Thursday, 16 December 1982 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Harold Young) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Motion (by Senator Sir John Carrick) agreed to: That petitions lodged with the Clerk may be presented this day. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Human Rights in the Philippines To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the following human rights violations are occurring in the Philippines: 1. The disappearance or extra-legal execution of a number of real or perceived opponents of the government. 2. Systematic torture of political prisoners. 3. The detention of political prisoners without fair trial. 4. The death penalty. 5. Arrests of people for the non-violent exercise of their human rights. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: 1. appeal to the President of the Philippines for the immediate release of prisoners of conscience. 2. appeal to the Minister of Justice of the Philippines, Mr Ricardo Puno, for fair and early trials for all political prisoners. 3. appeal to Pres. Marcos for the abolition of the death penalty and torture for all prisoners. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Western Australia respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to withdraw public telegram facilities and downgrade telegram standards by: 1. planning to withdraw the 24 hour telegraph service at the Chief Telegraph Office in each capital city and in Canberra and Darwin 2. closing country telegraph offices 3. increasing telegram charges whilst downgrading the service 4. withdrawing telegram operating facilities from a large number of suburban and country post offices 5. generating serious delays in telegram delivery by reducing standards of service through centralisation of the network and reduction of operating and delivery staff will reduce an available means of communications in commercial enterprise, deny the opportunity for people of Australia to make contact with family and friends in times of emergency, and civil or natural disasters, particularly for the 30 per cent of Australians who are not telephone subscribers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take measures to ensure the maintenance of an efficient, effective public telegram service to meet the needs of the Australian people socially, publicly, commercially and in times of emergencies and civil or natural disasters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that US, Australian and allied forces used huge amounts of toxic chemicals for military purposes, such as Agents Orange, Blue and White, in Vietnam during the war there; (2) many of these chemicals were, and are, known to be highly dangerous to human health; (3) Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families are suffering many severe problems which may be due to their exposure to these chemicals; and (4) the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia has been seeking a Royal Commission for well over two years to ensure an independent investigation of these matters. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) express its support for the Royal Commission; and (b) urge the Federal Government to establish the Royal Commission immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the continuing high level of tax avoidance and evasion is cause for grave concern for honest Australian taxpayers, and demands stringent and immediate action by the Commonwealth, noting in particular: 1. The latest estimate by the Australian Taxpayers' Association is that $7,000m a year is being lost in taxation revenue; 2. This figure can only continue to rise because of the timid approach by the Government in closing off tax loopholes; and 3. No effective inroads can be made until a comprehensive policy is adopted of levying tax from the date on which a scheme of tax avoidance is first used. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned at the special privileges bestowed on the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, M.P.: (1) That in 1964 a Liberal Country Party Government granted Mr Anthony, M.P., a Commonwealth Home Loan Mortgage of $17,964 for a period of 45 years at a fixed interest rate of 4.75 per cent and that at 1.9.82 the amount of principal had only been reduced by $395.06 since the 1.10.81 leaving a balance of $14,609.94. (2) Your petitioners therefore request that the Government immediately make available similar generous terms to the many thousands of Home Buyers in Australia who are at present suffering undue hardship and financial embarrassment due to abnormally high interest rates. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McLaren (from 20 citizens). Petitions received. Senator EVANS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) notes the refusal by the Government, communicated in the Acting Prime Minister's letter of 15 December, to comply with the Senate's direction to produce, subject to independent editing, certain papers relating to the Government's administation of tax evasion and avoidance laws; (b) notes that this refusal is not based on any claim of Execution privilege, which claim would clearly under established law and practice be a matter for the Senate itself to determine, but upon a new and unprecedented claim-possibly capable of judicial determination-that the Senate has no constitutional power to require the production of documents relating to the exercise by the Executive of its law enforcement functions; (c) is of the opinion that there is no foundation whatever in constitutional law or convention for any such claim, and that-subject only to reasonable claims of Executive privilege-both Houses of Parliament are fully entitled to scrutinise and demand accountability for all aspects of Executive behaviour; (d) is further of the opinion that this latest obstructive stance by the Government, when seen in the light of the persistent obstruction and evasion which has occurred since the Senate first insisted on the production of the documents in question on 23 September, is now ample demonstration of the fact that the Government has something to hide which the documents in question would clearly reveal, namely that the Fraser Government was culpably negligent in failing to proceed effectively against those involved in bottom-of-the-harbour and related tax avoidance and evasion schemes from 1976 on; and (e) accordingly, censures the Fraser Government: (i) for its unjustified failure to comply with the Senate resolution of 25 November; and (ii) for its culpable neglect and mismanagement in failing to proceed effectively and expeditiously against tax evaders and avoiders at a cost of hundreds and possibly thousands of millions of dollars to the Australian community. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the proposed amendment to Standing Order 407A, relating to time limits on speeches, which is currently operating as a sessional order until 31 December 1982, be extended to apply until the last day of sitting in 1983. Notice of Intention to Withdraw Notice of Motion Senator TATE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I give notice that it is my intention, at the giving of notices of motion on the next day of sitting, to withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Austin Lewis for the next day of sitting, to disallow the Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Ordinance 1982. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator TATE —The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was concerned about notification of rights of appeal to persons affected by a decision to cancel or suspend a licence, and sought an assurance from the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Hodgman) that a notification of such rights would routinely be made in all cases. The Committee understands that the assurance sought is in the post, and I give the notice of withdrawal solely on that basis. In accordance with the Committee's new practice, I seek leave to incorporate a detailed statement on the matter in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- When giving notice, on 17 November 1982, for the disallowance of the Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Ordinance, Senator Austin Lewis advised the Senate that the Committee was concerned with sub-section 33 (2) of the Ordinance, which provides that the validity of a decision of the Board to cancel or suspend a certificate is not 'to be affected by a failure to include in a statement under sub-section (1) a notification of appeal rights in accordance with paragraph 1 ( b)'. While the Committee appreciated that technical failures should not usually invalidate decisions, it was concerned that, given the serious consequences of suspension or cancellation of a licence, a routine form of notification of appeal rights should always be given when advice of suspension or cancellation was sent. The Minister advised, on 29 November 1982, that as the provision was being inserted in other pieces of Commonwealth legislation, he had referred the Committee's queries to the Attorney-General for direct reply. The Committee, while noting that the Attorney-General would ultimately give advice as to the general policy of the provision, sought an assurance from the Minister that notification of a right of appeal will routinely be made to all persons affected by the Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board Ordinance. The Committee understands that the Minister has unreservedly given the assurance, but awaits formal advice to that effect. As delays in giving the notice of withdrawal could cause uncertainty to those affected by the Ordinance, the Committee decided to make its intention to withdraw the notice of disallowance clear, subject to receipt of the assurance sought. Senator McLAREN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate notes with grave concern- 1. That the Budgets introduced this year by Mr Howard and Mr Tonkin, the recently defeated Premier of South Australia, were both designed as election budgets and close examination now reveals the documents in both instances to be nothing more than huge confidence tricks. 2. (a) That on assuming office in September 1979 the Liberal Government of South Australia inherited a solid State economy with a Budget surplus of $6,453, 000 plus all the State's assets being intact; and (b) that on assuming office in November 1982 the Bannon Labor Government inherited a rundown State economy with a Budget deficit of between $37m and $62m . 3. That the 1982 South Australian Budget figures do not give a clear picture of the State's rundown economy in view of the fact that the Tonkin Liberal Government had disposed of many of the State's assets in the form of land, houses, machinery and equipment. Senator COLSTON —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, relates to the proclamation of section 90 of the Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Act 1981. Section 90 provides for the deregulation of trading hours in the Australian Capital Territory by the repeal of the Trading Hours Ordinance 1962. Does the Minister recall stating on 10 June 1981 that proclamation of section 90 would be deferred until the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on the proposed deregulation had been tabled and an opportunity for debate had been provided? In view of the fact that debate on the Committee's report has not been concluded, will the Minister give an assurance that proclamation of section 90 will not proceed before that debate has been finalised? Senator MESSNER —I recall the debate back in June 1981. I recall many debates in this place following that time, particularly in the last few months. As to the specific statement which Senator Colston seeks from the Minister for the Capital Territory, I will refer that matter to him and seek his comments. Senator THOMAS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, concerns a major Korean group which is in Western Australia negotiating with the State Government and with private industries for the purpose of establishing a major power station, an aluminium smelter and other resource development projects. Will the Minister give me an assurance that, when the relevant Commonwealth departments assess these projects under the guidelines that are the responsibility of the Commonwealth, due recognition is given to the employment and economic value of these projects to Western Australia and Australia as a whole? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Any project of the kind outlined by Senator Thomas would be subject to the usual procedures of the Foreign Investment Review Board which take into account the beneficial effects of any investment or new project. I think recently the Treasurer tabled or made public the revised guidelines for the Foreign Investment Review Board. These guidelines would be applied to any proposed project from Korea or any other country. Under those conditions I think I can safely give the assurance that has been sought by Senator Thomas. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Given the Government's intervention today in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission case, does this indicate that the Government believes in a centralised wage fixation system? Has the Government made any progress to establishing what its attitude will be to wage fixation following the 12-month wages freeze? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —What can be interpreted from today's action is that all persons attending the Premiers Conference agreed that there should be intervention in the wages system at State and Federal levels to bring about a wages freeze in the private sector. The Commonwealth is intervening today as the result of the unanimous agreement on that principle at the Premiers Conference. This is a unique situation in Australia's history in that all heads of government are in agreement that wages should be frozen, although there is some difference of opinion as to the length of time. It is not to be interpreted in any other way. The Government will be contemplating the future system of wage fixation in the months ahead. In due course the Government will indicate its policies in this matter. I repeat that today's action follows the unanimous expression of the Premiers Conference. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In the light of the Acting Prime Minister's statement yesterday that more consideration will be given to the Federal Government's announcement on its attitude to the building of the Franklin Dam, and after the firm statements by the World Heritage Commission on the obligations of Australia arising from the world heritage listing and the further request by the Commission Chairman, Professor Slatyer, yesterday for a rethinking of the program so that 'some other procedure might be devised for satisfying the electricity requirements of the Tasmanian people', I ask: Does the Minister expect that Ministers will make use of the Christmas recess to study closely the evidence and conclusions of the report of the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania which the Senate has not yet found time to debate adequately so that totally misleading statements by Premier Gray that the dam is essential to the Tasmanian economy and that the Commonwealth has not the power and obligation to intervene may be corrected? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I will answer the latter part of the question first. The Commonwealth Government will give very close consideration to the report of the Senate Select Committee. I have read the report, which expressed a view. It is not to be considered that that, in itself, is compelling. In the Commonwealth Government's view it is the right of individual States to decide what industries shall be attracted, how they shall attract them, what is the predictability of industries for the future and the power or surplus power they should have. The Select Committee has made some predictions. Those predictions will be given consideration. But throughout Australia over the past 81 years it has been a very old-fashioned and a very good view that the determination of all of these matters regarding the growth of industry and projections in that regard should be a matter for the State governments. I have no doubt that the Commonwealth Government would want to respect that principle. Nevertheless, consideration will be given to the report. I said yesterday, and I emphasise it, that the Commonwealth Government will be very interested to receive a written report and, no doubt, a verbal report from Professor Ralph Slatyer. It will study the report and its implications in detail . In the light of that report the Commonwealth Government will look towards what the Government considers are the actions it might take, in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government, to ensure that the wilderness is managed in a way which will protect its vital parts. It is too early at the moment to go further than that because we have not seen the details of the report. I stressed yesterday that whilst we have the advantage of reports in the Press-Senator Missen will appreciate this-one needs the fullest details in this matter. I give an assurance to the Senate that the Government will give the closest consideration to the matter and will be very conscious of its indications in the past, that it is concerned that this wilderness area should be listed, which has happened, and should be preserved, which is our intention in terms of management and co- operation. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, or any other Minister who claims to understand, what Mr Doug Anthony means by a statement reported in this morning's Canberra Times and almost all other newspapers in Australia. Mr Anthony said: There is no condoning the building of the dam by the Commonwealth and I wouldn' t like that to be the impression. The first objective was to have the area listed. We want the area to be protected and don't want to see any further development. The article continues: He conceded that despite last week's announcement that the Commonwealth would not intervene, another approach to the State Government had been 'hinted at and suggested'. But reaction by the Tasmanian Government to renewed negotiations ' has been fairly negative'. Will the Leader of the Government please tell me what that means? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Unlike Senator Chipp, I think most Australians understand very clearly what this means because it is an expression of what the Commonwealth Government has been saying. Mr Anthony is saying that the Tasmanian Government has the right to make that decision and that was a right which was recognised in the referendum, in the State elections and in the ballot box. That decision was made. It is not for the Commonwealth Government to intervene and tell State governments whether they should have the attraction of particular industries or the building of particular power stations. Over the years there have been numerous discussions between the Tasmanian Government and the Commonwealth Government on various ways of providing additional electric power to Tasmania. It should be understood that Tasmania has no natural supplies of gas. There have been very strenuous endeavours to find gas off the coast. Tasmania has very little and very poor coal. If it were to import coal, the cost of coal-fired power stations would be very considerably above that of hydro- electricity with the result that the one primary responsibility of the Gray Government, that is, to put itself in a competitive position to attract industry , would not be there. So what Mr Anthony said is that, in effect, these things have happened. They happened under the accepted view of the Australian people. The decisions were made properly in the ballot box. These decisions were properly State ones. Equally, from the moment the former State Labor Government under Mr Lowe indicated that it would build the power station-it agreed also with the world heritage listing-the Commonwealth had always approached the listing in the knowledge that a sovereign State government intended to build a power station-- Senator Chipp —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I fully appreciate that your powers to administer Standing Orders in respect of Ministers at Question Time are severely limited. But surely there must be some limit to the irrelevancies that Ministers can carry on with. If you followed the rulings you have given to their logical conclusion, Mr President, I could ask Senator Sir John Carrick a question about resources and he could, within your ruling, be relevant and in order by replying with an answer on the habits of the Australian dingo. Sir, there must be a limit to relevancy. I asked a simple question about what Mr Anthony meant by his rather quaint statement. If it is clear to Senator Sir John Carrick, it is not clear to me. I apologise to him for having an intellectual capacity lower than his, but I do ask the question. The PRESIDENT —I call the Leader of the Government. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Chipp asked a question in four parts. I am very specifically and very narrowly answering in each of those four parts what was meant by 'condoning'. I have said that quite specifically. This kind of interjection, of course, is well understood. We felt we did not have to make a decision on this issue because the decision was made at the ballot box. I am sorry if that is not relevant to the first part of the question. The second part of the question related to listing. I was in the process of answering specifically the question on listing. I said that the Lowe Labor Government had indicated that it intended to build a dam, that it had acquiesced with the Commonwealth in the listing and that it had always been known that there would be a listing with a dam in the process of being built; and this has happened. What Mr Anthony was saying was perfectly consistent. Equally, from 1975 onwards, this Government has been indicating that it saw it as a major challenge to have a management program in place for South West Tasmania and it was interested to co-operate in that regard. Specifically that is so. I do not know whether any further details are necessary. I repeat that it is quite specific in terms of what the Commonwealth Government has been saying and doing over the past seven years regarding this matter. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question. I ask Senator Sir John Carrick to explain what is meant by this statement: Mr Anthony conceded that despite last week's announcement that the Commonwealth would not intervene, another approach to the State Government had been 'hinted at and suggested'. I ask: Hinted at and suggested by whom to whom? Senator Sir John Carrick —Is it another approach by the State Government or to the State Government? Senator CHIPP —To? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I cannot interpret what Mr Anthony said. Honourable senators-Ha, ha! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Now that we have had our laugh let me say that I believe that Senator Chipp is referring to a report of an interview on the steps of Parliament House. It probably means, as I said yesterday, that it is likely that in the weeks ahead discussions will take place between the Commonwealth Government and the Tasmanian State Government on the management and protection of the area. Senator Chipp —That is not what he said. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I can understand the embarrassment of these people in this regard. The Australian Democrats are arguing that they are the champions against the dams and that they led the fight in the Flinders by-election. They are trying to prove the point of the Flinders by-election where, being the champions, they fell. I am sorry to say that I cannot interpret that. I have my difficulties-- Senator Chipp —I did not ask you to do so. I just want you to interpret Anthony, not us. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I understand that fully. I believe that what he means is that the Commonwealth Government intends to have discussions with the State Government on the management and protection of the area. I said yesterday that the first thing that would be necessary would be to get the Slatyer report. If it would be helpful I will refer that part of the question to Mr Anthony for interpretation, as indeed I refer the Democrats' statements on the Flinders by- election to them for interpretation. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. While I recognise and welcome the return to the 20 per cent government preference in favour of Australian manufactured goods for government use, will the Government further consider the state of the local industry and the consequences for local employment before awarding contracts to overseas suppliers? Senator CHANEY —I note Senator Watson's welcoming of the return to the 20 per cent preference. I must say that Senator Watson is very consistent in his advocacy on these matters. I would have expected him to welcome that advantage to Australian industry which has been restored by the Government as part of its response to the very difficult employment situation which we have. The honourable senator raised a very large matter, namely, that we should go beyond the 20 per cent preference which is given to Australian suppliers in letting contracts for the supply of goods and that we should look at the state of local industry and presumably make even greater concessions where employment considerations warrant it. I will ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whom I represent in this place, to consider the point which has been raised by the honourable senator. I suppose that in a sense the Government has responded in the way which is suggested by Senator Watson in his question when one looks at what has been done with respect to the Williamstown dockyard, where the Government has gone to considerable trouble to try to reach a situation where destroyers for the Australian Navy can be built in Australia. I should not make too much comment because I do not represent the Minister for Defence Support, the Honourable Ian Viner, who is responsible for that matter. However, there have been recent reports of the efforts of the Government to achieve management practices and labour practices at that dockyard which will make it possible for those ships to be made in Australia. I would think that that sort of action is in line with the sort of suggestion which was raised by Senator Watson in his question. Senator BUTTON —My question to the Minister for National Development and Energy follows the answer which he gave Senator Missen earlier in Question Time. Has not the Minister on numerous occasions used his portfolio to comment in this Senate in relation to demands for electricity in States such as New South Wales and Victoria and to criticise the governments of those States in respect of their capacity to fulfil demands at various times? Has not his ministry kept a continuing overview of the likely demand for electricity in Tasmania? Has there not been advice to him that the projected demand for electricity in Tasmania is declining on the basis of his Department's own assessments? What is now the current estimate of demand in the 1990s? Finally, I ask a question in respect of the first part of the Minister's portfolio-that of National Development. The Minister in his answer to Senator Missen referred to industries which might be attracted to Tasmania as a result of the building of the Franklin Dam. Can he indicate any industries which he as Minister for National Development and Energy knows would be likely to be attracted to Tasmania in that circumstance? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Button has asked a very lengthy question which is made up of five parts. The first part is whether I, as Minister, have intervened to draw the attention of the States to what might be bad or inequitable practices in not having a sufficient volume of electricity, not having a sufficient maintenance and operational program and not having a sufficient pricing policy in order to get the proper capitalisation in order to attract industry from abroad. The answer is yes. Indeed, three years ago we had very dusty answers, particularly from New South Wales which is now applauding what we have done. It is the job of the Commonwealth to look at assessments in a national sense and to offer information to the States but not to force that information upon them. We have done so. Secondly, I was asked whether we have looked as an overview at the States and at Tasmania in particular. It will be very well known here that my Government and I set up the Zeidler Committee of Inquiry into Electricity Generating and the Sharing of Power Resources in South-east Australia to look at a south- eastern Australia grid and to see whether in fact it was feasible to link Victoria and South Australia and to run a cable to Tasmania. We have therefore been looking at an overview of Tasmania's needs. Indeed, the Zeidler Committee looked at that matter and said that there was a good possibility for a secondary type of grid linking Victoria and South Australia-that would be important for Tasmania-but at this moment it would be premature to have a cable. We have, indeed, looked at an overview of Tasmania's needs. The fact is that, until about a year ago, the prospects for Tasmania were increasing and promising. Indeed, the Government based its thinking on expanding electricity upon the fact that two major industries, including the paper industry, were going to expand very significantly. It is sad that, because of the recession, industries have made negative decisions at the moment. But the fundamental situation is that nobody should take those negative decisions and project them into the future. That is destructive and negative thinking. The fact is that no one can say better than the State Government concerned what that Government has in mind for attracting industry and by way of providing a stimulus to industries that might come to Tasmania. The fact is that Tasmania has some grave disabilities because of its remoteness from other States. One of the very few potential stimuli that it has is its potential ability to provide cheap electricity with, one would hope, application to relatively small factories in labour intensive industries. I have no doubt in the world that that is what is aimed for. As to the question of declining demand for electricity, the answer is yes. Of course, New South Wales at this moment is desperately putting down its electricity prices. In fact, it has a policy of decreasing electricity prices for industry. Is it suggested, therefore, that New South Wales should not at this moment be building power stations which will provide power which is massively surplus to demand? Let us get that matter quite straight. New South Wales and Victoria are building power stations to provide for future demand. The answer to the question as to declining demand is that one should disregard the immediacy of the recession and look to the future as other States, including Tasmania, are doing. Finally, the fact of the matter is that industries such as those that prior to the recession had indicated that they would establish-- Senator Grimes —Name them. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I will get the names for the honourable senator. One industry, of course, is the paper industry. Let me just say this: A Tasmanian senator, Senator Grimes, does not know the two industries that were to be established. Let him tell us about the situation. Everybody in Tasmania knows that those two industries were to be established and, in fact, withdrew because of the recession. There are industries such as those. As to the five questions, it is quite clear that the decisions made by the Tasmanian Government are very sensible indeed. I will get the names of those two industries for the honourable senator. Senator BUTTON —I ask a supplementary question. My question was about planning. I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy: Has not his Department revised downwards the projected demand for electricity in Tasmania in the 1990s? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My Department indicated that because of the change of decision of those two industries as well as others-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Members of the Australian Labor Party were disputing the fact that the industries had made that decision and now the very report that is before the committee condemns them on this matter. In fact, there is at this moment a temporary decline in electricity demand. But the report goes on to say that if, of course, there were to be a pick-up from the recession and industries could be attracted to Tasmania the demand for electricity would be significant. Of course, it is interesting to watch Tasmanian Labor senators knocking Tasmania 's future and its development. Senator Grimes —Don't you say that. Tell the truth. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Bear in mind that there would have been full support for this dam from the Labor Party if the Lowe Labor Government had won the last election. That is the key situation. Senator Grimes —Tell the truth. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I tell the truth. Mr Hayden is on record in Launceston as saying that the building of the dam is a State matter. Senator Grimes —You lie again. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, that language is most unparliamentary. I ask for an unconditional withdrawal. Senator Grimes —It is most unparliamentary for him to behave in that way. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Grimes! I ask you to withdraw unconditionally. Senator Grimes —I withdraw. The PRESIDENT —We are having quite a few questions, as we have had for a number of weeks, on a certain area of Tasmania. I recall that in the past we had an Ord River scheme and we had a Dartmouth and Chowilla exercise; we now have a Franklin River exercise. I appreciate the emotions that are involved with these issues, but I ask all honourable senators to heed the fact that it might be late in the session but it is still fairly early in the morning. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I will quote from the Launceston Examiner of 7 July 1981. If it is alleged that it is an untruth, it has never been denied. It was repeated in the House of Representatives in front of Mr Hayden and he did not deny it. The article is entitled 'Hayden petitioned to halt dam row' and states: A vocal group of Hydro-Electric Commission workers-- Senator Button —Mr President, I raise a similar point of order to that raised by Senator Chipp earlier in Question Time. I asked a very simple question: Has the Minister's Department revised downwards Tasmania's estimate of demand for electricity in the 1990s? Presumably, the answer is yes or no. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It was alleged that what I said about Mr Hayden and his claim that the matter was one for the State of Tasmania alone-it was alleged by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-- Senator Button —I asked the question. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I understand that. I now intend, within the Standing Orders, to reply to that. I repeat that the Launceston Examiner of 7 July-- Senator McIntosh —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Did I understand the Leader of the Government to say that he was replying to the interjection? The PRESIDENT —Order! No, Senator; there is no point of order. I will not repeat what I said earlier in Question Time, but I suggest to the Leader of the Government that a lot of time has been spent on a particular issue and I hope that we can soon complete the answer to the question. I am not directing the Leader how to answer it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Never- theless, when veracity is challenged I think that every honourable senator in this chamber has the right to make such a statement. The PRESIDENT —I am not disagreeing with that. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I will finish my reply to the question in that regard in due course. I repeat that the article in the Launceston Examiner of 7 July 1981 headed 'Hayden petitioned to halt dam row' states: A vocal group of Hydro-Electric Commission workers on Saturday called on the Leader of the Federal Opposition (Mr Hayden) to intervene in the State power wrangle. They made their appeal in a petition presented to Mr Hayden before he opened the council meeting. But Mr Hayden, while agreeing to discuss the matter with the Premier (Mr Lowe), made it clear that it was a State Government concern. He said he would support a Federal Parliamentary inquiry into the power needs of Tasmania. It went on to add: It was not possible, however, for him to play a role in influencing the State Government. Any suggestion that what I said yesterday or today is wrong is, of course, refuted in this statement. This was repeated in front of Mr Hayden in the House of Representatives and it was not refuted. I was asked about my Department. My Department said, quite clearly, that the estimates had to be revised downwards because of the withdrawal of those two industries and the recession. The Department went on to add that the future demand for electricity would depend upon the capacity to attract industries. That, of course, is a decision that will be made by the State Government. Senator BONNER —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of a headline in the Australian today which says: 'Work damage may make heritage listing invalid'? The article states: South-west Tasmania could be dropped from the United Nations World Heritage list within the next couple of years because of irreversible damage caused by work on the Franklin dam. The World Heritage convention includes a clause under which listed properties may be deleted 'where the property has deteriorated to the extent that it has lost those characteristics that determined its inclusion'. So that this area may continue to be on the World Heritage List, will the Commonwealth Government re-examine its attitude towards supporting the Tasmanian Government's desecrating of this part of our world heritage? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It should be noted that the Australian Government went to the World Heritage Committee having made a clear statement that it recognised the right of the Tasmanian Government to build the dam proposed for the South West. The World Heritage Committee listed the region as a wilderness of world consequence in the knowledge that there was an intention to build the dam. That is quite clear. I have said that we will look at what Professor Slatyer has to say and determine what are the responsibilities of the Commonwealth, in conjunction with the State of Tasmania, to preserve the wilderness to the maximum extent possible. We will do everything within our power to ensure that there is a management plan which conforms to the World Heritage Committee and which preserves the wilderness. The possibility of that being done must have been in the minds of those who listed the area; otherwise it would not have been listed at all. Senator BONNER —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The article says that the area will be dropped from the World Heritage List if deterioration occurs. Surely the Minister is aware that Fraser Cave will be flooded. Surely that indicates that the area can be dropped, because it will be desecrated. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I repeat that the World Heritage Committee knew of this. It had available to it information on what the flooding would do. Secondly , there is now a major responsibility to look at the management of the area to ensure that absolutely minimal interference with the wilderness takes place. That will be done. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Government given consideration to the fact that the $100m promised to the States for public housing has caught the State housing authorities by surprise, given that the States have been denied funds for so long to develop adequately serviced building blocks. Is the Government aware that most of the land available to the States for public housing is available only on the fringe of capital cities and that these areas lack basic community facilities because this Government has cut back moneys for urban development programs? Will the Government provide additional funds for community amenities so that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated? Senator CHANEY —That question might more sensibly be directed to the State Ministers who are responsible for providing community facilities. It is probably broadly true that in the past public housing developments have taken place on a wide area basis, when housing has been provided without the requisite other facilities, and that has given rise to real social problems. I think the State housing authorities have learned from that problem of the past and many of them are now changing their procedures. For example, they are adopting a pepper and salt approach to State housing, ensuring that they build not in broad acres but in lots which are scattered among non-housing commission houses. As far as the $100m is concerned, I do not think there is any reason at all to doubt that the States have the ability to pick up the additional money and to use it productively within the next 12 months. Indeed, a number of States have rejected offers from private industry to build houses. I think the South Australian State Government, for example, has a large number of builders available and ready to work. It is my understanding that the capacity of the industry is such that it can certainly build additional housing at relatively short notice. I have not had any suggestion from any State that the funds cannot be put to work quickly and effectively. Senator Childs is concerned about a problem which is unlikely to exist. I think it could well be true that the States could absorb further funds for welfare housing if more funds, rather than less, were available. I do not think any other aspect of the question needs attention. This is an area in which the Commonwealth and the States have, by their joint efforts, managed to achieve substantially better results this year than last year. The additional $100m will , of course, add to that. I believe this is an area in which Commonwealth-State co-operation is effective and is producing very useful results. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It is prompted by the fact that in many States, as Christmas approaches, drivers will be allowed to have less alcohol in their blood than they were able to have. Is the Minister aware that in some States of the United States a dramatic drop in the death rate has been obtained by lifting to 21 years the age at which people are allowed to drive? If the Government seriously wishes to save lives on the road, will it investigate this matter and discuss it with the various departments of transport in the States of Australia? Senator MESSNER —The Government has a very great interest in motor accidents, the problems that are caused to society as a result and certainly the very significant costs of a social kind that flow from such accidents. On the specific point that has been raised, I have no information about the situation in the United States. It is an interesting suggestion and I will pass it on to the Minister for his consideration. Senator MACKLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services inasmuch as the Australian Federal Police come within the purview of that ministry. By way of explanation I say that I received in my office yesterday some of the most virulent anti-Semitic material I have ever seen which is obviously designed to spread hatred throughout the community. I have also ascertained that many honourable senators have also received such material. Has the Minister seen this material? If so, what action has he taken? If not, can he advise honourable senators as to what action they and other members of the community ought to take if they come into possession of such material? Senator MESSNER —I saw that material only very briefly because it immediately went from my table to the bin. I suggest that all honourable senators put the material in the bin. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Is it true that Telecom Australia has been forced to waste thousands of dollars on the installation of a low power transmitter at Nowra on the south coast of New South Wales? Is this transmitter part of a temporary facility to enable a telefinder paging system to be operated in the area? Is it a fact that at present a local medical practitioner is the only potential subscriber to the proposed service? Was the telefinder system to have been installed before the end of June 1983? Has the erection of this temporary facility resulted only because of pressure exerted by the Minister for Defence, Mr Sinclair? Senator PETER BAUME —It will not surprise honourable senators that I will need to refer the question to the Minister for a detailed answer. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources aware that, following an initiative introduced by the previous Labor Government to impose an export duty on coking coal, the duty is still levied on some coal mining operations in Queensland? Does the Minister realise that this $ 3.50 per tonne export duty costs the Queensland mining operation of the Utah Development Co. between $60m and $70m per year? I point out that the mines in New South Wales, however, do not pay any coal export duty on coking coal. Will the Minister please enunciate the Government's intentions regarding the present export duty? Does the Government not feel that it discriminates against some coking coal mining operations in Queensland? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I should like to say, with the best of good will, that there is no intention to discriminate between any States. Senator Bjelke- Petersen will understand that the Queenslanders' estate is blessed by not only rich deposits of coal and coking coal but also very accessible deposits, largely in open-cut. She will also know that in New South Wales the deposits are largely in underground mines, extraction from which entails very high expense. So, of course, they have two different cost projections, which should be kept in mind. The Government has moved over a number of years to reduce the effect of the coal export levy originally imposed by the previous Labor Government, but the extent of the changes has been limited by broader budgetary considerations. In July the Minister for Trade and Resources announced the Government's intention to exempt from duty all coals previously dutiable at $1 a tonne. As far as Queensland was concerned this included all underground export coal in that State, all steaming coal, all coal from new projects, and coal from deep open-cut operations such as those being developed by Utah Development Co. with new technology. So, contrary to the suggestion in the latter part of the question, Queensland received a significant benefit from this. The change announced in July followed discussions with the Premiers of New South Wales and Queensland and coincided with actions by State governments in the areas of State revenue from the coal industry which reflected the States' own assessments of where action was necessary. The Senate should bear in mind, also, that the States themselves have placed imposts on coal and other mining, particularly in regard to railway freights and indirect matters. The Government will review the remaining coal export duty, when framing the next Budget, in the light of budgetary circumstances. Beyond that I can give no specific assurances. Both the companies concerned and the Queensland Government are aware of this. Senator McLAREN —Mr President, I ask that the document quoted from by the Minister be tabled. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I table the document. Senator GIETZELT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it true that the Government has not consulted the Australian Consumers' Association about the structure of the proposed National Health and Medical Research Council? Is it also true that the proposed structure for this Council includes no scope for representation of consumer interests by the Australian Consumers' Association, which the Minister acknowledges has some standing in the community and is financially assisted by the Government? Will the Minister explain the Government's attitude on this matter, particulary its ignoring organised, committed and recognised consumer interest? I am aware that the Minister, particularly, regards the question of consumer interests as having a very valid place in the question of medical care. Senator PETER BAUME —I am certainly aware that the structure of the National Health and Medical Research Council is a live issue at present. Honourable senators may, like me, have received a considerable number of representations on the matter. It is under consideration by the Government, but we are not in a position to make a decision yet, nor are we ready so to do. As to whether or not the Australian Consumers' Association has been consulted, I shall have to ask the Minister whom I represent. I simply do not know whether he has consulted the Association. I understand that he is consulting widely with bodies that have an interest in the NH and MRC. The difficulty is that it represents an interface between the different governments. So there needs to be extensive Government representation on the Council. It has a technical/expert role to play, so there need to be a certain number of expert representatives on the Council as well. I think the value judgment that will have to be made is as to how big the Council should be and how wide its membership should be. As I say, the matter is one which has yet to be considered by the Government and is, I imagine, still in the preparatory stages. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the great emphasis given by the media to the so-called generosity of the Polish military junta by its announcement that martial law could be suspended, but not abolished, for the Christmas period , meaning that the Polish people will still be subject to a total dictatorial rule of the junta, will the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Street, approach the Polish ambassador in Australia and, through our ambassador to Poland, express the deep concern of, and total condemnation by, the Australian Government and the Australian people of the junta's detainment of thousands of Polish citizens without proper trial and the maintenance of martial law? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — One part of the question will need to be referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In general, the Minister noted the announcement that martial law in Poland is to be suspended on 31 December. This followed the welcome release from detention of a number of detainees. Taken at their face value, these moves seem to be a step towards reconciliation and away from confrontation. The Government sincerely hopes that martial law will be lifted entirely and that all the elements of repression, which have prevailed in Poland in the past year, will be removed. But it is too early to judge whether that will occur. The developments now taking place bear close examination and their implications will need to be carefully weighed. That process may take some time. Australia has consistently called for the ending of martial law, the release of all detainees and a return to circumstances in which the people of Poland would find a solution to their economic and political difficulties on the basis of consensus and reconciliation. The divisions and bitterness in Polish society resulting from the imposition of martial law last year remain. They will be difficult to overcome unless the Polish people are able to make their own choices free from internal intimidation and external coercion. In that regard General Jaruzelski and others in the martial law leadership bear a very heavy responsibility not only to the Polish nation but also to the international community. If Mr Street, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, wishes to make some comment on the suggestions made by Senator Lajovic I will see that he is advised accordingly. Senator GRIMES —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Which Government repudiated the 1975 joint Federal-State Liberal Party agreement spoken of by Senator Peter Rae on 2 December which stated that it was important that early action be taken to preserve the South West wilderness area and promised federal aid for a management plan and compensation for Tasmania if it gave up plans for the construction of dams in the area? When was the agreement repudiated? Was this agreement broken unilaterally by either the State or the Federal Liberal Party? Was there any discussion before this firm policy commitment of 1975 was reversed? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I do not believe that any policies put forward by the Federal Government have been repudiated. I will take the matter in hand. It is a matter for the Prime Minister because, of course, any arrangement between the Prime Minister and the Premier would be a matter for the Prime Minister. I will draw it to his attention and seek an answer. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, I wish to ask a brief supplementary question. Am I to understand that the Minister is saying that there was no such policy commitment and that there was no firm commitment of the type spoken about by Senator Peter Rae? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The use of a supplementary question to put a hypothetical and rhetorical question, of course, is nonsense. That was not my answer at all. I said that I would refer the substance of Senator Grimes's question to the Prime Minister, because it is a matter involving the Prime Minister and the Premier, and that I would get an answer for the honourable senator. Senator REID —Has the Minister for Education read the editorial appearing in today's Canberra Times relating to education funding? If he has, is he able to say whether it is an accurate description of the funding situation? If not, will he advise us accordingly? Senator PETER BAUME —I did see the editorial in today's Canberra Times entitled ' Children's Education'. I thought it was a very fair treatment of what has been a difficult matter. For some time we have been saying that there are three funding partners in education in Australia-the Commonwealth Government, the State governments and private sources. We have been saying that one has to look at all three sources to get any kind of accurate idea of the funding situation. The editorial in this morning's Canberra Times reiterates that point. It goes further and states: The fact the ALP spokesmen make it a practice never to refer to total funding trends, and the fact that when those trends are considered the party's statement that government schools are being deprived by non-government schools reverses the truth, suggests deliberate deceit. I think that is a fair summation of what the debate has been about. There are three funding partners in education in Australia. When the three are considered together it will be seen that government schools are thriving, as they should be . To mount an argument that government schools are deprived or in some way disadvantaged simply is playing with the truth. We are very grateful for the editorial. I believe those interested in the education debate will want to read it. Senator RYAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, also arises from a report in the Canberra Times this morning. As the Minister has read the editorial he has probably also read the report that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority has made a decision to stop taping private meetings in order to circumvent the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. I would like the Minister to confirm first of all that such a decision has been taken by the Authority, and secondly, to say whether it is government policy that public bodies or parts of the bureaucracy should be able to circumvent the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act in this Way. Senator PETER BAUME —I read several stories in the Canberra Times this morning. I noticed that the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation has indicated that it is going to back the Australian Labor Party in the next election. Senator Lewis —Surprise, surprise! Senator PETER BAUME —Surprise, surprise! I say all power to it. I agree with the comments made by Mr Cornwell in the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, who observed that many teachers would be unhappy with having themselves, through their union, allied with the Labor Party and its divisive policy on education. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is in charge of its own procedures; they are not matters which are referred to me as Minister. They are not matters in which I would want to be proscriptive. I would expect the Authority to observe the proper procedures and I am sure it will comply with all the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. Senator ARCHER —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that a survey which was carried out in all States showed that a substantial proportion of imported cheese contained chemical additives not permitted to be used in Australian manufacture, through regulations of the National Health and Medical Research Council? Is it correct that the matter has been referred to the State Ministers for Health for their consideration? If so, what result has been achieved? Senator PETER BAUME —A survey for control of the quality of imported cheese was conducted by the Chief Dairy Officers Committee, a body composed of the chiefs of the dairy divisions of State agricultural authorities and the Federal Department of Primary Industry. I do not think the survey was done through the NH and MRC. The survey showed that a significant proportion of imported cheese and cheese spreads contained additives not permitted under State and Territory food legislation. The thrust of the honourable senator's question can be confirmed. It can also be confirmed that the report has been submitted to all State health authorities. I am not aware of any action resulting from the referral. Imported and locally manufactured foods are equally required to comply with State and Territory food legislation. In practice, State and Territory health authorities have difficulty policing such matters once the products have been distributed in the market place. Federal involvement is limited to the powers under the Customs prohibited import regulations and the Quarantine Act 1908. Authorities in either of these areas are not in a position to act except when a specific health risk is involved. Where complaints have been received by the Federal Department of Health, the complainant is advised to supply specific details to State and Territory health authorities for direct action. This issue is to be submitted for further consideration to the inter-departmental committee on imported foods, representing Federal Departments of Health, Industry and Commerce, Primary Industry, Science and Technology and Trade and Resources. I can confirm that a survey has been carried out and that some imported cheeses have been found to have this problem. Sentor McLaren-I ask that the document read from by the Minister be tabled. Senator PETER BAUME —Yes, I table it. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that on 1 December the medication Prantal powder was removed from the free pharmaceutical benefits list? Is the Minister further aware that the hundreds of age pensioners who are prescribed this medication for skin conditions now have to pay $4.02 for each prescription? Is the Government totally unaware of how difficult it is to live on the age pension? Can he explain why pensioners who are finding it very difficult to make ends meet now have to pay for medications which until this month were free? Senator PETER BAUME —I think Senator McIntosh is correct to the extent that a new list of pharmaceutical benefits was due in about December. I take it that he is saying that the new list does not contain a particular product-I think Prantal powder. The list is made up not of all available medications but of those which after a careful assessment are thought to be either essential, life saving, or products which are known to be efficacious and safe. The list changes in each new publication. The committees which make up the list add to it and also delete certain products from it. I am not aware that Prantal powder was on the list before or that it has been deleted. If it has been deleted, I imagine that it would be for one of two reasons: First, there might have been a reassessment of the value of the agent in terms of whether it does any good or, secondly, it might be that its cost is below the contribution level. If the honourable senator says that its cost is $4.02 it is unlikely that it has been deleted because it is too cheap to be on the list. It might be best for Senator McIntosh if I refer the question to Mr Carlton, the Minister for Health, so that we can get some detailed information about the factors which lie behind the listing or the delisting of Prantal powder. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —During Question Time I made a number of statements on Tasmania and its power needs. One was in regard to two major industries that had decided to defer their building program. That statement was challenged. I also made some statements regarding a submission from my Department to the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania, which were challenged. I now report to the Senate that one of the two companies involved, Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd, is to build a major mill at Wesley Vale. That is a fact. What I said was right. The plans have not been rejected; they have been deferred. Therefore, further future demands for power by that company are very possible. The other organisation involved is the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd-Tasmania Electro Metallurgical Co. Pty Ltd which has plans for a ferro- manganese plant. There was some derision of the suggestion that the submission of the Department of National Development and Energy had indicated that Tasmania's power needs depended upon the future ability to attract industry. I will read very briefly the relevant paragraphs. They state: The future industrial strategy of the State must also be taken into account. The mainland States' ability to attract energy-based industries has been an important factor in the growth being experienced in this area. Tasmania, too, may have a need to expand electricity generation capacity in order to provide for potential expansion in energy based industries. The submission also states: Any significant change in the level of demand for electricity in the State as a consequence of changes in the level of operations of the manufacturing sector could affect the time frame in which the provision of further hydro-electricity generating capacity will be required. It goes on to state: It should be emphasised that all forecasts of this nature must be subject to qualification. Adjustments can be argued depending on basic assumptions adopted , especially changes in economic growth rates, major individual projects and energy prices and related elasticities. That is precisely what I said. Senator CHANEY —On 8 December Senator Sibraa asked me a question about drought relief and the introduction of an unemployment assistance scheme which would provide work in country towns. I gave an answer at that time which I will now supplement. The question of a special rural employment relief scheme for drought affected areas has been re-examined but it remains the Government's view that it is more appropriate to try to preserve permanent jobs by maintaining farmers' liquidity through the provision of carry on finance. Such finance enables farmers to conduct their business in a more normal manner despite drought induced difficulties. The benefits flow through to other sectors, thus assisting to maintain activity and employment. The expansion of carry on loans to small businesses in drought affected rural towns, as has been proposed to the States, assists in a similar way. Unemployment is affecting both urban and rural areas and is being handled as a problem separate from that of drought. The Government believes the problem should be handled in a comprehensive way and not by initiating relief unemployment schemes in selected areas. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —For the information of honourable senators I present papers in accordance with the list distributed to honourable senators. I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australia's Foreign Investment Policy-A Guide for Investors 2. Biotechnology in Australia-A Report by the Australian Science and Technology Council-pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 3. National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation-Annual Report 1981-82. 4. Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 30 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1973. 5. Fishing Industry Research Committee-Annual Report 1980-81-pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. 6. Honey Research Committee-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 18 of the Honey Research Act 1980. 7. Australian Pig Industry Research Committee-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 16 of the Pig Industry Research Act 1971. 8. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited-Annual Report 1981- 82. 9. Commonwealth Fire Board-Annual Report 1981-82. 10. Human Rights Commission-Annual Report 1981-82-Vols 1 and 2-pursuant to section 29 (1) and 29 (2) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 11. Special Broadcasting Service-Annual Report 1981-82 -pursuant to section 79 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. 12. Australia Council-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975. 13. Australian Achievements in Environment Protection and Nature Conservation 1972-1982-Report prepared by the Australian Environment Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. 14. Australian Heritage Commission-Report to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment-pursuant to section 43 (8)of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. 15. Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth-Report-together with the text of a statement relating to the report made by the Acting Attorney-General. 16. Wood and Articles of Wood-IAC Report. 17. Orange and Tangerine Juices-IAC Report. 18. Australian Dairy Corporation-Interim Annual Report 1981-82. 19. Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry Short Term Prospects Report-December 1982. 20. Australian National Railways Commission-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 41 of the Australian National Railways Act 1917. 21. Ninth International Trade Law Seminar-Papers and Summary of Discussions, Canberra, 29-30 May 1982. 22. Family Law Council-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975. 23. Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority-Annual Report 1981-82- pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1952. 24. Canberra Commercial Development Authority-Annual Report 1980-81. 25. Canberra Retail Markets Trust-Annual Report 1981-82. 26. Canberra Theatre Trust-Annual Report 1981-82. 27. Canberra Showground Trust-Annual Report 1980-81. 28. ACT Fire Brigade-Annual Report 1981-82. 29. Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers-Annual Report 1981-82. 30. Agents Board of the ACT-Annual Report 1981-82. 31. Social Welfare Policy Secretariat-Report for the period March 1978 to June 1982. 32. Insurance Contracts-Law Reform Commission Report-pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973-together with the text of a statement by the Acting Attorney-General. 33. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Report ''Threats to Australia 's Security-Their Nature and Probability''-Government Response: Text of a Statement made by the Minister for Defence. 34. Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973. 35. International Labour Organisation-text of instruments adopted at the 67th Session, Geneva, 1981-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory)(11.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. It is a welcome report to the extent that it deals with a very serious problem in Australian working life-the matter of discrimination against minority groups and women. The Australian Labor Party, of course, believes that the elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation is very important. However, I must again express my serious reservations about whether the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation or its constituent State committees can be effective in eliminating such discrimination while they have no powers of enforcement. They certainly serve a useful purpose in documenting those cases of discrimination which are brought to their attention and, to a minor extent, are able to offer some assistance to people experiencing discrimination through their conciliation activities. However, it is quite clear that the extent of discrimination in employment in Australia is such that committees of this kind alone cannot deal effectively with the problem. If we are to be serious about combating discrimination federal legislation in this area is necessary. As honourable senators know I have attempted to make a move in this direction by introducing a private members Bill outlawing discrimination based on sex and martial status. That Bill, the Sex Discrimination Bill 1981, was introduced into this House in November last year. The most important aspect of the Bill is the prevention of discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex or marital status. Of course, employment is the most important area in which we should be attempting to overcome discrimination because employment is the major determinant in securing an adequate income and standard of living for all groups in society. Women, Aboriginals, migrants, numerous minority groups and certain handicapped people are disadvantaged in the area of employment and occupation. Such groups ought to be able to rely upon the Federal Government to establish effective mechanisms to protect their rights in this crucial area of employment. However, the Government has failed to establish such effective mechanisms. Whilst acknowledging that the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation functions under the difficulty of having no real powers, I do commend the useful work that the Committee carries out. The report documents the Committee's co-operation with the various State anti- discrimination and equal opportunity agencies and with the Commissioner for Community Relations and the Human Rights Commission. Such co-operation is, of course, useful and should lead to more comprehensive statistical material covering the area of discrimination in employment. I welcome the Committee's interest in discrimination in employment in the defence forces. The changes in defence forces policy outlined on pages 9 and 10 of the report represent a marginal improvement in women's access to jobs in the defence forces. Women may now be employed as musicians for the Defence Force bands, which is a better situation than that which prevailed before when they could not apply for such jobs. It is to be hoped, and I hope that the Government will ensure, that the new Army apprenticeship school at Albury will allow the Army to take on female apprentices. The Royal Australian Navy will now employ female engineers and it is hoped that the Royal Australian Navy will soon be in a position to recruit male nurses. The Royal Australian Air Force is reported to be introducing a policy which will enable the recruitment of married women. So to this extent the report is welcome. I am glad to see that the defence forces are slowly moving into the twentieth century but of course they still have a long way to go. It is the view of the Australian Labor Party that true equality of opportunity in the defence forces, as in all areas of employment, will not be achieved merely by the occupation of this Committee but by the introduction of proper wide-ranging federal legislation in this area. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory)(11.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Labor Party welcomes the appearance of the first annual report of the Human Rights Commission which covers the seven-month period from July to December 1981. We commend the work done by the Commission in that period. However, it must be acknowledged that the report is a rather circumspect document. I think it reflects the nature of the Human Rights Commission itself. Although the objectives of the Human Rights Commission are important, it is an agency which has been given no real powers to implement its responsibilities. So it is not surprising, I suppose, that an agency which has no real powers to implement its charter will appear rather timid. In saying that I am not implying that the Human Rights Commission lacks dedicated or well-meaning commissioners or staff. What I am saying is that the Commission has no coercive powers. It cannot bind the States and it cannot implement any penalties. An interesting comparison can be made with the National Companies and Securities Commission which, of course, does have the power to make orders and apply penalties if those orders are not complied with. So obviously in areas in which the Federal Government believes that action is important it is prepared to give powers. In other areas, of course, and in this all important area of human rights, the Fraser Government is not prepared to give implementing powers. The Commission, of course, recognises the limiting factors on its work and in fact cites three major limiting factors on page 3 of its annual report. The first one is a federal Constitution which lacks entrenched rights. This is a major difficulty which we acknowledge and which, when in Government, we will change. My colleague the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, has outlined our comprehensive approach to the protection of human rights in Australia, which includes the enactment of a national Bill of rights, first as a statute and ultimately, through referendum, as a part of the Constitution. This is a course of action which a government with a serious intention to protect human rights in Australia in an effective way would of course follow. The second problem to which the report draws our attention is the existence of eight sovereign political entities. A lack of co-operation on the part of various States makes it virtually impossible for a commission with no coercive powers to protect human rights effectively. This was brought out very strongly in the reports of the former Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Grassby, and echoes of the same concern are expressed in this report. Two States in particular, Western Australia and Queensland, have demonstrated absolutely no interest in protecting human rights. On the contrary, both are infamous for their more outrageous violations of human rights-for example, Noonkanbah in Western Australia and the activities of the Queensland Government in relation to Aboriginal and Islander reserves, its Commonwealth Games Bill, street march laws and so on. The High Court decision in the Koowarta case provides a sound constitutional basis for human rights legislation which will be binding on the States. Without such legislation the Human Rights Commission works under a severe handicap. The Government's failure to provide such a sound basis for protecting human rights demonstrates once again the well-known failure of this Government to deal effectively with the States on matters of national interest and concern. Yet again we see that States rights are obviously more important to this Government than human rights. A third area of difficulty documented by the Commission's report is the interrelationship of the two Houses of the Federal Parliament. By listing this as a peculiar problem in the protection of human rights in Australia, I can only assume that the annual report is referring to the long and difficult passage of human rights legislation in this country. On page 4 the report in fact gives a brief history of human rights legislation which outlines the first atempts to introduce human rights legislation in 1973 by Labor's then Attorney-General, now Mr Justice Lionel Murphy of the High Court. It was not until 1981 that the emasculated piece of legislation we now have was passed, and passed only after a long struggle fought by the Labor Party and others in this place trying to strengthen it. The real impediment to the protection of human rights is not, I believe, the interrelationship between the two Houses of this Parliament, but the lack of any true bipartisan commitment to the effective protection of human rights in this country. An example of how the Human Rights Commission could be used effectively to protect human rights is contained in my private member's Bill outlawing discrimination based on sex and marital status. That Bill gives the Human Rights Commission real powers to hold inquiries into complaints, impose penalties for non-co-operation and, in the final instance, to initiate proceedings in the Federal Court where the Commission believes this is appropriate. The Commission must be armed with such powers if it is not to continue to be ultimately ineffective. A major shortcoming of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 is its failure to include under the jurisdiction of the Commission the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Civil and political rights and the rights of children and the disabled are to be upheld under conventions annexed to the Human Rights Commission Act. However, the right of women to equality is not. Again the Federal Government has distorted the basis for the protection of human rights. I understand that the Commission works closely with anti-discrimination and equal opportunity agencies in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and that many complaints received on the grounds of sex or martial status can be referred to these agencies. But this leaves without protection women in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. Volume 2 of the annual report contains the report of the Commissioner for Community Relations for the period 1 July to 9 December. This represents the last five month period of independent operation of the Commissioner before the Office was officially subsumed into the Human Rights Commission on 10 December 1981. This report documents another excellent chapter in the work of the former Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Al Grassby. Mr Grassby's work in proposing and seeking to eliminate discrimination over the last seven years has been truly outstanding. In particular, I commend his work on behalf of Aboriginal Australians. Mr Grassby has been the most vigorous and effective campaigner for human rights that Australia has ever had. I should place on record my view that the Government's failure to reappoint him to the Human Rights Commission is disgraceful. It is further evidence that the Government would prefer the Commission to be a low profile body that will not rock the boat . On page 5, volume 2, of this report Mr Grassby puts forward four recommendations for amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act which would make that Act more effective. I hope that the Government will take up these recommendations so that a more effective attack on racial discrimination in this country can be mounted. Such action is particularly important in the current climate in which, in recent months, we have seen an increase in racial violence in this country, some with a tragic outcome. This resurgence of racism is even more distressing when it is fanned by such bodies as the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and individual members of that Government. I refer in particular to the activities of the Speaker for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Mr Les MacFarlane who, in recent weeks, has led a racist march in Katherine and is well known for his racist statements and activities in the Northern Territory. Racial discrimination at this level-in fact, at all levels-is very difficult for any Commissioner for Community Relations to combat without the full, enthusiastic backing of the Federal Government. Of course, Mr Grassby did not always enjoy such serious backing in the past. The Australian Labor Party urges the Government to give strong backing to the new Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Jeremy Long. His job will certainly not be an easy one and we wish him all the best. Mr Long, of course, has a hard act to follow because of the outstanding work of Mr Grassby. On behalf of the Labor Party I wish Mr Long every success in continuing the excellent work established in this area by Mr Grassby. In volume 1 of this annual report the other activities of the Human Rights Commission are documented. During 1981-82 the Commission performed some very useful work. For example, it carried out a review of the Australian Capital Territory Mental Health Ordinance in order to ensure that this piece of legislation does not infringe human rights of citizens in my electorate, the Australian Capital Territory. Another significant matter to which the report draws attention at page 20 is the inconsistent and discriminatory way in which various Federal Government Departments treat de facto couples. This is certainly an area in which the Labor Party advocates reform. In conclusion, I commend the useful work done by the Human Rights Commission in its early months. I again reinforce our view that without a stronger statutory base the Human Rights Commission, although it does have laudable objectives and a dedicated staff, will not in fact be able to be a truly effective protector of human rights in this country. Senator MARTYR(Western Australia)(11.27) —In the first instance, I deny any restriction at all on human rights, as stated by Senator Ryan, in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Only biased people would ever suggest such a thing. I can think of many better examples than those given by Senator Ryan of human rights implementation. Of course, the first example is the protection of the life of the unborn in this country. I note that the Human Rights Commission has made an attempt, at page-- Senator Gietzelt —What about commenting on what your Liberal Western Australian Government does to Aboriginies? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Gietzelt! Senator MARTYR —Wait until I turn my hearing aid off, Mr Deputy President. At pages 28 and 29 of volume 1 of the Human Rights Commission report I note that the Commission has made an attempt. It calls it a provisional attempt, but it seems to me that what it is trying to do is to sit on the fence. I am indebted to the Commission for drawing attention to a couple of things in this argument that had escaped me in the past. It drew attention to the American Convention on Human Rights which declares that the right to life shall be protected by law and , in general, from the moment of conception. One does not need much of a memory to recollect that that is exactly what I wanted to do when the Human Rights Bill was originally before the House of Representatives. The Commission also drew attention to an inter-American commission on human rights which found that laws which permit abortion, even if it would appear subsequent to viability, do not infringe either the article or the convenant that we are speaking about. To me, there are some quite definite equivocations in the attitude of the Commission. I would certainly prefer that it carry out the commission given to it by this Parliament in the sense that it investigate, foster and make a clear decision about the protection of the right to life of the unborn. I would hate to think-I am referring particularly now to page 29 at which in vitro fertilisation is mentioned-that the Commission was bowing to pressures from Professor Carl Wood and his 'anything goes' lobby in Victoria. They are the people who are conducting experimentation on human subjects, even to the point of destruction of those human subjects. I hope that future reports by the Commission will have something serious to say about the problems, unanswered as yet, of in vitro fertilisation and foetal medicine. Until they do, I think it is fair to suggest that the Commission will not be fulfilling the function given to it by the Commonwealth Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory)(11.32) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I welcome the appearance of the Australia Council annual report at this stage. I note that it is on time. I commend the Australia Council for its prompt reporting to the Parliament. The Council's reports have not always been on time. A significant time improvement in making this report available to the Parliament is something that should not escape notice. I presume that Senator Hamer, who takes an interest in these matters, will agree with me. The report is welcome because it documents in a very thorough way the issues in the development of Australian culture and the areas assisted by the Australia Council in the last year. Most importantly, I think, the report documents very clearly the decline in funding and staff available to the Australia Council to carry out its work over the past few years. I draw the attention of honourable senators to a summary of this situation on page 18 of the report which sets out the realities of the financial situation of the arts. The report states: In the last five years, government funding through the Australia Council has lagged: 12 per cent behind inflation; 14 per cent behind increases in wages; 23 percent behind total Federal Government support for cultural activities; 27 per cent behind the growth in the budgets of the Council's client companies; and 16 per cent behind growth in total Federal Government expenditure. Ironically, the steady reduction in available funds has coincided with a marked growth in awareness of and demand for the arts-largely as a result of the injection of government funds earlier in the decade, and also of a five per cent increase in the population between 1977-78 and 1981-82. I hope that very clear statement of the financial situation of the Australia Council will lead to a more generous treatment of it in next year's Budget. Of course, if it is a Budget brought down by a Labor government the Council will be treated more realistically than it has been by the Fraser Government in the past . I hope that the Government takes note of the seriously disadvantaged position the Council is now in and, indeed, has been in for the last few years. It is in an area of Government activity which is absolutely essential. I think in this chamber it is a bipartisan view that Australian culture ought to be supported as it is by the Australia Council. Clearly, there is a growing interest in and awareness of the arts and a great demand by Australians in all parts of the country for their share of the arts dollar. There ought also to be a recognition of this growing and dynamic area in funding decisions that are made by government. The inadequate funding of the Council does not mean only that new projects cannot be supported. It means also that the Council or its boards often have to make invidious choices. For example, the year before last the Council had to decide to redress the funding balance towards individuals rather than companies. It had previously been able slightly to increase funds available to the performing arts companies but had not been able to increase support for individuals, so that individual artists depending on public assistance in this way were slipping well behind. That decision was reversed and the Council decided to increase funding to individual artists but, because of its own inadequate funding, it had to reduce funding for companies, again creating huge organisational and employment problems for people working in performing arts companies throughout Australia. The point I am making is that once certain activities are set up and certain forms of assistance are established it is very difficult for the Council and its boards to make decisions to withdraw support. Of course, whenever such decisions are made they are controversial. Senators and members of Parliament get lobbied and a lot of time and resources have to be diverted to re-establishing the level of grants that were previously available. I think the whole development of arts activities in this country would be a lot more efficient and fruitful if a reasonable amount of funding were available for this purpose. I comment too on the new structure that has been established within the Australia Council under the chairmanship of Dr Timothy Pascoe. The Australian Labor Party endorses the objectives of the new structure which are to streamline the operations of the Council, make more efficient use of the staff available to them and improve and rationalise the services available to clients of the Council. However, I have expressed from time to time some reservations about the new structure, mainly about the speed with which it was introduced and the very little consultation that was engaged in with the staff and clients of the Council before the restructuring was imposed. It is my view that if the progress of restructuring had been handled more slowly and with more consultation some of the dislocation which, undoubtedly, has been experienced by the staff and clients of the Council could have been avoided. However, as I said, we endorse the objectives of the restructuring and, of course, we wait to see whether those objectives will be achieved. The Australian Labor Party welcomes the priorities that have been stated in the Australia Council report, in particular the statement that it is now a priority of the Council's activities to widen access to the arts. Of course, that conforms very much with the Australian Labor Party's view of the responsibility of a Federal funding agency in this area. We are all very well aware of the high standards attained by some of our major performing arts companies such as the Australian Ballet, the Australian Opera and the large theatre companies in Sydney and Melbourne. However, we also recognise that many Australians will never have access to those performing arts companies. People will be denied access for example by geographical factors. If they live in the north west of Western Australia, Northern Queensland, or the Northern Territory they will not be able to get access to companies based in Sydney and Melbourne. There are other factors such as lack of educational opportunity, socio-economic and cultural reasons which will prevent many Australians from having access to these mainsteam large companies. Therefore, we think it is important that the Council look at other ways of giving everybody in the Australian community access to arts experiene and, specifically, access to programs funded by the Australia Council. That objective of the Council is very welcome to the Australian Labor Party. It is also welcome that the Australia Council has decided that its national programs for the forthcoming year will be on the themes of multiculturalism and art and working life. Clearly both of these areas are areas where very vigorous arts activity is possible but where, in the past, there has been a neglect of support by Federal agencies. Therefore, we look forward with hope to seeing some very interesting developments both in the multicultural area and the area of art and working life. It is welcome too that the report has drawn attention to the employment potential of this area. At a time when we have record unemployment and when the Government seems to be unable to see the areas in which employment growth is possible the attention of the Government ought to be drawn to the fact that the arts industry currently employs about 100,000 people and could employ many more with a minimal increase in funding. I hope that when the Government is deciding what to do with the money it has saved by imposing a wages freeze on Commonwealth public servants it will look very seriously at making some of that money available to the arts area for two reasons. The first is the obvious labour intensive character of the arts and the second is that it is a constructive activity welcomed by communities. Of course, that activity would be particularly welcome in those communities which so far have been relatively disadvantaged. I draw honourable senators' attention to the enormous diversity of activities which are documented in the Australia Council report. If evidence were needed for the case that the arts deserve a better deal in the funding area I think that evidence would be found in the list of activities supported or assisted by the Australia Council. There really is no important area of cultural life now in any part of Australia that does not receive some assistance under one of the programs of the Australia Council. For that reason I think the Australia Council deserves our congratulations, deserves a better deal in Federal Government funding than it has achieved under the Fraser Government. Finally, I welcome the higher public profile that the Council has achieved in recent months. One of its primary functions ought to be the advocacy of the arts in Australia to not only the Government but also the Australian public, so that we can have a very informed and lively debate about cultural life in this country and a continuation of the regeneration of Australian cultural life which was begun in the Whitlam period. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(11.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make a couple of points in respect to the report, and to the Special Broadcasting Service generally. I think one could say that in its two years of operation the Special Broadcasting Service has not reached the potential that it could very well have reached. The cause relates very much to problems of overburdening administration as well as divorcement from the community which it is supposed to be serving. The criticisms are varied and have long been held by members of the community in the capital cities of Melbourne and Sydney where the Service, especially the television service, operates. Specifically, the main area of criticism relates to the administration and the divorcement of that administration from the community. When one looks at who is in charge of the Special Broadcasting Service one finds that people have been appointed not for their ethnic community involvement but for their service to government and, in the case of Mr Petro Georgiou, for his personal service to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). That divorcement of the head of the Special Broadcasting Service has led, as I said earlier, to problems in respect of programming where people have not been all that happy with the content of the television service, in particular. When one goes through the Special Broadcasting Service report one finds aspects of programming mentioned therein that, from my understanding of ethnic communities in Australia, would not in part be all that acceptable. Before I go on to deal with the positive parts of the Service about which I am concerned I wish to deal with an aspect mentioned on page 10 of the report. We seem to have a developing international film club which has been sponsored by the taxpayer. It has been acknowledged in the report that officers of the Special Broadcasting Service are travelling overseas to attend film festivals. In October 1981 officers went to Milan and in April 1982 to Cannes to select films. I do not think it is a function of the Special Broadcasting Service to send people overseas on taxpayers' money to indulge in exercises of that sort. On the positive front, I mention that there has been acceptance by the community of, for instance, the series Women in the Sun-a series that has been highly acclaimed-for which the Special Broadcasting Service should be given credit. It should be given credit also for its sports program and news service. I believe that it has probably one of the best news services on television in Australia. It has been suggested from time to time that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is the most appropriate channel to handle multicultural television. I reiterate in this respect the attitude of the Australian Labor Party, adopted in July of this year at its federal conference, that it would extend the services of the Special Broadcasting Service nationally. Since that conference was held the Government has adopted a very similar stand. Historically the ABC has not shown an interest in or involvement with the ethnic component of the Australian community, nor does it seem to want to do so in the future. One need look only at the statements of the chairperson of the ABC, Professor Leonie Kramer as reported in the Melbourne Age on 10 November this year. When she was asked whether she thought the idea of multicultural television was misguided, she stated: Yes, in a sense I do. The motion that by showing Continental films you are really helping the process of adjustment, I think, is not right. She went on to say that she thought multiculturalism was an 'abstract rhetoric' which had little relation to the reality of non-English speaking people in Australia. Senator Martyr —Hear, hear! Senator BOLKUS —I notice that the troglodytes from Western Australia are agreeing with her. Senator Missen —There is only one Western Australian here. Senator BOLKUS —I should say then that Senator Martyr, the troglodyte from Western Australia, is agreeing with Professor Kramer. The point is that Professor Kramer, by her comments and public statement, shows that she does not understand the composite nature of the Australian community and the fact that over 30 per cent to 35 per cent of Australians have an ethnic background and have particular needs and services which should be provided by government. Her statement and her lack of recognition of responsibility by the national broadcaster to that very important section of our community shows that she is not fit for the job of Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Let me turn very briefly to the extension of the service involving television to South Australia. I was involved in the campaign that was run in South Australia earlier this year to have the Special Broadcasting Service and multicultural television extended to that State. We do not need to have the radio section extended to South Australia because radio station 5EBIFM is respected throughout Australia as being the best run community broadcasting station in South Australia. It is run extremely well and has extremely high recognition and acceptance by the community in our State. Senator Messner —Isn't that funded by the SBS? Senator BOLKUS —In fact, it is funded, as Senator Messner says, by government through the SBS. That, of course, comes out in the SBS report. The point I make in respect of ethnic television is that EBIFM in South Australia operates well because of community participation and involvement, something which is lacking in respect of multicultural television. Over 10,000 South Australians signed petitions earlier this year to have multicultural television extended to our State. As a consequence, on 25 July the Government announced an extension to South Australia which will take place in the 1983-84 financial year. We are not far off that time. Despite being six months off it we have not had any sign of the extension of the service or any planning with the community within South Australia. Senator Martyr —No one is watching it. Senator BOLKUS —Of course no one is watching it; we have not got the station yet . The fact is that there is community support for the station. The community has shown that it can be involved in programming, organising and the production of a television station. But with such little time left before the extension of multicultural television to South Australia, no community participation has taken place. I placed questions on the Notice Paper in relation to this matter and have still not received any answer. This is not the only aspect of participation by the community in general that we should look at. We have a very viable film industry in South Australia which has, over the last two years, put submissions to the Special Broadcasting Service in respect of films that it could produce. In this case I refer to the South Australian Film Corporation. The South Australian Film Corporation can produce films of an ethnic nature for programming. The film industry received a reply from the Executive Producer of the South Australian Film Corporation to correspondence to the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Bannon, in May 1982. The reply received from SBS was that it was not interested in contracting work out of Sydney and Melbourne. That is rather scandalous when one looks at the viable nature of the South Australian Film Corporation. It has been the leader in film production in Australia since the early 1970s and is recognised world wide as a producer of good quality films . To be rebutted with the line that there will be no contracting work out of Sydney and Melbourne is, in fact, an insult to that Corporation. This is especially so when one looks at the Federal public dollars going into the film industry. Honourable senators will note that 95 per cent of federal funding for the film industry normally ends up in Sydney and Melbourne. The point I come back to is that we do have the potential in South Australia to participate fully in an extended ethnic broadcasting service. To date the Government has made a very bland announcement of an extension of the service. But it has shown absolutely no public interest in involving the community, whether it be on a general administrative council level or whether it be in the area of film production, in the extension of that service. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(11.51) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report Senator GRIMES(Tasmania)(11.52) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is an important paper. I wish to comment on certain aspects of it which touch on my area of interest. I refer to social security prosecutions. The report on the general guidelines to be adopted by the Commonwealth for prosecutions are very welcome in the light of experience in many areas but particularly in the area of social security offences or alleged offences. The document states that a major consideration is whether the public interest requires the institution of the prosecution. It states further that regard should be had in the prosecution to many factors which include the seriousness of the offence and the youth, age and so on of the offender. We know rather more about alleged social security offenders since the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on social security prosecutions. The report particularly concentrated on the year 1978-79 when a survey was made of such prosecutions. There were 1,386 defendants, of whom 10 per cent were prosecuted for overpayments of less than $140. In Western Australia a 43-year-old married man with two children on unemployment benefit was charged with failure to disclose full time employment. He had been overpaid $2,231 and was sentenced to 270 days in prison. He gave 'financial difficulties' as the reason for his offence. Most of the offenders were, like him, male and married, half with dependent children, and their average age was 31. I think we need to reconsider, as the report says, whether public interest required the prosecution and that man's imprisonment and the imprisonment of others like him. Repayment of such overpayments is, of course, mandatory and proper. But I think more thought needs to go into the value of imprisoning a family man for nine months. We are not the only people who have been concerned about this aspect. The Fisher committee in the United Kingdom, which inquired into the abuse of social security benefits, stated in its report in 1973: There is not much point in fining a man or woman who is already on supplementary benefit. To send a man or woman to prison particularly if they have young children may inflict severe hardship on the whole family and reduce or destroy the prospect of getting them off social security. A solicitor in the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office is quoted in an Australian Law Reform Commission report as saying: . . . A lot of our cases do result from our existing economic conditions and the effect that has on the people who offend against the Social Services Act . . . I am thinking of the married man, or the man with a de facto wife who has four or five kids to support and who can't manage on his salary . . . I don't see that the fine or sentence of imprisonment achieve anything, because if you fine the man all you're doing is depriving his family further and if you imprison him, you're depriving them of any form of livelihood except some other form of pension. Of course, there have been other social security problems in this area. One could not go past the alleged social security conspiracy case of which much has been said in this place. The prosecution policy guidelines make sensible recommendations in respect of conspiracy cases. This year has seen the end of one of the most monstrous and expensive hearings of a conspiracy case that we have seen in this country, more than four years after 183 people were arrested in Sydney and after the expenditure of many millions of dollars. I expect that the guidelines are an attempt to prevent such a thing happening again, after almost $15m had been wasted on this atrocious attack on the good name of Australian pensioners of Greek origin. The guidelines, I hope, will make sure that it does not recur. On the final day when the general conspiracy charge was dropped by the Commonwealth, the magistrate castigated the two people who had concocted the stories on which the Commonwealth's prosecution was based. They were the informant, one Chris Nakis, and ex-Detective Chief Inspector Thomas. I will come back to them. In future conspiracy charges will be laid with regard to the practical difficulties, particularly the length of the hearing involved in a trial of numerous defendants. Attention is to be directed at the persons most seriuosly implicated and the conspiracy charges limited to them. A decision on whether to prosecute must take many things into consideration. There is a list of factors which should not influence the prosecution. I hope that the Government will stick to this outline. I am glad that some lessons have been learned from the sorry history of this four-year conspiracy case against Greek pensioners. The guidelines suggest that before a decision is made to grant an indemnity or recommend a pardon to a prospective witness alternative courses, such as trying some of the witnesses' offences, should be considered. If this had been done in respect of the informant in this conspiracy case, it would never have got out of hand. In this case the magistrate said that Nakis's credibility was 'zero or less than zero' and that would have been discovered at an early stage if he had not been so effectively protected. Of course, the driving force behind the arrests and the conspiracy case was Inspector Thomas who, the magistrate stated, had behaved with the 'highest impropriety'. In the magistrate's final statement he said: I propose to bring the circumstances of these actions by Dectective Chief Inspector Thomas as he then was to the notice of the relevant Attorney-General with a view to proceedings being taken against former Detective Chief Inspector Thomas for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or for perjury or for both. I have raised this matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), and his representative since the Attorney has been ill, more than once since the magistrate made these remarks on 7 June last. I raise it now in the context of these guidelines because I question the wisdom and propriety of any prosecution decision being made by an office which has worked closely over several years with the ex-Detective Inspector as a result of which the shambles which this conspiracy case ended up in finally hit home to us. Ex-Detective Chief Inspector Thomas worked with the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office from 1977 onwards, from the earliest time that the reward for Nakis-one may remember that it was a considerable reward-was being considered. I think that a future edition of these guidelines should consider what action should be taken to give a totally objective assessment of prosecution action when a potential defendant and the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office are so closely intertwined. The charges and the remarks made by Magistrate Brown were very serious ones. It is now six months since he made them. I repeat: He referred the case to the Attorney-General to see whether former Detective Chief Inspector Thomas should not be charged for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or for perjury or for both. It seems to me that considerable time and considerably more care has been taken to avoid charging former Detective Chief Inspector Thomas than was ever taken in considering whether to charge the 183 people who were originally charged in this case. I think it is about time that the Government looked at its own guidelines which it has now produced to see whether it should not take action as a result of the magistrate's very harsh words. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales)(12.0) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry is additional to an earlier report which was presented to the Parliament only a short time ago. The report updates the assessments that were made by the Council in that earlier report which was designed, of course, to have regard to the problems facing the building industry in the current financial year. As the report itself says, the forecasts reflect new data and major developments occurring since the preparation of the annual report. The report is concerned largely with the Government's approach to the housing industry arising out of the 1982-83 Budget. I believe the Council is to be commended because of the initiative it had taken to prepare and publish an additional report to take account of the Fraser Government's housing initiatives-or should I say lack of housing initiatives- announced in the Budget. However, these initiatives, limited as they were because there was again a substantial inadequacy in respect of funds of housing, have been overtaken by the rather dramatic deterioration in the general economic conditions in the country. Of course, this depressed state of the economy has had a dramatic effect on the already depressed housing industry. As the Council itself remarks in a letter to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Peacock , it has to take into account the current deterioration in economic conditions and prospects and that this has had a substantial bearing on the Council's forecasts. The Council has taken the step of making available a supplementary report to the Parliament. I want to make a very brief reference to some comments which probably have some bearing even though from time to time the Fraser-Howard Administration seeks to dissociate itself from the Treasury. I keep reminding myself of the statements made by the head of the Treasury, Mr Stone, who from time to time has criticised the amount of both public and private investment in housing in Australia. He has made the suggestion, which I find remarkable and unacceptable, that we are spending too much money in this country in providing accommodation for our citizens. This is a view which certainly the Australian Labor Party will have no truck with and repudiates. One of the features of the policies being pursued by the Fraser-Howard Administration is the degree to which funds for housing, particularly public housing, have been reduced in the seven years of the Fraser Government. The very acute problems associated with housing finance, particularly in regard to interest rates which have increased by almost 50 per cent in recent years, have had a disastrous effect upon the housing and construction industry generally. There is a tremendous housing shortage in this country and interest rates are inhibiting the ability of people to become part of the home owning process. What are the major conclusions in this report? The report shows that there has been a drop of 17 per cent in total dwelling commencements-that is, from 133,000 in 1981-82 to 110,800 in 1982-83. This is on top of a fall in commencements of 11 per cent in the previous year. There has been a drop in private house commencements of 3 per cent and a drop in 'other' private dwelling commencements -as referred to in the report-of some 35 per cent. That section in the report deals with flats and townhouses, both of which are important supplements in providing for the housing problems facing our country and both of which are popular forms of housing accommodation for many of our citizens. There has been a slight rise in public sector construction, however, which in no way comes near to countering the private sector decline. The recent decision of the Government to make available $100m will have a minor effect upon this whole housing crisis which we are facing in this country. The report indicates that the States hardest hit are New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. So, of course the report has regard not to party politics but to where the problems exist. It shows clearly that they flow from the disastrous economic policies being pursued by the Fraser Government. In the area of housing finance it is expected that the total amount loaned for housing in 1982 will actually increase but that the number of loans will decrease. We cannot be in any way satisfied with that nor can this Government be complacent about the way in which its economic policies are working. Those policies are just not working. They are affecting one of the most vital industries in this country-the housing and construction industry which has not only a responsibility to provide accommodation but also the capacity to get some regenerative processes within the Australian economy. The dwelling prospects are dealt with in the report on pages 8, 9 and 10. In summary the report says: The housing industry entered 1982-83 with dwelling commencements estimated to be running at the lowest quarterly level since 1978. The available information suggests this low level of activity persisted into the December quarter 1982. Of course, the evidence has shown that that projection in this supplementary report has been borne out. The need is, therefore, for a response by the Commonwealth Government if it is to put into effect its policies of governing for all of the people. A decline such as this in the housing industry demands a response from a responsible government. We know, as the Government's policy is tied in with the monetarist policies which are disastrous in so many other countries, that there is no chance of any satisfactory response from the Fraser administration. The public housing measures announced this week by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney-using funds which are supposed to come from the proposed wage pause-are not that response which is needed. We need a lot more than that. Labor, of course, welcomes the boost of funds to the public sector housing industry. In fact we have argued that in both the House of Representatives-it has been argued by Mr Hayden, Mr Uren and others-and in the Senate where I have advocated it. We say, however, that the Government has left it a bit late to recognise the value of public funds for housing. It has ensured that real payments to the States for housing will not solve the problem because there has been this substantial dramatic drop in payments during the Fraser Government's term of office. In 1974-75, for example, real net payments to the States for housing were, in 1982 constant prices, $652.2m. In the current year, apart from that extra $100m which has been allocated, the amount of money that is available is $103.6m. This shows the dramatic decline in Commonwealth contributions to public housing. Clearly, the Commonwealth Government has allowed the housing industry to decline in a manner that even its own advisory committee has been forced to outline in its original report and now in this latest report. If this Government were really concerned it would go about stimulating the housing industry, not only giving assistance to the private sector but also pursuing policies which would assist the public and the private sectors to make their contributions to housing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I will speak very briefly to the 1981-82 annual report of the Australian National Railways Commission. It reports a deficit of $73.6m which is worse by $ 10m on the deficit of the previous year. The Chairman's report notes that this result is a reversal of what has happened in previous years when there has been a slight reduction in the operating loss each year. But there has always been a very great loss from this most inefficient organisation and this is a matter of very great concern to me. Quite simply, it means that taxpayers are being bled for a grossly inefficient operation that the Government should not be in at all. For the 4 1/2 years that I have been a senator, I have served on the Estimates committees that have dealt with the present Department of Transport and Construction and operations of this body have come before us. I am rather nauseated by the platitudinous statement in the Chairman's report which follows the same line of reasoning that we get every year. The Chairman states: The Commission has entered into the new financial year determined to pursue its task of becoming a well activated and dynamic commercial enterprise . . . Really! We are interested in performance, not platitudes. The Commission has had more than enough chance to demonstrate its commercial abilities. This year's loss-$73.6m-is very great. Looking at the operations of this body over a period, I believe that it is quite obvious that management makes no attempt at all to control its outgoings; it makes no attempt to balance the input for those outgoings and to run in a normal commercial way. This year, the Commonwealth has provided $68.2m by way of subsidy to go part way towards meeting that loss. The rest will be carried forward as an accumulated debit. The importance of this attitude is illustrated by this comparison: The Australian Government and the Australian community demand that the airlines pay their way. We have the cost recovery doctrine for air navigation charges and all the rest of it. Anyone who flies on an Australian airline or anyone who ships freight on an Australian airline pays the true cost for the service. I do not see why Australians who use airlines have to operate on a different financial base from those who wish to use rail travel. In fairness to Australian National Railways there is nothing different about its operation from any other railway in Australia. The State operations are every bit as inefficient and incompetent as the Federal one. The only thing that the Australian National Railways has done is to establish for itself an accumulated provision for long service leave of $25.3m, a superannuation provision of $24.997m and about $50m for its own welfare. However, there is but scant recognition of the needs of the shareholders of this company who are, of course, the people of Australia. I think it is time that the Commonwealth withdrew support for the Australian National Railways Commission and allowed the market to sort out this inefficient operation. Senator McLAREN(South Australia)(12.14) —I will not join Senator MacGibbon in castigating the Australian National Railways Commission. I think each year the honourable senator castigates the Commission. I have done that on other occasions in respect of parts of its report but not in the in-depth way in which the honourable senator has done it. It is all very well to stand up in this place and to criticise the Commission and its report, and sit down without offering any alternative, only saying that we ought to let the market place solve the problems. Senator MacGibbon does not realise that the railways are here as a service to the people-in particular, the farming community. I do not know how much farmers would have to pay to cart their produce, superphosphate and every fuel that they have to use if we abolished the present railways structure and turned the Commission over to the whims of private enterprise. Not too many farmers in outlying areas of Australia would be able to operate at the charges that would be imposed on them by private enterprise. The Australian railways, be they the Australian National Railways or the State railways, give a service to the community. We should not be worried too much about whether those services run at a profit or a loss, as long as they provide the service and keep people on the land. Senator MacGibbon should take cognisance of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Bill, passed by the Senate just this week. That legislation will contribute millions and millions of dollars towards the construction of roads for private transport. Nothing is ever said about the cost of that. Yet the railways incur losses because they have to construct and maintain all their own permanent ways; there is no contribution through direct grants by way of legislation passed here. That is shown up in their profit and loss accounts every year. So, in my view the railways are doing a sterling job. Instead of criticising them for having losses every year we ought to be doing all we can to support them and not just give a lot of support to private enterprise. Some mention is made of that in the report. At least one thing can be said for the railways, be they State or Federal: They pay their employees award wages and provide them with decent working standards. That cannot be said of private trucking operations. Some of the drivers on these trucks, working for private enterprise, do not see a bed for months on end. They sleep in their cabins and work all sorts of hours. At least the railways are miles ahead of these operators, who exploit their employees. I am also disturbed by a report published in the Australian yesterday. We see the heading: 'Pay rises push ANR losses up by $10m'. Of course, that is completely misleading. The ANR report shows that pay rises were responsible for about $6.1m but a lot of that was taken up in restrospective payments-wage and salary adjustments-which go back a long time. People reading the article in the Australian would think that the whole loss of $10m, which Senator MacGibbon referred to, was taken up in wage payments. That is not so. We have to realise that a lot of that $6.1m mentioned in the report comes back into the Treasury by way of taxation on wages. It comes from the pay-as-you-earn workers, who always pay their tax. Those whom Senator MacGibbon supports, the bottom-of-the-harbour people, do not pay any tax. Senator MacGibbon —I did not refer to that matter when dealing with this report. Senator McLAREN —A lot of people on the Government side supported the bottom-of- the-harbour people during the debate on the taxation Bills and advocated that they not pay any tax at all. They supported these people as much as they could. We saw those on the other side fighting, day after day, to protect their private interests. Senator Townley —Stick to the report. Senator McLAREN —I am sticking to the report. I am saying that a lot of this $6. 1m incurred by way of retrospective wage payments to railway employees comes back into the Treasury by way of tax paid by those people. They cannot avoid it. The other thing in this report that I want to mention is that Mr Ralph Taylor, a foundation member and national secretary of the Australian Railways Union, resigned from the Commission in July 1981. The Commission records its thanks for his splendid contribution and wise counsel. I am sure that all colleagues of mine on this side of the House will join with the Commission in those words of thanks. Senator Peter Rae —And so do I, Senator. Senator McLAREN —I am very pleased that Senator Rae has said that he does, too. The resignation of Ralph Taylor will be a great loss to the Commission. Although we are under time restraints, I want to congratulate the Commission for at last doing something about a computerised passenger booking system. I have said in this Parliament on many occasions that the passenger service operated by ANR has been underutilised because of the archaic way of allocating seats. Senator Robertson —It was a conscious policy. Senator McLAREN —It was a conscious policy. I want to read a part of the report under the heading 'Computerised Passenger Booking System'. It states: Earlier plans for an 'in-house' developed computerised passenger booking system for Australian National were abandoned in favour of an established system. With a view to eventually achieving the compatability required for a nationwide booking scheme this system should be operational in the 1982/83 period. Initiatives by Australian National have resulted in discussions at Railways of Australia (ROA) level concerning the requirements for a nationwide system. These discussions are continuing and it is anticipated that the prevalent problems of under-utilisation of train accommodation will be reduced once a computerised system is implemented. I hope that that computerised system is implemented as quickly as possible. As I have said before in the Parliament, I have travelled on railways in other parts of the world. I think the passenger service run by ANR is second to none: It cannot be bettered by any other system in the world. We always hear about the Canadian passenger trains over the Rockies, but their service cannot compare with that offered by ANR. There is another reference in the report to road transport and the reduction in the workload of ANR. The report states: The reduction in cattle van numbers was caused by an overall reduction in the cattle population in South Australia plus very heavy road competition on the Marree line and the South Eastern areas of South Australia. The report also states: The reduction in sheep van numbers was caused by heavy road competition. As I said earlier, the Government is making money available to construct roads for these great juggernauts to travel on. They compete with a semi-governmental enterprise, the Australian Railways Commission. They are taking work and revenue away from the Commission; and yet senators criticise the Commission because it cannot show a profit. I am very pleased that Senator Peter Rae is in the chamber because this is one report that he will not be able to criticise for being late. The Commission ought to be congratulated because this report is right on time. Looking through the report I noted a photograph of the opening of the Loxton Freight Centre in June. That shows how up to date this report is. One person would be most disappointed with the report. Whilst he positioned himself at the opening of that freight centre to have his photograph taken I see that the Commission, in its wisdom, cut him out of the photograph. He was not supposed to be on the platform. I said to him at the opening: 'You are a shrewd politician going up there to have your photograph taken'. But the Commission, in its widom, deleted his photograph from the report. I think the Commission did a very good thing. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(12.23) —I wish to intrude for one or two moments to comment on the annual report of Australian National Railways Commission. I think it is fair to suggest that Australian National, in common with other businesses and industries throughout Australia, has suffered as a result of a significant increase in salaries. I do not think we can ignore that. In fact, these increases accounted for approximately $6.1m, which indicated an average railway wage increase of about 18 per cent-a lot more than Australian National estimated it to be. We have to have regard to that fact. It is a significant matter. The wages pause that we are to deal with will be reflected in a better report, I hope, next year. Part of Australian National's deficit was due to the fact that industrial disputes cost it some $3.5m last year. This was mainly due to the activities of Transport Workers Union members in July and August 1981. As the report notes, very little was due to the action of Australian National staff. Another matter that has to be borne in mind is the effect that drought has on Australian National freight. I think Senator McLaren mentioned that point. In fact the grain tonnage moved in 1981-82 was 18 per cent below that recorded in the previous year. Livestock movements also decreased and as a result revenue dropped by approximately $16m. I believe we will see an increase in coal transportation as a result of the new power station being built in Port Augusta. I hope this will be reflected in a better situation next year. However, I pay tribute to the general manager, Don Williams, and his senior officers for the work that they are doing to try to overcome these tremendous difficulties. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(12.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. During the discussions at the seminar, I dare say that the Australia-United States Bilateral Agreement on Co-operation on Anti-Trust Matters was discussed. I have some criticism of that agreement. After the agreement was signed, various articles in the Australian Press pointed out that it had definite limitations for Australian interests. Australia has agreed to provide the United States with confidential information on any new export policies that it may adopt in the future which might violate United States anti-trust laws. Also, the Federal Government undertook to adopt a more co-operative approach to United States court subpoenas for documents within Australia. The commitments are the quid pro quo for a restricted agreement by the United States Justice Department to intervene in future private anti-trust actions against Australian companies. As was pointed out in an article in the Australian Financial Review in June, the agreement provides that the Australian information is to be treated confidentially in Washington but it provides no guarantee that the United States Justice Department will not prosecute if it feels the policy violates United States anti-trust laws. In return, the United States Government has agreed that it may intervene in some private anti-trust cases against Australian companies if it sees fit. The question of intervention will be decided on by the United States Government after consultations with Australian officials. If a case such as the Westinghouse Corporation anti-trust case had taken place since the agreement, the agreement supposedly would offer protection to Australian companies. I dare say that it does offer some type of protection-it certainly does not substitute for a clawback Bill going through this Senate, something that has been lying in the Attorney-General's Department for goodness knows how long. When the Westinghouse case was determined, we found that although, according to the law, Westinghouse was well enough protected, nevertheless it settled out of court. The fact that Westinghouse settled out of court shows that the existing law obviously did not offer sufficient protection for Westinghouse to decide not to settle out of court. It settled out of court, and therefore I am urging that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) take another look at the clawback legislation, look at such legislation in Europe, the United Kingdom and elsewhere and do something about chasing it along. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator EVANS(Victoria)(12.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In doing so, I wonder sometimes why the Family Law Council bothers-the Council itself must wonders why it bothers-to produce reports of this kind. This is the sixth in the series. Like its predecessors, it is chock-full of useful analysis as to how the system works and is not working and of proposals for amendment of the law in the numerous areas in which it has now become obvious that is necessary. But here, as in so many other areas of the administration of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), the administration of the law has been lethargic in the extreme. Years go by; nothing happens. With each passing year of inactivity, the Family Law Council wearily saddles up again and produces reports of this kind, but as each successive 12-month period draws to its close again it finds itself with very little to applaud in terms of what has actually happened. Let me give four examples of areas in which activity which ought to be taking place is not taking place. The first and most obvious of them is the amendments to the Family Law Amendment Bill 1981 which were proposed in this place over 12 months ago. It is an absolute disgrace that in the 12 months that have elapsed there has been no more than three hours of debate on this Bill in the chamber and the Bill has simply kept on disappearing from the Notice Paper. Powerful lobby groups seem to have no difficulty at all in getting speedy results. But thousands of individuals are affected by anomalies and difficulties in the way the Family Law Act is presently operating, not as to its fundamentals-because I see Senator Martyr itching to get to his feet and give us yet another diatribe on the fundamental aspects of family law legislation-but as to the procedural aspects of the way in which it in fact operates. There are many ways in which people are being prejudiced by those anomalies. Let me indicate just briefly some of them. A wife whose husband receives superannuation some time after the divorce receives absolutely no share in that benefit. The custody of an adopted child has to be determined by the Supreme Court of a State while the custody of natural children can be determined by the Family Court. The Family Court is not obliged to take into account the wishes of children under 14 years in relation to custody matters no matter how important or obviously relevant those wishes might be. In the absence of fraud or injustice, matrimonial property orders cannot be varied even in cases where the parties agree or their financial circumstances change significantly. Under the present law a person other than the parents of a child is prevented from bringing in the Family Court proceedings for custody or guardianship, even when the welfare of the child requires it. Those are just some of the matters which are addressed in this legislation. They are manifestly of importance and it is manifestly outrageous that the Government has taken the lethargic and lackadaisical attitude it has towards the processing of that legislation. The second example of Government lethargy in the family law area has been the fabled matrimonial property inquiry. It was announced in October 1981 in terms of the recommendation a year before of the parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. On 13 September this year Senate Estimates Committee A was told that the inquiry would not start until 1 January 1983. In fact, it now seems doubtful whether even that deadline will be met. There is a rather sordid series of undercurrents to this saga which I will not stop to retail again now. I have done so previously in this place. I simply indicate that this is another demonstration of the unwillingness of the Government to move effectively in this area. There is also the matter of the reference of powers by the States. Time and again cases are coming to the High Court of Australia and other courts in the system involving unedifying jurisdictional disputes between the Family Court and State supreme courts, particularly in custody matters. A unified family law jurisdiction is obviously needed. One way of doing that would be by constitutional amendments, which are presently being discussed. Short of that, the Federal Government could accept a reference of powers from the States. The Labor States-particularly New South Wales and Victoria-have indicated that they are willing to make such a reference. However, negotiations have been dragging on for years. The present Government seems utterly unwilling to bring this matter to a sensible conclusion. In the process, of course, it is causing hardship and distress to many people. Finally, there is the saga, which I mention briefly again, of the United Nations Convention for Recovery Abroad of Maintenance. In 1977 interdepartmental consultations were completed concerning the legal formalities necessary to enable the performance of Australian obligations under the Convention governing the recovery abroad of maintenance. Five and a half years later-now nearly six years later-it appears that the implementation of that Convention is no closer to fruition. There are many illustrations of both a general and a specific kind that one could adduce as to the continuing neglect and incompetence of this Government when it comes to family law administration. I only hope that when the next Family Law Council report is put down in this place there will be something better and more constructive to report. I suspect that will only be the case after the election of a Labor government, as the Australian Labor Party is genuinely committed to getting some rational and effective reform in this area. Senator MARTYR(Western Australia)(12.35) —Senator Evans, that windy but personally pleasant prophet, correctly says that I will again take up fundamentals, but I will do so only briefly. The Family Law Council's annual report once again shows how effectively marriage as an institution is being destroyed in Australia. The Family Law Council has done nothing and will, I suggest, do nothing to stabilise and preserve marriage; neither will its slave organisation, the Institute of Family Studies. I think both bodies should be abolished and replaced with a continuing joint committee of this Parliament. The simple reason for that contention is that I believe lifetime marriage to one person is still the cornerstone of the family and therefore our society. I submit that nothing less than Parliament, the law giver, is worthy of handling the vital matter of marriage and the family. The stability of marriage and the family is the basic answer to many of the domestic and social security problems that Senator Grimes spoke of before. These matters are frequently raised by others in this Parliament. It seems to me that until Parliament grasps this nettle we will have continuing difficulties in this area. We cannot expect bodies-even though they are judicially appointed-which are outside and not connected with this Parliament to have the absolutely fundamental application that is necessary to solve this problem of the breakdown of marriage which, as I have said, is the cornerstone of our society. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.36) — In adding to what Senator Martyr has said, I believe that the tragedy of divorce shows up in statistics of children affected by divorce. These are indicated in the table shown on page 17 of the Family Law Council annual report. It is very sobering indeed to read of the enormous number of children who are affected by divorce. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that well over 300,000 children have now been affected by divorce since the Family Law Act came into operation in 1975. I believe that is an indictment of the provisions of that legislation. I and a number of other honourable senators will take the opportunity early next year-when amendments to the Family Law Act come before this Parliament-to put down other amendments which will be designed to strengthen marriage and give greater protection to innocent victims of divorce. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report on Insurance Contracts Senator EVANS(Victoria)(12.39) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report by the Australian Law Reform Commission deals with insurance contracts. One of the minor miracles in this country is the way in which the Commission, despite its starved resources, despite the indifference and indeed even sometimes hostility with which its recommendations are greeted by the present Government, nonetheless continues to produce reports of outstanding quality, wide in reach and great in depth and enormous in the credibility and respect that they have been able to generate from professionals in all the fields with which those reports have dealt. I think it is a great tribute to the fortitude, industry and capacity of the members of the Law Reform Commission and particularly, of course, its indefatigable chairman, Mr Justice Kirby, that this should be so. Another splendid demonstration of the quality of the Commission and its reports is this report on insurance contracts. This 350-page document, which contains numerous recommendations aimed at completely overhauling and updating the law of insurance, is now brought before us. There is no time in the 30 seconds which I think remains available to me in this debate to canvass in any way the substance of those recommendations. Suffice to say that they are far-reaching and they deserve immediate legislative attention by the Government. I simply hope that these recommendations, and the report as a whole, will meet a better fate than that which was meted out by the Government to the earlier report of the Commission on insurance agents and brokers which, it will be remembered, attracted the support of the Senate in private members' legislation but which so far has been treated by the Government with contempt and a complete refusal to legislate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Peter Rae)-by leave-agreed to: That the Fishing Industry Research Committee annual report 1980-81, the Canberra Commercial Development Authority Annual Report 1980-81, the Canberra Showground Trust Annual Report 1980-81, the Australian War Memorial Report 1980- 81 and the Medical Research Projects Report 1981 be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for investigation and report as to the reasons, where appropriate, for the delay in their presentation , or alternatively, for qualifications by the Auditor-General. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) -by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982 Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) -by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Ministerial Statement Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) -by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a brief statement concerning the Senate Select Committee on South West Tasmania and to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- On 23 November the Committee presented its first report to the Senate covering the demand for and supply of power for Tasmania, the significance of the archaeological discoveries near the Franklin River and the Commonwealth's obligations and powers in relation to South West Tasmania. The terms of reference of the inquiry are: (a) The natural values of South West Tasmania to Australia and the world; and (b) Federal responsibility in assisting Tasmania to preserve its wilderness areas of national and international importance, including appropriate financial assistance consistent with the State's development needs and options for the State's energy requirements. There are a number of matters within the terms of reference on which the Committee has yet to report. At a recent meeting, the Committee resolved that it will continue to examine: (a) The natural values of South West Tasmania; and (b) the environmental effects of the electricity supply options. The Committee also resolved to establish a sub-committee consisting of Senators Archer, Coates and Primmer to examine other land uses, such as mining, forestry, tourism and recreation, which may affect the preservation of Tasmania's wilderness areas of national and international importance. As much of the information on these matters has already been obtained, the Committee expects to present its second report to the Senate by April 1983. Motion (by Senator Archer)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce has completed its Report on the Development of the Australian Fishing Industry- (a) the Committee may send the report to the President, or, if the President is unable to act due to illness or other cause, to the Deputy President; (b) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate and the President or the Deputy President be authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation; and (c) in such event, the President or the Deputy President lay the report upon the table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Assent to the following Bills reported: Bounty (Berry Fruits) Bill 1982. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1982. Northern Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 1982. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill. Debate resumed from 9 December, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition)(12.49) —The Opposition does not oppose these Bills. But we believe that they could be improved in some ways. That matter can be dealt with at the Committee stage. I begin by explaining essentially what the Bills do. Firstly, they introduce supplementary licences for television and amend the existing provisions which have not yet been used in the Broadcasting and Television Act in relation to so-called supplementary licences for radio. Secondly, they increase the maximum size of the membership of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal from five to eight. That is not a matter of any contention. A supplementary licence, which is what the Bills refer to, is one granted in the same area to an existing licensee of a television or radio station. It is not subject to the normal ownership and control provisions; that is, for the purposes of the ownership and control provisions it would be seen as being one with the existing licence held by a commercial operator for those purposes. The legislation does not apply to the five mainland State capitals. No supplementary licences will be available for commercial radio and television licence holders in any of the five major capitals on the mainland. The legislation provides that the supplementary licences for radio must be FM licences and for television they should be either for UHF or VHF. Radiated subscription services are permitted. This means that, potentially, a total of 99 commercial FM radio services and 36 commercial television services could be established under the provision of this legislation, in addition to what is currently available. The important thing about this legislation is that it is designed to provide additional services and, it is hoped, additional choice predominantly in provincial areas of Australia. That is a very important objective with which the Opposition concurs. There is no reason why the four million Australians who live in these areas-other than of course for important cost reasons that have applied very significantly in the past-should not have available to them the same sort of services and the same choice of services as those who live in the metropolitan areas. I regard that as a desirable objective which should be sought by governments and which, in a sense, this legislation is a step towards. I want to say at the outset that we think that there is a very important policy consideration in this legislation, and the policy consideration is to get new services into the regions and to maintain local content elements in both an Australian sense and a regional sense. That is to say that the contributions which television and radio stations make to local communities should be continued and, if possible, enhanced and those regional and television operators who provide those services should not be swamped by networks operating out of the major capital cities because they provide some diversity, some choice and additional opportunity, which is a very important factor. I think it is important again to make the point that we are talking about commercial radio and television services only. Other ways exist of providing additional services for regional areas in Australia. The Australian Broadcasting Commission could provide additional services, particularly in radio, by the development of a second radio network. Public broadcasting licences could be offered to regions on a more extensive basis than they have been in the past. The development of new commercial services is not the only way of attaining the desired object of getting new services into the regions and maintaining, as far as possible, local contributions which are relevant to the local community as distinct from the contributions which may come from the networks. I might say, in passing, that much of the argument about the provision of supplementary licences arose out of apprehension that the satellite would be used in the not too distant future for the provision of networking across Australia by direct broadcasting and that that would debilitate against the interests of regional operators of television and radio stations. I want to make it quite clear that while the satellite has many attractive uses, it would not be attractive to the Opposition to see regional radio and television operators inhibited or destroyed by the operation of network services across Australia because of the localism provision and because of the community services that they can offer at the local level. As I say, the intent of this Bill, which we applaud, is to get new services into the country areas. But the legislation in some ways, because it considers only commercial licences, does not take into account the broadcasting system as a whole. If new services cannot be obtained by the commercial sector, then it may be that public or national broadcasting services could be offered to provide additional choice and additional local or regional input into programming. I said that the legislation deals with supplementary licences. That means that it creates licences for services as distinct from the existing system of licences for transmissions. The effect of that in simple terms is to offer existing television and radio operators in the regions a supplementary licence which entitles them to provide for local consumers a second and alternative level of programming to that which they already provide. If a local television station obtains a supplementary licence it will have two sets of programming going. It is to be hoped that that will provide additional choice. The same sort of thing can be said about local commercial radio operators. Under the existing Broadcasting and Television Act there are procedures for dealing with applications for licences. This legislation provides some new procedures in relation to supplementary licences. In talking about the provision of new services in regional areas, I should say that there is an enormous backlog in the Department of Communications in dealing with planning matters. I am not blaming the Department for that. I am just saying that the previous Minister in an answer to a question I asked indicated that there was an enormous backlog, maybe due to staffing shortages and things of that kind. It is important that that be considered or borne in mind when we consider the method of applying for new licences and the delays which have been occurring in recent years. Two notions have governed on a bipartisan basis the development of broadcasting in Australia. They have been accepted since the Broadcasting Control Board was established in 1935. The first notion is simply that local content on regional or local television and radio stations is desirable. The second important notion , which I think this legislation recognises, is the so-called test of viability. It is no good establishing a proliferation of broadcasting stations if they are not going to be viable, that is to say, profitable. If they are not profitable they will not produce good programs and good services and ultimately will lower the standards rather than improve the standards of choice and programming available to consumers in particular areas. The notions of viability and of localism are very important in developing or approaching the whole question of broadcasting services and overall policy considerations in that development. Senator Tate —The same argument can be used against cable television. Senator BUTTON —Yes. Senator Tate points that the same argument can be advanced against the introduction of cable television into Australia. The legislation provides procedures whereby supplementary licences can be obtaind. The essence of those procedures is that an existing licensee applies to the Minister for a single supplementary licence. I make the point that under the legislation a consortium of licensees serving the same area may also apply. That is a very important consideration in relation to the amendments which the Opposition will be moving to this legislation because it is relevant to the question of viability. For example, in a single station radio market there may not be an independent operator who can viably and successfully operate an independent licence. But it may be that a consortium of licensees serving the same area could do so. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m. Senator BUTTON —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I indicated that the Opposition generally approves of the legislation before the Senate which deals with supplementary licences for regional broadcasting and television stations. We approve of the legislation because it is a method of providing additional services to communities which have largely been dependent on one television service and one radio service in the commercial area. This legislation opens up the prospect of additional services being provided. I again emphasise that it is the commercial sector about which we are talking. There are other ways in which governments can provide additional services, whether by provision of public broadcasting licences or by provision of an Australian Broadcasting Commission second network in radio-a course which the Opposition advocates. But, insofar as commercial services are concerned, the rationale behind this legislation is that in many markets it would not be possible for new independent operators to establish themselves in competition with existing operators and gain sufficient advertising revenue on a local basis or on a wider basis to make the new independent operator viable. In other words, there is insufficient advertising revenue in many of these markets to support two radio stations or television stations. The solution provided by the Government in this legislation is to suggest that the existing operators should have supplementary licences not only because a lot less cost is involved but also because they would not be competing for advertising revenue with existing operators. There are two important notions in this legislation. The first is the importance of providing additional services to regional communities. The second is the notion of the importance of local content, an argument about which there is a lot to be said on both sides but which I do not want to go into now. Of course, there is the third point that the legislation enshrines the principle of viability which is inherent, I think, in both parties in the sense that it is desirable that all stations operating in these markets should be profitable and, if they are not profitable, they will not provide a good service for the community concerned. Supplementary licence legislation is a device, if one likes , to deal with that situation. It seems to me to be a sensible device. When one talks about the so-called principle or importance of viability of radio and television stations, I record in passing that it is a matter of regret that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal completely abandoned that test of viability, if one likes, in its report on cable and radiated subscription television services. I hope the Government, in its response to that report, will take account of that departure from long-standing broadcasting policy. I want to say one other thing in general at this stage of the discussion which I will deal with in greater detail at the time when this Bill is is debated in Committee. It is simply this: As far as possible, the Opposition's view on broadcasting policy is that one should consider all the parts together in terms of provision of community services and that governments should be responsible for the structure and the regulatory mechanisms. Within that context, in the commercial sector there should be as much freedom as possible to develop new services whether they be in the form of supplementary services or whether they be in the form of competitive services. That is so. It is desirable that as far as possible people be placed on an equal footing. Two of the amendments the Opposition will be moving go to that very question; the need to place a potential independent applicant on the same footing as an existing licence holder in respect of starting proceedings to determine whether a new service is desirable and what form that service should take. I think it very important to remember the second set of amendments which the Opposition will be moving in the Committee stage, relating to the concentration of ownership in a particular area. We do not think that in a town-let me take a hypothetical town which I will call 'Og', and I do not want to offend any of those proprietors out there-where one person owns the radio station, the television station and the newspaper, it is right for that person to be offered an additional radio or television licence to the exclusion of anybody else. Instead of having three media outlets in a town controlled by one person or one company, under this legislation as it presently stands one could have four media outlets controlled by one person or one company. I have referred to the mythical town of Og. Such towns exist in Australia, where the entire local media-if I may call it that-are in the hands of one proprietor or company. It is not right, in our view, to extend the supplementary licence concession in that situation. It is undesirable that that happen. Independent operators should be invited, in that circumstance, to establish an alternative media outlet in the town of Og. If no independent operator is prepared to do that, that community should not necessarily be deprived of an additional service; the additional service could be provided in another way, by looking at other areas of the broadcasting spectrum. The service could be provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, by a public broadcasting licence, or by another commercial operator operating in a contiguous region seeking an independent licence in that area and operating both areas on a regional basis. We think that is desirable. I guess we have been listening to the free enterprise rhetoric of this Government for too long. It has suddenly been abandoned with this legislation. Like all other aspects of free enterprise in Australia, everybody is in favour of it until it gets a bit hot. Senator Missen —Just when you were being persuaded. Senator BUTTON —Surprising as it may seem to Senator Missen, I have always been a mixed economy man. I think that in regard to the private enterprise aspect of the economy there is much to be said for the provision of competitive services in a situation such as I have been describing. Our views on concentration of media ownership in a particular region are nothing new. The effects of concentration of media ownership are potentially that the consumers in that region really have only a very limited choice of programming, programming style or content. The second consequence of an undue concentration of media ownership in a town is the effect on business, because commercial media is sponsored and supported by advertising. Business in a one market town where the proprietor owns all the media outlets do not have available to them a choice as to where they take their advertising. That is very important, both in terms of competitive prices and, perhaps, of an alternative approach to advertising content. The views of the Opposition on this matter have guided governments of both political persuasions since 1935. I notice that the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown), when this legislation was debated in the House of Representatives said that it would be very difficult for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to determine what 'media' meant in this context. He said that members of the Tribunal would really have to put their thinking caps on to define what 'media' meant. With respect to the Minister, that is a statement made out of sheer ignorance. In this place ignorance in debates is sometimes bliss but statements such as that should not be uttered so blissfully by a Minister. The Broadcasting Tribunal has already dealt with these issues. Prior to the amendments relating to public interest in 1981 the Broadcasting Tribunal in the Townsville case and in the 2HD case, and to some extent in the Hardiman's case, had dealt with the question of cross-ownership of media and expressed concern about the undesirability of cross-ownership of media in a particularly concentrated market. I mention these matters because there is a need for consistency in broadcasting policy in Australia. I have said that before. I do not wish to make a repetitive charge but one of the saddest things about this Government in relation to communications policy is that in seven years it has had no communications policy. I heard the Minister in Melbourne a month or two ago make a plaintive plea that perhaps the Broadcasting Tribunal assist the Government in developing a broadcasting policy for Australia. That is not the function of the Tribunal. We should all be very grateful for that after reading its report on cable television. That is the function of government. It is sad that the Government has no consistent policy on broadcasting. In our view the development of a policy in broadcasting basically involves the development of the sorts of criteria which have guided broadcasting administrative bodies for a long period and adapting those criteria in the light of changing technology and the development of new technology. That is not a task beyond the wit of man but it seems to be beyond the wit of the present Government. I conclude by saying that we support the broad thrust of the legislation. We think it is a device for providing additional services to regional communities. It is a device which is based on the notion of the desirability of the viability of broadcasting and television stations and a device which recognises the important principle of localism. It is a device which has been developed and spurred on, as it were, by new technology in a sense in the threats which were perceived as a result of the development of satellite technology. From our point of view, because it does have regard to those factors which I have mentioned- local content, viability, importance of broadcasting services in a regional community and the need to provide additional services-it has our basic support. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(2.28) —I support the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill and associated Bills. They provide for amendments to the broadcasting and television legislation so that the Government's decisions on supplementary licences can be implemented. Speaking generally, the Government is providing, particularly to country areas, additional services and programs, which have been needed for many years. The Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) in his second reading speech on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill in the other place said: A constant source of complaint over many years by people in country and regional areas has been the imbalance in broadcasting and television services available in those areas when compared with the five mainland State capital cities. Apart from national services, these people often have access to only one commercial broadcasting service and one commercial television service. Most Australians would agree that it is undesirable that there should be monopolistic situations such as this, where they can be avoided. In so far as this legislation helps to widen the field of choice for people who wish to watch television and listen to radio, it is good. The Minister further said: A major difficulty in attempting to redress the balance has been the inability of many of these areas to support fully competitive stations without endangering the viability of existing services. I think this comes very much to the principles about which Senator Button was speaking with which we must have general agreement. Two things must be considered. One is the viability of another station to operate. If we had two stations operating poorly, employing poor and cheap services and not giving citizens the opportunity to hear and see things I think we would have failed in our purpose. So viability certainly is essential. The second thing to be considered is an expression of localism-the need to provide services that have a particular relationship to a locality and which cater for the interests of the people in that district. That is another thing that this legislation provides. There is provision in the Bill, of course, for supplementary licences to be offered to existing holders. The Minister, in his second reading speech, also said: Once the Tribunal receives an application from the Minister- That is, an application which the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has to consider- it may conduct a public inquiry into the grant of the supplementary licence, and must determine whether an idependent commercial licence would be viable in that area, and if so, whether it would be in the public interest, on certain specified grounds, to invite applications for such a licence. That is excellent. But honourable senators will notice that once the Tribunal receives the application there is a problem. I will have something to say about this problem later. An existing licence holder may decide to avoid competition by not applying for an additional FM licence and thereby deprive other people of the opportunity of seeking to obtain a separate commercial licence in the area. There has been some discussion and correspondence between me and the Minister on this subject in regard to constituents of mine over some years. It seems to me that the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill certainly should be supported. Sometimes the initial criticisms which are made are not justified. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, of which I am Chairman, brought the situation up to date in its twentieth report in respect of the criticisms which it made when the Bill was first sighted. It was the feeling of the Committee that substantial discretions were left with the Minister in determining matters, such as whether he would refer an application to the Tribunal, dismiss it on technical grounds and so forth. The Committee queried this extensive power. The Committee's twentieth report, which I invite honourable senators to look at, records the substantial reply from the Minister indicating the history which these powers have undergone and the extent to which previous reports, such as the Green report on the structure of the Australian broadcasting system and associated matters and the actions of the Broadcasting Council indicate the necessity for those powers. I am quite satisfied that the criticisms raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee have been met in the answer which the Minister has given. I turn now to one matter that has concerned me to which, likewise, I have received a substantial answer today which I hope will be helpful to those people involved. I have been concerned for some years to press the desire by some of my constituents, who come not from the legendary city of Og but from the very real city of Mildura, to break into the radio monopoly and get a licence for another station there. Licences for most of the other forms of communication in that area are held by one particular group. These people have been frustrated over many years. I have spoken at some length on this subject in adjournment debates in the Parliament and have urged action by a succession of Ministers so that they would have the opportunity of seeking a separate licence, appearing before the Tribunal and being heard. When the Bill was first introduced their reaction to it and my reaction was that it did not offer very much more hope for them. The people applying for the particular grant-the Mildura News Group Pty Ltd-said to me in a letter dated 26 November that they were concerned that existing licence holders might not apply. The letter states. We are concerned that there are no positive steps to have a public hearing in Mildura, if the existing operator does not, as is likely, apply for a supplementary licence. Why would he in an area, one of the few in Australia, apply for a supplementary licence, when he knows there will be strong opposition . . . . . . . Also, it is obvious that areas where there has been no concern for FM broadcasting and no likely opposition, will get a service on the air, under the supplementary system, many months, perhaps years, ahead of an area such as Mildura where debate will eventuate and an expression of interest and documentation from the community has been before the Minister for nearly four years. In other words, why should Mildura not have some priority over areas where there has been no interest shown, once legislation is passed. So there was a concern that the Mildura News Group might not get to first base because there might not be an application from the existing holders and, therefore, the matter may never be referred to the Tribunal and the whole examination, as to whether there was room for a separate licence, conducted. Also, there was a feeling that those who had been trying for years to get a licence might be superseded in the rush for licences. There are many applications to be considered and many areas have an interest. Consequently, I wrote to the Minister for Communications and complained in similar terms to those of the letter from the Mildura News Group. I received a reply from the Minister today. Senator Peter Baume —Most timely, actually. Senator MISSEN —It is a most timely and encouraging reply to my complaint. I would like to read the Minister's letter to me of 16 December 1982. He states: You wrote to me on 29 November 1982, concerning the supplementary licence legislation, and the Mildura News Group's desire to establish an independent station in Mildura. Your concern relates to the fact that the legislation does not provide a guarantee that the Minister will invite applications for an independent licence in any area where the existing licensee does not express interest in a supplementary licence. My intention is to invite applications pursuant to Section 82 of the Broadcasting and Television Act and pursuant to my responsibilities under Sections 111C and 111D of the Act where after a nominated period, there is no expressed interest in a supplementary service, and where I have received a firm and appropriate proposal for the establishment of an independent service. As you know, the Government is introducing the supplementary licence scheme in order to increase broadcasting and television services in non-metropolitan areas. I shall be making a statement in Parliament as soon as possible, outlining the timetable and planning procedures associated with the scheme. This statement will deal in more detail with the type of situation you describe. I hope these comments meet your concerns on this matter. I enclose copies of Sections 82, 111C and 111D of the Act for your convenience. Having gone through the sections and the powers, I certainly am satisfied that the Minister seems to have the power to do what he proposes. That seems to fairly fill in this gap which otherwise might exist if present holders do not take up the offer and submit themselves for trial before the Tribunal as to whether there is room for a separate commercial licence. Senator Button —Is there any reason why it should not be in the legislation, which in a sense is a charter of rights for those concerned, is it not? Senator MISSEN —I think there could be a strong argument for saying that it might well be in the legislation. It is not, but I take the letter as a clear statement of the policy of the Minister, an indication that he will do this. I feel that, under the very strong powers that he obviously has under those sections, he will act accordingly. I do not think it makes a great deal of difference whether or not it is in the legislation. Certainly, it is a clear declaration that the Government proposes not to let this gap remain, not to do an injustice to people who have a viable proposition and can satisfy a tribunal that there is room-as I believe there is in Mildura-for additional services, people who have been trying for some time to achieve this end. Consequently, I warmly support the legislation for what it will do in a general way for so many communities throughout Australia. I am also pleased to see that we have now clarified some of the difficulties that otherwise would have been left unresolved. I hope that the general result of this legislation and of the declarations that the Minister has made today will be that we will have a better , fuller television and radio service in country and regional districts of Australia, that this will lead to a worthwhile improvement in those services. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(2.40) —I was very interested to hear Senator Missen raise his concern for the people of Mildura. Mildura happens also to be one of my constituencies. We also have received representations from the people of Mildura. We are, in fact, very concerned about the aspect of the Bill that Senator Missen covered so well; namely, that it takes an application from an existing licence to trigger the whole mechanism in this Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. We have had discussions with the Department of Communications and the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown). We were assured that this problem will be overcome by the Minister in due course. I wish to elaborate on that later on in my very brief remarks concerning these two Bills. The Bills are intended to allow non-metropolitan radio and television station licensees to apply for supplementary licences for additional services. The Government intends that these additional services will include FM radio. The Opposition has foreshadowed amendments designed specifically to make sure that people who are not licence holders can apply for a licence under the legislation and that no undue concentration of media ownership will occur in provincial areas. Essentially, the Government and the industry argue that in many areas an independent FM radio station or second television channel would not be viable. Senator Button covered that point. The industry and the Government argue that the choice in these areas is between services provided under a supplementary licence arrangement as we have in this Bill or no additional services at all. They argue that the additional overheads of a new station would, in many cases, render it non-viable. The Australian Democrats find themselves in a not unfamiliar situation where we are being forced to resolve a conflict between two principles. The first is the fundamental principle that Australian communications policies should include the widest possible spread of ownership; that the ownership of our broadcasting stations should be in as many hands as possible. The second conflicting principle as we see it is that as many Australians as possible should have access to modern telecommunications and that should include FM radio. It would be idle to deny that broadcasting today, particularly in country areas, is generally experiencing very difficult times. Indeed, we have had representations from many radio station proprietors over recent months which state that they are facing the prospect of having to close down. The reasons for these problems, I think, are very obvious. The continuing depression is having its effect, particularly on rural enterprises. This, of course, affects advertising. The drought has been a very significant factor without any doubt. Finally, the continuous population drift from country areas to the cities has caused provincial radio stations and TV stations to suffer a declining market in relative terms. One could mount a reasonable argument, we believe, to allow unfettered competition between radio stations and between TV stations. In fact, if one were to accept the logic of the Government, which is the basis behind the Davidson, Bradley and Campbell reports, it might be expected that the Government would bring in legislation that would allow, apart from assurances of certain technical viability, anybody to set up a radio station and that there would be free and unfettered competition. That is the principle that the Government never tires of preaching to us and to anybody who will listen to it. However, the Government has not adopted that principle in this legislation. We believe it is unlikely to adopt such a principle because it would probably well and truly destroy rural broadcasting. The Australian Democrats do not accept the logic behind the Campbell, Bradley and Davidson reports. We believe in this situation that unrestricted competition could be only counterproductive and would undoubtedly represent a waste of resources. We believe, in the case of telecommunications, as in so many other fundamental areas, indicative, co-operative and national long term planning is absolutely essential. While the present broadcasting system could hardly be described as an ideal example of long term planning, we would be reluctant to be a party to destroying the present system without having first seen something put in its place. Broadcasting planning is one of those areas which has firmly remained under political control. This Bill does nothing to change that situation. At present if an individual or an enterprise wishes to start a radio or television station, as has been pointed out, he or it must convince the Minister for Communications that a need exists in a particular area. It is then up to the Minister to exercise his prerogative and invite applications for a licence. The application is then passed on to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which determines the application after a public inquiry. We understand that many people would like to see this ministerial prerogative removed. We agree. For too long the National Party Minister has been able to exercise extraordinary patronage in areas with, we might say, breathtaking cynicism. Also, we believe these problems have not yet been completely solved by the Department, even in spite of the earnest and sincere efforts of the present Minister. However, this Bill does partly depoliticise the supplementary licence application process because the Minister is now able to decline an application only on purely technical grounds. The Tribunal itself would then determine the application. The first step is to decide whether an independent application is viable. If an independent application is not viable the question of the concentration of the media stops there and then; the Tribunal must reject the application. Therefore, the existing concentration of the media in that area remains. That is basic. The question then facing the Tribunal is simply a choice between having a service as it is or issuing a supplementary licence. Senator Missen raised the problem of the mechanism to trigger the approval of a supplementary licence. As I said, it is a vice in the Bill of which the Democrats are very much aware. We have had extensive discussions on the matter. It must be made clear that the application must be made by an existing licence holder to trigger the process. If an existing licence holder has a monopoly in an area the chances are that he may not wish to issue the application and prima facie he can maintain his monopoly in that area. We are assured of two things. Firstly, competition between areas would make it very difficult for the monopolistic operator to refuse indefinitely to apply for a supplementary licence. Secondly, the Minister assured us in his second reading speech that the Government would issue guidelines for the implementation of a supplementary licence scheme as soon as possible after the legislation has been passed by the Parliament. Why must we have to wait until this legislation is passed? This is, to say the least, a very odd statement for the Minister to make. The answer we have been given is that the Department wishes to determine the number of responses before committing itself. We suggest that that is an inadequate answer . The Democrats will certainly be very closely monitoring the performance of the Minister, the Government and the Department in this area. Senator Missen —But, Senator, he has given me a pretty definite assurance today. Senator SIDDONS —Indeed, he has. I was delighted that the letter was read out to the chamber just a moment ago because I think it goes a very long way towards assuring us about this problem. Having outlined the circumstances relating to this legislation as we see it-the problems and the good parts of it-we think on balance that we should accept the Bills as they stand. We therefore will not be supporting the Australian Labor Party's amendments although I cannot stress too strongly that we have a great deal of sympathy for its stand on the diversification of the ownership of the media. In fact, without wishing to be presumptuous in any way, I commend the Australian Labor Party on the stand it has taken on this issue. I believe it is a very brave stand. The Democrats do not see that the Bills can be amended along the lines that the ALP wished to amend them. We believe that the amendments suffer from a logical paradox. One cannot grant a supplementary licence to someone who does not already have one. 'Supplementary licence' means an additional licence. If someone does not have a licence how can he be granted a supplementary licence? That may sound semantic but the whole thrust of the Bill is written around the issuing of supplementary licences. We believe simply that the insertion of a phrase saying that an individual or a firm can also make a supplementary licence application is-- Senator Button —Senator, can I interrupt you for a moment? This Bill amends the Broadcasting and Television Act. If you look at this Bill as part of that Act, which it would be if it were passed, do you still maintain that view because I do not think you logically can? Senator SIDDONS —We have discussed this matter in some depth with the experts in the Department and we were drawn to the conclusion that it was just too difficult to amend this legislation. I say very sincerely that this is an area that requires very careful attention. I hope that the Department will be able in the future to address itself to spreading the ownership of the media in this country. The remaining ALP amendments can be considered as a whole. They purport to prevent the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal from granting supplementary licences in situations in which the Tribunal determines there exists undue media concentration. This means, in effect, that the ALP is prepared to deny people in rural areas access to FM or second commercial television stations on the basis of undue concentration. It really gets down to the fact that, as I have tried to argue, we believe, on balance, that is not a fair choice to put to people in some rural areas. For that reason we are not able to support the Labor Party's second group of amendments. We believe that this is a difficult situation. Politicians undoubtedly have to be aware not only of means and ends but also of consequences. A significant consequence of these Bills is that perhaps as many as a dozen supplementary licences from provincial cities for FM stations and other broadcasting will be issued within the next few years. This legislation will allow that to happen. That is a process that we do not, under any circumstances, wish to see delayed. Let me just quickly conclude by saying that the legislation is remarkably ambiguous and complex. I am informed that a major reason for this legislation is the need to clarify the exclusions from the supplementary licence scheme. We were, in fact, relieved to see that the legislation makes it plain that licensees of stations in the five mainland State capital cities will not be granted supplementary licences. A study of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal' s annual report shows that outside the mainland State capitals the media groups- that is, the Packer, Fairfax, Herald and Weekly Times and Murdoch groups-have remarkably little impact. Most regional broadcasters are independent or at least belong to a loose grouping of organisations formed purely for programming reasons. We are aware that the life of a country broadcaster is difficult. We are aware also that some country broadcasters have an incestuous relationship with the National Party-a fact which to my regret I have found in certain areas over the years. But most, in fact, are fiercely independent, jealous of their prerogatives and extremely reluctant to be associated with the big media groups. Only around 10 per cent of provincial stations are owned by the big media groups . There is no particular reason, as far as we can see, why this percentage should increase, at least in the medium term. The Fairfax group, for example, can increase its number of radio stations only by one. That is the present situation. We commend the Minister for a constructive, if far from perfect, piece of legislation to meet the legitimate aspirations of many country people and to allow them perhaps to get close to enjoying the same broadcasting facilities as metropolitan Australians. The Democrats support the legislation with the reservations that I have already expressed. We await further initiatives of the Minister with a great deal of interest and anticipation. We are very disappointed that this legislation has not addressed itself, as Senator Button pointed out, to the problem of public service broadcasting-a vital area. We hope that that receives the attention of the Department as soon as possible. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales-Minister for Education)(2.58) —in reply-The Senate is considering the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1982 and related legislation. This is a piece of legislation from the Fraser Government designed to provide a capacity for more services, particularly to provincial Australia. I am grateful to honourable senators who have taken part in the debate and for the general support that has been given to the legislation. It is to be welcomed. It offers the prospect of new and better services. For that reason, it is productive and constructive legislation. The main business which the Senate will have to consider will be amendments to be moved in Committee. I will reserve my comment on those issues until we get into Committee. There seems to be no point in raising them here. I make only one point in the summing up. I go back to the letter which Senator Missen has received today from the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) which I have just been looking at. The third paragraph reads: My intention is to invite applications pursuant to Section 82 of the Broadcasting and Television Act and pursuant to my responsibilities under Sections 111C and 111D of the Act where after a nominated period, there is no expressed interest in a supplementary service, and where I have received a firm and appropriate proposal for the establishment of an independent service. As you know, the Government is introducing the supplementary licence scheme in order to increase broadcasting and television services in non-metropolitan areas. I read that as having a more general application and not being limited in its application simply to the particular matter which Senator Missen had brought to the attention of the Minister. Finally, I say that I understand the difficulty which honourable senators have had. We are trying to put together two principles -one is that there should be a broad spread of ownership in the media and the other is that there should be a capacity for viability in whatever we do. It is an attempt to reconcile those two principles that has led to the Government producing this legislation in the form in which it has. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1982 The Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria)(3.0) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 4, clause 8, proposed new section 82A, sub-section (1), line 6, after 'licence', insert 'or any other person'. (2) Page 4, clause 8, proposed new section 82A, sub-section (2), line 14, after 'licence', insert 'or any other person'. Without going to the terminology in the legislation I will explain the point of the amendments. The point of the amendments is to put a potential independent operator on the same legislative footing as the holder of a licence in respect of the process of initiating an inquiry into the granting of a supplementary or an independent licence. As the Bill stands at the moment only the holder of an existing licence in a particular market may initiate an inquiry. Senator Missen' s correspondence from the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) relating to the cause celebre of Mr Thorburn in Mildura indicated that it would be the Minister's intention at some time if a holder of an existing licence did not apply for a supplementary licence-in other words he just sat on his existing licence and did not initiate an inquiry-to call for independent licences. What we have in the legislation as it stands is a situation in which the holder of an existing licence has a statutory right conferred on him by this legislation to initiate an inquiry into whether or not he should have a supplementary licence. The potential independent applicant has no statutory right. He is dependent on some declaration by the Minister. If we are spelling out in legislation statutory rights for one legislation we should spell out statutory rights for the other. That is what the legislation contemplates. it contemplates dealing with the rights of existing licensees and it contemplates dealing with the rights of potential licensees of independent licences. They should be placed on the same footing. If we are talking about a free market situation in which the rules should apply with equity to all those who are interested in extending services in a particular market, the legislation should provide that they apply with equity. I want to make just two other points. Some arguments can be addressed against the amendment. Firstly, it might be said that anyone can apply now to the Minister to invite an application in respect of a licence under the existing legislation. There is no formal process for this; it is just a request to the Minister whose power it is to determine what he will do with that application. But this Bill gives the right to apply only to an existing licensee. The same right should be given to others. Secondly, it might be said that we are creating a new automatic right and therefore taking planning powers away from the Minister. That is not the intention because it would be the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that determines whether an independent is viable and it would be the Tribunal that would then make a recommendation to the Minister that he call the licence. If we had wanted to, we could have put up an amendment making it mandatory for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to grant an independent licence, which would be a parallel process to the grant of a supplementary licence. We have not put up any amendment making it mandatory for the Tribunal to do that; all we have said is that the Tribunal may make a recommendation to the Minister in respect of that matter. As I have said, we argue this basically on the question of equity between people who either are competitors established in a market or are seeking to enter the market. We say they should have the same statutory rights about initiating a process to determine whether there should be a new licence of one kind or another in a particular community. We would have thought that, in the operation of a free enterprise system, in order to facilitate that operation it would be a fair amendment which promoted equity between two contestants. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales-Minister for Education)(3.7) —The Government does not support the amendments. The difficulty we have is that we are not looking at extra licences; we are looking at supplementary licences. We have done that because of the questions of viability raised by Senator Button and mentioned by all the other honourable senators who spoke in the second reading debate. The supplementary licence scheme is based on making existing licensees eligible to apply for a second licence to increase services in an area which would not support an additional independent licence. The advice I have is that very few areas would be able to support a supplementary licence with profit . Sentor Chipp-Independent. You said 'supplementary'. Senator PETER BAUME —Yes, an independent licence. I am grateful to the honourable senator. Senator Button —That is something for the determination, isn't it? Senator PETER BAUME —That is right but it is fundamental to the scheme that a supplementary licence be related to the commercial licence to serve the area because significant economies of scale probably will be necessary to make the whole thing viable and make it a goer. I do not think that the proposed amendments take into account the ability which other persons may have, under the provisions of the supplementary licence scheme , to take action. First, they can object to the grant of a supplementary licence at a public inquiry into the licence grant by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and, secondly, they can apply for an independent licence when the Minister invites applications for an independent licence as a result of a refusal by the Tribunal to grant a supplementary licence on public interest and viability grounds. There is then a subsequent recommendation by the Minister. That should be taken in association with the third paragraph of the letter we received today which indicates that the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) has an intention, if existing licences do nothing, to consider whether he should call for applications. The proposed amendments also, I am advised, would have the effect of telescoping into one public inquiry two independent inquiry processes involved in the scheme. The Tribunal would then be required to decide at the one time whether an independent licence is viable and in the public interest, and whether a supplementary licence should be granted to an existing licensee; also, if an independent licence is viable, which applicant should be offered the licence. The Government thinks these issues can be properly resolved only by-- Senator Chipp —That would be subsequent. That would take place later. Senator PETER BAUME —We think there should be two separate public inquiries. Senator Button —So do we, and that is what would happen. Senator PETER BAUME —I suppose that is not central to the point we are making. The Opposition expressed concern that existing licensees could frustrate the potential for choice, either by way of a supplementary licence or an independent licence, simply by not applying for their supplementary licences. It is said by the Opposition that amendments (1) and (2) would enable another interested party to set the process in motion. Several points can be made about this. For example , in only very few cases-perhaps just a handful around Australia-is it likely that an additional independent service would be commercially viable. The whole point of the supplementary licence scheme is that the possibility for additional choice in most areas-not just a little handful but in most areas-must come through the co-operation of the existing licensee. Supplementary licences, we think, will be cheaper and will give extra program offerings in many areas. We think that the supplementary licence route is likely to be more productive. The supplementary licence scheme is a voluntary scheme. It is up to each licensee to decide whether to apply. It would achieve very little in the vast majority of cases if another party were able to initiate the process because, if the Tribunal were to find that an independent licence would not be commercially viable, the existing licensee could not be forced to invest in a second station. In the end, only community pressure can persuade a licensee to co-operate or to seek a supplementary licence if he is not minded to do so. In those few cases in which an extra independent licence might be commercially viable the existing licensee would have a strong incentive-I ask honourable senators to think about this situation-to apply for a supplementary licence anyhow. He would do that in order to argue against a recommendation that applications for an independent licence be granted. Even if it is viable to have an independent licence, it will probably be even better to apply for a supplementary licence. I would think that , in those circumstances, the existing licensee would, in his own interests, want to get the supplementary licence process under way. In any event, the Minister retains his overall planning powers and will be able to invite applications-again I refer to that letter-for an independent licence if a licensee in a wealthy market procrastinates or will not act. I understand the difficulty in trying to marry the principles-the spread of ownership, opening up of access, and viability-but on balance the Government does not find the amendments acceptable. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.13) —I, like my colleague Senator Siddons, would like to compliment Senator Button and members of the Australian Labor Party for the work they have done on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill-we applaud their intention-by way of these amendments and the other set of amendments that they will move. The amendments fall into two parts. The part we are debating now concerns the Labor Party's desire for the right to be given to any person or group of persons to initiate an inquiry so that they can get a piece of the action in country towns. We certainly applaud that motive, but we will not support the amendment for the reasons Senator Siddons gave and for the reasons I propose to elaborate on at the moment. Let us remember what this legislation is doing. I commend the Government. I think this is terrific legislation. I give it as high a commendation as I can. What we have lost sight of a little in this debate is that this legislation will be fantastic for people in rural and provincial areas. Even those of us who sometimes spend a night or two in Canberra would occasionally welcome a supplementary licence being given to the commercial television station here, for variety. The main thrust of this Bill is to allow more television channels and FM radio stations in country and suburban areas. Let us remember that it does not apply to the five mainland capital cities. It applies only to Tasmania and to rural and provincial areas in the other States. Let me refresh the Committee's mind about the procedure. Any holder of a current licence, be it radio or television, in a rural or provincial area may apply for a supplementary licence to open a new radio or television service. Senator Button and the Australian Labor Party say: 'That is okay, but why not give that right to apply for another licence to someone else?' That is the nub of the problem we are debating. Before coming to that matter, however, let me continue on the procedure. The licensee applies to the Minister for a supplementary licence. The Minister must refer that application to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, unless there are technical reasons which lead the Minister to believe that it is not a good thing to do that. Then an inquiry is conducted by the Tribunal. At that point any outsider can come in-- Senator Peter Baume —And object. Senator CHIPP —And object. He can say: 'Look, you should not give this supplementary licence. I have the wherewithal, the money and a company all ready to set up an independent competitor to this one'. At that point the Tribunal has all the evidence before it. As I understand it, the inquiries are conducted in public. The Tribunal may well conclude at that point that it will not grant a supplementary licence to the licensee but will grant an independent licence. We should get this matter into perspective. I have only the word of the Department of Communications. I do not mean to be deprecatory about the Department's word on this, but I have confirmed it with the industry-which admittedly has a biased view. I am told that, as the Minister for Education (Senator Peter Baume) has said, there would be two country towns or provincial areas, or perhaps three, where a fresh television licence could be granted-which amazes me, but that is the information I have-and 10 or 11 where radio stations could open. That is the magnitude of this problem, and that is the group for which Senator Button is caring-only two towns for which an extra independent television licence could be granted, and perhaps 10 for radio. I am not saying that that is no reason why he should be objecting; I am just putting the matter into perspective. Senator Button and the Labor Party say: 'Why should someone interested in setting up a new radio or television station in a country town have to wait until the licensee of the existing radio or television station applies for a supplementary licence'? If he had said that that is not the best system, I think he would have made an unanswerable point-and I think he did so. I cannot argue with it. To compound his concern, as I have just been commendatory of the Government and the Department, let me put the 'but' in now and be critical. The second reading speech states: The Minister for Communications intends to make a full statement of planning guidelines for the implementation of the supplementary licence scheme as soon as possible after the legislation has been passed by the Parliament. I think that is one of the most extraordinary sentences ever to have appeared in a second reading speech. The Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) and the Department are saying to Senator Button and the Labor Party: 'You have a real concern. You have a real problem with what you raise about who can apply and who can play the game; but after you have passed this legislation we will bring in the guidelines to tell you'. I have no doubt that the present Minister, for whom I have deep admiration, will immediately start issuing these guidelines . He will go to the country towns and flush out the fat cats among the television and radio licence holders. He will virtually force them into the situation where they have to apply for a supplementary licence. I understand that the Minister will have that power. I am worried about what would happen if we had an unscrupulous Minister in that situation. I pay the highest respect to Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen who is in the chamber, but I say that it has not been unknown for some National Party Ministers for communications to use their powers notoriously to continue National Party ownership of country town television and radio stations. It is time that rort was ended, but whether we have a good Minister such as Neil Brown does not matter. The point is that this Parliament is being asked to give the ministry and the bureaucrats a blank cheque. I do not like that. I would not have thought that champions of the Parliament, such as Senator Missen and Senator Harradine, would have liked the Minister's statement either. The Minister has said that, not until we pass the legislation, will he disclose the planning guidelines for the implementation of the supplementary licence scheme. Senator Missen —It might be changed by the alteration of the legislation. Surely you cannot complete those things until you know what the legislation is. Senator CHIPP —That is not my understanding of it. I would be far happier opposing Senator Button's amendment, which I will, if I knew now what the guidelines were and that there was to be some sort of rhyme or reason for how the Minister and the Department will go after the fat cats who now hold lucrative licences in country towns and who possibly will not apply for supplementary licences. I can understand Senator Button's concern in a flash about the owners of supplementary licences who are doing very well. From looking at their profits when compared with a ratio of shareholders' funds one can see that they are doing remarkably well and one can understand why they would not want to apply for supplementary licences. One can understand why they might like to sit on their laurels, corner all the advertising and not worry about additional capital expenditure. But most of them know that they live in a dynamic world. Most of them know that unless they act something could well happen. The Minister might well force them to call for supplementary licences which might result in independent licences being granted in their towns and, therefore, competitors. They know that the satellite will soon be operating. Rumour has it that, for a cost of about $1,200, people will be able to interrupt a signal from a satellite from their backyards. Where will the local television or radio stations be then? Those sorts of inbuilt motivations are part of the technical developments that surround us. What has not been mentioned-I am not disclosing anything in secret-and what is, I believe, the most compelling reason why we cannot accept Senator Button's amendment, is that I understand that something like 700 applications in the pipeline have not yet been processed by the Department for one reason or another . I have some misgivings about opposing the amendment of Senator Button and the Labor Party because I like its motivation, but I think it will add chaos to an already chaotic situation. We might say: 'Let us wait until the guidelines come down'. What would that mean? That would mean mid-February and by mid-February we will be in the throes of early election speculation. I am not saying that inefficiency in the Department has caused this backlog. It is simply the result of the facts of life. Given such a backlog on its books and the granting of an ' open sesame' for anybody to apply for an independent licence in any country or provincial town of Australia, the Department will be inundated and the work of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal clogged. The very thing that the legislation is required to do, namely, give a better and bigger service to people living in country towns, will be frustrated. For that reason the Democrats, although sympathising with the motivation of the Labor Party, regretfully cannot support its proposed amendments. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition)(3.26) —I just want to deal with one or two of the issues that have been raised. We are dealing with legislation which seeks to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. If the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1982 is passed its provisions will be inserted in the Broadcasting and Television Act at various points. We will then have, as it were, a new consolidation of the Broadcasting and Television Act and will read it as such. It will provide, until it is amended again, a code relating to broadcasting and television. The purpose of the amendments is to give existing licensees and those who aspire to become licensees, as independent operators, the same statutory rights in terms of initiating an inquiry. In answer to that Senator Peter Baume, repeating what was said in the House of Representatives-which was glib rather than informed-says in effect: 'You cannot, in dealing with supplementary licences, just say that. This Bill deals with supplementary licences and is therefore different from the Broadcasting and Television Act'. I think people are sometimes mesmerised by headings in Bills. The heading on page 4 of this Bill 'Applications for Supplementary Licences' would not appear in the Broadcasting and Television Act if these proposed new sections were adopted. Senator Missen — But that's what it is. Senator Button —I know, Senator. I am saying that proposed new section 82A, if approved, will be inserted in the Act without any accompanying reference to supplementary licences, except insofar as they might be alluded to in the text of the new provisions. Senator Siddons —But the whole text is drafted around the supplementary licence; that is the problem. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I know. But proposed new section 82A just adds another provision relating to the granting of licences. Senator Chipp —It's got a heading: 'Application for Supplementary Licences'. Senator BUTTON —Which will not be in the Broadcasting and Television Act, Senator Chipp, if this Bill is adopted. That heading will not become part of the Act. The second point I make is that a great deal of concern has been expressed about licences. People say: We are really talking about only ten radio licences and three television licences'. That is a precise function of this Bill that people like us should not talk about. That should be the subject matter of a proper inquiry by the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It is not for us to make assessments as to how many areas might be viable in terms of supporting a new operator. Senator Chipp —But they are not unrealistic figures, are they? Senator BUTTON —They may not be unrealistic if a new operator is starting in a particular market. Take a town like-I will try to think of a nice neutral, safe town- Senator Coleman —Alice. Senator BUTTON —Alice Springs, yes. I do not know what happens in Alice Springs. Let us call it 'Alice' rather than Alice Springs. Take a town like that. We may make judgments about whether a new operator, one who has never been in the business and who is starting in Alice Springs, would be viable. Assuming an existing viable radio or television station was operating at Ayers Rock, there is no reason under this legislation why the Ayers Rock proprietor should not come into Alice Springs and say: 'I want to be an independent here as distinct from the existing operators'. He would be viable because- Senator Chipp —Not necessarily. Senator BUTTON —Assuming he has a successful operation at Ayers Rock and he wants to operate in Alice Springs as well, the chances are that he would be viable. We can look at somebody in a contiguous area as a potential applicant under this legislation. It does not have to be anybody who has never been in the business before. I say that because these speculations are not things for us appropriately to take into account here; they are matters for determination under the legislation itself. I do not think we should be guided by considerations of that kind or by the consideration raised by Senator Chipp that there is a backlog in the Department of Communications and that if this legislation is passed with the Australian Labor Party amendments there will be a vast rush of independent operators applying for licences. That, with respect, is unrealistic. The proposition that because there is inefficiency in government one should not adopt correct principles in legislation is, I find, absurdly at variance with the basic motto of the Australian Democrats when they first came into this place that they would keep people honest. It is the legislation which should be honest and which should provide a correct set of principles. One should not take into account factors such as incompetence or delay in the Department at a particular time as a reason for not adopting that correct set of principles. Amendments negatived. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition)(3.32) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 7, clause 9, paragraph (e), proposed new paragraph 83 (6) (e), line 6, after ''supplementary licence'', insert, ''and the Tribunal has not refused to grant the licence under paragraph 83 (6) (g)''. (4) Page 7, clause 9, after paragraph (e), insert the following paragraph: ''(ea) by adding after paragraph (f) of sub-section (6) the following word and paragraph: 'or (g) the Tribunal is satisfied that, where the licence is a supplementary licence, the granting of such licence would result in undue concentration of influence, whether direct or indirect, on the part of the applicant, having regard to the ownership and control of other media serving the area to be served by the licence.'; and''. (5) Page 7, clause 9, paragraph (f), proposed new sub-section (8A), line 29, after ''paragraph (6) (e)'', insert ''or after having refused the grant of a licence under paragraph 83 (6) (g)''. These amendments deal with undue concentration of ownershp. No. (4) is the key amendment. The other two are related to it only insofar as they are necessary if amendment No. 4 is adopted because they relate to the question of outcomes. We suggest in this amendment that a licence should not be given to a licensee if he is part of a cross-media grouping in a particular region or town. I do not have to enunciate my own views about that. I just say that since the inception of legislation governing broadcasting ownership and control in this country in 1935 the legislation has always contained provisions concerned with preventing undue concentration of ownership or control. Those views, which have been bypassed, have been supported by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in the Townsville case and the 2HD case in Newcastle, by the High Court when the 2HD case was taken away from the Tribunal and sent to it, and in Hardiman's case relating to Channel 10, as it now is, in Melbourne. Let us take the Townsville case because that dealt with a regional situation. In that case the Broadcasting Tribunal expressed concern about a town in which a newspaper, two radio stations and a television station were owned by one proprietor. The case did not involve just the one town; a station at Ayr near Townsville was involved in one of the applications. The Tribunal was concerned for very obvious reasons. There are two reasons why one should be against undue concentration of media ownership in one town. They are simply these: The consumers in that town are entitled to alternative sources of information and programming. There is no guarantee that they will get alternative sources of information or programming from a media situation in which one proprietor owns the newspaper, the television and the radio station. Senator Chipp —Other than the ABC, of course. Senator BUTTON —No, because there is no such situation. Senator Chipp —I'm sorry; they have already got it. Senator BUTTON —There is an alternative. But in a sense this legislation deals with the commercial market. I am putting a classic argument against restraint of trade, which has been at the centre of the philosophy of some sections of the Liberal Party, as I understand it, for a long time. That is why we are concerned about this question of undue concentration of ownership. I find it sad that I have to put the free enterprise argument in this chamber in relation to this legislation. This is nowhere better expressed in factual terms than by a decision, which is not of very long standing, of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in relation to the town of Launceston. I want to tell the chamber what the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal said about this issue in that decision. The proprietor of the media in Launceston, Tasmania, is one Mr Rouse. I have never met him; I have no objections to him. I am sure he is an impeccable proprietor who disseminates a wide range of views and opinions. But the Broadcasting Tribunal, with regard to Mr Rouse, had this to say: The power which now rests in Mr Rouse, insofar as it affects his position in Launceston radio and television, is clearly far greater than it previously was. As a result of the transaction the only two television licences in Tasmania are controlled by the one person and group. This concentration of power is unprecedented in modern times. The ownership of Tasmania Television almost certainly is permanently locked into one group. The Tribunal went on to refer to a statement made on 3 June 1981 by the then Minister for Communications, Mr Ian Sinclair. The Tribunal's decision, referring to what Mr Sinclair said, reads: . . . made it quite clear that concentration of ownership was only to be considered in non-metropolitan areas (i.e. outside the six State capitals). The Tribunal then quotes what he said in the House of Representatives as follows : With regard to the concentration of influence on radio and television in regional areas, honourable members should be aware that the principal Act already applies much stricter limits on ownership in metropolitan areas than in regional areas. It is not possible for any individual to hold prescribed interests in more than one television station and one radio station in any one State capital city within the overall limit of two television or eight radio stations. On the other hand, it would not be illegal for one person to control up to two television stations and four radio stations in a regional city such as Newcastle. In this latter case, it is clearly desirable that the Tribunal should be able to limit undesirable concentration. The Broadcasting Tribunal then stated: One of the criteria to be considered by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was outlined in the following manner: ''the need to avoid undue concentration in respect of influence, either directly or indirectly, in relation to the ownership or control of radio and television stations in non-metropolitan . . . areas.'' The Tribunal deals with that at length. The only point I am trying to make is that bodies such as the Broadcasting Tribunal and the former Broadcasting Control Board have expressed concern about this question of undue concentration. The consequences of our amendment being carried would be-unlike what the Minister said in the House of Representatives-that the Broadcasting Tribunal would be asked to consider, in relation to a particular area, whether there was undue concentration. The Broadcasting Tribunal would then, presumably, apply or develop the criteria which it was developing in relation to public interest prior to the iniquitous 1981 amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. It would perhaps find in a particular situation that there was undue concentration. If the Tribunal finds undue concentration it goes to the Minister with a recommendation that he call for an independent licence in that area. It may be said that if he calls for applications for an independent licence there may be no applicant or the applicant may not prove to be viable. That is something which, in the free market, the applicant should decide, that he will succeed or go broke. If he is to succeed, he succeeds against a concentrated media ownership situation. People shudder at the thought of going broke. That is what is wrong with private enterprise in Australia. It never wants to go broke; it never wants to take the risk of going broke, as distinct from the United States of America, where people take calculated risks in business. Supposing the applicant does go broke. Then it might be said that the effect of our amendment is to deprive the people in that town of an additional service. That is not so at all because broadcasting is not limited to commercial services. That town could be provided specifically, for example, with a public broadcasting licence or some other service of that kind which may at least introduce a degree of diversity into the consumer situation in that town. That is what we are concerned about. While the Minister for Education (Senator Peter Baume) is responding, I wonder whether he would also answer this question, the answer to which I am not sure is revealed by the legislation: What happens when there are two commercial licensees in a town and they both apply for supplementary licences? What happens then to determine the question who should get a supplementary licence? What happens to the independent applicant in that situation? Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(2.42) —Again I say that the Australian Democrats are sympathetic to the motivation of the Australian Labor Party and Senator Button but cannot support these specific amendments. We will be voting with the Government. The fact that we should be opposed to concentration of ownership in the media is beyond question. My colleague, Senator Siddons, the Democrat's spokesperson on communications has said this repeatedly in public speeches that he has made. That is one of the reasons why the Democrats, together with the Labor Party, are zealously guarding the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We are fearful of concentration of ownership of the media in Australia. When the Minister for Education (Senator Peter Baume) replies, I would like him to say whether my interpretation of the Labor Party amendments is correct or whether Senator Button's interpretation of his amendments is correct. Frankly, I think this amendment is a contradiction in terms. It is a contradiction against the whole spirit of the Bill, the basic purpose of which is to create supplementary licences. By definition, a supplementary licence is a licence which is supplementary to the one already owned. I will not take as an example a mythical town; I will take one which brings back rather fond memories for me. I refer to Bendigo. I did rather well in a foot race in Bendigo a few years ago. I started short price favourite, actually. I ran five yards inside evens and then did not win. But let us say, for example, that Channel 8, Bendigo, applies for a supplementary licence. Under the system, the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) must refer that application to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I am sure that Channel 8 Bendigo will be one of those stations which will apply for a supplementary licence. Let us take another classic case, Channel 7, Canberra. Channel 7, Canberra will apply for a supplementary licence because it is a progressive station; it has dynamic leadership and management. Senator Ryan —You will be on Channel 7 tonight. Senator CHIPP —I cannot win many votes but I will put in a good word for the honourable senator. That immediately triggers a device. The Minister must refer that application for a supplementary licence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal then must conduct a public inquiry and make one of two decisions. At that public inquiry all would-be competitors of Channel 7, Canberra could say 'We do not think a supplementary licence should be given to Channel 7, Canberra. We, the XYZ company, should be granted an independent licence'. The Tribunal at that point must make one of two decisions. Either it must say: 'This city of Bendigo is now ready to take an independent channel', or it must say: 'It is not ready, it would not be viable, and therefore we will give a supplementary licence to Channel 8'. I assume that if the Tribunal made the former decision, to open it up to an outsider-- Senator Peter Baume —It is a new ball game then. Senator CHIPP —It is a new ball game. As I understand it, Senator Button's criteria immediately applies-I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong-and if the Tribunal said 'There will be another licence in Canberra', it would never in a million years give the new licence to the existing management or ownership of Channel 7. I would be appalled if that proposition were right. The whole thing would be reduced to a farce. Let us come to the second proposition, which I think illustrates that Senator Button's amendment is contradictory. If the Tribunal said: 'There is no room for another licence so a supplementary licence is granted' and Senator Button's amendment were applied literally, would it then be said that we cannot have a concentration of ownership and it cannot be Channel 8 which owns the supplementary licence which is granted to Channel 8? If someone other than Senator Button had moved this amendment I would have said that it bordered on absurdity, but because I have such respect for his capacity- - Senator Missen —It borders on sloppiness. Senator CHIPP —It is not sloppiness. Either I cannot understand what he is getting at or he misinterprets the Bill. Therefore, I ask the Minister to respond because what Senator Button and I are putting are clearly two different interpretations of one set of words. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales-Minister for Education)(3.47) —Before Senator Button responds, I indicate that the Government agrees with Senator Chipp. Senator Button —Oh, God help us! Senator PETER BAUME —That is not such an extraordinary thing to do. The facts as we understand them are as Senator Chipp has set them out-the intended effect of the proposed amendments reintroduces what we might call undue concentration of influence as a criterion for refusal by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to grant a supplementary licence. If the Tribunal will not grant a supplementary licence and a supplementary licence is all that is viable or possible, the only effect which might flow from that is that a region might be denied the extra service for which it might otherwise have a capacity. Tasmania might be the perfect example. Senator Button has given as evidence what he says is a high concentration of ownership. Senator Siddons —The Tribunal said that. Senator PETER BAUME —The Tribunal said that; I thank the honourable senator. Senator Chipp —Surely you would concede that. Senator PETER BAUME —I would concede that. It may be that an independent licence is not possible. There are then two choices. Either the people in Tasmania do not get an extra capacity or it is done by way of a supplementary licence. It is for that reason, which Senator Chipp set out, that we will not support the amendment. I have tried to get some information on the question put to me by Senator Button about what would happen if two licensees both applied for a supplementary licence. The Minister would have a capacity to do several things. He could reject both and ask both licensees to talk to each other to try to come up with some accommodation, or the matter could go to the Tribunal and the Tribunal could then reject one or both of the applications. It could do so on the grounds of viability or public interest. I find the question very difficult to answer with precision. Senator Chipp —Surely it could reject one and grant the other. Senator PETER BAUME —It could reject one and grant the other, but there may be an alternative course of saying to the applicants: 'Get together and try to come up with something in the form of a consortium'. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition)(3.50) —I do not want to delay the Senate. I begin by saying that listening to Senator Chipp I was reminded of that Peter Sellers record where there is a British Broadcasting Corporation book review session. The book to be reviewed is Blossoms in the Dust. One of the reviewers comes on and says: 'Well, I was asked to review Seven Brave Tractor Drivers'. He then gives his review of Seven Brave Tractor Drivers. Senator Chipp , of course, has done exactly the same. The fact is nowhere better illustrated than by the two examples he has taken of Bendigo and Canberra which would not be affected by this amendment at all. What I am talking about is cross-ownership of media. In Bendigo, BCV8 does not own the newspaper and does not own the radio station. It is a classic example of where this amendment would not apply. If we refer to Canberra, the Macquarie radio station, 2CA, is owned by the Fairfax group; 2CC is owned by local people; Channel 7 is owned by Kerry Stokes effectively; and the Canberra Times is owned by the Fairfax group. There cannot be said to be undue concentration of media in the Canberra market. So this amendment would not apply in the two examples that Senator Chipp has chosen. His speech was addressed to the earlier amendments which I moved, not to the last amendment. It is sad that the Australian Democrats have such a misunderstanding of the amendment as it has been moved. Senator Chipp —Well, the Government and the Department also misunderstand your words. Would you please- Senator Peter Baume —Tasmania would be an example where Senator Chipp's argument and my argument would apply. Senator BUTTON —Might apply. Senator Peter Baume —Okay-might apply. Senator BUTTON —But it would be a matter for determination by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. That is what the amendment is directed at. If one wants to say that in a market where all the media is owned by one proprietor the effects of this amendment might be to stop a supplementary licence going to that proprietor then the answer is yes. Senator Chipp —It would, yes. Senator BUTTON —Yes. But there are other means of providing additional broadcasting services in that area than by the commercial sector. What we are talking about is choice and diversity. That is the thrust of the amendment. For reasons best known to itself, the Government has blandly announced that it agrees with Senator Chipp. I would have thought that in general terms for the Government it was a proposition that it would not embark on with alacrity and Senator Chipp recognises that. But in this particular instance I think it is a very poor way of getting out of a basic argument about what should happen in that sort of situation. I do not want to pursue the matter. I hope that in the new year greater minds than those today will be applied to some of these debates . Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1982 and Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1982 agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) read a third time. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On behalf of Senator Archer, I present the seventeenth report of the Publications Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 15 December, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Minister for Social Security) —I suggest that the Senate debate cognately this Bill and the Special Employment-related Programs Bill on the Notice Paper. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator McIntosh) —Order! Is it the wish of the Senate to debate the measures cognately? There being no objection, that course will be followed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria)(3.57) —The purpose of these Bills is to impose the Government's so-called wages freeze. The Special Employment-related Programs Bill seeks to appropriate a sum of $300m which the Government says will be used in job creation programs. The Opposition is opposed to these Bills. It is sometimes said of the Opposition that we seem to be enjoying the great Australian loneliness in being opposed to these Bills as they have been supported in part by some Premiers for their own particular reasons, and so on. That is not the point. It is the function of the Opposition in the Parliament to point out its concerns about any legislation which comes before the Parliament. I say at the outset that, as far as we are concerned, this country is in a period of grave economic crisis. The response of these Bills to that situation is very poor. We are not pursuing dogged negativism in opposing these Bills. We see this wages pause as a stunt. The Government, as one of its junior Ministers said, had to be seen to be doing something. The wages freeze legislation follows from the Government's desire to be seen to be doing something rather than from any particular rational economic argument. People should be clear from the outset that this legislation is economic gimmickry designed to keep this Government alive. I do not have time to refer in detail to the extent of the economic situation in this country. I make two points at the outset. First, I commend to honourable senators a reading of Professor Keith Hancock's book Incomes Policy in Australia , particularly page 84, where he makes the point, if I may summarise it, that such things as wage freezes are no substitute for sound economic management or for a proper wages policy. A proper wages policy is something which this Government has not had since, in 1981, it abandoned wage indexation which it inherited from the previous Labor Government. Secondly, in the context of the economic situation in this country, I draw the attention of the Senate to the last issue of Australian Bulletin of Labour, published by the National Institute of Labour Studies. On page 4, the following point is made: . . . Australia is the only country on the list-- That is, of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries- which experienced an increase in its inflation rate over the past two years. It goes on to state, relative to Australia's inflation, and referring to the manufacturing sector: Once again, Australia's inflation performance is seen to deteriorate in the most recent year, both in absolute terms and relative to other countries included in the comparison. At the foot of the same page the point is made: In the year to August 1982, industrial production in Australia declined by a staggering 13 per cent . . . I am making these points just to illustrate the extent of the current problems with which this legislation purports to deal. It is a pathetic response to this country's crisis. The current inflation rate of 12.3 per cent in Australia compares with the latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 7.2 per cent. It compares with the United States inflation rate of 5 per cent-on the last figures-a United Kingdom inflation rate of 7.5 per cent and a Japanese inflation rate of 3 per cent. By February 1983 unemployment in Australia is expected to exceed 700,000 people-a rate of 10 per cent. I again make a point which I have made before in this chamber: Of all the OECD countries other than Italy-in fact, including Italy, where the inflation rate has gone down slightly-Australia is the only country which has achieved the twin success of rising inflation and rising unemployment at the same time. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —What about rising wages? Senator BUTTON —Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle glibly interjects 'rising wages' . I will come to that. Some of the figures she has quoted in this place are quite extraordinary when we look at the international comparisons. That is a glib assertion by the Minister for Finance. I was making the point that unemployment is expected to exceed 700,000 persons by February-a rate of 10 per cent. That is rising unemployment and rising inflation, according to the Melbourne Institute and indeed the anticipations of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in recent statements. Employment in manufacturing industry in Australia declined by over 38,000 people since last year. That is the largest absolute decline of any industry. Blue collar employees in the manufacturing sector are the main victims of this recession, losing over 79,000 jobs compared to a total unemployment decline of 87,000 jobs in the year to August. The Government has admitted in the Budget papers that there will be little or no growth next year. It has lost control of the economy. The Budget blow-out has pushed the deficit up to $4,000m. It must be understood that the wages freeze, as it is called, is the Government's response to these problems. According to surveys, it is not a response believed in by most Australian people in terms of its effects on the inflation rate and the level of unemployment. The people are right about that. The Treasurer, Mr Howard, last week said that the wages freeze was 'the single most valuable contribution that can be made at this moment to the cause of improving the employment position'. With respect, that proposition is absurd. It is a contribution, we concede. We said at the beginning and we will say at the end of the debate that there are a number of other things which governments ought to be doing by way of contribution to this enormous problem which this Government has inflicted on the Australian people. The wages freeze is a political and not an economic nostrum. In six months' time it will be known as the Flinders freeze, if it is not already. It is a stunt dreamed up to cover government ineptitude. It is a slogan, again in the scapegoat category, whereby the Government says it has to blame somebody or something else for economic incompetence and this time it is wages. As the Sydney Morning Herald put it on 8 December 'Now it's a farce'. Farce it is, rather than a freeze. Some States are to have a six months' wages freeze. Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Commonwealth are to have a 12 months' pause. There is no certainty about what will happen at the end of those respective pauses in any State or the Commonwealth as a result of Government policy. There is no doubt about the origins of this proposal in terms of the Government's political priorities. I say at once that this Government has grossly misrepresented the position with regard to wages and employment in Australia. The Government would like everyone to believe that wage rises are the cause of unemployment. That is a dishonest and simplistic argument. As I have said time and time again, no one would argue that wage moderation is a desirable thing and a contributing factor to any recovery which may be possible in the Australian economy. But it is just not true to say that there is a direct and continuing link between wage rises and unemployment to the exclusion of a host of other factors for which this Government is responsible. Clearly, wages are important but they are not the cause of unemployment in the way in which this Government would like them to be. I refer again to the Government's own Budget Papers, which show that unit costs of production in Australia have not increased since 1976. That is to say, the relative cost of labour since 1976 has not increased if we have regard to productivity and output. The Government is concerned to make transfers from wage and salary earners to profits. Supposedly this is being done because there have been rapid and real wage rises which have forced employers to lay off workers. It is true that there may have been a slight increase in real wages in the last year. But I make the point again that the average weekly earning series upon which the estimate of a large increase in real wages is based is not beyond suspicion. I pointed out a week ago that the Flinders Institute of Labour Studies, publishers of the authoritative Australian Bulletin of Labour, does not believe that there has been a massive increase in real wages this year. It points out that the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures measure wage growth on average but they do not take into account the fact that low paid workers are dropping into the unemployment pool under this Government's policies and those lower wages are no longer being taken into account in assessing the average wages in Australia. If lower wages are dropping off at one end of the sample it has an effect on the level of average earnings which seems to rise because poorer workers are constantly being disemployed as a result of government policy. I made this point earlier in relation to blue collar workers. The Flinders Institute pointed out that there has been only a 13 per cent increase in wages over the past year in contradistinction to the figure cited by the Government, which is based on changes in average weekly earnings. We have had a 13 per cent increase in wages at the same time as we have had a 12.4 per cent increase in inflation. I make the point again that the pattern of wages in Australia has been closely allied to the figures for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Let us not forget that any explosion in wages that occurred in the final quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year was based on the abdication by the Government from a central wage fixing policy in Australia. I have said it before and will say it again-the former Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Peacock, has said it-that this Government has no wages policy. In the absence of a wages policy following the abandonment of indexation there was an increase in wages in the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year. Let us compare the pattern of wages over recent years in Australia with the pattern in the OECD. Australia has had a 13 per cent increase in wages. I do not dispute that that might be too high. But Australia has had a 12.4 per cent increase in inflation. The same pattern is to be seen in OECD countries overall. There has been a 7.2 per cent average rate of inflation, and there has been an 8 per cent wage increase, which is slightly higher than the rate of inflation. That comparison has been totally ignored by this Government in considering how it should respond to the current economic crisis. Again I make the point that, in dealing with this question, it is most important to look at questions of equity. There is no reason in the world why the salaries of top public servants or why the salaries of politicians should not be frozen. There is no moral argument against that at all. But that is not what the wages freeze does. It freezes those salaries but it also freezes the salaries of lowly paid workers-those workers who are receiving incomes well below average weekly earnings-who are dependent in this time of high interest rates and high prices on a continuing capacity to keep up with the increasing cost of living. Senator Mason —They won't go back to a four-day week, will they, Senator? Senator BUTTON —Who will not go back to a four-day week? Senator Mason —The public servants. Senator BUTTON —No, of course they will not. I make the final point that if wages were a major cause of unemployment this would have shown up in the productivity figures, but it does not. Again, while we stress that wage moderation is important, it is important as part of an economic strategy to combat the current recession. To single out the issue of wage increases and lay the cause of unemployment at its feet is stupid and wrong. The Government, of course, is clearly confused about what it expects the wages freeze to do and what will happen at the end of it. On the important question of price surveillance mechanisms, what is to happen to the wages policy after the freeze? What is to happen to the control of non-wage incomes? What is to happen in relation to job creation programs? The Government has shown itself inside and outside this Parliament to be beside itself with confusion on these issues. Honourable senators will remember Question Time on Tuesday a fortnight ago. It illustrated a chronic incapacity of Government Ministers to answer questions on these issues. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, to make the same point, a copy of a list of questions that the Australian Council of Trade Unions addressed to the Government at its meeting on 9 December and a copy of the responses, which illustrate total confusion. Leave granted. The document read as follows- QUESTIONS 1. Is there any written agreement between the parties. 2. Is there any written record of understanding between the parties. 3. Is there any written record of your understanding of the agreement reached. 4. What is the status of the 21 point Commonwealth proposal. 5. What is the starting date for the freeze. 6. What is the exact situation regarding flow on of the ''old'' wages round (a) is this compatible with your point 3 of the Commonwealth proposal. 7. What is the extent of proposed legislative action both State and Federal in relation to the freeze. 8. What is to happen to anomolies/inequities during the freeze. 9. What does the government expect will happen at the end of the freeze; specifically: (a) What will happen to wages (b) What will happen to employees covered by Federal Awards working side by side with State Award employees who will be affected by the 6 month freeze (c) What are the governments fiscal and monetary policies for the post freeze period in the context of the differing freeze periods. 10. What are the governments expectations of productivity and CPI movements in 1984. 11. How does the government assess the effects of the freeze on: (a) Unemployment (b) Inflation (c) Economic growth (d) Budget Deficit 12. How does the government expect the freeze to increase profits and international competitiveness given the depressed state of markets both domestic and international. 13. What is to happen to over-award payments during the freeze. 14. How are non-wage incomes to be controlled. 15. What is the mechanism for price control during the freeze. 16. How does the government reconcile its wages freeze strategy with the statement on page 53 of Budget Paper No. 2. 17. How does the government see the role of the commission during the pause. 18. What is the commitment by the government to return to a centralised system of wage fixation. 19. On what basis do you see that system operating. 20. Do you think real wages will fall as a result of the freeze and if so by how much. 21. How is the figure of $300 million for Job Creation programs calculated. 22. How many jobs will this generate. 23. How is the $300 million to be allocated. 24. Is the government prepared to consider other Job Creation schemes. 25. What is the governments commitment to Tax Indexation in the next financial year. 26. Is the government prepared to now adopt the repeated call by the ACTU to urgently convene and participate in an exanded economic summit involving State Premiers, ACTU and employers. RESPONSES 1. No. 2. No. 3. Yes. Related in Statement to Parliament. 4. 21 point proposal-no standing now. Points specifically excluded some assumptions but did not define. 5. On day of proclamation. Expected legislation through the Senate on 21st or 22nd and proclamation a day or so after that. 6. Expect old wages round to be completed. (Waffled on here). Discussion of hours. Detailed special circumstances. Mentioned Williamstown. Only the wage freeze and the national interest to be considered. No roving Commission. Agreement of the Government on hours is required. They saw hours differently to wage rates so far as catch-up and community round concerned. 7. Extent of proposed legislation was Bill to be introduced in the Parliament for the Commonwealth sector. Will also relate to doctors and pharmacists. States had indicated they would use most effective commissions. All states but Bannon had agreed. Gentle pursuasion to be used for professional fees. Ministers to go to the various groups with which they have associations. 8. Anomalies and Inequities. Asked Commission to take a narrow view. Adamant there would be no interference with the functions of the Commission. Nor would there be interference with Public Service arrangements in relation to higher duties etc. 9. No catch up. A case to be put to the Tribunal-we would go into and out of the freeze through the Tribunal. Their attitude about the end of the freeze appeared confusing. Anthony said a better idea could be gauged over time. The results of their Departmental Inquiry would be known by then. The Tribunal will be used to get out of the pause. Where Federal/state awards cover side by side . . . Different lengths of pause- no reason to believe there would be any difference in dates for the pause. The Government said the states said the six months could be extended. In NSW this could be done by regulation. It was really having regard to the ACTU's view that they agreed not to go beyond six months. We will see about it when the problem arises. Monetary and fiscal policy-Shouldn't have any effect on interest rates, there will be a higher level of capital inflow. Certainly no looser monetary policy. No tightening either. Can't imagine a different approach to policy in 12 months time. 10. 1982-83 CPI 10 1/2 to 11 per cent. The CPI for the calendar year will be lower. The Government said they were really stabbing in the dark. Until they know the extent of the pause it is hard to make assumptions. 1983 productivity could be up to minus 2 per cent, farm product down by 20%. If greater, then the 2 per cent is under-estimated. 11. The freeze will help in private sector retention levels. They are not talking about changes to the levels of employment or unemployment they are talking in terms of how many people will or will not be put off than otherwise would have been the case. Reluctant to put figures on what will happen if there is a 12 months freeze. 12. They assume a link between profits and wage levels. They believe there will be a greater degree of confidence because they are correct in this assumption. But they have no figures at all. They see a gain in terms of confidence. They talk about Average Weekly Earnings being reduced down 12 per cent and 11-11 1/2 per cent. It will have a minor impact here because we have already got 9% up to the September quarter. During 1983 it could be down as far as 10 1/2 to 11 per cent on a calendar year basis. 12. (Point made here in relation to avoiding all these people being put off). 13. Over-award wages are no great problem. 14. Government Ministers will liaise with various associations and urge them to adopt the same approach. They believe that they will get a positive situation-through legislation or advocacy. In many non-wage areas the states have controls and it is up to them to use their own judgment. As to other areas they argue they are more market oriented. 15. One state offered price power. Queensland and Western Australia rebuffed the idea. Generally they were against centralised pricing power and didn't want it anyway. 16. (NO POINTS HERE). 17. The commission will have very little to do. They see a decision as late as January which will be mirrored in State tribunals. After that nothing to do. 18. We now have a centralised approach with respect to the pause period. Future to depend on the Departmental Inquiry etc. 19. Subject to continuing discussions. 20. Too early to estimate. Particularly in relation to the private sector. There will be a fall. ACTU indicated discussions desirable in relation to tax measures. 21. The $300 million figure-is money otherwise expended on wages and salaries in the public sector. It is 5 per cent of wages and salaries bill in the calendar year across the public sector. Private sector savings will be $2-$3 billion. 22. The situation of jobs-they are guessing. The States have been required to provide ideas. Employment, Australian content mentioned. To be applied in non- discriminatory way. 23. Chaney said the $300 million would be allocated on a population basis to worthy projects. 24. Welfare housing proposal involved $100 million, 2,000 houses to be constructed, 2,300 jobs involved. The Commonwealth asked for ideas. They explained the Unemployment Benefit pilot thing, unemployment benefit used to supplement casual work rates to create part-time employment. 25. Howard said no commitment to tax indexation. Government withdrew it two years ago. The Government had been generous in the last budget. No proposal to review in the next budget. 26. Economic summit idea. Positive answer gained. Followed up with Anthony running down the corridor saying when? At first he had stated 'not at this stage '-maybe sometime in 1983. Outside he changed and indicated he was prepared to call it as early as January. Senator BUTTON —The truth is that the Government does not know what will happen because the wages freeze was never conceived as anything other than a political stunt. That may be all very well for the Government, but the pause or freeze, as it is presently conceived, represents a massively inequitable burden on wage earners. I have referred before to figures which demonstrate the pattern of real wage increases in Australia since 1975. It is quite clear from those figures that the lower paid workers have suffered a real decrease in wages under this Government while higher paid workers have endured a real increase. I refer to the latest version of the table which was published by the Flinders Institute of Labour Studies. It makes the point that the wages of a worker on average earnings of $154 a week-that is somebody on the lowest wage figure- between 1975 and August 1981, went down by 11.4 per cent a week; On the other hand, the salary of somebody earning $530 a week increased by 8.2 per cent in the same period. So the real wages of the lowest paid worker have gone down by 11 per cent and those of the highest paid worker in the table have gone up by 8 per cent in the last six years. A freeze imposed in that situation rigidifies the inequality which is now built into the system. So the higher paid worker, having received all that benefit in the last six years, has his salary frozen for the 12-month period, whereas the lower paid worker on whom the costs of food , clothing and interest rates continually bear more savagely has suffered a decline of 11.4 per cent in real wages. This freeze will exacerbate the difference between high and low income earners and create a situation of inequity by the absence of a proper wage policy and a fair taxation policy. When the government gets into trouble it freezes the inequities, rigidifies and solidifies them in the ice cube of its own indifference. That is the very real charge against this Government in respect of wages policy over the years. Low wage earners are being asked to bear the brunt of this recession, if they were not doing it already. I want to make some other points on this matter. Because of some half-baked idea of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in favour of a decentralised wage system, it appears that over-award payments will not be subject to the freeze. We have asked questions of Ministers in the Government, for days on end, as to whether the Government's wages policy is for a centralised system or a decentralised system. There has been no answer. Mr Macphee, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, wants a centralised wages system in Australia. He is quite right. The Department of the Treasury and the Treasurer, Mr Howard, for bizarre reasons of their own, do not want a centralised wage system in Australia. They are quite wrong in terms of considerations of equity and justice. Because the Government has two wages policies-it cannot agree on one-we have this absurd situation where the freeze will apply to award wages but not to over-award wages . This again will only increase the disparities between high and low income earners. At the end of the pause wage earners will have experienced a real drop in living standards. This should be understood. Professional incomes will not be subject to any sensible control. Some Minister rushing off to the Law Institute of Victoria to ask it to dissuade its members from putting up their charges or something of that kind, will not work. The pause or freeze will not work either because it will do nothing to create jobs. It is essential to grasp that a wages freeze is contradictory in the sense that it will reduce demand. If it is successful it will ensure that real levels of income fall. We do not know what will happen at the end of the freeze. Will there be demands that real levels of wages and incomes suddenly rise, to catch up? If so it will be economically disastrous. The reduction in real wage levels will reduce consumer demand and reducing consumer demand will not create jobs. People will not spend money if they have less available so why will manufacturers produce more goods for people who cannot buy them? Why will manufacturers take on more labour as a result of this freeze? The benefits of a freeze will, of course, go to increased profits which will be spent, if not in distribution, on plant and equipment rather than the creation of jobs. Of course, that is what the unemployment issue is all about. It is not about wages being frozen in the naive belief that employers will create employment opportunities as a result of the effects of that process. The Government, under the provisions of the Special Employment-related Programs Bill , plans to spend some $300m on capital works projects. That may have some small effect. But I remind honourable senators of what the Government is saying. It is to spend $300m to remedy a situation in which 700,000 people are projected to be unemployed by February of next year. I remind the Government that every one per cent increase in the unemployment level of this country costs the Australian Government a billion dollars in terms of unemployment benefit and tax revenue lost. This Government says that some $300m will be spent on capital works to deal with an army of 700,000 unemployed. This Bill is a totally inadequate gimmicky response. Of course, what is needed are policies for reflation and growth. The wages pause is contractionary. Wages pauses are only ever a temporary alleviation of long term problems. They seek an adjournment to allow one time to think. If one does not have the capacity to think it is no good having adjournments because nothing will occur in the meantime. A wages pause is not a substitute for a soundly based incomes policy. I again commend the Senate to a reading of Professor Hancock's book, Incomes Policy in Australia because there the point that a gimmick like this is no substitute for a sound wages policy is clearly made. It is no substitute for a proper prices and incomes policy which would introduce two notes into the system-one of equity and one of sound economic management-as a basis for economic recovery. Finally, I want to say that it is time for this Government to think seriously about serious policies rather than these gimmicks to deal with a very serious situation. We need national economic leadership rather than slogans. The Government merely reacts. It has no idea where it is going. The inevitability of economic collapse is with us unless the Government is prepared to give far- reaching national leadership on these issues. Because of constraints on our time I confine my remarks to those points except to say that I wish to move an amendment to the second reading of the Bill. I move: Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Bill be withdrawn pending the convening by the Government early in the New Year, of a national summit conference of Federal and State Governments, the trade union movement and employers, at which: (a) the full dimensions of the economic crisis confronting Australia can be fully exposed and analysed; (b) the elements of an equitable, consistent and coherent alternative strategy to meet the immediate and short-term problems can be defined and agreed on a basis of consensus including- (i) moderation of wage and non-wage incomes, (ii) prices surveillance and the limitation of government charges, (iii) demand generation and job-creation programs, (iv) manpower planning, including immigration levels, and (v) the employment effect of current levels of protection, and (c) any legislative and administrative measures needed to implement a strategy of this kind can be determined'. I began by saying that this country faces a very grave economic crisis of which the Government has suddenly become aware and becomes increasingly aware from day to day. In the solution of that crisis a number of people and a number of groups must assume responsibility. It is in that spirit that we commend to the Government the calling of such a conference to try to tackle some of the issues which are set down as an agenda in terms of what I have just read out to the Senate. We do not see the Government's wages freeze as the end of the world for anybody. We just see it as a totally inadequate solution to very serious problems and a totally feeble, limp wristed response to a very difficult situation which this country should try to solve with the utmost rapidity. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out weekly earnings for full-time male employees. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 3 FULL TIME MALE EMPLOYEES: WEEKLY EARNINGS, VARIOUS PERCENTILES, AUGUST 1975 AND AUGUST 1981 Weekly earnings* August August Nominal Real Percentile 1975 1981 increase increase $ $ per cent per cent 10 95.30 154.10 61.8 -11.4 20 110.70 193.80 75.1 -4.1 30 121.10 211.60 74.8 -4.3 40 129.80 231.40 78.2 -2.4 50 (median) 139.90 252.40 80.5 -1.2 60 151.60 277.90 83.4 0.4 70 165.20 310.10 87.7 2.8 80 189.10 254.20 87.8 2.6 90 230.50 438.80 90.4 4.3 95 272.70 530.90 94.9 8.2 * Derived from linear interpolation of grouped data. Source: ABS, Weekly Earnings of Employees (Distribution), Cat. No. 6310.0; Consumer Price Index. 6401.0. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria-Minister for Finance)(4.23) —The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Button, has moved an amendment to the Salaries and Wage Pause Bill. I want to make some general comments with regard to the Government's proposals. The Government's initiative to impose a wages pause is directed to the domestic labour cost problem. It seeks to hasten correction of the wage profit imbalance and seeks to share more fairly the decline in Australia's living standards flowing from circumstances beyond our control. In the private sector a wages pause would operate directly to improve profitabiity and consequently improve employment prospects more quickly than otherwise would be possible. In the public sector a wages pause would ensure that employees with job security would not encourage further wage rises in the private sector where they could not be afforded without further losses of employment. The pause would allow funds already budgeted to be used for more employment and activity-related purposes rather than just to finance higher costs of existing public sector employment. One of the Bills before the Senate this afternoon is for the appropriation of $300m which will result from the public sector wage freeze. The initiative of a wages pause has been objected to on the grounds that it is unfair not to have a prices pause at the same time. I want to say quite briefly that a prices pause would be inappropriate because wages have already increased substantially faster than prices. Even if there were a fully effective wages pause without a prices pause for a full 12-month period it would still fall well short of unwinding the cost disadvantages suffered by industry over the last two years or so. One of the main objectives of the wages pause is to improve profits so that the ability of companies to maintain their labour force is improved. Profits have already had to suffer too much of the burden of the decline in national income and this has intensified the downturn and the rise in unemployment. Market forces are already operating to restrain price increases. Mortgage interest rates and interest rates for small overdrafts are already held below market levels. Any further reductions, if they are to be sustained, will require reduced inflationary expectations and restrained public sector financial demands. Another objection that we have heard to the wages pause is that reducing real wages would reduce effective demand and further slow economic activity. However, it is obviously not true that increased household income would increase demand. Disposable incomes, particularly wages, have been increasing and yet, because consumer confidence has declined, it is savings that have increased, not consumption. Investment demand has also gone down because the increase in income has been at the expense of profits. Maintaining real wage rates would not mean that total disposable income would be maintained. If real wages were maintained at excessive levels, profitability would remain inadequate and employers would have no incentive to retain staff, let alone recruit more staff. Thus, unemployment would continue to increase and total disposable income would decrease. The wage pause would act to benefit and not to lower the level of activity because the wage increases forgone by the vast majority who still have jobs would be available to increase employment prospects for others. Total real household disposable income would be increased in a sustainable way as private sector employment responded to reduced real labour costs and the existing labour force would be used more intensively, reversing the recent increase in part time employment at the expense of full time jobs. Further, the rate of inflation moderates as profitability improves, thereby cushioning the impact of the wage pause on real wage rates. There are other aspects such as the reduction in average income tax rates further cushioning the effect of the wage pause on per capita real household disposable income. Reduced costs and, ultimately, inflation pressures would operate to improve Australia's competitive position, increasing the extent to which domestic and overseas demand was directed to Australian production and enhancing prospects for reduced interest rates. Business and consumer confidence would be improved as a result of all of these factors, thus leading to increased consumption and investment spending from incomes and profits. I want to make a couple of other comments in the fairly limited time that I am able to spend on this matter. Arguments have been advanced in respect of labour costs. I think that Senator Button said in his speech that wage moderation is a desirable thing. I want to put down some of the figures that have been used recently by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and to draw attention to the fact that over the two years to the September quarter of 1982 average weekly earnings for male employees increased by 29.7 per cent whereas in the same period the consumer price index increased by 22.4 per cent and manufacturing output prices increased by 18.1 per cent. Senator Button —Why don't you deal with the argument about what average weekly earnings means? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I am using the average figure. I think if we are going to use some figures average weekly earnings have to have some relevance to the overall position of the manufacturer or the employer who has a range of employees, many of whom are at different wage levels and so on. Average weekly earnings is a figure that is used very often statistically. It has a meaning and a relevance that I think can be applied in this case. Senator Button —I am just querying whether you understand the argument about its appropriateness at the present time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I can see that we could take a particular employee. If he were a high level employee or a low level employee we would then be talking about something other than the average. I think that point can be conceded for whatever purpose it might be used. But if we want to look at the overall position of the employer, we should compare average weekly earnings with profitability and the consumer price increases over a period. Senator Button —Do you concede that 400,000 lower paid workers have been taken out of the average weekly earnings calculations by unemployment? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —Yes, I could concede that. But not all of the unemployed are in the lowest income group either. People in all sorts of positions have been finding it increasingly difficult to retain- Senator Button —I said 400,000. I did not say all the unemployed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I realise that. The increase in average award rates, which does not reflect compositional changes in the labour force or changes in overtime working, amounted to 24.8 per cent for males over the same period. Increases in hourly labour costs have been even higher because of reductions in standard weekly working hours, particularly in manufacturing industry. Wage increases already awarded this year would project a rise in average weekly earnings of around 10 per cent. The increase for the full year, in the absence of a wages pause, is forecast at 11.5 per cent. If there were a fairly effective wages pause the rise this year might be held as low as 10.5 per cent. Primarily as a result of pressures from labour costs, including their effects on government authorities' budgets, inflation in Australia has accelerated from an already unacceptably high level. The gross non-farm profit deflator increased at a rate of 14 per cent in the six months to September following an increase of 11.5 per cent in the preceding six months. In the year to the September quarter the consumer price index accelerated to 12.3 per cent. The increase in final consumption prices, however, has been restrained by export prices and farm prices with the implicit deflator of gross farm product declining by 10.7 per cent and the implicit deflator for exports of goods and services increasing by only 5.1 per cent in the six months to September. In contrast, price and wage increases overseas have continued to moderate. In the year to the September quarter consumer price increases averaged about 6 per cent amongst Australia's major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners. We find then that the very large increases in labour costs in Australia have played a major part in cutting back business cash flow and profitability. The gross operating surplus of companies fell at a rate of 10 per cent in the six months to March 1982 and still further in the six months to September. There has consequently been a dramatic fall in the share of national product going to profits. In the half year to September the share of gross operating surplus of companies and financial enterprises in non-farm product fell to an historically low level of 12.7 per cent. Those are some of the facts and figures that I wanted to put down. But my main purpose is to speak briefly on the employment related programs under the Bill which is before the Senate at present. The purpose of this Special Employment- related Programs Bill is to give effect to the announcement following the Premiers Conference on 7 December that the Commonwealth will fund programs designed to generate or maintain employment throughout Australia. It is intended that these programs will be financed from the savings in Commonwealth outlays from an effective national wage pause in 1983. An amount of up to $300m-the estimated saving-is appropriated under this Bill for this purpose. The Bill provides for the Government to spend an amount consistent with the savings actually achieved. Estimates indicate that savings in Commonwealth outlays for the remainder of 1982-83 and for the first half of 1983-84 from a national 1983 wage pause could be of the order of $300m. That is a gross amount with no deduction having been made for taxation receipts which otherwise would have accrued to the Commonwealth. The estimate is based on the expected balance of the bulk allowances for wage and salary increases provided for in the Commonwealth's 1982-83 Budget; the allowance for notional wage increases forgone in the first half of 1983-84; and Commonwealth savings resulting from a 1983 wage pause in Australia's primary, secondary and tertiary teaching sectors. The Bill provides for expenditure by the Commonwealth itself throughout Australia and also for grants and advances of grants to be made to the State and Northern Territory governments and, through appropriate mechanisms, to local government authorities for the purpose of funding special programs. In determining the allocation of any funds to States the Commonwealth will take into account factors such as population and the ability of State governments to identify and facilitate work on worthwhile programs. The Government has already announced that it has decided that $100m will be allocated for welfare housing. Full details of this decision were contained in a Press release and a statement by my colleague the Minister for Social Security (Senator Chaney) earlier this week. Other projects which would meet the eligibility criteria include such things as the acceleration of capital works already under construction; repairs to and maintenance of existing plant, machinery, roads and buildings; minor works; and a number of things which we think will come forward from the States as being their priorities for expenditure that they believe would provide employment to the greatest extent possible. Programs financed under this legislation will have beneficial effects in the Australian community in direct employment generation; the second round effect will be the indirect employment that flows from them, and that will facilitate the completion of worthwhile projects. I think that the expenditure which will be undertaken as a result of this Bill will share the burden between those who have job security in the public sector and those who may have insecurity of employment in the private sector or no employment at all. It is for these reasons that the Commonwealth has decided that this expenditure will be undertaken related to the period of the pause. Expenditure can be undertaken up to 30 June 1984. It is for all of these reasons that I commend the Bills to the Senate. I hope that they have a speedy passage. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.36) —The Australian Democrats support the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill and the Special Employment-related Programs Bill with some reluctance and some reservation. We note that the economy presently is in crisis, and this is the Government's response to that crisis after consultation with all Premiers. A rare occurrence took place. As we understand it unanimity prevailed at the meeting of the six State Premiers, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the Federal Government on the concept of a wage pause or, as Senator Sir John Carrick cleverly described it, the cessation of an upward movement in the wage area. Unemployment is expected to pass the 10 per cent mark in a matter of weeks, investment expenditure will fall by approximately 30 per cent and gross domestic product will be down 2 per cent. In other words the economy as a whole will contract. Our adverse balance of trade will continue, offset only by a record foreign capital inflow. At present we are borrowing money or selling the farm, factory or store just to avoid bankruptcy, a fate overtaking many an otherwise sound business. That is a brief description of the economic scene in Australia today. Clearly some action had to be taken and this is the elected government's proposed action to the state of crisis. The Democrats say that it is not enough and that it is tackling only a small portion of the problem. We, as a party with five senators out of 64, with five members out of 190-odd federal members of parliament, have been presented with this legislation which, according to the Government, will assist in alleviating the present economic chaos that surrounds this country. What rights would obtain to us as a small party in being disruptive? We take the view that the Government is elected to govern. We believe that the Government is largely responsible for the chaos which we are in, and it is only fair to give the Government an opportunity to get us out of that chaos. That might be an over-simplistic reaction to the situation; but let me put the alternative to the Senate. The Australian Labor Party is opposing the legislation. That is rather predictable because this is legislation which, by itself, calls for a freeze on Public Service wages. The Labor Party, with its close affiliation with the trade union movement and with the members of the Public Service, is virtually bound to oppose such a unilateral action. I can understand its action and I can understand its dilemma. What would happen if the Australian Democrats joined with the 27 Labor senators in opposing this legislation? It would mean that the vote of Senator Harradine would be irrelevant. I am not saying Senator Harradine is irrelevant, I am just saying that the Democrat vote, combined with that of the Labor Party, would be enough to destroy this legislation. That would inevitably, as from tonight or this afternoon when the legislation was defeated, create early election speculation the like of which this country has never known. God knows it has known enough speculation on early elections over the last several years. It has almost been promoted to an art form by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his Office. The Democrats, on their undertaking that they would not be obstructive to government, find themselves in a situation where the country is in chaos. We are not just talking about some itsy bitsy Bill to cure something in the Health Act or the Social Services Act; we are talking about the whole economy in which hundreds of thousands of people are unemployed and this elected Government has come up with its solution. We say who are we to say at this stage: 'No, you cannot go ahead with your solution'? We say to the Government: 'We wish you luck , Government; we hope that this solution of yours will work. We hope that these measures will alleviate suffering and unemployment and will promote activity'. However, we say to it just as forcefully: 'If this does not work then you will meet your masters at an early opportunity in the New Year', because I would have thought that that will be when the next election is held. If these measures are not working, or seen to be working, by May, then it will have to meet its inevitable fate. In that way, I believe the Democrats are playing their part in the democratic process by not obstructing the will of government on something important and allowing the voters to judge it by its performance or lack of performance, or the lack of results of this particular legislation. However, the legislation does have some positive features. To a minor extent the costs of our export or import competing industries will be contained or reduced and our international competitiveness will be improved. That argument the Government has been using, and that argument is unassailable. The extent to which our competitiveness will be improved, the extent to which our exports will increase and the number of jobs which will thereby be created will be open to observation as the wage pause unfolds. Theoretically, anyway, that is a positive aspect of the wage pause. The responsibility and initiative of this measure must rest with the Government and it must take responsibility for the success or failure of the legislation. I must raise an objection-not that it does any good these days-to the handling of this legislation. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that this legislation is being debated on the last day the Senate sits and after the Members of the House of Representatives have gone home. An honourable senator or a party may have believed that it could move amendments to this legislation which could improve it or correct injustices. The Democrats have several ideas, as no doubt do other honourable senators. We are concerned, for example, about the raw deal we believe pharmacists are getting out of this legislation. We cannot see the justice of a situation in which we tell pharmacists throughout the country that their income is to be pegged, as from the passage of this legislation, for the next 12 months. We may grant their shop assistants an increase, thus adding to their costs, but pharmacists' total income is virtually limited. We cannot say that while saying to members of the medical profession that there is no real limit on the extent to which they can increase their fees. I know that the amount that is to be paid out of Commonwealth revenue is pegged, but there is no limitation on what doctors can charge. If doctors in any community can get together and charge X per cent over the prescribed fee, as they do, the patients in that locality, particularly in rural areas, have no choice but to be hit with extra expenses. That is the injustice of pegging wages and salaries and yet allowing one section of the community or some sections of the community an unlimited opportunity of increasing their income. I now refer to an amendment that might be moved. Let us assume that it is a responsible one. What would members of the Press Gallery say of the Democrats, Senator Harradine or a member of the Australian Labor Party who moved an amendment which resulted in the House of Representatives being recalled? Conduct which brought the House of Representatives back-and, if it came back, it would probably vote on party lines anyway-and which cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars would be labelled irresponsible. And the whole exercise would be fruitless. Senator Tate —It might give you a chance on the heritage Bill. Senator CHIPP —Yes. The exercise this afternoon is essentially an academic one, and I object to it. Reducing wages and living standards, which this Bill will do , is certainly a way of increasing productivity. We get greater output per dollar per person not only because people are working the same hours for less real money but also because in the circumstances the fear of God is put into everybody who is working and those people work harder for fear of losing their job. That is a method, described in some of the right wing economic textbooks, of improving and increasing productivity. But the Government continues to neglect the other positive way; it opts for the negative way each time. The positive way, surely, is the introduction of high technology accompanied by retraining, compensation, taxation reform, income support schemes and transition measures which turn the potential catastrophe of technological change into a positive growth factor. We believe in the stimulation of the economy. I am most regretful when I think of my friend and colleague Senator Siddons who, in August of this year, put forward an alternative Budget which provided for a deficit of $4 billion. What did the Liberal Party say? It said: 'A deficit of $4 billion is a recipe for-- Senator Siddons —Economic collapse. Senator CHIPP —'Economic collapse'. That is a smart-Alick political comment dreamt up by that dreadful little man over at Liberal Party headquarters, whatever his name is. Senator Tate —'Falcon', isn't it, or something like that? Senator CHIPP —No, that is not his name. The Siddons Democrat alternative Budget proposed for the deficit to be spent on job creating schemes. While we had the ball at our feet, the Democrats said: 'Let us kick it in the right direction and let us kick a goal with it. Sure, it will cost $4 billion in the short run; but, by generating employment and by creating jobs, we will soon turn the deficit into a surplus by reducing the amount that we have to pay out in unemployment benefits and increasing the amount that goes into the Department of the Treasury through taxes paid by employed persons who presently are unemployed'. We then had the ball at our feet, even as late as last August. But the Government said no, and it went around creating a most dreadful Budget which did nothing. It was an election Budget which set the scenario for the Prime Minister to call an election on, I think, 18 September, from which subsequently he withdrew. But now we have a Budget deficit of $4.7 billion-- Senator Chaney —Four. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —It is $3.7 billion, up to four. Senator CHIPP —Can I have an even $5 with both the Minister for Finance (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Chaney) that by the end of the year the deficit will be nearer $5 billion than $4 billion? I will give the Ministers odds if they feel so inclined. I stick to saying that it will be nearer $5 billion, frittered away not on constructive job -creating activities, such as stimulation of the housing industry, but on paying extra unemployment benefit because of the growing pool of unemployed. The Government has embarked upon a self-defeating Catch-22 exercise because the deficit will inevitably get bigger, paying more people unemployment benefit and having fewer people paying more people who are unemployed. That is the downward spiral in which we find ourselves. One other positive feature of the present legislation is that the funds saved will be used for job creation programs. This is what the Australian Democrats have been advocating; it is what Senator Siddons advocated back in August, which has not been done. Senator Tate —Mr Hawke has been advocating it for the same length of time. Senator CHIPP —And Mr Hawke and the Labor Party have been advocating it. We have been advocating it for the last three years, both of us. But let us give credit where it is due. This will produce $300m for job creation programs, $100m of which will be earmarked for welfare housing. I am sorry; one should not use the expression 'welfare housing'. I warn the Ministers never to use that term publicly now. The term is 'public housing'. However, if it is the purpose of the exercise to reduce costs, surely the measure does not go far enough and an excessive burden will be placed upon one group-wage and salary earners. For that reason, the Democrats will press for certain measures. I am now speaking to Senator Button's amendment. I give notice, Mr Acting Deputy President, that when that is disposed of, one way or the other, I shall move an amendment which I foreshadow now but I will not speak on at that stage. In that amendment the Democrats will be pressing for a moratorium on government charges. We shall move that for one year a moratorium be placed on rises in petrol prices. We shall ask the Labor Party to join us-it did not do so last time-in voting against the validating Bill on the increase in excise on petrol. That is a classic example of where we can assist those wage and salary earners who will be affected by a wage freeze by saving them something out of their pockets. We could say to them tonight, with the support of the Labor Party if it supports our amendment, that there will be no increases in petrol prices for the next 12 months. This Senate has the power in its hands tonight to do that. We would want a moratorium on sales taxes, and again, the Senate has that power. We would want a moratorium on increases in telephone and postal charges. Where is the justice of saying to one section of the community: 'Wage and salary earners, we shall peg your wages but we shall jack up costs of postage stamps and telephone charges and raise sales taxes and the price of petrol'? We shall be asking the Senate to force the Government to take effective measures to freeze professional fees, those of doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on. We contemplated moving an amendment in Committee to peg doctors' fees. It is an amendment that attracted the Democrats strongly. We ask again: Where is the justice of freezing wages and salaries but saying to doctors 'You can charge what you like'? We have found that it is legislatively and constitutionally possible for this Parliament to peg doctors' fees if doctors want to remain within the National Health Scheme. After hours of deliberation the Democrats have reluctantly resiled from that idea because apparently the only way in which we could do that would put the patient at risk. The only way in which we could peg doctors' fees-I remember Sir John Gorton trying to do this in 1971-72-would be by legislation, which could have tacked on to this legislation, saying that if a patient went to a doctor who charged above the schedule fee, as outlined in the National Health Act, no benefit would be paid to the patient. On the surface that seems fair. One could say that that would be a beaut way to control doctors. But then a mother who has a child with a stomach ache or whatever may want to go to her local doctor. The child is ailing and in pain. The mother would see a sign, if she is lucky, saying that schedule fees are not charged by the practices. What does she do? She has two choices. She can leave the doctor's surgery and shop around the suburb with a sick child looking for a doctor who charges the schedule fee or she can pay the doctor his fee and get no reimbursement from the health fund or the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the fact that she might be a fully paid up member of a health fund. Although that scheme would effectively prevent doctors from charging above the schedule fee it seems to me that in many cases it would, result in an injustice being impacted up on patients and particularly on patients who cannot afford it. We wish the Government well in its endeavours with its request to doctors and professional groups not to charge higher fees. We will be looking for the revival of the Prices Justification Tribunal to prevent profiteering and to keep down living costs or the cost of the necessities of life. We will be pressing for the passage of the Bank and Financial Corporations (Overdraft and Loan Charges) Bill I introduced yesterday, which refers to bank interest charges. Do honourable senators know that banks, by surreptitious means, by charging overdraft service fees, account charges and all sorts of other charges under different euphemisms, in reality increase the real price of interest they charge on their money-at times by one per cent or 2 per cent-again for people who cannot afford it? If these measures are taken, the limited objective of the exercise-containing costs-will at least be pursued in an efficient and equitable manner. Presently the order books are empty. Employers will not start employing more people just because wages have stopped rising. They will employ more people only if there is an increased demand for the goods and services they produce. Unfortunately, the Government is taking no action whatsoever in this area. The Democrats will press for increased government expenditure as a pump primer to generate more demand. We will push for selective, temporary import quotas to enable Australian industry to survive and to restructure. We will press for the investment allowance to discriminate in favour of Australian made goods. Above all, we will press for a concerted all-party effort to create a framework for the social, economic and financial charges necessary to use high technology to Australia's advantage. In the short term this pulling together is necessary just to deal effectively with the immediate economic crisis. In conclusion, I want to put a preposterous and outrageous proposition to the Senate. The magnitude of the crisis in which we find ourselves is not known. I do not know that anybody fully appreciates how bad the present problems are, who created them, what the proper solutions are or how soon we can get out of them. I do not know and I do not pretend to know. Maybe smarter people in the Treasury and government departments know that. I certainly do not know. What I do know is that more people are unemployed today than at any time since the Depression. Interest rates are rising and our overseas market outlook is dismal. I would have thought extraordinary measures were needed to overcome this sort of crisis. I am in sympathy with the Government in the limited action it has taken with this wages pause. It could have done more. In the present political climate, with political parties confronting one another, with the Government being confronted by the trade union movement-a government strangely reluctant to confer and consult with the trade union movement-I cannot see any solution to the present chaotic conditions with this legislation or with anything that any Government Minister has said. Senator Mulvihill —Senator, do you think that if the United States economy picked up under a Democrat President there might be a flow-on to other countries , unlike the situation with the Republican concept of finance? Senator CHIPP —I do not deny that that would have a beneficial effect on Australia, but I certainly do not believe it is the answer to the basic problems we have. A technological revolution is occurring in this world which is decimating jobs and putting human beings permanently out of work. That technology revolution is not being addressed by anybody in this country of any significance. Senator Harradine —It's not being addressed by this Bill. That's what I was just about to say. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge Senator Harradine's interjection and thoroughly agree with it. The outrageous suggestion I make is that instead of talking about an early election and creating political instability and confrontation early in February, which will occur if these measures do not work, why do we not at least discuss the possibility of having some political stability for 12 or 15 months? God knows, I would not care if the voters of Victoria dispatched me to retirement tomorrow. I am not looking for an extended time in this place. Twenty -two years is long enough. What would honourable senators think of a proposition to extend the lifetime of this Parliament until about March 1984-I understand that is constitutionally possible-and for the next six or nine months call off politics and have a moritorium on political activity in this country? Why do we not consider adopting the War Cabinet concept for nine months? It is not my idea . It was an idea put up by an incredibly distinguished group of Australians-Sir Barton Pope, Sir Mark Oliphant and Sir Macfarlane Burnet. I would have thought that those names would at least command respect. They are people who have no axe to grind. What if we could forget politics for even six months? What if some distinguished members of the Australian Labor Party-one could mention Mr Hayden, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Hawke, Mr Keating, Senator Button and Senator Grimes-were asked to join a Cabinet? The intellectual giants around me are scoffing at the proposal. They can afford to do so, of course, because they bring innovative and new ideas into this place every day! They can afford to scoff at new ideas! I leave the intellectual giants to themselves. I just ask-I am not hopeful that my request will receive too much thoughtful debate in this place but at least it may receive consideration from the public-that for six months at least we have an Executive made up of members of at least the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party with Parliament acting as a check and balance. I say to Senator Button that then there would be effective opposition. Parliament would then at least have a chance of acting as a parliament and not as a rubber stamp for the Executive. At least we could have some sort of consultation between the trade union movement, the employers and all political parties. If another honourable senator has a better, more constructive idea on how to get Australia out of this crisis-I have yet to hear one in this debate-let him or her put it forward. I do not put forward my idea as a serious proposition, but as something to stimulate thought towards a solution of a problem that may engulf 30 per cent of Australians before the end of next year. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(5.7) —I rise to say a few words on the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill. This Bill has been designed for several reasons. The main reason is to reduce wages. In the last depression, in the early 1930s, a conservative government brought down a wage reduction of 10 per cent. This Bill will do a similar thing but in a much more devious way. It will reduce wages by at least 12 per cent over a 12-month period. The Government thinks that it is being very smart doing this. As I said, the legislation is very devious. It will bring further recession to this country. People do not trust this Government. Personal savings in this country are exceptionally high. We must ask ourselves why that is. It is simply because people do not trust this Government. They feel that they have to save rather than spend. That is one of the reasons we have such a big depression at present. Thousands of people daily are losing their jobs. People are putting off buying the commodities that they would normally buy because they fear that they will lose their jobs. There is no security in the country. That is the main reason for the current situation. It is costing this Government untold millions of dollars in unemployment benefits. The wage pause will do nothing to stimulate growth and employment. Unemployment is at an historically high level. Imports are flooding into the country and have been allowed to overwhelm our own industries, which have been discarded by this Government. Local production has not been encouraged. We have only to look at the increased trade deficit. This year our trade deficit will be $9,000m. Exports will rise by only some 2 per cent. That is absolutely ridiculous. What has this Government done? It has changed the guidelines for exporting firms. There is no long term arrangement for the export of goods from this country. Nobody can cope if the guidelines keep changing. Manufacturers find that they must reduce their labour force. If this country was managed correctly, and if everyone worked together profits could be increased. With higher profits we could certainly increase wages. That is what we should be thinking about. This country is probably in the best position of any country in the world today. We have a very small population of 15 million people and the majority of them are reasonably healthy and well educated. We have resources in this country to manufacture into the goods that we need. There is no need for the present level of unemployment. It is impossible for workers to have any confidence in the Government. The structure of the family is being destroyed. Thousands of people every day are finding themselves out of work. If young people do not have work-it does not matter whether they are my children or anybody else's-and take their place in society they will be destroyed. The Government is destroying the family structure but nobody cares. During the war this country pulled itself up by its bootstraps. We started to manufacture goods that we never thought we could manufacture. Yet today we are allowing imports in untold quantities. We can match any other manufacturing country in the world. This Government has done nothing to bring about reasonable negotiations between employers and employees. It wants to create trouble and confrontation all the time. It is bring down legislation which causes disruption to the trade union movement and the employers. The Government does not want peace in the work force . It is using disruption and unrest for its own political ends. This is what happens to a nation when the people are deceived. This country has almost ground to a halt. Yet we live in what is most certainly the best country in the world. If a government cannot manage this country, it could not manage a peanut stall. This is a wealthy country. As I said, we have well educated, healthy people. We grow all the food that we need. We are able to manufacture goods. We have marvellous resources and energy reserves, yet we find ourselves in trouble. It is unbelievable that a country such as Australia could be brought to its knees. But it is slowly grinding to a halt and the situation will not improve. Some industries in this country have managed, with co-operation between management and labour, to achieve great things. I mentioned, for example, Fletcher Jones and Staff Pty Ltd which is probably the most competitive company in the rag trade. There is no more competitive company in that field. It continues to grow and to make a marvellous product. All of the workers participate in that company. Senator Siddons —Best value for money. Senator ELSTOB —It does provide the best value for money. There is no doubt about that. The quality of its product is equal to any in the world. That example shows that it is possible to be competitive with co-operation between Australian management and labour. When the Australian Labor Party was in government it set up the Trade Union Training Authority and established Clyde Cameron College to train people in unions. That policy has been very successful. This Government should have set up educational centres to train management. Australian management, on the whole, is deplorable. It has created great unrest and trouble in this country. This Government has seen no value in following the example set by the Labor Government. Instead, it has introduced a wages pause which will do nothing to improve the condition of this country. It there were an honest and sincere attempt to get unions, management, financiers, business people and politicians of all sides together, as Senator Chipp has suggested, there would be a sincere attempt to do something about the present situation. All political parties would go out of their way if they believed the Government was making an honest and sincere attempt to do something about the situation. But this Government is not sincere and this plan cannot work. Some time ago I asked a question relating to averages. The Minister for Finance (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) said that she believed in averages. I raised the example of a person earning $200 a week, a semi-skilled worker earning $300 and a professional person earning $400 a week. The average in that case is $300. But let us say that the chap on the lower rung of the ladder, the unskilled worker, loses his job, as is happening today. There are then only two people employed, one earning $300 a week and one earning $400 a week. The average immediately rises from $300 to $350. No one is being paid any more money. There is no more money in the community, there is less; and yet we can prove that the average rises. Averaging is honest when there is full employment but it is totally dishonest and we cannot work on it when large numbers of people are unemployed. In those circumstances it is ridiculous to work on averages. I think it is about time we looked at some innovative ideas. Many years ago President Roosevelt pulled America out of the doldrums. America achieved that recovery by using its own resources. We could do it. I have always been a democratic socialist. If I went out into the country and built myself a home out of the natural products of the land, this country would have to be more valuable because I had produced something from nature. As a national community, can we not build better railways, roads, air facilities, water conservation schemes? We cannot say that that has not been done. The east-west railway line has been constructed. This country is dying on its feet. To say that we do not have enough money to do these things is ridiculous. If a war were to break out tomorrow, in Australia overnight billions of dollars would appear as if by magic . But we cannot find a couple of thousand million dollars-and that is nothing, it is peanuts-to put people back to work. In consultation with industry we could establish sensible guidelines that people would trust. We could talk to people. If we could get the people to trust the Government they would start spending some of the money they are hoarding up. That would get people back to work. This Government thinks that it can cure the ills of this country by introducing legislation such as this. But conciliation and consultation is the only way in which we can do that. There is no one person in this country or any other country who can overcome these problems. Politicians can only suggest the guidelines but we must get the co-operation of all members of the community. If we do not do that this country will never pull itself up by its bootstraps. Over the years Australian workers have proved themselves to be as good as or better than anyone in the world. We are innovative but we are not using our skills. I believe we should be using our high technology skills. We should be educating people to go into other fields. We are not doing this. Over many years this Government has allowed the ownership of this country to slip away from Australians to overseas. We do not even own this country, and that upsets me. I know that it upsets a lot of other people. If we are to have pride in our country, we must own a part of it. Unless we do we will get nowhere. The general public really does not have anything to hang on to now. Everyone fears that he will lose his home. This Government has kept interest rates at such a level that foreign money comes into the country not for development but to take advantage of those high rates. That is killing our own people. By keeping interest rates up this Government has made it very difficult for young people in this country to repay the loans on their homes. Whether or not they pay money out of interest rates, people have to get an income. They do not want charity. They do not want to live on the dole or unemployment benefit. That is not our way of life. The average Australian wants to work, wants to participate and wants decent leadership, which he is not getting. I think that is a great tragedy. The trade union movement has been knocked over many years just for political ends. The trade union movement over many years has managed at least to give the Australian people an equitable distribution of wealth. Let us not forget that. If honorable senators doubt that, let them look at the countries where unions are not allowed. They will find that the wealth belongs to about 10 per cent of the people. In this country the situation is getting worse, and the wealthy are becoming wealthier. This wage pause will do nothing to a person like me on a good salary. It will not hurt many people in the community, including doctors, lawyers, architects and other professional people. But it will hurt the little people. Honourable senators should talk to the car drivers who earn just a little over $200 a week. By the time they pay their tax and their medical fund contributions they have nothing left. The Government is saying that it is fair for them to have a wage pause. I think that is ridiculous. It is fair enough for me to have a wage pause, but it is not fair for people on the lower income rungs to have a wage pause. It is not a wage pause. The Government is simply taking out of their pockets money which they cannot afford. Interest rates will go up. Every time one goes into a supermarket these days one finds that prices have gone up from last week. People with families are almost destitute. Senator Coleman —Most supermarkets stacked their prices in case we had a price freeze. Senator ELSTOB —That is true, but there is no such thing as a price freeze. It is impossible to have one. During the referendum on prices and incomes control, Mr Anthony said: What incentive is there to work harder, to produce more, if your wages are controlled? He said that in 1973. Senator Sir John Carrick said: If you give the government the power to control prices, you certainly give it power to control wages. Wages are obviously a price-the price of your energies and skills. Senator Mulvihill —Who said that? Senator ELSTOB —Senator Sir John Carrick said that on 28 November 1973. It is all gimmickry, and it is just impossible for people to live. Nobody can say that the world economic situation does not affect Australia. We would agree with that . No one can say the drought has not had its effects. We agree with that. The main problem with this country is this Government-its obstinacy in making political points, in trying to run things by legislation and in always blaming the unions and the little people. It has let the tax dodgers get away with it for years. It is the little people who have had to pay the extra money in tax. They will never get it back. It will not benefit them. Any money that the Government gets will never go back into the pockets of the little people. It is the big people in this country, the scoundrels, who do not pay tax. The small people are carrying this country. It is about time this Government considered the small people, the people who take off their coats and do the work of this nation. It is about time we started to think of them. This wage pause is plain gimmickry. It is nothing more nor less. It is not a pause; it as a wage reduction. It will be a wage reduction of at least 12 per cent because of inflation; it may be more. The people affected are not expected to get a catch-up wage increase after 12 months. It is just not on. More divisions within the community will be created. In the past this Government has created divisions. That is one of the main reasons for the difficulties which we face. Australians are more divided today than they were after the Kerr incident of 1975 which honourable senators opposite created. Unless somebody unites this nation of Australia we will not get anywhere. We cannot become united if part of Australia pulls one way and the rest pulls the other way. That is no way to bring about conciliation and consultation. If there were a genuine desire to overcome the difficulties there would be co-operation on all sides of Parliament . We would be making approaches to the trade union movement, management and everyone else involved. This could be done collectively, but this Government is not prepared to do so. The Opposition opposes these Bills. The amendment should be considered most certainly by the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine. I hope it is considered by them. I hope there is some conciliation and further talks are held. I would not mind bringing the House of Representatives back. These Bills should be tossed out entirely. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.27) —The Senate seems to be in an atmosphere of unrealism due to the fact that we all know that these two Bills, the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill 1982 and the Special Employment-related Programs Bill 1982, will be passed by the Senate because the Australian Democrats have indicated that they will not block the Bills. They have indicated that although some amendments were desirable to the Bills, on reflection they should not be moved because the House of Representatives has risen. I should like to enter this debate to talk about the problem of unemployment. The measures before us may result in temporary job creation but, in my view, they will result in long term job destruction. The measures do not address themselves to the issue of structural unemployment within Australia. One thing is certain: The proposals will not work because they are not based on a recognition of the fundamental problems of unemployment within Australia nor are they based on a recognition of the economic realities and challenges with which Australia is faced. We are in a totally different situation today than we were in 1972, 1973 and 1974. The application of economic measures alone to the problems today will not have the same effect as it may well have had in 1972, 1973 or 1974. I very much doubt that the prescription which has been developed by the Government is in fact economically vindicated. It is true that for far too long Australia has allowed costs and prices to escalate with consequent rapid erosion of the value of money. Even the automatic adjustments in pensions have been insufficient to offset the effects of inflation on a large number of pensioners, let alone on other sections of the community. I wonder whether the Government has given any consideration to its foreign exchange policies, because the flexible peg exchange rate system implies nothing about the particular balance of payments objectives of the Government and their application to the problems of unemployment in this country. The Government contents itself with pointing out that whilst prices as measured by the consumer price index have increased by something like 12.3 per cent in the past 12 months, average weekly earnings have risen by, according to the Government, 16.9 per cent to $335. But as I have pointed out before, that figure includes earnings of highly paid executives and politicians. Most workers on award wages are receiving something like $100 below that average weekly earnings figure; so they are receiving about $229 a week. It has been said in this debate -quite justifiably-that the higher salary earners have received a comparative increase in real terms in the last six years but at the lower end of the scale there has been an 11.4 per cent reduction. I have stated in this chamber before that there is a need for an examination of the wage structure. One good thing that may emerge from the discussions now taking place is that this examination may well take place and that we might find ourselves back in a central wage fixing arena. One of the reasons that the higher salaried people have received such an increase over the last six years has been that there is in place within Australia, and has been since 1967, a total wage concept. In 1967 the basic wage and margins concept was abandoned. Senator Mulvihill —They should return to it. Senator HARRADINE —I agree with it. It was abandoned. I vigorously opposed the abandonment of the basic wage and margins concept at that time. Since then, increases on economic grounds generally applied as a percentage of total wages have tended to favour those on higher salaries. I have always considered it most odd that a salaried employee on, for example, $600 a week receives a $30 a week rise, while another worker on $200 a week, receives a $10 a week rise to compensate for the same five per cent increase in prices. The abolition of the total wage and the reintroduction of the two-tiered system would provide a structure wherein the blow-out of wages could more readily be contained, lower wage earners protected and margins for skills and responsibilities more visibly delineated. One of the beneficial results that may well come out of our concentration on the wages area is that we may well return to that two-tiered system and to central wage fixation. As I mentioned, wages are only a very small part of the problem. What is the problem of unemployment with Australia? The problem is that more people are seeking paid work than there are jobs available and this is at the same time as new jobs continue to be slashed by technological changes. That is the simple problem. That is the problem that the Federal Government is not addressing itself to. The Government has concentrated solely on economic solutions. Unless we realise that the unemployment problem in Australia has social as well as economic aspects, Australia will continue to have soaring unemployment and we will unfortunately see by the end of next year over one million permanently unemployed. When I forecast some time ago that, during the 1980s, we would pass the half a million unemployed level, I suspect that there were a large number of people who raised their eyebrows and who thought at that stage that I was being negative. What I am saying today about the essential problem of unemployment, I have been saying for six years. The preoccupation with economic solutions alone over that period has not addressed the real problem. What is the position now? In Australia, we will have 700,000 unemployed by the end of this month and an inflation rate of 12.3 per cent. Of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, we are the worst. What is the Government's answer? It is a wage pause, further economic medicine which was previously found not to be satisfactory. The Government visits the results of its absence of ideas on public servants and pharmacists, amongst others. It does not attack the real problem. Faced with the gloomy aspect that I have just mentioned, would honourable senators allow jobs to be destroyed by the wholesale application of automation and technological changes? Would honourable senators force people to stay in the paid work force- those people who have better reasons to be out of those jobs which could be taken by the unemployed? That is what is happening. That is the effect of the Government's policy. That is just plain crazy. I turn now to the matter of automation and technological change. The Government 's proposals exacerbate the problem in that area. That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that the Government, under its present policy, might create some temporary jobs but its policy will result in long term job destruction. Mr President, may I deal with the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill and the Special Employment-related Programs Bill within the context of the whole of the Government's policy, including the submissions it made today to the Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? The PRESIDENT —Yes, Senator. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr President. I think this is relevant. The Government's policy will increase profits. Workers will have their wages pegged. They will be producing the same amount of goods and services; therefore, the profits will go up. There is nothing wrong with profits. Anyone who discusses these matters around the traps will know that businessmen, manufacturers and entrepreneurs now are not investing in high technology or equipment because of the current cost of money, the high interest rates. But what will happen when interest rates fall and money becomes cheaper? They will rush to buy new technology. They will be assisted in their efforts by the Government's indiscriminate investment allowance policy. I use the word 'indiscriminate' because the policy applies equally to a retailer, a banker or a manufacturer competing with overseas manufacturers. One can see, of course, that there is room for the policy to apply in those areas in which we are in direct or indirect competition with overseas manufacturers. But one must question the wholesale application of automation and technological changes, for example, in the banking industry where we are not in direct competition with people overseas . The money that will be poured into these areas by investment allowances and so on will result in job destruction. The profits gained from the wages freeze will be used along with the investment allowance, to employ more technology. Let us take the retail industry as another example. The Government's policy is quite unintelligible as far as this industry is concerned. It urges two things: An extension of trading hours which it has stated results in the destruction of full time jobs and encourages two-income familes and in fact, people to have two jobs. The other aspect around the corner is product code numbering. The Government's own investment allowance policy will be the cause of job destruction in that area. Should we allow jobs to be destroyed by the wholesale application of automation and technological change under these circumstances? Of course not. But that is what the Government is doing. Let us look at the other social aspect of the problem. The Government is forcing people to stay in the paid work force. These people could have a reason to be out of the work force and the jobs they hold could be taken by the unemployed. The Government is not even prepared-I have not heard it say so, and I would like the Minister for Social Security (Senator Chaney), who represents the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, to tell me I am wrong-to have an in-depth study of the work force in Australia to find out who in the paid work force has a reason to be out of it. Many people in the paid work force at present wish to retire but are unable to do so because of the substantial reduction it would cause in their living standards. We should consider reducing the retiring age and providing for a voluntary phased-in retirement plan from, say, 55 years of age. By refusing to provide practical recognition of the economic worth of the homemaker, by exercising tax discrimination against the one-income family and by providing insufficient help for home buyers, the Government is forcing thousands of young married women and thousands more mothers to stay in the paid work force. Though there have been increases in family allowances, their value is eroding rapily by reason of inflation. On reflection, because family allowances are a high profile social security expenditure, I wonder whether it would not have been better to retain a low profile income tax deduction for children. Today's Daily Telegraph editorial, under the heading 'Two job families', states: One of the factors contributing to unemployemnt in Australia remains the working women who is forced to take a job simply to make ends meet. Families which need to have both adults working are possibly depriving another family of having even one member working. Of course, it is no solution to the problem to suggest that married women be made to stay at home. That would be sexist and totally unreasonable. But research shows that around 60 per cent of working women do not wish to work and do so only because they need the money. They find it very difficult to be both breadwinner and mother and would gladly give up the job if they could afford to do so. And the fact remains that half a million Australians are out of work-nearly 10 per cent-and that many of the jobs they could get are being filled by women earning an additional income. The Federal Government must soon devise and consider some sort of scheme to allow the reluctant women workers to give up their jobs. For instance, it should not be difficult to introduce tax incentives and family allowances that would allow them to remain at home without great loss of family income. If they could afford to stay at home it would open up areas for the jobless and ease the social problem of the latch-key children. Such a scheme could be more effective and far more permanent than the expensive job creation schemes at present being considered by the Government. I had not read all of that editorial before I quoted it. I have been discussing a number of these matters for a long time. Let us consider the number of full time school children in the paid work force. It may surprise honourable senators to know that the participation rate of full time school students between 15 and 19 years of age in the paid work force is 22.5 per cent. They are working an average of over nine hours a week. Obviously we cannot say that school kids should not have jobs such as paper runs, but quite a large number are working long hours in various areas such as the retail industry thereby taking jobs that others require. I give that as an example; there are many others. There are the greedy people, the two-jobbers. The Government is not prepared, apparently, to examine the structure of the paid work force to see who is in it and who has a good reason to be out of it. I do not have much more time in which to speak. Actually, I had almost intended not to speak at all on this legislation because I was somewhat disgusted with the approach. Perhaps the legislation has some merit somewhere along the line, but it will have merit only if we combine it with other measures. I agree that there needs to be wage moderation. In fact, the trade union movement should have , central to its wages policy, the preservation of jobs. Nothing that I have said is meant to underestimate the obvious responsibilities of governments to create a legislative, economic, trading and taxation framework conducive to employment and to ensure infrastructure, notably power and transport. In addition, businesses, employers, trade unions, educational institutions, community groups and families each have a role to play in facing the social, as well as the economic, aspects of the employment problem. I agree that we ought to lay off politics for a while, but I do not quite agree with the way Senator Chipp put it. If I were Prime Minister I would declare that the Parliament would run its full term and call on everyone in the community to concentrate on solving our economic and social ills. Not only should we concentrate on solving our ills but also we must not forget that if we have economic and social ills certainly our near neighbours have those problems as well. I turn very briefly to the amendments to the second reading of the Bill. I do not have much to say about these. I support them in the absence of anything tighter, but I believe that local government ought to be involved in the conference that has been suggested in the Australian Labor Party's amendment. I believe there is room for a community-led recovery. Many local government officials, who include businessmen, are experiencing unemployment in their own families. They are the ones who know the area. They know where the jobs are. I would have included reference to such persons in the amendment but no doubt that can be added at some stage. I will support the Opposition's amendment only on the clear understanding that I have been given that the word 'immigration', as used in paragraph (iv), is not meant in a racist sense. As I understand it, it simply deals with the question of skills. For example, companies should not advertise for rock drillers in the United Kingdom when Australia has rock drillers. The Australian Democrat's amendment calls, among other things, for a freezing of sales taxes. Senator Chipp said that the Senate has the power to do that. If so, I wish that, when sales tax increases were introduced in the Budget, he had joined me in voting against them; but I suppose it is better late than never. As I understand it, this amendment really will not affect anything. I must say that I would not tie family allowance increases to oil parity price increases. That has been my stand over a long period. I hope that something will come out of this proposal but I suspect that unless the Government, by using a number of other measures, applies itself to the real nature of the problem there will be no long term effect; it will merely have an adverse long term effect on jobs. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Minister for Social Security)(5.57) —in reply- The Senate is debating the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill and the accompanying Bill which provides for the appropriation of the moneys which the Government anticipates will be saved by the wages pause. That will be used to provide public works of a high employment content. There does appear to be agreement around the chamber that the Bill should be passed, though the reasons for agreement differ as between honourable senators. There is also agreement in the Senate about the need for wage moderation. It was interesting that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Button) put that view down as being the Opposition's official view and Senator Harradine put it down as being his view also. One of the difficulties is that there has not been wage moderation in Australia . There has been some debate in the course of the second reading stage about the extent to which wages have risen. The Opposition challenged the use of the average weekly earnings rise over 12 months because of the unemployment which has occurred in that time and the number of lower paid workers who therefore have ceased to be counted as part of the average. Even if one accepted the heavily discounted figures cited by Senator Button one gets a situation of rising real wages during a year of falling profits-there is no dispute about that-and growing unemployment. I do not believe, even on the basis of the facts as put before the Senate by Senator Button, that one can say that there has been wage moderation to a point which is desirable. This Bill is just one part of the Government's approach to Australia's current economic difficulties. Part of the approach is being played out in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission today when, for the first time, the Commonwealth, all the States and the Northern Territory are joined together in, we understand, a surprisingly common view that there does need to be a wage pause. Certainly, there are differences of view as to the period for which the pause should apply. Three States are arguing for six months; three States and a Territory for a year and the Commonwealth for a year. That is another part of the line which the Government is pursuing to meet Australia's current economic difficulties. It is not, of course, a matter of saying that what is contained in these Bills is the sole answer. I would point to the changed attitude which was evidenced by the Commonwealth at the Premiers Conference held in the middle of the year; to the changed attitude which was evidenced by the Budget with increases in capital expenditure; and to the changed attitude which is evidenced in our increased capital expenditure under the companion legislation which is being dealt with today. All of this is part of the response of the Government to Australia's changing economic fortunes. I point to the industry package as being yet another part of the Government's approach. We do not have time this afternoon to canvass every element of the Government's approach. But the fact is that the Government has responded across a wide range of policy areas and has changed the setting of its policies to meet what is admitted from all parts of the chamber to be a difficult situation. We had a speech from Senator Elstob, which I am sure was straight from the heart. I would share his concern about the effects of unemployment upon many families and individuals in Australia. We would all share that concern. But even he admitted in his quite compassionate speech that Australia faces external difficulties; that Australia faces difficulties brought about by the drought; that Australia faces some internal difficulties of its own making; and that the cost of wages, which have outstripped the capacity of our industry to pay, is one element of the problems which Australia faces. This Bill is one element of the Government's approach or attempt to come to grips with those problems. I do not want to canvass every point that was made but this is an important issue for Australia; it is an important element of our overall approach to policy. I will, therefore, touch on at least some points which have been made by honourable senators in this debate, notwithstanding that they are proposing to support the passage of this Bill. Senator Button quoted a rather critical leading article in the Sydney Morning Herald which said that the sort of action the Government is taking was unlikely to be of assistance. In response, I would like to quote something from the Melbourne Age of 25 November which to me made much more sense. I do not wish to quote at very great length. However, I thought that the comment by Mr Terry McCrann, the business editor of the Age, encapsulates a lot of the thinking which is behind the Government's move in this legislation; I believe it encapsulates why what we are doing has such broad public support. Mr McCrann firstly drew attention to the situation in these words: At a time when the average Australian is coming to realise, often through unhappy personal experience, that direct links do exist between excess wage rises, falling corporate profits and disappearing jobs, it is distressing that the nation's current alternative Prime Minister appears unable to accept this reality . . . I think that that really is the nub of the debate which has taken place in this chamber this afternoon. There is a failure on the part of the Opposition to accept the relationship between those things. I would like to quote from the concluding part of that article because I think it again encapsulats from an independent viewpoint what needs to be said. Mr McCrann commented: In very simple terms, the higher wages and salaries might well have created increased spending-subject to the tax leakage-but the overall effect across the nation was not as good because before many people could spend their higher incomes they were losing their jobs. He went on to say: . . . if Mr Hayden and his party, which lays claim to possessing the high ground of compassion in politics, wish to stem the rising tide of unemployment and put people back into jobs they will need to face two realities, one immediate, the other somewhat longer term. The immediate one is the need for those still with jobs to give back part of the excess wage rises of the past two years through the mechanism of a wages freeze. The longer-term reality is the need to remove the basic irritant in the wages- prices game: the intrusion of government and its appetite for 40 cents in each dollar of extra income across the economy. I would agree very broadly with what Mr McCrann has said. I would say that it is entirely appropriate that people who are in employment in a difficult time ought to be prepared to forego the rises that they anticipate knowing, in the case of public servants, with their security of tenure, that that money would be used to create work for other Australians and, in the case of private industry employees , that wage increases foregone would go to provide profits which would guarantee continuity of employment and a fresh and new investment. The point was made by Senator Button that this was a measure which imposed a massively inequitable burden on wage earners. I suggest to the Senate that that is no so. The massive inequity is between those Australians who do have work and those who do not. I believe that those of us who are fortunate enough to have work must be prepared to accept some sacrifice for those who do not. I welcome the early part of Senator Chipp's speech in particular in which, I think, he fairly and squarely placed the responsibility for what action ought to be taken in these difficult circumstances upon the Government. I respectfully endorse the views which he put before the Senate, that it is proper for the Government to determine a course and to have the opportunity to follow that course. He drew attention to the fact that in the end we will be judged by the electorate on the success, on the appropriateness of that course. I believe that is a proper assessment of the situation. I thank the Australian Democrats on this occasion for adopting what I think is a proper course. They are entitled to be critical but they allow the Government to get on with the job in the way in which the Government thinks it needs to be done. I acknowledge and welcome that approach from them. I say, however, that I have some doubts about the practicality of the somewhat idealistic appeal at the end of the speech for a political moratorium. I say that not because I think there is an absence of good will in the different parts of the political system in Australia. I do not pretend that the Government has a mortgage on good will. I believe that the Opposition and the Democrats, and the others of course, have a great deal of good will in this matter. The fact of the matter is that there are differences of opinion, which are genuine, about how things ought to be tackled. I do not believe that simply putting the people mentioned into the same room will produce agreement. I must say that at times it is a little difficult to say precisely where the Opposition stands with respect to policy. Honourable senators might recall, for example, that there was a demand from the Opposition before the Budget for tax cuts from the Government. There was a demand for a deficit of some $1,600m. When the Government came down with figures which appeared to show that, the Opposition promptly shifted its ground. It may well be that there is a degree of opposition for the sake of opposition. But I believe that rather than the Opposition looking for a political moratorium there might be some value for Australia if the Opposition were more properly and clearly to define what it sees as the alternatives for Australia so that the Australian people can consider a genuine alternative. Quite frankly, I have seen very little evidence of any serious attempt by the Opposition to come to grips with the alternative economic policies which might be followed. The standard of debate is generally at about the level at which Opposition members tell us that we should be prepared to change our economic policy, without giving a definition of how that change ought to be made. Senator Harradine's contribution to the debate covered a very wide range of issues. Again, he made a number of points which I think are extremely serious for Australia, but they were points with which I would not altogether agree. I do not believe, for example, that it is possible to slow or to stop the flow of technological change. I realise the problems that technological change can give rise to but I think there is nothing in human history which would suggest that that is likely to occur. I do not believe that reducing the retiring age is likely to be either successful or appropriate in modern Australia. As Australians are living longer and as many Australians do not wish to retire at an early age that would also go against the success of that policy. There are, indeed, many people who believe that with the changing pattern of Australia's population we will look to people working longer rather than shorter periods in their lives. I do not make any personal final judgment on that but I do not believe that the general reduction of retirement ages is likely to help. The Government believes that this measure is one of the things which can be done by the Government and by the people of Australia to improve Australia's position in difficult economic times. I commend the legislation to the Senate. I hope that it will have a speedy passage. The Government will, of course, not support the amendments which have been moved by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Button's amendment) be left out . The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Harold Young) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. McLaren, G. T. Colston, M. A. Mulvihill, J. A. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, G. J. Ray, RobertGeorges, G. Robertson, E. A. Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. (Teller)Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Harradine, B. Baume, Peter Martyr, J. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J. Bonner, N. T. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterChipp, D. L. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Siddons, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Thomas, A. M. Jessop, D. S. Townley, M. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Lajovic, M. E. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. MacGibbon, D. J. Young, H. W. Macklin, M. J. Foreman, D. J. Durack, P. D. Walsh, P. A. Martin. K. J. Keeffe, J. B. Haines, J. Hearn, J. Collard, S. J. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Chipp) proposed: At end of motion, add: ', but the Senate declares that to restrict wages only is an inadequate response to the present economic emergency, that the Government should take action to achieve reductions in prices and government charges for a similar period across a broad range of goods and services, by- (a) freezing Commonwealth Government charges and taxes, including sales tax, stamp duties, telephone and postal charges; (b) re-establishing the Prices Justification Tribunal and charging it with the specific task of preventing profiteering and containing costs of the necessities of life; (c) requesting all professional and trade bodies to freeze the fees their members charge, and enforcing this course by administrative or legislative action where this is feasible; and (d) not implementing any increase in the world parity prices for Australian produced petroleum products unless the additional revenue so gained is returned to the community in the form of increased family allowances, pensions and benefits, and that the Government should take urgent and comprehensive measures to stimulate the economy, restrict imports, and call a national conference to begin a process of long term co-operative indicative planning'. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition)(6.16) —I indicate that the Opposition is opposing this amendment. I do not think I need to say why, except that it is inconsistent with the stance we take on the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.17) —I wish briefly to support the amendment moved by Senator Chipp and point out that if the Senate could find a majority to declare itself in favour of this amendment there would be an effective price freeze for 12 months. Senator Tate —There would not be an effective price freeze. Senator MACKLIN —There would be an effective price freeze for 12 months because there would be a majority in the Senate to stop any Bill which raised any prices in the area under the control of this Government. If the Australian Labor Party and Senator Harradine voted for this amendment it would be useless for the Government to introduce any Bill because it would not get through this House. I respond also to two points raised by Senator Harradine, one of which was in relation to paragraph (a) of the amendment, which refers to Government prices. We are looking forward in the same way that the Government has done with the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill, in seeking to bring in what we believe is a price freeze which is compatible with the Bill-that is, one which covers all new price rises that are under the control of this Government. It has preached long and hard about the State governments freezing their prices, but it has many prices under its charge. Indeed, that was the area in which the greatest rises took place last year. The last part of the amendment, paragraph (d), seeks to prevent any further petrol price rises. The Australian Democrats voted against the last increase and we will vote against the next one. The actual item is couched in the terms of a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in Launceston during the last election campaign that if there were any new increases he would ensure that additional revenue would go into areas such as pensions and benefits or family allowances. It is not to put them together, as Senator Harradine suggested, but rather to say that if there were to be any additional rises in that area the Prime Minister's promise ought to be carried out. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.20) —I was not going to speak about this matter because, as I said, we seem to be in an atmosphere of unreality. We are getting further and further into fantasy now. This is a meaningless amendment. Senator Macklin —Not if you vote for it. Senator HARRADINE —If the Australian Democrats had voted against the increases in sales taxes- Senator Macklin —We are talking about future ones, not past. Senator HARRADINE —I am talking about when those come before the chamber, and Senator Macklin did not vote against the sales increases, as I did. Senator Macklin —You are talking about past ones. Senator HARRADINE —Even if the Senate passes this piece of legislation how will it affect the sales tax increases that will come in from 1 January? It will not. Senator Macklin —Any future ones. Senator HARRADINE —It is crazy freezing Commonwealth Government charges and taxes, including sales tax. The Democrats' action should have been taken then. This amendment is meaningless. It will not take effect. Senator Macklin —What about the next one? Senator HARRADINE —The next one, presumably, will be in the Budget. Senator Macklin will have the opportunity of voting against it then. I will not have family allowances, by implication, tied to increases in import parity prices. They stand on their own. In fact they ought to stand on their own and they ought to be adjusted in line with increases in the consumer price index. Apart from all that, as I said, we are in fairy land when the Democrats exercise their vote , as they should have done just a moment ago and voted against the legislation. If they had the gumption, they would have protected those people upon whom the burden will fall-for example, the low income public servants and pharmacists in this country-and voted against this measure. They should have done so and not put up this fairy tale business now. Senator Chipp —I shall answer Senator Harradine's remarks. If he votes against the Australian Democrats amendment he will vote against the proposition that we put which is simply this- The PRESIDENT —Senator, you should really obtain leave to speak. According to the Notice Paper you moved this amendment. That is correct, is it not? Senator Chipp —Yes, Mr President. I thought I had the right of reply. The PRESIDENT —As such you do not have the right of reply but you may seek leave . Senator Chipp —I seek leave. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —This matter is based on a proposition that government charges which represent a significant part of the cost of living-such as sales taxes, telephone charges and postage charges- should not go up while a wages and salaries freeze is introduced by this Parliament. In the past when there was no wages freeze we agreed to the increases in taxes. Of course we did. I quite often find Senator Harradine to be totally incomprehensible. The Government said that there will be no increases in wages. The Democrats said: 'Okay, we will agree with that, but there will be no increase in wages or in government charges which represent a significant part of the cost of living'. Let the people judge our action by that statement not by what Senator Harradine might describe as the rationale behind our actions. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I claim to have been misrepresented by the comment made by leave by Senator Chipp. I seek leave to make a comment. The PRESIDENT —Senator, you do not need leave in regard to misrepresentation. Having spoken on this aspect you are entitled to rise in your place. Senator HARRADINE —I mentioned the fact that this would have absolutely-- Senator Chipp —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This is one of the-- Senator Tate —Sit down, you fraud; you got leave. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Tate! Senator Chipp —Just watch who you call a fraud, you idiot. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Chipp! Address the Chair. Senator Chipp —This is one of Senator Harradine's favourite tactics. Is not the proper procedure for him first to state where he has been misrepresented by me and then to state how? Is it not improper to allow him to go on with a speech before he has illustrated where he has been misrepresented? The PRESIDENT —Yes. I would ask you, Senator Harradine, to state clearly where you have been misrepresented and to build your case following that. Senator HARRADINE —I seek leave, Mr President, to respond to Senator Chipp's comments. The PRESIDENT —You still have the call on the point of misrepresentation, Senator; you do not need leave. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Chipp indicated that I had in some way misled the chamber in indicating that this document of his, the second reading amendment, was a fairy tale amendment. The fact of the matter is that the document states: . . . freezing Commonwealth Government charges and taxes, including sales tax. Senator Chipp —On a point of order, Mr President. Senator HARRADINE —You don't want to hear the truth. Senator Chipp —Senator Harradine is clearly just wanting a second go at the debate. I ask you, Mr President-I repeat-- Honourable senators interjecting-. Senator Chipp —It is strange that we have champions of Senator Harradine here. Mr President, you gave a ruling that he must first state where he has been misrepresented. He has not done that. I ask you to ask him to do that. The PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, I would ask you to point out exactly where you claim to have been misrepresented, and then build your case in relation to that misrepresentation. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Chipp indicated that, in respect of the sales tax matter, I had stated that his proposition would be ineffective. I maintained that situation. That is where I have been misrepresented. In fact, I said that it would be ineffective. It will be ineffective because the sales tax comes into operation from 1 January, and the Democrats should have opposed it-- The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator! Senator HARRADINE —When it was before us in October. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator! You have made your point. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Chipp's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Harold Young) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McClelland, DouglasBolkus, N. MacGibbon, D. J. Bonner, N. T. McIntosh, G. D. Button, J. N. McLaren, G. T. Carrick, Sir John Martyr, J. R. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Missen, A. J. Coates, J. Mulvihill, J. A. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Rae, PeterChrichton-Browne, N. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reid, M. E. Evans, G. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Scott, D. B. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Thomas, A. M. Harradine, B. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Young, H. W. Lajovic, M. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Harold Young) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter Martyr, J. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Mason, C. V. J. Bonner, N. T. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Raae, PeterChipp, D. L. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Siddons, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Thomas, A. M. Jessop, D. S. Townley, M. Lajovic, M. E. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. MacGibbon, D. J. Withers, R. G. Macklin, M. J. Young, H. W. Bolkus, N. Harradine, B. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. McLaren, G. T. Colston, M. A. Mulvihill, J. A. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, G. J. Ray, RobertGeorges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.40 to 8 p.m. The Bill. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(8.0) —Clause 9 deals with the suspension of powers of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal. I want simply to place on the record the view that there can be no doubt that this legislation places an undue burden on pharmacists which they should not be asked to bear. It is quite apparent that clause 9 will have a most detrimental impact on the income which pharmacists might have been expected to obtain following not even future, but, indeed, current inquiries of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal. That Tribunal is currently conducting an inquiry to determine the manner in which the Commonwealth price of any pharmaceutical benefit or all such benefit, is to be ascertained for the purpose of payments to approved pharmacists for the supply by them of those benefits. It is an unfair burden that those pharmacists will now have to share in common with all those dependent on the Commonwealth Government, whether by way of fees or wages, for their income. It is precisely because pharmacists are asked to bear this burden in common, as I have said, with other fee or wage and salary earners dependent on the Commonwealth, that the Australian Labor Party took the view that the Bill as a whole ought to be defeated. Indeed, the Labor Party, in conjunction with Senator Harradine, voted that way. The Liberal Party and the Australian Democrats chose in the end to support the Bill as a whole and, therefore, this provision within it. In other words, had the ALP and Senator Harradine been joined by even one of the Australian Democrats, not to mention one of the dissident Liberal Party or National Party senators, this clause, suspending the powers of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal, would have been defeated. In other words I believe that the Labor Party and Senator Harradine took the principled view that one ought to oppose the Bill as a whole because of the impact that it will have on those persons who are dependent on the Commonwealth for their income. I believe now that the two Houses of Parliament, having approved the Bill in principle at the second reading stage, against the vote of the ALP and Senator Harradine, are entitled to have the Bill carried into law. It would be sheer grandstanding, would show lack of inequity and, indeed would be beyond the ability of this chamber to carry out a piecemeal review of all those matters which chemists would wish to put before the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal. One could well ask: Why should pharmacists be singled out for specially beneficial exemption when railway workers, Telecom Australia employees and all other Commonwealth wage and salary earners have to bear the burden of this Bill, which has now been approved in principle by both chambers to the second reading stage. For that reason the Opposition is not moving a Committee stage amendment in relation to this clause, having, as I said, attempted unsuccessfully to defeat it at the second reading stage. We can provide some sort of mechanism whereby the Governor-General can make regulations to direct the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal to deal with a particular of specified matter and to make that exercise of power effective; that is, to lift the suspension of powers of the Tribunal in relation to some specified matter. Indeed, one finds such a provision in clause 10. Clause 10 (2) provides: . . . the Governor-General may make regulations conferring, during the prescribed period, powers on a specified tribunal or authority, being a tribunal or authority referred to in section 7, 8 or 9, in relation to a specified matter or in relation to matters included in a specified class of matters, being powers that would, but for that section, be exercisable by that tribunal or authority. This, in short, enables the Governor-General to revive the powers of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal. I do not doubt for a moment that the pharmacists of Australia, principally through the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, will make a submission to the Government that the Governor-General should exercise that power to make regulations to revive or empower the Tribunal to make the necessary findings or determinations in relation to the tasks which pharmacists perform, on behalf of the Government and the community, in particular, in relation, obviously, to the dispensing of pharmaceutical benefits . I especially remind honourable senators that only a matter of weeks ago, on 16 November, I brought to the attention of the Senate the fact that the Government, without putting the form in the Commonwealth Gazette, had circulated to doctors declaration forms which are superimposed on the back of prescription forms, requiring the filling in of details by pensioners and those holding health care cards. When one looks at what must be filled in by somebody who, by definition, is probably elderly, somewhat frail, perhaps disadvantaged and who therefore finds forms daunting, when one looks at what faces a pensioner or health care card holder in filling out that form from 1 January onwards, one can appreciate the extent of bureaucratic harassment of that person who, after all, is only seeking a medicine on the pharmaceutical benefits list in order to deal with some illness arising from a traumatic injury, or some minor illness, chronic complaint or ailment. In addition to having the assistance of a chemist being sought to obtain that necessary medicine, the cost of which to that person is being subsidised by the Government, it is quite evident that chemists will have to spend some time away from their primary professional task of assembling and dispensing medicines. They will have to engage in some clerical work on behalf of the Government and the community in order to assist those pensioners and health care card holders in the filling in of those declarations. Honourable senators should not forget that on the form it is stated that there shall be a penalty of $1,000 and/or imprisonment for six months for making any mistake in the filling out of that form. Quite clearly, the chemist will be involved for some minutes on each prescription with the person seeking the pharmaceutical benefit. That adds up to many hours per week. The Government is now saying that, in addition to the loss of professional time involved in helping with that task, there will be no remuneration during the coming 12-month period of the freeze for carrying out that extra duty as from 1 January. I imagine that a very strong case could be made by chemists under clause 10 for the Governor-General empowering the Tribunal to make a special finding or determination in relation to that matter. I give that as an instance but it is only one instance. Clearly, it is beyond the competence of this chamber to look at all those matters in relation to which it ought to be specified that the Tribunal could make an effective finding or determination. I have had many representations from the President of the Pharmacy Guild of Tasmania, Mr Tremaine, from Geoff Noar of Lindisfarne and from Peter Miller of Sorrell, all of whom are reputable chemists and pharmacists in Tasmania and all of whom find the Government's harassment of pensioners and health care card holders bad enough to contemplate. But in the absence of some remuneration for assisting those persons, one only has the Government compounding the felony. The Labor Party and Senator Harradine attempted to frustrate the Government in its imposition of this salaries and wages pause on various sectors of the community, including pharmacists. Had we been supported by any of the Democrats or Liberal Party or National Party senators we would have succeeded in our endeavour. That has not been possible. But I can assure pharmacists in Tasmania- other honourable senators from other States will no doubt be making it well known to pharmacists within their own jurisdictions-that we have by no means given up the battle on their behalf and that we will be seeking, as soon as possible, to encourage the Government to make the necessary exemption under clause 10 of the Bill to allow the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal to make the necessary findings or determinations. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.12) —I wish to speak to the same clause. The Australian Democrats yesterday sent a letter to Mr Macphee who had charge of the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill in the other place. I quote a paragraph from that letter which relates to pharmacists. It states: We have considered their case in detail and quite frankly believe that they have put forward an unanswerable set of reasons for special consideration. This would include the fact that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal has been in session for some time and is close to bringing down a determination, as well as the fact that pharmacists have had their work load increased considerably by the obligation to administer the declarations to be provided by people receiving pharmaceutical benefits. I want to refer to two items in that letter. First, the fact is that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal has been hearing the particular case for quite some time. It would seem that there is no reason for the Tribunal not to have brought down a judgment. Indeed, the pharmaceutical representatives yesterday, I understand, put that fact to the Tribunal. But it became obvious in those discussions before the Tribunal that they would make no headway before this Bill was passed, which I think is unfortunate. Looking at the Bill, I think it would be inappropriate to alter clause 9 (1). The reason for that is that the pharmacists realise that if all professional people were to come under control, as indeed is the intention of the Government, though that intention is not being executed in this legislation, then the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal would have to be included. It is, therefore, appropriate to turn to clause 10 (2) in the Bill under which regulations can be made in relation to special circumstances and specific matters or in relation to matters included in a specific class of matters. This certainly would be one of those areas. I refer now to the statement by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in relation to this wage pause. He stated: . . . it is to address the deteriorating employment situation . . . the central thrust . . . was to put in place the widest and most effective possible pause in wages for the next 12 months throughout the Australian economy, as a means of saving jobs. I emphasise that last point. In announcing this legislation the Acting Prime Minister made the point that it was to save jobs. I read now from a telegram which I received from a constituent in Bundaberg, Queensland, in relation to this particular matter. The telegram states: . . . totally unjust . . . will result immediate retrenchment three of my 28 staff . . . He was referring to pharmacists. That is an extraordinary way to start to save jobs. The reason for that retrenchment is to be found in the intention of the Government to allow a continuation of the community wage round. The reason that that comes into this context is that in some States shope assistants have not had a catch-up from the metal trades flow-on. The intention of the Government presumably is that those shop assistants will be allowed that catch-up. Senator Chipp —With which we do not disagree. Senator MACKLIN —We do not disagree with that. I think it is a perfectly reasonable proposition that such members of the community should be allowed that catch-up, but it means that many pharmacists will be in the unenviable situation of having their remuneration frozen while that of their employees is still to rise. We should take into account that fact and also the fact that the increases that pharmacists have had in the last 12 months have been minimal. Mr Macphee, in response to the letter sent to him by Senator Chipp, alluded to two rises which have occurred in recent times; that is, an increase in the mark-up from 1 December 1982, and the 10 per cent increase on contemporaneously prepared items and 4 per cent on readily prepared items. The actual situation is that the increase in the wholesale price of the first item alluded to was about 1.6 per cent, which is absolutely minimal, and the increase in dispensing fees per prescription was about 2.9 per cent, whereas the Tribunal seems to accept that dispensing expenses in the same period went up by 8 per cent. Part of the submission that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia put before the Tribunal was that part of those increases in dispensing costs flows directly from actions of the Government. In these circumstances, when dealing with a unique situation such as this, fairly obviously the Government in a sense has to say: 'This is it'. But it cannot cut off wages quite that easily for those people who have increases already in the pipeline and who have not received a flow-on of anywhere near the amount others in the community have received. Lastly, I would like to allude to the point that Senator Tate raised, and has raised previously, concerning the new forms that pharmacists will be asked to deal with from pensioner patients. Without doubt the conscientious professionals will find themselves involved in a lot more work. Without doubt the conscientious professional pharmacist already spends a considerable time giving assistance to such people over and above that called for according to the remuneration paid to him. I am not talking of the person who sees his pharmacy as a little like a supermarket; I am talking about the vast bulk of professional pharmacists who see themselves as paramedics involved in counselling people who come into their shops, many of whom are pensioners. This item has already caused an enormous amount of concern among pharmacists and will increase their work load enormously, particularly those pharmacists who have a large number of pensioners amongst their clientele or who get a proportion of their business from nursing homes. Many pharmacists earn their bread and butter from one or two nursing homes. The problems involved with the new forms are immense. I understand that the Minister for Health (Mr Carlton) probably does not have all that much support from his Department in relation to this absurd proposition. Unless the Minister changes his mind on those forms, pharmacists will be disadvantaged even further. That particular item has not even been raised in discussions currently before the Remuneration Tribunal. I hope that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Chaney) might be able to give some indication of the Government's intention in this area in relation to pharmacists. I raise this particular item not because pharmacists comprise the only group involved but because it is a representative group of a number of people who will get caught up in this move of the Government. I believe that sympathetic and reasonable judgment will be required to make sure that these types of anomalies are handled with care. I seek from the Minister some response in relation to the powers that clause 10 (2) of this Bill gives the Government. I would like to know what is on the Government's mind particularly in relation to the judgment-it would be almost immediate if it had been allowed to proceed-from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(8.21) —I raise a matter in respect of clause 7 of the Bill and its reference to section 8 (1) (a) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. By that indirect reference the Bill in question in fact does exempt from the effect of the wages freeze or pause a member of either House of Parliament who is appointed as a parliamentary secretary to a Minister of State. Of course, reference to section 8 (1) (b) shows that such a person has not as yet had his or her allowances and salaries determined. My query is: Why has the Government found it necessary to include under the ambit of the exemption part of this freeze persons appointed as parliamentary secretaries? So far as I know we do not have any such persons appointed at the moment. I wonder what is the purpose and the intention of the Government with respect to this matter. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.23) — The speech we have just heard from the representative of the Australian Democrats, Senator Macklin, is really, might I say, typical of the grandstanding that the Australian Democrats are engaging in on this issue. I would have thought that the speech that has just been made by Senator Macklin would presage an intention by the Australian Democrats to vote against clause 9 of the Bill. Senator Macklin —It does not need to. I explained that, if you were listening. Senator HARRADINE —I was listening very carefully. What the Australian Democrats are doing is giving over the pharmacists' matter to a decision by the Government as to whether or not it will act under the provisions of the Bill in respect of any determination that is made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal. Senator Macklin —Clause 10 (2). Senator HARRADINE —Yes. Frankly, for my part, I do not want to buy a pig in a poke. Maybe it will act; maybe it will not act. I think that the issue was very well stated by Senator Tate. The obvious means to achieve what we want is to vote against clause 9 of the Bill. It is as simple as that. The odd part about all this is that the Tribunal's Chairman, a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, may be engaged in considering applications for variations of Federal awards which may indeed move as a result of catching-up on increases in community wages. I must say that I congratulate the Government for its policy of not opposing-it cannot prevent it; it is contrary to the Constitution-those registered industrial organisations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which may wish to make an application for variation of an award so that they can have the last round of community wage movements applied. I congratulate the Government on that. I can see very clearly, as can a lot of other people, that this measure is to ensure that a new round of wage claims is not started prematurely. As I said at the second reading stage, if that achieves a return to the centralisation of wage fixing it is probably not a bad idea. But as I also said at the second reading stage, unless the Government addresses a wide range of other issues which are pertinent to this problem of unemployment this whole thrust will be doomed to failure. One of the problems is that experienced by the pharmacists. I do not propose to hold the Senate any further other than to refer to what Senator Tate said and the amplification that he made of their case to the Senate. I say only that the opportunity is here for the Australian Democrats to vote against this measure. In so doing, they will put into practice what indeed they have been saying to the chamber today. I will be interested also in what the Minister has to say about clause 10 (2) but, as I say, I am not prepared to buy a pig in a poke. I would be prepared to vote against this clause. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition)(8.27) —I have a query of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Chaney) relating to the provisions of clause 4 of the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill 1982 which states that the Act extends to every external Territory. I notice in the Press reports, yesterday, I think that the Government would be exempting from the provisions of the legislation a number of categories of employees who have, as it were, part heard matters before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which would complete the current round of wage increases. My concern relates to the Christmas Island workers who, I understand, have a part heard matter before the Arbitrator which was to come on today in Melbourne. I would be pleased if the Minister could inform us of the position relating to those matters. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Minister for Social Security)(8.28) —I will respond to the matters raised by Senator Button regarding the Christmas Island workers. As he has correctly pointed out to the Committee, arbitration has already commenced. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Macphee) has asked that it be completed expeditiously. The Arbitrator has said that he would finish the hearing even if he continued into the Saturday and Sunday. In the circumstances of that case it is thought by the Government that there will be a decision before the Bill is proclaimed in which case no problem arises. In any event, if that is not the case, the Government would be sympathetic to an application to exempt that particular case under the regulations. I do not want to go into great detail, but I think that more clearly than in other case there would be a case for exemption if the matter were caught by the legislation. It is not the Government's intention to so catch it. Senator Button —Does it involve essentially ratification of an agreement with employers? Senator CHANEY —I understand so. The rest of the contributions in Committee so far, apart from the quite interesting contribution from Senator Bolkus-not one word of which did I understand, so he might have to repeat it-related to the question of pharmacists. They have in light of their relatively small numbers attracted a very great deal of attention during this debate. What we are talking about here is the application of the same rule to the pharmacists as is being applied to approximately half a million other people. In other words, it is not a case of their being singled out. The pharmacists of course should be treated in the same way as other people who are caught by this legislation. It is perhaps worth noting that we are talking about a particular aspect of the pharmacists' remuneration. On my advice prescriptions under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Benefits Scheme make up approximately 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the total pharmacy turnover if we include all items dealt with. In other words, we are dealing with a segment of the turnover of pharmacy businesses. The matter has been canvassed and has been raised, of course, with the Government in the lead-up to the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill, as was indicated by Senator Macklin on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The matter was raised by Senator Chipp in a letter to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator Jessop on our side of the chamber was one who also raised with the Government the position of the pharmacists. Some reference has been made by Senator Macklin to the response which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations sent to Senator Chipp yesterday. As was mentioned in the Committee debate the pharmacists have received a couple of adjustments to that part of their income which is influenced by the legislation-that is, to their dispensing income-since the bulk of blue collar workers who will also be affected by this legislation have last received an adjustment. It is worth noting, as pointed out by Mr Macphee, that the pharmacists have received two increases in their remuneration in the past year. In comparison with the more lowly paid blue collar workers in, say, the metal industry where the tradesman fitter received a $25 a week increase in December 1981 and a mid-term adjustment of $14 in June 1982, the pharmacists have had the adjustments which have been referred to, namely, an increase in mark-up as from 1 December 1982 and an increase in dispensing fees on 1 July 1982. I do not make those comments wishing to be destructive of the case which has been put forward by the pharmacists but merely to illustrate that it is very important that the Government should try to apply this quite difficult concept of a wage pause in as fair a manner as possible. I simply wish to assure the Committee that the Government will examine the situation of the pharmacists in the same light as it will look at other people who are caught in what might be argued as an anomalous or difficult situation. There has been talk about the completion of the community round. I note that there is general Senate suport for that element of the Government's approach, namely, trying to ensure that those relatively small proportions of the work force that have not yet had the advantage of the 1981 community round should do so notwithstanding the passage of this legislation. As far as the pharmacists are concerned I think I should merely say that the Government has approached the Bill with the policy that the pause in remuneration should be total, covering all those on the Commonwealth payroll and those in receipt of remuneration funded by the Budget except, of course, those on welfare payments who have been exempted from any pause. Our policy towards the pharmacists is consistent with that policy. They have had the two movements to which I have referred since the blue collar workers gained their last adjustment in June. This Bill means that the lowly paid workers and the pharmacists should not receive additional rates of remuneration funded from the Budget after the date of commencement. The pharmacists are, of course, free to take advantage of clause 10 which has been referred to in the Committee debate. They are entitled to bring forward a case for consideration that, for the reasons that they would wish to mount, there is some reason why they should be exempted. I would not wish to say anything which would pre-judge or pre-empt the consideration of that matter. It is a matter which would have to be considered on its merits bearing in mind that the pharmacists should be treated in the same way as other members of the community. I invite Senator Bolkus to repeat his point because I do not find any reference to parliamentary secretaries in the clause to which he refers. I am not clear how the point that he raised does arise. I would appreciate it if he would clarify it. I will endeavour to respond. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(8.36) —I accept the invitation from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Chaney). I refer the Minister to clause 7 (1) of the Bill which states: Except for the purposes of sub-section 8 (1A) . . . the Remuneration Tribunal is not empowered, during the prescribed period, to hold, or to continue to hold, any inquiries or to make any determinations. . . . Sub-section 8 (1A) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act was a sub-section which was inserted in 1980 by the Parliamentary Secretaries Act. It refers to the position of parliamentary secretary to a Minister of State. What I am saying is that, under the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill, the position of the parliamentary secretary to a Minister of State is excluded from the freeze. I ask the Minister : Why has the Government seen fit to exclude parliamentary secretaries? I understand that we do have one or two parliamentary secretaries-the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) is one. My point, therefore, is: Why does the honourable member for Macarthur get this privileged exempt status under the proposed legislation? Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Minister for Social Security)(8.38) —I cannot give an authoritative answer to that question. The only answer which occurs to me is that parliamentary secretaries do not receive remuneration as such. Because of a constitutional problem, they do not receive a salary. I think they are entitled to receive no more than reimbursement. I stress to the Committee, because I have no wish to mislead it, that I speak now from my general recollection of the provisions relating to parliamentary secretaries. It may be that the allowances which can be dealt with are allowances which relate solely to out of pockets and things of that nature because of the constitutional prohibition. I do not wish to avoid the issue. I will try to get my advisers to find a copy of the Remuneration Tribunal Act in order to give the honourable senator a more authoritative reply. I will undertake to follow the matter up further and will give the honourable senator a reply. Unfortunately he will not be able to use it until the Senate resumes in February. There is no intention or wish to exempt parliamentarians generally from the provisions of this legislation. We, including Ministers, stand caught by it, as do others. Senator Macklin —They won't be increased? That is the point. Senator CHANEY —Quite frankly, I do not know the reason for the inclusion of that provision. I will try to find out before the Committee debate ends. But I will certainly undertake to give the honourable senator a written response. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.38) —I wish to refer to section 11 of the Bill. It states: Sub-section 4 (6) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 does not apply in relation to- And it goes on. Sub-section 4 (6) of the Health Insurance Act is one of those sections that manage to get into most Acts which are unreadable the first time around and also unreadable about the fourth time around. But, essentially, the meaning seems to be that the Schedule relates to the set fees that are paid to doctors for their services to people who come under the Act. An example might be a pensioner who receives all his or her medical and doctors fees free as they are paid by the Commonwealth. Clause 11 of the Bill suspends the automatic cut-off at the end of 12 months of the end of that schedule. In other words, as I read it-the Minster for Social Security (Senator Chaney) can correct me if I am wrong-that Schedule will continue at the level that is set unless the Government takes some other action to increase it. That would be the only obvious reason to tamper with that Schedule. If that is the case, I assume that the Government has said to the doctors: 'While your fees may be varied, the remuneration from the Commonwealth will be frozen as a percentage of what the doctor may actually charge over and above that'. Of course, he is entitled to do that. There is no Commonwealth power to stop the person doing that. I assume also that it is the intention of the Government that that schedule be frozen for 12 months. I would like the Minister to comment on that aspect. Certainly, if the Government attempted to change that schedule it would have to gazette a regulation to do so. I am fairly confident that that regulation would not pass the Senate, or certainly the Senate would disallow such an increase at that time. It may very well be that the Government has chosen this method, if I interpret this clause corecctly, in an attempt to put as much pressure as it can on doctors to hold their charges, although of course constitutionally they are able to charge what they will over and above that amount which is funded by the Commonwealth. I would like a response from the Minister as to whether that is the situation as the Government understands it. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Minister for Social Security)(8.42) —I think the answer to that question is contained in the second reading speech, which points out that the remuneration of members of the medical profession is affected-of course, it is not controlled-by the level of approved fees under the Health Insurance Act 1973. In this Salaries and Wages Pause Bill the Government seeks to continue the present regulations during the period of the pause so that the level of fees approved for payment of benefits from registered health insurance funds will be maintained at current levels. Senator Macklin is quite correct-indeed, it is confirmed in the second reading speech-that this action does not stop medical fees from rising. But the Commonwealth will be approaching the professional organisations of the medical profession to seek the co- operation of all members in the application of a pause in medical charges for that year. This is one of the areas in which government actions will effectively influence the behaviour of doctors in these matters. A very substantial number of doctors do charge the schedule fee. On recent figures, on average 79 per cent of doctors charge the schedule fee, so it is quite a significant determinant of the cost of medical services in Australia. That fee is to be held. Doctors will, in turn, be asked-- Senator Chipp —What percentage charge is the fee? Senator CHANEY —Seventy nine per cent, so there is a fair degree of Commonwealth influence. There is not Commonwealth control, as Senator McLaren acknowledged in his comments on the clause. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Chaney) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 15 December, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Proposed Reporting on Operation Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.46) -by leave-I move: That, in respect of each week during which the Senate meets, on the first day on which the Senate meets during that week, the Leader of the Government make a statement informing the Senate on the operation of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982 and the Special Employment-related Programs Act 1982, and in particular on savings effected in the expenditure of the Commonwealth and amounts paid to the States, respectively, under those Acts. I believe this proposition is only fair given the importance which the Government attaches to the measures under the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill and the Special Employment-related Programs Bill. I believe it would be most interesting for the Senate to hear next year what savings the Government has effected as a result of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982 and what disbursements have been made to the States and for what purposes under the Special Employment-related Programs Act 1982. In effect my motion is a measure to ensure that the Government remains honest about these matters. It will give an opportunity not only to the Senate but also, I believe, to the whole of Australia to see, week by week, just precisely what these measures mean. I hope that the Senate will see its way clear to accept this motion. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria-Minister for Finance)(8.49) —I can understand the interest of Senator Harradine in the success of the wage pause and the effect of the savings which are made. I would see some difficulty in making a statement on a weekly basis about the operation of the pause. The undertaking that has been given to the States is that we will release funds to them on a monthly basis for their approved expenditure under the employment related programs. The Government is perfectly happy to provide any information as soon as it is readily available. Perhaps Senator Harradine would be happy with an initial report, say, on the first day that we return. That would give us a period in which to put the whole program into effect. Then on a monthly basis we could give the expenditure under the appropriation legislation which was before the Senate tonight. I think in that way the honourable senator would be able to get the information he is seeking. The honourable senator would like the information provided on a weekly basis. However, from time to time there may be no change in the information from one week to another simply because no payment has been made to the States. I think it would be far more indefinite for an assumption of savings to be made on a weekly basis because savings will result from increases that would have been received had determinations continued to be made throughout the year. So the savings themselves are not readily ascertainable on a weekly basis. In fact, the figure of $300m has been calculated on the basis of expected increases in salaries and wages during the latter part of the year. Therefore, we are happy at any time to make any available information on expenditure readily known to the Senate as we did, for instance, in respect of the welfare housing proposal. It was decided that $100m would be directed towards that program and the Minister concerned would make statements as the information became available. The States have been asked to give us ideas on programs which they would like to see included in this proposal. I think some sort of announcement will be made when the programs have been determined. We have agreed with the States that payments be made to them on a monthly basis. I ask Senator Harradine whether he would be prepared to accept that whatever information is available be provided on a monthly basis or at other times when special information is available. I see no problem in giving the Senate as much information as possible. The PRESIDENT —Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I ask Senator Harradine whether he is willing, in view of the Minister's statement, to seek leave to amend his motion. This could have some bearing on the responses of other honourable senators in this place. I take it that Senator Harradine will not agree to the Minister's suggestion. I call Senator Button. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition)(8.53) —Perhaps I can help. I indicated to Senator Harradine that we would support his motion. However, I quite see the point made by the Minister for Finance (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle). The Opposition would support a Government amendment to Senator Harradine's motion so that once a month or in each three-week period of sitting there would be such a report. Senator Chipp —And the Democrats would join you. Senator BUTTON —I am just offering this as a suggestion because I agree with the spirit of Senator Harradine's proposal. I think it is important that Parliament have a regular report on the implications of the savings which possibly will be made. I appreciate that even after a three-week or a monthly period it might not be possible to give a figure. However, it could be said at the time that a figure could not be given. It seems to me that a figure could be given on a monthly basis in respect of the operation of the special employment-related programs scheme. I do not want to say any more except to point out that if the Minister moves an amendment to that effect we will support it. I understand that Senator Harradine is agreeable . If the Government does not move an amendment we will support Senator Harradine 's original proposition. Senator Harradine's motion is exemplary in that he has adopted for the night the slogan of the Australian Democrats and is concerned to keep honesty in relation to this matter. There is one group, however, in respect of which there is no mechanism at all for keeping honest, and that is members of the Senate. I suggest in the context and spirit of the wage freeze legislation that each honourable senator agree that he or she is quite prepared to declare his or her income as at 31 December 1982 and again as at 31 December 1983 to make sure there has been no cheating-if I can use that expression-by honourable senators in relation to the wages freeze legislation which has been adopted and which applies to us. I have always advocated the principle of full disclosure of incomes of parliamentarians. I think this is an excellent opportunity for legislators who are imposing freezes on blue collar wage earners- Senator Sibraa —People on less than $300 a week. Senator BUTTON —It is less than $300 a week in the Commonwealth railways, Senator Sibraa; it is $240 a week. We should take the opportunity to change, as it were, what is the traditional pattern of this place where by we legislate for everybody except ourselves. It might be a very good idea if we did all declare our incomes as at 31 December and undertook to do so as at 31 December 1983 also to make sure that the same principles apply to us as apply to lowly paid workers in this country. I invite the Minister to respond on behalf of the Government in relation to that suggestion. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria-Minister for Finance)(8.56) —by leave- I seek leave to move an amendment to Senator Harradine's motion. Leave granted. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I think what would meet the spirit of the Senate would be an amendment along these lines. I move: That the motion be amended to read as follows: That, in respect of each 3 week period during which the Senate meets on the first day on which the Senate meets during that period, the Leader of the Government make a statement informing the Senate on the operation of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982 and the Special Employment-related Programs Act 1982, and the expenditure of the Commonwealth and amounts paid to the States, respectively, under those Acts. Senator Button —The amendment is supported. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.57) —The Australian Democrats are pleased to support that amendment. We believe that is a reasonable amendment for the Government to offer. I just note in passing that the Minister for Finance (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) has deleted the words 'in particular on savings', but the Government is prepared to lay down the expenditure. I think this is fair enough. If anyone wants to do certain sums it is up to that person to do his or her figuring from that statement. The Democrats support the proposition. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.58) —I just want to ask a question of the Minister for Finance (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle); I do not want to close the debate. The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator is speaking to the amendment now. Senator HARRADINE —Do I understand that the Minister's amendment really is my motion, with the words 'three-weekly period' inserted in the first line? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria-Minister for Finance)(8.58) —by leave- Yes, with the omission of the words 'with relation to savings'. Senator Harradine —Come on. You are getting away from it now. You don't want to put down what the savings are because you know that they are going to be infinitesimal having regard to the problem of unemployment in Australia. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — But the reference is to savings that arise from not increasing Public Service salaries, details of which will not have been determined. Senator Harradine —You know the parameters of those. You know the date on which the application would have been made. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — We would not have known the dates on a weekly basis, as was asked by the honourable senator, or even on a three-weekly basis. I point out that under this legislation an appropriation of $300m is sought. The Government is appropriating those funds so that they may be drawn upon by the States and the Commonwealth itself for programs that will be related to the wages pause. The Government has already specified an amount of $300m in the Special Employment-related Programs Bill. It is not a case of talking about an indefinite amount. It is a case of having a Bill that allows us expenditure of up to $300m. Savings that are identified on some hypothetical basis would be very difficult for us to determine at any particular time. We have made a fair estimate of what we think the increases in Public Service salaries will be for the period of the pause and appropriated that amount. On that basis I feel that that is a more protected situation than the one that Senator Harradine expects had we only been talking about savings that we could identify by a particular date or in a particular week. The period of the pause will achieve $300m for appropriation, the expenditure of which will be announced on the basis that I have indicated in the amendment. Senator Harradine —Is that from the Public Service alone or from statutory authorities as well? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — This $300m is appropriated to the Commonwealth Budget for our Public Service salaries. That is the amount that we have just appropriated in this Bill. We will give advice of expenditure under the Bill. But as to the savings made, it would be very difficult for us to assume that a tribunal would make a particular determination on a particular date. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(9.2) —I will be very brief. I support my leader, Senator Button, in regard to the final point that he made. People in the community, given their cynicism of politicians, will have great difficulty about this matter. They will say the politicians are on a fairly good wage while theirs will be pegged. There is no doubt that politicians' wages will be pegged but they will say: 'How many politicians have other outside income? How do we know that they are not profiting by the situation and how do we know that their income will not increase over that 12-month period?' I support Senator Button's suggestion that every one of us on 31 December-or probably a couple of months after; we will need time to calculate the figure-state what his or her income was for 1982 and state it against in 19 months time. Thus the public as a whole can regain some confidence in politicians. They will see that people-especially those who are making the law-are not ripping off the system. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(9.3) —I support Senator Robert Ray in his request that all honourable senators state their incomes as from the beginning of the wage pause and again at the end of the wage pause. I think that that is a very reasonable request and it should place no hardship on any honourable senator. Senator Tate —As signed by the Commissioner of Taxation. Senator SIDDONS —Yes, as signed by the Commissioner of Taxation. Senator McLAREN(South Australia)(9.3) —I also join Senator Button, Senator Robert Ray and Senator Siddons in supporting this proposition. As my colleague Senator Robert Ray has said, politicians are not underpaid. If any honourable senator has a double income, if he is in a profession-particularly government senators who have introduced this legislation to freeze public servants' wages- he ought to be the first to agree to the proposition that has been put forward by Senator Button. If honourable senators are not prepared to do that I think that they could well be classed by people outside as absolute frauds in putting this legislation before the Parliament. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(9.4) —I think that it is essential for all politicians to declare their income. After all, we have have frozen wages for public servants. I most certainly am only too willing to declare my income. The PRESIDENT —Order! For the clarification of all honourable senators I will read the amendment that the Minister for Finance, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, has proposed. The amended motion is as follows: That in respect of each three week period during which the Senate meets, that on the first day on which the Senate meets during the period, the Leader of the Government make a statement informing the Senate on the operation of the Salaries and Wages Pause Act 1982 and the Special Employment-Related Programs Act 1982, and the expenditure of the Commonwealth and amounts paid to the States , respectively, under those Acts. Amendment agreed to. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(9.7) —I move: At the end of the motion, as amended, add ', and that all senators declare their gross incomes for the year ending at the commencement of the Acts and at a date 12 months after the commencement of the Acts'. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.8) —I make an appeal to the good sense of the Senate. This is one of the most absurd procedures that I have seen in my years in Parliament. I am not saying the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Button) is absurd; I support the thrust of that. But on the run, at ten past nine on the last day of sitting, we have a bright young senator getting a sudden burst of inspiration and trying to tack on to another motion, the relevance of which is a little obscure to me, the amendment, as I remember it, that each senator should declare his or her gross income for the year. As a person who has some training in this area, I have found that even the definition of gross income leads one to difficulty unless it is spelt out extremely carefully. Senator Jones —Get the Commissioner of Taxation to tell you. Senator CHIPP —I would accept that sort of qualification but that is not in the motion. I strongly appeal to the good sense of the Senate, having said that a reasonable proposition thought out carefully along these lines would have my total support and I am sure the support of my party. But I will not be so irresponsible as to catch something on the run. What about a member of parliament who receives only his or her parliamentary income and has a spouse who is earning hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assessable income a year? Under this proposition that income would not need to be declared. Alternatively, a person could enter into a family trust and obscure or hide their income. I should have thought that when a good idea, like the one proposed by Senator Button, is put forward, the Senate should not deteriorate to a stage at which we take something on the run and cause all sorts of complications and, perhaps, injustices at a later point. I do not know what machinery is available. If the Australian Labor Party wants to suspend the Standing Orders later in the evening to move a separate motion after it has thought out this matter and conferred with other parties and, perchance, obtained the agreement of the Government, surely that is the sensible course of action. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-It is always helpful to a young apprentice in this chamber to receive the advice of honourable senators such as Senator Chipp who has had long parliamentary experience. I thank him for his endorsement of the principle put forward by Senator Button and me and supported by Senator Siddons, Senator Robert Ray, Senator Elstob and, I believe, by Senator Harradine . Senator Chipp —And Senator McLaren. Senator TATE —And Senator McLaren. In other words, there was an endorsement of the principle at the second reading stage. I take on board the fact that perhaps the amendment is not drafted as elegantly as it might be or as comprehensively as it ought to be. Therefore, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment which I forwarded to the table. I foreshadow that on our resumption next year I will introduce the more precise wording to carry that principle into effect. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT —The Senate will now return to dealing with the original amended motion. I call Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.13) —I ask that the Government gives its estimate of savings in those three-weekly periods if at all possible. I would be very interested to know what those estimated savings would be during a three-week period, particularly in regard not only to the Public Service proper but also to statutory authorities. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick: That the Bills be now read a second time. The PRESIDENT —I call Senator Button. Senator Lewis-Have you any more bright ideas? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition)(9.14) —To the relief of Government senators, particularly Senator Lewis who went white at the suggestion about disclosing his income-he is very keen on inflicting wage freezes on other people but not himself- I will talk about the Australian Broadcasting Commission for a few minutes. Senator Walters —With emphasis on the 'few'. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters should not tempt me; I might go on. I want to make a few comments about the ABC. First, at the start of 1981 the Government appointed the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That Committee made very extensive inquiries, which took a long time, and it is now 19 months since it reported. In that time the Government has been very slow in responding to that report. It has now responded in the form of legislation passed through the House of Representatives six weeks ago. It is a source of great regret to the Opposition that the Government is not prepared to complete this legislation tonight. It is not prepared to do so because the legislation included an absurd provision regarding a complaints procedure for the ABC, and a number of other provisions which were unsatisfactorily drafted and conceptually unsound. We find the Government in an extraordinary mess. In October the Government distributed a list of Bills which had to be passed before the end of this session. In the last couple of hours of the sitting-if Senator Walters provokes me again, I may make it three hours-the Government indicates that it is not prepared to complete this legislation tonight. That just shows the method by which this Government works in relation to matters of great importance. The ABC is an institution of great importance to this country. I think it would have been the hope of many people in the community and many menbers of this parliament that the ABC could have commenced a new year, and a new era, in 1983 on the basis of legislation passed by this Parliament. It is the Government's fault that that has not happened. It is a very sad thing for the Senate and the Parliament generally, and it is to the discredit of the Parliament generally that that has not happened. This Bill gives effect to many of the recommendations of the Dix Committee. It contains a few others of less reputable lineage picked up along the way. An outstanding example of that is the proposal for a commissioner for complaints. As anyone with any sort of length of memory will recall, a commissioner for complaints in respect of the ABC becomes a very sensitive issue, because in 1975 Mr Nixon, the present National Party Minister for Primary Industry-subsequently of Asia Dairy Industries and Murray-Goulburn fame-called for the appointment of a moderator, as he called it, or a monitor, for the ABC to vet its political partiality. He referred to the ABC as an organisation which needed unprecedented watchfulness by the National Country Party and the Liberal Party. He said that that had been brought about by the ABC's well-established bias towards the Labor and socialist sides of politics. It was an extraordinary statement for an Opposition spokesman, as he then was, to make. It makes the whole question of a complaints procedure for the ABC a very sensitive issue. There are other changes which the Government has made in response to the Dix Committee recommendations which are largely irrelevant. For example, the change of name from Australian Broadcasting Commission to Australian Broadcasting Corporation seems to illustrate nothing more than a philosophical penchant for the second word rather than the first. But perhaps the most important change on which the Opposition congratulates the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) and the Government is the change envisaged in spelling out a so-called charter for the ABC, which is done in clause 6. In particular, clause 6 (2) (iii ) spells out, for the first time, the responsibility of the ABC to provide a balance between programs of wide appeal and specialised radio and television programs, that is, programs catering for particular minority audiences. For a long time the ABC has been bedevilled by uncertainty, both within the Commission itself and outside, as to its proper role as a national broadcaster. The argument has been pitched in terms of whether it is to be a so-called quality broadcaster setting a standard and catering for minority audiences and largely disregarding any audience consequences in terms of ratings, or whatever, or whether it competes with commercial television and radio. The result has been something of a superior, sometimes unworldly and detached attitude, by some broadcasters within the ABC and frustration on the part of others. There has never been an abiding consensus of what the ABC's role is. We as a party have long maintained that the dichotomy between the ABC's specialist role as a broadcaster and its role in broadcasting to mass audiences has been a false dichotomy. The true role of the national broadcasting organisation must be to be truly comprehensive. It is about serving specialised interests at a high standard and it is about competing for audiences in mass entertainment of quality. The real question for the Australian Broadcasting Commission is how to present quality programs with good production values in a contemporary, attractive and entertaining way. Furthermore, the generally low audience acceptance, with important exceptions, has been a chronic cause of low morale, a lack of confidence within the ABC, a lack of a sense of mission and a lack of a sense of identity. If, as a result of following the precept now laid out in the Act, the ABC gains large audiences it will have a resounding effect on its morale with good repercussions throughout the organisation. I think it is also worth noting that healthy competition from a public broadcasting organisation such as the ABC frankly aiming at mass appeal broadcasting is probably the best form of regulation for the commercial sector that we could devise. A recent history of broadcasting shows a number of instances in which the ABC has pioneered successful programs which have had a very beneficial effect on the development of commercial broadcasting. I refer to areas such as current affairs and Australian drama programs which would never have appeared on, for example, commercial television, if it had not been for the pioneering efforts of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Therefore, we commend this part of the Act wholeheartedly and congratulate the Government on grapsing that nettle. The Opposition is also pleased to see that the proposal for corporate underwriting now appears to have died as a notion which is in any sense acceptable to a national broadcasting organisation such as the ABC. This is a good thing for all sorts of reasons to do with its possible effects on ABC programs. However, there is a point at which the Bill seems to leave a loophole. We will be trying to redress that loophole in an amendment to the legislation in the Committee stage. However, I would also like to raise one suggestion which has emanated from the Australian Labor Party on a number of occasions. We have made it before and, in a sense, it has a commercial element about it. I refer to the proposal that the Australian Broadcasting Commission or, more likely, a subsidiary of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, set up for the purpose should be given a radiated subscription television channel if that service is to be introduced in Australia. More than once I have heard Ministers of this Government reflect on the difficulty of funding national broadcasting adequately. Certainly the budgetary history of the ABC under this Government bears that out. On the other hand, commercial television over recent years has been fairly prosperous and does not need assistance other than the assistance it gets through the principle of channels being limited by government action to what the market can stand. We support that policy. In other words, commercial channels are given a structural situation in which they can make a good profit. I believe that this is proper and wise. On the other hand, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is always short of money. It has been shorter of money since the last Labor Government in a sense abolished licence fees-a decision which I personally regret. The ABC has been short of money as a result of funding cuts by the present Government, which since 1976 represent a 22 per cent decline in funding to the ABC. There are, of course, some problems with radiated subscription television services. For example, I am not happy with the effect that system could have in syphoning off good programs such as major sporting events from other channels. But this criticism applies with most strength to a commercial RSTV system, where there would not necessarily be any countervailing good effects, such as money going into other forms of new programing. Syphoning off could create a discriminatory situation in which those who could afford it would get the good programs-films, et cetera-but those out of reach for economic reasons would not be able to afford RSTV services. However, with the ABC, it would be quite possible to set up a situation where the Corporation makes money from a subscription service on a second channel, and ploughs the profits back into the Australian productions to be shown on either channel of the ABC. The ABC also has the added advantage of its network throughout Australia, something which no commercial channel has to the same extent. That is a cost-saving and economic factor in considering the desirability of a subscription service for the ABC. I would urge the Government to consider this proposal strongly during the period in which the Parliament will be in recess. Perhaps it could also give rein to its free enterprise predelictions, and create an ABC subsidiary, possibly with access to the loan market, and charged with making a profit to run an RSTV service. I frankly have some doubts about the entrepreneurial capacity of the present ABC bureaucracy to deal with this question, but a subsidiary may be able to do it, if there is some incentive built in for those who would run the subsidiary. I am supported in my view about the need for a second channel for the ABC by some recent remarks of the chairperson of the ABC, Professor Leonie Kramer. She has pointed out, quite rightly in my view, that a second channel would give the ABC far more flexibility with programming and provide an alternative outlet for quality programs. With a second channel the ABC would be able to do programs about regions and programs made in the regions. We could have a situation somewhat like that in Britain with British Broadcasting Corporation 1 and 2, where one offers light popular entertainment, and the other offers more serious programs. The subsidiary idea, perhaps depending on loan capital and the subscription service, could go a long way towards meeting the costs. I commend that idea to the Government as something which is worth exploring. In that situation advertising would of course, as usual, be reserved for the commercials, but this would give a new source of money, free of the dangers of sponsorship, to the ABC and that is something which I again commend to the Government. I turn briefly to the proposal for a commissioner for complaints, contained in the legislation. Under the Government's Bill this is to be a high profile, fully blown organisation riding over the ABC, with special terms of reference. ' Draconian' and 'outrageous' are some of the terms that have been rightly applied to this proposal in the Government's legislation. The proposal did not come from the Dix Committee of inquiry, which proposed a community affairs officer of the ABC to be in touch with the public over complaints. It is curious to reflect upon the fact that the Dix Committee, after months of public hearings and mountains of evidence, did not see fit to recommend anything like the complaints procedure laid down in the Government's legislation, which passed the House of Representatives. It is far wider than anything which applies under the Broadcasting and Television Act to the commercial or public sectors of broadcasting. It would compromise investigative journalism and hamper the ABC in the proper performance of its duties. It usurps the rightful functions of the Commission, in having power to investigate complaints as to unfairness, bias or offensiveness. These judgmental matters on programing are matters for which the Commission itself is properly responsible, and should remain so. It is responsible under the legislation. I can do no better than quote the Chairman of the BBC, Mr George Howard, who said: The whole package of legislation is so bad, and so discriminatory that if I were a member of the ABC I would say 'Let's down tools and walk off in protest'. These are strong words from the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation about a piece of Australian legislation. He went on to say that if such legislation were to be introduced in Britain: 'I could not speak for the consequences'. The Opposition has very strong objections to the proposed complaints procedure and will be moving amendments to see that those procedures are deleted. If they are not deleted or amended in a satisfactory way they will be removed by the Senate. We will also be moving amendments to give the Parliament an advise and consent role in the selection of ABC commissioners. We believe that it is absolutely crucial that the ABC be taken out of politics, especially when one looks at its history in the mid-1970s. We see much merit in a system whereby appointments continue to be made formally by the Governor-in-Council-that is, by the government of the day-but only after nominations have been referred to a joint all-party committee for recommendation. It is important that the ABC be like Caesar's wife and above suspicion in terms of the appointments that are made to it. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has a long and sad history of being seen as some sort of latter day antipodean House of Lords on the board of which retired party hacks and supporters are rewarded by being appointed-a disastrous approach to a national broadcasting organisation. Those matters, of course, can be dealt with in the Committee stage of the legislation. I reiterate that the Opposition has a number of amendments to move. We very much regret that this legislation will not pass through the Senate tonight so that the ABC can start a new year in 1983 with a new approach to its role as laid down in the proposed charter and so that the Government will have the capacity to appoint very early, under procedures which I have suggested, a new board for the proposed Corporation. The ABC would then have been able to begin 1983 in an entirely new spirit of endeavour which the organisation has lacked for some period. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales-Minister for Education)(9.32) —I move: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator PETER BAUME —In answer to a point raised by Senator Button, since the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill came from the House of Representatives a number of things have happened. For example, there has been an amendment to the Public Service Act since the Bill left the House of Representatives. As a result, some amendments are necessary. Amendments are proposed by the Government to clause 42 on the promotion appeals procedures. That, for example, has become necessary. I know that the Government and the Opposition-Senator Button has said so-the Australian Democrats and, I believe, the independent senator will all be moving amendments to this legislation. It seems inevitable that it will be amended. The only point I make is that once it is amended in this place it cannot become law this year; it has to go back to the House of Representatives. It cannot become law until next year. There is no detriment to the ABC in following the procedure which is proposed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —by leave-I wish to support the comments made by Senator Button that it is a disgrace that this vitally important piece of legislation was not granted full debate during this session. Considerable discussion has taken place between the Government, the Australian Democrats, the Australian Labor Party and the independent senator. I am sure that there is a great measure of agreement on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill. As far as I can ascertain all parties are in agreement with the general thrust of the legislation. Certainly, some amendments are proposed. Some of the amendments that the Government proposes, as I understand it, have been viewed by the Democrats. We will support at least the proposed amendments that have come to our attention. Many of the Bills that pass through this place are relatively trivial or have importance only to a very small group of people. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill is a notable exception. It will have an impact on many, if not all, Australians. It sets the course for the ABC for perhaps the next 50 years. The ABC recently celebrated its fiftieth birthday. In those 50 years it has become a national institution. Many see it as the only guarantee of media freedom that is left; one of the remarkably few bulwarks against private monopoly of media ownership in this country. I say that advisedly. The ABC has an affectionate place in the hearts of most Australians. It is looked on as an objective medium through which people can see and hear the truth behind the news . It is, to me, a great pity-I do not want to pursue my comments in this area- that this vitally important piece of legislation, the most important piece of legislation which this chamber could have debated in many years and which, without any doubt, could have passed through this chamber during this session, has been delayed by the Government's actions. It seems that we will have to wait now until the new year, which is a great pity. Nobody knows what the new year has in store for us. Nobody knows whether we will have an election early or late in the year. A great opportunity has been lost, for which I criticise the Government. Motion for Disallowance (Quorum formed). Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition)(9.39) —I move: That the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Regulations ( Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1982, No. 302 and made under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979, be disallowed. This motion seeks to disallow a regulation made under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. The regulation sets out prescribed reasons why employees in the Public Service may be subject to the redeployment and retirement provisions of that Act. It would perhaps be helpful if I recounted some of the background to this regulation so that the issues are better understood. Firstly, the so-called CE(RR) Act was debated and passed into law during May-June 1979. It occasioned a good deal of debate. Basically the Act established procedures for voluntary early retirement from age 55, maximum age retirement at 65, compulsory redeployment and, if necessary, retirement of sick and surplus staff. Some of the provisions in the CE(RR) legislation were welcomed by the Opposition, in particular the early retirement provisions. However, some other provisions were not so uncontroversial. In particular, the issue of management initiated early retirement remained a point of opposition for the Australian Labor Party. The CE(RR) Act provides for redeployment and, in some cases, ultimate retirement from the Public Service at any age for any employee who comes within the provisions of the Act. Section 7 (1) (b) sets out three reasons why this process may take place; firstly, excess staff situations; secondly, invalidity of staff; and, thirdly, any other reason. There is no dispute with the first two grounds. They are sensible enough and adequate and satisfactory procedures have been developed in consultation with the relevant unions to ensure their practical efficacy. The third ground, however, that of any other reason, is very wide. The Opposition expressed doubts in 1979 as to the appropriateness of giving the Executive such wide powers over the dismissal of public servants, over how they would be sacked or redeployed and why. The wide language of section 7 (1) (b) (iii) of the CE(RR) Act allowed little parliamentary scrutiny of actions that could be taken under that provision. It is true that section 7 (2) of the Act provides that regulations prescribing reasons for the purposes of paragraph 7 (1) (b) shall not be made except after consideration by the Government of a report from the Public Service Board, made in consultation with the appropriate employee groups. That report has, of course , been made and despite opposition from the employee groups to the making of a regulation for the purpose of section 7 (1) (b) (iii) the regulation has been tabled. I understand that progress was made on the wording of the regulation. However, the Public Service groups involved remained opposed to the making of the regulation. The Opposition also feels that the regulation is inappropriate and seeks by this motion to have it disallowed. The regulation sets out two matters as prescribed reasons for the purposes of section 7 (1) (b) (iii) of the Act: First, that the employee is inefficient, and , secondly, that the employee is not qualified to perform his or her duties. I wish to concentrate on the first matter as it is there that the opposition to the regulation lies. The regulation purports to set up a standard of efficiency that has not previously been operative in the context of the Public Service. The Opposition is not against efficiency but the regulation introduces a concept of unrestricted relative inefficiency. The existing practices can be understood to proceed on the following basis. Employees are required to maintain a reasonable level of efficiency in the performance of their duties. Such a test involves a comparison of relative efficiency between employees but the normal expectations that exist between employers and employees mean that, provided that the least efficient employees maintain a standard of work that is judged by their employers as reasonable, they will be protected. This is not a case of perpetuating inefficiencies. It simply means that normal work practices are maintained and that employees, if they continue to satisfy their employers as to their work performance, can keep their jobs. This regulation will change this practice. The effect of the regulation will be to remove the safety net of normal work practices. The least efficient employees would be removed from the Service until the best persons offering from the outside labour market were found to be only equal to the least efficient employees, regardless of their age. This appears to the Opposition to be a strict and impersonal view of the way that the employer-employee relationship should be handled. It also appears that the regulation would add to the degree of job insecurity faced by particular classes of employees in the Service. Those classes could perhaps be summarised into two areas: First, those with restricted degrees of skill and experience, and, secondly, those who require average or above average degrees of physical strength. This result will flow because these classes of employees are more readily identifiable and available in the outside labour market than are other classes. Assessments as to relative inefficiencies would inevitably be made more readily in these two classes of employees. It could also be questioned whether this regulation is really needed. The Public Service Act already contains provisions to deal with excess staff situations and wilful inefficiency. I refer to sections 20 and 67 of the Public Service Act. Also, as I have already mentioned, sections 7 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) provide for the CE(RR) Act to operate in excess staff and invalidity situations. In the view of the Opposition, it is not appropriate, in times of high unemployment, to be threatening the jobs of people who could find it difficult to secure alternative employment. Accordingly, I have moved for the disallowance of this regulation. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(9.45) —The Australian Democrats support the disallowance of this regulation, promulgated under the Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Act. The Democrats have the gravest reservations about management-initiated redevelopment and retirement in the Australian Public Service. Given that we cannot amend a regulation into a form which we would approve, we have no choice but to disallow the regulation. As I said earlier today, politicians must be aware not only of the means and the ends but also the consequences, of their actions. They must be prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions even if these cannot be reasonably foreseen. This regulation is superficially attractive but it could be used to redeploy compulsorily and, in practice, retrench or retire, individuals essentially through no fault of their own. In other words, it can be very discriminatory. Individuals whom the management of a department did not like could be got at on a highly selective and undesirable basis. I note that my colleague Senator Mason spoke against the relevant section of this Act when it came before this place in 1979. We maintain our opposition to it. I will not delay the Senate any longer. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales-Minister for National Development and Energy)(9.47) —The Government will oppose the disallowance. First of all, I want to make perfectly clear the consequences of disallowance. It is very important that this be understood. The disallowance of these regulations will have the effect of leaving no legislative basis on which the Public Service Board can act in relation to inefficient and incompetent officers. Those honourable senators who tonight vote for disallowance will take away from the Public Sevice Board any power to act in relation to inefficient or incompetent officers. That power and responsibility exists in all other places of employment. What Senator Button has said shows a misunderstanding or, at the very least, a very serious exaggeration, of this situation. The protections within these regulations for officers of the Public Service are very stringent. Safeguards for the protection of officers and the preservation of standards are all there. Grounds for appeal are there. The first thing for me to do is to state the fundamental facts. They are that the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act provides, first of all, for the identification by a permanent head of officers who are excess to requirements, who are physically or mentally incapacitated or for other prescribed reasons. Does anyone suggest that it is not proper for a permanent head to identify officers in those categories? That is done in every business in the land. Secondly, it provides for the redeployment of officers so identified to positions which they are competent to perform-that happens in ordinary enterprise-and for the issue of a certificate by the Public Service Board in cases where it is not practicable to redeploy the officers. If that certificate is issued, there is an appeal, and the appeal is not upheld, retirement follows. The procedures are such, I stress, that at every point the officer is protected. Officers involved in these processes have the right to appeal against each of these decisions at each of these steps. That is a vastly different thing from what was said by the Leader of the Opposition. Appeals are considered by the Commonwealth Employees Redeployment and Retirement Appeals Tribunal which can, in effect, halt the action at any of the three steps I have mentioned. The purpose of the regulations which are the subject of the motion is to prescribe the reasons for identifying an officer as being inefficient or as being not qualified for the position which he occupies. The regulations also elaborate on the meaning of 'inefficient' and 'not qualified'. In every industry in the land and in every employment circumstance in the land, provision is made for identifying officers who are incompetent or inefficient. Of course, that includes a person who is physically, mentally or medically incompetent. Why would anyone stand up in this place and seek to disallow regulations which are available elsewhere in these situations? If that identification has been made and if the officer feels aggrieved, at that point he can challenge it on any of the grounds-physical or mental incapacity, excess of requirement or for other prescribed reasons. If no appeal is lodged or if an appeal is not upheld then redeployment can take place. Redeployment takes place everywhere else in the land. Inside the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which we discussed earlier, redeployment can take place. If, indeed, the officer feels that the identification of that position is adverse, an appeal can be made again. The third situation relates to the issue of a certificate by the Public Service Board in cases where it is not possible to redeploy. Under no circumstances can these regulations or the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act be considered to be draconian, to be different from the ordinary procedures of the community at large. On the contrary, clearly, every employer, public or private, must have the right to identify persons excess to requirements; must have the right to determine whether people are incompetent or inefficient on physical, mental or other grounds; and must have the right to redeploy staff. If there is no way in which redeployment, perhaps for medical, mental or physical conditions, cannot be done then ultimately there must be the right to retire. I repeat that at every level there is a right of appeal. There is far more protection than that offered in private enterprise. All stages are publicly known. The rights of individuals are known. I repeat: An act of disallowance tonight would be deliberately and knowingly-every honourable senator who votes for the disallowance will do this-remove from the Public Service Board and the Commonwealth any power at all. That is the advice I have received from the Public Service Board and from its objective and expert officers. The Public Service Board would have no ability to act with regard to incompetent or inefficient officers. That in itself would be a remarkably bad situation. I cannot understand how anybody could proceed that way. If the Opposition parties believe that there is something wrong with the regulations then they can put to the Government arguments to have them amended. Instead of seeking to amend some particular aspect, in one sweep the Opposition tonight is trying to destroy the regulations totally. What an extraordinary situation it is that the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats do not come forward with any particularity of argument about any particular part of the regulations. They have not made any plea to the Government. They have not asked it to consider a particular problem and to consider amending a particular aspect of the regulations. The Government has the power to amend the regulation, to withdraw it, or to issue a new regulation if it so desires. Senator Harradine —We can't amend it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Of course Senator Harradine cannot amend it. Honourable senators opposite should keep in mind that the proper thing for them to do is to make suggestions to the Government and let the Government consider them. I indicate to honourable senators before this vote is taken that if they are willing to put, either in writing or verbally to me or to any other Minister , suggestions as to what the defects are, in other words, particularities, rather than wipe out the whole regulation so that there are no powers at all, I will undertake to have the Government consider them in depth and I will undertake to report back to the Senate so we can have a debate. I appeal to the Senate not to throw the baby out with the bath water. That would be very unreasonable. Let honourable senators express individually what they want. The Government will take their suggestions seriously. I will take them to the Government and have them discussed. I ask honourable senators to reassess the situation and to give us a reasonable chance over the recess to consider their suggestions. They will be given very detailed consideration, I promise that. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I heard the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Sir John Carrick) with interest. He was persuasive. I ask him whether, if we adjourn this debate this evening and avail ourselves of his offer in the interim, it will keep the regulation alive but not kill it. Can honourable senators have an understanding in that case that on the first or second day of the sitting in February this matter can be resumed and debated? Would there be no harm done? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-There would be no harm done at all. I understand that there are something like 13 more sitting days to run. If that is right, clearly we have the time. I say with full amity that I will undertake to bring on this debate when the Senate resumes at the earliest date that is suitable to the leaders and to the Independent in this place. In the meantime, I invite all honourable senators to submit, through me, suggestions as to the appropriate nature of the regulations. I will have them considered. If I get them early enough I will be able to make a report at the intervention of the debate. I undertake to do this. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —by leave-This seems to me to be a fairly acceptable arrangement. I pointed out during my remarks that the Australian Democrats did not have the opportunity to amend this regulation. We are concerned about the concept of accountability in the Public Service. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir John Carrick) stressed that point in the remarks he just made. It seems to me that having some time to consider this matter and to arrive at a solution which would take into account some of the comments of the Minister would be a good solution. Debate (on motion by Senator Chipp) adjourned. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia) —by leave-During the Committee stages of the Salaries and Wages Pause Bill 1982 I asked for some information in respect of clause 7 of that Bill. Senator Chaney has provided that information. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate this information in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- To: Senator the Hon. F. M. Chaney Minister for Social Security Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations Re: The matter raised by Senator Bolkus during Committee stage of the Salary and Wages Pause Bill 1982 I have discussed this matter with the Acting First Parliamentary Counsel, Mr G. Harders, who indicated to me that the exclusion of 8 (1A) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act from the provisions of Clause 7 of the bill was because it is a new office for which a determination has not been made. A Parliamentary Secretary under 8 (1A) could be paid an allowance and if not excluded the determination of such on allowance would be prevented during the prescribed period provided for in the bill. The Acting-First Parliamentary Counsel emphasised to me that this exclusion was included to cope with any eventuality. There was no consideration of whether it was or was not likely that the Government would want to have such an allowance determined over the next 12 months. In respect of the other persons covered by the bill, there is no prohibition on determination of a level of remuneration when a new office is created. The effect of the provision raised by Senator Bolkus is to treat the Parliamentary Secretary consistently with any other office created during the prescribed period. J. BRASSILFirst Assistant SecretaryIndustrial Relations (Commonwealth Employment )Department of Employment and Industrial Relations16 December 1982 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a brief statement and a table on welfare housing expenditure in October. If I may briefly explain to the Senate, in October I twice incorporated a table in Hansard. Earlier this week I incorporated an update. My Department has now given me a further update which includes the most recent figures. I seek leave to incorporate this two-page document in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Explanatory Statement On 13 October 1982 in the context of the debate on the second reading of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1982 and again on 20 October 1982, during a discussion of a matter of public importance relating to the Government' s Housing Policy, I sought leave to incorporate a table in Hansard which detailed funds into welfare housing over the period 1973-74 to 1982-83. I indicated at the time that the figures were not final because the States were in the process of seeking the consent of the Commonwealth to their nomination of funds for welfare housing from the general works and housing program. A footnote to the table also indicated that, for one State, an amount of funds provided outside the CSHA had not been included as details were not available. Since then, and in the context of finalising nominations by the States and the Northern Territory, my Department has been able to prepare a revised table. The major changes to the table originally incorporated in Hansard are an increase in actual funds for 1981-82 from $653.7 million to $680.7 million and an increase in funds for 1982-83 from $903 million to $1028.9 million. The increase in 1982- 83 includes $50 million as half of the new $100 million allocation for construction of welfare housing for employment purposes announced on 13 December . As noted in footnote (f) these figures do not include funds available under the separate mortgage and rent relief and crisis accommodation programs. I want to ensure that the Senate has the most up to date figures. Accordingly I seek to incorporate the revised table in Hansard. FUNDS FOR WELFARE HOUSING (a) State and Commonwealth internal Total funds funds funds 1982-83 1982-83 1982-83 Actual prices (b) Actual prices (b) Actual prices (b) $m $m $m $m $m $m 3-74 223.7 608.2 (c) 82.7 224.8 306.4 833.0 4-75 391.4 887.9 (c) 82.0 186.0 473.4 1073.9 5-76 377.7 737.3 (c) 79.8 155.8 457.5 893.0 6-77 385.8 674.6 (c) 131.9 230.6 517.7 905.3 7-78 400.0 638.8 (c) 161.5 257.9 561.5 896.7 8-79 330.0 489.2 305.9 453.4 635.9 942.6 9-80 274.0 368.0 397.7 534.1 671.7 902.1 0-81 286.5 349.5 443.0 540.4 729.5 889.8 1-82 262.2 291.0 418.5 464.5 (f) 680.7 755.5 2-83 (d) 382.9 382.9 (e) 646.0 646.0 (f) 1028.9 1028.9 (a) Includes Northern Territory after 1978-79. Excludes Australian Capital Territory. (b) Implicit Gross National Expenditure (GNE) deflator. The 1982-83 estimate is based on the Budget forecast of 11 per cent increase in the non-farm product deflator. (c) Based on informal estimates provided in 1978 by State Housing Authorities. (d) Includes $50 million out of the $100 million new allocation for construction of welfare housing for employment purposes, announced on 13 December 1982 for the 1983 calendar year. (e) Estimate based on preliminary information provided by States and N.T. in support of requests for additional funds nominated for welfare housing in 1982- 83 out of their works and Housing programs. Includes $137.4 million so nominated by States. (f) In addition to the welfare housing funds included in this table, a further $39.4 million is available in 1982-83 for mortage and rent relief and a further $3.8 million ($1.9 million in 1981-82) for crisis accommodation. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales-Minister for Education) —by leave-The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations presented its report on the first and second annual reports of the Special Broadcasting Service-SBS-on 27 May 1982. This statement responds on behalf of the Government to that report. The Committee criticised the performance of the SBS in the following matters: the incorporation of two periods in the first report of the SBS, that is, 1 January to 30 June 1978 and 1 July 1978 to 30 June 1979; the delay of some nine months in presenting the report incorporating these two periods; and the delay of some 10 months in tabling the 1979-80-the second-annual report of the SBS. The SBS responded to the Committee that these delays were occasioned largely by administrative difficulties resulting from the newness of the SBS and the lack of experienced staff in financial and other areas. The second annual report was further delayed by problems which arose when the material was sent for printing. Honourable senators are referred to the Standing Committee report for details of the SBS response. Honourable senators will agree that the SBS has been very successful in the first years of its operations, notably in the establishment at very short notice of multicultural television in Sydney and Melbourne. It is inevitable that, in these circumstances, organisations will be subjected to considerable stress and pressure. Nevertheless, the Government agrees with the Standing Committee's view that the SBS was remiss in not having due regard to its statutory obligations to report to the Parliament as soon as possible after the end of the financial year. The Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) has taken steps to ensure that delays in the tabling of SBS annual reports do not recur and that the SBS is fully aware of its statutory obligations. The Minister wrote to the Chairman of the SBS asking that the 1981-82 report be available as soon as possible and instructed his Department to follow through with this request. As honourable senators will be aware, I tabled the SBS annual report for 1981-82 earlier today . Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I am sure, speaking as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations but without having had an opportunity to consider the statement, that the Committee will be glad that the Government agrees that the Special Broadcasting Service was remiss in not having regard to its statutory obligations. I am glad that steps are being taken to rectify the matter. But there was a broader matter which was not referred to and to which I would ask for some future Government response. On page 63 of the sixth report of the Committee, in dealing with this matter, a broader question was raised. The Committee said in paragraph 7.5.2: This Committee has previously noted that authorities are too often conceived and born in haste by government and given obligations that often cause varying degrees of difficulty in settling a form of accounts and preparing a first annual report for timely presentation. We have noted in detail in our Third Report on statutory authorities that little care or foresight is taken to consider accounting and administrative problems which may arise in the case of a significant number of new statutory authorities. The problems incurred by the SBS with relation to its accounts were an example of this situation. There is a need for guidelines and briefing to authorities on their procedures, duties and obligations. I repeat the last two lines of the paragraph, which state: There is a need for guidelines and briefing to authorities on their procedures, duties and obligations. I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Peter Baume) whether he will ask the Government to respond to that particular part as well as the general part. I am sure the response will be welcomed by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I thank the Government for the response. Motion (by Senator Sir John Carrick)-by leave-proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate at its rising adjourn till Tuesday, 22 February 1983 at 1.45 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable due to illness or other cause, by the Deputy President, and that the day and/or hour of the meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator. Amendment (by Senator Button) agreed to: At the end of motion add ', provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Opposition shall be deemed to be a request by every Senator of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator. Provided further, that the request or request a may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairman of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution'. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Motion (by Senator Sir John Carrick)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —At this point each year immediately prior to Christmas it is one of our pleasant duties to pay some tributes and to express with full sincerity to those around us our thanks for the year that has passed and our good wishes for the Christmas season and for health and happiness for all the year ahead, and I so do. In doing so I would like first to start with you, Mr President. Senator Chipp —Don't forget the chef this year. You forgot the chef last year. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I will be grateful if honourable senators will help me in this matter. Senator Button and I will be speaking, as will other honourable senators, in a unanimous way. Mr President, you have brought to your very high office a dignity, impartiality and an equable temperament which has given character to this Senate. You have been a very distinguished President in your still relatively short term of office. We congratulate you not only upon attaining that office but also in the way you have executed your duties. May we, through you to your charming wife, say how much we enjoy her company and her gracious hospitality as a hostess. I would like to thank the people who make this Parliament work. I thank the Clerks and the Senate officers. I mention too the particular Clerk who is very subjectively looking after me, Tom Wharton. I thank Mr Cumming Thom-- Senator Chipp —That is favouritism. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, it is utter favouritism indeed. I say to all the Senate staff: 'You do a wonderful job'. The fact is that we impose enormous strains in the kind of battlefield this is with the unexpected skirmishes and the raids that all of us undertake. You are the people who have to adapt yourselves to this situation. You do it with skill and dedication and, again, with a temperament which takes into account this strange, this unique place. It was Churchill who said that the democratic system was the worst of all systems in the world except for all others. There is no doubt in this world that this is so. This is a unique place with unique stresses. In its way it is a battlefield. So we ask Mr Clerk to convey our thanks to all of his officers. I thank all of the attendants for the excellent job they do for us throughout the year. I do not forget those who look after the cars and the very special things for us. Senator Chipp —You are forgetting the chef again. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —No, I have not come to him yet. These people have become not just our helpmates but our real friends. They know our families and help us. I thank them for that. I thank each of the parliamentary departments. I thank Hansard, on whom we have put very great strains in the past and particularly in recent weeks. I thank the Parliamentary Library, the Joint House Department and the chefs, brown dogs or no brown dogs. I thank the delightful girls who serve us and who serve us so well in the parliamentary rooms. Having got those in their right order I now turn to the members of this chamber , not in any order of precedence. I thank my ministerial colleagues who have the intolerable job of putting up with me and pretending that it is not too hard. I thank the Whips of all parties. I acknowledge the great job that they do under great strain every day. Although it may seem that they are able to take confusion and confound it, somehow or other it works out. I thank also their staff. I acknowledge the Press who have the job somehow or other of interpreting what we do. I thank particularly my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Button, for his good humour and also for his courtesy and his friendship . I acknowledge that he is a doughty opponent and a doughty leader and that he has led his people very well indeed. I pay tribute to his leadership and to the support given to him by his deputies and his Whips. I acknowledge the Australian Democrats who let us know that they are here. I acknowledge Senator Brian Harradine who plays a unique role being something like the Pooh-Bah in The Mikado, not an individual but a consortium or a condominium. I do not wish to speak at length except to say one or two things in great friendship. The Senate has been setting something of a record, I do not think intentionally. I am told that this is the latest sitting for over 40 years. This , like most things that happen in democracies, may be accidental. I am told that 21 December 1912 was the latest that the Senate has sat. It is only by lack of charity that honourable senators did not get into the Guinness Book of Records. Whilst I do not think there is any merit in claiming lengths of sessions because sitting days vary, it is interesting to know that we have sat for 43 sitting days. That is the most sitting days for the last eight years. This session has been very strenuous and vigorous. On all sides issues have been held passionately and strongly, and, I think, sincerely. All sides have fought these issues well and vigorously. Yet we have managed to remain friends. That is the business of this place. Some 1,000 or more years ago, a similar chamber decided to fight with words instead of swords. Equally the fight with words should be as sharp and as effective as the fight with swords. I believe that both sides know something about that. It is a fact that we do have the lines drawn apart three rapiers' lengths. In that spirit, may I wish all in this place a very happy Christmas and New Year. I wish particularly for a healthy year ahead. If we have fought and glared at each other occasionally, nevertheless, I thank honourable senators for the friendships which prevail across the chamber despite all those factors because, while we can fight with ideas and still respect each other, this Parliament is worth while. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Opposition) —Earlier this week, I thought that there could be no place, in spirit and in everything else, more remote from the stable at Bethlehem than the Senate. But we have reached the end of the year . On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to reciprocate the remarks and tributes which the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Sir John Carrick, has made to various people. I do not, and I have never done, attempt to emulate the lengthy way in which he sometimes expresses matters, but I do reciprocate in terms of the tributes which he has made. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish everybody a happy Christmas. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate) —I wish to endorse the sentiments that have been expressed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir John Carrick) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Button). It is pleasant to have a word to say in this chamber in which there is unanimity in the views of all of us. Indeed, it is pleasant that, as the dust of the conflict of recent days and weeks drifts aside , we can emerge from that conflict as Australians. We are aware that, as we go out in this Christmas period, great challenges confront all Australians. I am sure not only that we are aware of that fact but also that we are capable of meeting those challenges. We have a proud history in peace and war. As the rhetoric and sometimes even insults of the past weeks and months disappear, I trust we will find that the period of good will that normally exists at Christmas is as it has always been. Mr President, I wish you a very happy Christmas. I thank you for your efforts to maintain a measure of decorum in this chamber. I thank all the officers of this chamber including the people who work with Hansard, the attendants and other staff, wherever they are employed. They have all contributed to the ultimate survival, shall I say, of this chamber and indeed this institution. I wish one and all on both sides of this chamber a happy Christmas and a healthy and prosperous 1983. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Sir John Carrick, thanked everybody so comprehensively and with such an attractiveness and eloquence that there seems nothing left for me to say except to endorse everything that he said and perhaps send a cheerio to Senator Janine Haines who is recovering from very painful surgery after hospitalisation and to the Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack- just to name two-who, I am sure, are glued to the radio this evening. There is something magic about this place. There are two people-Liberal senators-who shall remain nameless, who were absolutely anathema to me a couple of weeks ago during the Franklin River debate. Senator Martyr —And a happy Christmas to you, too! Senator CHIPP —My friend Senator Siddons and I played tennis today against those two honourable senators. I did not intend to name them because the result was decidedly in our favour; but, if Senator Martyr wants to identify himself by way of interjection, he can do so. I endorse everything Senator Sir John Carrick said. Next year is going to be a brutal year, not for us necessarily but for the country. It will take all our wit and all the sort of co-operation that, frankly , we have seen today. It is rather strange that on the last day the Senate has seen more co-operation between parties than it has in all of the last six weeks. I would hope that that spirit of co-operation and consensus might continue. Mr President, I wish you, your wife and your family well. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —Very briefly, in the spirit of the occasion, I join with other honourable senators and support some of the wishes that have been expressed. I refer in particular to Senate committee staff and advisers, that most essential and vital part of our total operations. Quite often when we are talking in the chamber we tend to refer to that which is immediately associated with the chamber and forget that which is the other half of the total work of the Senate. I simply pay tribute to the particularly valuable work that has been done this year and the fairly massive input from the staff and advisers of the Senate committee system, to the benefit of Australia. I adopt the general sentiments of other honourable senators. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I join my leader, Senator Sir John Carrick, and others who have spoken. I congratulate honourable senators for the restraint they have exemplified during this very arduous six years of sittings. Senator Chipp —It only seems that long. Senator JESSOP —I have probably been here longer than most honourable senators. I suggest, Mr President, without innuendo, that a golden feather award ought to be presented-I make no suggestion as to who should receive it-to the senator who has shown the most restraint with respect to the impulse to speak in this last week of session. That award ought to be presented in perpetuity. I think that such an effort by an honourable senator would be an example to us all. As I have said, I have been here for a long time. On that basis I can say that the last two or three weeks of sittings have been very tough. I pay tribute to all parties and to all members of the Senate for the exemplary way in which they have behaved over the last week. Incidentally, I think the golden feather award ought to be named after a person who may retire in due course. I wish everyone in the Senate a happy Christmas and a merry New Year. The PRESIDENT —I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by all honourable senators this evening. In doing so I wish to thank quite a few people . First of all I thank the Deputy President, Senator Douglas McClelland, and the Temporary chairmen who assisted me from the Chair. I thank them very sincerely for the way in which they have so loyally carried out their duties which at times, I can assure honourable senators, have been rather onerous when there has been so much activity in the chamber and everything focuses on the Chair. I look forward to working with them again next year. I refer also to the leaders of the parties. The pressures on senators from each side of the chamber and on the Chair can be extreme at times. I sincerely thank all leaders of parties for the way in which they have co-operated with the Chair . I also thank the Whips and Deputy Whips for their co-operation. I thank all honourable senators. There were times during the session when I wondered whether I would get to the stage of even being here now to thank you for your co- operation. I say that in jest: I thank honourable senators most sincerely for the way in which they have co-operated. The cut and thrust of politics has been demonstrated very clearly during this rather long and strenuous session, particularly during the last six weeks. Senator Jessop spoke about the session lasting for six years; I am sure he meant six weeks. No doubt the sitting at times felt like six years. Nevertheless, over and above all the cut and thrust of politics, it clearly came out that honourable senators accept their responsibilities and have respect for this chamber. I thank all honourable senators for the way in which they have conducted themselves. I thank the Clerks, the other table officers and all officers associated with the Senate for what they have done. Of course, I cannot forget the Committee staff mentioned by Senator Peter Rae and those other very delightful people who help us so much in this place-the attendants. I thank also the transport officers, the men of patience and wisdom in this place. I could find out when we were likely to rise only by going to the transport officer. He was never far off the mark. I mention one group of people in this place who work behind the scenes and are rarely seen. They are the staff of the reproduction area. I do not think honourable senators appreciate just how dedicated these people are, the many hours they put in and how they work to help this place operate. Senator Jessop —What about the girls from the Records Office? The PRESIDENT —I must not be seen to be sexist. I thank the girls from the Records Office. I was going to mention all the people in the Records Office. I thank the Joint House Department staff from the dining room to the kitchen right through to the garden, they do such a wonderful job. I thank the Hansard staff who make every honourable senator's speech read very well. We thank them for what they have done through the year. I thank the Library staff for the way in which they have assisted in the Parliament. I thank the Government Printer and his staff, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission staff who broadcast the proceedings of the Parliament and rebroadcast Question Time. Whilst this has been a long session-nearly a record breaker, as Senator Sir John Carrick said-I nevertheless take this opportunity of again thanking all honourable senators very much. I wish you a merry Christmas and all the best in both health and prosperity in 1983. I hope that you will bring a little bit of the Christmas spirit back into this chamber in 1983, if only for the sake of the Chair. Northern Territory: Microwave Telephone Links-North West Shelf Project: Australian Steel Industry-Australian Broadcasting Commission: Use of Music for Program on South West Tasmania- South West Tasmania Motion (By Senator Sir John Carrick) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.27) —I regret that at this late hour of the last day of the 1982 Budget sittings I have to take up the time of the Senate but I shall be brief. I speak now because it is very difficult these days for a Whip, or even other honourable senators, to get an opportunity to speak. The conduct of business in the Senate has been rather intense, as has Question Time. Very briefly this evening I take up a matter which I have been endeavouring to raise for the last week or two. I refer to the microwave telephonic links in the Northern Territory. Telecom Australia, as honourable senators realise, is responsible for communications links throughout Australia, but its role is particularly important in the outback. Telecom provides microwave links to various new, very isolated projects. But these days it seems unable to raise money to finance these rather expensive links to the outback. I particularly refer to the spur links, as they are described, to Yulara at Ayers Rock and to Groote Eylandt. It is a policy of Telecom not to finance spur links. The cost of the spur link to Ayers Rock from the North-South facility could be a million-odd dollars. The user has to pay for the service but what he pays goes into the coffers of Telecom. I think it is a very big strain on the Northern Territory Government and the promoters in the area who have to find a huge amount of finance to carry out these projects. On top of that there is the demand for the construction of a microwave link by Telecom. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a Press statement relating to this project. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Chief Minister Darwin 1-238-82 2 December 1982 PRESS RELEASE BY THE CHIEF MINISTERMR PAUL EVERINGHAM The Northern Territory Government has reluctantly committed $2.7 million for the construction of a micro-wave link to deliver communications to the Yulara tourist resort near Ayers Rock. The $2.7 million commitment was approved at the first meeting of the new Everingham cabinet meeting in Darwin yesterday. Telecom has committed $1 million towards the program for the exchange and cable reticulation at Yulara. The chief minister, Paul Everingham, said it was a sad state of affairs when the Northern Territory had to spend $2.7 million to provide its own communications system to Australia's major international tourist village, which is already costing $110 million to construct and service. 'The new micro-wave link will also service Willowra, Curtain Springs, Mt Ebenezer, Angus Downs, Mulga Park and the Uluru National Park,' Mr Everingham said. 'Yulara is currently served by two radio telephone links and two radio telex links. 'The commitment by the Northern Territory Government will allow the micro-wave link to Alice Springs to be extended to bring full telephone and radio communications to Yulara by the time the international resort opens towards the end of 1984. 'Unless the Territory Government had picked up the lion's share of the financing of the communications system, the economic viability of the project could not be fully exploited. 'You don't expect Australian and overseas tourists to lock themselves away from the world-wide communications links for days at a time in this modern world.' Mr Everingham said both the Commonwealth Government and Telecom should have shouldered the financial responsibility for the communications network in Central Australia. ''It points to the intransigence of the Commonwealth in not allowing Telecom to raise the level of its capital works funds for essential projects such as this,' Mr Everingham said. 'It also appears that Telecom is unable to adjust its priorities to accommodate projects of national importance such as Yulara. 'I will support the recommendations made in the Davidson Committee of inquiry for greater freedom and flexibility for Telecom as a public compnay so that many of the bureaucratic strangleholds exercised on that organisation are removed.' Ends. Senator KILGARIFF —The Press statement is self-explanatory so I will not take the Yulara matter any further. However, I will refer to Groote Eylandt. A microwave link has been installed at Groote Eylandt by a mining company. It has limited service to the people in the area, the Aboriginal people of Ngukurr and Umbakumba, the people at the trawling base and the fishermen in the Gulf of Carpentaria. These people have a very limited line of communication. It is the policy of Telecom that these isolated places should pay for the microwave link. It was stated in the report of the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunications Services in Australia', which recently looked into Telecom, that its structure should be changed to form a totally Australian Government owned company through which finance could be raised to finance such projects. I believe this would be extremely good for projects in isolated areas. I was going to ask a question this morning but because of the intense interest in Question Time I could not get the call. This is the reason I felt that I had to raise the matter tonight. I conclude by putting my question on the Notice Paper. I hope that the Government will see fit to pursue the recommendations of the Davidson report on telecommunications. In the more remote areas of the Northern Territory such as Yulara, the new Ayers Rock village, and Groote Eylandt in the Gulf of Carpentaria, where the population is made up of mining employees, a large number of Aborigines and public servants and which acts as a victualling port for trawlers et cetera, communications through microwave links are provided under the Telecom spur line policy. This requires the user to finance the link with the revenue, in the case of Yulara, going to Telecom. I understand that Telecom says that it cannot borrow enough to finance such isolated projects despite a need for them. Perhaps many more are on the drawing board. With this in mind and considering the recommendations of the Davidson report on telecommunications that a wholly government owned company should be established to finance and achieve better communications, particularly in outback areas, the question I leave for the Government to answer eventually is: What action is the Government taking to remedy the established spur line policy to finance such projects in a more equitable manner? Mr President, I take this opportunity of wishing you all the best for Christmas and the New Year. You have had a most difficult job. I also take the opportunity , as Government Whip, to thank the Opposition and Democrat Whips who have worked with me. I also have much pleasure in thanking my fellow government senators who have been of such tremendous assistance to me in these difficult months. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.34) —I rise to comment briefly on a matter which was raised during the grievance debate in the House of Representatives last Thursday. In that debate the honourable member for Adelaide , Mr Hurford, said that only 1.5 per cent of the steel used on the North West Shelf gas project in Western Australia was coming from Australian suppliers. This, he contended, was occurring at a time when the Australian steel industry was facing difficulties and having to resort to retrenchments to survive. Unfortunately the honourable member for Adelaide did not reflect on these two matters as he might have done. If he had he would have understood that the retrenchments and, to some extent, the placement of orders for steel outside Australia are, in fact, symptoms of the same disease-the lack of competitiveness of the Australian steel industry. These factors are not an indication that the partners developing the North West Shelf gas have not a policy of supporting local suppliers whenever possible, as the honourable member for Adelaide implied. In fact, to the beginning of December 1982 contracts and purchase orders worth $1,102m had been let by the North West Shelf joint ventures. Of that amount, 58 per cent or $634m has been spent in the State of Western Australia. A further 10 per cent, or $112m, has been spent elsewhere in Australia. The remaining 32 per cent, or $356m, has been spent overseas. But the matter does not end there. More than half of the money which the joint venturers spent overseas, including work in fabricating the North Rankin A jacket and the steel pipe for the submarine pipeline, was so allocated because it was work that, the joint venturers say, could not have been performed in Australia. That is crucial. It was money spent overseas because the necessary capacity did not exist in Australia. However, the honourable member for Adelaide has put forward another red herring which cannot pass without comment. Recognising the lack of industrial capacity in certain areas, he asked why new fabricating capacity to supply the project was not set up. The honourable member for Adelaide obviously has never been a businessman because if he had he would have understood that the cost of setting up this new capacity would have to be defrayed against the North West Shelf project for it to be viable. Unlike, say, the Japanese who at the moment have spare capacity in suitable areas for use on North West Shelf work, we would have to meet the cost of setting up new capacity without any guarantee that it would be used after the gas project had been completed. To meet those establishment costs the local venture would have to build them into the price offered the North West Shelf venturers which would, of course, make its price uncompetitive against that of overseas fabricators. There is no doubt that this is the case because if it were not, if it had been viable to set up new capacity and there were prospects that it would not become redundant when the project had been completed, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd itself certainly would have provided that capacity. After all, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Hematite Petroleum Proprietary Ltd, BHP has an 8 1/3 per cent interest in the project. That it did not set up new capacity surely demonstrates the shallowness of the proposition put by the honouable member for Adelaide. But, as I said earlier, the underlying problem is the lack of competitiveness of Australian industry, especially the steel industry, which estimates that it will need to invest about $2,800m in the next 10 years to remain viable. That demonstrates just how uncompetitive our industry is at present. If the North West Shelf project were forced into a position in which it could not choose its suppliers, if it were not allowed to pursue its policy of giving preference to Australian suppliers where price, quality, delivery and service are competitive, its future would be of course very grim. The huge investment already made and the larger amounts forthcoming would be jeopardised if normal commercial criteria for allocating work could not be continued. That would jeopardise the jobs of 3,000 employees directly engaged in the project and up to 10,000 more indirectly supported by it. It would also jeopardise the potentially enormous contribution to Australia's export earnings and to the degree of energy self-sufficiency of the State of Western Australia. If it is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to stifle development through its ill-advised intentions in industry, it should say so. It will certainly be roundly condemned by the people of Australia, by the people of Western Australia and, particularly, by the people of the north-west of Western Australia. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.39) —I understand that the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Tasmania has announced that it will use the March of the Pathfinders as the background music for a program on the blockade of the Franklin dam. I could not imagine anything in worse taste than linking the historic action of that group of heroic airmen, the Dambusters, who were prepared to give their lives for their country, with that of a group of people who are prepared to break the law of our State and lie in front of men going about their lawful duties in the course of lawful work. Those young demonstrators are perhaps forgiven for not being aware that but for the valour of men such as the Dambusters they would not have the freedom to demonstrate about anything, far less have the right to voice a view opposing that of the ruling Government. They have never had their freedom challenged so how could they possibly understand? However, there is no excuse whatever for the ABC to forget these facts and to denigrate the memory of what was considered to be one of the main actions leading to the turning point in the war against Germany. The Dambusters captured the imagination of the free world. It is a great disappointment to me that a responsible body such as the ABC acted so distastefully. Returned servicemen have expressed their views to me about the ABC. I apologise to them on behalf of the ABC for its lack of respect to them. Whilst I understand the autonomous nature of the ABC, I urge the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) to do all he can to point out to the Commissioners of the ABC the error that has been made and to ask that that error be corrected immediately. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania)(10.41) —I intend to speak for only a moment. Senator Walters tonight denigrated the views and opinions of a group of sincere people who believe that there should not be a dam in South West Tasmania. Senator Walters used as her excuse for this speech the fact that they used the theme of the film The Dambusters in their protest. I wish to point out to the Senate that Senator Walters at all times has supported the views of the Right to Life Association of Victoria. She blockaded a legal organisation in Victoria and, in that protest, condemned women who went into that legal organisation. She considered this to be a reasonable protest which people in this community can accept. But tonight she chose to denigrate not only young people but also older people-for example, business people-who sincerely believe that what is happening in South West Tasmania is wrong on economic grounds. I think that her attitude is contemptible. The attitude she took tonight in the speech that she read in this place is a cheap debating trick which is typical of the approach of people of her type who choose to denigrate ordinary working class people in this community who believe that what they are doing is right and that they have the right to protest. If she persists in this attitude she is saying that no one in this community should be allowed to express a view contrary to that of the Government. That means that democracy means nothing in this community. Therefore, I am very sad that I have to stand tonight and suggest that Senator Walters is expressing the views of fascists in our community who believe that no one has the right to protest against a decision of the Federal Government. I think it is a very sad thing that someone in this Federal Parliament takes that view. I think it would be unfortunate if she wished to persist with that view. As long as there are some of us left who can point out that that is the view she takes there is some hope for our democracy. I remind her that people who are very close to her objected to the building of the Snowy Mountains scheme. She did not object at that time, and she does not object to their right to make that protest; but she rises tonight and condemns, like Mr Robin Gray, the Premier of Tasmania, anyone who protests about what is happening in Tasmania. It is a sad thing when someone who claims to be a democrat rises in this place to try to condemn the views of people who make an innocent and democratic protest in this community. But that is the view of Senator Walters, and I think that we should expose it as that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented and wish to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The honourable senator may proceed. Senator WALTERS —The speech that we have just heard from Senator Grimes has misrepresented what I said in this place completely. No one here who listened to him would not agree with me. He said that I had denigrated people demonstrating in South West Tasmania. As a matter of fact, the only time I mentioned them was to say that they could be forgiven by us for not understanding-because they are young; they were not alive during the war years-that their rights to demonstrate have been preserved only by these valiant men. The people I was criticising were those of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, not the people demonstrating in South West Tasmania. I was criticising the ABC. If Senator Grimes reads Hansard when it appears tomorrow, or when he gets it next week, he will see that this is so. This is the second time this week I have had occasion to ask him to apologise. He has been wrong on two occasions. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The honourable senator may proceed. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters claims that all she is doing is complaining about the Australian Broadcasting Commission reporting the facts. If she is concerned about the ABC reporting the facts- Senator Walters —I have not; God save us! Senator GRIMES —She is in even greater error than she was before. The ABC reported the facts that these people used that march- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes, you will have to relate your remarks to a personal explanation. Senator GRIMES —I am doing that, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —With respect, you are not; I suggest that you relate your remarks to your personal explanation. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters claimed that the people who were protesting in South West Tasmania were using the theme of the film The Dambusters in their campaign. She then complained that the ABC reported that. Senator Walters —I did not. Senator GRIMES —The ABC should report that, at every stage. If Senator Walters wants to gag the ABC, she is the greatest censor that this country has ever seen . Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The honourable senator may proceed. Senator WALTERS —At no stage did I criticise the Australian Broadcasting Commission for reporting on occurrences in South West Tasmania. At no stage did I claim that the demonstrators were using the music of the Dambusters. I think that Senator Grimes ought to wait until he gets Hansard, because he obviously did not listen. Very clearly, I was criticising the ABC for announcing that it will use next week the music of the film The Dambusters, the March of the Pathfinders, as part of its program dealing with the demonstration in South West Tasmania. Senator Grimes —So it should. Senator WALTERS —So I hope that Senator Grimes will apologise. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.49) —This discussion has got a little out of hand. I think that Senator Walters has misread the Australian Broadcasting Commission's use of the particular theme. As I see it, the use of that theme in relation to the protesters concerned with South West Tasmania is an ironic use of that music . It is meant to show by paradox and contrast that the theme of the film The Dambusters is being used for the play on words that the title implies. The fact is that the people who are protesting against the construction of the dam, even though they are breaking the law of trespass, and I acknowledge that, are nevertheless trained in non-violence and are extremely self-disciplined. They always have been conscious of the need amongst themselves to act in a non- violent manner. Contrast that with the glorifying of war, even though it was defensive, that was involved in the film The Dambusters, even though there were great heroic events and persons recorded in that film. The fact is that in the film the destruction of property and human life was portrayed on a massive scale. That is certainly not the case in South West Tasmania. As I have said, those involved are dedicated to non-violent protest. I would simply see the producer or director of this program as being highly literate. By paradox, he has chosen this theme for the play on words and yet for the contrast in the activity portrayed. I think that if the position is seen on that basis-I honestly see it on that basis-Senator Walters has really got her protest somewhat out of proportion. As for her condescending remarks about the young people in the South West, the fact is that most of them are young. But one should also recall-I think it is pertinent to her remark that the young would not remember the war-that one of those arrested yesterday was Mr Claude Alcorso. He is in his seventieth year and he is a well regarded industrialist. He was chairman of the Australian Opera at some stage. Senator Walters —The sort of socialist I would like to be. Senator TATE —He is the sort of socialist who fled with his brother from fascist Italy. He was forced out by Mussolini's policies before the war. He arrived in Australia and the thanks he got from the Australian community was internment in a mainland internment camp. Nevertheless, he came out without a chip on his shoulder and contributed to the growth and creation of Australian prosperity in the 1950s and the 1960s, as Senator Walters would well know. There is that type of person also in the South West protesting against this construction of the dam . I think that ought to be recorded. I simply wish to throw what I think is the correct perspective on the journalistic integrity and literacy of those responsible for the choice of this theme. I see it merely as a very clever subtle, ironic use of this musical theme to show, by paradox, the contrast between the destruction of life and property in war and yet the non-violent protest in this case. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.53) —I was not going to speak in the adjournment debate but I will because of some remarks Senator Grimes has made. He made certain accusations against Senator Walters. He made similar types of accusations against me the other day, which were found to be totally incorrect. Senator Grimes —Rubbish! You had your name down hours ago. Senator HARRADINE —That statement also is incorrect. Senator Grimes —It is true. Senator HARRADINE —I did not have my name down. Senator Grimes —Of course you did. Senator HARRADINE —That is a total untruth. Senator Grimes —You are having everyone on, aren't you? Senator HARRADINE —That is a total untruth similar to the type of rubbish Senator Grimes is used to spewing around this chamber. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, I ask you to ignore interjections. Senator HARRADINE —When Senator Grimes has had the experience in the Australian Labor Party that I have had he can talk. The damage he has done to the Labor Party over the years and the damage he is doing now will be seen only at the election box. I want to nail what Senator Grimes has said about innocent protesters. Whether or not the protester is innocent is not for this chamber to judge. It will be for the appropriate magistrates in Tasmania to judge whether they are innocent of breaking the law. It is not for anybody in this chamber to judge whether or not they are innocent. It appears by inference that Senator Grimes, and indeed one other honourable senator who addressed the people outside , were condoning the breaking of a law-- Senator Grimes —Rubbish! Senator HARRADINE —Well, if that is rubbish I would like Senator Grimes to recommend that the blockade cease, because the blockade is a breach of the law of Tasmania. Let us understand that a democratic decision was taken on the dams issue, and that democratic decision was taken by the State Parliament. Some 51 out of 54 members, including the Australian Labor Party members, voted for the dam. Whether one agrees with that decision or not, it is a decision which has been properly taken, and it has been taken by those who had the responsibility to take it, who had the information upon which to base that decision, who had undertaken investigation and who had the ability to carry the decision through. As I have said previously, I do not deny that there is a basis for an individual to engage in civil disobedience, even in a democratic society. In my view the concept of civil disobedience can be sustained in a democratic society only if all other legal or reasonable avenues have been explored, and then only if one's formed conscience influences one to take action if one is confronted with a situation in which one must act or not act. Senator Grimes —Who is the judge of that? You? Senator HARRADINE —If Senator Grimes would only listen to what I am saying- Senator Grimes —I am listening. Senator HARRADINE —It is about time you did because you obviously have not listened- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, I suggest you address your remarks through the Chair. Senator HARRADINE —Mr Deputy President, I used the impersonal pronoun 'one', and I used the definition of a formed conscience. If Senator Grimes does not know what those terms mean, he is unable to address himself to this very important question of protestors. Senator Grimes —It is important, but who is the judge of it? You? Senator HARRADINE —The judge in these matters is one who is confronted with doing an act or not. Senator Grimes —I agree with you. Senator HARRADINE —Well, the honourable senator should tell me whether the people in Tasmania who are engaging in the blockade are confronted with a situation which is similar to a person who has a conscientious objection to being conscripted into military service. Senator Grimes —Yes. I agree with you. Senator HARRADINE —He says yes. There is absolutely no comparison between the conscientious objection of one who is forced either to accept or reject conscription for national service and the situation in South West Tasmania. There is no comparison whatsoever because in the first case one is confronted with a situation in which one has to act or does not have to act in the personal sense with one's formed conscience. The other aspect of course, is a deliberate confrontation of the law. I wonder whether Senator Grimes, with his interjections, is now supporting the illegal activity that is taking place in South West Tasmania, contrary to the democratic decision that has been taken by the Tasmanian State Parliament. I was quite disturbed to see one honourable senator-I will not name him because he is not here-reported as saying that there are some totalitarian laws that need to be confronted, or words to that effect. Those sorts of statements should not fall from the lips of legislators in this chamber nor from the lips of legislators in any other chamber in the Commonwealth. I now turn to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Senator Peter Rae —Please note that I am present and therefore you are not referring to me; is that so? Senator HARRADINE —No, I am not referring to the honourable senator. Since the ABC has been mentioned, I must refer to the fact that in the adjournment debate on 18 November 1982 the Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, gave a response from the ABC to a question that I had raised previously in the chamber. In that statement Senator Chaney indicated that the ABC would be asked to comment on the 'very oddly worded Press release' from which a disc jockey on 2JJ had allegedly quoted. I complained about this on 11 November. On that occasion Senator Chaney said: As a regular listener to the ABC, I am aware that the ABC appears to give some publicity to what might be termed community organisations. Clearly, in this case , the ABC has given publicity to a community organisation which arouses very strong feelings both for and against the community. I will be asking the Minister for Communications to ask the ABC to provide the Senate with that additional information which I think is relevant to any judgment on whether the disc jockey concerned was behaving in a reasonable manner or not. I have not had any final response from the Minister in respect of that matter but I note that the ABC has been writing to persons who have made a similar complaint. I quote from their statement: As the ABC has complete independence in matters of programming, the Minister for Communications has passed on to me for direct reply your letter of 17 November, in which you complained about remarks allegedly made by an announcer on station 2 Triple Jay. The final paragraph, inter alia, states: The announcer on duty at 2 Triple Jay simply read a community announcement, without comment and gave a telephone number. There is nothing unusual in this. Community announcements are aired many times each week by 2 Triple Jay. It went on to state: The ABC's program guidelines were upheld and no action is proposed to be taken about the alleged incident. That statement sent by the ABC's Assistant General Manager to complainants pre- empts, I believe, the promised response from a Minister in this chamber. I simply make that point. I hope that very shortly I will receive some explanation of this extraordinary activity on behalf of the ABC. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.4) —With the spirit of the occasion and regretting that we have finished with perhaps less than the equanimity and good will which might be regarded as desirable for a finish to these sittings, might I help Senator Harradine and Senator Grimes in relation to the matter that has been raised by pointing out that it was the lawfully elected Government of the State of Tasmania which requested the Commonwealth Government to act. Some subsequent vote of that State Parliament may or may not have some legal consequence upon the legal situation which was created as a result of the lawfully elected Government of the State requesting the Commonwealth to apply for World Heritage listing for South West Tasmania. Whether the Tasmanian Government did cede its powers or not is something to which I am sure everybody with the spirit of Christmas will give some thought in trying to decide how we should approach this whole problem of a resolution of a matter which, if we are not careful, will divide not only the State but also our country in a way which a lot of us will regret and in a way which could even lead to bloodshed if we have demonstrators, violence, vituperation and abuse taking place in relation to the issue. In wishing again that the Senate tonight may approach all of its problems with a spirit and a degree of co-operation and a wish to seek solutions, I say that, whilst it may be convenient to say that a democratic decision was taken whereby 51 out of 54 members of the new State Parliament said something, the lawful Government of the State at the appropriate stage said something else and asked the Commonwealth to act. The Commonwealth did act in consequence of that request . I do not think it has been given sufficient credit for the fact that it acted in good faith upon what was asked of it by the lawful Government of the State of Tasmania acting on behalf of the people of Tasmania. Mr Deputy President, I wish the Senate well. I wish Senator Grimes and Senator Harradine well in being able to overcome any of the differences which might have existed. I hope that we find a solution to this problem with the spirit which has been exhibited at other times during the evening. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to say those few words. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.6) —When earlier tonight I mentioned that the Senate was about to create something of a record for the lateness of its sitting towards Christmas, I did not mean it to be taken as encouragement to improve on what I said. On the contrary, I remind everybody of Voltaire when he said words to the effect: 'We sometimes, in our country, execute an admiral to encourage the others'. Having tonight broken a record of seven speakers on the adjournment, we perhaps should seek to execute an admiral or two on the adjournment to encourage the others. I say that against the background of the few remarks that I wish to make. Senator Kilgariff, being a Whip, has been restrained in his opportunities to talk on his local matters. We all acknowledge his tremendous interest in the Northern Territory. He was born and bred a territorian and understands the Territory. His mention of the problems in terms of microwave communication is one that we fully understand. I will make sure that the Minister for Communications (Mr N. A. Brown) is acquainted with that matter. Senator Crichton -Browne drew attention to the North West Shelf and whether a sufficiency of Australian material and workmanship was being put into it. He gave some very compelling figures. I do not think that I need to add to that. In fact, I think the North West Shelf partners have put out very effective statements on this matter. I turn to the question that started to erupt when Senator Walters made her statement. First of all, Senator Grimes will not mind my saying that, as I understand what she said, she was not seeking to denigrate the protestors. I will say something about that subject in a moment. As I understood it, she was seeking to say that, in her judgment, it was unfortunate that the Australian Broadcasting Commission had chosen a particular theme. It is a matter for judgment-and everyone will so judge-whether the ABC's choice of themes was in good or bad taste and whether, as Senator Tate suggested, the theme was chosen in a satirical or ironical way or whether it was otherwise. We should all look to our dignity in that regard. As to the question of protest, the Government and certainly all honourable senators both on our side and opposite will assert vigorously the right of individuals to protest. But that right must be understood. I make no reflection at all upon those in Tasmania or elsewhere who are protesting and doing so articulately. Indeed, it would be a sad day and would register the destruction of this parliamentary system if they were not allowed so to do. It is not good enough merely to say that the protest is non-violent. What that protest must also be is lawful and not obstructionist. It must not obstruct ordinary lawful processes. Within that framework, of course, a lawful protest must be protected. Lawful protest is just as entitled to the protection of the law as is the carrying out of lawful processes. I make that very clear. I make no reflection at all. I am delighted that in this rather materialistic world of ours that has looked towards affluence as a measure we are looking towards this limited sphere , we are looking towards the protection of the natural resources and beauty of this world. Senator Peter Rae —With acid rain, will we still have a world? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Indeed, in my portfolio, acid rain is seen as the greatest threat to the world, as is of course the greenhouse threat of overheating. There are enormous threats to the world. I ask, in all amity, that we might all respect lawful protest and all respect the right of the other person to have a judgment different from others. Senator Grimes —If they break the laws they should pay the consequences. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If they break the laws, of course they should accept the consequence of the law. Senator Grimes —As they do in Poland, for instance? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Poland is a different situation. Let me resist the impish interjections of Senator Grimes. I am talking about the rule of law in a democracy, not the rule of law as abused in Poland. Senator Grimes —Or the rule of law in any other country. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —No. The rule of law has a special meaning inside our own country. Senator Grimes —As we did in Vietnam. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Do not let us provoke each other. I do not ever object to interjections because they are the spirit of the rapier thrust, they are the spirit of the very duelling of this place. Senator Tate, whose views I respect and acknowledge in this place, suggested that the film The Dambusters had an unfortunate characteristic, glorifying law. As one who has a vested interest in peace, let me simply say this: I did not see the film. I read the book. My instinct was that the story was a tribute to the eternal spirit of man in that ugly, uncivilised thing called war. I know of no person who has participated in the brutalising aspects of war who is not the most practical peacemaker on earth and the last person to glorify war. If indeed in such a spirit an adventure is attractive as such, that is an unfortunate by- product. But let me say this: While man exists, one should pay tribute to the eternal spirit of man-his courage, his audacity in these things but, of course, fighting all the time to have peace with dignity. Senator Harradine added to the debate on the dam but made a comment on a disc jockey issue on station 2JJJ. I know nothing of the incident, but I will refer it to the Minister for Communications. Senator Rae added, I thought, some useful words to the debate. Let me make it clear, without any provocation at all, we depart from here for Christmas having faced some very big issues, one of them being the listing of the South West Tasmanian wilderness on the World Heritage List. It is a great tribute to all Australians, to honourable senators on both sides of the chamber, that we managed to list the South West Tasmanian wilderness on the World Heritage List, along with the Kakadu National Park and other areas. It is a great tribute that Australia is able to do that, that it has not laid the wildernesses to waste. The challenge to us all now is to find a way to carry out the steps that are necessary for the preservation of the environment. On that note, I commend to the Senate a happy Christmas and I commend to you, Mr Deputy President, the adjournment of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until Tuesday, 22 February 1983, at 1.45 p.m. or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President, or in the event of the President being unavailable by the Deputy President, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 2949 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 14 September 1982: (1) How many statutory bodies (qangos) are funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. (2) What is the title of each body. (3) Who is in charge of each body and what is that person's salary. (4) How many staff, permanent and/or casual were employed within each body. (5) What is the specific function of each body. (6) What has been the annual cost, for the past three years to the Department of operating each body. Senator Peter Baume —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) The following statutory authorities and other bodies come within the portfolio of Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Senior officer Organisation Name Position Salary Staff Aboriginal Development Commission C. N. Perkins Chairman $52,800 p.a. 228 Aboriginal Hostels Ltd L. O'Donoghue, A.M. Chairman $7,275 annual fee 392 Aboriginal Land Commissioner Hon. Mr Justice W. J. F. Kearney, C.B.E. Judge $71,500 4 Central Land Council S. Scrutton Chairman $27,265 23 Northern Land Council G. Blitner Chairman $34,031 72 Tiwi Land Council J. Tipungwuti Chairman $70 daily sitting fee 2 Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account Advisory Committee L. Finlay Chairman $75 daily sitting fee . . Applied Ecology Pty Ltd L. A. J. Malone Chairman . . 10 Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Prof. D. J. Mulvaney Chairman Expenses only 59 National Aboriginal Conference R. Nichols Chairman $25,000 56 National Aboriginal Sports Foundation B. Dixon Chairman . . 3 Registrar of Aboriginal Corporation L. A. J. Malone Registrar . . . . Notes: 1. Some of the above officers receive allowances in addition to salary. 2. No breakdown is available between full time and part time staff. (5) The functions of the statutory authorities and other bodies are described in the Commonwealth Government Directory. (6) Details of expenditure for the past three years are given in the Appropriation Acts Nos. 1 and 2 with the exception of the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation for which the figures are $235,000 in 1979-80, $250,000 in 1980-81 and $260,000 in 1981-82. Question No. 3069 Senator Grimes asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 October 1982: (1) How many cohabitation cases in each State were investigated by the Department of Social Security in each of the financial years from 1978-79 to 1981-82. (2) In how many of those cases was the pension or benefit terminated. (3) In how many of the terminated cases was the pension or benefit restored on appeal. (4) In how many cases in June, July, August and September 1982 were cohabitation circumstances investigated. (5) In how many of those cases was the pension or benefit terminated. Senator Chaney —The answer the the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Department of Social Security does not maintain statistics relating to cohabitation investigations, nor are appeals statistics collected classified by reason for appeal. However, data relating to widows pensions and supporting parents benefits terminated (irrespective of whether as a result of a cohabitation investigation or not) for the reasons: 'living defacto' or ' reconciled with spouse' are available for recent periods. These data are shown below. Prior to 1981-82 comparable data are not available. NUMBER OF PENSIONS TERMINATED Supporting parents Class A Class B Period widows widows Males Females 'living de facto' Year- 1981-82 1,491 105 119 4,096 4 weeks ended- 4 June 1982 113 9 11 346 30 June 1982* 105 7 14 310 30 July 1982* 134 9 13 460 28 August 1982 126 6 13 430 24 September 1982 128 8 15 407 'reconciled with spouse' Year- 1981-82 906 89 220 13,149 4 weeks ended- 4 June 1982 73 8 19 1,164 30 June 1982* 68 4 14 1,080 30 July 1982* 74 5 22 1,424 27 August 1982 94 8 25 1,213 24 September 1982 78 12 23 1,185 * Approximately 4 weeks. Question No. 3129 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 October 1982: (1) Did a report by Mr Ken Blanch in the Sunday Mail of 17 October 1982 imply that details of outstanding parking fines are kept on computer files in order to check on people returning to Australia. (2) Does this happen, if so, what are the details and why was a person mentioned in Mr Blanch's article detained for a number of hours. Senator Chaney —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Yes. The Australian Customs Service does not record details of outstanding parking fines on its computer files. The answer to Senate Question No. 3181 is relevant to the incident referred to in the newspaper report. Question No. 3219 Senator Evans asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 October 1982: (1) How many applications for review by the Security Appeals Tribunal of a security assessment under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act) were lodged in each of the years ending: (i) 30 June 1980, (ii) 30 June 1981, (iii) 30 June 1982, and during the period 1 July 1982 to 26 October 1982. (2) How many applications for review (i) were withdrawn, (ii) proceeded to a hearing before the Security Appeals Tribunal (SAT), (iii) have yet to be heard by the SAT, and (iv) have been the subject of a hearing but await a determination by the Tribunal, in respect of each of these periods. (3) What time elapsed between the date the application was lodged and the date of hearing, and what time elapsed between the date the application was lodged and the date of a determination by the Tribunal, in respect of each of the applications which proceeded to a hearing or hearing and a determination. (4) When is it expected that each of the applications which are: (i) awaiting a hearing, or (ii) awaiting a determination will be heard or determined as the case may be. (5) What was the Tribunal's decision in each case, in respect of those applications, lodged in the periods referred to, which have been determined by the Tribunal. (6) How many adverse or qualified security asessments have been made by ASIO in each of the years ending: (i) 30 June 1980, (ii) 30 June 1981, (iii) 30 June 1982, and in the period 1 July 1982 to 26 October 1982. (7) What are the guidelines used by ASIO under section 37 (4) of the ASIO Act in making a security assessment. (8) How many certificates by the Attorney-General under sections 38 (2) (a) and 38 (2) (b) of the ASIO Act were issued in each of the four periods referred to above. (9) How many applications were in respect of a security assessment in respect of which a certificate under section 38 (2) (b) had been made, of the total number of applications to the Tribunal for review to 26 October 1982. (10) How many certificates under section 59 (1) of the ASIO Act have been made by the Attorney-General. Senator Chaney —The Acting Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) and (2)- Applications Number Number for review Number of proceeded Number Number heard but lodged with applications to a not part awaiting Number of Year ending tribunal withdrawn hearing heard heard determination determinations 30 June 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 June 1981 3 . . 3 . . . . . . 3 30 June 1982 10 . . 9 1 2 3 4 From 1 July 1982 to 26 October 1982 4 . . 4 . . 4 . . . . TOTAL 17 . . 16 1 6 3 . . (3), (4) and (5)- Date of application Expected Expected lodged with the Date of date of date of Security Appeals Tribunal Heard decision Decision hearing decision 7.11.80 25.2.82 26.2.82 20.4.82 17.6.82 Adverse assessment set aside. Qualified assessment substituted. 1.4.81 18.8.81 16.10.81 Adverse assessment upheld. Application dismissed. 9.6.81 19.8.81 12.10.81 23.2.82 Qualified assessment upheld. Application dismissed. 7.7.81 17.8.81 22.10.81 Qualified assessment was not justified. There was no ground for denying the access proposed. 7.7.81 18.8.81 16.10.81 Qualification of assessment was justified, but its basis required re-wording. There was no ground for denying the access proposed. 9.7.81 12.10.81 16.10.81 Qualification of assessment was justified, but its basis required re-wording. There was no ground for denying the access proposed. 4.8.81 12.10.81 22.10.81 Qualification of assessment was justified, but its basis required re-wording. There was no ground for denying the access proposed. 28.10.81 6.9.82 17.11.82 Not known 4.2.82 21.5.82 17.11.82 Not known 26.2.82 . . Not known 24.5.82 16.11.82 Resumption not known 27.5.82 6.9. 82 7.10.82 17.11.82 Not known 28.5.82 15.11.82 Resumption not known 9.7. 82 15.11.82 Resumption not known 19.7.82 16.11.82 Resumption not known 21.9.82 16.11.82 Resumption not known 12.10.82 16.11.82 Resumption not known (6)- ASIO SECURITY ASSESSMENTS Adverse Qualified security security Year ending assessments assessments 30 June 1980 9 19 30 June 1981 12 16 30 June 1982 9 16 1 July-26 October 1982 1 5 (7) It is not consistent with the requirements of security to make public at this stage the matters determined by the Director-General of Security in consultation with the Attorney-General in accordance with sub-section 37 (4) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979. However, this may be an appropriate matter for consultation between the Director-General of Security and the Leader of the Opposition, as provided by the Act. (8), (9) and (10) No certificates have been issued in accordance with these provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979. Question No. 3227 Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 9 November 1982: Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce state what steps the Government has taken 'to review its decision in relation to wheelchairs with a view to replacing the tariff arrangements provided in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill with a bounty scheme for local producers'. Senator Chaney —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: During the Government's deliberations on this issue, careful consideration was given to the need to strike a balance between reduction of costs for wheelchair users and the need to provide a level and form of assistance appropriate to the existence of a viable local industry. It is widely accepted that there is a need to have an Australian wheelchair industry to supply both standard wheelchairs and wheelchairs tailored to meet specific disabilities as well as to provide an efficient maintenance and parts supply service. The option of providing bounty assistance (instead of tariff assistance) to the local industry was closely examined. During the Government's deliberations on this matter it became apparent that this small industry did not have the necessary resources to meet the administrative requirements for obtaining bounty payments. In its report on wheelchairs the Industries Assistance Commission described the industry as comprising about 15 local producers being largely jobbing shops concentrating on sales in their own States and whose employees often work only part of their time on wheelchairs. After taking account of all factors, the Government reached the conclusion that the Australian wheelchair industry needed assistance to compete with imports and that bounty assistance was inappropriate as it could lead to the demise of this industry which provides such a valuable and needed service for the disabled in the community. Accordingly, it was decided that assistance for this industry would continue to be provided by a tariff on imported wheelchairs. The general rate of duty is being reduced to a long term rate of 20 per cent. In the circumstances the Government does not accept the necessity for a review of its decision and I note that an amendment to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1981 proposed by the Opposition on 2 June 1982 in the terms quoted by Senator Chipp was defeated. Question No. 3256 Senator Grimes asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 November 1982: (1) What studies which include health costs and health policies are presently being undertaken by the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat. (2) What studies of this kind have been undertaken by the Secretariat in the past, and in what years were they completed. Senator Chaney —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The function of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat is to provide advice on, and ensure the co-ordinated development of policies and programs in the broad field of health and welfare. It has a watching brief on matters of health policy and health costs and undertakes studies on items referred to it by the Minister for Health. The Secretariat is currently chairing the Interdepartmental Consultative Committee on Co-ordination of Accommodation and Services for the Aged and is undertaking studies in association with this role. (2) A list of studies completed, and papers presented by officers of the Secretariat follows: Cox, J. 'Poverty Lines: The Social Welfare Policy Secretariat's Approach', in Saunders, P. (ed.), 'The Poverty Line: Methodology and Measurement', SWRC Reports and Proceedings No. 2, University of New South Wales, October 1980. Cox, J. 'Equivalent Income Distributions', presented at the Conference on Social Policy in the 1980s, Canberra, May 1982. Cox, J. 'The Causes of Poverty in Australia', in Grant, M., (ed.), 'Readings in Economics', Hargreen Publishing Company, Melbourne, 1980. Dixon, D. A., 'Budget, Policies, Constraints-a Federal Perspective', presented at the Rural Health Services Workshop, Armidale, May 1979. Dixon, D. A., 'Dependency of the Australian Community', presented to the Canberra Branch ANZSERCH, April 1979. Dixon, D. A., 'Universality and Selectivity in the Targeting of Government Health/Welfare Expenditure Programs', presented at the Health Economics Workshop , Australian National University, September 1979. Dixon, D. A., 'Commonwealth Expenditure on Health and Social Security and Welfare-Recent Trends, Emerging Problems and Future Prospects', presented to the Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations-Adelaide Interest Group- September 1979. Dixon, D. A., 'Hospitals and the National Economy', presented to the Australian Hospitals Association Congress, 1980. Dixon, D. A., 'Problems of Public Resource Allocation: The Aged in Australia', presented at the First Regional Congress of the International Association of Gerontology, Asia/Oceania Region, Melbourne, November 1980. Dixon, D. A., 'Income Support for Young People', in Baird, C. E., Gregory, R. G ., and Gruen, F. H., (eds), 'Youth Employment, Education and Training-Conference Papers', Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, 1981. Dixon, D. A., 'Potential Role of the Private Sector in Minimising our Future Welfare Burden', presented at a Conference of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, Melbourne, June 1981. Dixon, D. A., 'Economic Effects of Ageing', presented at the Conference on Economics of Immigration, February 1982. Dixon, D. A., and Foster, C., 'Overall Welfare Financing: The Future', presented at the Conference on Finance of Social Welfare, Australian National University, December 1980. Dixon, D. A., and Foster, C., 'Welfare and Taxes: Some Issues in the Financing of Welfare', 'Australian Quarterly', Autumn, 1982. Dixon, D. A., and Hine, G., 'Australia's Pharmaceutical Industry: Possible Impacts for Government', presented at the 52nd Anzaas Congress, Sydney, May 1982 . Elias, E. J., ''Discussion on Paper by D. Slater, 'The Demand for Cigarettes in New Zealand: An Econometric Analysis of the Effect of Increased Taxation' '', ' Economics and Health', ANU, 1980. Elias, E. J., 'Commonwealth Health Care Financing Arrangements', presented at the 51st Anzaas Congress, Brisbane, 1981. Elias, E. J., ''Discussion of Paper by J. Richardson and R. Harvey ' Specification of an Econometric Model for the Australian Health Care Sector' '', 'Economics and Health', ANU, 1981. Hemer, J., 'Policy Planning for a Multi-Cultural Society' in 'Aged Migrants in Australia: Planning Towards 1985', Proceeds of a Seminar by the N.S.W. Council on the Ageing, Sydney, November 1980. Swain, N. J., 'More Data or More Information?', presented at the Technical Session of the 9th Annual Conference of the Australian Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, Victoria, December 1981. Sax, S., 'Resources for the Technological Component in Health Care', 18th Conference on Physical Sciences in Medicine and Biology, 1978, Australian College of Physical Scientists in Melbourne, August 1978. Sax, S., 'Priorities for Ageing Research', Sydney Satellite Conference, International Association of Gerontology, 1978. Sax, S., 'Utilisation Review: Policy Approaches', Australian Council on Hospital Standards, Symposium, March 1979. Sax, S., 'The Aged in the Next Decade-Where are we Going?', South Australian Geriatric Conference, 1979. Sax, S., 'CATS and Third Parties', Opening Address at the Computerised Tomography Seminar, Flinders University, July, 1979. Sax, S., 'Planning Human Resources', presented at the Hospitals National Personnel Administrative Conference, October 1979. Sax, S., 'Social Adaptation in Old Age', Sixth Frank Ofner Memorial Lecture, Sydney, October 1979. Sax, S., 'Impact of Federal Health Insurance and Health Resource Allocation Policies in Australia, 1975-79', APHA Annual Meeting, New York, November 1979. Sax, S., 'Control of Expenditure for Pathology Services in Australia', APHA Annual Meeting, New York, November 1979. Sax, S., 'Australian Health Care Systems and Medical Technology, Chapter 4 in the 'Implications of Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Medical Technology', Background Paper 4, Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, November 1979. Sax, S., 'Medicine in the 80's-Can We Afford It? The Australian Perspective', ' Australian Studies in Health Service Administration', No. 40, University of N.S. W., 1980. Sax, S., 'Health Care Planning: A National Perspective', presented at the Symposium of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Canberra, March 1980. Sax, S., 'Radiology in Health Care', in Proceedings of Conference on Academic Radiology in Australia, Flinders Medical Centre, May 1980. Sax, S., 'Commonwealth Influence on Health Care in Australia', presented at a Seminar on 'Structure and Models in the Education of Health Science Professionals in Australia', Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences, May 1980. Sax, S., 'Some policy issues in Australian-Health and Welfare Services'-An Address at the First Australian Pacific Conference on Low Vision, Melbourne, 20 May 1980. Sax, S., 'Current Issues in Health and Welfare', presented to the Australian Institute of Public Administration, Australian Capital Territory, July 1980. Sax, S., 'The Challenge of Post Clinical Medicine', The Richard Gibson Oration delivered at the Inaugural Scientific Meeting of the Australian College of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sydney, May 1981. Sax, S., 'Planning for the Education of the Doctors and Health Services We Need ', presented at the Annual Forum of the Australian Postgraduate Federation in Medicine, Brisbane, May 1981. Sax, S., 'What Now With Welfare', presented to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, Sydney, August 1981. Sax, S., 'The Federal Government and Development of Services for the Elderly', presented at Conference, 'Recent Advances in Geriatric Medicine', Mount Royal Hospital, Victoria, September 1981. Sax, S., 'Background Overviews of Australian Health and Welfare Services (With Particular Reference to the Handicapped)', presented to the Canada-Australia Colloquium, 'Public Policies in Two Federal Countries': Canada and Australia, September 1981. Sax, S., 'What are the Priorities', presented at the Symposium, 'Priorities in Health Care', University of New South Wales, November 1981. Thame, C., 'The Role of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat in Policy Co- ordination)', presented at Public Policy Seminar, Canberra College of Advanced Education, May 1981. Question No. 3269 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 November 1982: Has the Minister for Primary Industry's attention been drawn to a report on page 176 of the Sun-Herald of 14 November 1982, that Japanese and Taiwanese fishermen are accused of using long-lines within the Australian territorial waters; if so, has this report been investigated and what has been the result of any investigation. Senator Chaney —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Minister for Primary Industry is aware of the article in question. Under the bilateral fishing agreement with Japan, Japanese hand-line and long- line vessels are allowed access to the Australian fishing zone (AFZ) under strictly controlled conditions in order to catch tuna and other highly migratory species. Long-liners operate mainly in Australia's southern waters and target primarily for southern bluefin tuna. A number do, however, operate off the coast of Queensland on a seasonal basis to catch yellowfin, albacore and other tuna. Their catch also includes a component of about 10 per cent black marlin. For most of the waters adjacent to Queensland access is restricted to areas further than 50 nautical miles from the coast, specifically in order to protect the interests of Australian fishermen operating in those waters. In particular, the area of restriction for Japanese long-liners extends seaward for about 110 nautical miles beyond the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef between Townsville and the top of Cape York Peninsulal, an area of some 80,000 square miles. Japanese fishing activity as far as it exists in the area from 50 to 100 nautical miles off the coast of Cairns is restricted to hand-lining only. No Taiwanese long-liners have been licensed to operate in the Australian fishing zone. Under the agreement with Taiwanese commercial interests, gillnetters and pair trawlers are granted access to the north west section of the zone primarily off the north coast of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and a small area of north western Queesnland. In the Taiwanese case access is only available outside the 12 nautical mile limit off the Australian coast. All foreign fishing vessels (FFV) licensed to fish in the zone are required to report their positions and details of their catch by radio to Australian authorities at specified times. Such information is checked against reports sent to the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre (ACSC) on FFV activity from both primary and secondary aerial surface surveillance resources. All reports of possible illegal activity are followed up. However there have been no reports of breaches by licensed vessels in waters off Queensland since the introduction of the AFZ. In the case of fishermen taking black marlin in the Cairns area, I understand that the 1982 season to date has proved to be more successful than the preceding two seasons. Question No. 3273 Senator Ryan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 16 November 1982: (1) Has the Film Australia production On Sacred Ground been sold to television in Australia. (2) Has the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment decided whether On Sacred Ground will be made available for sale to overseas television. (3) What are the reasons, if the decision has been made not to make the program available for mass distribution overseas. (4) Have representatives of overseas television networks sought to preview the film through Film Australia and been refused a viewing. (5) Is the Minister aware that representatives of overseas television networks have sought to view On Sacred Ground through Aboriginal organisations that have copies, because of difficulties in securing a viewing through the proper channels. Senator Peter Baume —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Film Commission has advised as follows: (1) No. (2) and (3) Marketing of the film in Australia and overseas is the prerogative of the Australian Film Commission, and therefore the Minister has not been called upon to make a decision. (4) Film Australia is unaware of any potential overseas television buyer requesting to view On Sacred Ground. (5) Film Australia is able if requested to arrange previews of On Sacred Ground and is unaware of any previews organised through other channels. Question No. 3274 Senator Ryan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 16 November 1982: On what basis did the Theatre Board of the Australia Council reach its decision to reduce the grant to the New Moon Theatre Company of Townsville, Queensland from $87,000 to $65,000. Senator Peter Baume —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australia Council has advised me as follows: Theatre Board assistance to the New Moon Theatre Company is made available under the Board's Professional Regional Theatre grant scheme. Board assistance under this scheme is matched on a ratio basis with funds available from State government and local sources. The New Moon Theatre Company, which in 1983 will be in its second year of operation, was eligible for assistance from the Theatre Board of up to 40 per cent of all other subsidy. In its initial submission to the Theatre Board, the company indicated that prospective support for its activities in 1983 would be available from a number of local government authorities as guarantees against box office and rental subsidy. The Theatre Board does not regard guarantees against box office rental subsidy as assistance available on a matching basis from local sources as required by its guidelines. These amounts were not taken into account when the Board approved the initial grant of $64,600 at its meeting on 20-24 September 1982. The grant was announced in the Theatre Board's Press release of 30 September, which contained details of grants approved at the September meeting. On 7 October 1982, the secretary of the company wrote to the Board seeking a reconsideration of the company's application for a general grant of $98,000. That letter advised the Board of progress made towards the conversion of all guarantees against box office to direct grants from the local government authorities concerned. The total amount of direct grants which became available in this way was $58,440. In the light of this additional assistance, the Board reconsidered its grant to the new Moon Theatre and, on 23 November 1982, an offer of a grant of up to $98,000 was made to the Company. Grants approved by the Theatre Board towards the activities of the New Moon Theatre Company during 1983 are as follows: $ Towards regional theatre activities 1983 98,000 Towards interstate movement of artists (3 grants) 5,061 103,061 Question No. 3310 Senator Walsh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry , upon notice, on 25 November 1982: (1) Does the Wheat Finance Fund still exist. (2) Do wheatgrowers pay $2.50 per tonne into the fund. (3) Does the Wheat Finance Fund hold $100m on a revolving basis. (4) What is the current function of the Wheat Finance Fund. Senator Chaney —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Wheat Finance Fund continues in existence. (2) Wheatgrowers pay $2.50 per tonne into the Fund and secure from it a refund of the credits in the Fund exceeding $100m. (3) Yes, see (2) above. (4) The moneys in the Wheat Finance Fund may be borrowed by the Australian Wheat Board to liquidate any debt owed by the Board to the Reserve Bank on 31 March in any year in relation to borrowings for the season that ended on the preceding 30 September. Question No. 3333 Senator Grimes asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 December 1982: (1) Was the Deputy Crown Solicitor's office closely involved with ex-Detective Inspector Donald Thomas before arrests were made in the alleged social security frauds involving Greek Australian pensioners? (2) Was the Deputy Crown Solicitor's office closely involved with ex-Detective Inspector Donald Thomas during the preparation of the case against the arrested persons, and during the committal hearings; if so, is it not therefore inappropriate for the Deputy Crown Solicitor to be giving advice to the Attorney -General on whether proceedings should be taken against Mr Thomas for what the Sydney Magistrate, Mr Brown, referred to as his role in 'conspiracy to pervert the course of justice' or for perjury or for both? Senator Chaney —The Acting Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Deputy Crown Solicitor, Sydney, had carriage of the committal proceedings in this matter. In relation to those proceedings, members of the office of the Deputy Crown Solicitor, Sydney, had a close involvement with Mr Thomas from 28 March 1978, which was three days before the first arrests were carried out by officers of the former Commonwealth Police Force, until Mr Thomas withdrew from the case in 1980. An examination of the evidence available to support possible charges against Mr Thomas is being conducted by the Acting Deputy Crown Solicitor, Canberra. The office of the Deputy Crown Solicitor Canberra, has had no previous involvement in the matter. Advice of Melbourne counsel has been taken. Question No. 3363 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 December 1982: (1) Has the Acting Attorney-General seen the annual report of the Director of Consumer Affairs in Victoria, Mr John Miller, calling for a 'crack-down on companies with a paid-up capital of only $2.00'. (2) Did Mr Miller state that the present system, which allows people to 'enjoy the luxury of limited liability behind a $2 corporate veil is open to abuse'. (3) Did Mr Miller also state that linking a $2 company with a discretionary trust is 'a further complication . . . such that the consumer, in effect, has no idea with whom one is dealing, nor is it feasible to so discover easily'. (4) Have the above problems been brought to the Federal Government's attention. (5) What action has the Federal Government taken to rectify these problems. (6) Does legislation in the United Kingdom provide for a compulsory minimum paid up capital for companies which trade with the public, and what is the amount. (7) Do any similar provisions exist in other countries. (8) What action will the Government take to rectify this situation. Senator Chaney —The Acting Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have seen Press reports about the annual report of the Director of Consumer Affairs in Victoria and am aware of his comments about a minimum paid up capital requirement for companies. The Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, at a meeting held in Sydney on 12 February 1982, considered a proposal that the Companies Act 1981 should require all companies to raise and maintain a prescribed minimum nominal and paid-up capital. At that meeting the Ministerial Council agreed that this proposal should be considered in the context of the proposed Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1984. I expect that this Bill will be made available for public comment in the second half of 1983. Senator Chaney —On 14 September 1982 (Hansard, page 863) Senator Hamer asked me , as the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, the following question, without notice: My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, concerns the automatic declassification of obsolete national security material, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the state of progress in this matter, bearing in mind previous assurance by the Attorney-General that the matter was being looked at? Will he also report whether national security classifications have been restricted to national security documents? Can he assure the Senate that there has been a diminution in the overclassification of government material and that national security classifications on Cabinet documents, for instance, are applied only in strict accordance with the security handbook? The Acting Attorney-General has provided the following further information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The question of what procedures should govern declassification of national security documents has caused some difficulty both in the United States and Australia. A Presidential Order issued by President Carter provided for automatic declassification after certain fixed periods and the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, in its report on the Freedom of Information Bill, referred to this Order in recommending the institution in Australia of a system for automatic declassification of national security documents. However, presumably because of administrative difficulties in the United States under the original Order, this was superseded by a new order in May 1982 which does not provide for automatic declassification. The question of what procedures should apply in Australia to govern declassification of national security information is under active consideration and I am awaiting a report from an interdepartmental committee dealing with this subject. The Government is concerned to ensure that national security classifications are applied only when necessary and appropriate. Thus, in September 1980 the Prime Minister wrote to all Ministers in connexion with the issue of instructions that emphasized: the dangers of over classification; the need to have classifications confirmed by a suitably senior officer and for that fact to be recorded on the file copy of the original document; that parts of a document may be classified separately; that where information in a document can be reclassified after a certain date or event that should be indicated in the text or in a sideline, and; the need for a departmental review programme to reassess holdings of classified material. Senator Chaney —On 20 October 1982 (Hansard, page 1609) Senator Button asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General whether the Government would give immediate attention to expanding the terms of reference of the inquiry by Mr J. W. von Doussa, Q. C., into the affairs of Mr Denis Horgan so as to require Mr von Doussa to determine whether, as a result of the transactions inquired into by him, money which otherwise would have been paid in tax was not paid and whether the vendor shareholders would be affected by the recoupment legislation promised by the Government. The Acting Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Arrangements for the inquiry by Mr von Doussa including the matters to be inquired into were agreed by the Government and Mr Horgan. The inquiry was arranged having regard to questions which had been raised as to whether it was appropriate that Mr Horgan continue to hold certain public offices. The announced terms of reference of the inquiry are sufficient for that purpose and it is considered that extension of them as proposed by the honourable senator would not be appropriate. Senator Chaney —On 24 November 1982 (Hansard, page 2709) Senator Walsh asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General the following question without notice relating to the appointment of Mr J. W. von Doussa on 11 October to inquire into the financial affairs of Mr Denis Horgan: What power to subpoena documents does Mr von Doussa have for the purpose of this inquiry? What protection from defamation action does Mr von Doussa, his inquiry and, ultimately, his report have? Will the Acting Attorney-General table the letter written to Mr von Doussa setting out his terms of appointment? Will he give an undertaking to table the report as soon as it is completed? The Acting Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the third and fourth parts of this question (answers to the first and second parts having been provided on 30 November): Arrangements for an inquiry to be conducted were agreed by the Treasurer and Mr Horgan on 23 September 1982. A Press release about the matter was issued by the Treasurer on that day. The press release mentioned, inter alia, that- (a) the inquiry would be undertaken by a leading counsel nominated independently by the President of the Law Council of Australia; (b) the inquiry would proceed as soon as possible and a report would be made to the Treasurer who would report to the Government. The President of the Law Council of Australia nominated Mr J. W. von Doussa, Q .C., to conduct the inquiry. The terms of reference were made public by a press statement of the Acting Attorney-General issued on 11 October 1982. The press statement also stated that the solicitor for the inquiry would be Mr David Wicks. The Acting Attorney-General did not himself forward a letter to Mr von Doussa setting out the terms of his appointment. However, on 12 October 1982 a Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Mr H. T. Bennett, forwarded to Mr Wicks copies of the Acting Attorney-General's press statement. A letter which accompanied those copies included the following paragraph: 'Ministers have agreed that the Attorney-General will assume general responsibility for this inquiry but this will be on the basis as originally agreed with Mr Horgan that the report will be submitted to the Treasurer.' Mr von Doussa's report will be tabled when completed. Senator Chaney —On 24 November 1982 (Hansard, page 2715) Senator Jessop asked me, as the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, a question without notice relating to financial support for community legal services, particularly services in South Australia. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Acting Attorney-General has had a reported statement on 23 November 1982 concerning support for Adelaide's community legal services drawn to his attention. The Acting Attorney-General does recognise the valuable and efficient work that is carried out by such services throughout Australia. The Commonwealth Government has established a continuing program of grants to these centres which has grown from $175,000 in 1979-80 to $500,000 for the calendar year 1983 . Calendar year funding has been arranged to meet the request of centres regarding the provision of funds. There are four community legal aid centres in South Australia that have received a grant from the Commonwealth. Their share has risen from $21,500 in 1979-80 to $47,000 in 1983. The Commonwealth has made arrangements with state legal aid and legal services commissions, whereby the commissions make recommendations to the Commonwealth as to which services should receive a grant and the extent of that grant. The Commonwealth has not yet received recommendations from the Legal Services Commission of South Australia about grants for services in South Australia for 1983. Question No. 2712 Senator Giles asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 August 1982: Has the Department of Veterans' Affairs or the Repatriation Commission advised the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that repatriation benefits payable as a result of the High Court decision in the Nancy Law case will rise to an annual cost of approximately $1 billion within the next few years; if so, is the Minister able to provide further details of estimated cost, the years for which those estimates have been made, and the reasons for those estimates; if not, why not. Senator Messner —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I have not been provided with the advice mentioned in the question. It is unlikely that expenditure on disability and war widows' pensions and on related benefits will reach $1 billion in total annually for a considerable time. It has not been possible to identify accurately the decisions of repatriation determining authorities which would not have been favourable but for the High Court decision in the Nancy Law case. The identifiable effects of that decision on the numbers of claims, applications for increase in pension and appeals lodged and approved remain unclear since other factors, including economic circumstances, the ageing of the veteran population and other decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court are also having an impact on the repatriation system. Consequently, an accurate estimate of the kind sought is not available. Question No. 2859 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 August 1982: (1) What is meant by 'representative quotations' (see answer to Question on Notice No. 1922). (2) What are the relevant provisions of Finance Regulation 51 mentioned in the answer to Question on Notice No. 1922. (3) What reasons were given to the lowest tenderer for not accepting that tender. (4) Who evaluates the work of the security firm. (5) Is it known whether the security personnel hold other full time positions. Senator Messner —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 'Representative quotations' means those quotations sought from firms known to have relevant expertise and who seek to supply services. (2) The relevant Finance Regulation 51 provisions in respect of the contracts mentioned in the answer are: 51 (1)-At least three representative quotations for the supplies shall be obtained unless tenders are publicly invited, where- the estimated cost of any supplies exceeds $200; there is no existing contract between the Commonwealth and a supplier; and the supplies are not obtained under a contract between a State Government and a supplier. 51 (4)-Where the estimated cost of any supplies exceeds $500, each quotation obtained shall be in writing. (3) The lowest tenderer's non-selection in this case followed an evaluation of all the factors submitted in support of his tender compared with those of the successful tenderer, and also had regard to his performance on previous contracts with the Commonwealth. Specific details are always available to tenderers from the Chief Property Officer, Queensland. (4) The work of security firms is evaluated by members of the Property Directorate of my Department in Brisbane. (5) The employment background of contractor's staff is not known. Question No. 2961 Senator Tate asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 1982: (1) What has been the total expenditure on Veterans' Affairs matters in each financial year since 1945-46. (2) What is the real value of total expenditure on Veterans' Affairs matters in 1981-82 prices in each financial year since 1945-46. Senator Messner —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2)- Total At 1981-82 Year Expenditure Prices $ $ 1945-46 38,183,904 353,456,352 1946-47 55,732,880 507,755,870 1947-48 63, 830,520 558,033,486 1948-49 77,425,608 611,821,035 1949-50 95,963,958 699,367, 585 1950-51 129,040,016 832,044,267 1951-52 150,665,694 793,109,701 1952-53 160,177,734 770,674,840 1953-54 165,446,146 780,860,790 1954-55 182,666,716 856 ,311,943 1955-56 188,791,736 850,543,549 1956-57 195,876,566 833,737,187 1957- 58 220,851,524 930,903,933 1958-59 226,962,438 941,785,524 1959-60 241,198, 282 976,332,369 1960-61 261,387,842 1,016,540,834 1961-62 274,899,330 1,064,314 ,482 1962-63 293,540,624 1,133,955,930 1963-64 310,443,838 1,188,664,100 1964- 65 315,637,838 1,164,837,937 1965-66 340,488,283 1,212,683,628 1966-67 328,548 ,464 1,139,734,622 1967-68 327,075,561 1,098,378,627 1968-69 357,131,117 1,168, 762,118 1969-70 372,894,741 1,182,424,001 1970-71 401,731,897 1,216,062,785 1971-72 444,310,748 1,259,243,452 1972-73 504,069,727 1,347,163,238 1973-74 620 ,050,898 1,467,228,217 1974-75 819,137,769 1,660,776,693 1975-76 992,932,133 1, 781,935,629 1976-77 1,073,246,245 1,692,314,193 1977-78 1,240,921,371 1,786,205 ,907 1978-79 1,319,830,257 1,756,229,828 1979-80 1,484,757,557 1,793,392,746 1980-81 1,791,858,491 1,978,344,082 1981-82 2,078,245,834 2,078,245,834 Total figures comprise expenditure by the Repatriation Commission, the Office of Australian War Graves, the Repatriation Review Tribunal and the Defence Service Homes Corporation (DSHC)-including expenditure from the Defence Services Homes Trust Account. In the years 1969-70 to 1974-75 the DSHC was administered within the Departmental framework of the Departments of Housing and Housing and Construction-no records are available identifying DSHC administrative expenses within total expenses of those Departments (those expenses are currently of the order of $15m). Real values are based on 1981-82 prices compiled from CPI figures supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for years 1948-49 to 1981-82. Values for years 1945-46 to 1947-48 are based on a series of retail price indexes supplied by ABS; these series differ in scope and, therefore, present only a broad indication of the situation. They are the only figures available. Question No. 3122 Senator Keeffe asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 October 1982: (1) Who owns the market research group known as Burke Market Research. (2) Did the Government engage this company, or any other company, to carry out a poll in an endeavour to ascertain whether the 1982-83 Budget was successful, particularly in relation to the fixing of a date for an early election. (3) Was the poll paid for by the Liberal Party or by the Government. (4) What was the cost of the poll. Senator Messner —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Burke Marketing Research in Australia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Consensus Research Pty Ltd which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of George Patterson Pty Ltd. (2) to (4) On behalf of the Department of Administrative Services, the Australian Government Advertising Service engaged Burke Marketing Research through competitive tender procedures to carry out a research survey into community awareness of aspects of the Budget. The survey was used for departmental information planning purposes and cost about $13,000. Question No. 3136 Senator Siddons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 October 1982: (1) Is any customs duty payable on machine readable books containing computer programs, or on programs 'imported' electronically over data or telephone links. (2) Are cassette tapes containing computer programs dutiable at a rate of 2 per cent. (3) Are 'floppy' discs containing computer programs dutiable at a rate of 35 per cent. (4) Is software imported as a part of a total computer package dutiable at the rate of the total package, that is, 6 per cent. (5) Does the Department have any plans to alter this situation. Senator Chaney —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Customs duty is payable on recorded information at the rate applicable to the storage medium. If computer programs are recorded in books in machine readable form, that is, using character fonts that allow recognition by an optical scanner the duty will be calculated on the value of the document at the rate for the book-currently free. If the program is recorded on a floppy disc the duty would be calculated on the value of the document at the rate for floppy discs-currently 35 per cent. There is no duty payable on programs 'imported' electronically. (2) Cassette tapes whether or not containing program material are classified within Tariff item 92.12.190 and dutiable at 35 per cent. (3) Yes. (4) Software imported as part of a total computer package is dutiable at the rate applicable to the package. (5) On 11 November 1982 the Minister for Administrative Services forwarded a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission on Computer Office Equipment and Recording Media Industries. This reference covers all kinds of computers, computer media-tapes, discs, discettes and cassettes. The Government will review the protection accorded to the production of these goods in Australia in the light of the Industry Assistance Commission's report and recommendations. Question No. 3181 Senator Gietzelt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 October 1982: (1) Is the Minister aware of a report in the Sydney Sun of 13 October 1982 that Australian Federal Police officers at Sydney Airport are holding travellers passing through the airport with the demand that they pay outstanding parking fines or face arrest. (2) Is it normal practice for the Federal Police to carry out such relatively minor activities at international airports. (3) Do the police have access to computer records concerning travellers on a regular basis. (4) What is the relationship between the Federal and State police forces in cases such as these. Senator Messner —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) I am advised police checks are made of persons coming under the direct notice of the AFP or when a specific request is received from another enforcement agency. (3) Yes. (4) State and Australian Federal Police allow mutual access to certain of each other's information records. I am advised that in the case in question, a routine check of New South Wales Police records revealed that the person had been served with six commitment warrants for traffic offences. On this basis, the person was referred to the New South Wales Police. Question No. 3189 Senator Grimes asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 26 October 1982: (1) Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs satisfied with the implementation of the 1973 Government directive that repatriation determining authorities should give reasons for decisions. (2) Did an audit investigation find that after seven years this policy was still not being properly implemented. Senator Messner —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The question appears to be based on the content of a draft field report prepared by the Auditor-General's Office in connection with an efficiency audit of the disability and service pension scheme administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is inappropriate for me to comment on material in a draft report which in its final form will be submitted to Parliament. Senator Grimes asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs the above questions, upon notice, on 26 October 1982. Senator Messner —The answer to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: See answer to Question No. 3189. Question No. 3199 Senator Grimes asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 26 October 1982: What initiatives have been taken by the Repatriation Commission to identify bottlenecks and streamline the processing of claims in the various State branches. Senator Messner —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Repatriation Commission has taken a wide range of action to improve the determining system and processes including the establishment of a Committee to co-ordinate action by the Department of Veterans' Affairs in identifying bottlenecks and streamlining the processing of claims and appeals. (2) The Commission has been conducting continuous reviews to improve the situation and the following are among the results so far: To speed up the determining process, the number of determining authorities has been increased. There has been increased use of non-departmental medical officers in medical examinations and interstate departmental medical officers have been used to assist hard-pressed States. Determining authorities have been ecouraged to reduce the length and complexity of reasons for decisions, especially where decisions are favourable. In relation to the Repatriation Review Tribunal, the Repatriation Act has been amended to provide the Tribunal with a discretion whether or not to refer back to the Repatriation Commission cases where additional evidence is presented. The previous mandatory referral had been a source of serious delays in the past. The design of a new computer-based processing system is proceeding and this will help to give more detailed and timely information about the processing of claims. A re-organisation of the top structure of the Department of Veterans' Affairs has been approved and is in the process of being implemented. As part of this re -organisation, it is proposed to locate in Canberra all Commission delegates who handle appeals against decisions of Repatriation Boards. This should allow for earlier identification of potential bottlenecks and should enhance the consistency and speed of decision making at this level. A 'fast lane' priority for processing claims and appeals has been introduced for those cases which are considered to warrant special consideration on humanitarian grounds. The Repatriation Review Tribunal, for its part, has decided not to proceed to list an application for hearing until the applicant or his representative has informed the Tribunal that the application is ready to proceed. This is designed to reduce delays caused by unnecessary adjournments. Question No. 3209 Senator Grimes asked the Minister for Social Security upon notice, on 26 October 1982: How many persons were in receipt of unemployment benefits in each regional office of the Department of Social Security in: (a) August 1982; (b) September 1982; and (c) October 1982. Senator Chaney —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The information sought by the honourable senator is shown in the following table: Unemployment beneficiaries current at end of: Regional office August 1982 September 1982 October 1982 New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory- Armidale 2,400 2,467 2,555 Lismore 5,297 5,553 5,789 Lithgow 1,759 1,903 1 ,848 Newcastle 2,100 2,205 2,317 Orange 3,980 4,127 4,181 Wagga 2,866 3, 177 3,250 Wollongong 6,132 6,558 6,898 Gosford 2,875 3,035 3,261 Canberra ( New South Wales part) 204 205 194 Goulburn 1,363 1,438 1,502 Kempsey 2,101 2 ,170 2,272 Moree 1,592 1,782 1,861 Nowra 2,426 2,523 2,630 Taree 2,473 2, 592 2,724 Coffs Harbour 2,986 3,190 3,223 The Entrance 3,058 3,200 3,327 Bathurst 739 785 807 Manly 1,199 1,291 1,380 Port Macquarie 1,710 1,779 1, 920 Mayfield 1,779 1,910 2,017 Belmore 2,972 3,173 3,379 Woden (New South Wales part) 1,403 1,541 1,538 Charlestown 2,332 2,520 2,686 Cessnock 1,039 1,089 1,138 Broadmeadow 3,382 3,605 3,845 Rockdale 1,810 1,998 2,089 Murwillumbah 2,929 3,143 3,312 Auburn 3,667 3,929 4,131 Sydney 3,820 3,942 4,060 Windsor 1,137 1,260 1,305 Warilla 2,486 2,694 2,856 Bega 1,800 1,936 2,047 City South 2,715 2,885 2,983 Grafton 1,403 1,462 1,531 Dubbo 3,051 3 ,298 3,429 Albury 2,178 2,292 2,460 Bankstown 4,366 4,659 4,925 Broken Hill 1,126 1,158 1,157 Griffith 1,842 1,754 1,887 Parramatta 3,564 3,871 4,101 Dee Why 1,766 1,991 2,178 Hornsby 1,337 1,476 1,618 Caringbah 2,400 2,661 2 ,763 Hurstville 1,691 1,880 2,016 Liverpool 4,412 4,697 4,803 Blacktown 3, 065 3,223 3,469 Fairfield 6,107 6,552 6,859 Penrith 2,480 2,663 2,771 West Ryde 1,465 1,630 1,661 Maitland 1,500 1,684 1,844 Marrickville 3,879 4,140 4,287 Tamworth 1,911 2,009 2,154 Maroubra 2,961 3,153 3,275 Bondi Junction 4,351 4,615 4,816 Burwood 2,763 3,000 3,129 Campbelltown 3,606 3,916 4,055 Chatswood 760 809 907 Crows Nest 2,073 2,235 2,400 Camperdown 2,938 3,175 3, 296 Mount Druitt 4,840 5,167 5,302 Redfern 2,087 2,202 2,328 Canberra ( Australian Capital Territory part) 3,308 3,332 3,357 Woden (Australian Capital Territory part) 1,354 1,437 1,470 Not Coded 3 420 48 Total New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory 161,118 172,166 179, 621 Victoria- Ballarat 4,088 4,134 4,262 Bendigo 2,939 3,024 3,342 Dandenong 4,523 4,851 5,151 Geelong 3,974 3,973 4,007 Hamilton 1,505 1,233 1,257 Sale 1,735 1,765 1,850 Wangaratta 2,190 2,365 2,422 Box Hill 2,944 3,068 3,025 Moonee Ponds 3,695 3,852 3,894 Peninsula 4,200 4,437 4,651 Sunshine 3,795 4,030 4,283 Footscray 3,164 3,352 3,557 St Kilda 3,796 3,935 4,375 Greensborough 1,742 1 ,817 1,983 Camberwell 1,992 2,042 2,208 Melbourne Regional Office 3,222 3, 461 3,669 North Fitzroy 2,497 2,622 2,852 Mildura 1,649 1,817 1,830 Morwell 2,007 2,016 2,116 Knox 1,155 1,235 1,308 Cheltenham 2,140 2,386 2,565 Horsham 1,021 1,020 1,216 Prahan 2,192 2,331 2,545 Shepparton 2,726 2,798 3 ,169 Oakleigh 3,207 3,365 3,618 Coburg 2,368 2,495 2,657 Richmond 1,777 1, 857 1,973 Werribee 1,345 1,477 1,492 Ringwood 4,737 5,103 5,734 Glenroy 3, 089 3,171 3,352 Preston 4,454 4,781 5,254 Warrnambool 1,451 1,429 1,400 Swan Hill 1,297 1,334 1,472 Heidelberg 1,344 1,370 1,441 Central Benefits Unit 405 475 368 Belmont 1,828 1,915 1,911 Not Coded . . 39 . . Total Victoria 92,193 96,375 102,209 Queensland- Bundaberg 1,481 1,537 1,648 Cairns 5,749 5,824 6,387 Rockhampton 3,054 3, 410 3,576 Toowoomba 3,092 3,265 3,438 Mackay 2,033 2,124 1,982 Nambour 4, 755 5,226 5,409 Mount Gravatt 1,912 1,998 2,087 Wynnum 1,655 1,824 1,824 Brisbane 2,293 2,384 2,440 Indooroopilly 1,109 1,136 1,219 Buranda 3,807 4, 048 4,300 Woodridge 2,645 2,921 3,155 Alderley 1,108 1,102 1,173 Chermside 1,190 1,292 1,384 Nundah 1,484 1,601 1,775 Inala 1,289 1,365 1,509 Gympie 706 780 804 Ipswich 2,343 2,594 2,751 Maryborough 1,507 1,590 1,655 Redcliffe 1,951 1,991 2,122 Gold Coast 6,617 7,313 7,827 Warwick 1,119 1,133 1,216 Mount Isa 663 653 691 Townsville 4,441 4,596 4,523 Not coded . . 9 11 Total Queensland 58,003 61,716 64,906 South Australia- Elizabeth 4,445 4,629 4,783 Port Pirie 1,112 1,131 1,175 Port Adelaide 2, 852 2,962 3,023 Kadina 715 710 769 Salisbury 2,946 3,069 3,131 Glenelg 1, 976 2,097 2,227 Whyalla 1,375 1,419 1,471 Hawthorn 2,434 2,474 2,570 Mount Gambier 1,537 1,547 1,435 Berri 852 934 1,040 Port Lincoln 998 1,063 1,173 Morphett Vale 2,917 3,073 3,170 Murray Bridge 889 948 1,005 Marden 3,100 3, 166 3,254 Norwood 2,212 2,284 2,345 Enfield 2,937 3,169 3,299 Woodville 3, 777 3,924 4,087 Edwardstown 2,133 2,265 2,389 Adelaide 2,769 2,846 2,838 Port Augusta 1,082 1,084 1,089 Torrensville 2,025 2,080 2,184 Not coded 1 51 19 Total South Australia 45,084 46,925 48,476 Western Australia- Perth 3,642 3,872 3,944 Cannington 4,146 4,417 4,614 Mirrabooka 4,528 4, 824 4,959 Fremantle 4,955 5,074 5,302 Victoria Park 4,514 4,840 5,004 Rockingham 2,288 2,333 2,457 Geraldton 1,741 1,805 1,897 South Hedland 993 1,115 1,127 Kalgoorlie 1,227 1,221 1,253 Midland 3,139 3,290 3,409 Broome 830 901 898 Kunnunurra 384 523 528 Albany 1,344 1,335 1,193 Bunbury 1,960 2,057 2,176 Perth West 2,699 2,837 2,883 Innaloo 3,193 3,395 3,554 Not coded 2 104 . . Total Western Australia 41,585 43,943 45,198 Tasmania (estimated)- Hobart 2,923 3,075 3,020 Launceston 4,722 4,980 4,910 Burnie 2,420 2,869 3 ,200 Glenorchy 3,269 3,341 3,330 Devonport 2,072 2,127 2,105 Bellerive 2, 308 2,389 2,385 Total Tasmania 17,714 18,781 18,950 Northern Territory- Darwin 2,113 2,202 2,205 Alice Springs 2,335 2,350 2,460 Casuarina 1,101 1 ,208 1,252 Katherine 610 672 682 Not coded . . 3 . . Total Northern Territory 6,159 6,435 6,599 Question No. 3228 Senator Grimes asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 28 October 1982: How much does the Government expect to make from raising migrant hostel charges to migrant and refugee families from 1 November 1982. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is expected that an additional $990,000 will be collected as a result of increased tariffs introduced on 1 November 1982. However, migrant hostel costs will continue to be heavily subsidised by the Commonwealth Government even after the tariff increases. In 1982-83, $14.544m has been appropriated to cover the shortfall between tariff revenue and the costs of operating centres. The tariffs for residents who are employed are set so that they closely approximate the costs of providing accommodation and meals. A deduction of approximately two thirds is made from the social security benefits of unemployed residents as their contribution to the costs of their accommodation. This is substantially below the costs of providing services. Question No. 3265 Senator Gietzelt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 November 1982: (1) What were the addresses nominated to the Minister for Administrative Services by each of the members of the Cabinet as their 'home base' for the purpose of claiming travelling allowance for the year covered by the Remuneration Tribunal Determination of 1981. (2) What were the addresses nominated to the Minister for Administrative Services by each of the members of the Cabinet as their 'home base' for the purposes of claiming travelling allowance for the year covered by the Remuneration Tribunal Determination of 1982. Senator Messner —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) See Senate Hansard, 16 November 1982, page 2357. (2) The table below shows the places nominated by Cabinet Ministers in accordance with Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 1982-10 as at 2 December 1982. Minister Nominated home base Mr Fraser Nareen Mr Anthony Murwillumbah Mr Howard Sydney Mr Sinclair Bendemeer* Senator Sir John Carrick Killara, Sydney Mr Street Barwon Heads Mr Nixon Orbost Sir James Killen Brisbane Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle Melbourne Mr Peacock Melbourne Senator Durack Claremont, Perth Senator Chaney Perth Mr Fife Wagga Wagga** Mr Macphee Brighton, Melbourne Senator Baume Gordon, Sydney * Mr Sinclair has not claimed travelling allowance for overnight stays in Tamworth or Bendemeer in either year. ** Mr Fife's home base in 1981 was incorrectly recorded as Albury. Mr Fife has not claimed travelling allowance in either Albury or Wagga Wagga and has always regarded Wagga Wagga as his home base. Question No. 3267 Senator Douglas McClelland asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 23 November 1982: (1) What is the usual time delay for applications to be determined by the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board. (2) What is the backlog of applications from 1981. (3) What is the anticipated backlog of applications at the end of the 1982-83 financial year. (4) Have staffing levels of the Board been affected in any way during the recent Federal Government cutbacks; if so, what has been the effect. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle — The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Applications for commencement grants must be lodged by 30 September each year. Over 1,000 applications are normally received and are processed in order of receipt. In recent years most of these have been settled by the end of the financial year but some 20 per cent have not been settled till the following year. An additional $3m is being provided for expenditure this year to meet the increased number and level of claims and to avoid a major increase in claims carried over. Applications for project grants may be received at any time during the year and between 20 and 40 are received each month. On average it takes 6 months to finalise a project agreement including 4 months investigation and consideration by the Board and 2 months to agree a form of contract with a company. Hence there are always some applications under consideration at the end of the year. Claims for payment under project contracts are normally settled within 3 months. (2) and (3) Commencement Project Applications on hand at 30 June 1982 206 189 Estimated applications on hand at 30 June 1983 250 210 (4) No. Nevertheless an additional 7 staff have been temporarily transferred from other areas of the Department to reduce the delays in processing claims. In addition my Department is reviewing the adequacy of the present staff numbers devoted to the task. Question No. 3287 Senator McLaren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 19 November 1982: What was the cost of chartering aircraft for transport of Ministers for each of the financial years 1980-81 and 1981-82. Senator Messner —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1980-81, $330,197; 1981-82, $380,053. Question No. 3295 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 23 November 1982: Is Air Queensland still a general sales agent for Qantas in respect of passenger sales in the north Queensland area; if so (a) does Qantas make any on-the-spot inspections to see whether Air Queensland is carrying out its obligations as a general sales agent; if so, how often; (b) how many full-time representatives does Air Queensland employ to fulfil its obligations as a general sales agent for Qantas; (c) what new services have been introduced by Qantas out of Townsville in recent years and what was the date of introduction; and (d) to what extent did the increases in revenue mentioned in the answer to Senate Question on Notice No. 1918 arise because of the services mentioned in (c ) above. (See Hansard, 24 April 1982, page 1431). Senator Messner —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Qantas has advised that Air Queensland is still its general sales agent for passenger sales in the north Queensland area and that in relation to the particular questions: (a) Qantas staff make regular visits and inspections both to support Air Queensland as a general sales agent and to ensure that Qantas' interests are being observed. During 1982 eight separate visits were made by six different staff covering all aspects of passenger sales and management control. In addition, three visits were made by the Qantas Agency Co-ordinator for the purpose of automated equipment development and one visit by a Qantas Training Officer to conduct training of Air Queensland staff; (b) Air Queensland employs one member of its staff on full-time duties to co- ordinate all of Qantas' interests. In addition, Air Queensland employs eight sales representatives whose duties include sales activities on behalf of Qantas; (c) In February 1981 Qantas introduced services from Townsville to Honolulu and Los Angeles and to Auckland via Brisbane. In April 1982 services from Townsville to Singapore connecting with Qantas services to London and direct services between Townsville and Auckland were also introduced; (d) Qantas has advised that it is difficult to quantify the extent to which the revenue increases mentioned in response to the honourable senator's previous question on this subject (No. 1918) were the result of the additional services referred to in (c) above. However, Qantas' revenue results from the Air Queensland general sales agent area continue to show strong growth. In the period 1 April-6 November 1982 travelled revenue from the general sales area increased by 42 per cent over the same period last year. For the same period, travelled revenue earned by Air Queensland's direct sales increased by 54 per cent over the previous year's level. Question No. 3320 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 30 November 1982: (1) Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of a submission from the Australian Facetors Guild proposing a training program to teach paraplegics the craft of gemstone cutting. (2) Will this submission be examined by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations under the Skills in Demand Program or any other body for its feasibility; if so, when can the Australian Facetors Guild except a reply to that submission as they have received a number of inquiries from paraplegics willing to participate in any such scheme. Senator Chaney —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The Minister has received a copy of the submission. (2) Yes. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is currently examining the submission and will contact the Australian Facetors Guild before Christmas to determine how the Commonwealth may be able to assist with the training proposal. Senator Messner —On 9 November 1982 (Hansard, page 2032) Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without notice, the following question: My question, which relates to Federal and State financial arrangements, is directed to either the Leader of Government in the Senate or the Minister reresenting the Minister for Defence. I am not sure which Minister is reponsible. The question deals with project Aquarius. Is it a fact that the Victorian Government has withdrawn its support from Project Aquarius, a joint venture in which the Royal Australian Air Force would have been conducting continual aerial fire fighting tests this summer by dropping fire retardant chemicals from C130 aircraft? Would not this fire fighting assistance have been ideal for the control of the disastrous Heyfield fires last weekend? Will the Federal Government give consideration to fitting out a C130 aircraft, without regard to the actions of the Victorian Government, in view of the tinderbox conditions in much of southern and eastern Victoria? The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Project Aquarius is a controlled scientific experiment that CSIRO is conducting into the effectiveness of aerial techniques for the suppression of bushfires as compared with conventional fire fighting methods. The CSIRO has advised that the first phase of Project Aquarius took place in the Australian Capital Territory last summer. It involved the calibration of infra-red fire mapping equipment mounted in CSIRO's F27 aircraft. The second phase concerned with the behaviour of high intensity fires will be conducted in Western Australia this summer. The third phase, involving tests of the effectiveness of air tankers dropping water and fire retardants on lit fires, is planned to take place in Victoria in the summer of 1983-84. The joint project to which the honourable senator refers was a co-operative fire fighting evaluation operation undertaken last summer by the Victorian Government with assistance from the Commonwealth on the basis of operations for one fire season only. This assistance took the form of providing RAAF aircrew and a C130 aircraft which was used to drop fire retardant chemicals on actual bushfires in Victoria as they occurred. While CSIRO gained experience from these Victorian trials in an observer capacity, their participation was independent of Project Aquarius. After the evaluation last summer, the Victorian Government commenced negotiations with a private contractor for the provision of a C130 aircraft to continue operations in the 1982-83 fire season. I understand that difficulties have recently arisen in relation to those proposed arrangements and the possibility of the Commonwealth providing assistance to the Victorian Government again this summer is currently being discussed by the two governments. Senator Messner —On 10 November 1982 (Hansard, page 2105) Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Construction, a question without notice requesting that consideration be given to the attachment of small warning lights to the sides of Australian National Railways locomotives operating in Tasmania as a safety measure to help prevent level crossing accidents after dark. The Minister for Transport and Construction has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC), comprised of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for transport matters, has from time to time evaluated studies on the improvement of safety of level crossings. Studies have shown that the installation of warning devices and other improvements at level crossings is more effective in accident prevention than illumination or other means of making the train more visible. In all States procedures exist to evaluate proposals for the improvement or elimination of level crossings and to implement the resulting recommendations. Ministers at the 58th ATAC meeting of 4 July 1980 agreed that these existing procedures were adequate. Nevertheless, Railway Commissioners have a proposal under consideration to attach suitable reflectors to railway rollingstock on an Australia-wide basis. In December 1980, Australian National announced a new corporate identity program involving the painting of all rollingstock. The new livery is predominantly green with vertical yellow bands and black contrasts. These colours were selected for their brilliance, and together with the contrast caused by using a vertical band, will have the effect of making vehicles more visible. In addition the bogies of wagons will be painted yellow, and as they are approximately at headlight level, the visibility of trains at level crossings will be improved. A painting program has commenced, but will take several years to complete since painting is subject to the release of wagons and availability of staff. Senator Chaney —On 16 November 1982 (Hansard, page 2320) Senator Watson asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the following question without notice: Is the Minister aware that legal and technical strategies are being employed to frustrate the purpose and intent of the anti-dumping applications? Further, will the Government consider excluding dumping decisions from judicial review to show the Government's good faith of its intention to have effective, fast track anti-dumping in a climate of world recession? The Minister for Industry and Commerce has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Exporters of goods to Australia have been able to use the law to prevent the Customs authorities from taking provisional anti-dumping and countervailing securities. The action taken by those exporters operates to the detriment of Australian industry and the Government has therefore decided to legislate as soon as possible to amend the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act and the Customs Act to minimise the opportunities to circumvent the Government's intentions as expressed in the first named Act. Regulations were recently introduced under the Administrative Decisions ( Judicial Review) Act which are designed to remove from the scope of that Act decisions to take cash or other securities under the Customs Act as provisional anti-dumping and countervailing measures. The amendments will include a provision to exempt provisional decisions on securities from the scope of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act . This provision will supersede the Regulations introduced on 24 November 1982. Furthermore Section 14 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act will be repealed. This provision imposes an obligation on the Minister not to take action which is inconsistent with the obligations of Australia under international agreements relating to trade. Removal of this provision will in no way lessen Australia's adherence to its international agreements. It is unnecessary, however, to have such a provision in Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing law. Issues concerning Australia 's obligations under international agreements are more appropriately considered within the context of the dispute settlement provisions of the particular agreements rather than in the Australian Courts. An amendment to the Customs Act will be made to place beyond doubt that securities may be validly taken under section 42 of that Act for the purposes of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act. Senator Peter Baume —On 24 November 1982 (Hansard, page 2716) Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning quarantine inspection procedures. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: Imported cargo is sent for fumigation only when quarantine inspection has revealed the presence of live insects. When live insects are found, the Quarantine Inspector acts to ensure that insects do not escape. Depending on the situation, this action may take several lines but would normally consist of stopping unloading and using a spray treatment to immobilise the insects until fumigation is undertaken. Senator Sir John Carrick —On 2 December 1982, Senator Reid (Hansard page 3048) asked Senator Messner a question without notice as to whether reductions in New South Wales electricity charges were to flow on to Australian Capital Territory consumers and whether or not legislation and agreements covering the Snowy Mountains Scheme were appropriate to today's circumstances in the Australian Capital Territory. In addition to information provided by Senator Messner, I provide the following answer: The yearly allocation of Snowy Mountains Scheme electricity to the Australian Capital Territory is the subject of a contractual agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria entered into under the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949 and supporting State legislation. The question of renegotiating this arrangement has been raised on a number of occasions in the past. Any change to the Territory's allocation of electricity would require the agreement of the two States. The Scheme is a vital component of peak load electricity supplies to the two States, as we have seen in recent years, and indications are that the States are not attracted to any change in their respective shares of electricity from the Scheme. The agreement is consistent with the original purpose of the Scheme, namely to provide electricity to the Australian Capital Territory as well as peak load electricity to New South Wales and Victoria. As a result of its entitlement to electricity from the Scheme, the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority is able to supply electricity that is generally cheaper than in New South Wales and Victoria. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle — On 15 December 1982 (Hansard, page 3505) Senator Bolkus asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, without notice: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did the Australian delegate to the United Nations General Assembly vote yesterday against two resolutions calling for a freeze on the production of nuclear weapons? If so, can the Minister either explain or justify the Australian Government's attitude to both of those questions? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Delegation to the General Assembly voted against the two draft resolutions, as did most other Western countries. Western states opposed the resolutions because a nuclear freeze at current levels would perpetuate an unequal military balance, given the greater momentum of the Soviet weapons program. In the Government's view, freeze proposals which merely confirm existing nuclear and conventional superiority undermine the confidence needed for real arms control and do not provide any increase in security which is an essential basis for any realistic disarmament proposal. Australia strongly supports the negotiations on strategic arms reductions between the United States and the Soviet Union which began in Geneva in June this year. We see these negotiations as offering the most realistic approach to achieving a stable nuclear balance at the lowest possible level. Question No. 2941 Senator Jones asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 September 1982: (1) How many statutory bodies (Qangos) are funded by the department. (2) What is the title of each body. (3) Who is in charge of each body and what is that person's salary. (4) How many staff, permanent and/or casual, are employed within each body. (5) What is the specific function of each body. (6) What has been the annual cost, for the past three years to the department of operating each body. Senator Peter Baume —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) 7. (excluding educational institutions). (2) to (6) Details for each statutory authority operating within the educational portfolio are as follows: Title of Authority: Commonwealth Teaching Service. Person-in-charge: See note. Staff: Full time, nil; Casual/part time, nil. Functions: The functions of the Commonwealth Teaching Service are prescribed by Section 16 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972. Operating Costs: 1979-80, $1,147,034; 1980-81, $1,001,898; 1981-82, $105,779. Note: The Commonwealth Functions (Statute Review) Act 1981 abolished the Office of Commissioner and responsibility for administration of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act passed to the various authorities employing Commonwealth teachers and the Public Service Board. Title of Authority: Commonwealth Schools Commission. Person-in-charge: Dr P. Tannock, Chairman; $61,500. Staff: Full time, 95; Casual/part time, 11. Functions: The functions of the Commission are prescribed by Section 13 of the Schools Commission Act 1973. Operating Costs (Note 1): 1979-80, $3,198,891; 1980-81, $3,676,374; 1981-82, $4 ,533,752. Notes: 1. These figures are taken from Appropriation Acts 1 and 2 and include elements of the Commission's program. However, they do not include special appropriations. Title of Authority: Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Person-in-charge: Mr H. K. Coughlan; Acting Chairman. Annual Salary: $65,250. Staff: Full time, 88; Casual/part time, 6. Functions: (1) The functions of the Commission are prescribed by Section 7 of the Tertiary Education Commission Act, 1977. Operating Costs (Note 1): 1979-80, $2,727,464; 1980-81, $2,839,900; 1981-82, $3 ,334,485. Notes: 1. These figures are taken from Appropriation Acts 1 and 2 and include elements of the Commission's program. However, they do not include special appropriations. Title of Authority: Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Person in charge. Name: Dr G. Hancock; Title: Chief Education Officer Annual Salary, $49,100. Staff: Full time, 3650; Casual/part time, 347. Functions: The functions of the Authority are prescribed by Section 6 of the Schools Authority Ordinance, 1976. Operating Costs: 1979-80, $67,138,000; 1980-81, $78,288,000; 1981-82, 90,384, 000. Title of Authority: Student Assistance Review Tribunal(s) Person in charge: There are 6 part time Chairmen who meet as required in State capital cities, Canberra, Armidale, Newcastle and Townsville. The current Chairmen are:-Mr L. Macauley, New South Wales; Mr D. P. Brennan, Victoria and Tasmania; Mr J. O. Lee, Queensland; Mr W. R. Harriman, South Australia; Professor E. J. Edwards, Western Australia; Mr K. S. Edmunds, Australian Capital Territory. Annual Salary: Chairmen are paid a rate of $130 for chairing a full day's meeting of the Tribunal or $65 per half day meeting. Staff: Full time, 3. Functions: The function of the Tribunal is to review appeals against decisions relating to the grant of assistance on applications for a particular benefit provided by the Student Assistance Act 1973. Operating Costs: 1979-80, $77,753; 1980-81, $86,608; 1981-82, $89,900. Title of Authority: Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board. Person in charge: Mr R. A. Smart, Chairman. Annual Salary: $30,450. Staff (Note 1): Full time, 11; Casual/part time, Nil. Functions: The functions of the Board are set out in the ACT Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1936. Operating Costs (Note 2): 1979-80, $158,976; 1980-81, $173,542; 1981-82, $242, 561. Note: (1) The Board's activities are carried out by staff of the Department of Education and this figure represents the current number of Departmental staff engaged on Board activities; (2) An estimate of the cost of staff provided by the Department has been included in these figures. Title of Authority: Curriculum Development Centre. Person in charge (Note 1): Name, Vacant; Title, Director. Annual Salary, $49,100. Staff (Note 2): Full time, Nil; Casual/part time, nil. Functions: The functions of the Centre are prescribed by Section 5 of the Curriculum Development Centre Act, 1975. Operating Costs: 1979-80, $2,358,000; 1980-81, $2,477,000; 1981-82, $2,036,000. Notes: (1) The Centre is being wound down and the position of Director will not be filled on a full time basis; (2) Since March 1982 Centre activities have been carried out by staff of the Department of Education and seven full time staff and one part time staff member are engaged solely on Centre activities.