million in capped grants for special
education: do these figures ($10.6 and $90 million)
represent actual spending in 1996.
(3) Does this mean that the total of columns 2,
3 and 4 of Schedule 8 of the bill, for capped
special education support, which adds up to
$80,383,000 represents a $9,162,000 decrease in
capped special education funding in 1997, compared with 1996.
(4) How are the discrepancies in the above
figures explained.
(5) Can details be provided of Commonwealth
funding for education of students with disabilities
for each of the 1984 to 1997 calendar years,
compared with 1996, including: (a) the number of
students with disabilities by State/Territory and by
education sectors, including the split between
special schools and regular schools, actual reported,
or where reasonable estimated or projected; (b) the
numbers expressed as a percentage of the total
number of students; (c) the actual dollar funding in
each State/Territory and education sector and under
which program, element or sub-element the amount
was authorised, including any part which was
quarantined or otherwise set aside for a particular
purpose or for particular bodies receiving funding
(for joint programs or elements of programs

straddling more than one sector, please split
funding as to what sector the funding ultimately
went to); (d) the inflation rate applicable for each
year over and above the previous year; and (e) the
basis for allocation of funds by the Commonwealth
for each of these programs, elements or subelements, including method or formula for allocations quarantined or set aside.
Senator VanstoneThe Minister for

Schools, Vocational Education and Training
has provided the following answer to the
honourable senators question:
(1) The Commonwealth does not have available
data on the total budget for the integration of
students with disabilities (SWD) for any year by
State or sector. This level of information, if available at all, is held by States and sectors and our
previous experience of similar data requests is that
States and sectors have taken months to respond,
with some States and sectors providing an incomplete response or no response. States and sectors
are not accountable to the Commonwealth for
funding provided from sources other than specific
purpose grants.
Figures for Commonwealth funding in response
to the question are provided at Attachment A. In
light of the timeline available for responding to
Questions on Notice, advice has not been sought
from States/Territories and non-government sectors
as to their total integration budgets.
(2) The answer to question on notice no. 44
relating to the committees inquiry into the States
Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 1996 was incorrect. The sentence It
provides a further $90 million in capped grants for
Special Education should have read It provides a
further $80 million in capped grants for Special
Education. This was the result of an error in the
advice provided by the Department of Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
(3) Nosee (2) above.
(4) See (2) above.
(5) Attachment B shows details of Commonwealth funding for the education of students with
disabilities for each of the 1984 to 1997 calendar
years. Figures do not include details of capital
(except easily identified funding under capital
support non-government from 1994-96 and non-
6642
SENATE
government centres for 1997) and recurrent funding

provided for students with disabilities. It was not
possible to collect this information in the time
available as it would involve collecting information
on each school and capital grant for the period.
(a) Attachment C shows the students with
disabilities data presently held by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth does not have students
with disabilities data for government schools prior
to 1991 or students with disabilities data for nongovernment schools prior to 1986. 1997 students
with disabilities data will not be available until
October 1997.
There are concerns about the comparability of
some of the government schools data, eg. the South
Australian government sector appears to interpret
the Commonwealth definition of disability more
broadly than do other reporting authorities. Also,
from 1991 the students with disabilities definition
applied to non-government schools data changed
significantly.
(b) Attachment C also shows the numbers of
students with disabilities expressed as a percentage
of the total numbers of students for disabilities
within each reporting category.
(c) Attachment B shows the funding information

available to the Commonwealth. For many elements
it is not possible to determine in which sector funds
were ultimately expended without writing to each
of the States/Territories and education sectors or for
other elements, assessing each school on a project
by project basis. This was not possible in the time
available.
(d) Commonwealth funding for schools is
increased annually by a school specific index. The
type of school specific index and in some circumstances the components of the school specific index
have changed over the period 1984 to 1997.
Further, the capital elements, where included, use
a different index to maintain funding levels. These
indexes, therefore, do not represent a readily
comparable inflator for schools funding over time.
Total special education funding over time is also
affected by the influence of per capita funding
which increases according to identified eligible
students and particular initiatives and programmes
which have been undertaken in the 1984-97 period.
(e) See Attachment D.
Special Learning Needs Program1997

Special Education Funding
State
Sector
NSW
Govt
Catholic
Independent
NSO
Total
Vic
Govt
Catholic
Independent
NSO
Total
WA
Total
$5,850,400
$5,850,400
$9,943,300
$6,114,700
$4,356,800
$5,850,400
$26,265,200
$3,888,900
$3,888,900
$9,668,500
$4,695,500
$2,756,100
$3,888,900
$21,009,000
$4,251,000
$4,251,000
$7,199,800
$1,712,500
$689,100
$4,251,000
$13,852,400
$427,100
$427,100
$4,082,500
$2,234,900
$750,100
$427,100
$7,494,600
$7,199,800
$1,712,500
$689,100
$9,601,400
Govt
Catholic
Independent
NSO
Total
$9,668,500
$4,695,500
$2,756,100
$17,120,100
Govt
Catholic
Independent
NSO
Non-Gov
Centre Support
$9,943,300
$6,114,700
$4,356,800
$20,414,800
Total
Qld
School Supp
$4,082,500
$2,234,900
$750,100
$7,067,500
State
Sector
SA
Govt
Catholic
Independent
NSO
SENATE
Total
$2,458,400
$2,458,400
$2,630,600
$609,900
$358,400
$2,458,400
$6,057,300
$74,400
$74,400
$1,460,200
$363,000
$170,700
$74,400
$2,068,300
$24,400
$24,400
$570,600
$223,100
$73,800
$24,400
$891,900
$1,121,700
$337,600
$337,600
$598,300
$511,200
$12,200
$337,600
$1,459,300
$36,153,800
$16,464,800
$9,167,200
$0
$61,785,800
$0
$0
$0
$17,312,200
$17,312,200
$36,153,800
$16,464,800
$9,167,200
$17,312,200
$79,098,000
$2,630,600
$609,900
$358,400
$3,598,900
Govt
Catholic
Independent
NSO
$1,460,200
$363,000
$170,700
Total
NT
Non-Gov
Centre Support
School Supp
Total
Tas
$1,993,900
Govt
Catholic
Independent
NSO
$570,600
$223,100
$73,800
Total
ACT
$867,500
Govt
Catholic
Independent
NSO
$598,300
$511,200
$12,200
Total
Aus
6643
Govt
Catholic
Independent
NSO
Total
(A) The Non-Government Centre Support total does not include the allocation of $1,740,000 of national
pool funds (from the former Capital SupportNon-Government Sub-Component of the National
Equity Programme for Schools).
(B) Per capital funding (Estimated at $11 million in 1997) are not inlcuded in the above table.
Special Education Funding1984
State
Program
NSW
Government
Special EducationRecurrent
7,018,000
Special EducationIntegration
479,000
Early Special Education
Special Education
Special EducationSchools Support
Special EducationIntervention
Transition SupportNational
Total (Government)
7,497,000
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
5,248,000
358,000
3,300,000
225,000
1,871,000
127,000
1,866,000
127,000
621,000
43,000
214,000
15,000
0 20,138,000
0 1,374,000
5,606,000
3,525,000
1,998,000
1,993,000
664,000
229,000
0 21,512,000
6644
SENATE

State
Program
Systemic
(1)
(2) (3)
Special EducationSupport
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
211,018
29,000
63,235
34,000
337,253
128,176
265,605
77,043
14,000
101,360
21,127
6,675
613,986
339,194
294,605
77,043
77,235
135,360
21,127
6,675
951,239
9,540
24,690
21,708
81,901
0
9,000
72,486
12,800
9,000
22,000
0
25,163
0
2,745
0
0
112,734
178,299
34,230
103,609
9,000
85,286
31,000
25,163
2,745
291,033
46,678
132,443
123,977
134,196
0
21,957
0
17,803
0
31,054
0
4,710
0
2,580
0
0
170,655
344,743
179,121
258,173
21,957
17,803
31,054
4,710
2,580
515,398
1,348,784
9,680
1,093,449
95,990
741,000
0
221,476
16,200
171,540
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,576,249
126,870
Services
Special EducationSchools
Support
Special EducationCapital
Support
Transition SupportSpecial
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
Services
Special EducationCapital Support
Special Education
Intervention
Schools
Total (Non-Systemic)
Non-School Organisations
Services
Support
Support
Non-Government Centre
Support
Total (Non-School
Organisations)
Special
Special
Special
Special
Schools
EducationRecurrent
EducationIntegration
EducationSupport
Services
Support
SENATE
6645
State
Program
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
1,358,464
1,189,439
741,000
237,676
176,540
3,703,119
785,000
1,240,000
621,000
967,000
362,000
610,000
199,000
335,000
194,000
309,000
64,000
107,000
22,000
38,000
0
0
2,247,000
3,606,000
2,025,000
1,588,000
972,000
534,000
503,000
171,000
60,000
5,853,000
11,433,009
9,039,826
5,346,000
2,950,000
2,869,954
886,000
301,000

Schools
Total (Special Schools)
Joint
Residential Institutions
Severely Handicapped
Children with Severe
Disabilities
Special EducationJoint
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
0 32,825,789
Note:
(a) In 1984, the non-government sector split was: systemic, non-systemic regular schools and special
schools. Non-systemic Catholic schools received funding under the non-systemic regular schools
allocation.
(b) Although joint funds were paid to government and non-government clients, it is not possible to
provide an accurate split of funding between sectors in the time available. Further, in some cases,
sectors accounted for more funds than were paid by the Commonwealth. To keep consistency in
data, information that may have been available on the split of funding for joint programmes has
not been included.
(c) The information contained within this table is from the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act
1983Report on financial assistance granted to each State in respect of 1984.
(d) Funds contained within this table are those targeted to special education and do not include general
capital funding or General Recurrent Grants.
(e) Funding to the ACT for special education were paid to NSW.
(1) $18,000 of the amount paid to WA under this programme went directly to the WA Catholic
Education Commission.
(2) $2,000 of the amount paid to WA under this programme went directly to the WA Catholic
Education Commission.
(3) $10,450 of the amount paid to SA under this programme went to the SA Lutheran System.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
Support
Total (Government)
Systemic
(1)
(2)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
6,689,000
497,000
592,000
5,002,000
372,000
443,000
3,206,000
238,000
285,000
1,798,000
133,000
159,000
1,766,000
130,000
156,000
587,000
44,000
51,000
210,000
16,000
18,000
0 19,258,000
0 1,430,000
0 1,704,000
7,778,000
5,817,000
3,729,000
2,090,000
2,052,000
682,000
244,000
0 22,392,000
231,782
33,448
89,972
355,202
115,700
210,474
81,602
13,639
211,129
15,229
11,000
658,773
6646
SENATE

State
Program
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Services
Early Special Education (3)
Support
Support
Non-Government Centre Support
Total (Non-School Organisations)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
27,000
6,000
33,000
347,482
243,922
108,602
103,611
217,129
15,229
11,000
1,046,975
39,513
27,300
33,687
103,366
0
17,100
89,985
17,001
0
32,000
0
33,076
0
0
0
0
163,185
229,843
6,684
3,000
9,684
66,813
143,737
17,100
106,986
35,000
33,076
402,712
83,470
0
67,037
13,150
22,685
0
0
0
70,911
0
0
1,695
0
0
0
0
244,103
14,845
156,000
139,316
39,000
33,000
16,000
3,000
1,000
387,316
239,470
219,503
61,685
33,000
86,911
4,695
1,000
646,264
1,640,017
0
1,272,838
41,000
696,613
0
196,403
0
51,960
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,857,831
41,000
Special Schools
Services
Support
Schools
5,000
5,000
1,640,017
1,313,838
696,613
196,403
56,960
3,903,831
Joint
814,000
1,287,000
645,000
1,001,000
381,000
644,000
208,000
351,000
201,000
318,000
66,000
111,000
24,000
41,000
0
0
2,339,000
3,753,000
SENATE
6647
State
Program
Disabilities
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
608,361
423,728
202,157
97,573
346,887
46,706
31,790
1,757,202
2,709,361
2,069,728
1,227,157
656,573
865,887
223,706
96,790
7,849,202
12,781,143
9,807,728
5,840,157
3,186,573
3,313,887
958,706
352,790
0 36,240,984
Note:
allocation.
not been included.
(1) $19,080 allocated under this programme to WA was paid directly to the WA Catholic Education
Commission.
(2) $2,496 allocated under this programme to WA was paid directly to the WA Catholic Education
Commissio.
(3) There is no breakdown of funding available for the $33,000 paid to the WA under the Early
Special Education Programme.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
Support
Total (Government)
Systemic
Services (C) (D)
Support
Support
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
6,853,746
500,000
624,000
5,026,000
372,000
464,000
3,285,000
243,000
303,000
1,835,000
136,000
169,000
1,766,000
131,000
163,000
595,000
44,000
55,000
221,000
16,000
21,000
0 19,581,746
0 1,442,000
0 1,799,000
7,977,746
5,862,000
3,831,000
2,140,000
2,060,000
694,000
258,000
0 22,822,746
0
0
0
33,581
241,195
4,931,320
7,356
88,500
0
150,662
11,359
83,331
0
185,371
0
0
17,640
86,088
0
11,181
102,874
0
0
0
191,599
555,246
5,203,613
8,489
1,150
5,000
14,639
6648
SENATE

State
Program
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
Services
Support
Support
Schools
(1)
(2)
Services (3)
Support
Support
Special Schools
(4)
Services
Support
Schools
Joint
Residential Institutions (5)
Disabilities
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
5,206,096
104,345
246,502
190,371
103,728
114,055
5,965,097
0
0
0
0
61,205
0
0
15,500
0
235,338
19,641
0
86,758
94,871
0
0
32,360
0
0
819
0
0
0
0
322,096
224,396
0
61,205
15,500
254,979
181,629
32,360
819
546,492
1,683,254
1,683,254
144,000
144,000
2,949,906
931,550
505,464
2,182,023
6,568,943
163,000
149,788
62,511
34,850
26,000
3,000
1,000
440,149
4,940,160
149,788
994,061
540,314
2,208,023
3,000
1,000
8,836,346
1,468,019
717,644
2,185,663
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
595,444
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
595,444
1,468,019
717,644
595,444
2,781,107
857,000
1,359,000
680,000
1,052,000
406,000
684,000
221,000
372,000
209,000
333,000
70,000
117,000
26,000
44,000
0
0
2,469,000
3,961,000
641,956
447,124
210,091
102,960
366,038
49,285
33,546
1,851,000
2,857,956
2,179,124
1,300,091
695,960
908,038
236,285
103,546
8,281,000
15,775,862 14,926,232
6,962,641
3,877,755
6,143,505
1,069,373
477,420
0 49,232,788
SENATE
6649
Note:
allocation.
not been included.
(f) Capital funding under the Grants for Capital Projects for Children and Students with Disabilities
splits are not available to due time constraints.
(1) There is no breakdown of funding available for the NSW portion of funds paid under this
programme. An amount of $88,746 was transferred to the NSW State Department of Education
for schools which transferred to the government sector.
programme.
programme.
(4) An amount of $40,170 was transferred to the Vic Ministry of Education for schools which
transferred to the government sectorthere is no breakdown available and therefore, the amount
has not been included in the government total.
(5) $5,906 was refunded in Qldthere is no breakdown available. An amount of $1,000 was also
refunded in the NT.
State
Program
Government
(1)
Special Education
Support
Total (Government)
Systemic
Services
Support
Support
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
6,184,000
4,653,764
3,373,495
1,694,889
1,594,000
543,000
210,000
520,000
382,000
256,000
141,000
134,000
46,000
18,000
6,704,000
5,035,764
3,629,495
1,835,889
1,728,000
589,000
228,000
369,907
148,000
230,839
43,531
434,470
10,000
7,790
83,687
365,526
137,515
21,810
140,114
0
194,810
0
0
34,424
2,000
0
24,500
0
ACT
Aus
0 18,253,148
0
1,497,000
0 19,750,148
0
0
0
558,743
941,701
748,479
6650
SENATE

State
Program
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Services
Support
Support
Support
Special Schools
Services
Support
Schools
Joint
Disabilities
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
748,746
488,001
457,003
299,439
194,810
36,424
24,500
2,248,923
122,942
107,023
75,567
943,196
139,395
55,764
22,304
8,800
0
103,005
116,670
291,941
75,934
42,186
0
0
51,813
500
0
8,500
4,052
0
0
0
1,267,381
474,387
427,824
305,532
1,138,355
31,104
511,616
118,120
52,313
12,552
2,169,592
149,434
0
798,243
0
0
2,450,705
49,924
0
792,490
0
0
338,056
0
24,070
2,109,257
0
25,763
98,730
0
0
108,948
0
0
0
199,358
49,833
6,696,429
947,677
2,450,705
842,414
338,056
2,133,327
124,493
108,948
6,945,620
632,729
118,865
1,756,625
0
0
2,133,175
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
671,743
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
632,729
118,865
4,561,543
2,508,219
2,133,175
671,743
5,313,137
884,000
1,418,000
674,000
1,081,000
443,000
711,000
243,000
389,000
214,000
344,000
75,000
121,000
30,000
48,000
0
0
2,563,000
4,112,000
1,515,000
1,120,000
571,000
355,000
523,000
119,000
59,000
4,262,000
3,817,000
2,875,000
1,725,000
987,000
1,081,000
315,000
137,000
0 10,937,000
15,031,174 14,121,000
6,685,016
3,972,000
5,927,000
1,117,230
511,000
0 47,364,420
SENATE
6651
Note:
allocation.
not been included.
(1) An amount of $113,764 was transferred to the Vic Ministry of Education for schools which
transferred to the government sector.
Two amounts of $568,023 and $18,472 were also transferred to the Qld Department of Education
from the Qld non-government sector.
$6,889 was transferred to the WA Department of Education from the non-government sector.
State
Program
Government
(1)
Special Education
Support
Special Education
Intervention
Total (Government)
Systemic
(2)
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
(2)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
6,424,903
4,803,564
3,822,484
1,792,357
1,635,000
571,340
241,600
539,000
390,000
267,000
148,000
137,000
47,000
19,000
6,963,903
5,193,564
4,089,484
1,940,357
1,772,000
618,340
260,600
520,863
78,800
8,083
270,466
134,097
61,939
1,074,248
347,230
297,059
531,730
15,000
90,035
207,429
9,196
185,562
80,000
0
0
5,900
30,040
23,000
0
0
1,088,231
733,950
1,165,152
625,530
305,547
465,224
214,097
67,839
53,040
2,896,429
201,872
64,801
79,271
57,984
52,061
455,989
59,169
163,124
3,200
30,903
4,480
260,876
0 19,291,248
0
1,547,000
0 20,838,248
6652
SENATE

State
Program
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Services
Support
Support
Support
Total (Non-School
Organisations)
Special Schools
Services
Support
Schools
Joint
Disabilities
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
57,502
306,259
796
364,557
261,041
285,427
3,200
416,433
62,464
52,061
796
1,081,422
69,880
0
926,619
332,699
8,250
2,912,765
69,788
0
1,161,350
0
0
215,580
36,838
0
1,795,699
0
0
185,132
0
0
85,564
0
0
0
509,205
8,250
7,282,709
996,499
3,253,714
1,231,138
215,580
1,832,537
185,132
85,564
7,800,164
602,861
0
2,185,716
460,246
1,500
1,743,169
0
0
119,631
0
0
164,956
38,601
0
1,080,301
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,101,708
1,500
5,293,773
2,788,577
2,204,915
119,631
164,956
1,118,902
6,396,981
915,000
1,466,000
697,000
1,118,000
458,000
734,000
251,000
403,000
221,000
356,000
78,000
126,000
31,000
50,000
0
0
2,651,000
4,253,000
1,553,000
1,143,000
675,000
394,000
454,000
129,000
58,000
4,406,000
3,934,000
2,958,000
1,867,000
1,048,000
1,031,000
333,000
139,000
0 11,310,000
16,109,172 14,521,150
7,616,000
4,250,550
6,031,000
1,256,372
539,000
0 50,323,244
Note:
allocation.
SENATE
6653
not been included.
(1)
NSWThis includes an amount of $9,778 which was transferred from the non-government Special
Education Services Programme and $125 from the non-government Special EducationRecurrent
Programme.
VicThis includes an amount of $141,564 which was transferred from the non-government Special
Education Services Programme and $25,000 from the non-government Special Education
Recurrent Programme.
QldThis includes amounts of $587,374 and $18,520 which were transferred from the nongovernment Special Education Services Programme and $36,590 from the non-government Special
EducationRecurrent Programme.
WAThis includes an amount of $21,643 which was transferred from the non-government Special
Education Services Programme and $9,714 from the non-government Special EducationRecurrent
Programme.
TasThis includes an amount of $10,340 which was transferred from the non-government Special
Education Services Programme.
NTThis includes an amount of $14,640 which was transferred from the non-government Special
Education Services Programme and $3,960 from the non-government Special EducationRecurrent
Programme.
(2) There are no splits for recurrent and integration funding in Tasmania for the systemic and nonsystemic sectors.
State
Program
Government
(1)
Special Education
Support
Special Education
Intervention
Total (Government)
Systemic
Services (3, 5)
Support
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
6,977,078
5,111,910
3,519,240
1,954,000
1,728,000
612,880
266,160
585,000
416,000
291,000
161,000
145,000
51,000
21,000
7,562,078
5,527,910
3,810,240
2,115,000
1,873,000
663,880
287,160
661,753
257,793
340,733
106,567
587,694
73,555
27,274
237,817
230,336
251,761
18,783
324,925
163,379
79,217
0
0
53,762
17,834
0
32,160
67,878
ACT
Aus
386,200 20,555,468
31,000
1,701,000
417,200 22,256,468
0
8,223
0
1,210,734
1,275,449
1,055,261
6654
SENATE

State
Program
Support
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
(7)
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Services (4) (8)
Support
Support
Support
Special Schools
Services
Support
Special Education
Intervention
Schools
Joint
Residential Institutions (9)
Disabilities
Early Special Education (2)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
1,260,279
767,816
495,427
595,469
242,596
71,596
100,038
8,223
3,541,444
43,202
80,876
140,258
264,336
256,051
0
0
60,153
0
0
13,920
395,961
0
0
69,398
0
0
0
2,777
0
342,146
456,114
299,253
141,029
550,139
69,398
2,777
1,062,596
27,113
413
1,196,982
337,779
9,057
2,968,957
0
0
1,519,821
0
105
190,521
64,062
74,342
1,951,093
0
0
257,569
0
0
59,802
0
0
240,984
428,954
83,917
8,385,729
1,224,508
3,315,793
1,519,821
190,626
2,089,497
257,569
59,802
240,984
8,898,600
681,136
8,756
2,545,955
448,825
184,956
1,892,950
540,917
17,335
111,453
0
3,630
145,636
0
0
1,153,907
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,670,878
214,677
5,849,901
3,235,847
2,526,731
669,705
149,266
1,153,907
7,735,456
987,000
744,000
500,000
278,000
237,000
84,000
34,000
52,000
2,916,000
1,582,000
1,193,000
801,000
446,000
380,000
134,000
55,000
84,500
4,675,500
1,668,424
1,207,000
821,000
473,000
394,000
141,000
63,000
85,000
4,852,424
SENATE
6655
State
Program
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
4,237,424
3,144,000
2,122,000
1,197,000
1,011,000
359,000
152,000
221,500 12,443,924
17,819,389 15,423,279
8,617,193
(6)
4,797,500
6,370,000
1,421,443
599,000
890,684 55,938,488
Note:
allocation.
not been included.
(e) Capital funding under the Grants for Capital Projects for Children and Students with Disabilities
(1) This includes an amount of $2,355 which was transferred from the non-government Recurrent
element and an amount of $13,723 from Special Education Support Services element from Anowah
School which was transferred to the NSW Department of School Education during 1989.
(2) $8,424 was transferred from grants for special education in non-government schools in NSW.
(3) This includes Catholic non-systemic schools in Victoria.
(4) In Vic, an amount of $136,566 was refunded by the Spastic Society of Victoria.
(5) In Qld, an amount of $17 was refunded by from St Johns Lutheran School to the integration
element.
(6) In Qld, a total of $3,790 was refunded from three clients.
(7) In WA, $1,833 from Kingsway Church College and $1,235 from Strathalbyn Christian College
were refunded to the recurrent element.
(8) An amount of $432 was refunded by the Uniting Church Frontier Services Kindergarten.
(9) An amount of $7,454 was refunded by the ACT Department of Education.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
Support
Total (Government)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
7,372,000
619,000
5,360,668
435,000
3,772,875
311,000
2,085,375
172,000
1,798,000
150,000
637,000
53,000
278,640
22,000
414,456 21,719,014
33,000 1,795,000
7,991,000
5,795,668
4,083,875
2,257,375
1,948,000
690,000
300,640
447,456 23,514,014
6656
SENATE

State
Program
Systemic
(1)
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
(4)
(3)
Services
Support
Support
Schools
(5)
Services (2)
Support
Support
Support
Total (Non-School
Organisations)
Special Schools
Services
Support
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
150,351
1,292,371
92,322
836,330
18,552
228,114
248,826
52,676
0
250,334
0
54,779
0
11,320
0
9,090
510,051
2,735,014
1,832,996
1,061,257
496,103
909,983
250,334
62,656
92,409
50,795
4,756,533
49,945
77,269
100,325
227,539
241,959
350,018
29,552
6,700
87,545
70,685
11,321
3,000
800,780
324,860
490,914
29,552
501,923
87,545
70,685
27,736
3,000
1,536,215
109,028
0
284,097
0
0
0
0
0
0
65,121
0
4,536
0
12,519
0
0
393,125
82,176
1,260,162
3,404,097
1,845,767
179,782
2,504,813
358,510
73,292
212,745
9,839,168
1,540,033
4,415
383,299
0
597,657
0
56,716
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,577,705
4,415
SENATE
6657
State
Program
Schools
Joint
Disabilities
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
3,318,423
2,273,995
708,493
111,349
162,308
6,574,568
1,045,000
780,000
530,000
298,000
248,000
86,000
35,000
56,000
3,078,000
1,674,000
1,244,000
856,000
484,000
394,000
124,500
56,000
88,000
4,920,500
1,767,767
1,273,000
867,950
513,000
411,000
157,500
48,763
88,000
5,126,980
4,486,767
3,297,000
2,253,950
1,295,000
1,053,000
368,000
139,763
232,000 13,125,480
19,214,208 16,322,931
9,417,740
5,255,412
6,006,000
1,549,851
633,840
945,996 59,345,978
Note:
allocation.
not been included.
(1) An amount of $19 was refunded from Red Bend Catholic College under the Integration element.
(2) Refunds were received from:
NSWOrange Early Intervention Programme ($2,994), Quirindi Special School ($589) and the
Autistic Association of Special Education Inc. ($190);
Vic$7,069 from the Daughters of Charity, Marillac House;
Qld$20,210 from 13 organisations; and
Tas$4,119 from the Visually Impaired Youth.
(3) In Vic, An amount of $1,000 was refunded by Billanook College under the Integration element.
(4) In WA, an amount of $182 was refunded by Strathalbyn Christian College under the Recurrent
element.
(5) In NT, an amount of $160 was refunded from Carpentaria Community Services.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
8,187,000
5,972,580
4,407,940
2,369,950
2,030,000
710,000
319,200
ACT
Aus
464,390 24,461,060
6658
SENATE

State
Program
Support
Students with Disabilities (1)
Total (Government)
Systemic
Services
Support (4)
Support
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
Services
Support (2)
Support
Special Education
Intervention
Schools
Services
Support (3)
Support
Special Education
Intervention
Support
Total (Non-School
Organisations)
Special Schools
Services
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
8,187,000
5,972,580
4,407,940
2,369,950
2,030,000
710,000
319,200
1,924,287
1,237,274
614,913
1,154,599
256,940
72,095
106,550
77,646
5,444,304
287,244
145,100
89,875
51,546
46,582
5,050
7,477
12,979
645,853
2,211,531
1,382,374
704,788
1,206,145
303,522
77,145
114,027
90,625
6,090,157
388,585
617,366
42,832
409,461
89,443
70,116
45,357
2,029
1,665,189
125,869
280,772
91,836
133,845
148,087
33,844
15,109
6,518
835,880
514,454
898,138
134,668
543,306
237,530
103,960
60,466
8,547
2,501,069
1,273,254
3,246,191
2,011,069
227,781
1,940,042
440,789
35,893
195,935
9,370,954
1,273,254
3,246,191
2,011,069
227,781
1,940,042
440,789
35,893
195,935
9,370,954
464,390 24,461,060
SENATE
6659
State
Program
Support
Schools
Joint
Disabilities
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
3,666,162
2,348,589
721,755
105,209
126,173
6,967,888
248,365
149,866
21,856
18,102
46,088
484,277
3,914,527
2,498,455
743,611
123,311
172,261
7,452,165
4,627,000
3,406,000
2,337,000
1,344,000
1,087,000
381,000
160,000
238,000 13,580,000
4,627,000
3,406,000
2,337,000
1,344,000
1,087,000
381,000
160,000
238,000 13,580,000
20,727,766 17,403,738 10,339,076
5,814,493
5,770,355
1,712,894
689,586
997,497 63,455,405
Note:
allocation.
not been included.
(1) Students with Disabilities pre capita funding is not available for the government sectors due to
time constraints.
(2) A refund of $712 was received from Bankstown Grammar School.
(3) Refunds were received from six organisations totalling $7,491.19.
(4) A refund of $402 was received from Loreto College.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
Support
Special Education
Intervention
Students with Disabilities (1)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
8,568,000
6,279,580
4,572,000
2,530,000
2,152,231
784,500
331,127
ACT
Aus
498,942 25,716,380
6660
SENATE

State
Program
Total (Government)
Systemic
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Services
Support (3)
Support
Support
Total (Non-School
Organisations)
Special Schools
Services
Support (2)
Special Education
Intervention
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
8,568,000
6,279,580
4,572,000
2,530,000
2,152,231
784,500
331,127
498,942 25,716,380
2,077,267
1,462,782
764,094
1,363,727
248,662
98,943
136,500
209,189
6,361,164
351,350
163,864
113,211
70,025
67,507
5,405
34,538
18,811
824,711
2,428,617
1,626,646
877,305
1,433,752
316,169
104,348
171,038
228,000
7,185,875
506,221
735,711
90,402
378,950
101,176
107,263
20,373
17,625
1,957,721
165,651
342,217
130,524
133,021
154,449
34,129
13,074
7,468
980,533
671,872
1,077,928
220,926
511,971
255,625
141,392
33,447
25,093
2,938,254
1,193,582
2,674,118
1,784,800
128,754
1,161,707
275,294
211,090
7,429,345
1,193,582
2,674,118
1,784,800
128,754
1,161,707
275,294
211,090
7,429,345
3,753,930
2,335,150
471,976
87,569
43,224
6,691,849
248,267
151,570
25,566
19,084
48,593
493,080
SENATE
6661
State
Program
Schools
Joint
Disabilities
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
4,002,197
2,486,720
497,542
106,653
91,817
7,184,929
5,019,000
4,156,000
3,120,000
1,465,000
1,303,000
485,000
196,000
264,000 16,008,000
5,019,000
4,156,000
3,120,000
1,465,000
1,303,000
485,000
196,000
264,000 16,008,000
21,883,268 18,300,992 11,072,573
6,176,130
5,280,549
1,790,534
731,612
1,227,125 66,462,783
Note:
allocation.
not been included.
(1) Students with Disabilities per capita funding is not available for the government sectors due to
time constraints.
(2) An amount of $108 was not distributed.
(3)
In QldA refund of $12,728 was received from two organisations.
In NTrefunds were received from two organisations totalling $2,154.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
Support
Total (Government)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
8,855,000
6,550,000
4,783,000
2,650,000
2,445,000
797,000
354,000
518,000 26,952,000
1,184,945
748,260
939,479
353,465
91,667
178,309
118,717
103,878
10,039,945
7,298,260
5,722,479
3,003,465
2,536,667
975,309
472,717
621,878 30,670,720
3,718,720
6662
SENATE

State
Program
Systemic
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Total (Systemic)
Non-Systemic
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Services
Support
Support
Support
Total (Non-School
Organisations)
Special Schools
Services
Support
Schools
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
2,673,335
1,661,675
845,842
1,522,797
239,569
116,535
129,704
332,031
7,521,488
592,503
260,383
213,691
88,777
102,765
9,803
42,901
31,805
1,342,628
3,265,838
1,922,058
1,059,533
1,611,574
342,334
126,338
172,605
363,836
8,864,116
631,864
865,490
169,345
364,151
123,063
141,863
36,296
18,419
2,350,491
233,841
457,811
167,332
168,345
226,982
40,534
28,993
16,699
1,340,537
865,705
1,323,301
336,677
532,496
350,045
182,397
65,289
35,118
3,691,028
963,970
2,580,413
1,887,960
80,138
998,384
262,602
97,550
6,871,017
963,970
2,580,413
1,887,960
80,138
998,384
262,602
97,550
6,871,017
3,507,888
2,299,552
374,745
112,221
62,163
6,356,569
364,465
221,968
19,514
30,519
68,767
705,233
3,872,353
2,521,520
394,259
142,740
130,930
7,061,802
SENATE
6663
State
Program
Joint
Disabilities
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
5,223,000
4,335,000
3,286,000
1,535,000
1,360,000
507,000
206,000
284,000 16,736,000
5,223,000
4,335,000
3,286,000
1,535,000
1,360,000
507,000
206,000
284,000 16,736,000
24,230,811 19,980,552 12,686,908
6,905,413
5,718,360
2,053,646
916,611
1,402,382 73,894,683
Note:
allocation.
not been included.
(c) The information contained within this table is from the States Grants (Primary and Secondary
Education Assistance) Act 1992Report on financial assistance granted to each State in respect
of 1993.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
Support
Total (Government)
Catholic
Services
Support
Support
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
9,418,000
7,131,000
6,716,000
3,840,000
2,321,000
867,000
332,000
285,000
1,496,924
474,695
11,389,619
811,082
420,400
8,362,482
902,916
392,223
8,011,139
373,144
209,834
4,422,978
760,695
210,200
3,576,895
181,552
138,316
1,186,868
140,932
210,200
683,132
116,504 4,783,749
122,132 2,178,000
821,336 38,454,449
4,882,712
3,527,800
1,132,100
1,924,600
466,900
270,800
222,100
444,000 12,871,012
289,588
70,000
582,700 31,207,700
0
285,000
359,588
6664
SENATE

State
Program
Special Education
Intervention
Schools
Total (Catholic)
Independent
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Total (Independent)
Services
Support
Support (1)
Support
Total (Non-School
Organisations)
Non-Systemic Special
Schools
Services
Support
Special Education
Intervention
Schools
Total (Non-Systemic Special
Schools)
Joint
Disabilities
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
789,834
329,277
258,854
87,423
118,284
16,259
53,423
32,300
1,685,654
5,962,134
3,857,077
1,460,954
2,012,023
585,184
287,059
275,523
3,722,700
2,129,595
649,100
648,700
252,000
122,700
66,700
6,100
7,597,595
87,105
87,105
342,628
535,276
215,983
180,884
351,949
54,954
42,389
47,892
1,771,955
4,065,328
2,751,976
865,083
829,584
603,949
177,654
109,089
53,992
9,456,655
31,000
2,948,000
91,000
213,000
3,283,000
725,269
431,307
145,297
47,926
103,204
5,832
9,991
1,468,826
5,607,000
3,787,000
3,709,000
313,000
2,372,000
470,000
223,000
332,000 16,813,000
6,363,269
7,166,307
3,854,297
451,926
2,475,204
683,000
228,832
341,991 21,564,826
412,760
247,462
46,070
39,712
79,485
825,489
412,760
247,462
46,070
39,712
79,485
825,489
476,300 14,916,254
SENATE
6665
State
Program
Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
28,193,110 22,385,304 14,237,543
7,756,223
7,320,717
2,334,581
1,296,576
1,693,619 85,217,673
Note:
(a) In 1994, the non-government sector split was: Catholic and independent. Funding provided for
special education under the National Equity Programme for Schools was paid to the Catholic and
independent sectors which then administered this funding (on the Commonwealths behalf) to
Catholic and independent schools. Special schools would apply for funding through the Catholic
and independent sectors.
not been included.
(c) The information contained within this table is from programme records and the States Grants
(Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1992Report on financial assistance granted
to each State in respect of 1994.
(1) There remains a total of $197,174 unallocated.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
Support
Total (Government)
Catholic
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Total (Catholic)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
9,592,000
6,665,000
5,114,000
2,814,000
2,338,000
874,000
339,000
56,100
531,400
1,807,600
1,126,900
289,600
403,100
1,625,900
501,436
11,775,436
866,392
417,800
8,480,592
738,276
475,211
8,135,087
406,615
184,640
4,532,155
938,993
208,900
3,775,493
229,306
87,978
1,594,384
152,186
208,900
700,086
124,068 5,081,736
137,135 2,222,000
848,403 39,841,636
4,914,744
3,574,000
1,220,200
1,716,100
474,800
278,500
227,800
440,800 12,846,944
350,156
100,000
450,156
56,100
152,000
25,500
147,900
9,200
390,700
929,114
429,613
302,992
89,989
166,311
18,968
61,499
32,122
2,030,608
6,250,114
4,155,613
1,548,692
2,053,989
641,111
306,668
289,299
510,700 28,246,700
76,500
4,291,200
472,922 15,718,408
6666
SENATE

State
Program
Independent
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Total (Independent)
Services
Support
Support (2)
Special EducationIntervention (1)
Non-Systemic Special Schools
Services
Support
Schools
Schools)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
3,706,400
2,139,518
460,500
613,600
270,600
126,900
59,500
10,300
7,387,318
81,982
81,982
56,100
76,500
37,700
50,000
6,100
226,400
457,612
682,761
255,010
203,095
317,244
61,784
31,569
62,795
2,071,870
4,220,112
2,980,761
753,210
866,695
587,844
194,784
91,069
73,095
9,767,570
361,100
2,745,900
2,299,800
92,800
1,256,800
148,800
114,200
7,019,400
622,609
204,838
290,583
16,911
105,346
112,504
19,583
1,372,374
5,395,700
3,833,100
1,742,200
320,200
1,155,400
125,600
228,000
196,150 12,996,350
6,379,409
6,783,838
4,332,583
429,911
2,517,546
386,904
247,583
310,350 21,388,124
472,206
273,223
49,456
28,634
26,141
2,916
852,576
472,206
273,223
49,456
28,634
26,141
2,916
852,576
29,097,277 22,674,027 14,819,028
7,911,384
7,548,135
2,485,656
1,328,037
Joint
Children with Severe Disabilities
Special EducationJoint Intervention
Total (Joint)
Total
1,704,770 87,568,314
Note:
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
SENATE
6667
Although joint funds were paid to government and non-government clients, it is not possible to
not been included.
The information contained within this table is from programme records and the States Grants
(Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1992Report on financial assistance granted
to each State in respect of 1995.
Funds contained within this table are those targeted to special education and do not include general
$26,350 was unspent under this element in the ACT.
An amount of $330,626 is unallocated.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
Support
Total (Government)
Catholic
Services
Support
Support
Schools
Total (Catholic)
Independent
Services
Support
Support
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
9,861,000
6,790,000
5,261,000
2,911,000
2,370,000
890,100
352,000
57,300
541,700
1,874,200
1,159,800
296,800
410,500
212,700
1,731,291
236,200
11,885,791
1,160,268
202,800
8,694,768
716,082
209,100
8,060,382
472,782
95,400
4,638,982
985,865
101,100
3,753,765
256,935
54,300
1,611,835
150,000
101,400
816,100
131,256 5,604,479
62,700 1,063,000
788,556 40,250,179
6,399,300
3,656,700
1,266,800
1,849,400
478,900
280,200
250,000
440,800 14,622,100
57,300
155,000
26,400
152,200
9,300
400,200
1,197,507
488,530
559,440
539,284
403,147
120,936
177,870
27,848
35,763
31,460
2,553,971
8,142,637
4,910,424
1,696,347
2,122,536
656,770
317,348
285,763
3,785,300
2,275,400
478,300
622,700
264,600
132,400
63,500
12,300
7,634,500
57,300
78,000
39,000
51,400
6,300
232,000
589,973
836,594
336,158
223,656
396,274
72,566
21,782
73,653
2,550,656
517,600 28,952,700
77,000
4,630,000
472,260 18,604,085
6668
SENATE

State
Program
Schools
Total (Independent)
Services
Support
Support (1)
Services
Support
Schools
Schools)
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
1,156,336
205,000
5,588,909
3,394,994
853,458
897,756
660,874
211,266
85,282
368,900
2,799,300
2,393,300
96,100
1,288,000
151,900
116,200
7,213,700
590,642
486,586
185,150
39,586
21,773
223,471
14,250
1,561,458
5,513,100
3,907,300
1,806,400
329,600
1,184,200
127,900
24,300
224,000 13,116,800
6,472,642
7,193,186
4,384,850
465,286
2,493,973
503,271
38,550
340,200 21,891,958
503,182
300,561
52,630
9,794
31,878
7,252
905,297
503,182
300,561
52,630
9,794
31,878
7,252
905,297
32,593,161 24,493,933 15,047,667
8,134,354
7,597,260
2,650,972
1,225,695
Joint
Total (Joint)
Total
ACT
Aus
85,953 11,778,492
1,686,969 93,430,011
Note:
provide an accurate split of funding between sectors in the time available further, in some cases,
not been included.
(c) The information contained within this table is from programme records.
SENATE
6669
(1) An amount of $178,542 remains unallocated.
State
Program
Government
Special Education
Support (2)
Total (Government)
Catholic
Services
Support (1)
Support
Schools
Total (Catholic)
Independent
Services
Support (1)
Support
Schools
Total (Independent)
Services
Support
Support
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
11,374,300 10,589,500
7,805,800
4,479,500
3,452,600
1,678,200
701,600
706,300 40,787,800
11,374,300 10,589,500
7,805,800
4,479,500
3,452,600
1,678,200
701,600
706,300 40,787,800
6,114,700
4,695,500
1,712,500
2,234,900
609,900
363,000
223,100
511,200 16,464,800
6,114,700
4,695,500
1,712,500
2,234,900
609,900
363,000
223,100
511,200 16,464,800
4,356,800
2,756,100
689,100
750,100
358,400
170,700
73,800
12,200
9,167,200
4,356,800
2,756,100
689,100
750,100
358,400
170,700
73,800
12,200
9,167,200
1,021,066
172,022
355,540
13,553
35,000
137,000
35,500
1,769,681
6670
SENATE

State
Program
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
5,850,400
3,888,900
4,251,000
427,100
2,458,400
74,400
24,400
337,600 17,312,200
6,871,466
4,060,922
4,606,540
440,653
2,493,400
211,400
59,900
337,600 19,081,881
28,717,266 22,102,022 14,813,940
7,905,153
6,914,300
2,423,300
1,058,400

Services
Support
Schools
Schools)
Joint
Disabilities
Total (Joint)
Total
ACT
Aus
1,567,300 85,501,681
Note:
(a) In 1997, the non-government sector split was: Catholic and independent.
not been included.
(c) The information contained within this table is from programme records.
(e) Students with disabilities per capita funding is estimated (approximately $5.892 million in 1997).
There is no available split between education authorities within the non-government sector due
to time constraints.
(f) Students with disabilities per capita funding provided to the government sector is included in the
amounts for Schools Support. This is approximately $5.185 million in 1997.
(1) Non-Government students with disabilities per capita funding is not included in the nongovernment totals as there is no split available due to time constraints. An estimate of nongovernment per capita funding for 1997 is $5.892 million.
(2) $213,600 allocated to the NT Government under this programme is a joint allocation to all sectors.
SENATE
6671
Special Education Funding1984-1997

State
Program
Government
Special Education
Total (Government)
Catholic/Systemic
Special EducationSupport Services
Schools
Total (Catholic/Systemic)
Independent/NonSystemic
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
47,518,727
35,205,906
24,279,094
13,030,621
12,153,000
4,167,220
1,641,400
800,656
138,796,624
3,739,000
2,725,000
1,831,000
1,018,000
954,000
328,000
127,000
64,000
10,786,000
1,216,000
907,000
588,000
328,000
319,000
106,000
39,000
3,503,000
16,755,000
49,100,300
12,252,160
37,725,500
8,979,940
29,679,800
4,899,950
16,694,500
4,182,231
12,926,600
1,494,500
5,106,300
650,327
2,078,600
963,332
2,835,300
50,177,440
156,146,900
113,400
1,073,100
3,681,800
2,286,700
871,400
813,600
212,700
153,500
9,206,200
6,039,060
3,586,002
3,296,753
1,606,006
2,777,220
846,102
561,835
475,706
19,188,684
1,212,331
1,041,000
1,076,534
489,874
520,200
280,594
520,500
321,967
5,463,000
125,693,818
94,515,668
73,412,921
40,353,651
34,703,651
13,142,316
5,831,362
5,614,461
393,267,848
2,145,674
417,249
69,055
1,212,437
331,476
61,939
4,237,830
2,289,270
3,107,498
886,798
141,463
1,102,221
196,961
126,876
17,313
7,868,400
868,631
5,029,875
803,291
733,932
111,822
193,752
7,741,303
35,489
1,150
11,000
47,639
28,986,345
19,815,731
7,556,449
11,766,123
2,775,671
1,480,073
1,295,754
2,455,666
76,131,812
639,744
70,000
100,000
809,744
113,400
307,000
51,900
300,100
18,500
790,900
4,147,552
1,887,677
1,381,770
508,696
679,319
83,333
235,601
159,477
9,083,425
488,530
539,284
40,069,420
31,236,919
11,104,189
15,372,382
4,899,687
1,960,505
1,933,072
2,674,161
109,250,335
467,014
1,221,537
22,304
820,668
229,676
52,061
2,813,260
716,192
899,009
83,152
217,635
283,082
282,495
23,385
5,777
2,510,727
75,567
173,419
994,161
500
4,848
1,248,495
6,684
3,000
9,684
17,097,870
11,519,180
2,579,579
3,787,662
1,459,282
871,942
365,526
78,973
37,760,014
169,087
169,087
113,400
154,500
76,700
101,400
12,400
458,400
6672
SENATE
State
Program
Schools
Total (Independent/Non-Systemic)
Non-Government
Centre Support
Total (Non-School
Organisations)
Special Schools
Schools
Total (Special
Schools)
Joint
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
1,915,574
3,135,431
1,196,843
1,042,846
1,594,985
297,811
152,916
215,025
9,551,431
1,156,336
205,000
21,574,909
17,547,474
3,958,578
7,359,270
3,570,025
1,517,209
563,090
299,775
56,390,330
2,168,857
1,145,589
142,397
171,811
3,628,654
276,856
164,653
21,957
17,908
194,587
36,704
15,099
727,764
5,871,750
8,332,427
4,405,211
1,249,621
8,038,072
541,431
254,314
240,984
28,933,810
319,000
289,104
101,511
67,850
42,000
6,000
2,000
827,465
4,191,806
16,993,922
10,376,929
716,573
6,644,933
1,492,385
35,893
734,975
41,187,416
2,959,586
1,294,753
976,570
117,976
265,323
472,975
75,165
9,991
6,172,339
16,515,800
11,527,400
7,257,600
962,800
4,711,600
723,500
475,300
752,150
42,926,150
5,850,400
3,888,900
4,251,000
427,100
2,458,400
74,400
24,400
337,600
17,312,200
39,305,189
46,756,748
29,378,942
3,739,610
24,966,418
3,701,369
942,944
2,288,445
151,079,665
6,445,560
5,126,676
3,293,831
474,595
262,101
15,602,763
141,716
323,446
17,335
19,830
5,000
507,327
6,488,296
5,769,294
231,084
310,592
3,501,395
16,300,661
5,000
5,000
10,927,980
6,983,291
1,568,476
304,999
231,560
20,016,306
2,249,245
1,344,650
215,092
145,845
300,952
10,168
4,265,952
28,026,772
21,438,053
5,436,654
1,310,494
4,468,316
10,168
60,690,457
6,287,000
4,841,000
3,080,000
1,698,000
1,524,000
523,000
202,000
108,000
18,263,000
6,770,000
5,219,000
3,383,000
1,850,000
1,660,000
582,000
221,000
19,685,000
3,256,000
2,437,000
1,657,000
930,000
774,000
258,500
111,000
172,500
9,596,000
7,754,508
5,613,852
3,347,198
1,935,533
2,494,925
642,491
294,099
173,000
22,255,606
SENATE
6673
State
Program
Total (Joint)
Total
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Aus
14,869,000
11,897,000
8,743,000
4,344,000
3,750,000
1,373,000
562,000
786,000
46,324,000
38,936,508
30,007,852
20,210,198
10,757,533
10,202,925
3,378,991
1,390,099
1,239,500
116,123,606
293,606,616 241,502,714 143,501,482
78,892,940
82,811,022
23,710,558
10,660,567
12,116,342
886,802,241
Total
Non-Gov
Total
Special
Total
Independ-
NSW
Vic
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Govern-
Total
Catholic
State
Sector
6674
7,497,000
5,606,000
3,525,000
1,998,000
1,993,000
664,000
229,000
0
21,512,000
339,194
294,605
77,043
77,235
135,360
21,127
6,675
0
951,239
34,230
103,609
9,000
85,286
31,000
25,163
2,745
0
291,033
1,358,464
1,189,439
741,000
237,676
176,540
0
0
0
3,703,119
179,121
258,173
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
7,778,000
5,817,000
3,729,000
2,090,000
2,052,000
682,000
244,000
0
22,392,000
347,482
243,922
108,602
103,611
217,129
15,229
11,000
0
1,046,975
66,813
143,737
17,100
106,986
35,000
33,076
0
0
402,712
1,640,017
1,313,838
696,613
196,403
56,960
0
0
0
3,903,831
239,470
219,503
1985
Comparison of Years with 1984 as the Base
4
4
6
5
3
3
7
NA
4
2
-17
41
34
60
-28
65
NA
10
95
39
90
25
13
31
-100
NA
38
21
10
-6
-17
-68
NA
NA
NA
5
34
-15
%
7,977,746
5,862,000
3,831,000
2,140,000
2,060,000
694,000
258,000
0
22,822,746
0
5,206,096
104,345
246,502
190,371
103,728
114,055
0
5,965,097
0
61,205
15,500
254,979
181,629
32,360
819
0
546,492
0
1,468,019
717,644
0
595,444
0
0
0
2,781,107
4,940,160
149,788
1986
SENATE
6
5
9
7
3
5
13
NA
6
-100
1667
35
219
41
391
1609
NA
527
-100
-41
72
199
486
29
-70
NA
88
-100
23
-3
-100
237
NA
NA
NA
-25
2658
-42
%
6,704,000
5,035,764
3,629,495
1,835,889
1,728,000
589,000
228,000
0
19,750,148
748,746
488,001
457,003
299,439
194,810
36,424
24,500
0
2,248,923
305,532
1,138,355
31,104
511,616
118,120
52,313
12,552
0
2,169,592
2,508,219
2,133,175
0
0
671,743
0
0
0
5,313,137
947,677
2,450,705
1987
-11
-10
3
-8
-13
-11
0
NA
-8
121
66
493
288
44
72
267
NA
136
793
999
246
500
281
108
357
NA
645
85
79
-100
-100
281
NA
NA
NA
43
429
849
%
6,963,903
5,193,564
4,089,484
1,940,357
1,772,000
618,340
260,600
0
20,838,248
1,165,152
625,530
305,547
465,224
214,097
67,839
53,040
0
2,896,429
261,041
285,427
3,200
416,433
62,464
52,061
796
0
1,081,422
2,788,577
2,204,915
119,631
164,956
1,118,902
0
0
0
6,396,981
996,499
3,253,714
1988
-7
-7
16
-3
-11
-7
14
NA
-3
244
112
297
502
58
221
695
NA
204
663
175
-64
388
101
107
-71
NA
272
105
85
-84
-31
534
NA
NA
NA
73
456
1160
1989
7,562,078
5,527,910
3,810,240
2,115,000
1,873,000
663,880
287,160
417,200
22,256,468
1,260,279
767,816
495,427
595,469
242,596
71,596
100,038
8,223
3,541,444
299,253
141,029
0
550,139
0
69,398
0
2,777
1,062,596
3,235,847
2,526,731
669,705
149,266
1,153,907
0
0
0
7,735,456
1,224,508
3,315,793
1
-1
8
6
-6
0
25
NA
3
272
161
543
671
79
239
1399
NA
272
774
36
-100
545
-100
176
-100
NA
265
138
112
-10
-37
554
NA
NA
NA
109
584
1184
%
1990
7,991,000
5,795,668
4,083,875
2,257,375
1,948,000
690,000
300,640
447,456
23,514,014
1,832,996
1,061,257
496,103
909,983
250,334
62,656
92,409
50,795
4,756,533
324,860
490,914
29,552
501,923
87,545
70,685
27,736
3,000
1,536,215
3,318,423
2,273,995
708,493
111,349
162,308
0
0
0
6,574,568
1,260,162
3,404,097
7
3
16
13
-2
4
31
NA
9
440
260
544
1078
85
197
1284
NA
400
849
374
228
489
182
181
910
NA
428
144
91
-4
-53
-8
NA
NA
NA
78
604
1219
%
9
7
25
19
2
7
39
NA
14
552
369
815
1462
124
265
1608
NA
540
1403
767
1396
537
666
313
2103
NA
759
188
110
0
-48
-2
NA
NA
NA
101
611
1157
1991 % Change
8,187,000
5,972,580
4,407,940
2,369,950
2,030,000
710,000
319,200
464,390
24,461,060
2,211,531
1,382,374
704,788
1,206,145
303,522
77,145
114,027
90,625
6,090,157
514,454
898,138
134,668
543,306
237,530
103,960
60,466
8,547
2,501,069
3,914,527
2,498,455
743,611
123,311
172,261
0
0
0
7,452,165
1,273,254
3,246,191
Total
Total
Total
Non-
Total
Joint
Sector
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
State
11,433,009
9,039,826
5,346,000
2,950,000
2,869,954
886,000
301,000
0
32,825,789
21,957
17,803
31,054
4,710
2,580
0
515,398
2,025,000
1,588,000
972,000
534,000
503,000
171,000
60,000
0
5,853,000
3,936,009
3,433,826
1,821,000
952,000
876,954
222,000
72,000
0
11,313,789
1984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
12,781,143
9,807,728
5,840,157
3,186,573
3,313,887
958,706
352,790
0
36,240,984
61,685
33,000
86,911
4,695
1,000
0
646,264
2,709,361
2,069,728
1,227,157
656,573
865,887
223,706
96,790
0
7,849,202
5,003,143
3,990,728
2,111,157
1,096,573
1,261,887
276,706
108,790
0
13,848,984
1985
12
8
9
8
15
8
17
NA
10
181
85
180
0
-61
NA
25
34
30
26
23
72
31
61
NA
34
27
16
16
15
44
25
51
NA
22
15,775,862
14,926,232
6,962,641
3,877,755
6,143,505
1,069,373
477,420
0
49,232,788
994,061
540,314
2,208,023
3,000
1,000
0
8,836,346
2,857,956
2,179,124
1,300,091
695,960
908,038
236,285
103,546
0
8,281,000
7,798,116
9,064,232
3,131,641
1,737,755
4,083,505
375,373
219,420
0
26,410,042
1986
SENATE
38
65
30
31
114
21
59
NA
50
4427
2935
7010
-36
-61
NA
1614
41
37
34
30
81
38
73
NA
41
98
164
72
83
366
69
205
NA
133
1987
15,031,174
14,121,000
6,685,016
3,972,000
5,927,000
1,117,230
511,000
0
47,364,420
842,414
338,056
2,133,327
124,493
108,948
0
6,945,620
3,817,000
2,875,000
1,725,000
987,000
1,081,000
315,000
137,000
0
10,937,000
8,327,174
9,085,236
3,055,521
2,136,111
4,199,000
528,230
283,000
0
27,614,272
31
56
25
35
107
26
70
NA
44
3737
1799
6770
2543
4123
NA
1248
88
81
77
85
115
84
128
NA
87
112
165
68
124
379
138
293
NA
144
1988
16,109,172
14,521,150
7,616,000
4,250,550
6,031,000
1,256,372
539,000
0
50,323,244
1,231,138
215,580
1,832,537
185,132
85,564
0
7,800,164
3,934,000
2,958,000
1,867,000
1,048,000
1,031,000
333,000
139,000
0
11,310,000
9,145,269
9,327,586
3,526,516
2,310,193
4,259,000
638,032
278,400
0
29,484,996
41
61
42
44
110
42
79
NA
53
5507
1111
5801
3831
3216
NA
1413
94
86
92
96
105
95
132
NA
93
132
172
94
143
386
187
287
NA
161
6675
1989
17,819,389
15,423,279
8,617,193
4,797,500
6,370,000
1,421,443
599,000
890,684
55,938,488
1,519,821
190,626
2,089,497
257,569
59,802
240,984
8,898,600
4,237,424
3,144,000
2,122,000
1,197,000
1,011,000
359,000
152,000
221,500
12,443,924
10,257,311
9,895,369
4,806,953
2,682,500
4,497,000
757,563
311,840
473,484
33,682,020
56
71
61
63
122
60
99
NA
70
6822
971
6629
5369
2218
NA
1627
109
98
118
124
101
110
153
NA
113
161
188
164
182
413
241
333
NA
198
1990
19,214,208
16,322,931
9,417,740
5,255,412
6,006,000
1,549,851
633,840
945,996
59,345,978
1,845,767
179,782
2,504,813
358,510
73,292
212,745
9,839,168
4,486,767
3,297,000
2,253,950
1,295,000
1,053,000
368,000
139,763
232,000
13,125,480
11,223,208
10,527,263
5,333,865
2,998,037
4,058,000
859,851
333,200
498,540
35,831,964
68
81
76
78
109
75
111
NA
81
8306
910
7966
7512
2741
NA
1809
122
108
132
143
109
115
133
NA
124
185
207
193
215
363
287
363
NA
217
20,727,766
17,403,738
10,339,076
5,814,493
5,770,355
1,712,894
689,586
997,497
63,455,405
81
93
93
97
101
93
129
NA
93
9059
1179
6147
9259
1291
NA
1718
128
114
140
152
116
123
167
NA
132
219
233
226
262
327
352
414
NA
245
1991 % Change
2,011,069
227,781
1,940,042
440,789
35,893
195,935
9,370,954
4,627,000
3,406,000
2,337,000
1,344,000
1,087,000
381,000
160,000
238,000
13,580,000
12,540,766
11,431,158
5,931,136
3,444,543
3,740,355
1,002,894
370,386
533,107
38,994,345
Total
Non-Gov Cen-
Total
Special Schools
Total
Independent
NSW
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Government
Total
Catholic
State
Sector
6676
8,568,000
6,279,580
4,572,000
2,530,000
2,152,231
784,500
331,127
498,942
25,716,380
2,428,617
1,626,646
877,305
1,433,752
316,169
104,348
171,038
228,000
7,185,875
671,872
1,077,928
220,926
511,971
255,625
141,392
33,447
25,093
2,938,254
4,002,197
2,486,720
497,542
106,653
91,817
0
0
0
7,184,929
1,193,582
1992
14
12
30
27
8
18
45
NA
20
616
452
1039
1756
134
394
2462
NA
655
1863
940
2355
500
725
462
1118
NA
910
195
109
-33
-55
-48
NA
NA
NA
94
566
% Change
10,039,945
7,298,260
5,722,479
3,003,465
2,536,667
975,309
472,717
621,878
30,670,720
3,265,838
1,922,058
1,059,533
1,611,574
342,334
126,338
172,605
363,836
8,864,116
865,705
1,323,301
336,677
532,496
350,045
182,397
65,289
35,118
3,691,028
3,872,353
2,521,520
394,259
142,740
130,930
0
0
0
7,061,802
963,970
1993
SENATE
34
30
62
50
27
47
106
NA
43
863
552
1275
1987
153
498
2486
NA
832
2429
1177
3641
524
1029
625
2278
NA
1168
185
112
-47
-40
-26
NA
NA
NA
91
438
% Change
11,389,619
8,362,482
8,011,139
4,422,978
3,576,895
1,186,868
683,132
821,336
38,454,449
5,962,134
3,857,077
1,460,954
2,012,023
585,184
287,059
275,523
476,300
14,916,254
4,065,328
2,751,976
865,083
829,584
603,949
177,654
109,089
53,992
9,456,655
412,760
247,462
46,070
39,712
79,485
0
0
0
825,489
6,363,269
1994
52
49
127
121
79
79
198
NA
79
1658
1209
1796
2505
332
1259
4028
NA
1468
11777
2556
9512
873
1848
606
3874
NA
3149
-70
-79
-94
-83
-55
NA
NA
NA
-78
3452
% Change
11,775,436
8,480,592
8,135,087
4,532,155
3,775,493
1,594,384
700,086
848,403
39,841,636
6,250,114
4,155,613
1,548,692
2,053,989
641,111
306,668
289,299
472,922
15,718,408
4,220,112
2,980,761
753,210
866,695
587,844
194,784
91,069
73,095
9,767,570
472,206
273,223
49,456
28,634
26,141
2,916
0
0
852,576
6,379,409
1995
57
51
131
127
89
140
206
NA
85
1743
1311
1910
2559
374
1352
4234
NA
1552
12229
2777
8269
916
1796
674
3218
NA
3256
-65
-77
-93
-88
-85
NA
NA
NA
-77
3462
% Change
1996
11,885,791
8,694,768
8,060,382
4,638,982
3,753,765
1,611,835
816,100
788,556
40,250,179
8,142,637
4,910,424
1,696,347
2,122,536
656,770
317,348
285,763
472,260
18,604,085
5,588,909
3,394,994
853,458
897,756
660,874
211,266
85,282
85,953
11,778,492
503,182
300,561
52,630
9,794
31,878
7,252
0
0
905,297
6,472,642
59
55
129
132
88
143
256
NA
87
2301
1567
2102
2648
385
1402
4181
NA
1856
16228
3177
9383
953
2032
740
3007
NA
3947
-63
-75
-93
-96
-82
NA
NA
NA
-76
3514
% Change
1997
11,374,300
10,589,500
7,805,800
4,479,500
3,452,600
1,678,200
701,600
706,300
40,787,800
6,114,700
4,695,500
1,712,500
2,234,900
609,900
363,000
223,100
511,200
16,464,800
4,356,800
2,756,100
689,100
750,100
358,400
170,700
73,800
12,200
9,167,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,871,466
52
89
121
124
73
153
206
NA
90
1703
1494
2123
2794
351
1618
3242
NA
1631
12628
2560
7557
780
1056
578
2589
NA
3050
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
NA
NA
NA
-100
3736
% Change
Total
Total
Total
Non-Govern-
Total
Joint
Sector
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
State
SENATE
21,883,268
18,300,992
11,072,573
6,176,130
5,280,549
1,790,534
731,612
1,227,125
66,462,783
2,674,118
1,784,800
128,754
1,161,707
275,294
0
211,090
7,429,345
5,019,000
4,156,000
3,120,000
1,465,000
1,303,000
485,000
196,000
264,000
16,008,000
13,315,268
12,021,412
6,500,573
3,646,130
3,128,318
1,006,034
400,485
728,183
40,746,403
1992
91
102
107
109
84
102
143
NA
102
936
8029
623
3641
5745
-100
NA
1341
148
162
221
174
159
184
227
NA
174
238
250
257
283
257
353
456
NA
260
% Change
24,230,811
19,980,552
12,686,908
6,905,413
5,718,360
2,053,646
916,611
1,402,382
73,894,683
2,580,413
1,887,960
80,138
998,384
262,602
0
97,550
6,871,017
5,223,000
4,335,000
3,286,000
1,535,000
1,360,000
507,000
206,000
284,000
16,736,000
14,190,866
12,682,292
6,964,429
3,901,948
3,181,693
1,078,337
443,894
780,504
43,223,963
1993
112
121
137
134
99
132
205
NA
125
899
8498
350
3115
5475
-100
NA
1233
158
173
238
187
170
196
243
NA
186
261
269
282
310
263
386
517
NA
282
% Change
28,193,110
22,385,304
14,237,543
7,756,223
7,320,717
2,334,581
1,296,576
1,693,619
85,217,673
7,166,307
3,854,297
451,926
2,475,204
683,000
228,832
341,991
21,564,826
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,803,491
14,022,822
6,226,404
3,333,245
3,743,822
1,147,713
613,444
872,283
46,763,224
1994
147
148
166
163
155
163
331
NA
160
2676
17454
2438
7871
14401
8769
NA
4084
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
NA
-100
327
308
242
250
327
417
752
NA
313
% Change
29,097,277
22,674,027
14,819,028
7,911,384
7,548,135
2,485,656
1,328,037
1,704,770
87,568,314
6,783,838
4,332,583
429,911
2,517,546
386,904
247,583
310,350
21,388,124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17,321,841
14,193,435
6,683,941
3,379,229
3,772,642
891,272
627,951
856,367
47,726,678
1995
155
151
177
168
163
181
341
NA
167
2528
19632
2315
8007
8115
9496
NA
4050
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
NA
-100
340
313
267
255
330
301
772
NA
322
% Change
6677
32,593,161
24,493,933
15,047,667
8,134,354
7,597,260
2,650,972
1,225,695
1,686,969
93,430,011
7,193,186
4,384,850
465,286
2,493,973
503,271
38,550
340,200
21,891,958
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,707,370
15,799,165
6,987,285
3,495,372
3,843,495
1,039,137
409,595
898,413
53,179,832
1996
185
171
181
176
165
199
307
NA
185
2686
19870
2514
7931
10585
1394
NA
4148
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
NA
-100
426
360
284
267
338
368
469
NA
370
% Change
28,717,266
22,102,022
14,813,940
7,905,153
6,914,300
2,423,300
1,058,400
1,567,300
85,501,681
4,060,922
4,606,540
440,653
2,493,400
211,400
59,900
337,600
19,081,881
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17,342,966
11,512,522
7,008,140
3,425,653
3,461,700
745,100
356,800
861,000
44,713,881
1997
151
144
177
168
141
174
252
NA
160
1473
20880
2375
7929
4388
2222
NA
3602
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
NA
-100
341
235
285
260
295
236
396
NA
295
% Change
6678
SENATE
1986 Data
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
AUST
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
N/A
384.2
N/A
128.5
N/A
0.0
0.0
384.2
N/A
407.6
0.0
128.5
N/A
73.2
995.5
995.5
N/A
0.0
0.0
407.6
N/A
146.2
0.0
73.2
N/A
20.0
1875.2
1875.2
N/A
0.0
0.0
146.2
N/A
66.7
0.0
20.0
N/A
0.0
80.8
80.8
N/A
0.0
0.0
66.7
N/A
145.8
0.0
0.0
N/A
19.0
108.1
108.1
N/A
0.0
0.0
145.8
N/A
5.4
0.0
19.0
N/A
0.0
148.5
148.5
N/A
0.0
0.0
5.4
N/A
11.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
11.0
N/A
4.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
4.0
N/A
1170.9
0.0
0.0
N/A
240.7
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
1170.9
0.0
240.7
3208.1
3208.1
N/A
512.7
104.0
995.5
1508.2
N/A
480.8
255.8
1875.2
2356.0
N/A
166.2
149.0
80.8
247.0
N/A
66.7
81.6
108.1
174.8
N/A
164.8
160.6
148.5
313.3
N/A
5.4
20.9
0.0
5.4
N/A
11.0
5.0
0.0
11.0
N/A
4.0
64.0
0.0
4.0
N/A
1411.6
840.9
3208.1
4619.7
All Students
SWD as a proportion of All Students
179282.3
90509.9
995.5
270787.7
0.29%
0.11%
100.00%
0.56%
147644.5
101445.5
1875.2
250965.2
0.33%
0.25%
100.00%
0.94%
58480.2
58474.4
80.8
117035.4
0.28%
0.25%
100.00%
0.21%
24839.4
36699.6
108.1
61647.1
0.27%
0.22%
100.00%
0.28%
24766.1
27975.6
148.5
52890.2
0.67%
0.57%
100.00%
0.59%
5870.4
11521.2
0.0
17391.6
0.09%
0.18%
0.00%
0.03%
3236.0
741.0
0.0
3977.0
0.34%
0.67%
0.00%
0.28%
11743.0
8446.2
0.0
20189.2
0.03%
0.76%
0.00%
0.02%
455861.9
335813.4
3208.1
794883.4
0.31%
0.25%
100.00%
0.58%
(a) Figures are full-time equivalents and hence enrolled student numbers are higher.
1987 Data
NSW
Vic
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
All Students
N/A
441.3
N/A
239.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
441.3
N/A
447.5
0.0
239.0
N/A
99.0
930.8
930.8
N/A
0.0
N/A
680.3
104.0
930.8
1611.1
N/A
546.5
0.0
179748.7
94676.7
930.8
275356.2
0.38%
0.11%
100.00%
0.59%
147907.7
0.37%
SENATE
6679
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
AUST
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
0.0
447.5
N/A
123.1
0.0
99.0
N/A
89.0
1839.3
1839.3
N/A
0.0
0.0
123.1
N/A
125.0
0.0
89.0
N/A
0.0
75.3
75.3
N/A
0.0
0.0
125.0
N/A
159.2
0.0
0.0
N/A
34.0
41.0
41.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
159.2
N/A
12.4
0.0
34.0
N/A
0.0
32.5
32.5
N/A
0.0
0.0
12.4
N/A
12.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
12.0
N/A
9.5
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
9.5
N/A
1330.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
461.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
1330.0
0.0
461.0
2918.9
2918.9
Total
All Students
221.3
1839.3
2385.8
N/A
212.1
85.1
75.3
287.4
N/A
125.0
118.1
85.8
166.0
N/A
193.2
145.5
150.1
225.7
N/A
12.4
16.1
0.0
12.4
N/A
12.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
N/A
9.5
0.0
0.0
9.5
N/A
1791.0
690.1
3081.3
4709.9
104509.3
1839.3
254256.3
0.21%
100.00%
0.94%
58809.8
60592.6
75.3
119477.7
0.36%
0.14%
100.00%
0.24%
25828.4
38025.1
85.8
63939.3
0.48%
0.31%
100.00%
0.26%
25283.5
28672.2
150.1
54105.8
0.76%
0.51%
100.00%
0.42%
5631.0
11934.4
0.0
17565.4
0.22%
0.13%
0.00%
0.07%
3156.0
1174.5
0.0
4330.5
0.38%
0.00%
0.00%
0.28%
11733.5
8771.0
0.0
20504.5
0.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.05%
458098.6
348355.8
3081.3
809535.7
0.39%
0.20%
100.00%
0.58%
1988 Data
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
N/A
426.4
N/A
238.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
426.4
N/A
614.0
0.0
238.0
N/A
106.6
876.0
876.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
614.0
N/A
169.0
0.0
106.6
N/A
51.0
1590.4
1590.4
N/A
0.0
0.0
169.0
N/A
129.3
0.0
51.0
N/A
14.0
62.1
62.1
N/A
0.0
N/A
664.4
125.0
876.0
1540.4
N/A
720.6
236.4
1590.4
2311.0
N/A
220.0
115.0
62.1
282.1
N/A
143.3
All Students
181559.6
98096.9
876.0
280532.5
0.37%
0.13%
100.00%
0.55%
151269.9
103022.8
1590.4
255883.1
0.48%
0.23%
100.00%
0.90%
60263.7
62656.8
62.1
122982.6
0.37%
0.18%
100.00%
0.23%
30697.6
0.47%
6680
SENATE
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
AUST
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
0.0
129.3
N/A
104.0
0.0
14.0
N/A
40.0
89.9
89.9
N/A
0.0
0.0
104.0
N/A
14.1
0.0
40.0
N/A
1.0
150.4
150.4
N/A
0.0
0.0
14.1
N/A
0.0
0.0
1.0
N/A
1.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
9.0
0.0
1.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
9.0
N/A
1465.8
0.0
0.0
N/A
451.6
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
1465.8
0.0
451.6
2768.8
2768.8
Total
All Students
175.2
89.9
233.2
N/A
144.0
173.2
150.4
294.4
N/A
15.1
15.5
0.0
15.1
N/A
1.0
3.0
0.0
1.0
N/A
9.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
N/A
1917.4
843.3
2768.8
4686.2
34965.4
89.9
65752.9
0.50%
100.00%
0.35%
26032.3
29260.6
150.4
55443.3
0.55%
0.59%
100.00%
0.53%
6052.1
11709.0
0.0
17761.1
0.25%
0.13%
0.00%
0.09%
3604.0
892.0
0.0
4496.0
0.03%
0.34%
0.00%
0.02%
11618.0
9094.0
0.0
20712.0
0.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
471097.2
349697.5
2768.8
823563.5
0.41%
0.24%
100.00%
0.57%
1989 Data
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
N/A
537.6
N/A
335.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
537.6
N/A
503.0
0.0
335.0
N/A
99.3
852.6
852.6
N/A
0.0
0.0
503.0
N/A
198.6
0.0
99.3
N/A
59.0
1297.1
1297.1
N/A
0.0
0.0
198.6
N/A
155.0
0.0
59.0
N/A
28.6
70.7
70.7
N/A
0.0
0.0
155.0
N/A
112.0
0.0
28.6
N/A
45.0
112.6
112.6
N/A
0.0
0.0
112.0
N/A
0.0
45.0
N/A
154.2
154.2
N/A
N/A
872.6
266.0
852.6
1725.2
N/A
602.3
281.0
1297.1
1899.4
N/A
257.6
79.8
70.7
328.3
N/A
183.6
198.4
112.6
296.2
N/A
157.0
225.0
154.2
311.2
N/A
All Students
181022.2
101042.1
852.6
282916.9
0.48%
0.26%
100.00%
0.61%
154577.1
101782.7
1297.1
257656.9
0.39%
0.28%
100.00%
0.74%
61573.0
65221.0
70.7
126864.7
0.42%
0.12%
100.00%
0.26%
36730.8
32314.3
112.6
69157.7
0.50%
0.61%
100.00%
0.43%
26625.3
29789.0
154.2
56568.5
0.59%
0.76%
100.00%
0.55%
SENATE
6681
NT
ACT
AUST
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
All Students
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
N/A
3.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
6211.0
12149.0
0.0
18360.0
0.19%
0.15%
0.00%
0.07%
0.0
3.0
N/A
10.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
3584.0
1394.0
0.0
4978.0
0.08%
0.29%
0.00%
0.06%
0.0
10.0
N/A
1531.2
0.0
0.0
N/A
566.9
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
11515.0
9077.0
0.0
20592.0
0.09%
0.08%
0.00%
0.05%
0.0
1531.2
0.0
566.9
2487.2
2487.2
12.0
17.8
0.0
12.0
N/A
3.0
4.0
0.0
3.0
N/A
10.0
7.0
0.0
10.0
N/A
2098.1
1079.0
2487.2
4585.3
481838.4
352769.1
2487.2
837094.7
0.44%
0.31%
100.00%
0.55%
(1) Figures are full-time equivalents and hence enrolled student numbers are higher.
1990 Data
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
N/A
574.6
93.0
0.0
667.6
N/A
699.8
106.6
0.0
806.4
N/A
198.3
44.7
0.0
243.0
N/A
146.7
63.8
0.0
210.5
N/A
5.0
103.2
0.0
108.2
N/A
15.0
12.1
0.0
27.1
N/A
15.0
1.0
0.0
16.0
N/A
356.0
119.0
0.0
475.0
N/A
149.3
162.0
0.0
311.3
N/A
104.0
14.0
0.0
118.0
N/A
43.0
108.0
0.0
151.0
N/A
0.0
132.6
0.0
132.6
N/A
0.0
10.0
0.0
10.0
N/A
0.0
41.0
0.0
41.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
819.4
819.4
N/A
0.0
0.0
1129.7
1129.7
N/A
0.0
0.0
79.7
79.7
N/A
0.0
0.0
75.0
75.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
155.4
155.4
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
930.6
212.0
819.4
1962.0
N/A
849.1
268.6
1129.7
2247.4
N/A
302.3
58.7
79.7
440.7
N/A
189.7
171.8
75.0
436.5
N/A
5.0
235.8
155.4
396.2
N/A
15.0
22.1
0.0
37.1
N/A
15.0
42.0
0.0
57.0
All Students
181214.9
103294.2
819.4
285328.5
0.51%
0.21%
100.00%
0.69%
157008.1
99478.4
1129.7
257616.2
0.54%
0.27%
100.00%
0.87%
62675.6
67691.2
79.7
130446.5
0.48%
0.09%
100.00%
0.34%
41499.3
30119.5
75.0
71693.8
0.46%
0.57%
100.00%
0.61%
27397.2
30275.8
155.4
57828.4
0.02%
0.78%
100.00%
0.69%
6380.0
12612.8
0.0
18992.8
0.24%
0.18%
0.00%
0.20%
2957.0
2187.2
0.0
5144.2
0.51%
1.92%
0.00%
1.11%
6682
SENATE
ACT
AUST
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
N/A
15.0
2.0
0.0
17.0
N/A
1669.4
426.4
0.0
2095.8
N/A
2.0
16.0
0.0
18.0
N/A
654.3
602.6
0.0
1256.9
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
2259.2
2259.2
N/A
17.0
18.0
0.0
35.0
N/A
2323.7
1029.0
2259.2
5611.9
All Students
11409.0
9078.0
0.0
20487.0
0.15%
0.20%
0.00%
0.17%
490541.1
354737.1
2259.2
847537.4
0.47%
0.29%
100.00%
0.66%
1991 Data
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
AUST
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Prim
Sec
Spec
1387.2
141.9
0.0
1529.1
659.0
200.0
0.0
859.0
0.0
0.0
808.5
808.5
814.7
159.1
0.0
973.8
205.9
194.8
0.0
400.7
0.0
0.0
539.9
539.9
527.9
83.3
0.0
611.2
150.5
154.0
0.0
304.5
0.0
0.0
82.1
82.1
481.3
114.8
0.0
596.1
168.5
205.0
0.0
373.5
0.0
0.0
74.4
74.4
241.5
95.6
0.0
337.1
86.0
158.2
0.0
244.2
0.0
0.0
155.1
155.1
41.1
33.4
0.0
74.5
0.0
31.0
0.0
31.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
61.0
7.0
0.0
68.0
0.2
50.4
0.0
50.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
82.4
2.0
0.0
84.4
17.0
25.0
0.0
42.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3637.1
1287.1
0.0
Total
All Students
SWD as a proportion
of All Students
14344.0
2046.2
341.9
808.5
17540.6
9860.0
1020.6
353.9
539.9
11774.4
8117.5
678.4
237.3
82.1
9115.3
4328.0
649.8
319.8
74.4
5372.0
0.0
327.5
253.8
155.1
736.4
1875.4
41.1
64.4
0.0
1980.9
1238.0
61.2
57.4
0.0
1356.6
1205.0
99.4
27.0
0.0
1331.4
40967.9
4924.2
746417.0
183226.6
105835.2
808.5
1036287.3
533386.0
158340.7
97130.8
539.9
789397.4
398025.0
63576.5
70103.7
82.1
531787.3
218871.0
43248.6
30579.5
74.4
292773.5
186814.0
28884.1
30855.0
155.1
246708.2
65662.0
6733.4
13154.9
0.0
85550.3
27161.0
2865.2
2495.6
0.0
32521.8
40890.0
11678.4
9122.0
0.0
61690.4
2217226.0
498553.5
1.92%
1.12%
0.32%
100.00%
1.69%
1.85%
0.64%
0.36%
100.00%
1.49%
2.04%
1.07%
0.34%
100.00%
1.71%
1.98%
1.50%
1.05%
100.00%
1.83%
0.00%
1.13%
0.82%
100.00%
0.30%
2.86%
0.61%
0.49%
0.00%
2.32%
4.56%
2.14%
2.30%
0.00%
4.17%
2.95%
0.85%
0.30%
0.00%
2.16%
1.85%
0.99%
SENATE
6683
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
All Students
SWD as a proportion
of All Students
637.1
0.0
4274.2
1018.4
0.0
2305.5
0.0
1660.0
1660.0
1655.5
1660.0
49207.6
359276.7
1660.0
3076716.2
0.46%
100.00%
1.60%
1992 Data
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
AUST
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
N/A
1584.2
174.0
0.0
1758.2
N/A
866.2
197.6
0.0
1063.8
N/A
618.2
119.9
0.0
738.1
N/A
691.4
101.7
0.0
793.1
N/A
327.4
108.4
0.0
435.8
N/A
37.5
27.5
0.0
65.0
N/A
197.5
7.0
0.0
204.5
N/A
105.4
2.0
0.0
107.4
N/A
4427.8
738.1
0.0
5165.9
N/A
768.0
314.1
0.0
1082.1
N/A
234.2
223.1
0.0
457.3
N/A
174.0
224.0
0.0
398.0
N/A
199.0
160.0
0.0
359.0
N/A
116.2
156.0
0.0
272.2
N/A
1.0
38.0
0.0
39.0
N/A
75.0
56.0
0.0
131.0
N/A
28.0
28.0
0.0
56.0
N/A
1595.4
1199.2
0.0
2794.6
N/A
0.0
0.0
772.8
772.8
N/A
0.0
0.0
458.3
458.3
N/A
0.0
0.0
91.3
91.3
N/A
0.0
0.0
78.0
78.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
151.0
151.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
1551.4
1551.4
N/A
2352.2
488.1
772.8
3613.1
N/A
1100.4
420.7
458.3
1979.4
N/A
792.2
343.9
91.3
1227.4
N/A
890.4
261.7
78.0
1230.1
N/A
443.6
264.4
151.0
859.0
N/A
38.5
65.5
0.0
104.0
N/A
272.5
63.0
0.0
335.5
N/A
133.4
30.0
0.0
163.4
N/A
6023.2
1937.3
1551.4
9511.9
All Students
SWD as a proportion
of All Students
183450.2
107967.8
772.8
292190.8
1.28%
0.45%
100.00%
1.24%
164373.7
88767.8
458.3
253599.8
0.67%
0.47%
100.00%
0.78%
64039.8
73229.6
91.3
137360.7
1.24%
0.47%
100.00%
0.89%
44937.9
30992.5
78.0
76008.4
1.98%
0.84%
100.00%
1.62%
30692.8
30324.6
151.0
61168.4
1.45%
0.87%
100.00%
1.40%
6807.5
13665.9
0.0
20473.4
0.57%
0.48%
0.00%
0.51%
2935.5
2833.0
0.0
5768.5
9.28%
2.22%
0.00%
5.82%
11711.4
9073.0
0.0
20784.4
1.14%
0.33%
0.00%
0.79%
508948.8
356854.2
1551.4
867354.4
1.18%
0.54%
100.00%
1.10%
6684
SENATE
1993 Data
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
AUST
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
1808.4
166.1
0.0
1974.5
907.0
328.7
0.0
1235.7
0.0
0.0
848.5
848.5
964.0
228.3
0.0
1192.3
266.6
245.2
0.0
511.8
0.0
0.0
471.9
471.9
754.7
133.5
0.0
888.2
233.5
230.9
0.0
464.4
0.0
0.0
99.8
99.8
600.7
114.4
0.0
715.1
157.0
141.0
0.0
298.0
0.0
0.0
83.5
83.5
350.1
140.4
0.0
490.5
120.4
174.8
0.0
295.2
0.0
0.0
152.1
152.1
41.2
26.9
0.0
68.1
3.0
50.0
0.0
53.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
183.6
81.0
0.0
264.6
30.0
68.0
0.0
98.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
114.4
29.0
0.0
143.4
38.0
37.0
0.0
75.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4817.1
919.6
0.0
5736.7
1755.5
1275.6
0.0
3031.1
0.0
0.0
1655.8
1655.8
Total
All Students
SWD as a proporation
of All Students
15485.0
2715.4
494.8
848.5
19543.7
9426.0
1230.6
473.5
471.9
11602.0
12660.2
988.2
364.4
99.8
14112.6
4853.0
757.7
255.4
83.5
5949.6
8381.6
470.5
315.2
152.1
9319.4
2327.0
44.2
76.9
0.0
2448.1
1652.0
213.6
149.0
0.0
2014.6
1362.5
152.4
66.0
0.0
1580.9
56147.3
6572.6
2195.2
1655.8
66570.9
757975.0
183106.6
109022.5
848.5
1050952.6
526636.0
163828.2
86557.0
471.9
777493.1
404263.0
73952.8
67471.5
99.8
545787.1
222451.0
48205.7
30127.8
83.5
300868.0
184620.0
31634.4
30733.0
152.1
247139.5
64727.0
6869.2
14098.4
0.0
85694.6
26837.0
2967.6
3029.0
0.0
32833.6
40547.0
11757.4
8991.2
0.0
61295.6
2228056.0
522321.9
350030.4
1655.8
3102064.1
2.04%
1.48%
0.45%
100.00%
1.86%
1.79%
0.75%
0.55%
100.00%
1.49%
3.13%
1.34%
0.54%
100.00%
2.59%
2.18%
1.57%
0.85%
100.00%
1.98%
4.54%
1.49%
1.03%
100.00%
3.77%
3.60%
0.64%
0.55%
0.00%
2.86%
6.16%
7.20%
4.92%
0.00%
6.14%
3.36%
1.30%
0.73%
0.00%
2.58%
2.52%
1.26%
0.63%
100.00%
2.15%
1994 Data
NSW
Vic
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Prim
Sec
Spec
2094.1
220.5
0.0
2314.6
1106.0
401.2
0.0
1507.2
0.0
0.0
816.8
816.8
1073.2
336.6
0.0
Total
All Students
18735.0
3200.1
621.7
816.8
23373.6
9762.7
1409.8
755771.0
182518.1
111265.7
816.8
1050371.6
520328.0
164600.8
2.48%
1.75%
0.56%
100.00%
2.23%
1.88%
0.86%
SENATE
6685
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
AUST
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
All Students
230.2
0.0
1303.4
272.4
0.0
609.0
0.0
453.5
453.5
845.4
156.5
0.0
1001.9
296.4
254.4
0.0
550.8
0.0
0.0
102.6
102.6
619.0
114.2
0.0
733.2
176.0
106.0
0.0
282.0
0.0
0.0
92.5
92.5
409.9
220.2
0.0
630.1
132.7
230.2
0.0
362.9
0.0
0.0
154.2
154.2
50.8
31.0
0.0
81.8
21.0
50.0
0.0
71.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
183.0
38.0
0.0
221.0
46.0
83.0
0.0
129.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.9
33.0
0.0
132.9
35.1
48.0
0.0
83.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5375.3
1043.6
0.0
6418.9
2149.8
1445.2
0.0
3595.0
0.0
0.0
1619.6
1619.6
502.6
453.5
12128.6
11503.4
1141.8
410.9
102.6
13158.7
4838.0
795.0
220.2
92.5
5945.7
0.0
542.6
450.4
154.2
1147.2
2315.4
71.8
81.0
0.0
2468.2
1889.0
229.0
121.0
0.0
2239.0
1462.0
135.0
81.0
0.0
1678.0
50505.5
7525.1
2488.8
1619.6
62139.0
88046.7
453.5
773429.0
403234.0
76124.3
71688.3
102.6
551149.2
223105.0
51616.5
28765.8
92.5
303579.8
181640.0
32525.0
31634.0
154.2
245953.2
64061.0
10155.8
11042.4
0.0
85259.2
26934.0
3084.0
3162.0
0.0
33180.0
39865.0
11976.0
8976.0
0.0
60817.0
2214938.0
532600.5
354580.9
1619.6
3103739.0
0.57%
100.00%
1.57%
2.85%
1.50%
0.57%
100.00%
2.39%
2.17%
1.54%
0.77%
100.00%
1.96%
0.00%
1.67%
1.42%
100.00%
0.47%
3.61%
0.71%
0.73%
0.00%
2.89%
7.01%
7.43%
3.83%
0.00%
6.75%
3.67%
1.13%
0.90%
0.00%
2.76%
2.28%
1.41%
0.70%
100.00%
2.00%
1995 Data
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Prim
Sec
Spec
2367.1
276.3
0.0
2643.4
1094.1
505.1
0.0
1599.2
0.0
0.0
849.6
849.6
1215.4
287.2
0.0
1502.6
442.4
321.6
0.0
764.0
0.0
0.0
448.6
448.6
882.1
154.0
0.0
1036.1
380.4
289.3
0.0
669.7
0.0
0.0
99.2
99.2
Total
All Students
19682.0
3461.2
781.4
849.6
24774.2
10230.2
1657.8
608.8
448.6
12945.4
8838.5
1262.5
443.3
99.2
10643.5
5119.6
755252.0
183648.9
114677.1
849.6
1054427.6
514805.0
167008.7
87876.4
448.6
770138.7
405550.0
81601.9
71758.7
99.2
559009.8
223091.0
2.61%
1.88%
0.68%
100.00%
2.35%
1.99%
0.99%
0.69%
100.00%
1.68%
2.18%
1.55%
0.62%
100.00%
1.90%
2.29%
6686
SENATE
SA
Tas
NT
ACT
AUST
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
Total
All Students
504.2
107.2
0.0
611.4
200.0
120.0
0.0
320.0
0.0
0.0
76.4
76.4
388.2
202.6
0.0
590.8
160.0
216.6
0.0
376.6
207.0
0.0
49.2
256.2
56.9
34.8
0.0
91.7
19.0
45.2
0.0
64.2
0.0
0.0
14.4
14.4
198.0
32.6
0.0
230.6
44.0
26.0
0.0
70.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
83.7
31.0
0.0
114.7
36.2
52.0
0.0
88.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5695.6
1125.7
0.0
6821.3
2376.1
1575.8
0.0
3951.9
207.0
0.0
1537.4
1744.4
704.2
227.2
76.4
6127.4
11686.6
755.2
419.2
49.2
12910.2
2901.4
75.9
80.0
14.4
3071.7
1983.0
242.0
58.6
0.0
2283.6
1526.0
119.9
83.0
0.0
1728.9
61967.3
8278.7
2701.5
1537.4
74484.9
54026.6
29080.9
76.4
306274.9
178471.0
36328.0
29677.5
49.2
244525.7
63284.0
10130.9
11134.4
14.4
84563.7
27280.0
3986.0
2662.6
0.0
33928.6
40120.0
11991.9
8936.0
0.0
61047.9
2207853.0
548722.9
355803.6
1537.4
3113916.9
1.30%
0.78%
100.00%
2.00%
6.55%
2.08%
1.41%
100.00%
5.28%
4.58%
0.75%
0.72%
100.00%
3.63%
7.27%
6.07%
2.20%
0.00%
6.73%
3.80%
1.00%
0.93%
0.00%
2.83%
2.81%
1.51%
0.76%
100.00%
2.39%
1996 Data
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
2773.6
388.6
0.0
3162.2
1299.5
591.7
0.0
1891.2
0.0
0.0
850.9
850.9
1351.9
326.1
0.0
1678.0
509.8
357.4
0.0
867.2
0.0
0.0
454.3
454.3
1164.1
141.8
0.0
1305.9
484.2
248.6
0.0
732.8
0.0
0.0
101.8
101.8
625.9
118.5
0.0
744.4
213.0
145.0
0.0
358.0
17.4
0.0
57.9
75.3
336.4
204.9
0.0
541.3
163.6
221.7
0.0
385.3
104.1
0.0
51.8
155.9
Total
All Students
SWDD as a proportion of All Students
20583.0
4073.1
980.3
850.9
26487.3
13242.0
1861.7
683.5
454.3
16241.5
8714.5
1648.3
390.4
101.8
10855.0
5715.2
856.3
263.5
57.9
6892.9
11829.5
604.1
426.6
51.8
12912.0
760078.0
184389.9
118519.4
850.9
1063838.2
517062.0
173557.5
85066.6
454.3
776140.4
411686.0
90997.8
67670.2
101.8
570455.8
224714.0
57433.4
29449.6
57.9
311654.9
177504.0
40437.2
28094.3
51.8
246087.3
2.71%
2.21%
0.83%
100.00%
2.49%
2.56%
1.07%
0.80%
100.00%
2.09%
2.12%
1.81%
0.58%
100.00%
1.90%
2.54%
1.49%
0.89%
100.00%
2.21%
6.66%
1.49%
1.52%
100.00%
5.25%
SENATE
6687
Tas
NT
ACT
AUST
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Gov
Sys
Non-Sys
Special
Total
Prim
Sec
Spec
75.6
34.0
0.0
109.6
26.0
42.2
0.0
68.2
0.0
0.0
15.0
15.0
132.0
31.0
0.0
163.0
18.0
48.0
0.0
66.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
60.6
36.0
0.0
96.6
42.2
63.0
0.0
105.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6520.1
1280.9
0.0
7801.0
2756.3
1717.6
0.0
4473.9
121.5
0.0
1531.7
1653.2
Total
All Students
SWDD as a proportion of All Students
3131.3
101.6
76.2
15.0
3324.1
1889.0
150.0
79.0
0.0
2118.0
1559.0
102.8
99.0
0.0
1760.8
66663.5
9397.9
2998.5
1531.7
80591.6
62776.0
10284.2
10966.5
15.0
84041.7
27766.0
4181.0
2724.0
0.0
34671.0
39971.0
12234.8
9082.0
0.0
61287.8
2221557.0
573515.8
351572.6
1531.7
3148177.1
4.99%
0.99%
0.69%
100.00%
3.96%
6.80%
3.59%
2.90%
0.00%
6.11%
3.90%
0.84%
1.09%
0.00%
2.87%
3.00%
1.64%
0.85%
100.00%
2.56%
Attachment D
The following tables describe the allocative mechanisms used to determine the level of funding to be
provided to each State for the programme years 1984 to 1997. Funding to individual schools or centres
within a State was the responsibility of the relevant government/non-government sector or Special
Education Coordinating Committee in that State.
1984
Programme
Allocative mechanism
Special education recurrent

and integration grants
State allocations were based upon the share of the total school
enrolments in each sector. This allocative mechanism was being
phased in over three years beginning in 1982.
Allocations among States were based on overall school enrolments.
Allocations among States were based on their share of the 5-16
year old population.
Children in residential institutions

Severely handicapped children
1985
Programme

Early special education
enrolments in each sector.
Amounts allocated to the States are derived from the special
education recurrent grants programme.

6688
SENATE
1986
Programme

Amounts allocated to the States are derived from the special
education recurrent grants programme.

1987
Programme

Special Education services
Allocations moved over a five year period, starting in 1987, to
be based upon the State and Territories share of the 0-18 year
old population.
Allocations moved over a three year period, starting in 1987, to
old population.
The basis for distribution of funds among the States and Territories was the number of children in the 0-18 year old population.

1988
Programme

Special Education services
old population.
old population.

SENATE
6689
1989
Programme

Special education services
Allocations moved over a five year period, starting in 1987. to
old population.
old population.

Children with severe disabilities
1990
Programme

Special education services
old population.
old population.

Children with severe disabilities
1991
Programme
Schools supportgovernment
Schools supportnongovernment
State allocations were based upon that States share of the

government school enrolments.
State allocations were based upon a) the States share of the
non-government school enrolments and b) for the former Special
education services (SES) funding, the States share of the 0-18
year old population
State allocations were based upon the number of children in the
0-6 year old population (former Early Special Education funds)
and 0-18 year old population (former Children with Severe
Disabilities and Children in Residential Institutions funds).
By submission
Per capita
Intervention support
Capital support
6690
SENATE
1992
Programme

State allocations were based upon the States share of a) the
total student enrolments and b) non-government school enrolments.
State allocations were based upon the 0-18 year old population.
By submission
Per capita
Capital support
1993
Programme

By submission
Per capita
Capital support
1994
Programme

By submission
Per capita
By submission
Capital support
Transition Support
1995
Programme

By submission
Per capita
By submission
Capital support
Transition Support
SENATE
6691
1996
Programme
Schools supportgovernment State allocations were based upon that States share of the government
school enrolments.
Schools supportnonState allocations were based upon the States share of a) the total
government
student enrolments and b) non-government school enrolments.
Capital support
By submission
Per capita
Transition Support
By submission
Transition Support for Special By submission
Schools
1997
Programme
School Support
The State allocations are based upon the allocative mechanisms used in
1996 for each of the individual components.
The State allocations are based upon the allocative mechanisms used in
1996 for each of the individual components.
Non-government Centre
Support
Schools and Literacy

(Question No. 650)
Senator Allison asked the Minister for

Employment, Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, upon notice, on 23 June 1997:
(1) Did the department provide funding for
research into a so-called Spalding approach to
literacy at the Tangara School, 5SSP Bong Bong
Road, Mittagong; if so, from what federal program.
(2) How much money was provided and over
what period.
(3) What was the basis on which the funding was
agreed.
(4) Can a copy of the application be provided.
(5) (a) What are the arrangements for departmental monitoring of this research; and (b) what
monitoring has been done to date.
Senator VanstoneThe answer to the

honourable senators question is as follows:
(1) The Department has provided project funding
for Research into teacher and student outcomes of
Spalding training under the departments Program
1: Schools-1.2 Targeted Assistance: Literacy
Program-Grants for National Strategies and Projects. The research is taking place at the Tangara
School for Girls, located at 2 Franklin Road,
Cherrybrook, NSW.
(2) The contract is for $30 500 for the period 9
May 1997 to 30 October 1997. $27 500 of that
amount has been paid.
(3) The funding was agreed by the Minister for

Schools, Vocational Education and Training, the
Hon Dr David Kemp, on the basis that:
. it was appropriate to investigate the effectiveness of the Spalding method in an Australian
context, and
. the application met the required program
guidelines and principles for funding.
(4) Yes. The application is provided.
(5) (a) Departmental monitoring arrangements for
this research project require submission of a
progress report by 31.7.97, final payment dependent
on the submission of a successful final report by
30.11.97, and publication of the research outcomes
in specified form. A meeting of the projects
advisory committee is planned following submission of the initial progress report.
(b) Project monitoring to date has involved
negotiation and administration of the terms of the
contract, concerning progress and final reports;
structure, focus and timing of the advisory committee; and progress payments.
Attachments:
DEETYA Services Contract 1996
SCHEDULE 1Contractors Obligations and Work
to be Performed
A. Services (see clauses 1.1 and 2.1)
A1. Services Description The Services to be
provided are as follows: Research on Teacher and
Student Outcomes of Spalding Training, specifically:
6692
SENATE
. Research on the unique features of Spalding

training,
. Research on teacher outcomes of Spalding
Training, and
. Research on Pupil outcomes of Spalding
training,
and as described in the following documents:
. a letter from the Department to the Contractor
dated 17 January 1997 and headed Grants for
National Literacy Strategies and ProjectsInformation Package; and
. a proposal from the Contractor to the Department dated 2 February 1997 and entitled Letter
and Revised Proposal for a Polit Study of
Spalding, and the subsequent document entitled Letter from Susan Moore containing dates,
dated 16 March (Annexure 1 and Annexure 2).
A2. Services Objectives
The Spalding method of training:
(a) To report in writing on the Spalding method
of training and its content, delivery and error
handling mechanisms deriving from the in-project
attendance of Dr Susan Moore at the 45 hour
Spalding I training course
Spalding Trial-Quantitative:
To conduct a trial of the Spalding method of
Training at Tangara School for Girls including:
(b) To report on the administration of the reading

decoding test (WRAT) on two occasions in 1997.
(c) To report on the Morrison-McCall spelling
test administered on a monthly basis until September 1997.
(d) To report on reading comprehension tests
(Elkins-Andrews) administered to Years 1 and 2
students in term 3; and TORCH tests administered
to Years 3 and 4 students and years 5 and 6
students in term 3 1997.
(e) To report on aspects of the Spalding method,
including handwriting vocabulary, knowledge of
spelling rules. and knowledge of letter-sound
correlations, on group-administered tests given in
1997.
Spalding Trial-Qualitative:
(f) To report on participatory observations of onsite monitoring by Dr Margeson of teacher performances following Spalding training.
(g) To conductqualitative research over 26
weeks, including the use of expert advice from Mrs
Chris Parsons, on student performance of literacy
skills (outcomes of Spalding training) in reading,
spelling, speaking, listening and writing.
(h) To provide a final written report on the
achievement of each of the above objectives.
A3. Budget
Total Project Budget is $ 30,500
BUDGET ITEM
AMOUNT
ResearchSpalding Training
attendance at Spalding course
write up of research
$6800
Researchteacher outcomes of Spalding

discussions with Margeson
observations of lessons
attendance at Margeson sessions
write up of research
$4640
Researchstudent outcomes of Spalding

Norm-referenced testing-WRAT test
Morrison-McCall test
Reading Comprehension test
Analysis of Literacy Skills
$18560
Administration Costs
stationery, computing equipment, project
test materials, photocopying, phone calls,
faxes, final report
$500
TOTAL
$30,500
SENATE
B. Contract Material (see clauses 1.1, 2.1 and 8)

The Contractor will provide an interim report no
later than 31 July 1997 The Interim Report will
address each and all of the criteria listed at page 15
of the DEETYA Literacy Program-Grants for
National Strategies and Projects-Principles for
Funding Document headed Progress Report. This
includes details on the Services main achievements
to date, progress in meeting the Service objectives
and the expenditure of funds against budget items.
A written Final Report is to be provided to the
Department no later than 30 November 1997 The
Final Report is to address each and all of the
criteria listed at page 16 of the DEETYA Literacy
Program-Grants for National Strategies and
Projects-Principles of Funding Document headed
Final Report. The Contractor will provide 10 (ten)
copies of the Final Report and it will be in a format
appropriate for publishing on the World Wide Web.
B1. Contractors Rights to Contract Material (see
clause 8.3)
The Contractor may retain 10 (ten) copies of the
final published Report.
B2. Contractor s Rights-to Commonwealth Material
(see clause 9.3)
No stipulation to the contrary
B3. Use of Commonwealth Material (see clause
9.5)
No special conditions
B4. Material Not to Vest in Commonwealth (see
clause 10.2)
Material not to vest in the Commonwealth is
described in the document entitled Letter from
Susan Moore, dated 16 March 1997 (Annexure 2).
C. Time-frame (see clause 2.2)
C1. The Contractor shall commence to provide the
Services from the date of execution of this contract
until 31 October 1997.
C2. A progress report: to be submitted by 31 July
1997, which provides information relevant to each
of the Services objectives, indicates expenditure of
funds against budget items and takes into account
the project plan.
C3. The final report to be submitted by 30 November 1997, and to include a report on progress
against the Services objectives outlined in this
schedule and the deliverables outlined in the project
plan, including those described in the document
entitled Letter and revised proposal for a Pilot
Research Study of Spalding, dated 2 February 1997,
and the subsequent document Letter from Susan
Moore containing dates, dated 16 March 1997
(Annexure 1 and Annexure 2).
D. Invoice Procedures (see clause 3.3)
6693
D1. Invoices forwarded by the Contractor must be

correctly addressed and shall include the following
information:
(a) title of Services;
(b) name of Project Delegate;
(c) contract number or purchase order number
(if any);
(d) fees and expenses shall be invoiced in
accordance with Item CC or Schedule 2.
(e) invoices must provide details of expenses
outlined in Item A3 of this schedule.
D2 Subject to acceptance of the Services by the
Commonwealth, the due date for payment shall be
30 days after delivery of a correctly rendered
invoice to the Commonwealth following delivery
of the Services.
E. Specified Personnel (see clauses 1.1 and 6)
The Contractor shall ensure that the following
work, namely
. research on the unique features of Spalding
training,
. research on teacher outcomes of the training,
and
. research on pupil outcomes of the same
training as described in the document entitled
Letter and revised proposal for a Pilot Research Study of Spalding, dated 2 February
1997, and the subsequent document Letter
from Susan Moor containing dates, dated 16
March 1997 (Annexure 1 and Annexure 2)
shall be undertaken by Dr Susan Moore.
F. Insurance (see clause 16)
The Contractor shall maintain:
. workers compensation insurance for an
amount required by the relevant State or
Territory legislation; and
. public liability insurance for an amount of not
less than $ 1,000,000 (one million dollars).
. professional indemnity insurance for an
amount of not less than $ 1,000,000 (one
million dollars).
G. Liaison & Notices (see clauses 7 & 28)
Mr John McMahon
General Manager
The PARED Foundation
4 Vineys Lane DURAL NSW 2158 (Business
and Street address)
Phone: 02 9651 1177
Fax: 02 9651 3727
H. Applicable Law (see clause 27)
New South Wales
6694
SENATE
SCHEDULE 2Commonwealth Obligations

AA. Department (see clauses 1.1 and 28)
AA I Postal Address
Director
Literacy Section
Literacy and Special Programs Branch
Location Code: 432
Department of Employment, Education, Training
and Youth Affairs
GPO Box 9880
CANBERRA ACT 2601
AA.2 Street Address
and Youth Affairs
Level 3 10 Mort Street
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Fax: (06) 240 7509
BB. Project Delegate & Liaison Officer (see
clauses 1.1, 7 and 28)
BB1. The Project Delegate shall be the person
holding, occupying or performing the duties of:
Assistant Secretary
Location Code: 432
GPO Box 9880
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Phone: (06) 240 7970
Fax: (06) 240 7509
BB2. The Liaison Officer shall be the person
holding, occupying or performing the duties of:
Director
Literacy Section
Location Code: 432
and Youth Affairs
GPO Box 9880
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Phone: (06) 240 7966
Fax: (06) 240 7509
CC. Fees (see clause 3.1)
CC1. The total fee for the Services is $30,500
payable by the following instalments:
(a) $27,500 subject to signing of this Contract
and receipt of an invoice for the Services;
(b) $3,000 upon delivery of a satisfactory final

report (as described in Item C of schedule
1. and an invoice for the Services.
CC2 Subject to acceptance by the Commonwealth, the due date for payment shall be 30 days
after delivery of a correctly rendered invoice to the
Commonwealth following delivery of the Services.
CC3 Payment under sub-items CCl.(a) and (b)
must not be made unless the Contractor gives to the
Department a satisfactory written report, including
a detailed invoice in a format approved by the
Department before the final payment is due.
DD. Allowances (see clause 3.1)
Not Applicable
EE. Assistance (see clause 3.1)
Not Applicable
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have
executed this Contract on the date first above
written.
SIGNED for and on behalf of
)
THE Commonwealth OF AUSTRALIA
)
by Dr Evan Arthur
)
the Assistant Secretary
)
of Literacy and Special Programs Branch
)
of the Department of Employment,
)
)
In the Presence of:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [WITNESS]
THE COMMON SEAL OF
)
PARED Foundation Tangara School for Girls )
was hereunto affixed in accordance
)
with its Articles of Association
)
In the Presence of:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [WITNESS]
ANNEXURE 1
LETTER AND REVISED PROPOSAL FOR A
PILOT STUDY OF SPALDING
DATED 2 FEBRUARY 1997
FAX TO LINDA COLLINGS AND ROBYN
CROKER FROM SUSAN MORE4 pages to
follow:
45 Elouera Road, Westleigh, New South Wales
2120
Ph: (02) 9 484-2769 Fax: (02) 9 484-7165
2 February, 1997
Dear Linda and Robyn,
Following further conversations with your office,
l have revised my funding request for a Pilot Study
of Spalding and included budget estimates. Since
Ive been told that DEET cannot fund any profes-
SENATE
sional development work with teachers undertaken

by the Sydney Literacy Centre (SLC), including onsite implementation of Spalding training with the
teachers who have undertaken it, l am requesting
funds solely for my research on Spalding
Nevertheless, in my funding proposal I have
included information about the implementation
work with teachers that will be done by SLC, paid
for by the Pared Foundation, and studied by me
This work is essential for Tangara, to ensure that
Spalding skills imparted in training are properly
applied in the classroom; and it is essential to my
research, since I propose to study teacher outcomes
as well as pupil outcomes of Spalding training.
Overseas practise, predictably, has shown that pupil
outcomes depend on teacher outcomesthat the
more fully and effectively teachers have implemented Spalding, the better pupil performances
have been. In all likelihood, the same thing will
happen in Australia On a small scale, it has already
happened at Ascham and Cronulla High School.
As you will see from my revised proposal, l
expect teachers to have some difficulty applying all
their knowledge properly unless their performances
are performances are monitored by a Spalding
trainer, as teaching performances have been monitored by the Spalding Education Foundation (SEF)
in Arizona. My research Report will include a
discussion of the nature and effects of this monitoring process, which I will study closely.
To avoid a conflict of interest, since I will be
describing the instructional skills of SLC trainers
Reed and Margeson, I am submitting my proposal
under the auspices of the Pared Foundation.
Pared manages three schools: Tangara, Redfield,
and Retaval The Foundation is happy to support my
research on Spaldingnot least, because they have
been happy about the results of my earlier research
on Tangara, discussed in the final chapter of my
IPA report Value Added, published last year. Of
course they expect Spalding to improve language
arts instruction at the school, but they can no more
be sure that this will happen than I can be.
I frankly think that my time allocations for
funding are a conservative estimate. My calculated
guess is that Linda Kehoe,Tangara staff, and I will
spend very much more time monitoring the progress of children than a $30,000 grant will covernot least, because administering standardised
tests, grading and analysing them takes so much
time, especially when some of the testing requires
one-to-one interaction between the tester (me) and
each pupil tested But at this stage, with a DEET
deadline imminent and school starting, l dont
know how to get round this dilemma. Youll see
that Ive requested some funding for Administrative
costs because research will use up $30,000though
whether David Kemps office will have even an
extra $500, I have no idea.
6695
Thank you very much for your help in advising

me of changes necessary in my proposal look
forward to hearing from you very soon, because the
pre-testing of pupils spelling and their reading
decoding skills, basic to my research, should ideally
be done within the next couple of weeks.
Sincerely,
Dr Susan Moore
REVISED PROPOSAL: FOR A PILOT RESEARCH STUDY OF SPALDING
submitted by Dr Susan Moore under the auspices
of the Pared Foundation 45 Elouera Rd, Westleigh
2121 Ph: (02) 9 484-2769 Fax: (02) 9 484-7165
THE NEED FOR RESEARCH ON SPALDING IN
AUSTRALIA
For close to a decade, cognitive researchers
everywhere in the English-speaking world have
been lamenting the state of basic literacy instruction in schools. During this period developmental
psychologists, speech pathologists, Special Education teachers, and other Australian professionals
working with children whose needs have not been
met in the classroom have gone overseas to receive
essential language arts instruction from expert
researchers. Teacher Education programs throughout the country have conspicuously failed to
provide this instruction
The most eminent of the overseas researchers,
Professor Sylvia Farnham-Diggory of Delaware and
Robert Aukerman of Harvard, recommend a
multisensory approach to the language arts, Spalding, developed 70 years ago by a gifted teacher,
Romalda Spalding, and a distinguished neurologist,
Dr Samuel Orton, associated with Columbia
University The non-profit Spalding Education
Foundation (SEF) in Arizona, founded in 1985 so
that the Spalding-Orton approach could be more
widely implemented, has 90 trainers who give
professionals the range of language arts skills
required in the early years of schooling. The
performance tests set by them for accreditation are
unrivalled in precision and thoroughnessan
unsurprising fact when one knows that SEFs
Warren North trained the first four teams of
astronauts and was one of NASAs founding staff
members
The speech pathologist Mary-Ruth Reed and the
developmental psychologist Dr Carol Margeson
have taken the advice of Professors FarnhamDiggory and Auckerman seriously Following a visit
by Dr Margeson to Arizona schools where Spalding
has been successfully implemented for a decade,
and a concurrent visit by Mrs Reed to Hawaii to
study with Romalda Spalding in 1992, they have
undertaken Spalding training themselves, successfully trialled Spalding in their own places of work,
and completed instruction as Spalding trainers
6696
SENATE
Last year Reed, Margeson, and Sydney Literacy

Centre (SLC) director Kim Kelly brought SEFs
director, Dr Mary North, and retired school principal, Kay Younker-Sullivan, to Sydney to conduct
Spalding courses at premises donated by Westpac
and the Ascham School In July 1996 at Ascham,
after going through final accreditation hoops, Reed
and Margeson trained a group of enthusiastic
teachers, parents, speech pathologists, and educational policy makers while Mrs Younker-Sullivan
trained another. Responses to this training were
overwhelmingly positive
Over the past year, a prominent independent
school has enjoyed huge successes by implementing
Spalding in its primary program. A government
secondary school with a high proportion of at-risk
students, remedial teachers from many independent
and state schools across the nation, and special
educators, tutors, speech pathologists, parents and
clinical psychologists have also made use of
Spalding with excellent results. At present, additional requests for Spalding training and implementation in New South Wales and other States far
exceed Reed and Margesons capacity to provide
it. Over the past eighteen months, SLC has received
over two thousand phone calls from Australia, New
Zealand, and Papua New Guinea requesting advice
and training.
The need for quality-controlled extension of
Spalding, particularly in government schools with
disadvantaged and multicultural populations, is
enormous. For extension to happen, however,
research on Spalding in Australia is an essential
prerequisite. We need to know how well the
Method works (1) in the settings in which it is
currently being used; and (2) with representative
pupil cohorts working with Spalding-trained
teachers: i.e. whole classes, and small groups, of
children with ordinary literacy needs; and individual children with special language needs; So far,
because of a dearth of funds in Australia, independent schools have been pioneers in Spalding implementation In the US, in contrast, the pioneering
bodies have been Arizona public schools with
disadvantaged, multicultural populations.
If funding for our research is limited, our first
priority will be the study of whole classes in a
school willing to cooperate fully in a pilot study of
Spalding. The Tangara School for Girls (K-12) is
such a school. Using funds donated by the Pared
Foundation which manages it, Tangaras Executive
has hired Mary-Ruth Reed to train 17 Tangara
teachers and parents in Spalding; and the school is
planning to implement this training on its premises with the help of Dr Margeson and prospective trainer Mrs Chris Parsons (on leave from
Cronulla High School, where she is the head of
the English Department) Because Tangara is an
independent school, it has the wherewithal to do
this Most government schools lack the requisite

funds to undertake such a project.
Because I am an employee of the Pared Foundation, involved in part-time language arts work at
Tangara, and also because I have done other work
for Pareds three schools over the past six years,
the Pared Board has given me permission to study
Spalding course content, methods of implementing
Spalding K-6 in the classroom, and the effects of
Spalding training on teachers and pupils. My
August 1996 IPA Report, Value Added: Literacy,
(Civics and Ethics in Schools, contains a case study
of Tangara which includes a description of Pareds
ethos and its commitment to educational excellence.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THIS PILOT
STUDY
If our results resemble those achieved in Arizona
and in Australian schools that have trialled Spalding in 1996, there will be significantin some
instances, remarkableimprovement in the literacy
of the Australian pupils involved. We anticipate
considerable progress in spelling, reading and
writing, and in the development of related cognitive
strategies and skills.
If the immediate effects of Spalding training on
teachers resemble those observed in Arizona and in
the small number of Australian schools in New
South Wales and Victoria which have implemented
Spalding 1 at their own expense, we anticipate that
unwitting errors will creep into otherwise capable
classroom performance. In Spalding coursework
there is a great deal for teachers to take in, and it
is usual for virtually everyone who undertakes
training to have difficulty implementing all of its
essential features perfectly. As a result, implementation work involving trainers and teachers at
school sites is very important. Overseas research
has shown that such implementation work produces
significantly improved scores on norm-referenced
tests used to monitor pupil performance on a
monthly basis.
In the history of Teacher Education, relatively
few studies of the direct relationship between
training and school practice have been undertaken
By and large, trainees gain accreditation and move
into classrooms without being carefully monitored
It is assumed, on virtually no evidence, that they
will properly apply knowledge and skills imparted
in their training courses It is also assumed that their
pupils will acquire all of the essential skills needed
in a highly competitive and technologically advanced world. Yet it is now widely recognised that
in the area of basic literacy, teachers and pupils
have been floundering for many years.
A need to study the connection between the
content and delivery of training courses and the
performance of teachers and pupils is very great,
particularly in the crucial years of Early Childhood
SENATE
instruction in the language arts Because I was a

Teacher Educator in English for 14 years, I understand this need intimately. Following three terms
of on-site research at Tangara, I propose to produce
a Report on my Spalding research for the Government. It should be ready by late October.
REFEREES
1. Dame Leonie Kramer, Chancellor of the
University of Sydney, and Senior Research
Fellow of the Education Policy Unit of the
Institute of Public Affairs, where I worked
under her supervision for the 7+ years of the
Units existence. Dame Leonies grandchildren have attended SLC.
2 Robert Manne, the editor of Quadrant, who
has published many articles of mine on education, literature, and the history of ideas. We
have also been conference speakers on the
same platform, discussing large educational
issues.
FUNDING IS REQUESTED FOR
(1) Research on the unique features of Spalding
training;
(2) Research on teacher outcomes of this training;
(3) Research on pupil outcomes of the same
training.
We propose to charge $80 per hour for research
undertaken by me and by the statistician hired to
help me. Mrs Linda Kehoe, and $40 an hour for
administering tests monitoring childrens literacy
(1) Research on the unique features of SPALDING TRAINING
Cost: $6800
Because Spalding training is significantly different from the language arts instruction provided in
Teacher Education courses, the content, delivery,
and error handling basic to Spaldings 45-hour
training course will be studied. The fees of trainer
Mary-Ruth Reed ($7200) will be paid by the Pared
Foundation.
Research completed by Dr Susan Moore will
include:
. Attendance at, and study of, the Spalding 1
training course (45 hours) Cost: $3600.
. Write-up (40 hours) Cost: $3200
(2) Research on TEACHER OUTCOMES of
Spalding training
Cost: $4640
Since pupil outcomes in Spalding classrooms
depend upon the quality of teacher performance
following Spalding training, the on-site monitoring
of Spalding teaching in the wake of completion of
the Spalding 1 course is very important. To help
teachers to apply knowledge and skills imparted in
6697
Spalding 1, Dr Carol Margeson will work with

them at Tangara over two school terms at a cost to
the Pared Foundation of $5000. I will attend special
classes run by her for teachers, discuss teacher
outcomes of Spalding training with her, observe
lessons with her, and talk with staff about the
effects of Spalding training.
RESEARCH ON TEACHER OUTCOMES
completed by Susan Moore will include:
. Discussions with Dr Margeson about teachers
performances (5 hours) Cost: $400
. Dr Margeson will observe lessons in spelling,
reading, and writing K-6 over 2 terms (for 35
hours), and she will discuss patterns in teacher
performance with me.
. Observation of lessons and talks with teachers
(3 hours) Cost: $240
. Attendance at Dr Margesons special sessions
with teachers (10 hours) Cost: $800
Dr Margeson will work on lesson planning,
spelling, writing (sentence structure and
vocabulary), reading (both decoding and
comprehension), and special provision for
pupils with learning difficulties.
. Write-up (40 hours) Cost: $3200
(3) Research on PUPIL OUTCOMES of Spalding
training
Cost: $18,540 $18,560 note incorrect addition
It is essential to study both quantitative and
qualitative aspects of pupil performance. With the
help of statistician Linda Kehoe, l will be doing
this for three terms.
For the quantitative research strand of the pilot
study, l will use norm-referenced standardised tests
recommended by SEF and SLC (detail to follow).
For the qualitative research strand, l will observe
spelling and reading lessons, examine pupils
written work, and engage in continuing discussions
with teachers about these matters and, in addition,
Tangaras wide reading program. As part of my
research on pupils written work, l will analyse the
results of representative sentence- and paragraphwriting Spalding exercises undertaken by teachers
to monitor pupil progress (e.g. the 6 critical attributes of sentences)
RESEARCH ON PUPIL OUTCOMES completed
by Susan Moore and Linda Kehoe will include:
. I. A Norm-referenced Testing Program: Quantitative Research Total Cost: $11, 760
. One Reading Decoding Test: WRAT (internationally norm-referenced) Cost: S4240
This is a Wide Range Achievement Test, administered one-to-one. It will be given twice at Tangara
by Moore (at the start of Term 1 and the end of
Term 3) with 225 students in 9 classes K-6. After
6698
SENATE
grading and recording by Moore, results will be

studied and written up by Kehoe.
. Morrison-McCall Spelling tests (normreferenced in the US since the late 50s) Cost:
$3800
These group tests will be given monthly, from
February to September, by Tangara staff. Spelling
results will be studied and written up by Kehoe.
Other results, studying 6 other aspects of Spalding
(among them handwriting, vocabulary, knowledge
of spelling rules. knowledge of letter-sound correlations), will be studied and written up by Moore.
. 2 Reading Comprehension Tests designed and
norm-referenced in Australia Cost: $3720
The first group test, the Elkins-Andrews, put out
by St Lucia and norm-referenced in Queensland,
will be given by staff to pupils in Year 1 and 2
during Term 3 when decoding skills should be
firmly in place. The second group test, the
TORCH, put out by ACER and norm-referenced in
Western Australia, will be given by staff to pupils
in Years 3-4 and 5-6 (2 different test versions) in
Term 3. Grading of both tests by Moore will be
time-consuming (37 hours or more). Results of both
tests will be studied and written up by Kehoe.
II. Analysis of Literacy Skills: Qualitative research Total Cost: $6800
Qualitative research on pupil performance will
take 1-2 hours per week for 26 weeks, and will
include (1) classroom study of reading lessons
(cognitive skills demonstrated in decoding activity
and comprehension lessons); (2) discussions with
staff about the literature used in wide reading
programs; (3) the study of childrens writing; and
(4) discussion with staff about pupils overall
literacy gains. A remunerated visit to Tangara by
SLC instructor Mrs Chris Parsons to discuss the
above areas will take place late in Term 2 or early
in Term 3.
by Susan Moore will include:
. Analysis of reading lessons, pupils written
work, and wide reading programs (40 hours)
. Discussion with Mrs Chris Parsons following
her visit to Tangara-to monitor the quality of
pupil performance in spelling, reading, speaking, listening and writing (5 hours)
. Write-up (40 hours).
[Additional request for funding to help to cover
Administrative costs of the project: $500]
Because our first priority is research, which is
very costly, we have not budgeted for funding to
cover the cost of printing my final Report, ordinary
stationery, computing equipment (e.g. printer
ribbons), tests and other materials acquired for the
project, photocopying, phone calls, and faxes. It
would greatly help us if, in addition to receiving a

research grant of $30,000, we were granted $500
for minimal expenses of this type.
ANNEXURE 2
LETTER FROM SUSAN MOORE CONTAINING
DATES
DATED 16 MARCH 1997
Mar. 97 18:18 IPA SYDNEY FAX 61-2-4847165
STEPHANIE REILLY FROM SUSAN MOORE1
page Sunday,16 March 1997
Dear Stephanie,
I am writing to answer your earliest fax questions
in the hope that you will now be able to draw up
a Contract. Please forgive the format of my answer,
because Im not sure about which format will help
you most and I cant ring and ask today or tomorrow. I have been working all weekend, day and
night, for the past two weekends, and since I also
do this during the week, fatigue is taking its toll.
First: the grant will go to the company that
employs me, the Pared Foundation, at 4 Vineys
Lane, Dural, NSW 2158. The person who handles
the finances is Carmen Mejia. I have already
spoken to her in person about my project. She will
pay me sequentially when I have completed stages
of project work outlined in my funding proposal
and approved contractually by DEET.
Carmen will also, in consultation with and, if you
wish, you, use interest on the grant to cover
administrative costs which I did not budget for
because I do not know anything about them: (1) the
cost, to Pared, of managing the grant and printing
the Reports; (2) the cost, to me, of maintaining
regular contact with SEF in Arizona, because they
have research information on Spalding in the US
which I will want to use to assess the relative
success of Spalding at Tangara. Dr Mary North
coincidentally rang me about all this today; (3) the
cost of purchasing up-to-date classroom kits now
available for the first time trough SEF in Arizona;
and (4) if this is OK: the cost of time given to
media reporters and school heads on Spaldingrelated, uncopyrighted literacy issues (they often
contact me, in ways similar to those involving
David Kemp, and I dont have leeway to give them
free time because of my commitments to Tangara
and you).
in the July Interim progress report, if that is all
right, I will include the following:
MY OWN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL,
DRAWN FROM MY ALREADY PUBLISHED
ARTICLES, CONTAINING:
. Background information on Spaldings history
and general features, including its theoretical
base and therefore the projects theoretical
base;
SENATE
NEW UNCOPYRIGHTED Material, WHICH

WILL BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT, ON:
. The specific content and delivery of the
Spalding 1 course at Tangara;
. Information about teacher outcomes acquired
through the visits to Tangara of Spalding
training Carol Margeson and my own classroom observations;
. Information about pupil outcomes acquired
through WRAT testing in Term i and Morrison-McCall testing in Terms 1 and 2, and
including some input from statistician Linda
Kehoe;
. Some Information about writing and reading
programs at Tangara. I will of course answer
all the questions listed on p.15 of the 22-page
document that you sent me.
The final Report submitted in late October will
include all the information presented in the interim
Report, and additional information on teacher and
pupil outcomes specified in my funding proposal
(a proposal revision, with dates, is included with
this letter). It will of course meet the specifications
outlined on p.16 of the document you have just sent
me.
Thanks very much for your help.
Sincerely,
Mar 97 18:19 IPA SYDNEY FAX 61-24847165
STEPHANIE REILLY FROM SUSAN MOORE
DRAFT DOCUMENT NOW CONTAINING
DATES SIGNALLED BY MARGINAL ARROWS
(*)
Stephanie: Is this OK now?
FUNDING IS REQUESTED FOR
(1) Research on the unique features of Spalding
training;
(2) Research on the teacher outcomes of this
training;
(3) Research on pupil outcomes of the same
training.
(1) Research on the unique features of SPALDING TRAINING
Because Spalding training is significantly different from the language arts instruction provided in
Teacher Education courses, the content, delivery,
and error handling basic to Spaldings 45-hour
training course will be studied. The fees of trainer
Mary-Ruth Reed will be paid by the Pared Foundation.
RESEARCH ON SPALDING TRAINING
completed by Dr Susan Moore will include;
* . Attendance at, and study of, the Spalding 1
training course (45 hours) Dates: 27-31 Janu-
6699
ary and 7, 8, 15 February (completed alreadyactually, 50 hrs)

* . Write-up (40 hours)
Completion date: 15 July, 1997 (earlier if
possible)
(2) Research on TEACHER OUTCOMES of
Spalding training
Since pupil outcomes in Spalding classrooms
depend upon the quality of teacher performance
following Spalding training, the on-site monitoring
of Spalding teaching in the wake of completion of
the Spalding 1 course is very important. To help
teachers to apply knowledge and skills imparted in
Spalding 1, Dr Carol Margeson and Mrs Chris
Parsons will work with them at Tangera over two
school terms at a cost to the Pared Foundation of
$5000. I will attend special classes run by them for
teachers, discuss teacher outcomes of Spalding
training with them, observe lessons with them, and
talk with staff about the effects of Spalding training.
RESEARCH ON TEACHER OUTCOMES completed by Susan Moore will include:
. Discussions with Dr Margeson about teachers
performances (5 hours) Dr Margeson Will
observe lessons in spelling, reading, and
writing K-6 over 2 terms (for 35 hours); and
she will discuss patterns in teacher performance with me.
* Dates: from 21 April until 19 August (barring
unforeseen circumstances, the dates for Dr
Margesons visits will be 21 April, 4 May, 18
May, 3 June, 27 July, 5 August, 19 August)
. Observation of lessons and talks with teachers
(3 hours)
* Dates: from 21 April until 19 August (in
accordance with the schools convenience)
. Attendance at Dr Margesons and Mrs
Parsons special sessions with teachers (10
hours)
Dr Margeson and Mrs Parsons will work on
lesson planning, spelling, writing (sentence structure and vocabulary), reading (both decoding and
comprehension) and special provision for pupils
with learning difficulties.)
* Dates: during the period of 18 May to 19
August, depending on the outcome of Dr
Margesons observations of teachers and
demonstration lessons.
. Write-up (40 hours)
* . Completion date: 18 October, 1997
(3) Research on PUPIL OUTCOMES of Spalding training
It is essential to study both quantitative and
qualitative aspects of pupil performance. With the
6700
SENATE
help of statistician Linda Kehoe, I will be doing

this for three terms
For the quantitative research strand of the pilot
study, I will use norm-referenced standardised tests
recommended by SEF and SLC (detail to follow).
For the qualitative research strand, I will
observe spelling and reading lessons, examine
pupils written work, and engage in continuing
discussions with teachers about these matters
and, in addition, Tangaras wide reading program. As part of my research on pupils written
work, I will analyse the results of representative
sentence- and paragraph-writing Spalding exercises undertaken by teachers to monitor pupil
progress (e.g. the 6 critical attributes of sentences).
by Susan Moore and Linda Kehoe will include
I. A Norm-referenced Testing Program: Quantitative Research
. One Reading Decoding Test: WRAT (internationally norm-referenced)
This is a Wide Range Achievement Test, administered one-to-one. It Will be given twice at
Tangara (in Term) 1 and the end of Term 3) with
about 200 students in 8 classes K-6. After grading
and recoding by Moore and Tangara staff, results
will be studied and written up by Kehoe.
* Dates: Term 1 testing: 16 February to 20
March (pupils who have been absent on retesting days will have to be tested later in
March) Write-up completion date for Kehoe:
25 April Term 3 testing: between 29 August
and 14 September
Write-up completion date: 10 October
. Morrison-McCall Spelling tests (norm-referenced in the US since the late 50s)
These group tests will be given monthly, from
February to September, by Tangara staff. Spelling
results will be studied and written up by Kehoe.
Other results, studying 6 other aspects of Spalding
(among them handwriting, vocabulary, knowledge
of spelling rules, knowledge of letter-sound correlations), will be studied and written up by Moore.
* Dates: from 3 February (at the earliest) to 12
September
Write-up completion date: 10 October; but we
will provide some preliminary information in
our preliminary Report scheduled for July (or
earlier)
. 2 Reading Comprehension Tests designed and
norm-referenced in Australia
The first group test, the Elkins-Andrews, put out
by St Lucia and norm-referenced in Queensland,
will be given by staff to pupils in Year 1 and 2
during Term 3 when decoding skills should be
firmly in place. the second group test, the TORCH,

put out by ACER and norm-referenced in Western
Australia, will be given by staff top pupils in Years
3-4 and 5-6 (2 different test versions) in Term 3.
Grading of both tests by Moore will be timeconsuming (37 hours or more). Results of both tests
will be studied and written up by Kehoe.
* Testing date: 6 September (plus immediate
follow-up for absent students so that they are
tested as close to the 5 September date as
possible)
Write-up by Kehoe: 10 October at the latest
II Analysis of Literacy Skills: Qualitative research
Qualitative research on pupil performance will
take 1-2 hours per week for 26 weeks, and will
include (1) classroom study or reading lessons
(cognitive skills demonstrated in decoding activity
and comprehension lessons); (2) discussions with
staff about the literature used in wide reading
programs; (3) the study of childrens writing; and
(4) discussion with staff about pupils overall
literacy gains. A remunerated visit to Tangara by
SLC instructor Chris Parsons or Spalding training
Mary-Ruth Reed to discuss the above areas will
take place early in Term 3.
by Susan Moore will include:
* . Analysis of reading lessons, pupils written
work, and a wide reading programs (40 hours)
Dates for analysis: start of April through
August
Write-up: to be completed for Final Report by
10 October
* . Discussion with Chris Parsons or Mary-Ruth
Reed following a visit to Tangara to monitor
the quality of pupil performance in spelling,
reading, speaking, listening and writing (5
hours)
Date for discussion: between 4-18 August, in
accordance with Tangaras and SLC
Write-up (40 hours)
Completion date: 17 October for final Report.
The preliminary Report will contain some
information on reading and writing.
Department of the Parliamentary

Library
(Question No. 665)
Senator Margetts asked the President, on

notice, on 25 June 1997:
(1) Since what date has the Department of the
Parliamentary Library (DPL) been without a fulltime permanent Parliamentary Librarian.
SENATE
(2) Did the Presiding Officers announce a

decision in March 1997 that a two department
structure for parliamentary administration would be
implemented, and commission the document
Managing the Parliament: The way ahead as the
implementation plan.
(3) Did the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, including the President, recommend against
adopting this proposal in June 1997.
(4) Did any member of the committee, including
the President, dissent from the recommendation; if
so, why is there no dissenting report.
(5) Does the President agree that 6 years without
a full-time permanent Parliamentary Librarian has
created an uncertain environment which is an
impediment to the DPL; if not, why not.
(6) Does the President agree that several years
uncertainty as to their departments future is an
unwelcome and unnecessary distraction to the
corporate focus of officers in affected parliamentary
departments; if not, why not.
(7) Will the Presiding Officers now set in train
a process for the appointment of a permanent fulltime Parliamentary Librarian; if not, why not.
Senator ReidThe answer to the honourable senators question is as follows:

(1) The former department head of the Department of the Parliamentary Library (DPL), Mr H.
De S.C. MacLean, retired on 31 January 1992. The
Secretary to the Department of the Parliamentary
Reporting Staff (DPRS), Mr J.W. Templeton, has
been responsible for the administration of the
Parliamentary Library since that date. Mr
Templeton was given the task by the then Presiding
Officers of implementing the 36 recommendations
of Audit Report No.6 of 1991-92, Department of
the Parliamentary LibraryReview of Management. Audit Report No. 6 was an efficiency audit
of DPL and the recommendations addressed a
series of deficiencies in the Parliamentary Library
identified by the Australian National Audit Office:
the final recommendation, relating to a single client
service program, was implemented on 13 January
1997.
(2) Yes.
(3) Yes.
(4) The report of Senate Standing Committee on
Appropriations and Staffing did not include any
minority or dissenting reports.
(5) The fact that there has been no substantive
appointment to the position of Parliamentary
Librarian has not given rise to any impediment to
the effective administration of DPL. There has been
continuity and consistency in the administration of
the department in that Mr Templeton has administered it as full time department head of both DPRS
6701
and DPL. Neither DPL nor DPRS has been without

a full time chief executive officer and the arrangement has saved the Parliament more than $750,000
over that period.
(6) As referred to in (1) above, Speaker McLeay
and President Sibraa directed Mr Templeton to
implement the recommendations of ANAO Audit
Report No. 6 and the outcome of that process has
been better resource allocation for and within DPL
and improved services for Senators and Members.
Speaker McLeay and President Sibraa, and their
successors Speaker Martin and President Beahan,
also sought to restructure the parliamentary administration (including the Parliamentary Library) and
their review of the administrative structure (which
preceded the restructure proposals) meant that it
was not appropriate to make a permanent appointment to the position of Parliamentary Librarian
until after the consideration by the Parliament of
those proposals.
Speaker Halverson and I have also sought to
improve the structure of the parliamentary administration, during which process it would have been
inappropriate to make a substantive appointment.
It is unfortunate that there has been uncertainty
for some time as to the overall administrative
structure for the Parliament, but the question of the
most effective arrangements and most equitable
resource allocation for the functions which support
the Parliament are complex.
(7) The Speaker and I regularly review and
consider the operations of the parliamentary
departments for which we are individually or
jointly responsible.
Questions of efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
services are significant matters of which we are
always conscious. We will continue to consider the
issue of the position of Parliamentary Librarian as
part of that regular oversight of the parliamentary
administration.
Minister for Finance: Media Monitoring

Services
(Question No. 718)
Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister

representing the Minister for Finance, upon
notice, on 28 July 1997:
(1) What was the total cost of media monitoring
services, including press clippings, electronic media
transcripts etcetera, provided to the Ministers
office in the 1996-97 financial year.
(2) Which agency or agencies provided these
services.
6702
SENATE
transcripts etcetera, provided to the department and

its agencies in the 1996-97 financial year.
services.
Senator KempThe Minister for Finance

has provided the following answer to the
honourable senators question:
(1) The total cost of media monitoring services
provided to the Office of the Minister for Finance
in the last financial year 1996/97 was $17,002.16.
(2) Crolls Press Clips Pty Ltd provided the media
monitoring services up to July 1996, when Media
Monitors took over in August 1996. Rehame
Monitoring Service was also used.
(3) The cost to the department and its agencies
of the provision of all media monitoring services
from July 1996 to June 1997 was approximately
$38,500.00.
(4) Crolls Press Clips Pty Ltd provided the media
monitoring services up to July 1996, when Media
Monitors took over in August 1996. Radio National
of the ABC was also used once.
Minister for Science and Technology:

Media Monitoring Services
(Question No. 725)
Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister

representing the Minister for Science and
Technology upon notice, on 28 July 1997:
transcripts etc, provided to the Ministers office in
the 1996-97 financial year.
services.
Senator EllisonThe Minister for Science

and Technology has provided the following
answer to the honourable senators question:
(1) The Department of Industry, Science and
Tourism was responsible for the costs of media
monitoring services (including press clippings)
provided to the department and the press clippings
service for the offices of the Minister for Industry,
Science and Tourism, the Minister for Science and
Technology and the former Minister for Small
Business and Consumer Affairs during the financial
year 1996-97. As such, the costs for press clippings
for Ministers offices and the department are not
readily separable.
The total cost for these services for the financial
year 1996-97 was $161,057.
The cost of providing electronic media transcripts

to my office for the financial year 1996-97 was
$12,750.
(2) Media Monitors ACT Pty Ltd; Rehame
Australia Monitoring Services Pty Ltd
Logging and Woodchipping

(Question No. 739)
Senator Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries
and Energy on 6 August 1997:
With reference to the Commonwealth Government loans commenced in July 1966 under the
Softwood Forestry Agreement Acts of 1967, 1972,
1976 and 1978, provided to the State Governments
for softwood plantations establishment and maintenance, and the interest and principal repayment free
period for the first 10 years, and with reference to
the fact that the interest not paid during this period
was not capitalised and the States also enjoyed the
implicitly lower interest on borrowings from the
Commonwealth Government:
(1) What was the annual schedule of loan
payments actually made by the Commonwealth
Government to each State.
(2) What principal and interest payments have
been made by each State to the Commonwealth
Government.
(3) (a) What outstanding payments are to be
made by each State, and (b) what is the schedule
for repayment in monetary value.
(4) What is the value, in todays dollars, of the
subsidy provided by the Commonwealth through
the 10-year interest and principal free period.
(5) What is the value, in todays dollars, of the
benefit enjoyed by each State from paying the longterm Commonwealth Government bond rate relative
to the normal State borrowing rate.
(6) What is the total value, in todays dollars, of
the implicit subsidy in (4) and (5) given through
the softwood plantation loans by the Commonwealth Government for each State.
Senator ParerThe Minister for Primary

Industries and Energy has provided the
following answer to the honourable senators
question:
(1) Refer Attachment 1. South Australia did not
receive any loans relating to the 1976 Act.
(2) Principal and Interest payments made by each
State to the Commonwealth Government to 30 June
1997 are:
SENATE
State
6703
Principal
Interest
NSW
$10,954,021.44
$30,450,083.47
QLD
$9,057,826.36
$13,737,124.36
SA
Nil
Nil
TAS
Nil
Nil
VIC
$17,240,407.24
$6,287,451.18
WA
$8,931,693.99
$11,703,471.27
It should be noted that:
(1) Both South Australia and Tasmania have had their Repayments of Principal and Payments of
Interest waived.
(2) Victoria has repaid all loans early.
(3) Western Australia has repaid all loans relating to the 1976 and 1978 Acts and all except two
loans relating to the 1972 Act. All loans relating to the 1967 Act together with the two loans
outstanding from the 1972 Act remain to be paid.
(3) (a) Refer Attachments 3 (a, b, c, d and e).
(3) (b) Refer Attachments 3 (a, b, c, d and e).
(4) and (6) Any response to these questions will be speculative, and turn on assumptions that must be
made to inflate the dollar figures to "todays" values.
Schedule of Loan Payments
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
NSW
1,500,000.00
1,200,000.00
1,800,000.00
1,401,000.00
3,236,644.00
2,000,000.00
2,100,000.00
2,900,000.00
2,426,736.53
3,175,327.00
1,839,985.00
1,891,193.00
1,735,444.00
27,260.00
27,233,589.53
QLD
SA
201,000.00
481,000.00
954,000.00
925,000.00
1,144,000.00
195,679.00
2,159,766.00
1,535,427.00
3,939,730.00
650,428.00
1,547,006.13
675,400.00
810,000.00
977,311.00
841,309.00
783,757.00
261,337.00
18,082,150.13
265,000.00
260,000.00
180,000.00
170,000.00
392,781.00
400,000.00
252,000.00
341,000.00
566,000.00
17,294.00
181,374.00
149,005.00
154,652.00
169,132.00
154,472.00
3,652,710.00
TAS
VIC
WA
520,000.00
488,000.00
400,000.00
700,000.00
44,637.67
1,127,864.25
672,674.53
941,514.90
1,375,828.55
753,000.00
300,000.00
500,000.00
480,000.00
815,000.00
109,197.56
1,432,990.00
59,340.16
1,730,072.58
750,000.00
1,008,943.87
337,629.43
275,000.00
415,417.00
521,000.00
325,016.40
500,000.00
859,000.00
424,000.00
56,241.00
1,020,000.00
440,899.00
659,477.69
1,009,229.01
629,999.83
473,531.54
844,631.01
965,315.98
739,000.00
1,007,185.33
9,059,607.00
10,078,510.39
450,000.00
1,090,380.00
658,678.00
603,000.00
334,000.00
247,947.00
9,957,524.90
New South Wales Outstanding Payments

1967
Date
15.7.97
15.1.98
15.7.98
15.1.99
15.7.99
15.1.00
15.7.00
15.1.01
15.7.01
15.1.02
15.7.02
15.1.03
15.7.03
15.1.04
1972
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
118,577.82
88,577.82
88,577.82
56,733.44
53,039.11
49,344.78
45,650.45
41,956.12
38,261.80
34,567.47
30,873.14
27,178.81
23,484.48
19,790.15
16,095.82
12,401.49
9,494.66
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
1976
Interest
234,721.94
225,594.57
216,467.19
207,339.81
198,212.43
189,085.05
179,957.69
170,830.31
161,702.93
152,575.56
143,448.18
134,320.81
125,193.42
116,066.05
1978
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
64,053.60
61,918.48
59,783.36
57,648.24
55,513.12
53,378.00
51,242.88
49,107.76
46,972.64
44,837.52
42,702.40
40,567.28
38,432.16
36,297.04
216,048.72
216,048.72
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
481,079.80
468,141.39
455,202.98
442,214.14
429,225.30
416,236.46
403,247.62
390,258.78
377,269.94
364,281.10
351,292.25
338,303.41
325,314.58
312,325.74
6704
SENATE
1967
Date
15.7.04
15.1.05
15.7.05
15.1.06
15.7.06
15.1.07
15.7.07
15.1.08
15.7.08
15.1.09
15.7.09
15.1.10
15.7.10
15.1.11
15.7.11
15.1.12
15.7.12
15.1.13
15.7.13
15.1.14
15.7.14
15.1.15
15.7.15
15.1.16
15.7.16
15.1.17
15.7.17
15.1.18
Total
1972
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
64,577.82
64,577.82
28,577.82
28,577.82
557.82
557.82
557.82
557.82
6,587.83
4,329.00
2,070.17
1,071.35
72.52
54.39
36.26
18.13
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
211,649.79
147,474.73
147,474.73
107,474.73
107,474.73
65,474.73
65,474.83
16,345.49
16,345.39
7,474.73
7,474.76
1,788,632.04
473,111.37
5,344,784.23

1976
Interest
106,938.69
97,811.31
88,683.94
79,556.56
70,429.19
61,301.81
52,174.43
43,047.05
33,919.67
26,878.00
19,835.31
14,494.62
9,152.94
5,806.25
2,459.56
1,618.46
777.37
388.69
3,170,789.79
1978
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
41,060.00
34,161.92
32,026.80
29,891.68
27,756.56
25,621.44
23,486.32
21,351.20
19,216.08
17,080.96
14,945.84
12,810.72
10,675.60
8,540.48
6,405.36
4,270.24
2,135.12
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.22
216,730.42
137,347.05
137,346.85
91,347.42
91,347.62
44,067.60
44,067.60
681.50
681.50
299,336.90
286,348.05
273,359.21
260,370.36
247,381.53
234,392.69
221,403.85
208,415.00
195,426.16
182,437.33
169,448.50
156,459.65
143,470.81
130,481.96
117,493.12
104,504.29
91,515.45
78,526.61
65,537.76
52,548.92
39,560.08
30,143.49
20,726.90
14,021.97
7,317.04
3,708.95
100.86
50.43
1,231,800.00
992,830.80
7,914,352.88
9,188,811.36
Queensland Outstanding Payments

1967
Date
15.7.97
15.1.98
15.7.98
15.1.99
15.7.99
15.1.00
15.7.00
15.1.01
15.7.01
15.1.02
15.7.02
15.1.03
15.7.03
15.1.04
15.7.04
15.1.05
15.7.05
15.1.06
15.7.06
15.1.07
15.7.07
15.1.08
15.7.08
15.1.09
1972
1976
1978
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
78,013.58
78,013.58
78,013.58
78,013.58
78,013.58
78,013.58
78,013.58
78,013.58
78,013.58
78,013.58
73,993.58
73,993.58
64,373.58
64,373.58
45,293.58
45,293.58
26,793.58
26,793.58
3,913.58
3,913.58
38,420.34
35,981.42
33,542.50
31,103.58
28,664.67
26,225.75
23,786.83
21,347.92
18,909.00
16,470.09
14,031.16
11,697.77
9,364.38
7,283.51
5,202.64
3,636.94
2,071.23
1,153.02
234.81
117.41
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
167,267.14
124,071.82
124,071.82
183,432.96
176,264.70
169,096.40
161,928.13
154,759.85
147,391.57
140,423.29
133,255.02
126,086.73
118,918.45
111,750.19
104,581.91
97,413.63
90,245.35
83,077.07
75,908.80
68,740.50
61,572.23
54,403.96
46,235.67
40,067.39
32,899.12
25,730.84
19,858.41
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
46,032.80
44,595.04
43,057.28
41,519.52
39,981.76
38,444.00
36,906.24
35,368.48
33,830.72
32,292.96
30,755.20
29,217.44
27,679.68
26,141.92
24,604.16
23,066.40
21,528.64
19,990.88
18,453.12
16,915.36
15,377.60
13,839.84
12,302.08
10,764.32
579,141.43
579,141.43
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
1,349,350.58
1,313,461.47
1,432,431.58
1,392,670.96
1,352,910.37
1,313,149.78
1,273,389.18
1,233,628.60
1,193,867.99
1,154,107.39
1,114,346.81
1,074,586.21
1,034,825.61
995,065.02
955,304.41
915,543.84
875,783.24
836,022.63
796,262.05
756,501.44
716,740.86
676,980.26
637,219.66
597,459.06
SENATE
1967
Date
Repayments
1972
Interest
15.7.09
15.1.10
15.7.10
15.1.11
15.7.11
15.1.12
15.7.12
15.1.13
15.7.13
15.1.14
15.7.14
15.1.15
15.7.15
15.1.16
15.7.16
15.1.17
15.7.17
15.1.18
Total
1,208,871.60
6705
329,244.97
1976
1978
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
93,363.28
93,363.28
46,568.68
46,568.68
1,560.12
1,560.25
13,986.00
9,418.69
4,851.38
2,506.83
162.26
81.13
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
29,380.00
9,226.56
7,688.80
6,151.04
4,613.28
3,075.52
1,537.76
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.73
631,458.79
494,148.06
494,148.24
364,218.79
364,218.66
222,975.92
222,975.83
52,317.30
52,317.40
557,698.47
517,937.88
478,177.28
438,416.69
398,656.09
358,895.49
319,134.90
279,374.30
239,613.71
199,853.12
160,092.51
126,510.91
92,929.28
67,006.99
41,084.72
24,413.84
7,742.97
3,871.49
881,400.00
714,958.40
23,632,282.48
29,303,019.64
4,211,005.01 2,455,048.46
South Australia Outstanding Payments

1967
Date
15.7.97
15.1.98
15.7.98
15.1.99
15.7.99
15.1.00
15.7.00
15.1.01
15.7.01
15.1.02
15.7.02
15.1.03
15.7.03
15.1.04
15.7.04
15.1.05
15.7.05
15.1.06
15.7.06
15.1.07
15.7.07
15.1.08
15.7.08
15.1.09
15.7.09
15.1.10
15.7.10
15.1.11
15.7.11
15.1.12
1972
1978
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
25,355.62
25,355.62
25,355.62
25,355.62
25,355.62
25,355.62
25,355.62
25,355.62
25,355.62
25,355.62
23,555.62
23,555.62
19,455.62
19,455.62
14,855.62
14,855.62
7,855.62
7,855.62
1,855.62
1,855.62
11,869.27
11,109.23
10,349.19
9,589.15
8,829.11
8,069.07
7,309.04
6,549.00
5,788.96
5,028.93
4,268.88
3,556.10
2,843.31
2,238.14
1,632.98
1,150.82
668.65
396.49
124.33
62.16
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
29,439.31
21,439.31
21,439.31
16,399.31
16,399.31
9,579.31
9,579.55
32,522.77
31,256.07
29,989.38
28,722.68
27,455.99
26,189.29
24,922.60
23,655.90
22,389.21
21,122.51
19,855.82
18,589.12
17,322.43
16,055.73
14,789.04
13,522.34
12,255.65
10,988.95
9,722.26
8,455.57
7,188.87
5,922.18
4,655.48
3,628.79
2,602.09
1,789.60
977.10
488.55
16,354.08
16,354.08
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
46,524.68
45,582.64
44,640.60
43,427.65
42,214.70
41,001.76
39,788.80
38,575.86
37,362.91
36,149.97
34,937.01
33,724.06
32,511.13
31,298.18
30,085.23
28,872.28
27,659.34
26,446.40
25,233.44
24,020.50
22,807.55
21,594.61
20,381.65
19,168.70
17,955.76
16,742.81
15,529.86
14,316.92
13,103.98
11,891.03
6706
SENATE
1967
Date
Repayments
1972
Interest
1978
Repayments
Interest
15.7.12
15.1.13
15.7.13
15.1.14
15.7.14
15.1.15
15.7.15
15.1.16
15.7.16
15.1.17
15.7.17
15.1.18
Total
388,712.40
101,432.81
742,500.92
437,035.97
Repayments
Interest
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.88
20,215.68
11,956.40
11,956.40
8,090.10
8,090.10
3,861.80
3,861.80
10,678.07
9,465.14
8,252.18
7,039.24
5,826.28
4,613.35
3,400.41
2,559.14
1,717.86
1,129.84
541.81
270.91
767,864.48
939,044.24
Tasmanian Outstanding Payments

1967
Date
15.7.97
15.1.98
15.7.98
15.1.99
15.7.99
15.1.00
15.7.00
15.1.01
15.7.01
15.1.02
15.7.02
15.1.03
15.7.03
15.1.04
15.7.04
15.1.05
15.7.05
15.1.06
15.7.06
15.1.07
15.7.07
15.1.08
15.7.08
15.1.09
15.7.09
15.1.10
15.7.10
15.1.11
15.7.11
15.1.12
15.7.12
15.1.13
15.7.13
15.1.14
15.7.14
15.1.15
15.7.15
15.1.16
1972
1976
1978
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
43,052.75
32,652.75
32,652.75
22,892.75
22,892.75
14,892.75
14,892.75
892.75
892.92
20,160.94
18,867.63
17,574.33
16,281.03
14,987.73
13,694.42
12,401.12
11,107.82
9,814.52
8,521.21
7,227.91
5,934.61
4,641.31
3,621.00
2,600.70
1,843.92
1,087.14
570.35
53.57
26.79
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
82,357.65
60,345.65
60,345.40
46,901.78
46,901.81
31,526.87
31,526.77
13,516.57
13,516.62
93,417.28
89,855.49
86,293.67
82,731.88
79,170.06
75,608.27
72,046.46
68,484.67
64,922.86
61,361.06
57,799.26
54,237.46
50,675.66
47,113.86
43,552.04
39,990.25
36,428.43
32,866.65
29,304.84
25,743.04
22,181.22
18,619.43
15,057.61
12,156.19
9,254.75
6,920.58
4,586.41
2,982.55
1,378.69
689.35
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
15,060.00
23,493.60
22,710.48
21,927.36
21,144.24
20,361.12
19,578.00
18,794.88
18,011.76
17,228.64
16,445.52
15,662.40
14,879.28
14,096.16
13,313.04
12,529.92
11,746.80
10,963.68
10,180.56
9,397.44
8,614.32
7,831.20
7,048.08
6,264.96
5,481.84
4,698.72
3,915.60
3,132.48
2,349.36
1,566.24
783.12
364,616.85
364,616.85
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.35
414,054.28
315,608.51
315,608.70
228,323.97
228,324.14
846,912.27
824,247.02
947,916.77
921,593.14
895,269.52
868,945.89
842,622.27
816,298.64
789,975.00
763,651.39
737,327.77
711,004.13
684,680.51
658,356.87
632,033.25
605,709.63
579,385.99
553,062.36
526,738.75
500,415.12
474,091.49
447,767.87
421,444.24
395,120.61
368,796.99
342,473.36
316,149.74
289,826.11
263,502.48
237,178.86
210,855.24
184,531.61
158,207.98
131,884.35
105,560.74
83,667.16
61,773.59
45,025.45
SENATE
1967
Date
Repayments
6707
1972
Interest
Repayments
1976
Interest
Repayments
1978
Interest
15.7.16
15.1.17
15.7.17
15.1.18
Total
659,295.17
171,018.05
2,116,449.77
1,285,429.97
451,800.00
364,150.80
Repayments
Interest
132,631.50
132,631.35
49,437.50
49,437.44
28,277.30
17,797.02
7,316.75
3,658.37
15,066,838.15
19,244,004.16
Western Australia Outstanding Payments

1967
Date
15.7.97
15.1.98
15.7.98
15.1.99
15.7.99
15.1.00
15.7.00
15.1.01
15.7.01
15.1.02
15.7.02
15.1.03
15.7.03
15.1.04
15.7.04
15.1.05
15.7.05
15.1.06
15.7.06
15.1.07
15.7.07
15.1.08
15.7.08
15.1.17
15.7.17
15.1.18
Total
1972
Repayments
Interest
Repayments
Interest
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
45,784.82
36,784.82
36,784.82
26,784.82
26,784.82
9,604.82
9,604.82
1,124.82
1,124.82
20,878.69
19,526.50
18,174.30
16,822.11
15,469.91
14,117.72
12,765.52
11,413.33
10,061.14
8,708.94
7,356.75
6,004.55
4,652.36
3,536.41
2,420.47
1,574.52
728.58
398.03
67.49
33.74
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
20,400.00
13,464.00
12,852.00
12,240.00
11,628.00
11,016.00
10,404.00
9,792.00
9,180.00
8,568.00
7,956.00
7,344.00
6,732.00
6,120.00
5,508.00
4,896.00
4,284.00
3,672.00
3,060.00
2,448.00
1,836.00
1,224.00
612.00
698,016.40
174,711.06
448,800.00
154,836.00

Ds 220997 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ds 220997 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

That these bills be now read a second time.

upon which Senator Brown had moved by

Senator SCHACHT (South Australia)

opposition has put forward. The first part of

Monday, 22 September 1997

The minister did make some remarks which

We want to make it clear that any such

Monday, 22 September 1997

country talking to every media proprietor and

With those few remarks, I commend to the

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.48

frank, some of those arguments are quite

Monday, 22 September 1997

return to the fine city of Canberra, he will

Monday, 22 September 1997

Question so resolved in the negative.

The Senate divided.

Question so resolved in the negative.

There is opposition to these schedule items

rules. Those newspapers are in Warwick, on

Monday, 22 September 1997

turning a blind eye to. It sets the pattern for

Monday, 22 September 1997

to apologise to you, and I would be the first

that. But I do say that getting a call out of the

The committee divided.

Monday, 22 September 1997

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (1.29

Monday, 22 September 1997

Zealand can be recognised in both nations for

council of ministers, as it might normally be

this omission by recognising the existing

Monday, 22 September 1997

under section 48 of the Customs Act if that

So this scheme has served us well and should

Monday, 22 September 1997

requirement for car child restraints. The rest

The proposed amendments will exclude all

Monday, 22 September 1997

standards; use by and age dating of food;

Monday, 22 September 1997

We are setting a precedent that will be used

This is a worry. What I have talked about is

treaty agreement or covenant which we are

Monday, 22 September 1997

Consistency of food standards was explicitly

Monday, 22 September 1997

to rise on every occasion that the Leader of

for three out of the next four weeks; that is,

Monday, 22 September 1997

Senator Vanstone today, particularly on the

Monday, 22 September 1997

because I would have thought that she would

Opposition senators interjecting

Mr Latham was then asked whether he saw

No, I dont find him a rival at all. Anyone whos

We are getting a little bit touchy between the

Senator Faulkner, that is not too good

Mr Tanner, who is on the record as looking