Senator STOTT DESPOJA (Leader of the Australian Democrats) (12:19 PM) —Mr Acting Deputy President Chapman, welcome back. A number of Democrats will be giving speeches in the form of an address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech. I would like to do so on behalf of my party also. As we know, this is the opening of the 40th Parliament in the 101st year of an Australian federal government. I would like to begin by acknowledging the indigenous people, who are the traditional owners of this land. The Democrats strongly believe that the opening of parliament should include a welcoming ceremony by the indigenous people and I believe my colleague deputy leader Senator Aden Ridgeway has a motion on notice to that effect.

As I did briefly yesterday, I congratulate the coalition—and, in particular, Prime Minister John Howard—on their re-election to government for a third term. I also extend a welcome on behalf of all the Democrats to the 22 new members that we have in the parliament and particularly to those two new senators who joined us yesterday. After 1 July this year the Australian Democrats will still hold seats in this House. We will have eight Senate seats and therefore the effective balance of power.

In his speech yesterday, the Governor-General, Dr Hollingworth, opened the 40th Parliament and, according to tradition, gave an address that outlined the government's program for the coming term. There are aspects of the government's program that the Democrats have grave concerns about. As usual, we will analyse and scrutinise legislation and vote on its merits. The Australian Democrats will move an amendment to the motion on the Governor-General's address. I give notice now of that amendment; it is being circulated, and I will refer to it later. I note, to avoid any panic in the chamber, that this is not an amendment that we will be voting on for some time. To give senators an idea of what that amendment is, it is in relation to asylum seekers and that we move towards a more humane and workable approach and, specifically, that the Woomera Detention Centre be closed. We are seeking the support of the Senate and I urge all senators to support that motion.

Since the last parliament some significant new laws, particularly on a domestic level, have come into effect. The new private sector privacy laws came into effect on 21 December last year—an area that has been of particular interest to me over the past six years that I have been in parliament. The Democrats welcome the new laws. We have been calling for such laws for more than a decade because we have always believed that privacy legislation should extend to the private sector. The legislation therefore is long overdue. It is a good start, but we still think there is long way to go, particularly if we are really serious about protecting the privacy of all Australians. We opposed very strongly the exemption of political parties from that legislation. I think it is a little hypocritical for political parties to not have to subscribe to the same laws that we are in effect imposing on other aspects of Australia, not only the Public Service due to the last privacy laws but now the private sector as a consequence of the laws that came into effect on 21 December.

In relation to genetically modified foods and labelling specifically, labelling laws came into effect on 7 December last year. Again it is a step in the right direction. Again it is an issue on which the Australian Democrats have been vocal for many years, but we still acknowledge there is a lot of work to be done. While consumers now have a lot more information about the GM ingredients in the foods they buy, there are still too many exemptions to those laws. So we will continue to pursue improvements to those laws, particularly under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, and we will work to ensure a tighter labelling regime for genetically modified foods.

This is actually the 25th anniversary year for the Australian Democrats and it is the 21st anniversary of the party first holding the balance of power in the Australian Senate. We will be celebrating a quarter of a century of the Democrats as the third force in Australian politics, and it is clearly an opportunity for us to highlight the role that the Australian Democrats have played on many issues, including protection of the environment, human rights, education and, of course, accountability in government. I am proud to lead a party that has changed the face of politics in this country by opening it up to scrutiny and bringing greater diversity to the parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a very special Australian Democrat, Sam Hudson, who has been our national secretary for 21 years and has recently resigned from that position—21 years of good work and certainly a lot of good humour.

One anniversary project that we are putting forward is a speaker series. The speaker series will occur throughout the year and it will highlight the leading role that the Australian Democrats have played on a range of issues, including world heritage, antinuclear campaigns, native title, women's issues and honesty and accountability in government. I look forward to informing the chamber over the next few months of some of the key speakers that will be part of that event.

It is notable that many of the issues that the Australian Democrats put before the electorate back in 1977 when we were first formed are still an important part of our work, as evidenced, for example, by the number of private members' bills that the Democrats have drafted and asked the government to consider. We actually introduced 16 private members' bills in the last parliament. In addition, another 17 bills had been put back before the parliament. As most people would know, we only get a couple of goes, maybe two turns a year, when we actually have the opportunity to do private business. That is on a Thursday afternoon, of course. This parliament we are going to ask the government to consider our private members' bills, and I can think of a number I have on the Notice Paper relating to issues like prohibiting patenting of genes and gene sequences, captioning for the deaf and hearing-impaired and, for example, my private member's bill in relation to genetic privacy and nondiscrimination. I would be very keen to see some of these forward-looking issues, particularly in relation to biotechnology, finally reach the chamber for debate, and not only that but hopefully come to a vote.

The Governor-General in his speech highlighted some of the federal legislation that is due to come to the federal parliament this year. The legislation that is likely to come before the parliament in the first half of this year includes the RFAs, changes to media laws, ASIO and related security powers, industrial relations of course and probably further toughening of how this government treats asylum seekers. The Labor Party may support the government on some of these issues, but the Democrats expect that we will hold the balance of power on some others. The Australian Democrats will consider changes to media ownership laws only if they encourage media diversity. The Democrats remain committed to increasing levels of diversity in media ownership; that is our very clear objective. The Democrats do not see foreign participation in the Australian media sector as a bad thing per se. However, any changes to foreign media rules should not decrease Australian control of our media, result in decreased Australian content or have a deleterious effect on the number of Australian jobs in the media sector.

We will also closely scrutinise any new security measures proposed by the government. We recognise that security is an essential requirement for defending democracy. However, in the process of defending democracy, we must not compromise or weaken those very freedoms that we seek to defend. The revelations in recent days about the Defence Signals Directorate intercepting calls to and from the Tampa have breached the rules that prohibit them from spying on Australians except under extreme circumstances. That is why the Australian Democrats are seeking an inquiry into this matter by the Inspector-General of Intelligence. I have given notice of this proposed inquiry to the Senate, and we are very keen to ensure that any results of such an inquiry are available to the Senate. I think that is an essential part of any inquiry.

The government has also signalled its intention to go in hard on its old favourite of industrial relations reform, concentrating on more changes in unfair dismissal laws, implementation of secret ballots in relation to strike action and preventing the collection of bargaining fees from workers who are not members of unions but who might benefit from enterprise agreements. Much of this agenda, as we know, has been before the Senate, has been exhaustively debated and has been largely rejected. Unfortunately for Australian employers and employees, this tired agenda is more about politics and posturing than it is about good policy or problem solving. Where are the reforms that will create jobs? Where are the reforms that will assist industry on a systematic rather than a knee-jerk basis and face up to the realities of unemployment and underemployment? They are the reforms that Australians want to see come to the parliament. They are the ones that will make a real difference for Australian families, for workplaces generally and for employers.

There has been a significant decline in the number of jobs in Australia, partly hidden by a fall in the number of Australians looking for a job and a continuing rise in part-time employment. While the official unemployment rate in Australia is 6.7 per cent, seasonally adjusted, which is up from 6.3 per cent a year ago—and I acknowledge there will be new data out on Thursday—other surveys of employment show a much more serious problem, with unemployment estimated to be around 10 per cent. This figure also hides some of the serious regional problems and a widening gap between the cities, outer suburbs and the country. Over the past year, almost 60,000 full-time jobs have disappeared from Australia, and all the net job growth has been in part-time, casual, less secure jobs. Three-quarters of the unemployed are looking for full-time work, yet the new jobs that are being created in Australia are part-time jobs—indeed, most of them are casual. With more than eight unemployed people for every vacancy, it is obvious that more needs to be done. Bigger sticks, more penalties and tougher breaching, however, are the wrong responses to a simple shortfall of jobs. Young Australians and the many older Australians who face longer periods out of work deserve better.

The Democrats are determined to put the issue of employment creation, the issue of this seemingly intractable problem of unemployment, back onto the political agenda and to keep it there. It was noticeably absent from the debate during the federal election. Now it is time to get it back on the agenda and for government to actually address this issue and the issue of creating sustainable, meaningful, long-term jobs. We want the government to use its next budget to deliver some hope for the unemployed in this country by encouraging the creation of new jobs—particularly, of course, in regional labour markets.

The government has signalled its commitment to once again try to roll back rights on unfair dismissal, particularly for those employed in small businesses. Such legislation has been refused several times, on the straightforward ground that it discriminates against a class of employees. The government actually contradicts itself on this one. It says, on the one hand, that it:

But one of the first bills it is introducing into this new parliament will directly discriminate against a class of employees—those in small business. To suggest that this approach is something to do with fairness is surely testament to a lively sense of irony among the government and its drafters. What it is about is unfairness. The Australian Democrats have been on the record many times on this issue: we will not trade rights for phantom jobs. The vast majority of unfair dismissal applications are made under state laws, not federal laws. Changes to our federal laws will not affect most unfair dismissal applications. That is the reality, and that is why we have opposed these changes previously.

Taxation reform will continue to be an important component of the government's agenda. There were enormous problems with the implementation of the new tax system. The Democrats were quick to point out some of the flaws and we have indicated a willingness to work with the government to resolve some of these issues. I note that Senator Helen Coonan has a watching brief on this issue, as the assistant to the Treasurer, and I look forward to working with her in my capacity as the Australian Democrats' treasury spokesperson. The Democrats would welcome any proposals that will simplify paperwork for businesses, but for small business in particular.

The government also indicated—and this was evident in the Governor-General's speech yesterday—that it is interested in assisting families with workplace responsibilities. To do this is going to take more than words; it will take more than a small tax break for families as well. I hope we see more this term from the government than the lip-service it has already given to the issues of work and family. That means it has to take steps that matter to families. As the Governor-General recognised yesterday, during the election Prime Minister John Howard announced a $1.2 billion tax break for new mothers. Under the plan, mothers would be refunded the tax they paid on income earned in the year before the birth of their child. The Democrats support the aim of this initiative and we will support this initiative. However, we believe it will least benefit those women who need that support most. For example, over a five-year period, a low-paid woman in full-time work will receive a tax benefit of $2,900, compared to $12,500 for a woman on around $53,000 per annum.

Tax benefits that favour the rich and apply only on the birth of a new baby are not going to benefit all Australian mothers; they are certainly not going to give equal benefits to Australian mothers. What women want is paid maternity leave. They need support to take time off around the birth of their baby, as well as for the birth of course, not just a financial benefit down the track. The Australian Democrats are on record as being committed to 12 weeks government-funded paid maternity leave for all Australian women.

We anticipate that this year's budget could be a harsh one. We urge the government not to continue the cuts to education and social services that marked its first two terms. Alternate areas of budget restraint could be government advertising and, of course, the perks for retiring politicians. According to the Daily Telegraph—and I am not sure whether or not we believe on occasions that so-called esteemed publication—the government spent $187 million on advertising campaigns and self-promotion, and that was only last year. That made it Australia's biggest advertiser—it was previously the third biggest. The newspaper pointed out that what the government spent on advertising could have provided 19,820 university places or 12,460 heart bypasses. Since 2002 is not an election year, presumably the government will spend less. We certainly encourage it to spend less. One area of expenditure that the Democrats will not drop as a matter of debate is the issue of parliamentarians' entitlements, particularly those of former parliamentarians.

Time does not permit me to talk in detail about the innovation, technology and higher education aspects of the Governor-General's address, but I am sure some of these will be taken up by my colleagues. In relation to the environment, in his speech yesterday the Governor-General expressed the need for a whole-of-government approach to sustainable environment issues to be one of the highest priorities for the government's third term. I am very pleased to hear that this is a high priority. It is something that we support. However, there is going to have to be a lot more done. For example, the government may boast about its $1 billion over five years for greenhouse gas abatement, but clearly we are still not doing enough in this country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce land clearing. Given that we have been assessed as a country that is worse than the United States when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we must address this.

In closing, the Australian Democrats, who introduced to this parliament the concepts of environmental sustainability and world heritage, will continue to pursue legislation that protects Australia's unique and precious natural heritage. We will continue to oppose the selling off of key public assets, including opposing the further sale of Telstra. Accountability is, always has been and continues to be a priority for the Australian Democrats. This government's record in providing information to the Senate is one of the worst in parliamentary history, and that has to be addressed. Finally, we hope that all participants will deliberate wisely at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in March. We pay due tribute to Her Majesty—

Senator Heffernan —Have you got a new dress for it?

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Senator Heffernan, I am paying tribute to Her Majesty the Queen in this her Golden Jubilee year—and, of course, I have already offered my condolences on the death of Princess Margaret. I look forward to a time when we have an Australian head of state, but I do recognise the extraordinary work the Queen does, especially as a high profile powerful woman in public life.

If an Australian republic is unlikely in the next government term, we at least have a few sporting events to look forward to. I point to the examples of the Ashes tour in 2003, the Youth Commonwealth Games in 2004 and, indeed, dare I forget, the Gay Games in 2002. So there are some things to look forward to. There is an interesting parliamentary agenda, and certainly the Democrats will continue to put both policy and legislative pressure on this government to ensure that our laws are the greenest, the fairest and the most accountable. I move the amendment as circulated in my name: